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.

 Psienesis wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
I can... kind of... understand that, from a narrative perspective, but I don't pretend to understand how doing so means you're not using a Named Character... because you are, it just has a different Name.

For a lot of 40k players the narrative is everything for them. Just look at the "Units I refuse to use". A lot of the answers are based on the lore of the unit(s) in question. Ex. People wont take Plague Marines because they hate Nurgle despite the units advantages.

That's not the same thing, not to me. Like, I have a SOB army list that I term my DTW List. It makes no use of psykers, of any kind. No Inquisitors, no IG Psykers, no GK, nothing. So people who don't take Plague Marines because "eww, Nurgle!" but take Plague Marines-called-Bloody-Khorne-MeatBeasts are still taking Plague Marines, they're just calling them something else.

Right, because it is not the rules that bothers them it is the idea of the unit that bothers them. Or, more accurately, what lore is associated with the rules. If they get rid of the lore then the problem is solved. For you, your problem is with both the rules and the lore when it comes to Psykers which is why you forgo them.

I'm doing my best to not use special characters, there are specific lists I like to try and run and for those I need the special rule they bring (Aka draigowing) I'm a big fan of "creating" my own special character who grows over the games I play, I've actually been toying with an idea about running a campaign where as they win specific battles they get special rules such as tank hunter if they manage to down heavy support entries. I have yet to flush it out but I think that could be quite a bit of fun.

i pretty much agree with this, although if i wish to use marbo considering i play the bastard child of cadians and the napoleonic war, i'd convert a "counts-as" marbo as some sort of assassin-y kinda bloke.

The only special character i ever use is Sliscus, which is, a kitbash and my custom kabal. And a kitbash of Pask, who might be transferred to tank commander HQ when i get the AM dex.

depends on the game size in some ways.
if its a bigger game, i might take abby along, i spose it also comes down to what im playing against. if its 2k points against marines ill probably take abaddon, PE marines is great in shooty units for those re rolls. yes yes its part tailoring.
if im playing narative games, then sure if they fit the narrative.

if NOT, then fortunatley CSM is spoiled for choice. i get cheap lords etc that i can gear up nicely

I don't use Tyranid Special characters outside of Homebrew/House rule games because the last four I have are all terrible and overpriced.

Never fielded a Special Character. Doubt I ever will. Just don't like the idea of it. Something irks me about the whole "Eldrad, who is dead, leading a small force of Iyanden into battle" thing. I kinda get it for narrative games, like recreating battles from the lore. But in a "normal" game, it's just a bit silly IMO.

Ivanzypher wrote:
Never fielded a Special Character. Doubt I ever will. Just don't like the idea of it. Something irks me about the whole "Eldrad, who is dead, leading a small force of Iyanden into battle" thing. I kinda get it for narrative games, like recreating battles from the lore. But in a "normal" game, it's just a bit silly IMO.

Have you considered setting such a battle before his disappearance?

Using Draigo makes me chuckle... There's pretty much no way you can justify him being in your army against anything but Daemons and maybe once every 2.8 million games that you play. He should start in reserves and you should have to roll like quintuple 6's while doing a backflip and smoking a cigar to get him onto the table.

nareik wrote:

Ivanzypher wrote:
Never fielded a Special Character. Doubt I ever will. Just don't like the idea of it. Something irks me about the whole "Eldrad, who is dead, leading a small force of Iyanden into battle" thing. I kinda get it for narrative games, like recreating battles from the lore. But in a "normal" game, it's just a bit silly IMO.

Have you considered setting such a battle before his disappearance?

Doesn´t solve anything.

What if the character dies during the battle? Or perhaps Eldrad ends up turned into a squigoth. And Eldrad is still another person´s character. Why not create one by yourself?

 Psienesis wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
I can... kind of... understand that, from a narrative perspective, but I don't pretend to understand how doing so means you're not using a Named Character... because you are, it just has a different Name.

For a lot of 40k players the narrative is everything for them. Just look at the "Units I refuse to use". A lot of the answers are based on the lore of the unit(s) in question. Ex. People wont take Plague Marines because they hate Nurgle despite the units advantages.

