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.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:


-playing in a timeframe or place that would more or less invalidate a character in some way shape or form.

You might like them or not but in and on themselves none of this is illegal or dumb.

GW has even hinted at this - they suggested not mixing Cassius with Primaris because he was in the Deathwatch and back before they released. They haven't said anything about this with Tycho, but it wouldn't be out of place.

Ive a Black Legion army since 2003. Abaddon has sat on my painting table since then unused in favour of multiple characters of my own creation. That side of it is more fun to me.

Ive a Crimson Fist army. Will never take Kantor.
Ive a Necron army. Will never take any named characters. I once said that if I was ever doing my own podcast it would be called "No Named Characters".

I much prefer running my own characters with their own history/stories and thats probably a throwback to starting in 3rd Edition when you needed an opponents permission to use them or needed minimum 2000/3000 points. Our whole group was similar in outlook thankfully and only in Armaggeddon themed battles did Yarrick and Gazhgull show up.

I hate how the approach is a lot of decent builds basically require a named character and you are handicapping yourself if you dont take one. Abaddon being a perfect example of being in nearly every single Chaos list since the 9th edition codex came out because it makes no sense to not take him. Seeing said Abaddon painted as Alpha Legion though and there being no plausible lore reason why though is what drives me insane.

Only time I ever used a named character was (if I recall correctly) was Huron from the Chaos 4.0 codex and that was heavily converted to have 2 axes and just counted as Huron. Think it might just have been because the model was cool and my opponent was using Shrike as well so it balanced out.

That being said I do think its a pretty rubbish move these days to refuse games with named characters. Your opponent spent money and time on that model only for you to say they cant use it? Eh no, not really ok.

5th -7th Edition using Typhus was the only defining thing to make a Death Guard army. He also had one of the coolest models in 40K so I used him occasionally. Since 8th DG got their own Codex and Typhus has a crappy model since then, so I haven't used him (that's not really the reason as I'll continue to use the cool old model of course). With 10th he needs zombies or Terminators to be used and I don’t have any Terminators and only 10 Zombies. He'll probably sit on the shelf.

My snakebite orks have received 2 chars in 9th, but I haven't finished painting them, but I'm planning to use Mozrog soon.

Coming from lotr I don’t get the Opposition to chars in 40K. In fact, when I started the game and read the background I was surprised to find very few of the named characters in the rules. Additionally, from 5th to 7th characters usually were just 50 shades of different beatsticks, they weren't that interesting. Since 8th there are at least rules showing that they're leaders.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Coming from lotr I don’t get the Opposition to chars in 40K. In fact, when I started the game and read the background I was surprised to find very few of the named characters in the rules. Additionally, from 5th to 7th characters usually were just 50 shades of different beatsticks, they weren't that interesting. Since 8th there are at least rules showing that they're leaders.

I get this. I have strong opinions about what makes a named character "well-designed" or not, and there are a ton of special characters that really don't need to exist. To me, a named character datasheet should exist if the character in question can't be properly represented by another datasheet in the codex. So Shadowsun, being a commander in a stealth suit with a knack for Kauyon, probably warrants her own datasheet. If GW released a "commander in stealth suit" datasheet, she probably wouldn't still need one of her own. Eldrad, as a counterpoint, has traditionally basically just been a farseer on foot, but better. Which is a bit boring and makes every other farseer in the galaxy seem less competent by comparison and ultimately just ends up encouraging people to use Eldrad's stats for the "super seer" in their own craftworld's lore.

Lots of marine named characters fall into the Eldrad problem. Most (almost all?) marine characters are basically just a more powerful version of a generic datasheet. At best, such units are expensive enough that they're considered less efficient than the generic version, in which case they're pretty harmless and their greatest sin is just contributing to bloat. But at worst, you end up with situations where (let's say) Dante is the bestest melee chapter master with a jump pack who ever melee'd with a jump pack, and every chapter master from every other chapter is statistically less good at fighting than he is.

If the only thing that differentiates your named character from a generic character is that he has a slightly better weapon or a slightly better version of a special rule, there's probably an argument to be made that your character doesn't really need his own datasheet.

(Note: I'm mostly speaking with 5th-9th edition in mind. I haven't actually looked very carefully at 10th edition marine rules yet.)

But Danta isn't just s "slighly" better space marine chapter masters. I mean what is next Angron is just being a different bloodthirster? I don't understand how can core items of factions that exist for decades, can be call bloat?

As a Deathguard player a named character isn't really any different from a normal lord as all the DG non characters are set builds anyway.

So named or not named from an in game view is not really any different.

I will say if I played 10th, I would use the Lord Solar.

Not *as* the Lord Solar - rather, as Lord General Katerina Malinenko, who runs my superheavy tank regiment. But there is all kinds of weird stuff with her, so I just can't run her at all.

Not to mention how awkward 10th is to run Baneblades in, lol.

Karol wrote:But Danta isn't just s "slighly" better space marine chapter masters. I mean what is next Angron is just being a different bloodthirster? I don't understand how can core items of factions that exist for decades, can be call bloat?

Other than belonging to a chapter that happens to get a lot of spotlight, what makes Dante more different from a generic chapter master than two generic chapter masters are from each other? Presumably the chapter master of the Mentors and the chapter master of the Black Dragons probably have radically different approaches to things, yet both are apparently sufficiently covered by the options available on the generic character datasheets. What makes Dante so unique compared to any other chapter master from a melee-oriented chapter that he needs his own bespoke rules? Same with Logan. Same with Seth. I get that they all have their own pet preferences for melee weapons, but that just sounds like a reason to give the generic chapter master access to an eviscerator; not a reason to prop up the guys who already get more spotlight as being straight up better at their jobs than every one of their peers in the galaxy.

Similarly, what canonical traits does Angron possess that can't reasonably be present in another greater daemon of Khorne? Does he really behave/fight in a way that's so different from a generic bloodthirster that we need a whole extra datasheet for it? Or do we just feel compelled to make him extra double super special because he showed up in some BL novels?

Special characters should aim to be different rather than better. Otherwise, they make every generic version of whatever they are just seem less impressive by comparison. "Oh, your guy is good at melee? Well, he's not that good, right? I mean, he's no Dante."

Doohicky wrote:As a Deathguard player a named character isn't really any different from a normal lord as all the DG non characters are set builds anyway.

So named or not named from an in game view is not really any different.

This is a fair point. For all my complaining, I'm mostly talking from a 5th-9th perspective. From what I've seen so far, 10th does seem to generally give named characters unique gimmicks/niches. Eldrad being the only way to get Doom and having Doom in place of another farseer power means that he's different from other farseers; not straight up better at the same job.