# Special Characters



## Pandorav3 (Jan 30, 2009)

After seeing some new codex's (SM, Orks, IG), Ive realized that alot of tactics and importance is being placed on special characters. Most great lists rely on special characters to add special rules to the army (eg, flanking chimera platoons, turn they appear assaulting infiltrators/deep strikers, and flanking SM bikers to name a few. I often prefer playing generic armies so I can write my own back story, however it seems GW is putting more and more emphasis on special characters in an army. Is it becoming unfeasible to make an army sans special chars? Im curious about that as well as other people's thoughts on the new army changing special characters.


----------



## tastytaste (Mar 31, 2009)

There are two things you can do. First off in the case of the Space Marines you do not need a special character to win. The standard combat tactics is often just as powerful as the ability a special character is giving. 

Second thing is if you feeling that you are uncompetitive because of special characters simply change the name of the special character to fit your army even model them different almost all players do not care that you change one thing to fit your army.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

C:SM even suggests that you can use the written rules for special characters for different armies with just a simple name swap.

Personally I cant comment- my armies are SW and Nids... 1 doesnt have any special characters at all and the other the 3. Of which only 1 is playable and he just doesnt fit into my play style (or most other peoples).
Mebbe when the new C:SW comes out I'll start taking them... all I can say for sure is that if I was a nilla marine I would almost always take either Shrike, Pedro or Lysander- Stubborn is a powerful special rule to have and fleet turns nasty assault termies into a real nightmare (esp with a LR).

Seems to me recent special characters boost certain play styles.. get the right character for yur style and he'll increase your effectiveness- while you dont need to take them they are well worth it.


----------



## davespil (Apr 28, 2008)

So, you actually write a story about a list you made? Does you opponent have to listen to it before they play you?


----------



## Vanchet (Feb 28, 2008)

I believe that Ursarkar Creed will be an incredible asset to Imperial Gaurd Armies (4 commands a turn and 24 range)


----------



## Lord_Murdock (Jul 16, 2008)

At least the new special characters aren't limited to certain armies though (ie. Creed to a Cadian Army, Lysander to an Imperial Fists army etc.). Personally, I like making my own versions of special characters and just using the whole "counts-as" rule with them.


----------



## Talos (Aug 4, 2008)

davespil said:


> So, you actually write a story about a list you made? Does you opponent have to listen to it before they play you?


Not sure if this is sarcasm or not.

If you like a special character's rules or model there is nothing really stopping you using them in your DIY chapter.
I mean I am using Straken rules in my New guard but I am using the Fablius bile model as my army is mutant army which sees bile as a God.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Make your back story 20 pages long and have make it a tourny rule all opponents have to listen to it all- either they'll give up or fall asleep, either way you got it made 

I love thinking up army lists and back stories but normally dont write it all down.. more theory writing then enything else


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

I think it's good it' will finally kill off the rules in tournaments (or so I hope) of not allowing SC's in such games as I know one army that relies on it heavily - DA and other armies where they are just too good to resist namedly my DE and taking a 90pt SC that kills all in her path including the likes of Abaddon.


----------



## Gul Torgo (Mar 31, 2008)

Talos said:


> Not sure if this is sarcasm or not.


He gets oddly pissy whenever anyone mentions fluff, just ignore him.

I think that SCs will grow in popularity if GW continues their recent trend in making them a way to get chapter specific rules and play-style into the game. Army-wide special rules, especially in the case of SM where it replaces the already useful combat tactics, will probably ruffle less feathers than something like Eldrad or Abaddon.


----------



## Lord of Rebirth (Jun 7, 2008)

I haven't read much into it since I use evily powerful IW CSMs that don't need special rules to win and for apoc I use masses of tanks but if you really feel a need for a special character you can just use the rules set and make your own character that fits that role. It's like I plan to use a Chaos Sorcerer who for the most part is just an IW commander that uses Sorcerer-esque equipment and can use Sorcerous powers.


----------



## CamTheApostle (Oct 31, 2008)

I like to consider myself a 'modeler' more then anything else. I love making cool looking models with their own personality. I waste time I could be spending finish painting the rest of my CSMs making cool looking DPs and Lords. 

