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.

Special characters have limited appeal to me. I do enjoy that heroes exist in 40k canon and that they are specifically provided for in their respective codices. I think that being able to look to the bada**ery of my army's heroes adds some increased appreciation of said army and its specific contributions (be they good or bad) to the 40k universe.

Despite this, when I build and play an army, I see myself as the general. The army's outfitting, selection, and gameplay are all part products of myself. I feel that having a unique constructed HQ best represents and adds to this experience - it is as if the player is literally on the board! Contrarily, a named special character makes it a little more impersonal, IMHO.

How about you, DAKKA?

snake wrote:Special characters have limited appeal to me. I do enjoy that heroes exist in 40k canon and that they are specifically provided for in their respective codices. I think that being able to look to the bada**ery of my army's heroes adds some increased appreciation of said army and its specific contributions (be they good or bad) to the 40k universe.

Despite this, when I build and play an army, I see myself as the general. The army's outfitting, selection, and gameplay are all part products of myself. I feel that having a unique constructed HQ best represents and adds to this experience - it is as if the player is literally on the board! Contrarily, a named special character makes it a little more impersonal, IMHO.

How about you, DAKKA?

Meh, 40k is a game. Basically a very complex board game. I think of it as, "Does Joey Baggadonuts do what I need him to, for his cost?".

If you want a fluff explanation, that's cool: I'm sitting on the space ship telling Mr. Baggadonuts what to do via ear bead.

I do when they suit my needs. Then again I imagine myself as tzeentch in every game twisting fate as I see fit.

I use them, but conversions to represent them and possibly a different name in order to add more character.

That said, Eldrad is only about 10-20 points more than my normal Farseer build so might as well.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Meh, 40k is a game. Basically a very complex board game. I think of it as, "Does Joey Baggadonuts do what I need him to, for his cost?".

If you want a fluff explanation, that's cool: I'm sitting on the space ship telling Mr. Baggadonuts what to do via ear bead.

This.

Some people just get different things out of the game, but this sums up for it. It's like chess, but 1000x more awesome

With my first two armies being Eldar and Necrons I kind of got into the habit of using special characters, so i don't mind them that much. Though it is sometimes frustrating coming up with fluff reasons for strange alliances.

Well, I shower, brush my teeth and use proper grammar (most of the time), so envisioning myself as an Ork Warboss is a bit of a stretch.

In terms of Special Characters, I tend to use the ones I have models for. Mad Dok Grotsnik was one of the first models I wound up getting (he came with a batch of other stuff), so I've used him a fair bit. I've used Ghazghkull a couple of times (took me a while to get that model together).

I'll pretty much use whatever strikes my fancy in terms of special characters.

I haven't, but I plan on it soon. My friends keep using them, and you know what they say, right?

When life gives you Lemo-BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

For Orks all I am missing is Captain Badrukk and I have all the special Characters. I do not have anything for space wolves yet but I might make them.

Dark Eldar special characters rock the socks But seriously, most of the DE special characters are reasonably priced and quite effective on the field for what they do. But there are some SC that just have awesome wargear/rules/modeling opportunities (for me the Duke) and also fits your playstyle, in this case, create your own model with all the war gear options for the special character and proxy him as the SC, but make up your own story for him/her, of course, this varies from codex to codex...

I prefer to make my own fluff or make a particular strikeforce/army.
Basically i will have a counts-as character.

I use eldar and I tend to use Eldrad and Yriel cause they rock Nothing better than when a character can EXPLODE.

Grizabella wrote: Nothing better than when a character can EXPLODE.

I agree !

Thats why the Nightbringer always see's battle in my Necron force

Yeh that monocle of his is awesome.

I tend to not use special characters, since most of them suck, don't suit my needs, or cost too much.

There is some exceptions, like Ghaz, good lord I'll trim a list to get him in.

