Switch Theme:

Special Characters  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine





Watford, England

I know some people don't like special characters (for one reason or another) so i wanted to get some opinions on them.
Personally i find them almost irreplaceable because of the abilities/rules they bring to the table, but always prefer the idea of making my own. I prefer having generic HQs.

For example i use Farsight for his deep-strike and 7 suits rule, but feel that I'd prefer to use someone else of my own set up if it was possible to have some sort of army affect. I really like Farsight but would like someone who i created who could in some ways emulate his role.

So i thought I'd ask, what you all think about special characters.

Do you use them?
Why do you use them?
Would you prefer to use an alternative if you could?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/17 14:03:06


 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




I use them because I think theyre cool and I wouldnt change them most of the time. Then again I spend over 900 pts on hqs.....

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




West Midlands (UK)

I have the same problem with Missile Launchers

I know some people don't like Missile Launchers (for one reason or another) so i wanted to get some opinions on them.
Personally, I find them almost irreplaceable because of the rules they bring to the table, but I always prefer the idea of making my own weapon.

For example i use 3 Missile Launchers in my Devastator Squad, but feel that I'd rather just pay for the rules and use some other weapon of my own, if it was possible. I like Missile Launchers, but want a weapon that I created.


So i thought I'd ask, what you all think about Missile Launchers.

Do you use them?
Why do you use them?
Would you prefer to use an alternative if you could?

   
Made in fi
Confessor Of Sins




Boniface wrote:

Do you use them?
Why do you use them?
Would you prefer to use an alternative if you could?


For some of my armies I use them.

My SoB have enough problems without trying to manage with the generic HQs, especially against armies that have the really big beatsticks. St Celestine isn't as irritating as she was now that she can only resurrect once, but she won me many games against armies that would otherwise have just walked all over me.

For my Blood Angels I generally don't use the SCs because the generic HQs work well enough - or sometimes better. Mephiston is cool, but he's not as cool without the Codex powers and I've seen the value of Prescience from the BRB, for example.
   
Made in gb
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine





Watford, England

Not sure why the missile launchers 'mocking' post but meh; I'm English nothing really fazes me.

I suppose my original post does sound a little bit like wish-listing or trolling or something, which wasn't the intent.

I meant it more like, "i'd prefer to use the generic HQs more often but the Specials tend to be so much more useful on an army wide basis. It's a pity the generic HQs cant have more influence on the army in some way; I would prefer to have a generic character i made up than a 'hero'.

Still, i think that rocket launchers should probably be like 20 points and have flakk missiles as standard.
I often have 4 of them in devastator squads to serve as all rounders, because they have sufficient capability in all areas.
I'd prefer to use lascannons, if only they were more accessible (bits wise).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/17 14:04:25


 
   
Made in fr
Hallowed Canoness





Boniface wrote:
Do you use them?

Yes.
Boniface wrote:
Why do you use them?

Because not only the rules for the generic HQ of my army makes baby jesus cry (imagine paying the price of a chaos lord for something a lot inferior to a chaos lord on every respect !), but also because it is the only way to field the model that is clearly the centerpiece of my army. In other word, because GW hates us Sister players.
Boniface wrote:
Would you prefer to use an alternative if you could?

Yes.

"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





I generally don't use SC's because I like to create my own heroes and such. The only named SC I use is St. Celestine and that's basically because I have to. I'd prefer a generic "Living Saint" and come up with my own fluff. But I'm a writer, so that's what I do. (My living saint is St. Thekla.)
My Imperial Fist army is led by a Master of the Forge and a Chaplain.
My inquisitorial detachment is also a generic inquisitor I made myself out of Isabella Von Carstein.

I don't like to use named characters, but they're fine otherwise.



