PDA

View Full Version : whoa, hold on deathworld catachan losing it's flavor?



Vojnikalypse
22-03-2009, 01:43
straken and marbo can be used in any IG army now? discuss...

Nostro
22-03-2009, 01:50
calgar and tigurius can be used in any marine army now? discuss... :rolleyes:

Hashshashin
22-03-2009, 02:00
Special Characters are no longer super special, they are just one more option whne looking for an HQ choice...

Vojnikalypse
22-03-2009, 02:14
lol. it's stupid

Lord-Caerolion
22-03-2009, 02:38
It's always been like that though... Did GW ever come round and smash your door down if you tried to use those characters Counts-As before this? No. Did that "lessen their flavour" before? No. Will it do so now? No.

Adyger
22-03-2009, 02:51
It's always been like that though... Did GW ever come round and smash your door down if you tried to use those characters Counts-As before this? No. Did that "lessen their flavour" before? No. Will it do so now? No.

Exactly, I am very much in favour of this move, since I prefer to create my own army/regiment/craftworld when designing my armies. Don't get me wrong, if you love the fluff of one of the GW created facitons, go ahead and embrace it. But part of the appeal of these games for me has always been the ability to design my own faction, complete with colours, names and titles. I love this new stance since it validates my long standing tradition of using "counts as" special characters. In fact, the only game where I don't do this is LotR, since the "fluff" so to speak is based on a movie based on a book. Even then, I prefer to look through the actual book for names of my "captains" and such instead of using the names that GW comes up with, or those which Peter Jackson et al came up with (such as Lurtz, who was never mentioned int he book).

Vojnikalypse
22-03-2009, 03:40
It's always been like that though... Did GW ever come round and smash your door down if you tried to use those characters Counts-As before this? No. Did that "lessen their flavour" before? No. Will it do so now? No.

when using straken with a deathworld army you have the option to field catachan devils as troops instead of elites. this will now be removed. thus contributing to killing the flavour of the deathworld army.

noobzilla
22-03-2009, 04:06
My first reaction to this was, "Who plays the Deathworld Rules anymore?" LOL!

starlight
22-03-2009, 04:07
Really? Seen the Codex have you?

Until the book is in my hands, it's all just rumours on Teh Intarwebz. :p

Besides, nothing save your opponent is stopping you from using the Deathworld Veterans list downloadable from the GW site. :)

SimonL
22-03-2009, 04:27
I detest this "Counts as" if you want a character syndrome...It just feels wrong saying "this is Marneus Calgar but not really" :rolleyes:

sydbridges
22-03-2009, 04:35
I detest this "Counts as" if you want a character syndrome...It just feels wrong saying "this is Marneus Calgar but not really" :rolleyes:

Meh. Now that army variants are tied to special characters, there isn't much choice if you want variant rules and don't want to play that particular character. So you take Wazdakka, but you call him Steve; or you take Pedro but you call him Frank... it's a facet of fifth ed.

starlight
22-03-2009, 04:46
So because they happened to slap names on a set of stats and rules rather than writing out fifty pages of stats and rules with miniscule differences just so we can have *our* characters, you're upset...? :confused:

Seriously? :eyebrows:


Pretty cushy life there if the worst you have to deal with is renaming characters in your game of toy soldiers...:eyebrows:

Bookwrak
22-03-2009, 05:04
I detest this "Counts as" if you want a character syndrome...It just feels wrong saying "this is Marneus Calgar but not really" :rolleyes:
It feels a lot more silly only being able to use a character if you have a certain army and then under no other circumstances. I remember there have been ridiculously long threads in the past about whether the rules let you use Calgar if your army followed the Ultramarine rules in everyway, but they were instead painted orange, and named 'Ultimate Marines' (since his 4th ed rules said he could only be used with an Ultramarines army, iirc).

Also, if using the Catachan characters is what gives the IG army special access to Catachan themed rules and equipment, I hardly see how it could be either watering down, or a bad thing.

Sarah S
22-03-2009, 05:14
Yeah I agree that it's just smart for GW to make special characters more versatile and generally available.

I also really hate it when people start threads with a pointless comment followed by "discuss."

Bookwrak
22-03-2009, 05:18
I know a couple forums where doing that gets the thread locked. If you can't be arsed to actually think of an OP and raise a couple points to talk about, you shouldn't post it (although it was more done to stop people from posting just a link, and saying discuss).

Also, another benefit of making special characters much more broadly useable is that it should nicely boost sales of the models. :D

Warforger
22-03-2009, 05:18
Well the problem is that they can't customize there army anymore and all of a sudden special characters are fighting every battle there regiment is fighting rather then being a legendary commander. Otherwise there so great that all of a sudden there are posers with the same exact weapons and do the same exact thing.

For example, during 4th Raven Guard had traits, so you could have a captain with power weapon leading your force and still be playing a unique army, you didn't need Shrike for Raven Guard flavor. Now your just playing Black Ultramarines if you don't take Shrike.

starlight
22-03-2009, 05:24
I know a couple forums where doing that gets the thread locked. If you can't be arsed to actually think of an OP and raise a couple points to talk about, you shouldn't post it.


We wait a bit to see if a discussion develops...if not it dies or we Waste it. :)


Although the Wastoids are complaining that the quality of Spam coming from 40K Gen has been very poor these days...:( Poor Wastoids...think of the Wastoids...:(

Colonial Rifle
22-03-2009, 11:11
Wait a minute, were Straken and Marbo even legal in 4th + 5th edition? The catachan codex has been moribund for nearly a decade anyway.

I see no problem here.

Born Again
22-03-2009, 11:39
I detest this "Counts as" if you want a character syndrome...It just feels wrong saying "this is Marneus Calgar but not really" :rolleyes:

Much agreed. Sure, you can rename your Calgar/ Straken/ Ghazghkull and paint them different colours, but the point is these are special characters for a reason. I'm sure, with only 1000 marine chapters, that Calgar with his Gauntlets of Pwnage are pretty rare. Saying there's another chapter master out there who happens to be armed exactly the same and (in the case of Belial, Shrike etc) has his chapter organized the exact same way seems too much of a stretch for me.

I guess technically there's nothing to stop you from doing it, but if you did I'd consider it in blatantly waving rude gestures in front of all the fluff.

innerwolf
22-03-2009, 11:42
Then , if everyone is going to use (for example) Sly Marbo as " Joe Mc Joe ninjaskillz assasin from my own regiment" , why should GW bother giving Special Characters a name and a background? It sounds like a waste.

I would prefer if (for example) Space Marines Codex had this entries:
-God of War Chapter Master( you can look at Marneus Calgar for inspiration)
-Stern Chapter Master( you can look at Pedro Kantor for inspiration)
-Master Artificier Captain( you can look at Vulkan Hestan for inspiration)

...

So you could say: I will use God of War Chapter Master rules for my Chapter Master of the Champions of Justice.

The same thing on practice, but it doesn't feel like cheating the original character:
"What's up mister Kantor? I'm going to use your nifty rules but instead of acknowledging you I will give you some random name and shove you on my list"

Laser guided fanatic
22-03-2009, 11:49
Waaaaa. All the ten year olds are going to use chars from a codex that they would have never found out about.

I think that is what the OP was trying to say.

Nicha11
22-03-2009, 11:52
I can't wait to select a character named: Good at shooting guy.....:rolleyes:

IMHO you can use SC's with whatever names and colours you want, and if someones got a problem with that, well it reflects more on them then on you.

Gwar!
22-03-2009, 11:52
Someone seems bitter...

Born Again
22-03-2009, 12:09
Then , if everyone is going to use (for example) Sly Marbo as " Joe Mc Joe ninjaskillz assasin from my own regiment" , why should GW bother giving Special Characters a name and a background? It sounds like a waste.

I would prefer if (for example) Space Marines Codex had this entries:
-God of War Chapter Master( you can look at Marneus Calgar for inspiration)
-Stern Chapter Master( you can look at Pedro Kantor for inspiration)
-Master Artificier Captain( you can look at Vulkan Hestan for inspiration)

...

So you could say: I will use God of War Chapter Master rules for my Chapter Master of the Champions of Justice.

The same thing on practice, but it doesn't feel like cheating the original character:
"What's up mister Kantor? I'm going to use your nifty rules but instead of acknowledging you I will give you some random name and shove you on my list"

Well said.

Although, rather than that system (which still seems to be the same thing minus names), why not have SC's as are but limit them to Ultras/ Sali's etc only... I know they can't enforce this everywhere but if it was a rule, it could be enforced in tournaments and players would be within their rights to not allow their opponents doing it... anyway, then you allow your regular "commander-level characters", such as Captains, Ork Warboss etc have a list of abilities they can buy just like their regular wargear. Just work it into the list with their other options to keep it neat, with descriptions with all the other wargear details in the book. Allow them a host of abilities to customize the character, anything from "Marksman" or "Super Tough" type abilities that can enhance characteristics, to "strategist" that could allow you to re-deploy a unit after your opponent has finished deploying, or something that alters the army list in the manner of Belial etc. Allowing them 1-2 of these abilities, combined with actual weapons and wargear, would allow you to create quite a unique character without stealing an existing named one.

Spider-pope
22-03-2009, 12:18
I would prefer if (for example) Space Marines Codex had this entries:
-God of War Chapter Master( you can look at Marneus Calgar for inspiration)
-Stern Chapter Master( you can look at Pedro Kantor for inspiration)
-Master Artificier Captain( you can look at Vulkan Hestan for inspiration)

...

So you could say: I will use God of War Chapter Master rules for my Chapter Master of the Champions of Justice.

The same thing on practice, but it doesn't feel like cheating the original character:
"What's up mister Kantor? I'm going to use your nifty rules but instead of acknowledging you I will give you some random name and shove you on my list"

I actually think thats quite a good idea. Although i have no problem using counts as either. I have a converted version of Marneus Calgar in my army, occassionally using him as my Blood Drinkers chapter master, Orloc.

Although this is a big change in my army selection since the change in how Special characters are used within army lists. Previously i'd never take a special character, but now find myself having to do so in order to compete as if i dont take them, everyone else will anyway. Its gotten to the point where every time i fight a Chaos army, i know i will be facing Abaddon.

Needing opponents consent was problematic and limiting, but its starting to feel like its gone to far the other way now.

With the Imperial guard codex, its just keeping it consistant with the other codex's released. Whether or not that is a good thing, is open to debate.

Rirekon
22-03-2009, 12:30
So wait, you want to reduce the amount of freedom players have in selecting, building and painting their army by limiting the use of "special" characters to those armies which follow the correct paint scheme and organisation?

Get off your soap box and stop being such an elitist! Ok fine, you want your Catachan/Ultramarine/Speed Freak/whatever "fluff correct" army to follow their fluff to the letter, go for it. But don't even think about telling anyone else how they should be building their army.
This is a hobby and GW have finally done the right thing by making the characters with cool rules available to everyone.

Bilmengar
22-03-2009, 12:51
So wait, you want to reduce the amount of freedom players have in selecting, building and painting their army by limiting the use of "special" characters to those armies which follow the correct paint scheme and organisation?

Get off your soap box and stop being such an elitist! Ok fine, you want your Catachan/Ultramarine/Speed Freak/whatever "fluff correct" army to follow their fluff to the letter, go for it. But don't even think about telling anyone else how they should be building their army.
This is a hobby and GW have finally done the right thing by making the characters with cool rules available to everyone.

QFT.

Well, I like developing my own background and paint scheme; and I want some heroes there, too. And by heroes, i mean ******* BIG heroes, not your average VetSergeant. Since there is no "build your own hero"-construction kit, Counts As is the way to go.

Solar_Eclipse
22-03-2009, 13:18
For example, during 4th Raven Guard had traits, so you could have a captain with power weapon leading your force and still be playing a unique army, you didn't need Shrike for Raven Guard flavor. Now your just playing Black Ultramarines if you don't take Shrike.

an Ultramarines player, if he stuck too fluff, would take a large amount of tactical marines in rhinos with lots of infantry support (no more than 2 assault marine or devastator squads unless they were writing about a specific conflict)

A raven Guard Player would probably take less tac marines and put them in drop pods, while getting more assault marines and Scouts.

Oh look, background without stupid illogical rules. A marine is a marine, just because his armour is painted black doesnt mean he is sneakier than another marine.

Hlokk
22-03-2009, 13:33
calgar and tigurius can be used in any marine army now? discuss... :rolleyes:
Great contribution :rolleyes:

I personally think its a great idea, simply because it lets me vary what I can field in my guard army. As the moment, I've got about 200 cadians, I love the idea of being able to field marbo and chenkov.