This said, I have stopped using them as 'count as' because of simple frustration. I spend several hours assembling, drilling and pinning, then green-stuffing this model, finally to spend an hour or two more to paint the fucker (this is work time, no dry time included). He is a unique creation, who I am sure to come up with a cool name for him (for those anti-fluffies out there who might want to add their unwanted comments about this, understand I also named my rifles and pistols :spiteful: ). Yet when I inevitably field him, he will be known by no other name whatever model he is a 'count as' of. Frankly, the last time I did this, I got tired of saying "he isn't Kharn, he just uses the Kharn rules".

I have nothing against the other player. They aren't attempting to offend me. They simply applying the name they have for the rules to the model. For them, 'Kharn' is a set of rules. To me, 'Kharn' is a model. Mine is different. Sure, the rules are the same, but the models are different. So I gave up using 'count as'. Yeah, its probably a petty thing. But I pride myself on my models and I don't want my delicate little ego to screw up a game. :biggrin:


----------



## space cowboy (Apr 3, 2009)

I am actually hoping to do an IW Warsmith as a 'count as' for Abaddon, that way I don't actually have to field Abaddon for the Chaos Coven formation when I play Apocalypse, that way I don't feel guilty when I have all IW units for the Terminator/Chosen squads that I field for the formation. I hate having Abaddon as my only non-IW guy out there.

That said, I am thinking of buying the Techmarine that comes with the servo harness, using my stand alone Techmarine with the Servitors for my Imperial Fist army, and then using the Servo-harness on a Chaos Terminator Lord. I think that might look pretty neat and represent some of the extra stats and attacks and such that Abaddon gets.

Thanks,
Howard


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

Pandorav3 said:


> I often prefer playing generic armies so I can write my own back story, however it seems GW is putting more and more emphasis on special characters in an army. Is it becoming unfeasible to make an army sans special chars? Im curious about that as well as other people's thoughts on the new army changing special characters.


personally i really like the changes we are seeing in Special Characters. there was a time, when special characters were cool and very powerful, but were seldom fielded and added next to nothing to the narrative of the metagame. the current batch of SCs are far more user friendly and are the sorts of units you will see in games, rather than just on the pages of codexes (though i agree there is plenty of room for the latter too).

to me, part of the purpose of a SC is that they should tell you something about the army that they are part of _and _how they are an individual within that. formally we learnt a lot about why SCs were different to rank and file troops, but nothing further about the armies that they were part of. Fabius Bile, Ragnar Blackmane and others were very exciting, but didn't help us understand their parent groups any better. the new batches of SCs with their universally applicable rules, offer a significantly better understanding of the armies as a whole, and i feel its a shame that its taken so long for them to become part of the game.

i can totally understand that some people don't like having to take Kor'sorro Khan to have a White Scars army and so on, but i think that that is an indication of a much bigger issue and not directly the fault of those characters (certainly the C: CSM would be about a million times more interesting if it had had some of those style characters in it).

i'm also a big fan of the 'smaller', unit upgrade style SCs. i think that they are a good way to add it a dollop of pre-defined character without ruining the feel of the whole army.

also, the more generic feel of a lot of the newer SCs means that is a lot easier to use their rules without having to worry about them being too intrinsically tied up with the background of the unit, whilst similtaneously not ending up being something that you could effectively have made from the standard options (like Typhus!).



Tim/Steve said:


> Personally I cant comment- my armies are SW and Nids... 1 doesnt have any special characters at all and the other the 3. Of which only 1 is playable and he just doesnt fit into my play style (or most other peoples).


as i understand it, i beileve that you will be collecting two armies with special characters before too much longer.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

I think GW are trying to draw the game in a "Hollywood" direction, where games will center around the heroics of an individual or a particular squad, making games more like a movie scene. All the new SCs with their specific abilities, and some new units like Vangaurd marines with the Heroic Intervention rule give me this impression anyway


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

There's the added bonus for GW that the special characters are usually metal and cost more or people buy loads of random kits to get the bits they need for the conversions to make their own SC.
I've never been a fan of the special characters even before they became expensive army buffs and won't use them out of habit as you can still field a winning force without them although it seems be the trend now that the SC's are army defining now and dictates what force you can field.