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






Boniface wrote:
Do you use them?
Yes, mostly when I play DA. For my other armies, they only occasionally see the table.
Boniface wrote:
Why do you use them?
DA's only FOC-altering options are SC's, so if I want to play Deathwing or Ravenwing I have no choice (limiting me at events that don't allow SC's for example).
Boniface wrote:
Would you prefer to use an alternative if you could?
Not actually all that bothered, would be nice to have alternatives but not the end of the world.
   
Made in au
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





Brisbane, Australia

Fateweaver is arguably indispensible for the Chaos Daemons Codex.

Tigurius is an excellent choice from the Space Marine Codex - he's economic and flexible.

Farsight+shadowsun can make for some excellent shenanigans with warlord trait flexibility.

 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

I hate them, and wish that there wasn't stupid crap like needing to field one to "unlock" things that should be part of your particular army (e.g. White Scars should be able to field Bikes as troops without fielding Kor'sarro Khan).

I've always liked to make my own characters, and I really dislike the "counts as" approach; if I field Tigurius I expect him to be Tigurius of the Ultramarines, not Chief Librarian Poindexter of the Star Poodles because you want bonus rules. It actually kinda disturbs me how many lists field a special character with a "counts as" for whatever army they're using.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/17 14:28:08


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

I have no problem using special characters. They bring the books to life!

*Makes pew pew noises and hides behind desk, pretending boss is an ork!*

DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Shrieking Traitor Sentinel Pilot






Kansas City, MO

I enjoy the company Typhus keeps, so he generally is included in my CSM lists. I also enjoy the model. If I could get a couple of the unique rules from Typhus on a generic, I would, but may model with the same Typhus kit.

Follow me on Twitch,
Twitter and Instagram


 
   
Made in au
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





Brisbane, Australia

WayneTheGame wrote:
I hate them, and wish that there wasn't stupid crap like needing to field one to "unlock" things that should be part of your particular army (e.g. White Scars should be able to field Bikes as troops without fielding Kor'sarro Khan).

I've always liked to make my own characters, and I really dislike the "counts as" approach; if I field Tigurius I expect him to be Tigurius of the Ultramarines, not Chief Librarian Poindexter of the Star Poodles because you want bonus rules. It actually kinda disturbs me how many lists field a special character with a "counts as" for whatever army they're using.


You don't need Khan to field a white scars biker army.

I field Tigurius with 5 scout marines who are painted differently. What's the problem?

 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:
I hate them, and wish that there wasn't stupid crap like needing to field one to "unlock" things that should be part of your particular army (e.g. White Scars should be able to field Bikes as troops without fielding Kor'sarro Khan).

I've always liked to make my own characters, and I really dislike the "counts as" approach; if I field Tigurius I expect him to be Tigurius of the Ultramarines, not Chief Librarian Poindexter of the Star Poodles because you want bonus rules. It actually kinda disturbs me how many lists field a special character with a "counts as" for whatever army they're using.


You don't need Khan to field a white scars biker army.

I field Tigurius with 5 scout marines who are painted differently. What's the problem?


Maybe I'm mistaken, isn't Khan's special rule that one that lets you take Bikes as Troops, and not the White Scars tactics?

The "problem" is that Tigurius is an Ultramarines special character, and has no business being in a non-Ultramarine army, and IMO it's pretty lame to just rename a special character or use a different figure. On top of that, special characters should be special and rare, not trotted out every battle for their uber-rules. Personally I preferred it when they were "opponent's permission" only.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/17 15:09:54


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in fi
Focused Fire Warrior




Helsinki

Bike squads of at least five guys can be taken as troops as long as you have a captain or a chapter master on bike in your army.

As for special characters I use them quite a lot since they often give me nifty bonuses that I wouldn't get otherwise, ie huron for infiltrating, cypher for coolness, hit&run and shrouded and eldrad for psychic powers and redeployment. However the special characters that I use are often scratchbuilt, converted and renamed to suit my army. If I could get the same stuff without the named character I probably would since I like to come up with my own characters or background but I don't think they should be taken away since they add a lot of stuff to the codexes, especially SM and CSM, like background and forcetypical bonuses.