This guy has it right:

Get off your soap box and stop being such an elitist! Ok fine, you want your Catachan/Ultramarine/Speed Freak/whatever "fluff correct" army to follow their fluff to the letter, go for it. But don't even think about telling anyone else how they should be building their army.
This is a hobby and GW have finally done the right thing by making the characters with cool rules available to everyone.
Couldnt agree more, To say someone can't take sly marbo because their doing Ellysians or Creed because their doing death korps is, frankly, rediculously anal. Its a big galaxy, million worlds, 10000 years, im sure whatever people come up with, theres a chance it could happen.

sydbridges
22-03-2009, 13:54
Although, rather than that system (which still seems to be the same thing minus names), why not have SC's as are but limit them to Ultras/ Sali's etc only...

They did that, it was Third Edition. You can still play it if special characters truly bother you, assuming you can find opponents.


I know they can't enforce this everywhere but if it was a rule, it could be enforced in tournaments and players would be within their rights to not allow their opponents doing it...

Awesome, let's go back to third edition, where special characters were "opponent's permission only," which translated to, "against friends unless they felt like being dicks that day, and never against anyone else."


anyway, then you allow your regular "commander-level characters", such as Captains, Ork Warboss etc have a list of abilities they can buy just like their regular wargear. Just work it into the list with their other options to keep it neat, with descriptions with all the other wargear details in the book. Allow them a host of abilities to customize the character, anything from "Marksman" or "Super Tough" type abilities that can enhance characteristics, to "strategist" that could allow you to re-deploy a unit after your opponent has finished deploying, or something that alters the army list in the manner of Belial etc. Allowing them 1-2 of these abilities, combined with actual weapons and wargear, would allow you to create quite a unique character without stealing an existing named one.

I wouldn't complain about them adding, at the very least, the ability to take the variant lists independently of special character as some sort of purchased ability.

But that's not what GW's doing, so it's sort of moot.


Then , if everyone is going to use (for example) Sly Marbo as " Joe Mc Joe ninjaskillz assasin from my own regiment" , why should GW bother giving Special Characters a name and a background? It sounds like a waste.

I would prefer if (for example) Space Marines Codex had this entries:
-God of War Chapter Master( you can look at Marneus Calgar for inspiration)
-Stern Chapter Master( you can look at Pedro Kantor for inspiration)
-Master Artificier Captain( you can look at Vulkan Hestan for inspiration)

That's... that's the current system, but spelled out directly. It's "Here's Chapter Master Pimp McPapasmurf of the Ultramarines (pssst, you can call him Jim of the Dark Magic Marines.)" The current system functions identically, but with a little more subtlety.


The same thing on practice, but it doesn't feel like cheating the original character:
"What's up mister Kantor? I'm going to use your nifty rules but instead of acknowledging you I will give you some random name and shove you on my list"

I, uh, don't think they mind, being fictional and all.

subjugator
22-03-2009, 14:01
"What's up mister Kantor? I'm going to use your nifty rules but instead of acknowledging you I will give you some random name and shove you on my list"

You know, they aren't actual people. I'm sure the Gods of GW will forgive you this minor sin.

Doppleskanger
22-03-2009, 14:07
You know, they aren't actual people. I'm sure the Gods of GW will forgive you this minor sin.

Actually the Gods of GW, hallowed be thy name, came down from the mountains and told us to do exactly this. To do otherwise would surely anger them and bring terrible vengance upon us:D

Pacific
22-03-2009, 14:19
First of all, just want to say hi Subjugator, great (but slightly disturbing!) avatar you have there!

I think the whole 'why not just take 'good at shooting marine commander' instead of named characters is a bad idea. Reading about some of the history and background of these characters all adds depth to the game and its enjoyment in my book, which would be lost by just having them named 'generic character with improvement X' and giving them a special rule or +1 on one of their stats.

Which leads me to the second point - having a 'counts as' rule is fine, but there is an awful lot of very lazy 'counts as' going on in the community, or at least around me. If I'm playing someone who uses a 'counts as' Tigerius, its not enough for me that its just a generic librarian model whos getting 3 powers a turn and has a master crafted weapon. Why has he got these powers? What is there on the model that can give over this impression? For me, if these extra details are not present, and there is no effort made by the gamer, then it can detract from the entire purpose of having these immensely powerful, army busting characters on the tabletop. In my view its almost as bad as proxying, like having a named bloodthirster being represented by the 1st edition model thats barely bigger than a terminator, yet is mincing its way accross the tabletop destroying anything in its path. It just looks crap.

I'm using a pre-heresy World Eater force, using the Blood Angel list - my captain is a 'counts as' Lemartes. Rather than just saying "he has deathmask, -1 to your morale test" I've actually modelled a hideously disfigured face onto the mini- the guy I'm playing knows and has an easy time understand why his troops are more likely to run away while fighting him. His chainaxe is clogged up with blood, representative of a power weapon. I find that, for the most part, people seem to give respect that I've made at least some effort to explain how exactly this character might be the equivalent of Lemartes in terms of his power on the tabletop. I think as a gamer you owe your opponent at least that much.

So, I'm definately not against 'counts as' for special characters, as has been said it opens up so many more options for players, but I am against lazy modelling and proxying where people want all the extra cool rules, but don't want to make any effort on the modelling side of things.

Aegius
22-03-2009, 14:33
So wait, you want to reduce the amount of freedom players have in selecting, building and painting their army by limiting the use of "special" characters to those armies which follow the correct paint scheme and organisation?

Get off your soap box and stop being such an elitist! Ok fine, you want your Catachan/Ultramarine/Speed Freak/whatever "fluff correct" army to follow their fluff to the letter, go for it. But don't even think about telling anyone else how they should be building their army.
This is a hobby and GW have finally done the right thing by making the characters with cool rules available to everyone.

Gotta agree with this personally. Another note that you may not have thought of is; Now that anyone can have special characters in their army, more people will buy special character models. This means that it is more viable for GW to make special character models. So if you do happen to collect, lets for arguements sake say salamanders, your personal army will be covered for characterful models that fit in with the theme/identity of your army. So what if someone else is using the same model painted blue and saying its an ultramarine. With this system, we are more likely to see special characters, which means that your army may one day get a special character devoted to it.

This system works exactly the same way as space marines being supported most, because they make GW the most money. By selling these models, it allows them a certain amount of leeway with the other races. Imperial guard are getting some awesome models and rules for 2 reasons; 1)space marines 2) the success of the 'lord of the rings' films/game. You may not like these things, but thanks to them you've got fantastic models such as baneblades and valkeries.

That last paragraph may have seemed a little OT, but it is there to point out that increased sales in one area, can lead to increased production in another area. In this case: more special characters used > more special characters sold > more special characters created.

massey
22-03-2009, 15:51
Yeah I agree that it's just smart for GW to make special characters more versatile and generally available.

I also really hate it when people start threads with a pointless comment followed by "discuss."

Yeah I hate that too. I hated it when pompous professors would do it in college. "Blah blah blah blah. Discuss."

I like "counts as". It always bothered me in the older codexes when you'd have some cool character come out, but my army was painted red instead of yellow, and so I couldn't use him. It's hard to believe that in 10,000 years of Imperial history, there's only been one guy who ran around with two power fists, or had elite deathworld veterans, or watched Rambo too many times.

I'm working on converting up some of the SM characters for my chapter. I want them to look different from the standard models, but still be obvious who I want it to be. I think it'll be fun to come up with my own name for them and my own background. And rules-wise, it shouldn't matter what paint scheme I give. It will be balanced nonetheless.

I also don't like this idea that the fluff is tied directly to the army's special rules. Just because they aren't called "deathworld veterans" and they don't get those nearly useless rules anymore, doesn't mean there's no fluff. I'd also point out that the deathworld veterans list is the first one I remember to explicitly encourage the use of "counts as", with a paragraph stating that you should feel free to create your own deathworld armies, where you got your special rules in mountains, deserts, or swamps instead of jungle. I think this is ironic.

Hellfury
22-03-2009, 16:01
Much agreed. Sure, you can rename your Calgar/ Straken/ Ghazghkull and paint them different colours, but the point is these are special characters for a reason. I'm sure, with only 1000 marine chapters, that Calgar with his Gauntlets of Pwnage are pretty rare. Saying there's another chapter master out there who happens to be armed exactly the same and (in the case of Belial, Shrike etc) has his chapter organized the exact same way seems too much of a stretch for me.

I guess technically there's nothing to stop you from doing it, but if you did I'd consider it in blatantly waving rude gestures in front of all the fluff.

I like waving blatantly rude gestures in front of all the fluff nazis.

Its a game. You play by the rules. Not by some other persons preconceived notions of "how my army should be because it says so here on page blah blah of some possibly obscure or non obcure background blurb."
Dont like it? Dont play me. Go play with someone else.
I have better things to do than to sit across the table from someone rolling their eyes every five minuts because they dissapprove of the army I am playing, the way it is painted or what is included in it.

lol. it's stupid

Thank goodness your type are a dying breed.

massey
22-03-2009, 16:31
Just because you played against a guy a month and a half ago who used a Marines Malevolent army with counts as Pedro Kantor doesn't mean its unreasonable for another guy's Aurora Chapter to have Pedro Kantor. You're not playing games in a single universe with ongoing continuity. When your Chapter Master gets hit by a Str D cannon in Apocalypse, you don't pull out the hammer and smash him. "I guess I have to build a new Chapter Master model. Oh, and this sergeant got eaten by a lictor." Smash!!!

Each game should be taken on its own, unless you're playing in a specially organized campaign. Yes, if you play 3 games on Saturday against 3 different opponents, it's possible you'll fight 3 different Marneus Calgars. But there's no continuous storyline. Those are 3 different games totally removed from one another, so there's no increasing unlikelihood that you will again encounter the same guy.

Now, I do see a problem with people fielding the exact same army over and over again. That would get tiresome. That's why you should encourage people to buy as much stuff as possible. :)

Nostro
22-03-2009, 17:11
calgar and tigurius can be used in any marine army now? discuss... :rolleyes:
Great contribution :rolleyes:

Guilty as charged. It was a useless comment replying to a useless original post that I wasn't the only one to dislike. Mirroring the OP's question sometimes opens their eyes. (Sometimes).


I also really hate it when people start threads with a pointless comment followed by "discuss."


We wait a bit to see if a discussion develops...if not it dies or we Waste it. :)

There. And now that a discussion has developped, time for real contributions.


Then , if everyone is going to use (for example) Sly Marbo as " Joe Mc Joe ninjaskillz assasin from my own regiment" , why should GW bother giving Special Characters a name and a background? It sounds like a waste.

I would prefer if (for example) Space Marines Codex had this entries:
-God of War Chapter Master( you can look at Marneus Calgar for inspiration)
-Stern Chapter Master( you can look at Pedro Kantor for inspiration)
-Master Artificier Captain( you can look at Vulkan Hestan for inspiration)

...

So you could say: I will use God of War Chapter Master rules for my Chapter Master of the Champions of Justice.

The same thing on practice, but it doesn't feel like cheating the original character:
"What's up mister Kantor? I'm going to use your nifty rules but instead of acknowledging you I will give you some random name and shove you on my list"

I think doing so would have saved a lot of debate and flaming and maybe would have made the most sense. Indeed the same thing on practice, but feels a bit less wrong towards the fluff.

On the other hand I see GW's side: having a name enables you to write fluff, get inspiration for a mini (A "God of War Chapter Master" miniature would I guess feel less flavory than Calgar's). A named character catches you more than a "Terminator Captain", the mini feels less bland and interchangeable. It's not always true (the termi librarian, chaplain, captain are really nice) but it can be a general rule.

Now seeing the endless flaming wars about SCs, GWs approach may not have been the best one though I can understand it.

Grimtuff
22-03-2009, 17:47
Wait a minute, were Straken and Marbo even legal in 4th + 5th edition? The catachan codex has been moribund for nearly a decade anyway.

I see no problem here.

1: Don't exaggerate. Codex Catachans came out in about 2001 (okay, 8 years :p)
2: Marbo and Straken are both confirmed as being in the new IG dex. ;)


I like waving blatantly rude gestures in front of all the fluff nazis.


Alert! Alert! Godwin's Law! :D

Laser guided fanatic
22-03-2009, 18:03
Anyway I doubt they'll have the same rules.

Will Straken allow you to take BS4 plasma spam as troops? No i bet.

Will marbo be an uber pwnzord that shares rules with deathworld snipers'. No because deathworld snipers aren't in codex IG.

So there you go OP the special charatcers are still special so you can stop crying now. Anyone who says it shouldn't happen due to fluff obvioulsy falls into one of these categories.

A) I fail to realise that GW Sales > Fluff
B) I fail to realise that without the game there would be no fluff
C) I fail to realise that fluff is a marketing tool

God i really hate how people worship fluff as if it's cool. It's really not, not in anyway cool.

They really should just put fluff nuts in a big compound somwhere in backwater america.

Hellfury
22-03-2009, 18:14
Alert! Alert! Godwin's Law! :D

Good. Threads such as this deserve no better ending.

