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.

With the release of the new Death Guard codex, Mortarion got a new profile and joins other characters like Ghazkull and the C'tan shards. Characters who are very hard to take down and in return have a respectable output.

Candidates for other armies could be:
Eldar: Avatar, Yncarne, Wraithknight
Tyranids: Swarmlord
Chaos: Named Greater Daemons, Abaddon, Magnus
Imperial Guard: Baneblade
Tau: Stormsurge

Assuming that at least some of them will get updated profiles with strong defensive characteristics paired with an equally strong offensive output, what is your opinion about it?

Is the game becoming better or worse? Do you like playing with or against these kind of units?

I don't like unique characters being so damn good that it's best to build around them. I'd rather use my guys.

Centerpiece models are fine, but I prefer stuff like Knights and Baneblades, rather than Fateweaver or Rotigus.

I love them.

Models wise, they’re all pretty great, and certainly stand out as Something Special on the table top.

Would I use them every game? Probably not, no. But I like to have them in my collection, and the eternal option of sticking them in a list.

I dislike this trend towards more heroes.

Things like the baneblade and stormsurge are fine. I think super heavies should stay in apocalypse, but that bridge is crossed. I just don't like the herohammer and focus on named characters, particularly because in addition to being a super heavy, they're advantaged over the generic super heavies because they don't cost CP to bring, while it costs 3 cp to bring a baneblade or stormsurge.

Model wise? Cool. Awesome. Go wild GW.
Play-wise? I've never had an issue with generic gigantic vehicles/monsters. But I've never liked focusing on special/named characters. I don't care if they fit on a 20mm base or a 100mm base. And yet I support them being statted up so that on occasion they can make an appearance. Unfortunately most people, once they have such a character model insist upon bringing it to play every chance they get. And every game becomes about dealing with _____. Wich gets a bit old outside a tourney environment.

Hate them.

Don't like the look of them (especially the diorama-heavy ones like the SK or the Sisters funeral procession or the He-man Bone Commander for AoS)

Gameplay-wise, they warp the game far too much. And this is getting worse as well, they're just not on the same scale as the rest of the game, with way too much going on both in terms of offense and defense.

Plus, too, GW spent 20-odd years telling me that their special characters were terrible and gamebreaking (though some were gamebreakingly _bad_) and no decent person would ever even consider fielding them outside of special games. They've done a really bad job changing the status quo they set up, despite saying its fine to field them now.

I like them in the games where their size is appropriate, in the same way I like or don't like any vehicles or anything bigger than a Terminator depending on the game size, but I also support more access to generic centrepiece heroes too.

Regarding the trend of "needs to be more resilient and have more offensive output", I lean closer towards "reduce the offensive capabilities of everything and reduce resilience accordingly".

I have nothing against them in other armies. In general I don't like the idea that core machanics or army efficiancy would be linked to a 100$+ single model kit. Specialy when it is a large model, which really needs to be painted to look passable on the table. A power armoured or termintor armoured HQ is easy to to do for a weekend game, something like mortarion or silent king is not. Plus if a nerf happens to a big model like this, it feels a lot worse, then losing a single meq model.

I dislike most of them. Why? Because they'd work in an Apocalypse scale game but what's pretty much a skirmish game or a small unit engagement? Nah.

Sure the 2000 points may be the "key engagement" of a 100 000 point battle but it just seems out of place.

Also I think most of the centerpieces are ugly.

I like that they exist. Generally they've tended to not be the best option, which I quite like. I don't want to have to/be heavily incentivised into using a named model.

I never liked centerpiece superheroes and I won't play them. The biggest "centerpiece" models I'm willing to play with my armies are a Land Raider, a Stormwolf/Stormfang Gunship, 1-3 Battlewagons and a Mork/Gorkanaut.

Biggest HQs I field are Biker Boss/Deffkilla Wartrike and Bjorn the Fellhanded.

I love the big centerpiece models. Mostly, as I think they look awesome, and are a heap of fun to paint.

I think it's stupid in most respects.

Visually I find most of the models incredibly disappointing. Silent King and his bizarre throne strike me as the worst, with Ghaz being the only one I sort of like.

Design wise it rubs me the wrong way. Each army is getting a "take this or you're at a disadvantage" unit. One of the things about 40k I always liked was that variance in armies; so you might see an entirely foot-slogging ork, and then on another table someone running a full mechanized list. I realize that GW's poor rules writing did inhibit this to a point, but that was an issue with their rules in general rather than an intentional codex design of "EVERYONE must take this ONE particular model!"