My armies:
vior'la sept 12k
Erik Morkai's great company 6k
dark mechanicus, the dearth of hope, 8k
rothwyr morwan's company 1,5k
Adeptus custodes 2k
AoS, The forgotten order, SE, 3k 
   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

I use special characters, but they have been renamed and are either having different models or just the model repainted/converted.

Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




I really don't like them background-wise. I like the rules being there, but much preferred them being permission-only back in the olden days. Special characters for special battles is good, special characters scrapping around with forty or fifty dudes is much less interesting. It's especially bad with Dark Angels, where Sammael insists on being present at every single mission the Ravenwing ever have. And what about the Ravenwing members who aren't Sammael's best buds? How do they pass the time? If this is how Space Marines delegate, it's no surprise the Imperium is struggling; there's about seven guys doing everything.

Okay, so my main issue is that the focus on SCs shrinks the universe down enormously. It's become like Warmachine or Malifaux, which are (as far as I can tell) basically the story of a couple of dozen guys and some goons who follow them around. I keep considering taking up those games, but that aspect is too much of a disappointment to me.

Everyone seems hung up on hearing the next big storyline thing; is the whole 'futuristic magic-suffused galaxy' setting really mined out already? Are there no stories left? do people look at things like this and say 'yeah, but what did Abaddon do next'?

This might be because I started playing with Specialist Games in the 90s. In Necromunda, gangers developed character of their own. There was no need for SCs to represent the IG codex's galactic heroes 'Guy Who Is Pretty Strong' or 'Tank Guy Who Is A Decent Shot'.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/17 16:09:22


 
   
Made in no
Stealthy Grot Snipa





ntw3001 wrote:
I really don't like them background-wise. I like the rules being there, but much preferred them being permission-only back in the olden days. Special characters for special battles is good, special characters scrapping around with forty or fifty dudes is much less interesting. It's especially bad with Dark Angels, where Sammael insists on being present at every single mission the Ravenwing ever have. And what about the Ravenwing members who aren't Sammael's best buds? How do they pass the time? If this is how Space Marines delegate, it's no surprise the Imperium is struggling; there's about seven guys doing everything.


I have never understood this attitude. The logic is so messed up that it's hard to even find a place to start.

But since you mentioned Sammael, why not start there? I don't play DA, so I might be a little off on my fluff knowledge here, but anyway: Sammael is the master of the second company, yes? And as a SM company that makes them about 100 man strong, yes? So 40-50 guys would be about 40-50 percent of the guy's entire command (I googled it, and the math checks out), yes? Is it really so absurd that old Sammy would make an appearance when half his guys are deployed somewhere?

And the "always, everything, everywhere" thing. Really? I don't know about you, but when I make an army I buy a bunch of models, put them together as a fighting force, led by one fella, and then crush my enemies about once a week. Is this sort of thing utterly unbelievable and lore-breaking if my leader is a 165 point character called Tigurius, but totally plausible and fluffy if it's a 135 point Captain called Rogerus Bottomus, Warden of the Storm Angels' 5th Company? Or what's the deal? Should I write a novel about how my chapter has set out on a crusade against an Ork-held system somewhere in the galactic west and only play against Orks for the next fifteen years?

Having Tigurius as your HQ is perfectly fluffy in two ways; you might want to play an Ultramarine force led by the dude, or you might want to run a homebrew chapter that goes a bit over the top with the psykers. You could even have the second HQ as a regular Librarian, ally in a third, and convert up a fancy Coteaz as a stand-in Captain with artificer armour and a big hammer. What's wrong with that? Is it because in the codex, the units have unique names? So what?

"The Emporer is a rouge trader."
- Charlie Chaplain. 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Thud wrote:
What's wrong with that? Is it because in the codex, the units have unique names? So what?


