PDA

View Full Version : Do you use special characters?



greenbull
28-03-2009, 11:21
Where I play, there is an unwritten rule to not use special characters. I play guard, and seeing the direction the new codex has gone with more emphasis on special characters, I wonder if this will seriously handicap my guard.
What do you think?

Deus
28-03-2009, 11:26
I run Pedro in my Marine army :)
Have been trying out Shrike as well.

nazrag
28-03-2009, 11:29
Yes!

Why wouldn't I?

mr.kislev
28-03-2009, 11:34
who doesnt? (with the new dexs)
the who does? (with the old dexs)

Shipmonkey
28-03-2009, 11:41
My Deathwing wouldn't get much play if I didn't run them.

Vaktathi
28-03-2009, 11:46
I don't use SC's personally unless I'm playing Apoc. Most of the time I just don't feel a need to field them. Also, I find many of the newer ones, particularly the Space Marine ones, to be simply too undercosted as they are, at worst on par in terms of fighting and shooting ability with their equivalent HQ types and usually much better, and give army wide benefits or some really nice rule, etc for a marginal extra cost that is practically negligable and thus become no brainers.

My fear is that they become this for the Guard as well.

I don't have a problem with things like Wazdakka or Belial being fielded in order to use different types of armies, although I wish they weren't tied to characters, but I would try and stay away from characters that are simply freebie (in terms of extra points margin over equivalent HQ's) army boosters like Vulkan or Eldrad.

EDIT: It's also awkward when SC's become plentiful and they end up in opposing armies. That just takes so much out of the visual/fluff aspect, at least for me.

Bathawk
28-03-2009, 11:49
I'm putting together a "Hawk Lord's" Army and as one of the ;esser "chapters' I wasn't too thrilled with the special charcters that aren't "canon"

of course the rules have no issue if I want to use Sergeant Teleion" with a Hawk Lords paint scheme and another name

my local group just has a rule against "named" characters in tournaments, my assumption is that this si mainly for "flavor" as theay don't want two Zagstrugs/Pedro Kantor/Prince Yuriels squaring off against each other

Industrial Propaganda
28-03-2009, 11:51
I never use them. It's unfluffy.

I only field them during Apocalypse or special scenarios.

dblaz3r
28-03-2009, 12:03
I have used Ezekiel and Belial once in an apoc game, apart from that the answer would be no. Not to say I wouldn't but as I don't have any of the others painted they won't be seeing the battle field anytime soon. At the moment I prefer the cheaper options available in the codex.

Deetwo
28-03-2009, 12:06
Special Characters are an integral part of codexes nowadays, instead of the "extra" stuff they used to be in past editions. I think trying to ignore them is not a good idea anymore.

Currently, my daemon army usually goes with 2-3 SCs and I plan to rebuild my marines to work around Shrike and/or Vulcan.

Special Characters are cool, flavorful and add some cool options to the newer books.

Born Again
28-03-2009, 12:21
So far I haven't, don't have them in my Tau or Ork army. Nothing against them though. I don't see any point in Tau special characters, they're just rather awful. I quite like some of the Ork characters, but haven't had the points to fit them in my army as yet... The Kaptin Badrukk model makes me drool, but he's very expensive even without the unit that needs to accompany him.

I'm planning on a daemon army at some point, and provided there's a model available at that point or I can do a suitable conversion, would quite like to try out Ku'Gath, as the idea of hurling Nurglings at people appeals to me :p

chromedog
28-03-2009, 12:22
I try not to unless it's a big game (at least 2500pts or apoc). I don't stop my opponent using one though.
I have ONE phoenix lord for my eldar - and I think he's been used once in 12 years.

I've made up a few models to represent new SM characters for my SM army, but haven't used them yet. I have my own 'Pedro' (made from a commander box) conversion because I don't like the pedro sculpt and my own Vulkan (made from an old Iron hands iron father) because there isn't one yet. One day they'll get a run in my SM.

Noserenda
28-03-2009, 12:25
Special characters have changed radically in the last few years, no reason not to use them now :chrome:

And personally I do enjoy occassionally like making a certain local gamer squirm when he tries to explain that a Marine captain very rarely sees combat to its unfluffy to use him... :rolleyes: :evilgrin:

Brother Gabriel
28-03-2009, 12:44
Yes i use them, and i like it a lot.

Thud
28-03-2009, 12:46
I never use them. It's unfluffy.

Indeed. We all know special characters almost never go to battle, that's why they're so special!

Reaver83
28-03-2009, 12:46
my CSM don't my daemons, well just starting on a fate weaver conversion

Steel Legion for Life
28-03-2009, 14:39
I think the Guard codex ones are all quite interesting, but they are very expensive compared to regular company HQs.

There's no cheap and cheerful character who you're almost obliged to take because he's so good, and the new abilities are powerful but expensive. There's no totally awesome "why would you take a regular HQ" in the Pedro/Shrike/Lysander mould.

Basically, use them if you want, the guard ones are all pretty reasonable.

Captain Micha
28-03-2009, 14:42
Where I play, there is an unwritten rule to not use special characters. I play guard, and seeing the direction the new codex has gone with more emphasis on special characters, I wonder if this will seriously handicap my guard.
What do you think?

I don't have anything against Special Characters in the slightest. (except for Overpriced underperforming ones)

I never fielded one before, but I probably will with the New Guard Codex.

Sly Marbo, Harkentooth both seem so awesome.

Sheena Easton
28-03-2009, 14:50
I did when I was starting out - mostly because they were the only proper Warlord / General / Wizard models available for my armies but haven't used any for several years. Though I'd still use Zodgrod if he was still available simply as I love the model and I'd consider using Badrukk if I had some Flash Gitz as I've always loved his background (same for Gorfang, Azhag & Eltharion The Grim in WFB if I still used Orcs / High Elves)

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
28-03-2009, 14:53
I dont use them. Where is the fun ?

There are reasons to not use them.