All they amount to is one side getting indignant over other people not following what they think an army should comprise of, while the other side gets indignant over other people telling them what their dollies should be.

ReveredChaplainDrake
22-03-2009, 18:41
It seems that GW is not out to tell the overarching story of the galaxy. Were that the case, then everyone would play either IG and Orks, Tau and Chaos would be very regional armies, and such races as Necrons, Tyranids, and even Space Marines would be about as rare as Dark Eldar and Inquisition armies are now. Instead, GW is trying to drill in the epicness of the fluff with their overarching design philosophy. However, "counts as" is really just them shooting themselves in the proverbial foot because you're taking the epicness of (names from a hat...) Korsharro Khan or Asdrubael Vect and selling it out to other non-infamous armies, such that said "special" characters are, in fact, nothing "special".

On the other hand, look at it from an outsider perspective. As a Chaos Marine player amongst many, we'd kill for rules that actually supported fluff. Instead, we get Codex: Black Legion. (I can only imagine the Eldars' pain when handed Codex: Biel-Tan.) Sure, you could use the stupid units like Raptors and Havocs... but why would you when there are Berserkers and Obliterators? Were there something even remotely like a "Renegade Shrike", Night Lords players like myself would be justified in our attempts to use Raptors to better effect than other legions. Now I'm rather fortunate that I like both the paint scheme and the speed tactics of the Night Lords, but if someone else liked the speed tactics or the paint scheme, but not both, why force them to take both as a package deal? Who says green Space Marines are all Dark Angels, or all red Marines are Blood Angels?

And besides, as 4th ed Marines taught us all, it does get worse. Remember last edition, when everybody took Take the Fight to Them, Furious Charge, Flesh Over Steel, and We Stand Alone? Traits was way more abusive than Special Characters. At least with "Special Character lulz", you have to sink some points into getting the rules, not just haphazardly balancing them out with so-called "disadvantages" that were anything but balanced.

Having said all this, while I'm in the camp of letting players field what they want, regardless of how they paint their models, I think it does the fluff a disservice.

Lostanddamned
22-03-2009, 18:42
Unless you are personally forced to take Pask & Straken (or Kantor & Tigirus) in the same force, if you disagree with being able to take both in the same army... Dont!

And I strongly doubt anyone is forcing you to.

Warforger
22-03-2009, 19:01
As a Chaos Marine player amongst many, we'd kill for rules that actually supported fluff. Instead, we get Codex: Black Legion. (I can only imagine the Eldars' pain when handed Codex: Biel-Tan.) Sure, you could use the stupid units like Raptors and Havocs... but why would you when there are Berserkers and Obliterators?

Codex: Eldar isn't that, you can play any Craftworld with good representation of it, since when did Biel-Tan take ten man Wraithguard squads led by spirit seers as troops? I can play Saim-Hann with no restrictions, I mean I can take bikes as troops after all! And nearly all foot troops can take a wave serpent. As for combat, there really aren't that many examples of it in the Eldar Codex, only one that comes to mind are Swooping Hawks, other then that nearly everything is solid (In fact that should be there codex change, FAQ+new rules for Hawks and Guardians)


And besides, as 4th ed Marines taught us all, it does get worse. Remember last edition, when everybody took Take the Fight to Them, Furious Charge, Flesh Over Steel, and We Stand Alone? Traits was way more abusive than Special Characters. At least with "Special Character lulz", you have to sink some points into getting the rules, not just haphazardly balancing them out with so-called "disadvantages" that were anything but balanced.

Yes, but is the Doctrines system OP'd? Have IG been going around winning every game ever because they have a swarm of 4+ saves? It is possible to balance, just like how something that seems so OP'd is actually UP'd. What if we didn't need to buy special characters but instead needed to buy a captain and pay for the upgrade?

The problem arises IMO that it destroys fluff when you see that this particular special character has won so many battles, and there are many others who aren't him but basiclly are in every way. It should at least be more randomized, i.e. two captains follow the same ways of war but one has a Fist and the other has a piar of Lighting Claws.

Killgore
22-03-2009, 19:11
I fully intend on using Marbo in my Steel Legion army

well he wont be Marbo, but my own character that uses marbo rules on a custom model i intend to convert that will be half Guardsmen, half Predator!

now this will be alot of fun for me.... fun that i wouldnt be able to experience should Marbo have the lil line in his rules that says "only for use in a Catachan Jungle Fighter army"


i hope GW continue the trend of allowing special characters that anyone can use

Brother Enok
22-03-2009, 19:29
I don't think you need special characters at all to have an army representative of a certain chapter/regiment/craftworld.
I play Salamanders, and don't take Vulkan on principle. I have plenty of flamers, Meltas and terminator armoured troops though.

innerwolf
22-03-2009, 19:45
You know, they aren't actual people. I'm sure the Gods of GW will forgive you this minor sin.

Please, don't oversimplify, or take me for dumb. The models don't feel it, but you do. I mean, if you care a little for things like fluff instead of deploying optimum configurated squads as chess pieces, rolling dice while thinking some tactics, winning/losing, packing and going home without having thinked for a moment on the story behind the game.

I don't mean to enforce my way of seeing the game, by the slightest. There is people who like to play fluffy and cinematic-like, and there is people who play to have the best army and win. Both ways are valid approaches.

scolex
22-03-2009, 20:01
Oh look, background without stupid illogical rules. A marine is a marine, just because his armour is painted black doesnt mean he is sneakier than another marine.

The color of the armor just happens to be different. Ultramarines and Raven Guard use different tactics, and train differently. Most importantly the Raven Guard's gene seed is slightly mutated.

Pacific
22-03-2009, 20:08
God i really hate how people worship fluff as if it's cool. It's really not, not in anyway cool.

They really should just put fluff nuts in a big compound somwhere in backwater america.

I think fluff is cool... erm, yes, quite :cries:

sydbridges
22-03-2009, 20:23
Please, don't oversimplify, or take me for dumb. The models don't feel it, but you do. I mean, if you care a little for things like fluff instead of deploying optimum configurated squads as chess pieces, rolling dice while thinking some tactics, winning/losing, packing and going home without having thinked for a moment on the story behind the game.

I don't mean to enforce my way of seeing the game, by the slightest. There is people who like to play fluffy and cinematic-like, and there is people who play to have the best army and win. Both ways are valid approaches.

The SM codex itself says if you want to take named characters and rename them for your own chapter, it's perfectly fine and you are encouraged to do so. Obviously, a lot of players are doing it for optimal builds and not, as the codex suggests, 'to personalize their army,' but if GW doesn't think this is upsetting to the fluff, I think you might want to ask why you're more concerned about this than they are.

But what the codex tries to get across is that the special characters are just sets of rules. They give example names and fluff for each of these sets of rules, which you can take or leave. If you want your sternguard-as-troops guy to be Pedro Kantor, then play Crimson Fists and call him Kantor. If you want your flamers-are-twin-linked guy to be Vulkan, then play Salamanders and call him Vulkan. If you want to write up your own fluff for your own army instead, you aren't going to be penalized for being creative by being restricted in what you may or may not take - which was, in my opinion, an unpleasant side-effect of the 3rd ed SM codex. You can instead take those rules that interest you, come up with a new name and new fluff, and stick them in your army. And if you don't give a toss about fluff or naming, you can just say, "This is orange and black Pedro Kantor of my orange and black marines."

Imperius
22-03-2009, 21:21
Im an IG and I stand by my belief that Deathworld Vet's are too strong anyways. My map has a tiny corner of a forest, and the second I hid my guys inside there my friend actually gave up. I asked him:
" Why? Chaos is strong too.'
"Dude, you have a 4+ Coversave, and re-roll to wounds, you also have better WS than me, heck your strength matches mine and you get mroe attacks."
" You should buy a Daemon Prince..."
"Yeah but right now all I have are marines and berzerkers so good game, you won."

innerwolf
22-03-2009, 21:33
If you want to write up your own fluff for your own army instead, you aren't going to be penalized for being creative by being restricted in what you may or may not take - which was, in my opinion, an unpleasant side-effect of the 3rd ed SM codex. You can instead take those rules that interest you, come up with a new name and new fluff, and stick them in your army.


This is not that bad, if more than 3% of SM players did it.



And if you don't give a toss about fluff or naming, you can just say, "This is orange and black Pedro Kantor of my orange and black marines."

This is what annoys me to no end. With that you make Special Characters completely unspecial, and you also go against GW (more or less innocent) intent on using "count as" for theming, and taking them for their cockie-cutter rules.

sydbridges
22-03-2009, 22:33
This is what annoys me to no end. With that you make Special Characters completely unspecial, and you also go against GW (more or less innocent) intent on using "count as" for theming, and taking them for their cockie-cutter rules.

Then don't play with players who don't give a toss about the fluff? I mean, obviously if you play a lot of tournaments, you don't have a choice as to who your opponents are, but those aren't exactly fluff friendly environments, sort of like how lava isn't flesh friendly.

innerwolf
22-03-2009, 23:05
Then don't play with players who don't give a toss about the fluff? I mean, obviously if you play a lot of tournaments, you don't have a choice as to who your opponents are, but those aren't exactly fluff friendly environments, sort of like how lava isn't flesh friendly.


It annoys me, but as it's an interpretation of the game as valid as mine, I have to shut up and play. Anyway, when I go to a tournament they are usually "no SC allowed", so I don't find this problem a lot.

Sarah S
22-03-2009, 23:18
This is what annoys me to no end. With that you make Special Characters completely unspecial, and you also go against GW (more or less innocent) intent on using "count as" for theming, and taking them for their cockie-cutter rules.

I think they should be un-special. I don't give a rat's *ss about the background, I just want to have a good game with my mates.

None of us are telling little stories, we're pushing miniatures, rolling dice and having a laugh.

captainramoz
22-03-2009, 23:27
I'l love to see some mordian iron guard hero(every other regiment has one).

innerwolf
22-03-2009, 23:47
I think they should be un-special. I don't give a rat's *ss about the background, I just want to have a good game with my mates.

None of us are telling little stories, we're pushing miniatures, rolling dice and having a laugh.

Ok, then read my oppinion in my original post. If you(as a lot of people) don't care about fluff, GW shouldn't give us named Characters with a background of their own, because it get wasted every time a gamer decides to give them a lazy name to use their superior abilities.

Lord-Caerolion
23-03-2009, 02:03
God i really hate how people worship fluff as if it's cool. It's really not, not in anyway cool.

They really should just put fluff nuts in a big compound somwhere in backwater america.

I love it how you abuse the fluff, saying that everyone who likes it should be locked up, yet have a quote from the fluff as your sig. Ah, the irony...

Lastly, all this stuff about "only the SC should actually be special is a pretty big cop-out for people doing DIY armies. Why not just plain tell them "your army could never be as good as X"? If I want to make my own Chapter, I want to be able to make them seem cool, and capable of having epic heroes of their own, without being told "yeah, but Calgar's better". Please, grow up, peoples.

Pacific
23-03-2009, 02:15
I don't know, I'm sure alot more people care about the background and fluff than those who don't.

Its pretty important for me in any case, I think GW (and alot of the fans actually) have created one of the most incredible and in-depth fantasy universes out there. I think the number of people who still read the books and codecies etc, and perhaps paint the models, without taking any part in the game itself speaks volumes about the kind of world thats been created.

souljaking09
23-03-2009, 02:30
codex catachans hasn't been legal for years. I don't know why people all of a sudden care with the new codex. i field catachans and will be happy to use the new codex.

decker_cky
23-03-2009, 02:34
Codex catachan is the most recently updated imperial guard codex (it was updated after the latest normal codex), so it is official (though not allowed in many tournaments). It'll be legal up until May 2nd.

The Orange
23-03-2009, 03:20
This is what annoys me to no end. With that you make Special Characters completely unspecial, and you also go against GW (more or less innocent) intent on using "count as" for theming, and taking them for their cockie-cutter rules.
You know what would annoy me to no end? If in this hobby, where I spend my money and my time into an army, I get slapped in the face with silly rules about not being able to use certain models because I didn't paint my army a certain way. It's a hobby, the models came unpainted because GW wants us to paint them. Why should I have to paint my army a certain way just to enjoy it? What if I hate painting red, I may love the Blood Angels fluff but I hate having a red army? Why should I be forced to build an army I hate just because some guys in Nottingham arbitrarily chose those colors some 30 years ago? (Honestly though I think the Space Wolves paint scheme sucks, light Grey and yellow, ewww)


If you(as a lot of people) don't care about fluff, GW shouldn't give us named Characters with a background of their own, because it get wasted every time a gamer decides to give them a lazy name to use their superior abilities.
Wrong. Special Characters have their own special fluff and their own special rules. If your a fluff nut then you'll probably get the models because of the fluff, if your a rules nut then you'll probably get the models because of the rules. Either way GW wins. This appeases both crowds and helps them sell more models and pay back the cost for developing those characters in the first place (yes their are artists, writers, and sculptors to pay you know).

