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.

Over the years, I've had a slight disdain for using characters in 40K. I've always made my own HQ's by building up my warlord with point costs. It just seems more personal to me (Since the warlord DOES represent you on the battlefield)

But as I look at army lists, I see a lot of Heroes being used. I can see the advantage in this, as they get abilities that cannot be purchased when designing your own HQ.

What do my fellow gamers think? For instance, I used a Ghazghkull kit to make my Big Mek, who leads my Waagh!!. Should I get another Ghaz kit, to make the Prophet of the Waagh!! ? What have YOU done ?

Nothing wrong with that dude, i make custom hqs to use in 'friendly' games, such as my 2 librarians (going towards 5 for my psychic choir apocalypse formation) But i do use named characters for tournaments

I'm not the boss in my house, I don't know when I lost it, I don't where I lost it, I don't know if I even had it, but I've seen the bosses job and I don't want it.

I like the special characters myself. I cant in vision myself on the field as myself but as on of the special sure.

I think I've only used Ghazghkull twice, although I do use Old Zogswort on occasions. Generally I field my own Warboss or Big Mek. I've built several figures with different options, and yes, I have a name for each

I also tend to eschew special characters. I like you like making my own heroes on the battle field, and I've always felt that *counts as* was somehow cheap. I know that there are others who feel this way as I do as well, but its not necessarily rational.

* My Eldar HQs are an Autarch and a Farseer
* My Imperial Guard HQs are a Company Commander and Lord Commissar
* My Chaos HQs are a Slaaneshi Lord and a Daemon Prince

I always tend to go for generic characters when I play 40K. Part of it is simply that I enjoy tweaking wargear to fit a particular purpose. That said, there's nothing wrong with Special Characters. I just don't like em

I created a Warboss modeled from AOBR Warboss, WH Black Orcs kit, and other gubbins. His wargear is 'eavy armor, cybork, attack squig, ammo runt, and PK so he's modeled accordingly. The Big Meks are the most fun to scratchbuild because you can use anything to work. You have to name them or else they aren't as effective on the battlefield.

I do use various special characters, but I have renamed them and I use counts-as models as well.

For example, Khârn's rules are more appropriate for my own Khorne champion than merely a Khorne Chaos Lord would be.

I rename my special characters, then give them different gear (that I pay extra for) if I like the abilities they have for a fluffy reason. For example my captain jaydenicus uses creeds rules but I arm him with a plasma pistol and power sword because thats what the nobles use in battle. I use creed because he gives out so many orders, which is exactly what a Praetorian leader should do. I use a different model and name (and sometimes gear) as the rule book suggests I do.

Well, I have a bit of a problem with the HQ representing myself anyway as my canoness is a bit too... female to represent me

I personally think special characters are always fun because they add another tactical stratagem to the game.

I repurpose special character entries as my own characters, too.

For example, in my Chaos army, Ahriman's rules are used to represent Magistra Aeronwy of the Order of Dusk.

I use whatever codex entry happens to have the abilities and gear I want. I then will name it whatever I want, paint it whatever I want, and in general don't care what GW wants to call it. The only concession I make to GW's idea of what a special character is is to WYSIWYG the wargear, and even then I might use alternatives. I won't even paint my SM the colors they are supposed to be.

I like having my own characters. I just feel that it really lets me build up their personality over the course of games.

I prefer having a special character. It gives me an anchor point to build the rest of my list around.

I am rather lucky as far as special characters goes . Other armies have realy good ones that people may want to use and not every where is it ok to do so . IG on the other hand has 0 realy good specials , so the problem doesn't exist . If it wasn't for orders , I would be more then happy to not take any HQ at all.

I really hate Special Characters. I never feel like they should be present in one of my battles. Why would Pask be at my tiny skirmish with only 2 Russes? why would Ghaz be with my clan of Orks with no ties to him at all? I just think that Characters are a bit... boring.

