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've seen people collect armies based around key conflicts, with all their models representing characters featured in the battle, and I've seen folks create new characters as they see fit.

When you put together your armies in Warhammer, do you like to collect named units with characters from books/games/shows or do you prefer to create your own heroes (giving them their own names/backstories)?

Erm…neither, if I’m honest.

For my model based RPG fix, it’s always Necromunda for me, where I can name my Gangers, and tell their story through a bit of the old Ultra V.

not so deep as characters, but i definitely prefer to be making my own thing. even in a game like HH, i have to have my distinct little group within the larger legion. prefer the freedom of modeling, painting, etc that it gives me

I build based on what I feel like owning and painting, and then twist the "history" around that.

So I've got Crimson Fists because I like the scheme and have nostalgia for it, but I don't worry too much about making them "fluffy" according to later background (ie. having loads of veterans), I just make the models I own and paint them in that scheme. I've got Word Bearers because I like the colour scheme and I like that they're the most "chaos" of chaos marines. I also like the novels involving them in the Horus Heresy. I have a large number of Lost and the Damned mortals to go with them, and daemon forces for all 4 gods to make my idea of a grand coalition of chaos.

I plan on doing a Siege of Terra with these guys plus my Imperial Guard some day, and I'm not at all bothered that my Marines weren't present at the Siege and my Chaos guys were a smaller presence than others. the Siege was Imperials vs Chaos and I'll do that with cool scenery and scenarios, and I'm not gonna sweat the heraldry of my forces not being completely accurate to the background.

That's my general attitude. Close enough is good enough and I'm not interested in painting multiple marine armies for example to do historical conflicts, so it's gonna be my Crimson Fists at Armageddon if I ever get to do that, Crimson Fists fighting Hive Fleet Behemoth and so on.

Generally I prefer to make my own.

In some cases it’s a little bit of both. For my Ultramarines, I collect the 3rd company. We have the name of the captain, but little else. So I can take that as a base and run with it.

Mostly custom.

The one exception was during a 'tale of four painters' event when I picked up models to fill out a Vinculus Crusade theme.

I feel historical is the wrong word to describe a made up universe nearly 40k years in the future.

Jaxmeister wrote:
I feel historical is the wrong word to describe a made up universe nearly 40k years in the future.

How about "Screen Accurate," to borrow a term from prop makers.

Why not both? We have our own narrative with our own characters but every now and then Typhus or whoever gets a cameo.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Why not both? We have our own narrative with our own characters but every now and then Typhus or whoever gets a cameo.

Not new-pose Typhus I hope.

I try to avoid named characters when possible. I like my armies to be mine.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Why not both? We have our own narrative with our own characters but every now and then Typhus or whoever gets a cameo.

Not new-pose Typhus I hope.

Nah, new-pose Typhus is somewhere on my pile because I got him from the magazines and waits for the day I come around to him and heavily convert him to the old pose like you're supposed to do . Until that day(and maybe/probably also after that) old metal Typhus will work just fine.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I've seen people collect armies based around key conflicts, with all their models representing characters featured in the battle, and I've seen folks create new characters as they see fit.

When you put together your armies in Warhammer, do you like to collect named units with characters from books/games/shows or do you prefer to create your own heroes (giving them their own names/backstories)?

Both. It just depends upon what sparks my imagination atm.

I like to roll my own, but still try to make it all fit somehow with the existing lore. Where my headcanon and ofc lore contradict, I do try to come up with some explanation why my headcanon differs.

As for using named characters in my armies? Never. Ever. "The universe is a big place, and you will not be missed" and all that

My Eldar are just Ulthwe and Frozen Stars, and apart from considering the purchase of Eldrad Ulthwe...not really? I just see them as "Middle Earth Elves in space", so I tend to be more inspired by the events of Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit, rather than that from 40K itself. A lost Amphitheatre of Cegorrach would be derived from the ruined watch tower on Weathertop, or an Avatar at the center of a seemingly derelict Craftworld would be the Balrog in the mines of Moria.

I have a small 500 point Knight army of 3 Armigers, who are based on events from the 30K era, with their theme being similar to Legio Audax - they're made up of only smaller war machines. Basically rebelled against their cruel Knight overlords and keep to themselves - possibly the smallest Knight house on record. I have a 4th Armiger on the pile of shame, but I've had ideas from Dracula and Narina, so I don't quite know what to do with it yet...

I like my armies to be lore accurate, but I don't have any themed so heavily that they're based on a specific campaign.

Unfortunately GW isn't so concerned about lore accuracy, which is why painting my Archangels is proving tricky...

I like a combination of both.

For example, I'm painting my Marines as Blood Ravens, 5th Company; this means that most models will have black right knee pads since that's how/where the Blood Ravens denote company assignment. Beyond that, all the characters are My Guys(tm). Similarly, most of my CSM models are being painted as The Scourged, so I'm using the GW-defined color scheme.