And on top of that if you like your SC for their fluff then what do you care what others think? If Marnius Calgar really does holds a special place in your mind I don't see how anyone else using him cheapens it for you. What someone else does with their own army has absolutely no affect on your own perception of your army. If you think other players using that same set of rules to represent someone in their army cheapens it for you then maybe your really just suffering from "I want to be special syndrome". Sorry but special characters aren't special, their little metal toys that some guys thought up in a conference room, and they don't make your army any more special then anyone elses. If you want your army lead by Captain Shrike of the RavenGuard the so be it, no one's stopping you, but why can't I have an army lead by a jump-pack marine with TL-LC and a couple of his super-elite buddies equipped the same? Why do I have to paint my entire army black just so I can use one squad? Just so I can play a certain type of army?

This is a game, sorry if I'm breaking down someone's imaginary world but it's a game that is build to try to make things balanced between players, and allowing some players special stuff just because they painted their models one way is just goofy. Sorry but having SC for only special armies is an antiquated idea and I'm thankful GW is flushing it.

Sarah S
23-03-2009, 03:31
Ok, then read my oppinion in my original post. If you(as a lot of people) don't care about fluff, GW shouldn't give us named Characters with a background of their own, because it get wasted every time a gamer decides to give them a lazy name to use their superior abilities.


Why the heck would you have a problem with a player saying "this is character X" but not have a problem with GW saying "this is character X?"
:eyebrows:

Born Again
23-03-2009, 03:58
They did that, it was Third Edition. You can still play it if special characters truly bother you, assuming you can find opponents.

Oh thanks! Third edition, yeah I remember that. I like the game just fine in fifth though, thanks.



Awesome, let's go back to third edition, where special characters were "opponent's permission only," which translated to, "against friends unless they felt like being dicks that day, and never against anyone else."

Really? your friends are obviously not into having fun, then. I'd always let you use special characters, unless it was in a tournament where they were banned. They wouldn't be though, if I had organised it.



I wouldn't complain about them adding, at the very least, the ability to take the variant lists independently of special character as some sort of purchased ability.

But that's not what GW's doing, so it's sort of moot.

Oh ok. I'll go round into ever thread where people complain their 'dex is broken and say "that's not what GW is doing, so it's sort of moot". The whole point is to discuss things here, we're presenting hypotheticals and ideas, not just stating facts.



Alert! Alert! Godwin's Law! :D

Indeed :D


I like waving blatantly rude gestures in front of all the fluff nazis.

Its a game. You play by the rules. Not by some other persons preconceived notions of "how my army should be because it says so here on page blah blah of some possibly obscure or non obcure background blurb."
Dont like it? Dont play me. Go play with someone else.
I have better things to do than to sit across the table from someone rolling their eyes every five minuts because they dissapprove of the army I am playing, the way it is painted or what is included in it.






God i really hate how people worship fluff as if it's cool. It's really not, not in anyway cool.

They really should just put fluff nuts in a big compound somwhere in backwater america.


I think they should be un-special. I don't give a rat's *ss about the background, I just want to have a good game with my mates.

None of us are telling little stories, we're pushing miniatures, rolling dice and having a laugh.

Go and play Chess, all of you. It's a game involving pushing little lumps around a board so one of you can have the ego-stroking of winning. There's not even any background involved! It'd be perfect for you.

I have a real problem understanding people who completely discount the fluff. That's what sets the game apart from chess and draughts. Years ago, people who cared more about winning or getting the best list combo were called beards, and frowned upon. Now they seem to have become commonplace, to the point if you build a fluffy list as opposed to a list of uber-pwnage, people look at you as if you've lost your mind.

Sarah S
23-03-2009, 04:00
Go and play Chess, all of you. It's a game involving pushing little lumps around a board so one of you can have the ego-stroking of winning. There's not even any background involved! It'd be perfect for you.

I have a real problem understanding people who completely discount the fluff. That's what sets the game apart from chess and draughts. Years ago, people who cared more about winning or getting the best list combo were called beards, and frowned upon. Now they seem to have become commonplace, to the point if you build a fluffy list as opposed to a list of uber-pwnage, people look at you as if you've lost your mind.

Don't tell me what to do.

starlight
23-03-2009, 04:10
Since Born Again's Post wasn't directed at a specific individual, I'll suggest that you reconsider your response... :eyebrows:

SimonL
23-03-2009, 04:15
I own a bunch Space Marine characters, all "standing in" as various regular commanders, chaplains, etc, just because I like the models. I don't mind counts as...just there's no way around it if you don't want Marneus Calgar in your army...Even if you rename 'em you've still got this Ultramarines model in the midst of your force. My favorite way around this is just to use the rules but on a converted or different model...The "Gauntlets of Ultramar" rules get used for "Axe of Pwnage" or "Boots of Mudhole Stomping" or something.

IMHO they should have made Chapter Traits a list you select from, like Black Templar vows.

Sarah S
23-03-2009, 04:18
Since Born Again's Post wasn't directed at a specific individual, I'll suggest that you reconsider your response... :eyebrows:

He quoted my post, amongst others, and then said:

Go and play Chess, all of you.

That includes me specifically, as I am included in "all of you." Rather than not being directed at a specific individual, it was directed at several specific individuals.

He has no right to command us to abandon the hobby just so he can play the game in his favoured manner. I have no problem with him playing however he wants to, but he can't stop me from playing how I want to, and certainly can't stop me from playing at all.

starlight
23-03-2009, 04:27
It looks to me like you're looking for a reason to be offended where none exists.

sydbridges
23-03-2009, 04:28
Really? your friends are obviously not into having fun, then. I'd always let you use special characters, unless it was in a tournament where they were banned. They wouldn't be though, if I had organised it.

Eh, they would most of the time. Still, the cleverest thing that came at the end of 3rd Ed was when special characters started not coming with the "With opponent's permission" clause.


Oh ok. I'll go round into ever thread where people complain their 'dex is broken and say "that's not what GW is doing, so it's sort of moot". The whole point is to discuss things here, we're presenting hypotheticals and ideas, not just stating facts.

To clarify: It's not only not what GW is doing, it's something they've been removing. Traits are out of the SM codex, Doctrines are out of the IG codex... To be fair, Traits had the minor problem where you could take obviously great advantages and counter them with "I promise not to take any allied armies," or something completely unrestrictive like that, so I can see why GW is dumping them.

Personally, I would love to see the rules for making generic HQs expanded, allowing for bumps to stats and special rules and the like... except when they did something like that for the 3.5 Chaos Codex, it ended up with even some of the Chaos players clueless as to how one can legally build a character. The 3.5 Chaos Codex could be thought of as an experiment in giving the most freedom in any codex in third ed to build characters in an army. It's also generally picked out in discussions about 'worst codex' as the example of the most confusing and cheesiest. I doubt you'll ever see a codex that gives anything like that sort of freedom again.

The Orange
23-03-2009, 04:30
I have a real problem understanding people who completely discount the fluff.

I'm in the hobby mainly for the hobby, I love the building and painting aspect of the hobby, after the I'm in the hobby because of the fluff. I like the 40k background, I like reading about 40k and hearing about the many aspects of the 40k universe. I pick up several codicies and several of the black library books because I like exploring the 40k universe. Lastly I like the game. Why do I play the game? Because it's something I can do with my buddies, I don't get to do it very often, but when we do it's because we want to play a game against each other, not because we came up with some narrative that we'd like to play out. We don't have the time and energy to do it, and we frankly don't care that much. I've thought up a back story for my Tau army, I've come up with my own special color scheme, basing etc. to go with that back story, but when I play with my buddies we don't get into it because it just doesn't matter the much to us. We just want to play something fun, just like when we get in a LAN game of Company of Heroes, or do some co-op Castle Crashers on my 360. Enjoying the 40k fluff and enjoying the game don't necessarily have to be inclusive of each other, so just because some one says they don't care about the background for the table top battle doesn't necessarily mean they don't care about fluff, it just means they don't tie the two together.

massey
23-03-2009, 05:39
I'm in the hobby partially for the fluff, partially for the game, mostly for the collecting. I like having lots of miniatures, like a girl with 100 pairs of shoes. You see, I need to have the complete 1st company. Gotta have it. And I've got to have 3 of each heavy support choice, because I might want to use 3 Vindicators in a game some day (and 3 of each fast attack, etc).

I'm a completist.

Now, the fluff? It's alright, but it's a tool to be used to make the game more fun. It's not a straightjacket to limit the player. I went with a pre-heresy-ish marine army, yet I included Razorbacks and Assault Cannons, despite the fact that they didn't exist then. Why? I wanted a unique paint scheme. I didn't want to be limited to using only specific characters (so maybe I want someone other than Joe Blow Current Guy as my Chapter Master). I want to build my army as I want it.

Now, should Marneus Calgar show up at every little battle? Hell yes he should. Why? Because, ladies and gentlemen, I don't fight unimportant battles. Every battle I have is of great importance, requiring the greatest heroes to come forth and confront the darkest enemies. My games aren't about "so these marines are going on shore leave, and some orks stroll into town and try to steal a kid's bicycle". My battles are important enough to involve the best of the best. And why should my Chapter be worse than the others? Shouldn't my Chapter Master be a great hero as well? I don't want to play a loser Chapter, and I shouldn't be forced to just because I don't want my guys to be painted blue. Should I be penalized for liking red and white? Should the game rules penalize me because of the paint scheme?

GW obviously feels each battle is important too, as there's no way to include less than a SM officer as your HQ choice. Think about it. Necrons show up with either a powerful Necron Lord or a C'Tan in every single engagement. Tau never fight with just a handful of fire warriors and some kroot. There's always a guy who has a battlesuit. Eldar? Well, either the Avatar itself is there, or one of their legendary heroes, or one of the highest ranking members of their craftworld. An Eldar force is never led by a mere warlock or exarch. Chaos? There's always a Lord, Sorceror, or Demon Prince. In every fight. Why? Because the game is about the important battles, the ones of big enough importance that the main characters have to be there.

You also have the Dark Angel issue. Why can't you take a generic Captain in Terminator Armor? Because there are only 10 Captains, and the only guy who wears Terminator Armor is Belial. He is the Captain of the 1st company. That's the guy, and this is what he carries. If you're playing something like Ultramarines, then Cato Sicarius is the Captain of the 2nd company. Him and no one else. Is it unusual for him to show up in a battle? Not if it's a battle involving the Ultramarines' 2nd company.

Born Again
23-03-2009, 07:02
Eh, they would most of the time. Still, the cleverest thing that came at the end of 3rd Ed was when special characters started not coming with the "With opponent's permission" clause.



To clarify: It's not only not what GW is doing, it's something they've been removing. Traits are out of the SM codex, Doctrines are out of the IG codex... To be fair, Traits had the minor problem where you could take obviously great advantages and counter them with "I promise not to take any allied armies," or something completely unrestrictive like that, so I can see why GW is dumping them.

Personally, I would love to see the rules for making generic HQs expanded, allowing for bumps to stats and special rules and the like... except when they did something like that for the 3.5 Chaos Codex, it ended up with even some of the Chaos players clueless as to how one can legally build a character. The 3.5 Chaos Codex could be thought of as an experiment in giving the most freedom in any codex in third ed to build characters in an army. It's also generally picked out in discussions about 'worst codex' as the example of the most confusing and cheesiest. I doubt you'll ever see a codex that gives anything like that sort of freedom again.

Both the traits system and chaos 3.5 were flawed. They had the good intentions but didn't carry through. I'm talking about something much more streamlined, thought I doubt we'd ever see it without piles of complaints :rolleyes:


I'm in the hobby mainly for the hobby, I love the building and painting aspect of the hobby, after the I'm in the hobby because of the fluff. I like the 40k background, I like reading about 40k and hearing about the many aspects of the 40k universe. I pick up several codicies and several of the black library books because I like exploring the 40k universe. Lastly I like the game. Why do I play the game? Because it's something I can do with my buddies, I don't get to do it very often, but when we do it's because we want to play a game against each other, not because we came up with some narrative that we'd like to play out. We don't have the time and energy to do it, and we frankly don't care that much. I've thought up a back story for my Tau army, I've come up with my own special color scheme, basing etc. to go with that back story, but when I play with my buddies we don't get into it because it just doesn't matter the much to us. We just want to play something fun, just like when we get in a LAN game of Company of Heroes, or do some co-op Castle Crashers on my 360. Enjoying the 40k fluff and enjoying the game don't necessarily have to be inclusive of each other, so just because some one says they don't care about the background for the table top battle doesn't necessarily mean they don't care about fluff, it just means they don't tie the two together.

