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 tend to avoid them as I’m always afraid tourneys won’t allow them or people will get annoyed at their use. Do you guys run them or ever see any pushback?

Yes, they're just normal units. And no significant tournament bans them.

Tournaments stopped banning them about decade or two ago.

But not generally. I find it more interesting to have my own guys over named one illogically in tiny irrelevant skirmish.

I’m old enough to have “only with your opponent’s permission” stuck in the back of my head regarding them. Which is stupidly long ago at this point.

If they fit the list and I’ve got the model (or a counts-as) I’ll use them. But I’m far more likely to just use basic generic ones. Nothing against those who do, but I favor my guys more.

 Nevelon wrote:
I’m old enough to have “only with your opponent’s permission” stuck in the back of my head regarding them. Which is stupidly long ago at this point.

lol I’m glad it’s not just me 😁
Guess i need to get that out of my head.
Thanks guys.

Some yes, some no. Really just depends upon the force I'm making.
For ex:
*I'd find it rather odd to make my Grot army & not lead it with the Red Gobbo....

They appear as guest stars in some games- usually 3k games that act as climactic closers to the campaign.

Named characters are frozen in time for Crusade- they can't gain XP, and therefore can't gain battle honours.

I have in the past-mostly Cypher, because he was a lot of fun.

But generally, I don't like using them, because 40k should be your guys, not GW's guys.

I also miss customization of your guys, but that's only tangentially related.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I have in the past-mostly Cypher, because he was a lot of fun.

But generally, I don't like using them, because 40k should be [b]your guys, not GW's guys.[/b]

Well until they print up a stat sheet for a generic Grot character, I guess I'm stuck with the Red Gobbo.

I have no issues with them, as they are just another set of rules that can sometimes significantly alter the way an army plays, which is a good thing.

ccs wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I have in the past-mostly Cypher, because he was a lot of fun.

But generally, I don't like using them, because 40k should be [b]your guys, not GW's guys.[/b]

Well until they print up a stat sheet for a generic Grot character, I guess I'm stuck with the Red Gobbo.

Oh yeah. I've absolutely nothing against other people playing differently.

You love the lore of Trazyn/Guilliman/Angron/Aun'Va, and want to make an army around them? Go nuts! This is a game we play for fun-so long as you respect my fun (by being a good sport and polite, pretty much) I will respect yours.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I have in the past-mostly Cypher, because he was a lot of fun.

But generally, I don't like using them, because 40k should be your guys, not GW's guys.

I also miss customization of your guys, but that's only tangentially related.

Good luck playing guard without your mandatory Lord Solar.

As a former Custodes player, most of my points were named characters. Trajaan, Ser Walken, Angry Stabby Lady, and various Shield Captains, (Which are the equivalent of chapter masters)

I try to avoid it. When I ran Crusade they were banned.

Personally I'm fairly adverse to using the super high ranking named characters in my lists, but I'm fine if my opponent uses them. I'm one of those folks who finds the idea of lord solar/a primarch/etc being in every army to be unfortunate. I wish GW made the rules for these sort of models less efficient than they have been. As for lower ranking characters whose positions aren't necessarily one-of-a-kind (or can be played as being a more common rank, e.g. creed), I'm less opposed to including them in my army, although I've yet to do so either when I played back in 5th or since I picked things back up in 9th.

As I said though, I don't have any objections to my opponent using them, this is more of a "doesn't mesh with my style of army fluff" sort of thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Good luck playing guard without your mandatory Lord Solar.

Thank you for the well wishes

Hecaton wrote:
I try to avoid it. When I ran Crusade they were banned.

So armies that depend on their named characters just don't get to exist?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
I try to avoid it. When I ran Crusade they were banned.

So armies that depend on their named characters just don't get to exist?

What army cannot function without named characters?

Not just "Isn't tournament level," since Crusade is generally played with like-minded folk who should be willing to adjust strength of a list as needed. What army literally cannot function? What army is so dependent that it will fail to do even the most basic of tasks without a unique character?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

So armies that depend on their named characters just don't get to exist?

There was a general understanding that a certain level of imbalance was ok; moreover, people were naming and roleplaying as their commander and faction, so we ended up with "named characters" some of whom could beat the gak out of their non-Crusade equivalent.