Yes. A special character is a special character, you shouldn't have to use them "counts as" somebody else. In the Sammael example, you should be able to field a Ravenwing company without requiring a special character to be present.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in fr
Hallowed Canoness





Thud wrote:
Is this sort of thing utterly unbelievable and lore-breaking if my leader is a 165 point character called Tigurius, but totally plausible and fluffy if it's a 135 point Captain called Rogerus Bottomus, Warden of the Storm Angels' 5th Company?

Well, let us just say that when your 165 point character called Tigurius start fighting against a 165 point character called Tigurius, it is much much more silly thant when your 135 point Captain called Rogerus Bottomus fight a 140 point Captain called Harzag Hoggar.

"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





I would prefer if special characters were labelled "with opponent's consent".
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Master with Gauntlets of Macragge





Boston, MA

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I would prefer if special characters were labelled "with opponent's consent".

Well, technically everything in this game is "with your opponent's consent" since it's a social gaming experience. Most people are just understanding enough to play by the rules. Why is that though? Special characters aren't anything, well, special really. They might bring a cool rule or ability to the table, but they're hardly game breaking.

I use Pedro Kantor with my Crimson Fists, and I use Azrael with my Dark Angels. My Ultramarines use Sicarius and Tigurius depending on the day. I use them because I have the models and I think their rules are cool, and with Azrael and Pedro, they change the army's composition in a way that makes it play in a way I like.

Check out my Youtube channel!
 
   
Made in fi
Confessor Of Sins




 Brother SRM wrote:
Special characters aren't anything, well, special really. They might bring a cool rule or ability to the table, but they're hardly game breaking.


Most of them aren't, but some are miles ahead of the generic HQs and some can be abused for really unholy combos. And I guess some people still remember when 40K (and fantasy) used to be called HeroHammer.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

I remember people bitching about Special/Named characters at the end of 4th edition and early 5th edition. 2008-2009.

Then 6th edition hit and brought with it fliers, Escalation for getting those Super Heavy tanks in a standard game, Stronghold Assault with D-Weapons bunkered in AV15 buildings, allies, markedly increased Forge World acceptance, Super Heavy detachments, and Cypher FOR EVERYONE!

And people in this day and age are complaining about Special Characters?

Really?

Really, really?


DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in gb
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine





Watford, England

True. Suppose with the current level of games special characters make sense.
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Brother SRM wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I would prefer if special characters were labelled "with opponent's consent".

Well, technically everything in this game is "with your opponent's consent" since it's a social gaming experience.
Technically, I find that practically speaking if something has a limitation like "with your opponent's consent" it means you won't see it in standard lists.

The reason I don't like special characters is that they are anything but "special". If they have rules the army should have, I'd rather the army just has access to the rules without having to take a specific special character. I don't really find they add character to an army because they are so common, it's not like "oh, that Dark Angels army is led by Azrael", it's like "oh, that Dark Angels army is led by yet another Azreal".
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




Thud wrote:
ntw3001 wrote:
I really don't like them background-wise. I like the rules being there, but much preferred them being permission-only back in the olden days. Special characters for special battles is good, special characters scrapping around with forty or fifty dudes is much less interesting. It's especially bad with Dark Angels, where Sammael insists on being present at every single mission the Ravenwing ever have. And what about the Ravenwing members who aren't Sammael's best buds? How do they pass the time? If this is how Space Marines delegate, it's no surprise the Imperium is struggling; there's about seven guys doing everything.


I have never understood this attitude. The logic is so messed up that it's hard to even find a place to start.

But since you mentioned Sammael, why not start there? I don't play DA, so I might be a little off on my fluff knowledge here, but anyway: Sammael is the master of the second company, yes? And as a SM company that makes them about 100 man strong, yes? So 40-50 guys would be about 40-50 percent of the guy's entire command (I googled it, and the math checks out), yes? Is it really so absurd that old Sammy would make an appearance when half his guys are deployed somewhere?