Fluff wise it's mind numbingly stupid. Mortarian, Ghaz, and the Silent King are the leaders of large factions in a setting which spans the entire fething galaxy. Having them show up at every battle is absolutely insane. These are the sort of dudes you'd only see once in awhile in an apocalypse level sized game, yet now Guileman takes the time to personally escort every combat patrol of scouts trying to earn their stripes.

 morganfreeman wrote:
I think it's stupid in most respects.

Visually I find most of the models incredibly disappointing. Silent King and his bizarre throne strike me as the worst, with Ghaz being the only one I sort of like.

Design wise it rubs me the wrong way. Each army is getting a "take this or you're at a disadvantage" unit. One of the things about 40k I always liked was that variance in armies; so you might see an entirely foot-slogging ork, and then on another table someone running a full mechanized list. I realize that GW's poor rules writing did inhibit this to a point, but that was an issue with their rules in general rather than an intentional codex design of "EVERYONE must take this ONE particular model!"

Fluff wise it's mind numbingly stupid. Mortarian, Ghaz, and the Silent King are the leaders of large factions in a setting which spans the entire fething galaxy. Having them show up at every battle is absolutely insane. These are the sort of dudes you'd only see once in awhile in an apocalypse level sized game, yet now Guileman takes the time to personally escort every combat patrol of scouts trying to earn their stripes.

Now imagine a game between two players bringing the same factions with of course the same superhero in both lists, clashing against a version of each other. Ghaz vs Ghaz or Mortarion vs Mortarion, how would that be visually?

I have a particular loathing of mortiarian. I have no issue with him existing though. Rules need to be balanced so they aren't autoinclude just let you do something a little different.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I have a particular loathing of mortiarian. I have no issue with him existing though. Rules need to be balanced so they aren't autoinclude just let you do something a little different.

Well, Mortarion isn't an auto-include, and have never been.


I really like both Morty and Magnus, but LOATH Knights and Baneblade. They ONLY belong in Apocalypse. However, that would make Morty and Maggy restricted to Apocalypse as well, and that's a sacrifice I'm more than willing to make.
Bring the 30k versions of the primarchs to 40k!

Game wise, as the game IS, some big models warp the game around them. You can ignore Knights, but you can't really ignore the C'Tan, Maggy or Morty.You'll have to deal with them before you can start to play the game.
But if your opponent gets super easy to deal with ince their big dude gets removed, then it's not so bad.
I've played many games where I killed Maggy or a Knight or Baneblade turn one and the rest of their army just crumpled.

Models like mortarion, girlyman, magnus, imperial knights and their xenos counterparts dont belong in a 2k 40k game. Those represent small skirmishes. Primarchs, huge warmachines, etc. dont participate in those.

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I have a particular loathing of mortiarian. I have no issue with him existing though. Rules need to be balanced so they aren't autoinclude just let you do something a little different.

Well, Mortarion isn't an auto-include, and have never been.

Those times are gone. So far no model could have four (!) warlord traits. Mortarion now can, and will be an auto include.

I feel like they've actually struck a good balance with the Necron ones. TSK requires you to build a list around him, rather than being an auto-include or good in every type of Necron list, and the C'tan are beatsticks but they also contribute precisely 0 to winning the mission and for a model that costs 350+ points that's a hard pill to swallow. Even for the one that does provide some utility, I'm not sure a redeploy is worth 350 points.

Mortarion is interesting because ruleswise I think he's exactly what he needs to be. Insanely tough, killy, an amazing force multiplier and a good debuffer too. The issue is more that he really does feel too cheap for all of that and that does seem like it lends him towards being an auto-include, especially as his abilities are universally good and provide utility so you don't exactly need to build a list around him.

But we'll have to see. People thought the Nightbringer was going to completely break the game and he's more or less been a wet fart in terms of actual impact.

I have no problem with it, but the people I play against also typically don't bring these kinds of models.

I don't *hate* things like Mortarion/Magnus/Silent King etc existing - but if their rules tend towards auto-take/optimal then I think thats a serious problem. (I'm afraid I just don't find Knights cool - and this extends to Titans, I know, shame, shame etc - but there we are. Super Heavy Tanks are far cooler.)