Yes, this is all well and good. I enjoy having a game, and I too don't get to do it that often. I enjoy the collecting/ playing element. Some people are into the fluff more than others, which is fair: we don't all have time or the care to read every book ever published. I certainly don't. It just seems very strange to me people would get into a game like 40k and say they have no interest in the fluff. I don't know anyone personally that got into 40k saying "I love pushing lumps of plastic around!" or "it's a board game, but better looking!". They all got into it from the background, with a very small percentage being collectors/ painters.

To Sarah S, I would simply ask if you can clarify this train of thought for me? When the fluff is so integrated into the text of the books, how can you not, as you say, give a rat's *ss about the background? It seems you would have to go out of the way to avoid it, and without it what is the attraction of 40k over any other game, be it a wargame, board game or video game? Much as you don't like being told what to do, I don't like Laser Guided Fanatic's (and many others, at times) implications that people who pay attention to the fluff are fanboys with no grasp of how to win a game, and are somehow ruining the game by taking an interest in the backstory.

Lord-Caerolion
23-03-2009, 09:11
so maybe I want someone other than Joe Blow Current Guy as my Chapter Master). I want to build my army as I want it.

...

You also have the Dark Angel issue. Why can't you take a generic Captain in Terminator Armor? Because there are only 10 Captains, and the only guy who wears Terminator Armor is Belial. He is the Captain of the 1st company. That's the guy, and this is what he carries. If you're playing something like Ultramarines, then Cato Sicarius is the Captain of the 2nd company. Him and no one else. Is it unusual for him to show up in a battle? Not if it's a battle involving the Ultramarines' 2nd company.

Notice the contradiction in your post there, Massey? On one hand, fluff should be for fun, where you can have a different current Chapter Master if you want, but on the other hand, the Deathwing has to be led by Belial, the Ultra's Second Company has to be led by Sicarius. Which one is it? Is fluff a set of vague guidelines, or set-in-stone rules? Your post says both.

As for my opinion, fluff should be there to give some information, but as long as you don't have Tau wearing Terminator Armour, I'll be fine with whatever you have. Your Chapter was almost wiped out? Fine, sure you can use one of the Characters that gives you Stubborn.

I play my games, and write my lists to tell a story. Sure, some people might regard this as a flaw, from what I can see here. Hell, even I kinda regard it as a flaw, as if I can't imagine what the Commander looks like, and what his name is, I can't bring myself to like the army.
The fact remains, that to fully ignore the fluff is, to me, to miss the entire purpose of the game. If I wanted to simply move some pieces around a board, I'd play chess or something. I play 40k because I have an attachment to what the figures represent.

Laser guided fanatic
23-03-2009, 09:15
Laser Guided Fanatic's (and many others, at times) implications that people who pay attention to the fluff are fanboys with no grasp of how to win a game, and are somehow ruining the game by taking an interest in the backstory.

I think the thing is, the special chars from C:C will still be special because they will have comepltly different rules from the ones from C:IG. The problem is the OP is getting zomg oh noez, the 10 year oldz might discoverz that you canz playz as da catachanz. Waaaaaa!
I don't really have anything against the fluff it's just not something that i like particulary about the game compared to painting moddeling. Also i don't know if it was you that said it but just because i don't like fluff doesn't mean i'm a waac *********.

Heimlich
23-03-2009, 09:28
A marine is a marine, just because his armour is painted black doesnt mean he is sneakier than another marine.

Nightlords? :p

TheOverlord
23-03-2009, 09:53
Nights Lords go around with lighting arcing across their armor :D

How they sneak around is a damn mystery what what.

Koryphaus
23-03-2009, 10:10
Well the problem is that they can't customize there army anymore and all of a sudden special characters are fighting every battle there regiment is fighting rather then being a legendary commander. Otherwise there so great that all of a sudden there are posers with the same exact weapons and do the same exact thing.

For example, during 4th Raven Guard had traits, so you could have a captain with power weapon leading your force and still be playing a unique army, you didn't need Shrike for Raven Guard flavor. Now your just playing Black Ultramarines if you don't take Shrike.

Woah, look out, its the Chaos Codex Hate, repackaged!

Were there special rules for using Raven Guard before Codex Space Marines V4? Aside from Index Astartes, of course, but not everyone had access to those rules.

I find it is funny that people are quite happy to play with their Black Ultramarines, or Red Black Legionaires before there are any special rules for them, but the moment any rules get taken away they are all hating on GW. Then when GW tries to release methods of playing armies with flavour by using a character, everyone hates on GW all the more..

zoggin-eck
23-03-2009, 11:15
I find it is funny that people are quite happy to play with their Black Ultramarines, or Red Black Legionaires before there are any special rules for them, but the moment any rules get taken away they are all hating on GW. Then when GW tries to release methods of playing armies with flavour by using a character, everyone hates on GW all the more..

I feel the same way. I'm painting Genestealer Cult army for 40k, and a Forest Goblin army in Fantasy. There really aren't proper rules for them, but I'm happy to use the next closest list and units available.

I always liked the Raptors chapter marines shown in the White Dwarf that had the IA article for them, but really they are just marines with daemon weapons, so just use them as cool power weapons. Same with Flesh Tearers, I'm OK with the Blood Angel rules.

Born Again
23-03-2009, 11:38
I think the thing is, the special chars from C:C will still be special because they will have comepltly different rules from the ones from C:IG. The problem is the OP is getting zomg oh noez, the 10 year oldz might discoverz that you canz playz as da catachanz. Waaaaaa!
I don't really have anything against the fluff it's just not something that i like particulary about the game compared to painting moddeling. Also i don't know if it was you that said it but just because i don't like fluff doesn't mean i'm a waac *********.

I agree on this: there's nothing wrong with people using SC's. I don't want to paint the picture I'm against them, I'm not. I think the OP wasn't approaching this properly, I just don't like to see people saying they have a chapter master who happens to be exactly like Calgar or whoever. If someone came up with fluff to say "there's Tallarns and Catachans in the same crusade, fighting on the same planet, most of the catachans got wiped out and straken ended up with the Tallarns for the time being as they were the closest regiment to his position" then that's fine by me. Suggesting there's a Tallarn who's a total xerox of straken seems unimaginative and boring to me. That's all I'm getting at, is it just seems to be an easy road out for people to "count as". Even in Apoc., where it's meant to be "anything goes", you still need fluff backing for alliances.

Lord-Caerolion
23-03-2009, 13:22
So the only way people can have their army that is a Salamanders successor, and uses the same tactics, and has high levels of technology, is to come up with some bull excuse that Vulkan He'Stan just happens to be there? No other Chapters other than the Crimson Fists could possibly have a Chapter Master with a Storm Bolter and Powerfist, where the Chapter loves its defensive tactics?

I'm sorry, but 40k is a massive galaxy, so you can't tell me that there isn't another Chapter Master with 2 powerfists out there. You can't tell me that there isn't another sneaky Light Infantry Captain, who's equipment would give similar bonuses to what Straken's does.

Hellfury
23-03-2009, 14:20
I have a real problem understanding people who completely discount the fluff.


It just seems very strange to me people would get into a game like 40k and say they have no interest in the fluff

Pure and complete projection on your part, about what you quoted me as saying.

I always take fluff into account, but it is my fluff that is carefully paralleled to what GW has written both old and new. If it wasn't for the cool fluff found in rogue trader I would have never been interested in this game from two decades ago. I am sure most others are as well.

For my DIY purposes, I use a set of 'X' rules to play my 'Y' color scheme. So far quite legal. The rules I choose are BECAUSE I need to use them to fit the background I envision.

As a person of the group you told dismissively to go play chess, I feel it is worth pointing out that perhaps you are assuming too much about their agendas and intent.

Industrial Propaganda
23-03-2009, 14:48
Well the 5th Edition is Herohammer 40K where every army is lead by Abaddon, Marneus and dead Eldrad :cries:

Pacific
23-03-2009, 14:56
I really find it hard to believe that anyone reading this forum is completely dismissive of the 40k background and imagery (or 'fluff').

After all, I should imagine the majority of us were first hooked by that picture of a marine on the cover of WD or perhaps a painted mini in a window display. These are things which require an imagination, so that the miniatures on the tabletop are not static pieces of plastic, but representative of 7ft tall, acid-spitting, brain eating warriors, clamouring to get to grips with their enemies and gun them down on sem--automatic, or rip them apart in close combat! (sorry starting to sound like a GW recruitment speech here :p )

Nostro
23-03-2009, 15:09
You know what would annoy me to no end? If in this hobby, where I spend my money and my time into an army, I get slapped in the face with silly rules about not being able to use certain models because I didn't paint my army a certain way. [...] What if I hate painting red, I may love the Blood Angels fluff but I hate having a red army?

Totally agree. Usually if you really like an army, colors play a part in it (I went into 40k because I like red and BA are red, and I like their fluff), but I can see people not feeling the same. Play BA rules with BA SCs but with Salamanders scheme, all fine. I'd feel a bit more uncomfortable about you calling them Blood Angels, because I picture and like them red, but in then end it's all fine too. Also, play Salamanders with their scheme but BA rules, all fine too.

Why should an army that is all legal and fluffy barely undercoated suddenly become wrong once fully painted?


I find it is funny that people are quite happy to play with their Black Ultramarines, or Red Black Legionaires before there are any special rules for them, but the moment any rules get taken away they are all hating on GW. Then when GW tries to release methods of playing armies with flavour by using a character, everyone hates on GW all the more..

Agreed again.


I feel the same way. I'm painting Genestealer Cult army for 40k, and a Forest Goblin army in Fantasy. There really aren't proper rules for them, but I'm happy to use the next closest list and units available.

I always liked the Raptors chapter marines shown in the White Dwarf that had the IA article for them, but really they are just marines with daemon weapons, so just use them as cool power weapons. Same with Flesh Tearers, I'm OK with the Blood Angel rules.

And again.


I agree on this: there's nothing wrong with people using SC's. [...] I just don't like to see people saying they have a chapter master who happens to be exactly like Calgar or whoever.

I see how you feel, but that's the approach GW took now, for better or for worse.

As previously mentionned, they could have made an entry: "Legendary Chapter Master" and given him the exact rules Calgar now has, not say his rules come from the one of a kind gauntlets and it would have made everybody OK with it.

What they chose instead was to name him, give him a story, make a mini that was inspired by that story and would inspire people to buy and play him more than an average joe "Space Marine captain": there's more flavour to the whole package. I can get why people don't like it, but GW did so to make the entries less bland. Opens the door to endless fluff arguments but ruleswise makes no difference.

I'm not saying I support that route they took, but now that it's there I support SCs being taken anytime.

EDIT: the samish debate is also raging in this thread. (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188461)

Finn
23-03-2009, 23:01
Saying there's another chapter master out there who happens to be armed exactly the same and (in the case of Belial, Shrike etc) has his chapter organized the exact same way seems too much of a stretch for me.

This argument basically sums up what people have against special characters in their current incarnation.

But it's wrongheaded. There is a "Belial" (read: Master of the Deathwing) for all DA successor chapters. Why wouldn't there be someone outfitted like Shrike for all Raven Guard successors? Saying there wouldn't be is just ignorant folly, IMO.
I don't understand why people can't understand that they special characters simply have names so that people can associate the rules with them easier, rather than having a bunch of rules upgrade options that you have to purchase for your standard Chapter Master codex enter or some such.

This is a very good game mechanic change. It brings more flavor to the tabletop - the possibilities for 'counts as this-guy' are limitless. This is of course not to say that there won't be situations where people buy the same special model and call him the same guy and show up at the same tournament. But blame that on the players and lack of imagination rather than the rules please.

Corrode
23-03-2009, 23:13
It just seems very strange to me people would get into a game like 40k and say they have no interest in the fluff. I don't know anyone personally that got into 40k saying "I love pushing lumps of plastic around!" or "it's a board game, but better looking!". They all got into it from the background, with a very small percentage being collectors/ painters.

If you can't conceive of people being uninterested in the fluff then you have an extremely limited imagination. I got into 40k because a friend of mine was playing (and his reason was, I think, 'cool models :D') and I was almost totally unaware of the background until I read the 3rd ed rulebook, some time after I actually bought models. I happen to love the 40k background, but when I was first interested in the game I cared very little about it. Even when I'd read it it wasn't the thing that kept me interested - the fun game was what I wanted to play, and the background was tangential at best.

My girlfriend's even further away from this - she got into GW because an ex-boyfriend bought her some paints and a box of Sisters. She got back into 40k to paint; she loves painting, and has a bunch of random units which she bought just for their aesthetics, regardless of whether they fit with any of her other units. She's now looking at starting a 40k Daemon army because she likes the look of the models, and because she wants to focus on one army so that she can play some games (and happily, Daemons mean that she can try out Fantasy as well). At no point has she ever taken more than a passing interest in the fluff. The stories attached to the game simply don't interest her. She doesn't care if a mixed Tzeentch/Slaanesh Daemon force is 'unfluffy', because it's effective on the table and it contains models she enjoys painting. There's no reason it SHOULD matter to her, either.

starlight
23-03-2009, 23:19
Besides, Belial is only the *current* MotDW. If people can play pre-Heresy armies, why not pre-Belial Deathwing? Why not any of the Unforgiven Belial-equivalents from the last 10,000 years?