The main issue I see is that their history and character is already written - they are who they are, they have done X thing at Y time and achieved Z status. I greatly dislike that. I like to have my own characters who develop based on my games (my entirely incompetent but always managers to survive Company Commander, for instance) and they write their own history, rather than having one preassigned to them.

A lot of my friends really love their Special Characters, but I can;t stand them. If I ever use a Special Character, I will convert my own and use them as a counts-as instead (which may happen with Creed at some point) with their own thing going on.

 Sparkadia wrote:
I really hate Special Characters. I never feel like they should be present in one of my battles. Why would Pask be at my tiny skirmish with only 2 Russes? why would Ghaz be with my clan of Orks with no ties to him at all? I just think that Characters are a bit... boring.

The main issue I see is that their history and character is already written - they are who they are, they have done X thing at Y time and achieved Z status. I greatly dislike that. I like to have my own characters who develop based on my games (my entirely incompetent but always managers to survive Company Commander, for instance) and they write their own history, rather than having one preassigned to them.

A lot of my friends really love their Special Characters, but I can;t stand them. If I ever use a Special Character, I will convert my own and use them as a counts-as instead (which may happen with Creed at some point) with their own thing going on.

I agree, if I ever run pask its not pask, its the ace who has been with my regiment since its founding.

If I run Creed (as i mentioned above) its not creed and so on.

I just view their special rules as upgrades I pay for. Especially since creed is only cadian for example. Why creed would lead non cadians (or any battle on the front lines) is beyond me.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Sparkadia wrote:
I really hate Special Characters. I never feel like they should be present in one of my battles. Why would Pask be at my tiny skirmish with only 2 Russes? why would Ghaz be with my clan of Orks with no ties to him at all? I just think that Characters are a bit... boring.

The main issue I see is that their history and character is already written - they are who they are, they have done X thing at Y time and achieved Z status. I greatly dislike that. I like to have my own characters who develop based on my games (my entirely incompetent but always managers to survive Company Commander, for instance) and they write their own history, rather than having one preassigned to them.

A lot of my friends really love their Special Characters, but I can;t stand them. If I ever use a Special Character, I will convert my own and use them as a counts-as instead (which may happen with Creed at some point) with their own thing going on.

I agree, if I ever run pask its not pask, its the ace who has been with my regiment since its founding.

If I run Creed (as i mentioned above) its not creed and so on.

I just view their special rules as upgrades I pay for. Especially since creed is only cadian for example. Why creed would lead non cadians (or any battle on the front lines) is beyond me.

Hit the nail on the head. I'm thinking of making a Death Korps counts-as Creed. Not sure how to write a story for him, though.

 Sparkadia wrote:
I really hate Special Characters. I never feel like they should be present in one of my battles. Why would Pask be at my tiny skirmish with only 2 Russes? why would Ghaz be with my clan of Orks with no ties to him at all? I just think that Characters are a bit... boring.

The main issue I see is that their history and character is already written - they are who they are, they have done X thing at Y time and achieved Z status. I greatly dislike that. I like to have my own characters who develop based on my games (my entirely incompetent but always managers to survive Company Commander, for instance) and they write their own history, rather than having one preassigned to them.

A lot of my friends really love their Special Characters, but I can;t stand them. If I ever use a Special Character, I will convert my own and use them as a counts-as instead (which may happen with Creed at some point) with their own thing going on.

I couldnt agree more. Ive used special characters twice. Once I converted Marneus Calgar to another character, (which has been mentioned in this post numerous times). And the other was a Hero battle, were everyone took a special character and fought a 'Last Man (Or Adeptus Soriartis) standing. That was a lot of fun. More than some of the 'Tank Only' battles I've been in.

I know house rules that wont allow the use of heroes. I guess, as long as everyone playing agrees, and you have fun...then its all good

 Sparkadia wrote:
I really hate Special Characters. I never feel like they should be present in one of my battles. Why would Pask be at my tiny skirmish with only 2 Russes? why would Ghaz be with my clan of Orks with no ties to him at all? I just think that Characters are a bit... boring.

