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.

I've always thought that Independent characters would rarely be seen in skirmish level situations from a fluff point of view. I've always played orks but never played Ghazkull because I always thought he'd only be present surrounded by mighty Waagh's of a million orks so deploying him in a 1500 point game with 60 orks seems unlikely. Recently I've started a white scars army in which Khan with moondrakken is almost an auto take but I still feel uncomfortable using him.

Is there a points level below which you'd think they shouldn't be used from a fluff or balanced game mechanic point of view or does it not matter?

Edit: meant named characters not IC's

It depends on your idea of the fluff, I suppose. For example, your warlord might have been targeted for a surprise assault by the enemy, or the game you're playing might just be the small bit of a larger battle that the character happens to be at.

I think you mean Unique or named characters in the title, since Warbosses, Librarians, Archon's are all IC.

I would say 1000 or above, but I normally only start taking them at 1500 when I can support them with the rest of the army.

If we're talking Named/Unique Characters, my personal view is never. I don't care for them, and haven't ever used them. I'd rather create my own stories with my own guys. Obviously ymmv, but I feel the introduction of Named Characters was one of the worst things to happen in terms of the 40K background; all of a sudden a vast, expansive galaxy of limitless possibilities started feeling a lot smaller.

A lot depends on the character.

While you can always picture the game as the focal point of a larger battle, I’d still like to see a chunk of the appropriate force behind the characters.

Chapter Masters should probably be heading up a large force, 2k or so.

Named captains should be backed up by a chunk of their company. Something like the battle demi-co, so probably around 1k points.

But someone like Sgt. Talion would be fine leading a handful of scouts in a 500 point game.

As others have stated, there is no right points level because circumstances can always be such that a specific character finds themselves in an unlikely situation. In reality, Abbadon doesn't waste his time on the battlefield, he sits in a chair, orchestrating the longer war, and leaving the battles to his captains and commanders. If he does get involved, it'll probably be in a small and fast engagement that demands his personal involvement (and one where he's more likely to survive), rather than a grissly massive battle that distracts him from the seat of power (and where there are weapons that will absolutely murder him with a D-sword).

Kharne, on the other hand, can pop up literally ANYWHERE! Maybe no one else was insane enough, so he takes a squad of other psychos with him and charges towards enemy lines. Or there's a massive and intense battle... and he takes a squad of other psychos with him and charges towards enemy lines. Or he finished killing everyone else, so there he is by himself... and he charges like a psycho towards enemy lines.

Yes I totally meant named unique characters sorry

I would play marbo on its own if he was still in the codex ; )


Automatically Appended Next Post:
really any point lv would be cool to play.

Even a named chaptermaster lv character + some personal guards vs an assassination force made of enemy elite troops or some very desperate critters would make a good game.

It depends a small game could be the focus of a much larger battle.
The universe doesn't end after 6x4.

Imagine two small forces:
Marneus Calgar
5 Honourguard
20 Sternguard

The Swarmlord
6 Tyrant Guard
12 Tyranid Warriors

Or whatever, I've not worked out points.

Put them in a Zone Mortalis setting and see who can be the first to blow up the 'Hive/Comms Node' or escape to the dropship.

 oldzoggy wrote:
I would play marbo on its own if he was still in the codex ; )

Marbo! He was incredible, and such a great character! I remember he rampaged through quite a few of our Carpetpocalypse games as a kid.*

I like special characters for the fluff they bring. They can be hit and miss, for all sorts of reasons, on the battlefield, and many people don't like them, but it is great to have them in the codex.
I think it might be interesting if they were named and described in the codex, but didn't have an entry, so you had to create them yourself...
Anyone like that idea?


*When I was a kid rather than when Marbo was a kid!

This is 40k. A time of constant war. Unique characters are the most legendary of their faction during this time of constant war. So it would make sense that they are constantly in battle, no?

Battles are happening all the time, which we've already established characters are present at. What would you rather watch: Commissar Yarrick stalwartly defending a battle line, or aome two bit shmuck Company Commander (which based on the scale of most battles there would be thousands of). Would you rather be watching the part of the battle where Marneus Calgar leads his honor guard into the heart of the enemy, or the Captain milling around with his company?

The idea that 40k games are literal representations of battles is rediculous, the scale of battles in the setting doesn't lend well to only small skirmishes.

I would quite like to see Lord Solar Macharius make a return. Fluff reasons and an alternate period of the IoM timeline.

See, there's a huge power gap in Unique Characters.

On one hand, you have the legendary ones: your Swarmlords, Abaddons, Farsights, Ghazghskulls, Calgars, Draigos, etc etc. These ones I could see a point being made for a limitation - say, only playable at 2k points or 3k. I still don't think it should be a thing.

Then, you have the small scale leaders: Darkstrider, Telion, Harker, Chronus etc etc. These guys would feel right at home in small scale lists, with no need to limit them. In many ways, it makes more sense for Telion to be in a 500 point list with Scouts than a mandatory Captain/Librarian/Chaplain in the CAD.
Generic Chapter Masters/Shas'Os/Colonels/Chaos Lords etc would be of a higher profile and importance than these characters, yet there is no restriction on them.

Therefore, there should be no limitation on named Characters - forge your own narrative. They could be an impromptu raiding force, an ambushed part of the force, the tip of the spear, an elite strike force, the last line of defence. You fluff it, and it becomes real.

I'd see named characters start being usable in 2k games.

But I play IG, I like to take a reg Company Commander as my warlord or an inquisitor. The highest ranking officer in the armies leader just like ti should be.

I don't see Creed going to war in a small skirmish... but then ahaom, mind you 40k battles are mean't to repsent a very tiny skirmish taking place in a full out scale war.

Honestly? Completely depends on The Narrative of the battle

I could be wrong but a few editions ago weren't special (named characters) only allowed when both players agreed to them?
Fluff wise I totally agree that they shouldn't be used in small scale games but that being said you gotta love using them.

Huron black heart wrote:
I could be wrong but a few editions ago weren't special (named characters) only allowed when both players agreed to them?
Fluff wise I totally agree that they shouldn't be used in small scale games but that being said you gotta love using them.

It’s been a slow slide of acceptance.

It used to be everyone was “with permission only” and sometimes only at certain point values or above.

Then some characters were labeled as “balanced for normal play, you don’t need permission” Some might have still had point limits.

Now it’s everything goes.

 Nevelon wrote:

Huron black heart wrote:
I could be wrong but a few editions ago weren't special (named characters) only allowed when both players agreed to them?
Fluff wise I totally agree that they shouldn't be used in small scale games but that being said you gotta love using them.

It’s been a slow slide of acceptance.

It used to be everyone was “with permission only” and sometimes only at certain point values or above.

Then some characters were labeled as “balanced for normal play, you don’t need permission” Some might have still had point limits.

Now it’s everything goes.

I find nowadays that they tend to be overcosted for what they can do anyway, pretty much handicapping the player using them. Particularly if you can tar pit them, the cc oriented characters especially

As I'm more interested in narrative games and campaigns I'd prefer to use them if the story brought them into the engagement...but once killed/lost...not useful for further games in the campaign (dead or recovering from wounds etc.).

I think that adds a very easy limitation to a campaign. Bringing a named character? Hope he doesn't get blasted into smithereens because you only get one.

Makes it pretty easy.

Do I think it's silly for a tournament list to feature a named character? Yes, a bit. But that's personal preference.