Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Games Workshop seem to be encouraging people to use Special Characters more in the recent Codices. Special Characters are now included in the main army list, and there are a lot more of them per army.

Previously, Special Characters could only be included with the agreement of your enemy. Would people like to see return to this?

Personally, I am of the opinion that Special Characters, being unique, should be extremely rare. I think they are a fantastic way of fleshing out the background of an army, but should be restricted to 'special' games. I can't see Marneus Calgar leading every 1500pt Ultramarine skirmish, or a C'Tan Star God personally leading every Necron raid. I can also remember playing 2ed when it seemed that EVERY Eldar army out there included Eldrad Ulthran, which was never fun.

This even translates to some of the more (fluff-wise) 'rare' units. The Avatar of Khaine being woken for every Eldar skirmish? Surely something that only happens in the biggest of battles?

Anyway, what do people think?

ArbitorIan wrote:Previously, Special Characters could only be included with the agreement of your enemy. Would people like to see return to this?

Previously most Special Characters required permission. There were exceptions.

However, as it stands, Special Characters still require your opponent's permission, at least in friendly games, just the same as the rest of the army does. If you don't like playing against SC's all the time, discuss it with your opponent.

Towards the end of 2nd edition, a lot of players in some areas had stopped using Psykers, and simply stripped the Psychic phase from the game, due to it being so horribly powerful (at least for some armies) that it basically forced players to use a Psyker in every army list.

The point? If you don't like an aspect of the game, change it.

I can't see Marneus Calgar leading every 1500pt Ultramarine skirmish, or a C'Tan Star God personally leading every Necron raid.

This is something that comes largely from people missing the actual scale of the game. A 1500 point game isnt necessarily representing a battle containing only those forces on the table. It's quite possibly just a small part of a much larger battle.

And in a universe constantly at war, where the major characters tend to live for centuries... there's a lot of battles for them to be a part of. And that's not even including the 'What if...' battles that couldn't actually have happened within the established 40K timeline (Characters being alive at different times, for example).

Likewise with the Avatar... he's not woken for every skirmish (although I would think that once woken to battle, he'd stay woken for the war)... but if you include him in every army, it simply means you're only playing out those battles in which he took part.

I think the real shift is that in the past "special characters" represented larger than life historic personae, but now they are used to represent archetypes of different personalties common to the leadership of different races and factions.

It the continuing shift away from the reenactment of 40k history aspect more prevalent in Rogue Trader and 2nd edition scenarios.

I like the way the characters are getting a little more powerful seeming and unique. As it provides something interesting for Apocalypse games where there great to have on the table.

As to whether or not they should be in "small" battles, it could be argued that you only ever play the important battles in the 40k universe. As there are countless wars being fought why not only play the important ones.

Having said that I do agree that it takes away the special feel of the characters to see them every game. So my gaming group rarely uses them. Though Snikrot has become such a valuable asset to my Kommandos he's around a lot.

I love special characters. As has been made quite clear recently, Marneus Calgar is my fav character (and my Half Brother). I think special characters are a great edition to forces for big Apoc games, or games between friends where you're telling a series of stories.

For tournaments they're a crutch, and I utterly despite/hate/loath/wish death upon the writers for making special characters that change the makeup of your force (ie. making them so important that they must be taken).

I hate it how in order to take Deathwing you have to take a special character. I hate it it how Ravenwing now always has that dude on the 'only' Jetbike left in the whole frickin' universe (getting spare parts must be a bitch when you have the ONLY Jetbike evar!!1!). And I'm going to hate it how people who want to play Sallies have to bring a Sallie character, or those wishing to use Crimson Fists will be stuck having to take the same special character in every fething game.

Once that happens, they cease being Special.

In fact, one of the few good things about the Chaos Codex is that you're not required to bring Ahriman/Typhus/Lucius/Kharn in order to bring Cult units as troops. Can you imagine the rage from all the ex-Emperor's Children players out there if they had to bring Lucius the Eternally Useless to every damned battle? I mean, losing rules for the Emperor's Children was enough, but how much of a kick in the balls would it be if you had to being named characters to bring Cult units as troops. That's the one saving grace of that Codex.

BYE

I would like to see Special Characters reserved for Apocalypse games.