Grand Master Raziel
28-03-2009, 14:57
Note the Avatar. I started using Codex: Dark Angels about a year after it was released, and then started wanting to do some Ravenwing/Doublewing action, so I needed a counts-as-Sammael. I like the jetbike version better than the flying Land Raider version, but I didn't want to use the Sammael model - lovely though it is, I didn't want a blue-painted Sammael, and also I didn't want to screw around with a big pewter model on a flying base (I know from BFG how troublesome that can be). Hence the conversion that my Avatar features. Now, he's one of my favorite models of all, so I use him a lot.

Larger pics for your viewing pleasure.
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii130/Grand_Master_Raziel/Jan%2016%2009/DSC00621.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii130/Grand_Master_Raziel/Jan%2016%2009/DSC00622.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii130/Grand_Master_Raziel/Jan%2016%2009/DSC00620.jpg

Fay_Redd
28-03-2009, 15:28
I run carab culln in my Raptors "counts as" 1st company captain.

Hes decently priced for what he does. i have my own converted lysander as him.

Captain Micha
28-03-2009, 15:40
Nice conversion GMR. My own conversions are much more modest than this *L*

(My most skilled conversion involves Guardsmen wielding "clipless" bolters, and have Space Marine Power packs on their backs... they are my "Vespid")

Someday I'm going to have Pathfinders with knives, and a rambo esque Pathfinder special character.

The_Outsider
28-03-2009, 16:04
Nope - for the single reason that the main armeis I have either do not have one, or they are exteremely expensive and/or crap with mental restrictions.

So that translates to 13th co. Necrons and DE.

LonelyPath
28-03-2009, 18:22
My Death/Ravenwing armies wouldn't be able to see battle if I couldn't use SCs. Generally though I try to hold back on Scs and save them for special scenarios and Apoc games.

5Pointer
28-03-2009, 18:31
Nope, the specials for my 40k army are either Legion Specific or wouldn't be appropriate (Fabius Bile) for my army fluff-wise or otherwise.

I don't like counts-as for special characters either, just seems wrong to me. I could be convinced if someone took the time to write up some good story for it not just 'I wanted the ability but I don't play Ultramarines/Crimson Fists/etc'. Guess I'm saying I'd take it on a case by case basis for my opponents :)

Ubermensch Commander
28-03-2009, 19:25
Nope. Never saw a purpose being a DE player and it sits ill with me when high lord muckity muck shows up to a skirmish. That being said, I have no problem with the new characters of how their being used in the codices. I may have issues with abusive combination's and exploitation of gray areas in the rules, but as a general rule the new characters are pretty cool and allow for some fun games.

Oh, I also play without them because I do NOT need He'stan to run my Salamanders army. Still Salamanders, do not need "special snowflake" characters or rules to make them "moar Sally liek"

Giganthrax
28-03-2009, 19:51
SC every day all the way. :)

Creeping Dementia
28-03-2009, 20:00
All the special characters for the armies I play are crap (SoB, Tau), so no, I don't use special characters. I don't mind playing against them though, I am getting a little tired of killing Eldrad though, he's in every Eldar army I play against.

dlantoub
28-03-2009, 20:20
A long time ago. well not that long really, but my answer would have most definitely been yes.

I was hooked by Eldar special characters and Eldar in general. (Why oh why did I NOT buy Space Marine [before it became Epic]) Eldrad Ulthuan, Karandras and Baharroth have always been my particular favourites, though the models themselves have seen no use at all in the last ten years... I still have fond memories of these three. They all appeal to something in me. Baharroth is unrestrained freedom from worldly concerns. Karandras is the darkness that strikes at all who oppose the Eldar, and Eldrad is the one who guides the race to it's fate.

Now of course they do not mean this anymore. But at the time, they did to me. So I am still sympathetic. I guess I never grew up ><

Marneus Calgar
28-03-2009, 21:43
Indeed. We all know special characters almost never go to battle, that's why they're so special!

Actually, they go to battle so often that Creed, Pedro, and many other characters are jumping across the galaxy change uniforms/paint power armor different colors daily to fight all sorts of battles. Heck, they fight so many battles that sometimes they find fighting themselves on both sides of the battlefield.

Dakkabom
29-03-2009, 04:12
Is Boss Snikrot a special character? I assume so. He's great because anything that can infiltrate and go behind enemy lines is a small thrill for me. I like to see my five Kommandos do something spectacular before they're cut up by Imperial fire. They're my dirty quintuplet. I don't know how efficient it is having a Nob in place for Snikrot, but I can't imagine doing so.

backslide
29-03-2009, 04:18
I'm liking what I hearing about SC's in the new guard dex and I do like they way taking them in a marine list means you get a different flavour list, have enjoyed using vulkan on and off

liking what I'm hearing about straken :)

Grand Warlord
29-03-2009, 04:34
Up til this recent edition, I hadn't and 'generally' wouldn't. But this edition I have used a few, use 1 primarily as my general.

victorpofa
29-03-2009, 04:41
Depends on the list. My Ork Speed Freeks need Wazdakka, Deathwing requires Belial, Ravenwing requires Sammael, and I plan on using Vulkan in some of my future Salamander lists. Maybe Telion in a sniper squad occasionally. Snikrot and Zagstruk will probably eventually make an appearance. I have them on order.

I have no problems with my opponent using them, and plan on using them myself when the urge strikes me.

MajorWesJanson
29-03-2009, 04:44
I do, happily. Of course, I have my own names and background fluff for them, and just use the rules. I use the rules and part of the model from Calgar for my General Lethbridge-Stewart, Lord General of the Foehammers Second Regiment. First Regiment is headed by Lord General Cain, a counts-as Lysander. I have other special characters scattered throughout my chapter. And I have a few models which at this point really deserve to be special characters, but no existing SC fits them :(

CadeFrost
29-03-2009, 04:47
I am glad to see that the characters they have been putting into the codex are not as broken as they used to be. I still do not use them as I tend to prefer to have my own characters be commanding the battle force as opposed to some chapter master showing up for every brush war that pops up.