I also run characters that unlock FOC, like Wazdakka, and unit ability options, like C:SM characters (chapter tactics can be nice)

Tend to never pay points for special character unit upgrades. Too often you pay too many points for a guy with just 1 wound.

I play IG and none of the special characters are good enough for me to take them. Al Rahem occasionally tempts me but I don't rely on flanking to win and I don't like the idea of half of my army off the table for a turn or two. Straken looks good but my army isn't assault focused.

I own a Creed model and a Yarrick model but I've never assembled them, painted them, or used them. Maybe some day for an Apoc game?

Yes I use Eldrad for his ability to use the same spell twice in the same turn and his divination ability doesn't hurt either.

With my Crons, not so much. I use the Nightbringer occasionally, but at the same cost as 20 warriors ( or 1 1/2 monoliths) he's hard to justify..

With my Orks i've gotten fond of Old Zogwort, as a means of debuffing enemy lists of their uber-ponyboys

Marbo is all I need.

NewDeal wrote:Marbo is all I need.

+1 to that.

But seriously, I play IG and there are only a few special characters worth it - Marbo being one of them.

I own many SC models, 2 Yarrick's, Shrike, Typhus, Kharn, Lemartes, Ahriman, and maybe a couple others I'm forgetting about.

I don't think I've ever used any of them except Yarrick, and that was in an Apocalypse game. SC's are just sooo...generic (always the same thing all the time), despite being "special", and just take away so much from the feel of the 40k universe a lot of the time, from that epic little intro at the beginning of every rulebook and BL novel

"to be one amongst untold billions..the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed."

The problem with SC's is that they *will* be missed, and fit really awkwardly into this except in the largest and most impressive of games. They are also just too specific to fit into most armies without making it seem like either you're being a bandwagon hopper or trying to hamfist it for competitive advantage.

in my space marine army, I run Lysander alot, so I do not see myself as much of a commander on the field. My space marines are a canon force lead by a canon character.

However, Archon Korindral of the Baleful Soul represents me on the field: I command my force of sadists with an iron fist, dang it!

So, while I will use SCs alot in my space marine force, I do not in my DE. I lead my DE.

I have a great selection of SM SC's.

I didn't like to use SC's at the beginning and the plastic captain was the only one HQ i had for a while but then I got me a cassius, sicarius, tigurius and so on and so on and i've got almost every HQ that has been released for my Ultramarines. Im also willing to make Lysander, Pedro and the other characters but in Ultramarine version.

Do I like to field my SCs? Oh hell yes I like to field them as much as I field normal HQs.

They're fun and can be valuable on the field, but I know that many people disallow HQs, because they tend to be imbalanced.
For example I can understand why people hate Ghazkull Thrakka or Eldrad Ulthran

I don't mind when people play SCs cause its in the rules so its meant to be played.

I've been playing Dark Angels since the new Codex came out. Well...newer. The only way to do Deathwing is with a special character, so that's what I do.

Personally I view them as a resource and I tend to use them often.

yup. used to be strictly with opponents permission, but.these days its a free for.all.

Mainly because the opponent would either have one himself (and if you didn't let him use his he'd deny you yours) or he didn't bring one, and would refuse to allow yours..

I very rarely use characters (only when they are neccessary for a specific army build) and then I try to have other characters as the general or make a counts as.

This is for exactly the same reason as the OP.

For my CSM and Daemons I use them maybe once in a blue moon, for my eldar though, for the little extra points eldrad and yriel are bargins!

Nope. No, no, no, no no. ¬¬

In previous editions they were rarely used and even then you had to get your opponents permission. Now anybody and their mother had a Calgar or Pedro in their marine army just for the hell of it. They're overpowered for their availability and force a player to conform to a specific army build (which a lot of players are fine with now adays, being more conserned with building an army that's tactical, rather than different and characterful, or at least at my local store ¬¬). They don't personalise an army, they make it generic. Now everyone's playing an Ultramarines army or Blood Angels one because of the special characters, rather than creating their own and doing without them. Vaktathi put it just right.