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.

I don't like the way SCs have been done, but it just seems wrong to remove them.

- For a start, this was only possible because GW couldn't be bothered making models for these SCs. And, don't give any spiel about 'limited resources' - DE already had a Haemonculus model and an Archon model - GW could easily have made 2 special characters, instead of just pointlessly remaking two perfectly functional models.

- Then, we have the fact that GW obviously wasn't interested in making money from those SC models (or else it would have, you know, made models for them). But, when there's the possibility that someone else might make models for them, it just removes them altogether. Instead of, you know, making models for them. I guess that would just be too difficult for a model company.

- Finally, despite what I said above, they were making money out of those models. Their rules - including those of SCs - cost money. in fact, they now seem to cost twice as much money as they used to, despite having fewer rules. Also, most of the models people converted to make SCs were bought from GW. So, they already were making money off those SCs, but decided to axe them anyway.

 Grimtuff wrote:
feth you GW. That's what I think.

That's a really nice conversion. :(

Um, have you read the DE 5th ed codex? Malys and Vect are 2/3rds of the central trio of characters in that book (Rakath being the 3rd). Both were very major and important to DE

I did. However as stated I didnt find them particularly interesting hence their loss illicits all but a shrug of the shoulders.
Point being for some of us loss of characters due to Gws policies dont impact particularly harshly.

For a start, this was only possible because GW couldn't be bothered making models for these SCs.

Definitely agree with that.

The problem with the "special characters suck, losing them inspires people to be more original" line is that the default characters often seem really, really dull- at least compared with the special characters and all their unique abilities.

The special characters gave a great deal of variety that wouldn't be possible otherwise, I think they were just amazing. For casual games, one expensive special character added in could change up the feel of an entire army and how it plays, making the play experience more interesting and fresh.

I think maybe a better solution to the special characters problem wasn't to get rid of them, it would be to weaken them slightly. Some of those special characters were getting overused (Marbo, GK Coteaz) because they were just so good, no army would go without them. So maybe give armies that use special characters some minor disadvantage, or tweak them so that they're just slightly below the power line- strong enough to be interesting and respectable, but maybe not uber-competitive tournament worthy.

Or, just leave them the way they were last edition. Deleting them has just been a mess.

Vect didn't really make much sense because surely he could never leave commoragh

 Mysterious Pants wrote:
The problem with the "special characters suck, losing them inspires people to be more original" line is that the default characters often seem really, really dull- at least compared with the special characters and all their unique abilities.

The special characters gave a great deal of variety that wouldn't be possible otherwise, I think they were just amazing. For casual games, one expensive special character added in could change up the feel of an entire army and how it plays, making the play experience more interesting and fresh.

Well, in terms of the default special characters being boring, I can't help but feel that SCs are at least partially to blame. There seems to be a tendency to give them all the best and/or most interesting wargear, weapons and special rules.

Personally, I'd prefer having more options for the unnamed characters, and then just having special characters as specific builds, utilising the available gear.

Axing characters is a bad thing. I don't often use them but I do think the options should be there. People shouldn't buy an expensive model - or spend so much time and effort converting their own - and then be unable to use it overnight!

 Simo429 wrote:
Vect didn't really make much sense because surely he could never leave commoragh

Thats what his enemies thought

 Sir Arun wrote:

The idea of new codexes being nothing other than a collection of datasheets while all the new boxes they release throughout the year for various armies will contain the rules inside them (that then eventually get added to the next version of their parent codex) is pretty disgusting, tbh.

It forces people to constantly keep up with GW even if they are playing a single army because hey, that other dude playing the same army is fielding a powerful new unit that wasnt even in your codex despite your codex only being four months old.

There's truth to this and I get the criticism.

Personally I think they should do away with rules for money. I know it's a "crazy" concept, but hear me out. I have pirated a bunch of rulesbooks, so I could scout out what my opponents were going to bring. I say this without shame. I've bought more models out of those books I hadn't purchased than I ever did when I was just playing my singular lone army, because the rules were cool and the models were cool.

I guarantee they'd have more people get into the hobby if they could go to some unified webpage and learn how to play, the nitty-gritty details. They make more money off the models and paints and supplies than any other arm of their business, so they should focus on making that more profitable.

GW hasn't quite realized even now rules sell their models, not how cool they are. Else they'd sell more LOTR models. I love MIddle-Earth, but you know what I can't justify? Spending money on those miniatures when I can spend more money on units that legitimately make my other armies better.

Other wargame companies offer free rules.

Its generally devoid of any or most of the fluff, artwork, and other things not related to the rules, but its a great way for everyone to keep up to date and roll out FAQs and erratas quicker and with less impact on the player base.

 Simo429 wrote:
Vect didn't really make much sense because surely he could never leave commoragh

Yes he could, and don't call me Shirley.

I started playing when special characters were being introduced and there were severe restrictions on the usage, and now they're quite widely used - there were three in my last battle (Typhus, Cypher and Huron). I don't think it's a bad idea restricting their usage and getting rid of some of the more bland and superfluous ones, especially ones with bland rules that can easily be mimicked with normal HQ choices. There's this atmosphere for creating a Codex entry for special characters just because they're named rather than there being a genuine reason for creating a new character with a different set of rules.