No army fails to function with Unique Named Characters. Many don't have any comparable unit to those models and thus lose out in a role if the character is banned.

Marneus Calgar is just a slightly better non-customizable Captain. There are plenty of options Codex Space Marines to do what he does.

Saint Celestine and Morvenn Vahl both fill leader niches that are otherwise completely missing from Codex Adepta Soroitas.

 alextroy wrote:
No army fails to function with Unique Named Characters.

Found the person who doesn't play guard. Lord Solar is the only unit in the codex that can issue orders to Baneblade/Macharius tanks, and one of only two units (a tank commander with the double orders enhancement being the second-best option) that can issue vehicle orders more efficiently than just taking more basic tanks and ignoring orders. Either you take the named character or you ignore the faction ability, on top of having a detachment ability that is almost always blank text.

The only named characters I have for any of my 40k armies are for my first and main army: the Black Legion.

In the 7-8 years I've played 40k, I have only fielded Abaddon 3 times. Two of them were at the request of my opponent. I've had more opponents surprised that I don't field the Warmaster. To be fair, I never bothered with the previous model of Abaddon. It also took me a very long time to paint. So really, it has only been the last 3 years that I would even think to add Abaddon to my army list.

However, I still want to keep Abaddon as a special addition to my army and not just another unit. This is twofold, I'm primarily a 'your dudes' type player, and I much prefer fielding my Chaos Lord: Lord Galvanus the Profane, scourge of the Raven Guard, et al. Which to me, is just as much as a named character as the Warmaster, but is the actual the warlord of my Black Legion collection/warband. Since it was among the first models I painted for 40k. Galvanus even has a HH model in my SoH. Which was also one if the first painted.

The other reason, Abaddon is like the holiday/guest silverware and china to me. I want that unit to be a kind of special treat for me and my opponent. Not something that comes out for some pick-up or rando game. There are certainly times I think maybe I should field the Warmaster more often to get more comfortable with what the unit can do, though.

The other named character I have is Haarken Worldclaimer. Honestly, it just doesn't feel like a named character. When the Worldclaimer first appeared, he was worse than just taking a Chaos Lord with jump pack. And that never really changed. So I do field him a bit more. But is still in the bottom 1/4 of my HQs making it to the table.

I tend to avoid them. They're other people's characters, not my own. And I get sick of seeing lists with multiples of them (every BT list taking Helbrecht and Grimaldus, ever 1KSons list taking Magnus and Ahriman, etc.).

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Lord Solar is the only unit in the codex that can issue orders to Baneblade/Macharius tanks...

Which, presumably, would only matter if you were bringing those units.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
... and one of only two units (a tank commander with the double orders enhancement being the second-best option) that can issue vehicle orders more efficiently than just taking more basic tanks and ignoring orders.

Ok. And? There's more to Guard than just orders.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Either you take the named character or you ignore the faction ability, on top of having a detachment ability that is almost always blank text.

That's not even remotely true.

And Lord Horseyman is a dumb model. I'd never buy him, let alone field him.

I think H.B.M.C. covered my response in his. Other than allowing you to give orders to a small subset of units that I don't even think are considered optimal, the army functions fine without Lord Solar. Or at least the issues with the army have nothing to do with the presence or lack of presence of that one model.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
No army fails to function with Unique Named Characters.

Found the person who doesn't play guard. Lord Solar is the only unit in the codex that can issue orders to Baneblade/Macharius tanks, and one of only two units (a tank commander with the double orders enhancement being the second-best option) that can issue vehicle orders more efficiently than just taking more basic tanks and ignoring orders. Either you take the named character or you ignore the faction ability, on top of having a detachment ability that is almost always blank text.

Right, this was in 9e. Haven't done Crusade in 10th, and probably won't.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which, presumably, would only matter if you were bringing those units.

Sure, if you want to de facto ban that whole category along with the named character I guess that's true.

Ok. And? There's more to Guard than just orders.

Would you be happy to play your army with no faction rule? Most people aren't.

That's not even remotely true.

It's absolutely true. 40k is a game that requires moving and the detachment ability does literally nothing if you move. I suppose some static artillery units can benefit from it, if you hate having fun and take a gunline, but most of the time it's blank text.