Sypher21
29-03-2009, 04:52
Of course! Don't you know Shrike always leads his Raven Guard in every little skirmish they have? So does Kantor, and the rest of them folks. I even saw Lysander himself lead a crusade of Black Templars the other day. Hell, as you can plainly see Eldrad commands the vast majority of the Eldar forces, and most of the time they're not even Ulthwe! You know what Farseer chick from Dawn of War 2? PLOT TWIST! It was Eldrad all along!

So why would I omit special characters from my lists if they're so prominent in the universe and totally don't take a dump on the fluff or, hey, even common sense for that matter.

MajorWesJanson
29-03-2009, 05:04
Eldrad is a jerk.

SquishySquig
29-03-2009, 05:20
:skull: I use the stats for Mad Dok Grotsnik for my Dokta Orkenstein which is the leader of my ork army. He's the only special character that I use, but having a pain boss lead my heavily converted ork army is vital to my fluff, so I'm not sure how having him is unfluffy. :skull:

sabre4190
29-03-2009, 05:21
I use SC conditionally, and only if it helps the theme of the army. I play narrative/fluff based lists, not in the fact that they arnt competitive, but that they also have a character of their own right. My army tells a story, and all of my characters are named, and have back stories that grow with each battle.

Using special characters obviously is a problem for this. Eldar would never use Eldrad or Yriel, because they are on a different craftworld. Why would they be fighting together? It wouldnt fit. I would rather have my own characters than a preset one. I do make exceptions when the character actually deserves to be a part of the army, because the army is built around him. Example: My ultramarines would use sicarius rather than a standard captain, because he is actually the second company captain. Or I could use Ahriman if I decided to build his personal forces with his personal style.

kamedake88
29-03-2009, 05:26
I never use them. It's unfluffy.

I only field them during Apocalypse or special scenarios.

how its it un-fluffy? really when people say that it makes no sense.

I run Ultramarines 2nd company (ya, smurfs, make a joke and fear for your life) with Sicarius because why, he is the company's captain and a solid IC to boot.

No I'm gonna run my second company with shrike because that more in line with Ultramarines fluff. :rolleyes:

Khornate Fireball (Ork)
29-03-2009, 05:43
I have considered using re-fluffed Snikrot and/or Zagstruk. But no, I don't use them. However, I like to see players' re-fluffed special characters used to represent what they want gameplaywise. That's not to say I like every kid who comes up with new fluff for Eldrad's rules; I like it when people say "I want my HQ to do X, so I will use the rules for character Y who has an ability that fits my background."

Gorbad Ironclaw
29-03-2009, 08:07
All the time. In Warmachine/Hordes :p

Really, I would in 40k, except I don't actually want to use any of the Ork ones. Really, I don't see a problem with them. Individual ones might be over/underpowered, but as a group I don't care either way. Many of them just gives you neat little tricks that can be quite fun.

I've seen a couple of the Marine ones used for instance and yes, they tune the army in a certain way, but I've yet to see the deployment of any of them equal pure win. For the most parts I don't really think they make a difference. It's certainly not just by being a special/named character. There are plenty of other choices that are at least as broken/unfluffy/overused/boring/"insert word here" I think.

As for the fluff. It's just a model with X rules. The fluff is what you make of it and if you want can easily be adapted. To me Dante in the background have very little to do with the model wearing a golden mask I nuked with a Shock Attack Gun last game or whatever happened.

Elfving71
29-03-2009, 08:15
No not in my current SM army.

But I am working on a change to my list to find room for one of them, some of them have some very nice special abilities.

I also think the sub HQ is less effective in the new codex, ie. the Chaplain.
I believe the change is made by GW to make us use the SC and not the sub HQ.

brotherhostower
29-03-2009, 08:31
Yes, and let me tell you why,

My Dark Angels Sucessor Chapter never hits the field without "Belial"
My Eldar (Biel Tann style) don't go to war without their Avatar
My IG (Gaunt's Ghosts) bring Gaunt

2nd & 3rd army it's unfluffy to NOT have them. the 1st is because Belial is NOT a special character, I've fielded a terminator captain since I started playing at the start of 3rd ed, and now in order to do that I HAVE to take "Belial" who is NOT special (He's a terminator armor wearing captain, anything special he gives is only useful in a Deathwing list anyway and it was something we used to get for just playing DW).

With the new IG codex coming out, I won't have Gaunt, so I'll have to make him a company commander if the commissar lord really can't get a ******* power weapon & bolt pistol. None of the new IG unit upgrade characters fit his skillset sadly.

yabbadabba
29-03-2009, 08:39
Yes. Can't see why not.

Tsillanabor
29-03-2009, 08:50
No, because I play Tyranids currently and we don't have any.:p

I don't mind if anyone else does, and if I bring my Eldar out for a large game I might run some Phoenix Lords.

dal9ll
29-03-2009, 09:05
Special Characters I use:

-Lucius the Eternal
-Skulltaker
-Epidemus
-The Blue Scribes
-Ghazghkull Thraka
-Ol' Zogwort
-Wazzdakka Gutsmek
-Boss Zagstruk & Boss Snikrot (although they technically arent special characters)

Eldrad is the best SC in the game IMO though...

Zujara
29-03-2009, 09:05
I've never fielded a special character in 40k other than 1 time a long ago using the Red Terror. None of them currently fit my armies though, Tyranids have none, Witch Hunters aren't really that great, and my Eldar are exodites so it makes little sense.

Not to say I have a problem with special characters at all, I face them all the time without complaint and if there happens to be one sometime that fits my army I would be all for using it on occasion.

Grazzy
29-03-2009, 11:32
Very few are really that game breaking. Only a few marine ones, eldrad and abbaddon are truly game changing.