But they are pricey and GW likes to sell them as part of the regular range, so players should be able to field them in regular games.

It is somewhat silly to have Marneus Calgar lead a 1000-pt army. But perhaps that's just "the tip of the spear", so it's less silly.

As a person who holds 'Counts As' in very high regards, I don't mind SCs at all. Since you cannot build anything like them as you want in the newer codices, then I think you have to use what you can.

In many armies, you HAVE to take SCs. Deathwing anyone? Ravenwing?

Considering examples such as that, I would hope to see people loosen up a little about being a philistine regarding SCs.

To be honest they aren't special characters at all. They haven't been for a long time. They are a name to a specific set of (normally) unmodifiable rules.

yeah,
I agree that the main characters should be apoc only... and although the speartip point carries little water, I don't want to see them in my 1500pt games.

But I also now agree with Hellfurys point that they are just named special rule/stats guys...
counts as work for me... So maybe I'll convert up some nurglified important figues in my chaos warband that count as 'Kharn' 'Typhus' and 'Abaddon' and give them a go. It'll be the first time i ever played a special character.


PaniC...

I like how "special" characters are now popping up all other the place. back when you had to ask for permission i would ask the opponent if he could feild his if he had any. i love pitting my eldar elites against the best of the best and winning or die trying, i love having bragging rights that a simple farseer brought down abandon. it's awsome or vise versa, where i throw everything i have it it and losing, you true respect the characters and there background and can say wow no wonder they are so feared

Needing to ask permission doesn't work.

As soon as you need to ask permission, people automatically assume it's because the thing you're using is somehow unbalanced and/or overpowered, and instantly say no.

It's the reason they took the 'Opponent Permission Required' bit out of all the Forgeworld Imperial Armour books - they wanted people to use their stuff, and needing to ask permission just achieves the opposite of that.

BYE

Warmachine is successful soaking up a little of 40k's action on the wargaming front....

Warmachine/Hordes is ALL about special characters....

I think this is whats really behind all the special character business recently concerning 40k/Fantasy. (Moreso 40k)



....I also think we should start being more careful about suggesting that Characters be used only in Apocolypse. I mean, it's not like Apocolypse is a real game or anything.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I love special characters. As has been made quite clear recently, Marneus Calgar is my fav character (and my Half Brother). I think special characters are a great edition to forces for big Apoc games, or games between friends where you're telling a series of stories.

For tournaments they're a crutch, and I utterly despite/hate/loath/wish death upon the writers for making special characters that change the makeup of your force (ie. making them so important that they must be taken).

I hate it how in order to take Deathwing you have to take a special character. I hate it it how Ravenwing now always has that dude on the 'only' Jetbike left in the whole frickin' universe (getting spare parts must be a bitch when you have the ONLY Jetbike evar!!1!). And I'm going to hate it how people who want to play Sallies have to bring a Sallie character, or those wishing to use Crimson Fists will be stuck having to take the same special character in every fething game.

Once that happens, they cease being Special.

In fact, one of the few good things about the Chaos Codex is that you're not required to bring Ahriman/Typhus/Lucius/Kharn in order to bring Cult units as troops. Can you imagine the rage from all the ex-Emperor's Children players out there if they had to bring Lucius the Eternally Useless to every damned battle? I mean, losing rules for the Emperor's Children was enough, but how much of a kick in the balls would it be if you had to being named characters to bring Cult units as troops. That's the one saving grace of that Codex.

BYE

Totally agree with you on this.

Having played a lot of WM/Hordes over the last few years, I don't look at them as Special Characters as much as Field Allowance: Unique. That helps to reduce the amount of abuse you can jam into a list.

One of the things to consider is that the target game size is 1500-2000 points. If a character is 250+ points, he better be extra killy. Plus, few of the SC's have movement 'upgrades' like bikes, etc. Some do, but not a lot of them. I think that helps reduce their usefulness.

Anyone else think Kantor is going to be in every drop-pod list with a couple units of Sternguard?

Definitely agree about that whole deathwing thing. I'm pretty sure it's the same case for orks, if you want to make a speed freak army with lots of bikes it's necessary to take Wazzdakka.