If you take your toy soldiers *that* seriously...please keep your distance...you might be contagious. :p

Corrode
23-03-2009, 23:35
Besides, Belial is only the *current* MotDW. If people can play pre-Heresy armies, why not pre-Belial Deathwing? Why not any of the Unforgiven Belial-equivalents from the last 10,000 years?


If you take your toy soldiers *that* seriously...please keep your distance...you might be contagious. :p

On top of that, a lot of the arguments against Special Characters fall a bit flat when you consider the nature of the characters themselves. The common call is 'it's unrealistic that these 'special' characters get EVERYWHERE'.

Let's take Belial as an example, but Sicarius and Shrike work too - what situation can you think of where those characters WOULDN'T be deploying with their troops, outside of a patrol? Sicarius and Shrike are little more than Space Marine Captains with some fancy gear - last I checked, the lowest rung of Space Marine HQ choice (excluding lib/chap) is Captain. Any UM 2nd Company force bigger than a patrol would likely include Sicarius, since in truth all he is is a fancy Captain. Any number of Deathwing Terminators big enough to qualify as an 'army' would most likely have the Master of the Deathwing along - what else is he going to be doing, hanging out on the Rock?

Now, Marneus Calgar and his ilk are a bit more absurd - having Calgar facing off against Abbadon in a 1000pt game does tend to make one say 'wtf'. But still, if we're to pretend that these battles take place in the context of a larger campaign, what reason is there that Calgar WOULDN'T be along? His fluff clearly states that he spends much of his time actively involved in fighting, and he seems to have been on near-constant campaign since taking up the mantle of Chapter Master. Who's to say it's 'unfeasible' that he's showing up to a lot of games?

Even considering counts-as, it's not that big of a leap. As starlight already pointed out, there's always pre-41st Millenium characters to consider. If we say that the average Space Marine lives to what, maybe somewhere between 200-500 depending on how lucky he is (with Dante being exceptional at 1k years old) then there's somewhere between 20-50 possible Marines who've filled a particular position, on average. With non-Marine characters this rate of attrition is even more prounounced - a Guard commander with 50 years of service under his belt (an exceptional amount) would still have something like 200 predecessors. It's not a huge leap to imagine that at least one of these people has been similarly equipped and had a similar methodology of warfare. Look at the Orks - there is no way you can put up a convincing argument which says 'Ghazghkull Mag uruk Thraka is the first and only Ork Warlord to ever mount a huge Waaagh, wear mega-armour and have bionics in his head.' So why is it that people take such exception to counts-as characters?

A Thracian Major
23-03-2009, 23:56
To throw in my two imperial credits, i see a problem with SCs at the moment....its not the 'no opponents permission' (cause if i dont want to play an army with Marneus Calgar FOR EXAMPLE, I say 'right, i'm not playin'), nor is it the idea of there being another space marine captain out there who looks like and is equipped like Shrike, its the following - by tying a specific character to an army (Gaunt to the Ghosts, Shrike to Raven Guard etc.), you lose the ability to say 'right, a Ghost company under Captain Daur is here', or 'it's the Raven Guard fourth company led by Captain nothing-at-all-like Shrike. In short, the characters themselves don't lose their flavour, and potential for flavour, but specific armies do - why can't i have some Salamanders without H'stan? Why does character X HAVE to be present every time i want to field army Y?

Sarah S
23-03-2009, 23:58
why can't i have some Salamanders without H'stan? Why does character X HAVE to be present every time i want to field army Y?

You can, and he doesn't. Build your army however you like, with or without him, paint them however you like, play them however you like.

Corrode
24-03-2009, 00:08
They don't, though. You can run any Codex-following Marine Chapter by just using the Codex: Space Marines options. The only difference that having (for example) Lysander along makes is that an army goes from being 'Imperial Fists' to 'Imperial Fists, led by our heroic commander whose determination is an inspiration to us all', or 'Raven Guard led by Shrike, whose tactical insights allow us to work more effectively and encourage us to fight harder.'

I like tying 'Chapter' stuff to characters for two reasons - one, it's a step away from 'different colour armour means different rules!' and two, it's reflective of the real trend for troops to be inspired by a great leader. To look at a real world example, try Caesar. His generals are effective on their own, and capable of winning battles - Labienus in particular conducts himself effectively throughout most of the Gaulish conquest. Roman legionaries didn't stop being Romans because Caesar wasn't there, and they would fight with the same standard tactics that Caesar would have based his own thinking from. When Caesar IS present, though, his abilities can be made manifest - his tactical insights can be utilised, his particular flair for strategy employed, his simple presence an inspiration to his men. The special characters conferring their particular brand of 'Chapter Tactics' is much the same thing - Lysander is a shining beacon of everything that the Fists stand for, and when he's present his men will naturally be inspired by him. Vulkan isn't just there to look good and hit things with his hammer, his technical prowess and attention to detail make his force's equipment go the extra mile. That, to my mind, is what the SCs represent - an epitomising of virtues which the Chapter holds dear.

sneb
24-03-2009, 00:18
...That, to my mind, is what the SCs represent - an epitomising of virtues which the Chapter holds dear.

Exactly I think people have to start looking at special characters in the newer books(Space marines and soon to be guard anyway) this way. Like the dark angels books before them it is best to not use "belial,master of the deathwing, or Vulkan He'stan, forge father"in name but use them the represent another leader in the chapter(or your own!) that employs a similar style of warfare(play) and if you lack the basic creative skills needed to see past the name, I'd suggest a different hobby, like coin collecting.

Master Stark
24-03-2009, 00:21
Much agreed. Sure, you can rename your Calgar/ Straken/ Ghazghkull and paint them different colours, but the point is these are special characters for a reason.

What reason?

Would it suit you more if we took the name away, and simply had 'Chapter Master build 1'?

victorpofa
24-03-2009, 02:25
Having read the thread up to this point I will weigh in with my take on how Unique Characters are used in the recent Codices.

Personally, I like it. No more stigma for using a Unique Character for your army, or, even better, using the rules for your own army if they fit how you want to play.

The opponents of this policy frequently say they don't like "This is Calgar, but not Calgar." throughout this thread. People who really say that need to not speak. They should instead say, "This is my Chapter Master Sturm Ironfist", or whatever he's named, and plunks down converted model with dual Power Fists and Storm Bolter/converted Calgar Model without Ultramarine Icons. "He uses Calgar's rules as you can see on my army list." (Hands over copy of army list). Easy. The IG characters will be the same. And, getting to the OP, in case anyone has forgotten, there are many Deathworlds that are not Catachan, and all breed hardy warriors or they don't survive.

As for the other main argument against Unique Characters I do enjoy the background, but using an HQ with the same abilities as a named character from the background does not diminish the original in any way. And anyone who does not see the real reason for the change in policy is fooling themselves. How many Unique Character models did they sell in 3rd Edition and most of 4th? Not too many besides Ghazgul (the only Mega Armored Boss). How many are they selling now? Lots! :D

It would have been nice to have generic characters you upgrade, but any semblance of balance would go out the window like it did for the Chaos 3.5 codex. Packaging up the rules in the form of a Unique Character is far easier to balance than all the combinations you can make with a generic character.

Finally, to those saying it defies belief that Unique Character X is in every battle, I counter why would any Chapter Master be in every battle? That is a legal choice to have the man in charge of your custom chapter as your HQ so why is that more likely than a character named by GW?

Brotheroracle
24-03-2009, 02:42
Well the problem is that they can't customize there army anymore and all of a sudden special characters are fighting every battle there regiment is fighting rather then being a legendary commander. Otherwise there so great that all of a sudden there are posers with the same exact weapons and do the same exact thing.

For example, during 4th Raven Guard had traits, so you could have a captain with power weapon leading your force and still be playing a unique army, you didn't need Shrike for Raven Guard flavor. Now your just playing Black Ultramarines if you don't take Shrike.

I agree with this, in 4th allot of armies had allot of things that could make them unique (chaos legions, traits, IG docs) they gave us this sweet candy and then they took it away.... I miss my cultists I miss restrictions. Yeah I miss restrictions I don't want to take a khorne lord and thousand sons as troops. I think the direction they've been going is a step backwards rather then further..... but then again maybe I'm just bitter.

massey
24-03-2009, 03:30
Notice the contradiction in your post there, Massey? On one hand, fluff should be for fun, where you can have a different current Chapter Master if you want, but on the other hand, the Deathwing has to be led by Belial, the Ultra's Second Company has to be led by Sicarius. Which one is it? Is fluff a set of vague guidelines, or set-in-stone rules? Your post says both.

As for my opinion, fluff should be there to give some information, but as long as you don't have Tau wearing Terminator Armour, I'll be fine with whatever you have. Your Chapter was almost wiped out? Fine, sure you can use one of the Characters that gives you Stubborn.

I play my games, and write my lists to tell a story. Sure, some people might regard this as a flaw, from what I can see here. Hell, even I kinda regard it as a flaw, as if I can't imagine what the Commander looks like, and what his name is, I can't bring myself to like the army.
The fact remains, that to fully ignore the fluff is, to me, to miss the entire purpose of the game. If I wanted to simply move some pieces around a board, I'd play chess or something. I play 40k because I have an attachment to what the figures represent.

No, there's not a contradiction, I had switched gears and was making a different point. It's one that Corrode makes above. My point about Belial is this: if you're fielding Deathwing, Belial is the Captain. If you're fielding the 2nd company of Ultramarines, Sicarius is the Captain. How likely is it that this particular guy is leading the army? Pretty likely if you're using his company.

The first point was that we should have the freedom to design our chapters as we wish. The second point was that it would NOT be uncommon for these specific characters to be engaged in a particular battle. I'm not saying that Belial has to be used as the Deathwing Captain (if I was going to play "Dark Angels", I'd use the regular SM book and have Lysander or Calgar be my "Belial, Captain of the Deathwing"), merely that any special character would be expected to be in the fight whenever his unit was fighting. If the Ravenwing are deployed in a large enough force to qualify as a "Ravenwing" army, then Sammael is probably very close. Because he IS the Captain of the Ravenwing. I mean, you don't have any problem with an Ultramarine player using a generic captain with Relic Blade and Storm Shield and calling him Rex Maximus, Captain of the 5th company, right? So why should an Ultramarines player not use Cato Sicarius? Is he somehow less likely to be involved in a fight than any of the other Captains?

Lord-Caerolion
24-03-2009, 07:09
Ok, I misread you post. However, the point still remains that your logic may work in those circumstances, but if I play Raven Guard, does that mean Shrike is going to be there? No, it doesn't, yet to gain the Raven Guard Chapter Tactics, Shrike needs to be present.

Your logic only works on a smaller scale, yet GW has employed it on a much larger scale than what works.

Born Again
24-03-2009, 09:08
Pure and complete projection on your part, about what you quoted me as saying.

I always take fluff into account, but it is my fluff that is carefully paralleled to what GW has written both old and new. If it wasn't for the cool fluff found in rogue trader I would have never been interested in this game from two decades ago. I am sure most others are as well.

For my DIY purposes, I use a set of 'X' rules to play my 'Y' color scheme. So far quite legal. The rules I choose are BECAUSE I need to use them to fit the background I envision.

As a person of the group you told dismissively to go play chess, I feel it is worth pointing out that perhaps you are assuming too much about their agendas and intent.

Fair enough, I understand some people follow the fluff to different extents. As far as chess playing goes, that was directed more at people who explicitly stated they don't care about fluff at all, apologies for any offence by tying you into the same group.



But it's wrongheaded. There is a "Belial" (read: Master of the Deathwing) for all DA successor chapters. Why wouldn't there be someone outfitted like Shrike for all Raven Guard successors? Saying there wouldn't be is just ignorant folly, IMO.
I don't understand why people can't understand that they special characters simply have names so that people can associate the rules with them easier, rather than having a bunch of rules upgrade options that you have to purchase for your standard Chapter Master codex enter or some such.


Well, this is what I'm having problems with. It seems this is the way GW is doing characters now. Call me an old fart but I'm used to the 2nd edition way of doing SC's, where they were gods almighty, not characters with a name you were free to change, should you wish.


If you can't conceive of people being uninterested in the fluff then you have an extremely limited imagination. I got into 40k because a friend of mine was playing (and his reason was, I think, 'cool models :D') and I was almost totally unaware of the background until I read the 3rd ed rulebook, some time after I actually bought models. I happen to love the 40k background, but when I was first interested in the game I cared very little about it. Even when I'd read it it wasn't the thing that kept me interested - the fun game was what I wanted to play, and the background was tangential at best.