Then look at why people take special characters anyway. I personally take Huron and Cypher so I can Infiltrate and get dependable Warlord traits to better play my Alpha Legion. This suggests the rules are poorly written; I am taking characters rather than roll Warlord traits. IMHO, the reason you would take a special character is because there's something special about their rules, not for a dependable Warlord trait. An analogy is that special characters should be the spice, not the meal itself. A good example of good special character would be Lorgar; he doesn't fundamentally change how you play, just that your troops are slightly different.

Do I feel like there's a large amount of special characters that can be cut, making the game more streamlined? Yes. Do I feel like some of the rules, especially regarding special characters, require addressing? Yes. Imposing restrictions on usage and making Warlord traits non-random for ALL characters would go a long way in fixing this.

Also, some of the special characters abilities can be exploited, especially with Allies. To quote D4Chan:

SWEET MERCIFUL EMPRAH, AZRAEL Ahem, if you're feeling particularly trolltastic, you can attach Azrael to a 50-man blob of guardsman for 50 4++ invul saves fearless, and furious charge (The Codex doesn't say the Invuln, Fearless, and FC is exclusive to Dark Angles units!). Then just grab some deathwing termies (or ravenwing if you're kinky like that) and deepstrike them behind enemy lines, and watch the madness ensue. Throw in a psyker with prescience for rerolls to hit, or better yet a priest to reroll the 4++, giving you better saves than storm shields and making your opponent weep bitter tears. This cheese has officially upped Dark Angels to the number one allies for IG (in this writer's opinion at least).

Also, some of the special characters abilities can be exploited, especially with Allies.

You don't need Allies to exploit badly-written rules in this game. Allies just makes it easier.

As far as the "I don't like SC, I want to play my own characters!" vibe... that's simple, that's counts-as.

Take SC you like the crunch of. Make custom model. Give name. Now you have personal character with rules from the book for awesomeness. Have fun.

Removing them from the Codices because of the Chapterhouse thing is, as is said in the parlance of the times, a "real dick move".

Why are the fans and customers the one to pay and suffer? I mean it was GW who make not enough bits in kits and don't make minis/models so people can purchase multiple kits so they have to kit bash their own minis.

Perfect example is the Carnifex in 5th edition. How do you make people buy Carnifex kits when a lot of people already own 4 or more of them? Nerf them, but make people buy new kits so they can make their own Tervigons and Harpies. That is one example.

Another is the special characters. Make people buy Warrior Kits so they can make their Tyranid Prime or Parasite of Mortex.

GW on purpose made characters or minis without models so people would keep purchasing the same model over and over again. Now that other companies have took it apon themselves to give people what they want, GW becomes spiteful and cancels or takes away the ability to make your own now.

So GW first tells you make your own, then when people do, GW tells you "fetch you, not buying from us, everything you have bought, you can't use no more".

Pretty shameful from a company and they wonder why we don't buy no more, or as much anymore.

Glad they're getting rid of special characters. Don;t like how they contribute to the game, with dumb and obscure rules.

The FOC manipulation I liked, but apart from that too expensive for what they do. and gets borign when the same army has the same special character leading it.

As for the lawsuit, GW is pretty terrible at looking after its customer base so not really surprised.

Thing is, for the most part, a lot of things shift in points with codex updates. Some things get points added, some get points taken away. So if I am playing against someone using a character from an old codex, how do I know that the points value assigned to it is appropriate anymore? Maybe that character would be drastically different in terms of points. Also, what if it uses some rules that don't exist anymore. I would much rather someone would just use the most up-to-date rules. Yes, it may result in them having to get rid of a model or two, but that has affected us all. I would love to be able to play using Captain Alessio Cortez, but rules for him don't exist anymore, so I can't and won't expect someone to let me play him.

Would this be any different from expecting someone let you play a version of a character from an older codex, in spite of the fact the character has been updated in a current codex?

Wasn't one of the outcomes of the lawsuit the idea that if another manufacturer produced a model for something in a codex before GW did, that other company owned the rights to the model and GW would have to pay them in order to have a model for that character or unit or risk getting sued? For example one third party company had a Mycetic Spore model, so GW could not produce a model of a Mycetic Spore themselves.

I think that some of these characters disappearing and the frenetic pace of codex releases are to prevent other companies from 'stealing' the rights to certain models.

Also, both of my armies gained special characters on their last codex updates, so I don't think GW is stepping out of the Special Characters business yet.

I still don't buy the line of reasoning that says the elimination of characters is due to the Chapterhouse suit. (Most of the eliminated characters weren't being produced by third parties, so the argument fails to hold up.)

However, I think special characters are one of the best parts of the game. I almost always prefer to run one. In a setting of epic, titanic heroes like 40k, it is more satisfying to play the titanic figures than it is to play generic ones and pretend like Sergeant Nobody matters somehow.

If someone had a homebrewed dataslate with an old character on it, I'd play them. Since I'm planning on writing ones for my own lost characters, it's only fair.

