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.

**Stormonu**

I feel like I must be the odd person out, so I wanted to see if it was truly the case.

Waaay back in the 90's, I got interested in trying Warhammer Fantasy. After reading up a bit about the world (I'd previously been must playing D&D), I settled on High Elves for my army. My first game was against a friend who was fairly well-versed in the game, who used Orks. It didn't go well. Namely, his named general (I forget who) could not be harmed by anyone in my army, and proceeded to tear my newly purchased army apart. I was so infuriated by that game that several things happened. I never again played WHFB (until about 6 mo. before the End Times...), I boxed the army up, never finishing painting it and sold it a few years later. And the biggest thing, which sparked this thread, was I swore I'd never use named characters in GW game again (At that time, I was still playing/collecting 40K & Epic from GW).

To me, GW's rule writing has been so poor, that after that event, I never trusted to allow playing against a name character from there out. Over the years, the games and batreps I have seen have only enforced upon me that this was a wise decision on my part. But it's always left me wondering - does anybody else feel this way about named characters in the 40K game? Are there others who hate and/or won't play 40K games with or against named characters?

**Scott-S6**

There have been editions where named characters where overly good and editions where named characters were useless. There have been editions where named characters were the only way of unlocking chapter traits or certain army builds.

In 7th named characters were nothing compared to the stuff that could be accomplished with regular units. (I am loath to call any army cheese but some of the combinations you could create in 7th were ridiculous)

At the moment most named characters aren't anything special at all with one or two exceptions. Plenty of more powerful stuff that isn't a named character.

If you hadn't been so closed minded about it you'd have seen that and you could have taken a more nuanced approach about which specific named characters you feel are overpowered than this knee jerk reaction.

Re WHFB, there were some named characters that were overly good but you could also do some ridiculous things with generic characters and the right magic item combo.

**Arachnofiend**

I have nothing for or against the use of named characters. I use them if they're useful and don't if they're not.

**Dakka Flakka Flame**

When I started playing named characters were only allowed in large games and even then IIRC you needed your opponent's permission. Now that I've started getting back in having named characters running around has actually been the hardest thing for me to adjust to.

It's actually not the special abilities that bother me. It just strikes me as weird that people would want to include named characters in their armies rather than coming up with their own characters. I always had it in my head that named characters were for re-creating specific battles or campaigns in narrative games. One gets the feeling from seeing modern batreps that certain named characters have been involved in every minor skirmish on every backwater across the entire galaxy for the last several thousand years. It bothers me a little bit.

That said, if people want to put them in their armies I'm not going to raise a fuss about it. People enjoy different things about the game, and it doesn't ruin my experience so I'm not going to throw a fit and ruin theirs. From a gameplay perspective some characters may be broken but the same can be said of some units. Someone isn't any more of a jerk for taking a severely undercosted character than they are for taking a severely undercosted unit, and at least people can't spam the same named character over and over.

**NL_Cirrus**

I don't have anything against named characters mechanically, but I don't play 40k for the mechanics. I play 40k for the fluff mostly and I don't mind named characters showing up occasionally or if we have a campaign or narrative game, but I get annoyed when they start showing up in every battle or in an army they don't make sense in. Personally I don't use named characters, I do have Farsight and I do like him and his back story but I have never used him in a game, maybe someday in a narrative game.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

I always have Celestine in my Sisters army.

It's hard to have a viable army without her, because she's the source of our second Act of Faith and the only HQ option that can actually keep up with the rest of the army.

If Canonesses had Jump Packs, and Acts of Faith weren't 1/turn unless you have Celestine, then it's 2/turn, then it would be a different story, but as is, we basically have to have Celestine.

It's not bad though, Celestine is my favorite model I own, and I converted her to have feathery angel wings and painted them like Avacyn the Purifier, so I'd play with her anyway, because she's pretty.

There was definitely a time where it seemed that ordinary options were better than named options, but now GW's changed from named options being special versions of ordinary guys with fixed loadouts to unique single units with unique abilities, which is a design philosophy I disagree with because it leads to poor scaling. 8e as a whole has pretty poor scaling.