On the other hand, my Chaos Knights have their own lore. Instead of being a true Household, it's actually a single leader who has - through various means but mostly violence - gathered a number of rogue Knights and/or Dreadblades to her cause. As such, I'm painting each model with their own color scheme, but all their right pauldrons are instead painted to match her livery (except for one that has actually earned her full respect and is viewed as close to equal).

 tauist wrote:


As for using named characters in my armies? Never. Ever. "The universe is a big place, and you will not be missed" and all that

While overall I'm neutral on using/not using named characters in my armies, sometimes I don't really have a choice.
I mean, I'd love to lead my Grot Revolutionaries with a generic grot hero now & then (especially in Crusades). But the only grot hero GW gives me is the annual Red Gobbo....
So unless I want to (or am forced to) break theme & use a @$^ ORK, I'm stuck.

Same kinda with making a SM armored column.
(I've got alot of SM tanks - I don't require any actual boots on ground to exceed 3k pts....)
The only actual tank commander is that named UM guy.
Unless I want to lead it with Rhino Primaris or some marine guy in a rhino/Razorback. But that strikes me as breaking my theme.

I'll use named characters for my 30/40K EC, cuz Lucius and Bile are just too cool not to use. But this is specifically due to this army being a Siege of Terra era, fully gone flying rodent gak hedonism/body mod path of degeneracy.

I have Vulkan for my Salamanders but everyone else is un-named(till they do something worthy of being named). Tho at some point I want Cassian Dracos just for the coolness.

I may be a touch hypocritical here, but I kinda like it when my OPPONENT brings named characters. Especially big scary ones-they're fun to take down.

Also, I'm glad that no one in this thread is ragging on others for having different preferences. Letting people enjoy their armies how they like, as it should be.

I realized I never answered my own question.

For me, I like to take tertiary characters or military forces that got a paragraph of background and then build on that.

To me it's fun to say, "I built an entire army around those guys that were mentioned in an old codex or White Dwarf article."

Even at its most basic, if you take/bring/have named characters they're still "your guys/gals/bugs/daemons)".

But to bring up something relevant to this discussion,
Named Characters used to require permission to even bring in the first place.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Named Characters used to require permission to even bring in the first place.

I miss those days. Nowadays, it feels like Azrael is in a thousand places at once because he's too damn useful in-game.

I've been running custom chapters since 1997 or so, although typically using Ultramarine "vanilla" rules. My Nids are also my own. My Chaos army is Black Legion because many models were hand-me-downs from friends and included Abaddon.

On named characters, I try not to take them but there was a time from 6th and 7th when I ran a counts-as Sicarius for his particular Ld bonus. Though I would rather leave the special characters out of the armies.

I liked 5th, where the SM named character were given as examples, and you were encouraged to file the names off, kitbash your own version, and use the rules for your guy.

I'm an escalation Crusader, so I build my own armies a unit at a time as part of an ongoing narrative, but I really have given some thought to a limited amount of historical work too.

I'd like to kitbash the Matron Saints of the Sororitas, Vandire and Bucharis. I've thought about trying to build the Witch Cult of Mnestteus.

A Daughters to Brides to Sisters story arc would be an interesting historical campaign to play through. Right now I'm still trying to put together the pieces I need to move the needle on my contemporary campaign, so it'll be a while til I get to the Age of Apostasy if I ever do, If I was a good painter, I'd haul ass on that project, because you get probably make the pages of White Dwarf if you did.

 BorderCountess wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Named Characters used to require permission to even bring in the first place.

I miss those days. Nowadays, it feels like Azrael is in a thousand places at once because he's too damn useful in-game.

I feel the same way about Canis Rex he's in every single Imperial Knights list I see.

 BorderCountess wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Named Characters used to require permission to even bring in the first place.

I miss those days. Nowadays, it feels like Azrael is in a thousand places at once because he's too damn useful in-game.

Outside the tourney environment you still have those days though. You can simply decline to play a game if the other person wants to use his toys....

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Erm…neither, if I’m honest.

Yeah I'd have to try some version of Both and Neither. Every new edition (until this one) I tried to make the Spear of Macragge (or some legal but still recognizable version of it) I try and make a full company of Marines. I try and make a Raven+Death-NoGreen Wing. Technically there's a historical 2nd company from a Sicarius book, but even that's no longer strictly "legal" with Assault Squads being replaced by JPAI. And the point of the exercise isn't to recreate, but to test the - for lack of a better word "limits" of this round of Points Per Model.

But most of the armies I play are thematic builds not directly shown in the codex or fiction. What does an Victrix Guard "army" protecting Guilliman look like? What does the new Inner Circle (The personal retinue of the Lion) look like. What is Ventris up to?

I like the idea of my own stuff, but rules and models designed to be generic enough for that perfect are just kind of.... generic. When you have a defined character there's a lot more room for really flavorful and interesting rules that embody that character. I'm generally drawn towards that kind of design.

 LunarSol wrote:
I like the idea of my own stuff, but rules and models designed to be generic enough for that perfect are just kind of.... generic. When you have a defined character there's a lot more room for really flavorful and interesting rules that embody that character. I'm generally drawn towards that kind of design.

Well there used to be great arrays of rules that helped you make your own individual characters . . .