My girlfriend's even further away from this - she got into GW because an ex-boyfriend bought her some paints and a box of Sisters. She got back into 40k to paint; she loves painting, and has a bunch of random units which she bought just for their aesthetics, regardless of whether they fit with any of her other units. She's now looking at starting a 40k Daemon army because she likes the look of the models, and because she wants to focus on one army so that she can play some games (and happily, Daemons mean that she can try out Fantasy as well). At no point has she ever taken more than a passing interest in the fluff. The stories attached to the game simply don't interest her. She doesn't care if a mixed Tzeentch/Slaanesh Daemon force is 'unfluffy', because it's effective on the table and it contains models she enjoys painting. There's no reason it SHOULD matter to her, either.

Well then, congratulations, you are the first. People who got in for the game apparently do exist, I've just never met one before, and certainly not face to face. But again, at least you've read the background, even if it's not your primary incentive.


What reason?

Would it suit you more if we took the name away, and simply had 'Chapter Master build 1'?

I believe that approach has been suggested a couple of times in this thread :p

Anyway, I'm going to just back out of this discussion now before I dig myself into an even bigger hole. In the end I guess we can just agree to disagree, seeing as it's unlikely we'll ever have to face each other across a table and deal with the issue.

I must say though, my perspective has been altered, and I can see instances where a counts-as may be acceptable, in certain circumstances (Belial for DA successors, etc). However, one thing I have noticed is people keep using SM's as examples. Has anybody ever come across, or how would you feel coming across, counts as in other armies, perhaps more extreme circumstances? Let's say I have a Khornate CSM army, and I include Ahriman, but say he is Varkron the Mighty, Bloodpriest of Khorne, and his powers were the result of blood-based daemonic rituals, not magic? At what point are we all prepared to draw the line? Or does it really not matter at all, and anything goes?

Anyway, with that thought I'll leave you to ponder for now. :angel:

Finn
24-03-2009, 09:30
Let's say I have a Khornate CSM army, and I include Ahriman, but say he is Varkron the Mighty, Bloodpriest of Khorne, and his powers were the result of blood-based daemonic rituals, not magic? At what point are we all prepared to draw the line? Or does it really not matter at all, and anything goes?

Anyway, with that thought I'll leave you to ponder for now. :angel:

That would be supremely awesome, especially if you modeled something up to look super cool instead of just using the Ahriman and painting him to fit in with your Khorne. With that I would take issue, though rules-wise there's nothing wrong with it. It's all about what you do with the tools GW gives you...
but seriously, that's not all that bad of an idea and I'd give my opponent many kudos for coming up with something like that.

Lord-Caerolion
24-03-2009, 10:35
As long as the rules fit what you're trying to do, the model represents the rules, and I know what's what, hell yeah I'd allow that! Khorne used to allow Sorcerors to bear his Marks, they just didn't use proper magic.

The line, for me, is where the fluff doesn't make sense from an in-game perspective. Khorne Sorcerors make sense, albeit in out-of-production fluff. Orks in looted Termie armour makes sense. Space Marines with Tyranid/Ork pets, you're really starting to stretch it, but thought out enough...

Struggling to come up with a decent example that I wouldn't allow, really. Although, thats mainly because I'm not fluent in idiot or jerk.

Personally though, I'd much prefer someone to come up with their own Counts-As stuff, rather than an even poorer "yeah, my Chapter was just fighting one day, then Calgar turned up, and asked if he could join in! No other Ultramarines, just Calgar!"

rivers3162
24-03-2009, 11:35
Personally, I don't mind special characters and using them as "counts as" is fair game with me. It gives everyone more options and adds greater flavour and variety to everyone's army. The only thing I really mind about is that the models should in some way represent the rules but even then, abstraction still gives considerable leverage.

Plus, I don't see using special character profiles as "counts as" as distracting or taking anything away from the fluff, rather it can often be used to enhance it. For instance, my Bad Moon Orks will be lead by Nazdreg who no longer has any special rules but the fluff consistently states that Nazdreg is "more" than just a regular ork warboss. I'm going to use the Ghazgkhull model as a basis for the conversion and use his profile to create a character who is more consistent with Nazdreg's depiction in the fluff than I would be able to get by just using the rules for a standard ork warboss. In fantasy, I'm building an Empire army themed around the Stirland army who beat Mannfred Von Carstein at Hel Fenn. The fluff states that Martin of Stirland killed Mannfred thus I'm going to use the profile of Kurt Helborg in order to make my general "more epic".

When it comes to Space Marines, I agree with those who've said that there are a large number of chapters in existence who may have members who are just as heroic as Sicarius or Kantor. Really, I don't see special characters' profiles as more than as a "Stubborn Captain A" but by giving them a name and a background, they become more accessible and also add to the existing fluff by fleshing out a particular chapter or faction.

I fully realise that my interpretation of the fluff and others' interpretation may differ wildy, especially in terms of how accomodating or flexible we beleive the fluff to be. Personally, I think that the 40k universe is suitably huge to accomodate most things. There are plenty of SM chapters so one might have a captain similar to Sicarius. There are untold thousands of IG regiments so one of the deathworld regiments might well have a special forces guy similar to Marbo or a colonel like Straken.

Ultimately though, its all just horses for courses. I might think your justification for using a "counts as" Calgar chapter master isn't great or I might think that your SM captain is a little too generic looking to be Vulkan but as long as I'm aware of it beforehand, I don't mind. For me, this hobby is hugely individual and different aspects may appeal to different people. I like the fluff and I like building armies around it but just because your preferences differ from mine doesn't mean that I'm gonna shout you down or refuse to play you.

Nostro
24-03-2009, 12:43
Ok, I misread you post. However, the point still remains that your logic may work in those circumstances, but if I play Raven Guard, does that mean Shrike is going to be there? No, it doesn't, yet to gain the Raven Guard Chapter Tactics, Shrike needs to be present.

Corrode made a good point about it (see below). Playing a chapter is not only special rules. It's how you select your forces, equip your sergents, play them on the field. Salamanders have been happy to play Salamanders just by including a lot of melta/flamers/hammers, even when there were no rules for that. Even now a lot of others play them without Vulkan. You could say Lysander makes a great addition to a Salamander army, because of the hammer thing.

Somebody mentioned Relictors he played with a lot of relic blades and power weapons to represent demon weapons.

What happened to playing your chapter how you feel they should be played, not how you wait GW to tell you?


They don't, though. You can run any Codex-following Marine Chapter by just using the Codex: Space Marines options.

The only difference that having (for example) Lysander along makes is that an army goes from being 'Imperial Fists' to 'Imperial Fists, led by our heroic commander whose determination is an inspiration to us all', or 'Raven Guard led by Shrike, whose tactical insights allow us to work more effectively and encourage us to fight harder.'

[...] To look at a real world example, try Caesar. His generals are effective on their own, and capable of winning battles [...] Roman legionaries didn't stop being Romans because Caesar wasn't there, and they would fight with the same standard tactics that Caesar would have based his own thinking from. When Caesar IS present, though, his abilities can be made manifest - his tactical insights can be utilised, his particular flair for strategy employed, his simple presence an inspiration to his men.

The special characters conferring their particular brand of 'Chapter Tactics' is much the same thing - Lysander is a shining beacon of everything that the Fists stand for, and when he's present his men will naturally be inspired by him.

-------------


Let's say I have a Khornate CSM army, and I include Ahriman, but say he is Varkron the Mighty, Bloodpriest of Khorne, and his powers were the result of blood-based daemonic rituals, not magic? At what point are we all prepared to draw the line? Or does it really not matter at all, and anything goes?

Anyway, with that thought I'll leave you to ponder for now. :angel:

We use SM because they are widespread. But I'm all for your heroic comissar using Yarrick rules, all for yout Khornate terminator lord with an aura of malevolence and hate use the rules of Typhus, etc.

Put dedication in it, develop fluff, convert a mini for it, you are even more rewardable than somebody who just puts Ahriman on the table because his army is TS.

Corrode
24-03-2009, 13:20
I must say though, my perspective has been altered, and I can see instances where a counts-as may be acceptable, in certain circumstances (Belial for DA successors, etc). However, one thing I have noticed is people keep using SM's as examples. Has anybody ever come across, or how would you feel coming across, counts as in other armies, perhaps more extreme circumstances? Let's say I have a Khornate CSM army, and I include Ahriman, but say he is Varkron the Mighty, Bloodpriest of Khorne, and his powers were the result of blood-based daemonic rituals, not magic? At what point are we all prepared to draw the line? Or does it really not matter at all, and anything goes?

Anyway, with that thought I'll leave you to ponder for now. :angel:

Let's take another look at Orks, since I'm most familiar with them. Almost all of the Ork 'unit upgrade' special characters work pretty well for any army one might care to mention - Zagstruk/Badrukk are both mercenaries, Snikrot is fighting on Armageddon and so you don't even need to have much fluff justification for why an Ork army might contain him (what with the billion+ Orks fighting there). Wazzdakka, despite having some awesome fluff, is fairly generic - he's a Big Mek who likes bikes and leads a biker horde. Given that there's trillions of Orks in the galaxy, it's not exactly a leap to imagine that there might be another Big Mek who has similar tastes - besides which, Wazzdakka is another one of those Orks who shows up everywhere, since he's trying to ride from one end of the galaxy to another.

Old Zogwort and Mad Dok Grotsnik aren't quite so generic, but at the end of the day you might as well call them 'Out of Control Warphead 1' and 'Mad Dok HQ Choice'. Ghazgkull, as I mentioned in a previous post, is pretty much just 'generic Ork Warlord in mega-armour'. His model has been used like that since Armageddon anyway, and his rules pretty much do the same thing now. He's a strong character, but he's not actually that SPECIAL - he's an Ork Warlord who led a big Waaaagh! Given that there's 10,000 years of history to play with and multiple large Waaaghs going on at any given time, finding another Ork Warlord like that is the equivalent of finding a haystack in a needle.

Necrons only really have the C'tan as special characters, don't they? Those are their gods, I imagine they can get anywhere they like. Eldar have the Phoenix Lords and Eldrad - Eldrad is up there with Calgar, in that he's a bit 'wtf' since the fluff writers decided that OMG ELDRAD IS LIEK TOTALLY UNIQUE BEST EVAR (and also he's dead). The Phoenix Lords though are pretty much ok showing up anywhere that there's troops from their Aspect - I'm not totally up on Eldar fluff but don't the PLs just travel around the galaxy visiting the various shrines?

I can't be bothered to go through and examine every other army in the game, but I think my point has somewhat been made. The real problem is with Marines and Chaos, for two reasons.

1) Calgar/Abbadon. Those two characters are way too big a deal for many players to feel comfortable with, for different reasons. In Abbadon's case, he's supposed to be Master of the Black Legion, the avatar of Chaos Undivided, the black and beating heart of 10,000 years of hatred. Also, since he's been alive all that time, it's hard to claim that he's had any predecessors. In his case, though, it somewhat works - the guy's been at constant war with the Imperium for 10,000 years, he must have fought a few battles in that time. Calgar is arguably worse, because Mat Ward sucks. If he was just a powerful Chapter Master with some fancy equipment and a lot of experience (like say, Dante) he'd be an easier pill to swallow for most people - 'oh, this is my Novamarines Chapter Master, he's extremely disciplined and knows when to fall back and when to dig in, plus he has some cool weapons'. But Ward spends massive amounts of time bukkakeing all over Calgar in the Marine book, and so people see him as some untouchable god.

2) Special Snowflake Syndrome. It's been highlighted a few times already, but a lot of the problem that people have is that they can't see any way to play their Chapter without character X. You don't need Shrike to represent Raven Guard - take lots of Scouts and Assault Marines, play on speed and precision. Hell, Kor'sarro Khan makes a good Raven Guard captain - Outflank is very representative of the Chapter's tactics. You don't need Shrike. Fists can take Lysander leading termie-spam, backed up with Devastators and heavy fire support - but they can also take Shrike, leading a devastating charge into a breach in the walls. Or they can take He'stan; he has a master-crafted thunder hammer (let's call it something like, I dunno, the Fist of Dorn) and a heavy flamer (oh, my captain is very devout and prefers to burn the xenos scum). Or they can run with no SCs at all, and have a 'fluffy' unit loadout. You don't need special rules to make your Chapter special.

The other thing of course is the whole 'Chapter' deal. It's easy to transplant Ork characters all over the place because Orks actually function on archetypes. Ghazgkull is the no-nonsense Goff Warboss, Wazzdakka is the Speed Freek Big Mek, Badrukk is a Bad Moon in attitude if not affiliation. This works just fine. Chapters complicate things because again, people get attached to 'their' Chapter and want it to have unique and shiny things, and when other people want to use them natural human spite takes over.

tl;dr special characters aren't that special.

Lord-Caerolion
24-03-2009, 13:23
While that may be true, Nostro, using the same logic I can tell Lost and the Damned players to quit their whining, as people managed to do Traitor Guard before the list was released, they should cope now.