Being forced to take special characters isn't the way to go. I liked the direction GW was going when they introduced IG doctrines and custom chapter traits for SM. Needing special characters to shape the way your force works decreases the individuality that makes it such a great game.

GW should have kept chapter traits and instituted something like it for all other viable races. Say chaos could be influenced to make world eaters, Orks could be influenced to make evil suns (I'm aware that the way the army lists are composed allows you to make these armies due to your choices, but special benefits and drawbacks in taking each of these types of forces would be nice IMO)

I think that instituting too many special characters decreases the appeal of making custom chapters and armies, and that to me is a large part of the hobby. Playing against a custom chapter is far more interesting then playing ultramarines that are led by Marneus Calgar and having kantor in every single drop pod list.

Special characters should be rare. IMO it's a case of too much of a good thing. Because they are becoming even more common, they've become less special and more generic.

Generic Special Characters? I'll have to add that to my work on Codex: Generic.

BYE

Special Characters can only lead down the road to Hero Hammer. That is not what I signed up for.

I agree that they would be great additions to Apoc games, but they really have no place in smaller games, yet here they come.

Jayden63 wrote:...but they really have no place in smaller games, yet here they come.

And not always by choice. It's one thing for every Eldar player out there to take Eldrad because he's so awesome, but it's another matter completely for dedicated Ravenwing players who have to bring Sammael to every damned battle.

BYE

I like how GW seems to be pushing special characters as 'counts as' kind of leaders. I've recently started blood ravens, and they are supposed to have lots of super librarians. How do I represent this? I take Tigurius, paint his armor red, rename him Isador or something and I have instant fluffiness.

What exactly was stopping you from doing that with a regular Librarian?

It actually makes less sense that you'd take a special character with the intention to use him as someone other than who he is.

Isn't that what standard characters are for?

BYE

A useful restriction on special characters that GWS once used is that your character has to be used in a certain type of army. It used to be if you wanted a certain ork special characters you had to modify your army and leave out units that displeased that character while containing units your character favors. Farsight is the only current character that influences your army composition that I can recall – if you want him you have to leave all your kroot, vespids, etherals, and many tanks at home. You have to use HIS army you just can’t dump him into a Tau army.

I feel that you should be able to use special characters all you want. All our HQ leaders are special characters in their own right, it’s not like farseers, chapter masters, chaos lords, and warbosses grow on trees. I just feel that you should use the character’s army along with the character – Huron’s force should not be allowed to have marks, eldrad should come with a mandatory 2 units of guardians. An army using Yriel should have to have 2 units of wraithguards.

Special characters should have a large impact on the forces they lead. Right now people can just throw characters into their armies without caring about composition. Special characters should be used in armies that reflect their background, nothing too major just have rules like you need two units of noise marines if you want to use Luscius, or Abandon requires a full squad of terminators, or Kharn requires two units of berserkers, and so on.

Just my opinion

i dont like special characters

okay here come my raiding party of eldar to take out one town
and heres eldrad a godlike farseer to lead 20 guys

I almost got into a fight over this before. While setting up my army to play, my opponent said,"You do not have permission to field any special characters". I said fine then you don't either. His response was "I don't need permission to take mine, but you do. It is in your codex." It took a lot to not reach across the table and make him eat his models. The group sided with me and a special rule was made that no one needed permission for special characters.

I agree that special characters should add something special to the game. The older codexes were like that. But now, all you see is special characters on the board. I played a 500 point game, just a quick pick up game. I was facing eldran (?) and two units of guardians. I mean come on people, REALLY, you always have to take your super model! (sarcasm)

Right now I play against a guy who uses deathwing. He never leaves home without his special character. It sucks playing 5th edition objective missions when termies are holding them, 2+ and fearless, Yeah fun!

Then one game he forgot to add him to his list, I won because he could not hold any objectives. Yea me!

Point is, special characters should have a minimum point requirement, and just like some characters in Fantasy, they should take up more then just one HQ slot. Like an HQ and two HS slots, or something like that.

Do people not see (some, not all) games of 40K as a small part of a larger battle? In other words, take a game of epic, and then zoom in on one part of the battle.

I have no problems with Special Characters in regular games for this very reason - it could be a massive invasion of a planetl, but we're just seeing this small bit.