That's not the same thing, not to me. Like, I have a SOB army list that I term my DTW List. It makes no use of psykers, of any kind. No Inquisitors, no IG Psykers, no GK, nothing. So people who don't take Plague Marines because "eww, Nurgle!" but take Plague Marines-called-Bloody-Khorne-MeatBeasts are still taking Plague Marines, they're just calling them something else.

The name is everything, since the battle only happens in our minds.

I use Kharn´s rules and Kharn´s model, but my warlord is not Kharn. He has a completely different background. The other player can call him Kharn if he wants, but for me he is not Kharn.

Another example: I want to use a Word Bearers army with a Daemon Prince. I am forced to take a mark even if the background of the army says otherwise. So I take the mark of X.... but it is not the mark of X, it is just there to represent that the DP is really tough, agressive or fast. In my eyes it is not a mark, it is just an enforced count-as and I ignore it, as something unsettling and slightly disgusting, unless I am talking with the other player.

Another one: I find the models for Bile Thralls (Warmachine-Cryx) absolutely gorgeous. So I use them as Nurgle´s Horrors. They play with Horror´s rules, but they look nurgly, and they are some random, completely fluffy daemonic entities. I know this is "count-as", but it is somehow the same concept.


Random thought: I find reading the "Units you refuse to use" topic relaxing and satisfying. It is good to see that after all the "you must take this or you will lose" claim the majority of players seem to enjoy the background and having a fun game for both sides.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Does anyone else do this?
Im not going to use farsight because my sept is loyalist
I dont use named SM characters other then khan because they are not white scars.

Does anyone else do this? Like not use Marbo because you pllay cadians or something?

Well you can't use non-Khan characters in a White Scars army because they're restricted to that chapter only. That's just playing by the rules.

My Ultramarines are 2nd company, so I use Sicarius regularly. I use Kantor with my Fists almost every game because he kind of makes the army work, what with all the Sternguard. It fits the fluff well enough.

I'd like to pretend I don't use the Swarmlord for fluff reasons instead of because it's a terrible unit.

This is the primary reason I don't use SC's, they just do not belong the in the army I run generally. I also am not a huge fan of the models/rules/feel/look of most characters as they often tend to be painfully overdone. Besides, 40k is about the grim darkness of the far future, where heroes routinely die, and that just doesn't fit with the 'perpetual' named SC's.

That said, there also are no Iron Warriors or DKoK special characters (well, there's Venner, but he has no model), and given that they're my primary armies, that helps

 Vaktathi wrote:
This is the primary reason I don't use SC's, they just do not belong the in the army I run generally. I also am not a huge fan of the models/rules/feel/look of most characters as they often tend to be painfully overdone. Besides, 40k is about the grim darkness of the far future, where heroes routinely die, and that just doesn't fit with the 'perpetual' named SC's.

That said, there also are no Iron Warriors or DKoK special characters (well, there's Venner, but he has no model), and given that they're my primary armies, that helps

Nonsense! All DKoK are special characters. When one dies another takes their number so they never truly die

Personally, I don't because:
A: I am a fluff freak and breaking fluff sends an itch up my spine (to an extent)
B: I don't like the way most of them look.

I think it'd be awesome if GW had a way to legitly create SCs. Instead of taking the time to do so and make up a few special rules and get everything figured out just to have someone say they refuse to play with your army because of it while they rock SCs that give them huge advantages (to a near broke level) and probably make no sense fluff wise.

And I get alot of you guys really don't care enough about fluff for it to bother you, but some of us do. Almost like a weird OCD.

I have two versions of Kharn in my army lists: real Kharn, who I have in some larger 1800+ size lists, and "Not Kharn", who is a Chaos Lord with MoK, a PP, and Axe of Blind Fury or a chainaxe. Because, yes, it's stupid that Kharn would show up in every 500-1500 point skirmish I play. However, I did a good job on the model and want to use it occasionally.

 Happyjew wrote:
I only use named characters when I want the fluff monkeys to cry.

I like Karandras to run with Incubi led by Arha...I mean Drazher.