The fact remains that, sure, you can have Salamanders without having Vulkan there. But in order to have Salamanders, you need Vulkan. Should I be penalised, told that my Captain isn't as much of a Salamander as Vulkan He'Stan is? Is a Raven Guard Captain any less of a Raven Guard Captain because they don't use a jump-pack and lightning claws? Thats what your argument is saying.
In order to get Chapter Tactics, I have to have a specific Captain there. Not in order to get Shrike Tactics, or Lysander Tactics, but to get Chapter Tactics. That is saying that only that Character embodies that Chapter, noone else can. Every other Raven Guard Captain, hell, even their Chapter Master, is less of a Raven Guard, for some reason, because they can't embody their Chapter Tactics.

If there were no way of specialising Marines to be Chapter-specific, your argument would make perfect sense. However, they have given us a way to make Marines, and most likely Guard, to be army-specific, and that was by the way of Special Characters. Without said Character, I cannot specialise my army to the degree that another could.

Ergo, my X army is not as X as this other guys X army, because I didn't include Character Y, and he did.

EDIT: And Corrode, I can see where you're coming from. Yes, I sure could make a Raven Guard army without Shrike. But now, according to the Codex, their Chapter Tactic is Fleet. It's the Raven Guard's little quirck. Unfortunately, the only way to get the Chapter Tactics of the Raven Guard is to take a Special Character.
The only other race to vaguely have this problem is the Dark Angels, but their respective Characters are generic enough anyway for them to not have bothered giving Belial and Sammael names. The Orks, sure they have Special Characters, but they don't have Wazdakka with a special rule Klan Taktiks: In any army which includes Wazdakka, Orks may assault out of closed-top transports, for example. Ork Characters do not embody a given army, or are generic enough for it not to matter. As you said, Gazhgkull is a bigger Warboss, Grotsnik is a bigger Dok. The only one that fits this "defining" nature is Wazdakka, but his current special rule in no way is the only thing enabling a "true" Kult of Speed.
However, under the current codex, a "true" Raven Guard has Fleet. A "true" Imperial Fist has Stubborn. A "true" divergent Chapter has Chapter Tactics.

To sum up, they should have left the characters as archetypes. Give the archetypes an example, and list the character, but give them as an example.

Corrode
24-03-2009, 13:33
The way you people go on you'd think Space Marines didn't focus on tactical flexibility and adaptation to the task at hand. No, no, Raven Guard only ever fight THIS way. There's no situation where they would focus on some other aspect.

Let's say I showed up to a battle with a 'Raven Guard' army, with three Vindicators and a bunch of standard Terminators. Drooling Fluffnut tells me that my army is 'unfluffy' because 'Raven Guard don't fight that way lulz'. 'Ah,' says I, 'But for this battle, the Raven Guard commander has decided that the numberless Ork horde will be destroyed more easily with the application of a devastating barrage of bullets and shells, because there are simply too many of them for a precision strike to prove effective'. Or I show up with Devastators and Scouts, and Drooling Fluffnut again accuses me of being unfluffy - but no, the Scouts are undertaking a covert mission to sneak in behind enemy lines and eliminate enemy armour, whilst the Devastators provide a flashy (but effective) distraction. I managed to come up with both of those in the shower, so I'm sure you who love the fluff to bits can come up with more, provided you free yourselves from the shackles of closed-mindedness and rigid adherence to a broad sketch of traits written down in a Codex somewhere.

Coraelion, are you really getting caught up on a pragmatic point like it being called 'Chapter' tactics? Would you have preferred they called it 'super-character's ultra-ability'? Once again I'm amazed by the total inability of the so-called 'creative' segment of the populace to actually be creative.

Lord-Caerolion
24-03-2009, 13:53
Yes, Marines are flexible, but you have to remember that Marine Chapters have a preferred modus operandii. I'm not saying that Raven Guard can't just be represented by lots of Assault Marines and Scouts, I'm saying that in the current codex they are also more than that. You can have Raven Guard-Lite, or Raven Guard.
Sure, you can have your Raven Guard with loads of Terminators and tanks if you want to, but they won't be showing what the Raven Guard preferred tactics are.

Ubermensch Commander
24-03-2009, 17:38
To OP:

Basically, they got the same treatment as every other army. Special Characters are meant to be "archetypes" as much as they are the characters themselves. The WD article on it was actually quite good. Explained the thought process behind it fairly well. This is the current design GW seems to be running with. As for the "deathworld catachans" losing their "flavor"...rules change. Nature of the Beast. Again, same as everyone else. You do not need unique rules to represent an army.

@ Lord-Caerolion
I happen to disagree with most of your assessment of SC's and their necessity to represent an army, but you are already discussing that with other board members. Rather please enlighten me on this. You mention Raven Guard-Lite and Raven Guard...what would be the difference in your mind?

Captain Micha
24-03-2009, 17:55
I like the change actually.

I'm glad they've done this with every "named Hq". It's just a special rules package you pay points for.

I mean heck, this is no different than "My army counts as Cadian for Doctrine purposes" or "tanith" or whatever.

What makes a force unique and interesting, is the things you put in it and how you play it. Not what kind of special rules you have to make it "different" from the main codex force.

eek107
24-03-2009, 18:46
While that may be true, Nostro, using the same logic I can tell Lost and the Damned players to quit their whining, as people managed to do Traitor Guard before the list was released, they should cope now.

The fact remains that, sure, you can have Salamanders without having Vulkan there. But in order to have Salamanders, you need Vulkan. Should I be penalised, told that my Captain isn't as much of a Salamander as Vulkan He'Stan is? Is a Raven Guard Captain any less of a Raven Guard Captain because they don't use a jump-pack and lightning claws? Thats what your argument is saying.
In order to get Chapter Tactics, I have to have a specific Captain there. Not in order to get Shrike Tactics, or Lysander Tactics, but to get Chapter Tactics. That is saying that only that Character embodies that Chapter, noone else can. Every other Raven Guard Captain, hell, even their Chapter Master, is less of a Raven Guard, for some reason, because they can't embody their Chapter Tactics.

If there were no way of specialising Marines to be Chapter-specific, your argument would make perfect sense. However, they have given us a way to make Marines, and most likely Guard, to be army-specific, and that was by the way of Special Characters. Without said Character, I cannot specialise my army to the degree that another could.

Ergo, my X army is not as X as this other guys X army, because I didn't include Character Y, and he did.

EDIT: And Corrode, I can see where you're coming from. Yes, I sure could make a Raven Guard army without Shrike. But now, according to the Codex, their Chapter Tactic is Fleet. It's the Raven Guard's little quirck. Unfortunately, the only way to get the Chapter Tactics of the Raven Guard is to take a Special Character.
The only other race to vaguely have this problem is the Dark Angels, but their respective Characters are generic enough anyway for them to not have bothered giving Belial and Sammael names. The Orks, sure they have Special Characters, but they don't have Wazdakka with a special rule Klan Taktiks: In any army which includes Wazdakka, Orks may assault out of closed-top transports, for example. Ork Characters do not embody a given army, or are generic enough for it not to matter. As you said, Gazhgkull is a bigger Warboss, Grotsnik is a bigger Dok. The only one that fits this "defining" nature is Wazdakka, but his current special rule in no way is the only thing enabling a "true" Kult of Speed.
However, under the current codex, a "true" Raven Guard has Fleet. A "true" Imperial Fist has Stubborn. A "true" divergent Chapter has Chapter Tactics.

To sum up, they should have left the characters as archetypes. Give the archetypes an example, and list the character, but give them as an example.

I disagree. An army is not defined by its special rules. My Salamanders aren't less "Salamander-ish" when I don't include Vulkan He'Stan in my list. They're still green, they still have the chapter iconography, they still prefer close-range firefights, and still make more use of many flamers, meltas and thunder hammers than most. I don't need Vulkan to do that.

By the same token, Raven Guard are Raven Guard whether they have Shrike's bonuses or not. The bonuses are there to represent their supremacy when they get to fight how they want. When they don't have any choice, they're just the same as anyone else. Chapter Tactics represents a chapter taking the opportunity to use their talents to greatest effect when the situation allows it, and is not a set-in-stone rule of how they always fight regardless of the conditions.

Lord-Caerolion
25-03-2009, 01:29
Chapter Tactics represents a chapter taking the opportunity to use their talents to greatest effect when the situation allows it, and is not a set-in-stone rule of how they always fight regardless of the conditions.

Gah! You've pretty much just agreed with me! Chapter Tactics is an embodiment of how a Chapter prefers to fight, correct? So why can they do it only with a specific character there?

Guys, I'm not saying that the only way to play a Chapter is to have the Character. I'm just annoyed that the way GW has worded the special rules, it insinuates that in order to have my Chapter use their own tactics, I need Character X. Yes, I know that I can still just pick units, and whatnot. I just don't like the SC obsession.

Corrode
25-03-2009, 01:40
If your entire argument against Special Characters is that you don't like the name of the rule, then you don't really have much of a leg to stand on at this point.

Lord-Caerolion
25-03-2009, 01:49
Well, I admit I got a little swept away there, my original point on entering this thread was that "counts-As" Characters won't detract from the original character. Not entirely sure when the topic moved onto this. I apologise.

souljaking09
25-03-2009, 01:51
for a bunch of wargamers you all don't have much imagination. So what if sly marbo or ironhand straken or commissar yarrick or whoever is in a different army. just say he was assigned there as a tactical advisor/commando. It doesn't have to be black and white. you can make it fluffy. Use your imagination.:angel: However, I choose to make my army with only catachan leaders. at the same time though, I do believe it is pathetic to stack unrealistic armies just to win. I am going to field ogryns, stormtroopers, and rough riders whether they are "too expensive" or not.

Corrode
25-03-2009, 02:00
Well, I admit I got a little swept away there, my original point on entering this thread was that "counts-As" Characters won't detract from the original character. Not entirely sure when the topic moved onto this. I apologise.

Somehow through the magic of the thread you've actually managed to reverse your position without realising. I can sympathise.

Templar Ben
25-03-2009, 02:34
I would have preferred for GW to have a system to create your own hero. Much like how one can take a chappy or libby and give them wargear but allow for special wargear like a pair of lightning claws that give a bonus like a free attack if an unsaved wound is given. Something to make the character special but necessarily "of Doooooommmm". GW doesn't do that because they know in about 3 hours after the first release comes over the internet everyone will know that the most efficient build is to take the PF of slappyness with the built in storm bolters as you are going to inflict 3.1677 unsaved wounds a turn against T 4 models or whatever.

GW knows they can't balance it but it sure would be fun.

Armchair General
25-03-2009, 04:07
My thoughts –

In an ideal world, every single space marine chapter (and, incidentally, every other variant list, but lets focus on space marines for the time being) would have it’s own rules – it’s own army list – it’s own codex. Obviously, GW does not have the resources to produce, let alone balance, the dozens of lists that they would need to do this. So instead, in order to provide some variations between themes, they designed and balanced (up to a point ;)) rule packages and put them in the parent codex. We call these rulesets “special characters.” That’s all they are. Packages of rules. Out of interest, as I’m on holiday and left my book at uni, does the space marine codex ever mention the phrase “special character” or “named character”?
Consider this situation – we have the option to allow a veteran sergeant to replace his Str4 I4 attacks with Str8 I1 power weapon attacks. We call this option “power fist.” ‘cause it’s somewhat neater. Does this need to actually be a fist? No. Background-wise it could be anything you liked. As long as it’s clear WYSIWYG-wise.
GW could, instead of these named characters, have designed a way for players to build Shrike or Lysander etc from a block of special rules. But this would necessarily have needed pages of rules in order to prevent it from being unbalanced in certain circumstances (you cannot take ability B with ability A and C, but you can with A or C, for example). And it still wouldn’t have been balanced. In our hypothetical ideal world, this would be a good solution. On planet earth, however...

Raven guard like to use speed, infiltration, precision strikes, and things of that kind, correct? Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but surely you can build a list to do this without shrike? Using shrike doesn’t inherently “specialise your army to be chapter specific.” How you use your army does. Nor do I personally think that it makes it any “less” of a Raven Guard army than the guy who has taken Shrike. Isn’t there more to the Raven Guard than Fleet? I suppose what I’m saying is, build your army like you did before the latest codex – it’s just as valid.

Anyway, I’m not sure how much sense that makes. Apologies for rambling. ’Tis 3am...

Torga_DW
25-03-2009, 06:32
yeah, my Chapter was just fighting one day, then Calgar turned up, and asked if he could join in! No other Ultramarines, just Calgar!

Funny story, i was at work the other day, then Calgar turned up..... no, really!

Marneus Calgar
25-03-2009, 06:51
Funny story, i was at work the other day, then Calgar turned up..... no, really!

Right, I was sent there because you were on Warseer instead of doing your job! Get back to work! ;)