Using Characters in 40K

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.

**Ratius**

Very rarely in my case.
As the OP posted I have hangups dating back to 2nd ed and/or serious tournaments where 1-2 named characters ran riot with buffs/synergies :(

Acknowledged though, that back in 2nd (and later editions), you could make a generic super character by choosing wargear/abilities that would smoke the named guys!

**MechaEmperor7000**

Vitali Advenil wrote:
I really dislike named characters in general. First of all, 40k is a game of "your dudes," meaning it's your army that you've raised. Introducing some named character instantly invalidates that. In addition, when the opposing side is using a named character, it instantly makes that side oh-so-much more special than yours.

Indeed. Being a primarily Disorder-aligned player (i.e: I play the "evil" factions), this just makes me feel like a saturday morning cartoon villain, my general is introduced for this episode only to be beaten by Special Snowflake de jure of the week.

**princeyg**

I`ve struggled with this one myself for years, always having a slight tendency to make my own characters then watching over a period of years as i was slowly forced to start incorporating them in order to even use my army (thats what you get for going deathwing/ravenwing i suppose). These days i dont really mind them but i can see the points that a lot of people are making here as i too started back in the days of "with your opponents permission".

**Insectum7**

Like many others in the thread, I don't like using them on principle. I'd prefer my army to be anonymous. However, some of their rules are too enticing. I used Sicarius (in name, not model) during 6th and 7th for his Rites of Battle rule (which btw, was given to all Captains in 4th Edition, and then taken away.) Right now I find myself using Abaddon for his special rules, but at the same time I hate that he's somehow showing up to every skirmish my Black Legion gets involved in.

I'll feel better about Abaddon once I convert my own Chaos uberlord model for a stand-in, but I'd rather not be in the position in the first place. I'd prefer to have more customize-able abilities for our leaders, or some other solution.

**Coyotepunc**

I really REALLY dislike named characters... but sometimes they are so much better it is self-hobbling not to take them. For instance, Lord of Contagion or Typhus. Typhus is so much better, and costs less. It's a no-brainer, even if I make my own model named Fume Vileblister, he still "counts as" Typhus.

**chimeara**

Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
When I started playing named characters were only allowed in large games and even then IIRC you needed your opponent's permission.

This is the same thing for me. The characters now kinda seem tame compared to their former selves. I hated playing against some of the SM dudes and even more against the Necron god dudes(even though they weren't characters).

**Melissia**

I despise using named "canon" characters. I'll play against them, though I think it's not as interesting as making your own character.

**NorseSig**

I would play with named characters if my army had any.

**Stormonu**

NorseSig wrote:
I would play with named characters if my army had any.

Which army are you playing? Even the nid army has named characters, to my knowledge. After acmoments thought only one I can think of are genestealers - and knights.

**Jon Garrett**

My second army was Deathwing, so I was used to taking not-Belial to unlock Terminators as troops choices. For my new Plant Marine project, I intend to have a Counts-As Typhus leading the force.

Personally, I prefer to use my own models and colour schemes, and so I've never actually run a named character model (well, not as the named character...most of Marneus Calgar's body made up my Grey Knights Grandmaster before the dread release of the Wardian Knights) .

I've never had an issue with people playing them, except when it's a WAAC player, but they're gonna find something to break regardless. It's your army of tiny folks, so you be you.

**Genesaika**

Well I'm ok with using them and people playing them. My only issue is if I'm not running their group, then why would they be in my army?

I won't even use wyches in my dark eldar army because they don't fit my fluff.

**IandI**

It depends on the army. Some armies I have NEED the snowflakes (SoB, Dark Angels) some don't (IG, Grey Knights, Tyranids). I'd rather not use them, because I am a believer that Knight Commander Pask probably wouldn't be on the front line of this one tiny engagement. However, when Voldus, or Belial, or Celestine are just all around better than their generic counterparts it's really hard to not take them. Prior to 5th edition, I never used them. These days, I see them in almost every army I play against and in about half of my own.

I try to make up for it by giving all my other characters and squad leaders names, and the really cool ones get a little backstory...

**Arachnofiend**

Stormonu wrote:
NorseSig wrote:
I would play with named characters if my army had any.

Which army are you playing? Even the nid army has named characters, to my knowledge. After acmoments thought only one I can think of are genestealers - and knights.

They play Iron Hands, though that Chapter does in fact have a named character - it's just Forge World content rather than baseline GW.

**jeff white**

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
In 2nd Edition I rarely used Special Characters, and indeed the Tournament Rules forbade them. I use them all the time in 8th Edition, however, as the game is different. In 2nd Ed there were less models on the board and one or two SCs could really unbalance things. This seems less so in 8th Edition.

I also admit I like the fluff of using Dark Angel characters. I don't buy the argument that "Azrael wouldn't be at just any battle." My game isn't just any battle - its my battle! Besides, a Space Marine chapter is roughly equivalent in size to a modern battalion sized force (maybe Brigade level in terms of bayonet strength). So why wouldn't the Commanding Officer be there at the decisive point? Now, my Imperial Guard muddle through without named characters. Different style and different fluff.

Having said all that, I respect if that someone may like to run their force without SCs. I do not like, however, people trying to impose their list-building style on others. If its in the books, run it if you like!

Cheers

It isn't just any battle that I have trouble with...
It is EVERY battle.
On both sides at the same time!
Seems a cheesy crutch for lack of imagination serving MtG collectible card gamers more than anything else.
Not the most redeeming virtue of wargames like this one IMHO.
So I don't like to see it infect the hobby so deeply.
I still prize the grand scale RPG that this aspired to be.
Heros should be made on our battlefields not in the rulebooks.
Just my opinion...