The main issue I see is that their history and character is already written - they are who they are, they have done X thing at Y time and achieved Z status. I greatly dislike that. I like to have my own characters who develop based on my games (my entirely incompetent but always managers to survive Company Commander, for instance) and they write their own history, rather than having one preassigned to them.

A lot of my friends really love their Special Characters, but I can;t stand them. If I ever use a Special Character, I will convert my own and use them as a counts-as instead (which may happen with Creed at some point) with their own thing going on.

Here's how I've always thought of this: You're not fighting the entire battle. After all, when's the last time in real life that there was a major conflict taking place with... Sixty guys and 6 tanks. Or 200 guys. Or, for two horde armies fighting each other, maybe 400 models on the board at most. For that matter, since when are battles ended suddenly and inexplicably after certain objects are gathered?
So, you're actually just fighting in the thick of the combat. You're at the center of the battle, the most important part of it, and all around the table the rest of combat is taking place. Orks and Guardsmen and Marines and Tau are dying by the thousands, but you are fighting the most important part of the battle. The overall results depend on you claiming this relic, or hammering the enemy as hard as you can in one very specific point.

This really explains a lot of problems away. The reason you ALWAYS have some kind of special leader in charge (Whether a special character, or just the leader of your army, or a high-ranking officer) no matter how few men are behind him, is because he came in to the most important part of the fight. Your leader isn't leading 60 random soldiers in a tiny skirmish, he's leading the very front of a huge battle, determining the results of the most important spot on the battlefield.

 Gorlock wrote:
(Since the warlord DOES represent you on the battlefield)

Ever since Dawn of War I assumed if you used a generic chapter master/highest rank HQ then it represented you, but if you used lower ranked HQs or special characters you were sitting in a ship somewhere in orbit watching the game like an RTS.

It doesn't bother me so much to see special characters on the table, but since I have been playing Tau since 3rd edition I have kind of built up some history and fluff surrounding my army (which seems to change according to my mood and contradict itself at every turn, much like every other bit of fluff in 40k ).

My commander has always been named after a variant of my name. My original gaming buddies suggested it and it sounded catchy so I've kept it. He's pretty much always been in a crisis battlesuit until I lost him in a massive game (3v3 with 3k points a player. I took pictures, really should put a report up for that at some point).

I'm pretty attached to that guy. He's had some awesome moments throughout my career. That said, I have no problem with a "counts as" approach. In fact I currently plan to run him as a counts as Shadowsun. Me and my opponent both know who he is, so what difference does it make what rules I use to represent him?

I make my own versions of special characters and rename them. They are always WYSIWYG of course.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I rename my special characters, then give them different gear (that I pay extra for) if I like the abilities they have for a fluffy reason. For example my captain jaydenicus uses creeds rules but I arm him with a plasma pistol and power sword because thats what the nobles use in battle. I use creed because he gives out so many orders, which is exactly what a Praetorian leader should do. I use a different model and name (and sometimes gear) as the rule book suggests I do.

So you cheat?

Here's why I like special characters.

A few years ago I tried playing in a Star Wars RPG, and I hated it. Everything we did left me with this inescapable feeling of 'why the hell does this matter? Somewhere in this same universe, at this same time, Luke is making his run on the Death Star. The most important story in this universe has already been told. And I'm not part of it.' Every franchise game I get involved in (Start Trek, LotR, Babylon 5) leaves me with the same feeling. 40k is like every other franchise, but in this one you can PLAY the special characters.

If my homemade Chapter Master mattered in the grand scheme of the universe, then the novels would be about HIM, not Uriel Ventris or Ragnar Blackmane or Talos the Soul Hunter or any of those other guys. It seems like when it comes to special characters in 40k, you can either make a Joe NoName, and enjoy participating in the creation of a cog-in-the-machine character. (This can be fun, don't get me wrong. I love my own custom characters, but I try to bear in mind that need to be obscure for a reason.)

I don't want to take my need for uniqueness to the point where I'm making up ridiculous Mary-Sue characters just so I can be a special snowflake. If I really feel like my army is too generic, I can just do a really cool conversion or homemade version of a character's model.