**Peregrine**

Stormonu wrote:
To me, GW's rule writing has been so poor, that after that event, I never trusted to allow playing against a name character from there out. Over the years, the games and batreps I have seen have only enforced upon me that this was a wise decision on my part. But it's always left me wondering - does anybody else feel this way about named characters in the 40K game? Are there others who hate and/or won't play 40K games with or against named characters?

That makes no sense at all. There are plenty of non-character units that have been just as overpowered and not fun to play against as the characters that have been balance problems, so why single out characters for refusal?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
It just strikes me as weird that people would want to include named characters in their armies rather than coming up with their own characters.

Aside from the "I want to play with my favorite character from the fluff" aspect making your own character doesn't give you the special rules that GW's named characters usually have, and some of those rules can be critical in getting an army concept to work.

**Voss**

I tolerate facing them, but yeah, don't like it. Mostly because GW trained me to think of SCs as something never to be used.

And mostly, yes, they have been more broken than generics.

**wuestenfux**

No named characters in my armies. Never used them.

**vipoid**

Named characters irritate me. I don't despise them (save for one or two), but I do despise the fact that they're given unique rules, unique weapons, even unique mobility. Especially in an edition where most normal characters have had their abilities and wargear cut to the bone, it's rather disheartening to see so much stuff still being laid at the feet of special characters. It's like they got an entire buffet, whilst the regular HQs only get to pick at their leavings.

However, I think this is as much a problem with the regular characters as the special ones. For example, I don't mind that St. Celestine can fly, but would jump packs for regular Canonesses really be too much to ask?

In terms of the characters I use, I try to avoid special characters whenever I can. The only exception at the moment is that I do use the aforementioned St. Celestine in my IG army. Mainly because I find the IG HQs rather dull (hopefully the new book will change that) and their own special characters don't really interest me. With my Necrons I've so far avoided them entirely (though if I use warriors I might end up using one of the two special character Crypteks because the regular one is awful).

**edbradders**

I don't feel like I have to use names characters but I have one for each of my armies; Creed, Kharn, and Kor'sarro Khan. I like their uniqueness.

**Nym**

I've hardly ever used named characters until 8th edition (I play Orks).

With the current state of the Ork index, if you don't play Ghazghkull Thraka, you might as well not play at all, sadly.

It bothers me since I'm playing Deffskullz and he's a Goff, but it's either that, or being tabled by the end of turn 3 each and every game...

**edbradders**

My regular opponent also uses Shrike and Ghazghkull

**lindsay40k**

I don't currently have any in my force but I plan to add Fabius Bile and occasionally use him in a unit of "recruits". When he's allowed in Transports, anyway.

I've got Guilliman amongst a load of Novamarines I'll be painting once the Konor rush is over. Again, won't be using him all the time - I fancied having Cypher around for occasional use and a friend split the bill to add Voldus to her collection.

**Imateria**

I do sometimes use them but most of the named Eldar characters just aren't worth it.

**Sim-Life**

I never used to like playing named characters. I'm generally not big on the 40k fluff. I mainly just play for the aesthetic more than anything else.

But since Fantasy died I really miss decking out my generic characters with upgrades and weapons and now it's pretty much gone from 40k as well (not that I was overly invested in any of my HQs as characters besides my jump-pack canonness).

Anyway, I generally look to named characters now on the basis that they generally have one or two rules that make them a bit more interesting than the generic characters available.

I mean, I'd love for my canonness to be able to do more than sit in the back lines and hand out re-rolls to my Retributors and Exorcists but it's not happening any time soon.

**Elbows**

I've never owned named characters until stumbling upon an absurd deal on the box of Phoenix Lords (and I play Eldar). I've run them once or twice for fun, but not with nefarious purpose. I'm okay with them showing up in the appropriate army, but I'd prefer to see them in larger armies normally. I'll probably run a Phoenix Lord more often now since I refuse to use stupid Autarchs which leaves me in the usual Eldar HQ conundrum - Farseer or Avatar.