And Lord Horseyman is a dumb model. I'd never buy him, let alone field him.

We're talking about rules, not models. There are plenty of alternative models that look better.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
I think H.B.M.C. covered my response in his. Other than allowing you to give orders to a small subset of units that I don't even think are considered optimal, the army functions fine without Lord Solar. Or at least the issues with the army have nothing to do with the presence or lack of presence of that one model.

Since when are tanks not optimal? You can argue that Baneblades aren't great (but that's mostly because of the difficulty in giving them orders), but Lord Solar is also one of only two ways (with the other being far less efficient) to give orders to all of the other tanks.

And if the army functions just fine why does pretty much every list I've seen take him?

I've never used one.

I have my own characters, and that's what I go with.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Sure, if you want to de facto ban that whole category along with the named character I guess that's true.

Ban categories of units? What are you blithering about?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Would you be happy to play your army with no faction rule? Most people aren't.

There are plenty of other units that can issue orders, so...

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
It's absolutely true. 40k is a game that requires moving and the detachment ability does literally nothing if you move.

How is this an argument in favour of Lord Horseyman?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
I suppose some static artillery units can benefit from it, if you hate having fun and take a gunline, but most of the time it's blank text.

You're worried about Guard being a gunline? Guard? The quintessential 40k gunline army. Sitting still and blasting the enemy off the table is what they do. Some elements will have to move to get objectives, sure, and they won't be able to use the (current only) detachment rule. And this is the end of the world somehow?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
We're talking about rules, not models. There are plenty of alternative models that look better.

Armies that have to rely on special characters aren't armies that function.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ban categories of units? What are you blithering about?

If you want Baneblades and such to be viable they need orders, and that means taking Lord Solar. Ban their one source of orders and it's a de facto ban on the whole category.

There are plenty of other units that can issue orders, so...

No other units can issue orders to the big tanks. One other unit can issue orders to normal tanks, and can only do so less efficiently than Lord Solar. Tank commanders without the enhancement are hopelessly inefficient and not worth taking.

You're worried about Guard being a gunline? Guard? The quintessential 40k gunline army. Sitting still and blasting the enemy off the table is what they do. Some elements will have to move to get objectives, sure, and they won't be able to use the (current only) detachment rule. And this is the end of the world somehow?

Gunlines suck. They're not fun and they're bad at winning. Guard tanks should be moving all the time to get good shots, infantry should be moving to get into position to either screen the tanks or get onto objectives. Maybe if you play on empty tables with no terrain you can just set up a LRBT gunline and win but in normal games the only thing making use of the detachment rule is artillery.

Armies that have to rely on special characters aren't armies that function.

Why not? Special characters are part of the game, it's not a problem with the army itself if someone's house rules make it stop working properly.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
No army fails to function with Unique Named Characters.

Found the person who doesn't play guard. Lord Solar is the only unit in the codex that can issue orders to Baneblade/Macharius tanks, and one of only two units (a tank commander with the double orders enhancement being the second-best option) that can issue vehicle orders more efficiently than just taking more basic tanks and ignoring orders. Either you take the named character or you ignore the faction ability, on top of having a detachment ability that is almost always blank text.

Yeah Owl, I'm with you on this one- it sucks that Tank Commanders can't issue orders to non-Squadron vehicle units.

What I would do to fix the issue is create a Battle Honor that bestows the ability to issue Orders to ANY guard keyworded unit (so no orders for allied Knights, but any guard super-heavy, flyer or tank. In our campaigns, we allow players to choose Battle Honours rather than roll them, subject to GM approval.

Players shouldn't have to fix GW mistakes with house rules, and who knows, maybe the dex will get right what the Index got wrong. There's likely a tank company specific detachment included in the dex. Neither the house rule nor the impending dex are excuses for poor index design... They are merely offered as possible solutions to what is a legitimate problem with the rules we have at this point in time.

Yeah, the named character problem (if you see it as a problem) is entirely GW's own creation. If they stopped making named characters be the only source of certain abilities or list concepts they wouldn't be nearly as mandatory. Give me an officer Baneblade and shrug, Lord Solar isn't a big deal. Give me a generic Hammerhead commander and shrug, Longstrike isn't a big deal. Etc.