That's just my own opinion, of course.

As a DW player I don't have the option of being my own boss.
Quite frustrating.

If you mean special characters, I hate that they are even allowed without permission, for mostly the same reason.

I like to theme my armies and name my own characters, and I refuse to field, say, Tigurius and rename him to High Librarian Goliath or whatever; he's Tigurius of the Ultramarines, and if you don't field Ultramarines you shouldn't be allowed to use him, and even then he should be saved for special battles not trotted out every battle.

Honestly, I wish they would go back to special characters only allowed with opponent's permission like it used to be. They belong in special scenarios, not every battle just for the extra benefit that they grant. I honestly get kind of upset/frustrated seeing almost every army list posted including a special character.

Given that I like to make my own background and characters, I basically have a personal rule for any army I make that no special characters are allowed.

I always invent my own characters. Making up your own armies and characters is the best thing about 40k. There is no game that allows you so much freedom as 40k does.
You can even use the special character rules for your own characters if you'd like to use those rules while still keeping your army fluffy.
I have a love/hate relationship with special characters. One one hand, you can use special characters to make very nice themed armies. But on the other hand, many players use special characters in armies and situations where they have absolutely no business being in fluffwise. I hate that. A lot. I hate it almost as much as unrealistically set up terrain.

Well this is an interesting question for me, since I love making my own themes to my armies and back stories etc. etc. BUT as a Blood Angels player first and foremost, I love playing a Death Company theme army and with that Astorath is always at the lead.

As for buying Characters from GW well the only one I've ever done that for is again Astorath (yea paying what they want for a single finecast pos) but other than that I make my own that I like better and make sure they look like who they represent in case I want to use them as such.

I really enjoy the Commander for Tau and how you can just purchase him for a set cost and kit him out how ever you want and wish there were more options like that in codexs cause its so much fun to do.

I used to look down on anyone who used a SC in an army. Back when I started 40K, generic heroes were OP and SCs were how you wiped half your opponent's army off the board with a single model. Very few of them affected how an army played on the board, they were just hard as gak hoop-kickers you could put in your army to tear your opponent's face off (figuratively).

When 3rd ed banned the use of SCs without an opponent's permission I was the happiest little nerd you ever saw.

My attitude has changed recently, due to how GW has started to handle some of the SCs. While some SCs are still just OP hoop-kickers, some have rules that unlock new ways to build an army. Khan lets you field bikes as troops. Chenkov actually makes taking conscripts a good idea. Al'rahem lets you Outflank his entire Infantry Platoon into your opponent's deployment zone. The new batch of SCs (well, SM and IG ones) have abilities for a player to utilize in conjunction with other units; they aren't a game-winner by themselves.

However, since I only play armies that I have created myself, I end up having to use "counts as" proxies and substitutions, since none of my armies use the existing characters (my SM army isn't Ultramarines; they can't actually have the real Sergeant Chronos in that Predator). I always let my opponent know ahead of time what I'm proxying (if the model is not the official model). If I am using the official model (for some reason) and it's just painted up in my army's colors, I trust my opponent to be smart enough to figure out that the Al'rahem model on the table is actually Al'rahem. Especially when he Outflanks on turn 2.

Unfortunately, I play Dark Angels and so running either Azrael, Belial or Sammael is a necessity from a force-organizational standpoint to making my army run efficiently.

I also happen to think a lot of the special characters are just plain cool. Honestly with 6E, I look up to people running special characters (other than a select few) because most of them are horribly inefficient. Like, if someone wants to bring Abaddon to a game, I think it's cool because Abaddon is absolutely useless in today's 40k. If someone wants to bring Kharn, power to him. Someone wants to bring any of the Phoenix Lords, hell yeah!

Scratch build guys right now are absurd comparitively. "Look at my chapter master with 2+/3++, is on a bike, has eternal warrior and a plasma sword." Rude, and more dangerous AND efficient than any other named HQ unit in Codex Marines.