Other than that I rarely use SCs.

I soo want to build a Karandras / Drazher Buddy-Up List, because I can and there's no bad blood there... right? I mean, We Eldar love our family. Seems we used to be mad about... something... but I can't remember it any more, so oh well. (On going joke between my DE friend and myself, since the 6th Ed Allies Chart and recent BL Novels).

In all seriousness, I actually dislike using named characters at all, for a few reasons. First of all, I'd like to note that I am not a competitive player. Most of my games are friendly and, when we can (but not necessary), fluffy. An example being in a 750 + 750 vs 1500 battle (2 vs 1), I once teamed up with 'Nid vs IG (now AM?) with the excuse "Oh we're just attacking at the same time and using the ''Nid assault to further our goals." That kind of thing.

My reasons for me personally not using named characters are that the game is about your dudes. The established story might focus on Named Characters, but my story doesn't. I'd rather just take a generic HQ, kit them out, custom them up my way, give them a name and use them. If I really need special rules (such as Hero Battle in the old 5th Edition Battle Missions Book) my opponent and myself will agree on a fair rule and price (often using existing named characters as a basis for how much to charge). Not legal for a competition, but that's also why I usually just use generic HQ's. If you need Your Dude for later in a campaign or whatever, just use a comic-booky reason for them somehow surviving. If you need an example, just look at Tycho's history. Or Iron-Hand Straken. Also, there is only War. All the time. Almost everywhere. Maugan-Ra (or whoever) is probably busy already, five sectors over. How can any named character be everywhere at once? Finally, while it's cool when Vect mows down tons of people or Papa Smurf destroys an Avatar in combat, it's even cooler when your generic HQ with a name (Archon Shilita comes to mind, in our group she has a terrifying reputation because of a tendency to...) just goes Dynasty Warriors (VG Reference! For those who don't know, a game about being a named character and mowing down near-infinite numbers of flunkies) on the table top.

Thus said, the game is about Your Dudes, and if you decide that Your Dude should operate a whole lot like Kharn, then I don't have a problem with you using a 'Counts as' proxy or just a Kharn 'In all but Name' Model. However, in my circle of friends, the general agreement is if you're bringing any number of named characters it's discussed before-hand and, your opponent has the option to bring the exact same number of named characters.

The only non Catachan I use is yarrick. I figure they like him because he has gone rounds with the best warboss ever.

It's honestly not too hard to logically justify using a Special Character's rules without your character literally being that personality, or with a variant model. There are exceptions (putting Marbo into a non-jungle-guerrilla-sort of regiment wouldn't make much sense) but for the most part Special Characters are license to be very creative with models and lore if you want to use the rules without being tied to the fluff.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
It's honestly not too hard to logically justify using a Special Character's rules without your character literally being that personality, or with a variant model. There are exceptions (putting Marbo into a non-jungle-guerrilla-sort of regiment wouldn't make much sense) but for the most part Special Characters are license to be very creative with models and lore if you want to use the rules without being tied to the fluff.

This is a good take and one I've never thought about. I've always avoided special characters because I always create my own lore. For example, for Imperial Guard, I'd never play a Cadian army, I tend to create a planet, come up with the fluff, regimental colors, etc. So for the same reason I tend to avoid the SCs and use the generic ones. That said, there's no reason I couldn't do a count as. Take Pask for example - he's very attractive for an armored squad. There's no reason it has to be Pask himself though, it could be any hardened, crack tank commander.

Speaking specifically of Marbo, I use him in my Cadian force. A friend of mine made me a Marbo using bits from the Catachan and Cadian range, so he looks more like a Cadian solider wearing a t-shirt. He's WYSIWYG, and extra cool because he was a gift.

I also like the idea of using special characters in rules only, and creating a WYSIWYG model and some fluff. It allows you to use the cool rules, without having to take an extremely famous and well known HQ every single game.

I'm probably gonna use a 'Counts-As' Huron for Alpha Legion to ensure I get Infiltration. I'm also considering Cypher, but he's known to have worked with the Alpha Legion previously, so that doesn't feel wrong.