I really like it if it can be woven into a story or scenario - and if you're doing a campaign I like having them removed if they die (or a difficult return roll). My only hesitation is when the army composition or build doesn't support the placement of the character at all (and I don't mind the old rules where you could only use special characters with your opponent's permission - I feel that's a fine rule).

Would I ever run Eldrad Ulthuan with my Yderis craftworld? No. He's an Ulthwe character. Do I like seeing Guilliman leading full Imperium armies without a single space marine (let alone Ultramarine) present? Nope, that seems pretty gamey to me. I'm fine with Celestine leading sisters, etc.

I think as with most things it narrows down to the fluff/story/lore for me. Did you pick X because he's technically available and provides a game-boosting performance, or did you pick him because he fits with your army and is damn cool?

**roflmajog**

I don't play with named characters too often, maybe 1 in every 3 or 4 games. Also I own 8 different named characters and try and play all of them so each only turns up about 1 in every 25 games for me. I also try and theme my force around them a bit, eg if I play Eldrad I will normally include at least 40 guardians (up from my usual 20 for playing ulthwe) and have a lot of guardian vehicles, or if I play asurmen there will be at least 3 squads of dire avengers.

I don't think most named characters are especially powerful either (obviously some are).

Edit: I did once use all 6 pheonix lords in one game though, a 4000 point game vs chaos as a mini version of the prophecised rhana dandra fight, where Feugan calls all of the pheonix lords together for the final battle of the Eldar race.

**Tidfortad**

Played since third edition, and only now started to include named characters sometimes. I like the fluffy part of 40k, heck, I could write a novel about my chaos army and its kroot cultists. For that reason, I find it silly that Abaddon or whomever just happen to be with my army. Same thing with those rare titans. I'd rather have forces scrapping over remote planet x. I have played "not abaddon" with his stats though..

**verticalgain**

I play with named characters in my Ultramarines armies because I like their fluff and they are what got me into the game. Calgar, Cato, Telion, Tigurius, and on occasion Guilliman. They aren't all in every army, sometimes I don't use any, usually only one or two.

I have Celestine to lead my Talons army since they don't have an HQ.

My Cadians have a "Counts-as Pask" with his own identity. Supreme Tank Commander Jeremiah Stubbs.

I play to have a good time. My opponents do too. I don't have a problem with any model, named characters or otherwise. It comes down to the person playing the list: a player with a 'cheese' list can still be fun, and a player with a 'bespoke' list can still be a dick.

**TangoTwoBravo**

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

**Frozocrone**

Nothing against opponents using named characters. It's their hobby and my opinion should not influence them in how they collect or play their armies.

I for one, do not like using named characters unless they are large scale games. I like the feeling of the named people in the fluff fighting big battles that can change the tide of a raging war.

Could you imagine Marneus Calgar leading one tactical squad against some Tyranid Warriors, Prime and some Termagants?

**verticalgain**

Frozocrone wrote:
Nothing against opponents using named characters. It's their hobby and my opinion should not influence them in how they collect or play their armies.

I for one, do not like using named characters unless they are large scale games. I like the feeling of the named people in the fluff fighting big battles that can change the tide of a raging war.

Could you imagine Marneus Calgar leading one tactical squad against some Tyranid Warriors, Prime and some Termagants?

I've seen lots of folks mention limiting characters to large-scale games, but again I don't personally understand it.

Who's to say your 2000 point army on its 6x4 board isn't working on some critical objective that needs to be taken out so the rest of the chapter, staged on the opposite side of the planet, can take out some massive enemy force?

There are a million reasons Dante or Magnus or whoever might get involved with something. The small or large scale of the tabletop battle doesn't necessitate the scale of the greater war surrounding the battle.

**Rolsheen**

I've been playing named characters since Rogue Trader days, I have no problem with them. Sure I try to only take them when they fit thematically in the army and most of the time the points cost usually backs up that choice. I think we've been having so many complaints about Girlyman because people haven't been playing against named characters on purpose and just don't have the experience to deal with him.