In *Game terms* though I don't think its healthy for any model to be worth dramatically more than about 250-300 points. On paper GW could make degradation work - but we are 3 years on, seemingly they won't and I feel most players hate it anyway. So instead you end up in this situation where your 500~ point unit is either alive or dead, and this is a massive difference in a way that doesn't apply to other units who die in identifiable chunks.

I just think GW can stop this dichotomy of either being overpowered/a hard meta-warping gatekeeper, or a bit rubbish. Which I know Dakka likes to imply about just about everything - but due to the above issue I think its far harder to get things right.

I know I don´t like them in my 2.000 point games but I don´t hate that they exist. I do question the wisdom of making an army full of them a legal way to play the game (Knights), but luckily no one plays those over here.
I also preferred when a centerpiece model was either a) a smaller special character, your Typhus, Ahriman, Creed kinda deal or b) a big tank/walker ala Gorkonauts, Baneblades etc. Still don't like 400+ points models in my game but it somehow feels better when they are generic big things rather than Lore centerpieces one offs.

Ghaz is not really worth it oustside of Goff green tide builds, not since FW has dropped us orks a shiny new biker boss you get give an 4++ too (if you don’t take ghaz that is).

The others don’t seem too game breaking either, so that just leaves the new morty. Wait and see, I also feared nightbringer would be too strong and indeed was totally wrong (like Bosskelot 3 posts above said).

I am fine with these as long as GW makes them hard to fit into 2000 point lists, otherwise I hate them. Some named characters like the khan or Ahriman show up every freaking game, it gets old really quick, so it’s is even worse with the large ones. Magnus was the one I kept seeing on tables all the time, despite he never felt very good really (I have yet to lose against a Magnus list).

I agree with others here, Herohammer is bad and should be discouraged by most means possible in terms of list building

BTW good arguments here in this thread, no attacks, it’s a nice read ! let’s hope the thread stays clean like it is now

Nice looking, too expensive and don't like them in the game.

I hate herohammer experiences, and would rather see "named" characters built up through game experience than dropping someone else's superheros on the board.

I'd hate, for example, to see what sort of stats they'd give to Patton, as a general.

I prefer it when they're not special characters, but I understand the need to make people like Ghaz as well as actual Primarchs into read hard cases.

I don't love Knights and Super Heavies, but I am not totally against them either. I think it is okay, but sort of stretches the scale of the game a bit too much. Big Greater Daemons are fine, because they really aren't bigger than tanks on the other side of the table, and the same goes for big Tyranid beasties.

Not really a fan of special characters and daemon primarchs and so on outside of special games. I think it is a bit lame to have them showing up all the time and I think the game is more fun when you make up your own dudes.

Eh. I'm opposed to named characters on principle; they discourage preferring your own lore/characters to GW's, and discourage customization, and it's kind of silly/immersion-breaking lore-wise if the Primarch has to show up to every single fight their Legion is involved in because GW wanted to sell a $150 centerpiece model by giving it OP rules. I don't mind non-character centerpieces (superheavies, big tanks) in big games (a Baneblade at 1k is just silly, even if technically legal), but I'd much rather GW put time and energy into releasing updates for out-of-date models and expanding the range of stuff you can customize/build your own stuff with.

40k is more fun when it feels like your army is your own. When I can't really field my own commander due to the necessities of power and opportunity costs, i feel like I've lost a lot of what I like about 40k.

I love centerpiece models, great to build, great to look at, great for games larger than 3k.

Any lower....hell no

I like them, but I use them sparingly as befits their status. I don't blame them for existing or GW for making them, because when they aren't appropriate to the game being played it's up to me not to use them.

Competitive players and those who live in remote places and are forced to seek pick-up games don't have the luxury of not bring the best possible army to every game, so their loathing for these models is valid.

The Triumph of Saint Katherine is my favourite- I'm magnetizing the models to use them as cannonesses in the appropriate detachments; my Crusade campaign is the story of those six models working their way across the galaxy to meet and form the first ever Triumph.

But if I just dropped the Triumph on the table in a 2k game at a store with a random stranger, my perspective would probably be different. Fortunately, I have control over that.

Personally, I would have preferred it if these giant things had been kept out of the normal game. They warp the whole game around themselves and for me, 40k fundamentally is a skirmish game. And that's not where you would get superheavies outside very specific scenarios.

I also dislike special characters. I find that they drain creativity and in the lore, they have become far too big and important. On the tabletop, it just feels silly to me that such beings of legend (only one of them in the whole galaxy) show up all the time to square off against each other. It's too much like a superhero setting for me really.