Although, if you view it that way, it looks like every game with the Salamanders, Deathwing, Ravenwing, White Scars, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard and White Scars will be part of a huge battle. How else will you explain the same special character showing up to every battle they fight?

BYE

Personally, I like special characters. I think they can really give flavor and theme to an army.

Special characters should, in my opinion, be used in only three scenarios. Apocalypse games are the first, situations that call for that character, and armies built specifically around that character (Gaunts ghosts) Otherwise they are simply being misused. the same goes for the "counts as" type thing. If every librarian was as good as Tigerius, then he wouldn't be all that special, would he?

Just to point out. Special characters are often useless in Apocalypse. They attract a lot of fire and typically get vaporized fairly quickly.

Then again, maybe my opponent shouldn't've deployed Typhus and his massive retinue in LOS of my Baneblade....

Grunt13 wrote:A useful restriction on special characters that GWS once used is that your character has to be used in a certain type of army. It used to be if you wanted a certain ork special characters you had to modify your army and leave out units that displeased that character while containing units your character favors. Farsight is the only current character that influences your army composition that I can recall – if you want him you have to leave all your kroot, vespids, etherals, and many tanks at home. You have to use HIS army you just can’t dump him into a Tau army

I think this is a GREAT idea. It means that people who WANT to use special characters can use them every time, but they have additional restrictions which make their ary 'extra' fluffy.

The Sarge wrote:I almost got into a fight over this before. While setting up my army to play, my opponent said,"You do not have permission to field any special characters". I said fine then you don't either. His response was "I don't need permission to take mine, but you do. It is in your codex." It took a lot to not reach across the table and make him eat his models. The group sided with me and a special rule was made that no one needed permission for special characters.

I agree that special characters should add something special to the game. The older codexes were like that. But now, all you see is special characters on the board. I played a 500 point game, just a quick pick up game. I was facing eldran (?) and two units of guardians. I mean come on people, REALLY, you always have to take your super model! (sarcasm)

Right now I play against a guy who uses deathwing. He never leaves home without his special character. It sucks playing 5th edition objective missions when termies are holding them, 2+ and fearless, Yeah fun!

Then one game he forgot to add him to his list, I won because he could not hold any objectives. Yea me!

Point is, special characters should have a minimum point requirement, and just like some characters in Fantasy, they should take up more then just one HQ slot. Like an HQ and two HS slots, or something like that.

What the hell are you babling on about? Eldard in 500 pts is stupid, for your opponent. Eldrad is going to kill nowhere near 210 pts, nor is going to help 2 squads of guardians kill an extra 210 pts.

And Deathwing? You can't even run Deathwing without using Belial, so his list was probably illegal. You used to be able to run Deathwing without special characters. And if you're complaining about Deathwing being overpowered just stop playing.

Facing Eldrad every battle gets on my nerves, but if GW decided to name Eldrad "Superduperfarseerdude" instead, no one would be complaining.

The Sarge wrote:I almost got into a fight over this before. While setting up my army to play, my opponent said,"You do not have permission to field any special characters". I said fine then you don't either. His response was "I don't need permission to take mine, but you do. It is in your codex."

Dude, you messed up. You should have slapped him upside his head.

Jayden63 wrote:Special Characters can only lead down the road to Hero Hammer. That is not what I signed up for.

I agree that they would be great additions to Apoc games, but they really have no place in smaller games, yet here they come.

I don't think Special Characters are anywhere near the road of Hero Hammer. What made heros in the past ridiculous and the focal point of the game was that they had alot of options and wargear that could really make them more powerful than intended with combos that were never considered. I think special characters avoid this so long as we can't purchase any upgrades and they come in a very fixed set of rules.

Special characters belong in 40k because standard games of 40k are suppose to be capable of representing different areas of a conflict within a larger conflict. I do however think that if its a big enough problem its a fair house rule to restrict special characters to moderate to large scale games, 1500 like the old days of 3rd.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

The Sarge wrote:I almost got into a fight over this before. While setting up my army to play, my opponent said,"You do not have permission to field any special characters". I said fine then you don't either. His response was "I don't need permission to take mine, but you do. It is in your codex."

Dude, you messed up. You should have slapped him upside his head.

Just one slap? Seriously, his group should have found a baseball bat and taken him out back.