Arcadian
29-03-2009, 16:46
Well.. I'm a DA player.. so yeah.. My current list for my DAs includes Belial and Sameal.. (though my army is RT-esque Black Deathwing so they have other names..)

I do not use SC in my Nid army..(of course..)
I cant recall ever using a Special Character in my DE Fantasy Army.. though I did consider using Malus one time... I chose not to. Oh..I take that back.. I did use Mengil and his DOW a couple of times.

Personally I got nothing against SC, and think they can be fun.. especially to play against.. Even the 'broken' ones.. cause on those random occasions when they do get 'beat down' it can make the victory that much more Epic..
I remember the games I take down Elderad, or my fave to date.. when my Hydra bit the head off a Buddy's Fae after everything she threw at it failed, and her Unicorn was lashed into Submission..That was three years or more ago. and I still remember it fondly.

Thrax
29-03-2009, 18:33
I don't use them. Never have, except the Red Terror. I especially hate the new Space Marine codex trend of unlocking special army traits due to some so-called hero. Now that IS "unfluffy!" Why?

"Gee, our decades/centuries of training all depend on whether or not 'Commander X' shows up for this backwater firefight." Ridiculous. Bring back the trait system for armies, maybe with a point cost for unique abilities. Or give me the opportunity to spend points on creating my own special character. 'Counting as' Marneus Calgar, Abaddon, etc. is already enough of a stretch as is.

kairous
29-03-2009, 18:40
i don't see a problem, good focus point with which to theme an army around, especially now they are written into the list.

Currently i don't have any, but i have always wanted to add abaddon to my black legion army, along with a 10 man strong termie squad, all champions with lightning claws:D, just becuase i think it would look cool.

tuebor
29-03-2009, 18:48
Oh, I also play without them because I do NOT need He'stan to run my Salamanders army. Still Salamanders, do not need "special snowflake" characters or rules to make them "moar Sally liek"

I agree entirely with this.

I use Creed quite a bit, even though he is useless, although that will be changing soon. I started playing in 3d Edition but never caught the Special Character hating bug that everyone else seemed to have. Of course some of them did annoy me, especially Baharroth in the old Craftworld codex, but I never really disliked Special Characters on principle. Of course, if I was having a game where my opponent had the same character (assuming he wasn't a renamed "counts as" guy with a different model) I'd generally change my list to use a generic HQ or another character or they would change theirs.

Colonial Rifle
29-03-2009, 18:50
I play BA - I don't have a choice. Our generic HQ's are such junk, I *have* to field special characters.

landingshortly
29-03-2009, 18:52
Dark Angels: I use Belial and Asmodei, I plan on usining Ezekiel and Azrael as well when I extend my Deathwing to the normal ranks as well.

Ulthwé: I don't use Eldrad but fluff-wise, I sometimes use Taldeer the Dreamer and Aluhrial Juriane for fluff-action. So no, not really.

Tyranids: My hive tyrants are called Ronald McDonald and The Colonel. My fexes are called The King of Burgers, Mr. In and Out, The Pizza Hut Dude and Wendy. But that does not count now does it? :D

infernus31
29-03-2009, 18:56
I haven't used SCs for my Nids (obviously) and haven't yet used them for my Guard, I may use Yarrick in Apocalypse sized games but aside from that like to use my own characters and build up thier character. Though dont mind at all facing down one of these mighty heroes, it just adds to the atmosphere.

Akuma
29-03-2009, 19:25
never - it takes whole Darkness and despiar from the game ... The only pts that I would concider using SC is when playing 2000 points. 1K games with Vulkan and his rutinue are just not fluffy and not to fun at all ...

World Eater
29-03-2009, 21:23
I use Kharn quite alot as my army is supposed to be his Pre-Heresy World Eaters 8th Assault Company. Being a pre-heresy list i dont use certain units within the chaos codex such as defilers, DP's, GD's etc so while some might consider using Kharn alot overpowered I make up for it by only using limited units from the codex to fit the theme of my army.

I have also used Abaddon a few times in larger games as a counts-as Angron.

colmarekblack
29-03-2009, 23:01
I run Khorne daemons so the only 'fluffy' sc's I can only use are Skulltaker and Karanak. I run nether in regular games. Karanak is next to useless in my battle plan and Skulltaker is too expensive for a 2-wound model. Only used ST for the first time last week and that was for a store-wide apocalypse game, he didn't even make combat due to being killed by an exploding stormsword (which was killed by an exploding titan, in-turn killed by me :angel:)

Gimp
29-03-2009, 23:42
I play Pedro Kantor

But I have always always played with them from the time of 3rd ed when i got into the game. I picked up the cover of the codex and loved them. I used cortez and then in 4th ed I had to deal with the crappy list but now I have problems with Kantor :)

But now everyone is pitching up with a "crimson fists" army with kantor even if they dont know anything about the chapter or even painted right :mad:

My friend who has been playing Salamanders since the Armageddon codex has the same problem with Vulkan :(

Warforger
30-03-2009, 02:36
I play Blood Angels, like my DA bretheren If I can't take SC's I'm handicapped.

Unlike most other BA players I take Mephiston, his combat skillz mobility and toughness is priceless, with his High Initiave, strength, and WS he tears apart most units he touches, he does better then my DC have. I tried Dante, but he didn't work out that well, and Mephiston usually dominates my army.

Frontier
30-03-2009, 02:46
I picked them up to add flavor to some Marine builds I wanted to try out. Pedro is pretty cool, but I am finding myself partial to Lysander.

AfroCelt
30-03-2009, 03:39
Used Ghazzy in 'Ardboys. Felt a bit dirty. Also used Badrukk in Apocalypse and felt fine...he did nothing,but I like to imagine his freebootaz joined the fight on the promise of teeth...lots and lots of teeth.

A1TEC
30-03-2009, 11:31
only use special characters in 2000pts or more...