**jeff white**

Named chars by prior agreement only.
Trouble includes death cloud super stacks and just general WAAC yuck.
I don't mind a special conversion that counts as a named char as much. With a cool enough model then not so bad.
Back in the day they were forbidden outside friendly narrative play and for good reason.
The universe is too big to have to face one off superheroes every Sunday.
Too much of a crutch for lack of strategy and creativity, that is my main complaint. Frankly I wouldn't play against one these days. The fact that I probably would, and with Girlyman or some such also some WAAC MTG vet, I am in no rush to the game table this edition.

**ryzouken**

I REALLY wish I didn't have to take one of the Ynnead Triumvirate to play Ynnead faction...
I'm planning on a jetbike heavy army; no footsloggers, just jetbikes, grav tanks, and flyers. This presents a problem because the triumvirate are all quite slow. The Yncarne is perhaps the fastest of the bunch, being able to teleport around the table as models die, but costs too much for me to comfortably take. The Visarch or Yvraine are cheaper, but need a transport to keep up with the rest of the army and can't do anything while embarked as they have no ranged weapons and can't cast.
It's kind of rough.

**AnomanderRake**

I don't usually because my armies tend to either not have them (Corsairs, my homemade Space Marine Chapter), or I don't like the ones they've got (Draigo, his silly face, and his Saturday morning cartoon adventures can f*** off and die for all I care).

My objections are more lore-focused than gameplay-focused, though, so I don't mind other people using them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ryzouken wrote:
I REALLY wish I didn't have to take one of the Ynnead Triumvirate to play Ynnead faction...
I'm planning on a jetbike heavy army; no footsloggers, just jetbikes, grav tanks, and flyers. This presents a problem because the triumvirate are all quite slow. The Yncarne is perhaps the fastest of the bunch, being able to teleport around the table as models die, but costs too much for me to comfortably take. The Visarch or Yvraine are cheaper, but need a transport to keep up with the rest of the army and can't do anything while embarked as they have no ranged weapons and can't cast.
It's kind of rough.

(You don't have to take the Triumvirate. You can totally just declare any units you like (that aren't Haemonculus Coven, Drazhar, Mandrakes, or an Avatar) to be Ynnari and swap special rules out for Strength from Death. And if you take Corsair units you don't even lose your army special rule to do that since Reckless Abandon isn't on the list of rules that go away when you make a unit Ynnari.)

**vipoid**

AnomanderRake wrote:

(You don't have to take the Triumvirate. You can totally just declare any units you like (that aren't Haemonculus Coven, Drazhar, Mandrakes, or an Avatar) to be Ynnari and swap special rules out for Strength from Death. And if you take Corsair units you don't even lose your army special rule to do that since Reckless Abandon isn't on the list of rules that go away when you make a unit Ynnari.)

Nope. As per the errata, your army must include one of the Triumvirate or else you can't use Ynnari rules.

**MechaEmperor7000**

The only named character I've ever used was Kharn I think, but that's because he's mah boy (and the first mini I ever painted for playing). In all other cases I use a generic character wherever I could. However I would have liked to use Old One Eye in his old 3rd edition rules, but I never got the chance before the codex updated (I was young and didn't have much money for 40k, so by the time I got a legal Tyranid Army the new codex already dropped).

I really disliked named characters. For one they break the immersion for me when two of the same ones show up on opposite sides. Another reason is that their unique rules more often than not form the core of the army or are required to be taken for an army (the issue the Ynnari are suffering right now and the issue that Deathwing and Ravenwing suffered before). It made me sad that no one wanted to field a SM captain simply because you can get a cheaper, more effective version AND unique rules by taking either a named captain or a named chapter master. Finally it's weird how someone like Pedro Kantor, Chapter Master of the Crimson Fists, would show up to a small skirmish between his chapter, two other chapters (allied on the same side) and some random tyranids. You'd think he'd be more busy with coordinating his chapter, or at least fighting Orks.

I suggested this in another thread, but given that Narrative play and Power Levels are a thing, maybe GW should just drop the points for special Characters in Matched Play. They should be a narrative-only thing.

**Vitali Advenil**

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.

Granted, I'll never say no to someone using a named character. It's honestly very satisfying when you kill that super-special-awesome character with orks.