I love how the dakka community is pretty much evenly split on this issue, with 49% pissed off about GW's overall flavor reduction policy, and 51% either ok with it or not caring about it since it doesnt affect them.

I dislike the concept of "Doesn't affect me because I don't play it!"

Thing about Warhammer is it's a community game. Inherently you need at least one other person as interested as you are in order to play. If someone quits playing because they feel like their army isn't worth playing anymore or their favorite character from the fluff got his rules written out of existance, you lose, because you don't get to play that person and lose at least one great bonding opportunity in playing together.

So, I personally am pretty upset about the removal of Vect. I kind of don't miss a lot of the other characters that much, but him specifically I feel is a low blow. Seeing as GW has been putting such an emphasis on the Lord of War slot by making Ghazkul, Draigo, and that dude from the Space Wolves book (Blackmane? I forget who exactly it was) Lords of War units rather than just HQs, he was the obvious choice there. Plus, fluff-wise, he's kind of a huge deal. It'd be like removing Calgar out of Space Marines, or Asurmen or Eldrad out of Craftworld Eldar.

I am still holding out that hope we get models or at least rules for him and hopefully some of the other removed characters during the advent calendar this year, if they do that again from last.

 SRSFACE wrote:
I dislike the concept of "Doesn't affect me because I don't play it!"

Likewise.

I don't like most of GW's characters and so rarely play any of them.

However, I do feel for those who like the characters and spent time and effort making models for them, hence why I dislike the decision to axe them.

Some people might use an ancient model for a special character, it would feel bad stopping them from using it. Models like Doomrider. I have a model of Huron and Typhus, I hope they remain in the new Chaos book, because I'll doubt they'll bring back warsythes as a general item.

What I don't understand is why didn't they just leave the ablities, but removed specials that have no models or had old models? People would have been happier, if they could play with their non specials HQs, specialy when armies like marines or eldar can do just that. Gold fish for those hit and run for bikers or run a ES and a gorgon chain Chapter masters in the same list, if they want to etc.

I dislike the concept of "Doesn't affect me because I don't play it!"

Thing about Warhammer is it's a community game. Inherently you need at least one other person as interested as you are in order to play. If someone quits playing because they feel like their army isn't worth playing anymore or their favorite character from the fluff got his rules written out of existance, you lose, because you don't get to play that person and lose at least one great bonding opportunity in playing together.

Hadnt thought of it like that, good point.

The lack of models to represent the characters was always the thing that bugged me the most about them, so them leaving wasn't really a shock when GW started pulling the plug on other modeless things in the game. I do hope they come back with models someday, but we won't really have a chance of that happening for a while (maybe if we see all the books get updated to 7th).

I still don't buy the line of reasoning that says the elimination of characters is due to the Chapterhouse suit. (Most of the eliminated characters weren't being produced by third parties, so the argument fails to hold up.)

It's called future-proofing. While certain companies produced models for a relatively-small number of SCs that were then-present in the books, removing all SCs from the Codices that had no model means that GW does not lose on profits in the future through third-party sales. It allows GW to, whenever the mood strikes them, release the model with attached dataslate as a "limited edition", or however they like, at any time they like.

I don't care at all. I never use them anyhow. It always felt "weird" to put them in my lists. Good riddance.

 Psienesis wrote:
It's called future-proofing. While certain companies produced models for a relatively-small number of SCs that were then-present in the books, removing all SCs from the Codices that had no model means that GW does not lose on profits in the future through third-party sales.

So, instead of *maybe* losing money at some point in the future *if* another company decides to make one of its characters, they instead virtually guarantee that they'll lose money now - both from a lack of model sales (no one's going to buy models in order to convert characters that no longer exist), and probably by people simply not buying their rules/models because they're annoyed at the removal of their favourite character.

 Psienesis wrote:
It allows GW to, whenever the mood strikes them, release the model with attached dataslate as a "limited edition", or however they like, at any time they like.

Which then sit on the shelf because, by that time, GW will have finished its ongoing goal of alienating its entire customer base.

 vipoid wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
It's called future-proofing. While certain companies produced models for a relatively-small number of SCs that were then-present in the books, removing all SCs from the Codices that had no model means that GW does not lose on profits in the future through third-party sales.

So, instead of *maybe* losing money at some point in the future *if* another company decides to make one of its characters, they instead virtually guarantee that they'll lose money now - both from a lack of model sales (no one's going to buy models in order to convert characters that no longer exist), and probably by people simply not buying their rules/models because they're annoyed at the removal of their favourite character.

 Psienesis wrote:
It allows GW to, whenever the mood strikes them, release the model with attached dataslate as a "limited edition", or however they like, at any time they like.

Which then sit on the shelf because, by that time, GW will have finished its ongoing goal of alienating its entire customer base.

And this surprises you... why?

Generally speaking, I don't care for special characters. But people should still have the option of using them.

Never used SC´s much, so I don´t care really. They still exist in fluff mostly and you can just play a generic/other character as the SC you like aslong as the model fits etc. Sure some flavor has been lost with this change but it´s so little that it doesn´t give me any grey hairs atleast.