Jellicoe
30-03-2009, 13:41
only used Dante and Lemartes in a 7000 point Apocalypse which was fine for me. I have used the Red Terror in the past but now he sits on the shelf

I have an Abaddon that I have yet to use - maybe in an apocalypse of suitable size one day

mughi3
30-03-2009, 13:54
People resist change, it will take some time for them to get over 3rd edition style 40K where special characters where permission only and at certain points levels of games.


They may have totally missed or are stuck on the fact GW has changed direction on this issue. there are no more "special characters" what there are now is named characters that are usualy better than anything you can build due to the lack of armories anymore. these named characters also provide army build unlocks that previously only exhisted with things like chapter traits or ork clans.

I've seen alot of hate directed at characters of late and by old time gamers, people really need to get over themselves and just enjoy the game. named characters are a facet of he game and are here to stay.

Do i use them? well my deathwing and ravenwing i kind of have to, my DIY marine list doesn't because i run a MOTF, i'm certain if they had one with a name he would be even better with a cool model and i would cetainly take him, but as it stands something like that doesn't exhist.

DhaosAndy
30-03-2009, 14:43
To answer the OP.

Yes, it will affect your guard army, there are options tied to named/special characters, so if these options prove to be part of the most efficient build for a guard army, your army will be less effective than it could be.

mughi3: "People resist change, it will take some time for them to get over 3rd edition style 40K where special characters where permission only and at certain points levels of games. They may have totally missed or are stuck on the fact GW has changed direction on this issue. there are no more "special characters" what there are now is named characters that are usualy better than anything you can build due to the lack of armories anymore. these named characters also provide army build unlocks that previously only exhisted with things like chapter traits or ork clans."

I haven't missed the point, I understand it perfectly and disagree wholeheartedly with it. It's gradually killing my love for this game.

So I have a question for those who agree with this direction, how do you get over those situations that are fundamentaly silly?

For example, are you Ok with two salamanders armies facing off, both led by the same named character?

Now before this could only happen by mutual consent, which is fine. It can now be inflicted by one player on another, simply because they both play, say Deathwing, which is wrong.

Options like Deathwing should be part of the army list not tied to characters then, situations like this are simply explained as schisms within a chapter.

The irony, for me anyway, is that having created the perfect vehicle for named characters (Apoc) the designers have let them make nonsense of the background by forcing them into the main game.

eek107
30-03-2009, 17:43
I sometimes use named characters, and I've yet to hear a convincing reason not to. The main objection seems to be from the "fluff" standpoint and I don't understand how using a character specifically mentioned in the background to lead his/her army is less "fluffy" than making one up. There can only have been so many 2nd company captains of the Ultramarines...

Besides, I spent a lot of time and money on my Vulkan He'Stan, so I'm going to make damn sure it was worth my while!;)


So I have a question for those who agree with this direction, how do you get over those situations that are fundamentaly silly?

For example, are you Ok with two salamanders armies facing off, both led by the same named character?

Now before this could only happen by mutual consent, which is fine. It can now be inflicted by one player on another, simply because they both play, say Deathwing, which is wrong.

Options like Deathwing should be part of the army list not tied to characters then, situations like this are simply explained as schisms within a chapter.

The irony, for me anyway, is that having created the perfect vehicle for named characters (Apoc) the designers have let them make nonsense of the background by forcing them into the main game.

I'd be a bit taken aback by having two of the same army (whether it be Sallies, Deathwing, whatever) fighting each other in the first place, even without the same character leading them. The whole "renegade" or "training exercise" excuses only go so far before they start to wear a bit thin. Not every battle has to be explained by the background, it's just a game. :)

The SkaerKrow
30-03-2009, 18:02
I don't use them in Warhammer Fantasy (and am opposed to their use in general), but in 40K I wholly endorse them. Especially those found in Codex: Space Marines, as they're both well designed and not always tied to a single person within the game world (e.g. think Kayvaan Shrike would make the perfect Master for your Homebrew chapter? BAM! One color scheme/conversion later, and you're all set).

Tae
30-03-2009, 18:19
I don't because there are none that I want to use!

If C:SM contained a Master of the Forge type charcter I'd almost certainly take him for my Iron Hands army. However it doesn't and none of the other ones particuarly fit (Vulkan might if I took a lot of meltas/flamers, but I don't).

Personally I'm not opposed to them in either 40k or WFB. They're part of the game. I've always used them (where I felt they suited my army) and always will do. No one will ever change my view on this or convince me what I am doing is in some way 'wrong'. If you don't like it, that's fine then don't play them. But I'm never going to have my game dictated to me by anyone (proper tournaments not withstanding, obviously :rolleyes:)

Kurisu313
30-03-2009, 19:49
I run Khorne daemons so the only 'fluffy' sc's I can only use are Skulltaker and Karanak

What about Skarbrand?


On topic, SC's are fine these days. Only a few stand out as unbalanced (I positively hate Vulkan He'Stan*, and have you fought Mad Doc Grotsnik with a unit of Meganobz?**). Also, you get a real buzz when you kill one, just check my sig :evilgrin:, killing Gazhgkull recently was a pleasant achievment. I'm positively looking forward to the first time I get to face Marneus Calgar!

*Not so much that he's unbalanced, I've never faced him, I just hate his design ethic. So you get a 2+/3++ save, eternal warrior, a twin-linked heavy flamer and a master-crafted relic blade? It's too many exceptions applied to one model, IMO.

**Again, not so much unbalanced as sheer terrifying. A 2+/5++ 2 wound unit with FNP and 3 Power Klaw attacks each? :eek: It's a case of if you don't have the paper, this rock's gonna roll all over ya!

LonelyPath
30-03-2009, 20:39
As I mentioed earler in the thread, I use Sammael and Belial in my Raven/Deathwing armies, they have to be in them for them to be used. However, if an opponent allows it, I take a Interrogator Chaplain ins terminator armour or on a bike to lead them in another format. It still fits with the fluff for the armies even if it's not legal as the book describes them. if your opponent allows such things, you're free to do as you like. In the previous DA codex your RW could be led by a chaplain on bike, it can't be now, but permission gives you some leway. Try it out and see what happens, it can be fun.

My Crimson Fists will feature Pedro Kantor for larger games (not necessarily Apoc) and certain scenarios, but the main force for regular gaming will feature alot of scouts (to reflect the chapter being rebuilt) with veterans backing them up. Of course, without Kantor the Sternguard aren't scoring units, but I see the remaining power armoured marines as something of veteran status in the chapter now, in my mind it fits the fluff. When Kantor's not leading the force, a Captain with 2 power fists will be there, but it won't be the Kantor mini, it's an old one I'd stripped from my original CF army that'll be converted to add some newer compnents and a fresh lick of paint.

With my other armies, I'll feature SCs in my Daemons (wen I eventually ut more of the army together), my Nids don't have them (and I never used those in the 3E codex either) and various other forces only use them if necessary or if I think the army composition supports the theme for that character best. As for Eldar, never used SC, they were done to death for me.

The worst one was likely a old friends SW army which routinely went to battle with ever SC available on the field! Another friend always had as many Smurf characters as he could cram into the points limit (and never without Calgar, but I showed him by managing to kill him in combat alot, usually with a Termagant to add insult to injury, lol). Those situations were overkill where SCs were concerned, but in the right setting they're fine and even if it's not in fitting, I won't put down another player since they think Charatcer X is fighting in that particular battle, even if the points limit is pretty small.

So, I've no problem with seeing a SC or 2 on the battlefield, not even when they were permission only, they can make things fun and add new dimensions to games. When the 13th Black Crusade hit I had a all CSM Termie force for some scenarios then they were trying to take over various key points during planetary strikes and boarding actions, not codex legal, ut they fit the scenarios/missions we'd created.

edward3h
30-03-2009, 20:52
I've pulled out Celestine, Solar Macharius and Abaddon for Apocalypse games, because I had the models, but I've never used them in regular games.

When the new Guard Codex comes out I may use something from that, but as people are saying, the Guard characters aren't bargains like some of the Marine commanders I see all the time.

Occulto
31-03-2009, 06:57
So I have a question for those who agree with this direction, how do you get over those situations that are fundamentaly silly?

*shrugs*

I simply look at special characters as units that don't have options and get on with the game.

There's always going to be things that don't make sense and it goes way beyond two identical special characters facing off against each other. It's the problem with not having any kind of narrative behind 99% of all games played. As others have said, there's only so many times you can think: "training mission" before it gets really stale.

What I find amusing, is this.

Let's say two players both play Ultramarines and both of them put down Chapter Masters. Now that's just as silly as Marneus facing off against his twin, because no chapter that I'm aware of has two Chapter Masters.

Of course, because the Chapter Master is not a special character, that never gets raised in these threads.

I'm happier that SCs actually hit the tables these days. Looking at models like the Phoenix Lords - it was a constant shame never see them because people never wanted to take an option that could be vetoed due to "opponent's permission."

yabbadabba
31-03-2009, 08:07
Let's say two players both play Ultramarines and both of them put down Chapter Masters. Now that's just as silly as Marneus facing off against his twin, because no chapter that I'm aware of has two Chapter Masters.

Look at it this way mate. If it was a campaign with a strong narrative theme then yes. But if it is a game ... ... it's just chess and no one complains about both sides having a queen :D

DhaosAndy
31-03-2009, 12:03
Occulto: "*shrugs* I simply look at special characters as units that don't have options and get on with the game."

Oh I get on with the game, but each time I see characters in the wrong army/same one on both sides a little more love of the game dies :(

Occulto: "Let's say two players both play Ultramarines and both of them put down Chapter Masters. Now that's just as silly as Marneus facing off against his twin, because no chapter that I'm aware of has two Chapter Masters."

Now to me thats just not as irritating, and far easier to rationalise away.

Occulto: "I'm happier that SCs actually hit the tables these days. Looking at models like the Phoenix Lords - it was a constant shame never see them because people never wanted to take an option that could be vetoed due to "opponent's permission.""

Can't agree with you, I often saw them used as normal characters of their race/faction. Also they were often used in campaigns, especialy in the big climactic battles, which is were they belonged (IMHO). Rather than the Eldrad all over the place/Kantor in every chapter, etc. We have now.

yabbadabba: "Look at it this way mate. If it was a campaign with a strong narrative theme then yes. But if it is a game ... ... it's just chess and no one complains about both sides having a queen"

It's not the same thing at all you know, I've played both, one just does not identify with a chess set in the way one does with a 40k army and only a tiny minority of chess players make their own sets.

yabbadabba
31-03-2009, 13:38
It's not the same thing at all you know, I've played both, one just does not identify with a chess set in the way one does with a 40k army and only a tiny minority of chess players make their own sets.

Your not the only one. and yet your comment proves my point. If two players build an army around Marneus Calgar, why should either not use him in their army?

One off games are just fun games. Tournaments are a series of one off games which link to an end result. The only place where duplicate or any SC's has an impact is on a narrative campaign.

I can't see the problem in 2 Ultramarine Armies lead by Tigurius (or whatever) going at each other.

DhaosAndy
31-03-2009, 17:00
yabbadabba: "Your not the only one. and yet your comment proves my point. If two players build an army around Marneus Calgar, why should either not use him in their army?"

My point is that players should only build their armies around Marneus Calgar by mutual agreement.

yabbadabba: "One off games are just fun games. Tournaments are a series of one off games which link to an end result. The only place where duplicate or any SC's has an impact is on a narrative campaign."

I disagree, to me all games of 40K are part of the on going saga of the 41st millenium.

yabbadabba: "I can't see the problem in 2 Ultramarine Armies lead by Tigurius (or whatever) going at each other."

Again we disagree, since I find that possibility fundamentally silly.

Carlos
31-03-2009, 17:04
Not as much as I used to. The Tau characters are all rubbish anyway and I deem the Phoenix Lords in my Eldar army too expensive. For the cost of Asurmen I can buy an Avatar and a Farseer. Since run came back only a fool would use a Phoenix Lord over the Avatar.
That said I really love Fuegan and try to fit him in whenever I play a large battle of any description. Yriel is also a bargain and when joined by a squad of harlequins becomes an absolute monster.

mughi3
01-04-2009, 09:49
The Tau characters are all rubbish anyway

Not true
farsight is the only tau character good in CC and gives your army prefered enemy against orks...not to mention access to lots of suits


R'myr is also a pretty cool HQ option.

battle captain corpus
01-04-2009, 10:33
I regulary take Lysander (High Lord Artemis - Palladin of Helios) in my Justicars of Dorn chapter lists.

I did spend years not taking special characters, but to be honest with the new Codex and the background to my Chapter it just made sense to take that extra "booster".

Plus with a 10 man TDA retinue he is pretty damn hard to get to! Hahahha! :D

Corpus

gonzosbignose
01-04-2009, 10:45
Im off to a tournement this weekend with Ghazz, snikrot and Zagstrukk....

I think that makes my views clear on SC

regards

My name is Daniel and i am a wargamer

The boyz
01-04-2009, 10:54
I used to occasionally take to the field using Captain Tycho. Since he got killed defending Armageddon, I decided to retire him. So other then Tycho, I haven't used 'named' character's in age's.

Spider-pope
01-04-2009, 13:34
yabbadabba: "Your not the only one. and yet your comment proves my point. If two players build an army around Marneus Calgar, why should either not use him in their army?"

My point is that players should only build their armies around Marneus Calgar by mutual agreement.



Sorry but i find this patently absurd. If someone makes the effort of either purchasing or converting their own version of Marneus Calgar, no-one has the right to tell them they cant use him.



I disagree, to me all games of 40K are part of the on going saga of the 41st millenium.

Well then lucky for you that GW have made an acceptable reason why carbon copies of special characters would be fighting each other. The Changeling. A Daemon that spends its time playing pranks and impersonating other people. If you really cant accept that a game is just a game sometimes, then there you go, Barry Calgar is actually The Changeling causing trouble, not the twin brother of Marneus.

I personally am not too keen on special characters, i prefer to create new personalised characters of my own, and sometimes it does get grating to be fighting Abaddon yet again. If the games i played dictated fluff then Captain Turel of the Blood Drinkers is Abaddons nemesis given how many times they have encountered each other.

But i would never refuse to play an opponent who used them. I play the game for fun, and i want my opponent to enjoy it too. So if Abaddon turning up to lead 15 guys in a minor skirmish lets s/he/it enjoy a game, then fine i can put up with it.

yabbadabba
01-04-2009, 14:11
yabbadabba: "Your not the only one. and yet your comment proves my point. If two players build an army around Marneus Calgar, why should either not use him in their army?"

My point is that players should only build their armies around Marneus Calgar by mutual agreement.

yabbadabba: "One off games are just fun games. Tournaments are a series of one off games which link to an end result. The only place where duplicate or any SC's has an impact is on a narrative campaign."

I disagree, to me all games of 40K are part of the on going saga of the 41st millenium.

yabbadabba: "I can't see the problem in 2 Ultramarine Armies lead by Tigurius (or whatever) going at each other."

Again we disagree, since I find that possibility fundamentally silly.

Fundamentally silly? How? It's just a bunch of metal and plastic toy soldiers. You don't need an excuse or reason for Tigurius to face Tigurius. You can just do it.

OK, then answer me this. We have both agreed to meet at our club. We are going to play a one off game for a laugh. We both bring an Ultramarine army based around Marneus Calgar. Why should either of us not play with him? We have bought and painted him, and made an army to go with him. Who reserves the right to judge which of us should use him, and which of us shouldn't?

You are right, we do disagree. In the end, for me, it is all about my hobby.

Deetwo
01-04-2009, 14:54
I prefer to think about warhammer as a wargame first and foremost.
Fluff is nice and it's a great resource for flavor, background and character of your army, but in the end it's still simply a strategy game, not a historical re-enactment.

Realism never had anything to do with a game of Warhammer, and never will.

If Marneus Calgar was named Bob and had no background text, would you care if both sides had a Bob?

DhaosAndy
01-04-2009, 15:43
Spider-pope: "Sorry but i find this patently absurd. If someone makes the effort of either purchasing or converting their own version of Marneus Calgar, no-one has the right to tell them they cant use him."

Well I've made the effort, I have all the named characters for the Legions I play and most of the others as well. They were not bought with the intention of using them in regular lists, even the recent ones. I must point out that until recently GW did, quite rightly IMHO, stipulate by mutual agreement, so they do have the right, and should exercise it again.

Spider-pope: "Well then lucky for you that GW have made an acceptable reason why carbon copies of special characters would be fighting each other. The Changeling. A Daemon that spends its time playing pranks and impersonating other people. If you really cant accept that a game is just a game sometimes, then there you go, Barry Calgar is actually The Changeling causing trouble, not the twin brother of Marneus."

I find that as thin and forced as all the other justifications for absurdity, but that's just me.

Spider-pope: "I personally am not too keen on special characters, i prefer to create new personalised characters of my own, and sometimes it does get grating to be fighting Abaddon yet again. If the games i played dictated fluff then Captain Turel of the Blood Drinkers is Abaddons nemesis given how many times they have encountered each other.

But i would never refuse to play an opponent who used them. I play the game for fun, and i want my opponent to enjoy it too. So if Abaddon turning up to lead 15 guys in a minor skirmish lets s/he/it enjoy a game, then fine i can put up with it."

I too prefer to create my own characters, and I wouldn't refuse a game just on the basis that someone is using a named character. Though the use of Eldrad to lead the forces of the Biel Tan would certainly attract a little light mockery :angel:

yabbadabba: "OK, then answer me this. We have both agreed to meet at our club. We are going to play a one off game for a laugh. We both bring an Ultramarine army based around Marneus Calgar. Why should either of us not play with him? We have bought and painted him, and made an army to go with him. Who reserves the right to judge which of us should use him, and which of us shouldn't?"

Couldn't happen, because:

1/ I don't own and wouldn't use a loyalist SM army.

2/ I wouldn't bring a named character except by mutual arrangement.

3/ Even in the event of a mutual agreement I would always have an alternative list without the named character, in case I manage to fit another game in after our game (and as an added insurance against silliness).

Deetwo: "If Marneus Calgar was named Bob and had no background text, would you care if both sides had a Bob?"

He isn't and he has, question unanswerable.

Kurisu313
01-04-2009, 15:54
Dhaosandy, are you seriously unable to answer hypothetical questions?

Special characters are nowadays just generic templates, and they always have been to a degree. Some require more justification than others, but are seriously telling me that you wouldn't let me use my deathwing, just because I'm forced to use Belial?

AlexCage
01-04-2009, 15:55
I've never fielded a special character before in my life, both on principle (I don't play Cadian, Steel Legion, or Tanith 1st. They'd be in the wrong regiment!), and for gameplay purposes, i.e. sucking(looking at you, Creed).

With the new IG codex my preliminary lists all include Creed and Kell, most lists also include Chenkov, Yarrick, and possibly Marbo, all together. *sigh* Guess it's easy to have principles when your Codex sucks.

DhaosAndy
01-04-2009, 19:06
Kurisu313: "Dhaosandy, are you seriously unable to answer hypothetical questions?"

Only when the're serious :D

Seriously, such things wouldn't happen, I wouldn't agree to a game in which I fielded the same named character as you, so I see no point in developing the argument along those lines.

Kurisu313: "Special characters are nowadays just generic templates, and they always have been to a degree. Some require more justification than others, but are seriously telling me that you wouldn't let me use my deathwing, just because I'm forced to use Belial?"

I'm not telling you what you should do with your army, what I'm arguing about is what the rules should and should not permit. Vis-A-Vis your deathwing I'd be happy to play against them, led by Belial, I'd be happier still if you were able to take deathwing with or without Belial, as you saw fit.

The crux is this, in times past SC's were by consent, GW went to great lengths to justify that position, they convinced me that their position on SC's was correct (not that I ever refused to play anyone using them, even then). They have changed their minds and presented new arguments to justify their current position. I find the later less convincing than the former and feel no compunction in saying so.

x-esiv-4c
01-04-2009, 19:08
I guess the CSM codex is considered a "new codex"....and no, don't use any of those characters. Total waste of points.

Phunting
01-04-2009, 21:28
I used to use Creed in very large battles to represent my general. Since the High Command Chapter Approved came out I use that instead.

I don't like them, though I'd never refuse to play against them.

Bunnahabhain
01-04-2009, 21:54
I dislike having special characters everywhere, but accept it as an unfortunate necessity with current codexs.

With many armies now relying on special characters just to exist, trying to ban them is simply a sign that you've not moved on since 2nd/3rd ed.

I really wish that GW had made it possible to take the FOC altering and other significant in game effects on generic characters, and that some special characters were not simply miles better than the generic alternative.

weissengel86
01-04-2009, 22:32
I use them. They just are all "counts as" characters for me. I just use the rules with my own unique character that I made and my custom chapter, IG, or inquisition force.

jsullivanlaw
01-04-2009, 23:15
My gaming group doesn't allow them. It seems very unfluffy that someone like Abaddon is going to be involved in every little skirmish that happens. The 40k universe is just so massive that it doesn't make much sense to me. Special characters are also always undercosted, a good example being comparing Eldrad Uthuan to a standard farseer. Eldrad is better in every way.

MrGiggles
02-04-2009, 00:56
I found myself using SC's when I was just starting out. The main reason was that I got Mad Dok Grotsnik in a bunch of stuff and he was the first real HQ choice I had. Aside from that, he soaked points well when I didn't have many models. Now, I use them pretty much the same way. I pulled out Mad Dok Grotsnik for a 750 point tourney because I ran out of Grotz and he fit the theme and filled out points. Otherwise though, there are just far more interesting things to do with the points for the most part.

tacoo
02-04-2009, 01:00
for me it mostly depends on point limits, i mean sure i could field the skull taker under 1000, and sure i could just go on to stomp on all of his nobs

A1TEC
02-04-2009, 04:47
No special Characters under 2000pts

Pooky
02-04-2009, 05:06
I usually use Lysander with my marines but some people don't like it. I also have a Chaplain, Libby and I'm building a Captain. If someone will let me use it I will, if they don't like it then that's ok too, I'll just use something else.

I don't use SC's with my Tau army.

Skyrir
02-04-2009, 05:13
Totally. Why not? As most are fairly reasonable these days (Not Overkill or Underkill), I think it's just a matter of preference between SC and nameless HQ. I play CSM, Eldar, and Traitor Guard, and I have Abbadon, Lucius, Kharn, Karandras, and Jain Zar as well as various other HQ, mainly chaos lord conversions. I've also got The Postersmurf King, Brother Captain Stern, Pedro Kantor, Kaptain Badrukk, and Dante, who I bought to paint.

I have too many models.

holmcross
02-04-2009, 05:14
I prefer the 'counts-as' approach.

I'd use the special rules but not the name.

Not really a big deal, but I just don't care for special characters.

Elfving71
02-04-2009, 08:35
I prefer the 'counts-as' approach. I'd use the special rules but not the name.
I do the same, I think SC is the only way of getting some Special abilities for SM or Ork players. A Tau player have some cool upgrades for commanders and crises suites to get some abilities, SM or Ork don't, but they can use the points on a SC to get the abilities.