And the "always, everything, everywhere" thing. Really? I don't know about you, but when I make an army I buy a bunch of models, put them together as a fighting force, led by one fella, and then crush my enemies about once a week. Is this sort of thing utterly unbelievable and lore-breaking if my leader is a 165 point character called Tigurius, but totally plausible and fluffy if it's a 135 point Captain called Rogerus Bottomus, Warden of the Storm Angels' 5th Company? Or what's the deal? Should I write a novel about how my chapter has set out on a crusade against an Ork-held system somewhere in the galactic west and only play against Orks for the next fifteen years?

Having Tigurius as your HQ is perfectly fluffy in two ways; you might want to play an Ultramarine force led by the dude, or you might want to run a homebrew chapter that goes a bit over the top with the psykers. You could even have the second HQ as a regular Librarian, ally in a third, and convert up a fancy Coteaz as a stand-in Captain with artificer armour and a big hammer. What's wrong with that? Is it because in the codex, the units have unique names? So what?


I'm pretty sure 40-50 models isn't the standard for a Ravenwing army. Looking at lists, it's more like 20-25 guys (at 1750; less at lower points, for which they're still not allowed out on their own). So yeah, that doesn't seem to warrant Sammael being the only one who can take them for a walk. And yeah; it's always, everywhere, every single time. The Ravenwing are literally forbidden to go outside unsupervised.

As for Tigurius, it's not so much that it's implausible that Tigurius exists (although I'm certain the chief librarian of the Ultramarines is neglecting his duties by running out to kick a busload of Orks around every so often; again, learn to delegate); it's that he's extremely common in games and gets a lot of focus in the fluff, and newer players' perception of said fluff is more and more tightly focused on those couple of dozen guys. You're free to take it as a kind of Wheel of Time saga minus the vague promise of any kind of journey or conclusion, but to me it's just whittling down the setting until the galaxy feels like a small town. I enjoy the 40k setting as a broad canvas for creativity. tightening the focus on a few characters over whose backstories I have no input is boring.

For stand-in units: That's an approach to using SCs known as 'not using SCs'. If Coteaz isn't unique after all, why should the Codex entry just be for him? There wouldn't be so many instances of Coteaz himself if the rules didn't specify which guy, out of every guy in the galaxy, they represent. It does make a difference; where a fluff character doesn't have their own rules, they don't tend to appear on the tabletop. That in itself makes one suspect that it's not actually a love of the fluff that drives players to use these specific characters. You see a lot more armies led by Eldrad than Taldeer. So let's have a generic entry titled 'Legendary Inquisitor Lord', along with appropriate wargear suggestions to represent Coteaz. Hell, let's do Eisenhorn too. I've got no doubt at all that a lot more people genuinely like that character and would actually want to include him. Luckily, after dropping the individual SC rules in favour of a generic set, including fluff characters has never been easier!.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/17 18:26:49


 
   
Made in gb
Is 'Eavy Metal Calling?





UK

Sometimes I use them, sometimes I don't, but I don't feel there's any stigma or hate attached to them where I play. While using one's own characters with specific fluff is cool, sometimes it's refreshing to throw in an SC just to add something otherwise unavailable. For example, running a Counts-As Straken to build a CC-blob IG army changes things up, and is something that you can't otherwise do quite the same.

 
   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

When I play Creed im not playing Creed, im playing a generic leader with the abilities and options listed in his profile. Just the same with all my special characters. I prefer it this way as 40k characters are ridiculous when you read about them.
   
Made in us
Lesser Daemon of Chaos





San Mateo, CA

I think that Special Characters are awesome, but I would much prefer the ability to create more compelling generic HQ's. Space Marines have a ton of special characters that bring unique things to the game (especially a lot of the forgeworld ones), but Chapter Masters and Captains are painfully limited in their builds-- basically you have "super expensive dude who annihilates everyone in cc" or "not as expensive dude who annihilates not quite everyone in cc."

I would LOVE for them to assign point values to some of the more esoteric abilities.

5000
Who knows? 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: