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.

So the new Craftworlds codex differentiates between named characters and generic ones when it comes to Warlord Traits and Remnants of Glory. If you have a named character (except Phoenix Lords, who get no trait) as your warlord, it must be given the specific Warlord Trait associated with its craftworld, so Eldrad must have the Ulthwé specific trait etc. A named character also cannot be given an item from the Remnants of Glory list.

So the question is, how does this relate to the Avatar of Khaine? It has the same rule about "one per army" as Eldrad, Yriel etc, but he doesn't have a craftworld specified, instead being from the craftworld of the player's choosing. However, we know that there are multiple Avatars of Khaine in the lore, so he's not "unique" like they are.

I don't see anything in the actual rules to distinguish the Avatar from the named characters, and thus I think it should be treated like one. This would mean that an Ulthwé Avatar would have to be given the Ulthwé specific warlord trait if it is your warlord, and so on for Alaitoc, Biel-Tan...

This would also mean that the Avatar cannot be given a Remnant of Glory (if it could, only the Phoenix Gem would be alegal choice anyway), since it's a named character.

Would you agree? Is there a definition of "named character" somewhere I haven't seen?

Named Characters have their names in their keywords.

Take Calgar for example.
FACTION KEYWORDS:
IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, ULTRAMARINES
KEYWORDS
CHARACTER, INFANTRY, CHAPTER MASTER, TERMINATOR, MARNEUS CALGAR

 deviantduck wrote:
Named Characters have their names in their keywords.

Take Calgar for example.
FACTION KEYWORDS:
IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, ULTRAMARINES
KEYWORDS
CHARACTER, INFANTRY, CHAPTER MASTER, TERMINATOR, MARNEUS CALGAR

Every unit has their name as a keyword. The Avatar of Khaine, Wave Serpent, Farseer etc.

I would go with no, you cannot give the Avatar relics because it's unique.
Sigmar had this come up with one of its models and the answer was no, even though the unique wasn't 'named' per say.

I would say what makes him unique as a game mechanic is the one per army stipulation. Lore doesnt matter here. Mechanically hes unique.

In the points cost section, there is an explicit table for "Named Characters". If the Avatar is on there, then he is a named character. If he isn't, then he isn't. We need the codex to be sure.

I had this question when the SM codex came out about the Emperor's Champion, who was indeed a "Named Character".

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In the points cost section, there is an explicit table for "Named Characters". If the Avatar is on there, then he is a named character. If he isn't, then he isn't. We need the codex to be sure.

I had this question when the SM codex came out about the Emperor's Champion, who was indeed a "Named Character".

Like in the Index table the Avatar, stay in a separate table with the named ones.

Based on the wording i guess the Avatar can be chosen for specific Craftworld warlord traits but not for Relics.

Lord Perversor wrote:
Like in the Index table the Avatar, stay in a separate table with the named ones.

If this is the case and he is a Named Character, then the rules are crystal clear, he has to take the trait associated with whatever <CRAFTWORLD> tag it has.

The Avatar of Khaine is a named character. He is unique (at this point) in that his "mandatory" Warlord Trait depends on his Craftworld, as he can be associated with any of them. He does not have access to Relics.

GW's FB Response:

Well, that’s a good question! It’s not one we can answer here, as we in the Community Team do not write the rules, so we’ll pass it on to the folks in the Design Studio to see if it needs answering in a future FAQ.

So, you know, wait for an FAQ.

The big divisive point for me is that GW's marketing stream said he could take the Phoenix Gem, a relic. And while they've been wrong in the past, them suggesting something in the rules as an official channel does lend ambiguity to a situation.

 Fafnir wrote:
GW's FB Response:

Well, that’s a good question! It’s not one we can answer here, as we in the Community Team do not write the rules, so we’ll pass it on to the folks in the Design Studio to see if it needs answering in a future FAQ.

So, you know, wait for an FAQ.

The big divisive point for me is that GW's marketing stream said he could take the Phoenix Gem, a relic. And while they've been wrong in the past, them suggesting something in the rules as an official channel does lend ambiguity to a situation.

It doesn't need an FAQ, the rules are clear.

Also, YMDC does not allow facebook or other emails to be used in rules discussions. Marketing is not rules.

Edit: Having managed to take a look at the codex proper, the list isn't called "Named Characters" (seriously GW get your gak together it's not funny any more it's clearly labeled as "Named Characters" in the SM codex, but "Unique Units" in the GK codex and now just "Units" in the Craftworld codex DFUIHOFHAOUFHAIOUFHAOIUDJIODJOIHDJ) but it is in the table with the obviously "Named Characters" like Eldrad, so I would say that the Avatar is indeed a "Named Character" for the purposes of relics and warlord traits. Since the Avatar of Khaine has the <CRAFTWORLD> keyword, you can pick whatever Craftworld (and thus whatever trait) you want for him.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It doesn't need an FAQ, the rules are clear.

Obviously not all that clear, when one sentance later...

Having managed to take a look at the codex proper, the list isn't called "Named Characters" (seriously GW get your gak together it's not funny any more it's clearly labeled as "Named Characters" in the SM codex, but "Unique Units" in the GK codex and now just "Units" in the Craftworld codex DFUIHOFHAOUFHAIOUFHAOIUDJIODJOIHDJ) but it is in the table with the obviously "Named Characters" like Eldrad, so I would say that the Avatar is indeed a "Named Character" for the purposes of relics and warlord traits. Since the Avatar of Khaine has the <CRAFTWORLD> keyword, you can pick whatever Craftworld (and thus whatever trait) you want for him.

...you go on to describe the exact reason why this isn't at all clear lol.

Avatar of Khaine is a unique unit, sure. But Avatar is a description, not a name. It's not "Greg, the Avatar of Khaine". So it is just as reasonable for me to say that this unit is NOT a names character, as your random assertion that because he's a "One per army" model, that he is also a named character.

- There is no rule anywhere in the entirety of 40k that says that any unit that is 'one per army' is also a named character.
- The list of characters in the Eldar rulebook is not a list of named characters, it's just a list of units where the Wargear is included in their costs. This =/= named character.
- Using your same logic, I could say a Named Character would be any character that you can't choose a <Craftworld> for, as every other named character has a fixed Craftworld (or no craftworld). Avatar you can choose, so not a Named Character (by your logic).

If GW had written the restriction as "Unique characters such as Prince Yriel..." THEN the rule would be clear and wouldn't need FAQ. But it doesn't. It says named, and Avatar isn't a name.


Saying that, the same is also true for Emperor's Champion. However, the big difference there is that he was actually listed in a list called "Named Characters". Avatar Greg does not have that easy answer.

Edit: Just to add, I totally agree that this is another example of GW messing up. They should have just called that list "Named Characters" and none of this would even be an issue. But they didn't, and so here we are!

That's the main issue with the Avatar (and to an extent the Eldar codex)

If he's part of the Named characters (wich i suspect he is) he can't adquire Relic Wargear and his Warlord Trait it's fixed to the Craftworld Detachment he belongs.

A definition of what a named character is would be all that's needed. GW writing sloppy books assuming we'll figure things out on our own is bad for the game.

Anyway, there's no definition of what is and isn't a name. How do we know Marneus Calgar is a name, and Spiritseer isn't? Rules shouldn't come down to fluff discussions.

If the stream really said the Avatar could take the Phoenix Gem (I haven't seen it) that's an argument for GW intending it that way, but it could also be a mistake on the speaker's part.

The table in the Craftworlds codex may list the Avatar together with the generally agreed-on named characters such as Eldrad, but it doesn't say they're named characters, just "units", so that doesn't solve the problem.

I will treat the Avatar of Khaine as a named character until GW say otherwise, but that doesn't mean I can't see an argument for the opposite. It's hard to imagine GW didn't see this issue when they wrote the book.

Lord Perversor wrote:
That's the main issue with the Avatar (and to an extent the Eldar codex)

If he's part of the Named characters (wich i suspect he is) he can't adquire Relic Wargear and his Warlord Trait it's fixed to the Craftworld Detachment he belongs.

I suspect that he is -supposed- to be lumped in with the named characters, but it's just RAW he isn't.

Though I actually don't want him to be, as he is actually a little mediocre at the moment if he is a named characters. Being able to take a relic and choose a warlord trait might actually be enough to make him useful in certain lists.

Strange to see our biggest RAW advocate arguing RAI today! Shocked!!!

Having said that, I doubt their intent was for The Avatar to have relics. Give him a priceless relic and he'll squash or melt it!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Strange to see our biggest RAW advocate arguing RAI today! Shocked!!!

Having said that, I doubt their intent was for The Avatar to have relics. Give him a priceless relic and he'll squash or melt it!

I mean, in some ways the Avatar -is- a priceless relic. Don't they set up special armour and a sword and stuff on a shrine and it fills up with magical God fire? I may be mis-remembering, it's been a long time since I read the fluff.

Niiru wrote:

Lord Perversor wrote:
That's the main issue with the Avatar (and to an extent the Eldar codex)

If he's part of the Named characters (wich i suspect he is) he can't adquire Relic Wargear and his Warlord Trait it's fixed to the Craftworld Detachment he belongs.

I suspect that he is -supposed- to be lumped in with the named characters, but it's just RAW he isn't.

Though I actually don't want him to be, as he is actually a little mediocre at the moment if he is a named characters. Being able to take a relic and choose a warlord trait might actually be enough to make him useful in certain lists.

Mediocre is a massive understatement. He's awful.

For his cost...he's a good bit underwhelming. He's still cool and I like taking him, but he's a bit crap.

New FAQ/Errata:

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_craftworlds_en-1-1.pdf

FAQs
Q: Is the Avatar of Khaine a named character?
A: No.
Q: Can the Avatar of Khaine have a Warlord Trait?
A: Yes.

So it seems the situation is clear now. You can take any Warlord Trait for the Avatar and are not locked into the trait for whatever <CRAFTWORLD> you pick.

The weird part is that he still cannot take relics. Really strange, since he would only be eligible for one, which looks like it was tailor-made for him (pretty sure the FW model even comes with it). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that there is not a single other non-named character ineligible to take relics.

 Fafnir wrote:
The weird part is that he still cannot take relics. Really strange, since he would only be eligible for one, which looks like it was tailor-made for him (pretty sure the FW model even comes with it). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that there is not a single other non-named character ineligible to take relics.

Nope, it's only named characters that cannot take relics. Which is really weird.

The FAQ saying he isn't a named character is technically not breaking any RaW (because the Craftworld codex doesn't list the table with his points as Named Characters, just as Units), but the pattern has been pretty consistent for non-Daemon units so far. Names Characters have a fixed point, non-names characters buy their wargear. Maybe GW will change this later to allow him to take a specific relic, who knows.

I mean, it's probably too late for this year's Chapter Approved, but hopefully they'll realize come next year that the Avatar is still pretty trash even with warlord traits, and throws him some sort of bone. Either cut his cost by at least 50 points (for reference, a footslogging Daemon Prince with two malefic talons costs 156 points, and is pretty comparable, although the Prince benefits much more from supportive abilities, since he can actually be affected by them), or give him a stat line and point cost more in line with that of a greater daemon or daemon primarch (because come on, he's the fragment of a god).

Ya know the more I think about chapter approved the more I am thinking it's absolutely insane to not include points changes in the basic errata. There already have been changes where there have been mistakes, so to not include them when intentional is just bizarre.

 Fafnir wrote:
The weird part is that he still cannot take relics. Really strange, since he would only be eligible for one, which looks like it was tailor-made for him (pretty sure the FW model even comes with it). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that there is not a single other non-named character ineligible to take relics.

They probably figure he'd accidentally melt down any relic he was given. But, it does mean that you're free to name your Avatar for a game. I suggest naming him Bubba.

Seriously though it's probably that they figure that they don't want the Avatar hogging relics that normal named characters could get.

Agreed with you and BCB that they need to do something for the Avatar - stat boost or point cut if they don't let him take a(nother) Relic. Actually, what would be nice is if they came up with a list of relics for the Avatar that are linked with particular craftworlds, and your Avatar would get the relic for the appropriate craftworld you're playing. That'd also allow for slight variation between Avatars based on the Craftworld's orientation.

BCB - that's a good idea for including points changes in the basic errata. Having a FAQ sheet listing point costs for all the models and wargear that they update when they make changes might be the best thing, so you can have one centralized document for all that.

I thought the rules were clear about both the outcome and the intent. The Named Characters part about Warlord traits is a seperate bit. The Artifact bit mentions the intent (because some models already have one), and then who it affects (specifying the Avatar seperately from Named Characters).

The Avatar has a relic (Wailing Doom), and so, if models can't have too, you can't give him one (intent, not rules).

I agree he needs help.

Where does it say the Avatar can't take a relic? All I can find is that Named characters can't take a Relic, but the FAQ has cleared up that the Avatar is in fact not a named character... so he can have a warlord trait and a relic.

Niiru wrote:
Where does it say the Avatar can't take a relic? All I can find is that Named characters can't take a Relic, but the FAQ has cleared up that the Avatar is in fact not a named character... so he can have a warlord trait and a relic.

From the Craftworlds codex FAQ:

Page 122
– Remnants of Glory
Change the second sentence of the first paragraph to read:
‘Avatars of Khaine and named characters such as Prince Yriel already have one or more artefacts, and cannot be given any of the following items.’

He can have a warlord trait, but not a relic. He's not a named character. GW have spoken.

 Cream Tea wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Where does it say the Avatar can't take a relic? All I can find is that Named characters can't take a Relic, but the FAQ has cleared up that the Avatar is in fact not a named character... so he can have a warlord trait and a relic.

From the Craftworlds codex FAQ:

Page 122
– Remnants of Glory
Change the second sentence of the first paragraph to read:
‘Avatars of Khaine and named characters such as Prince Yriel already have one or more artefacts, and cannot be given any of the following items.’

He can have a warlord trait, but not a relic. He's not a named character. GW have spoken.

Ahhh I only read the FAQ part, didn't notice the Errata too, that explains it. Shame really, Avatar should get a choice of certain relics too, even if it's only a limited choice. Why bother putting in an FAQ saying he's not a named character, and then giving him the same rules as named characters... Oh, I guess he can choose his Warlord Trait, so he is a weird kind of middle ground. They should have just made it simpler as a "Named Character yes/no" instead of mixing his rules like that. It's not like giving him a relic would make him overpowered.

If anything, letting him choose a relic might have made him usable, instead of just overpriced.

 doctortom wrote:


Seriously though it's probably that they figure that they don't want the Avatar hogging relics that normal named characters could get.

The problem is that most of the Eldar relics are crap anyway. Going into a team tournament next month, and losing the ability to give him a relic has been pretty rough on me, because now my teammate and myself are having a hard time finding someone to arbitrarily give a relic to.