----------



## CamTheApostle (Oct 31, 2008)

admiraldick said:


> personally i really like the changes we are seeing in Special Characters. there was a time, when special characters were cool and very powerful, but were seldom fielded and added next to nothing to the narrative of the metagame. the current batch of SCs are far more user friendly and are the sorts of units you will see in games, rather than just on the pages of codexes (though i agree there is plenty of room for the latter too).


Interestingly enough, that was something that was commented on by the BOLS guys with their custom campaigns in their interview with 40k radio from Adeptacon. Their earlier campaign, which was The Horus Heresy, had a great many very cool and powerful heroes in it. However, they were rarely used as they were so expensive. The later campaigns focus on cheaper, more playable heroes who weren't so powerful.


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

Khorne's Fist said:


> I think GW are trying to draw the game in a "Hollywood" direction, where games will center around the heroics of an individual or a particular squad


i would actually have to disagree with that. RT and 2nd Ed were very heavily based around very small groups and powerful individuals, 2nd Ed is often refered to as the era of Herohammer, for that very reason. one man could take on a whole army of lesser men.

the same is most definitely not true now. chracters which have traditionally been as powerful as everything else on the table-top put together are now important, but not game make/breakers. Chaos Daemon Princes, Space Marine Commanders, Ork Warbosses and the like have all been taken down a number of pegs in terms of over all significance within an army.

and with the dawn of 5th Ed basic troops have become more important now than every before. the idea of fielding a full unit of basic Space Marines during 2nd Ed was something of a joke. you'd only do it if you really had too, because there were far more important characters and specialist troops that you could be spending your points on. these days, not only is in entirely necessary in an arbitrary sense because of the FOC, but its actually quite a good idea when trying to hold objectives.

more than that, models are generally speaking less points per model, and with expansions such as Apoc, there is more and more emphasis on large numbers of stuff rather than detailed representations of a few. (bear in mind that rather than Planet Strike and Apocalypse we could have been playing Kill Team and boarding actions, but GW have chosen a specific direction that does not go that route).

that being said, now that there are more and more user friendly SCs its easier to play out games where famous individuals make an appearence (such as the legendary Pedro Cantor and the less legendary but still quite cool Lysander). 



CamTheApostle said:


> Interestingly enough, that was something that was commented on by the BOLS guys with their custom campaigns in their interview with 40k radio from Adeptacon. Their earlier campaign, which was The Horus Heresy, had a great many very cool and powerful heroes in it. However, they were rarely used as they were so expensive. The later campaigns focus on cheaper, more playable heroes who weren't so powerful.


because of the very minimalists approach to rules design BoLS stuff can be very hit and miss. but when they hit it, boy do they hit it right. i'm a big fan of many of the SCs from The Macharian Crusade and the latter Minidexes, and i'm seriously excited about taking a look at the Badab War when they release it.

BoLS are still quite unique in their approach to fan generated material (which has a tendancy to be over complicated), and i'm not surprised that when GW changed its design philisophy at the tail end of 4th that they quickly got behind it. i'm also not surprised that they are so popular these days, their work is very in-keeping with GW's and are very playable and accessable (you don't need to build anything specially for games using their rules). Tempust Fugatives have also generated some impressive gaming material in recent years (i love their Mechanicus and Dark Mechanicus army lists), it will be interestig to see whether whether they can develope a comprable level of popularity and playability.


----------



## CamTheApostle (Oct 31, 2008)

Interesting how in 40k, HQ choices have gone from a one-man army (supposedly how they are in WHF) to either a army augmenter (such as a SM captain who allows bikes to be taken as troop choices), heavy hitters (such as a daemon prince and greater daemons), and/or just expensive point sinks. However, when the back story emphasizes the absolute massive size of the weapons, the insane volume of fire laid out, and the "to be a man in this time" speech, its not too surprising that even the greatest heroes of their age aren't really that impressive.


----------



## space cowboy (Apr 3, 2009)

I would just like to add, for emphasis, that characters in 2nd edition were game winners. Marneus Calgar could be given additional wargear to actually make him able to survive a fight, which meant that he was game-breaking. There were a few other SC's that were that way as well, and the only requirement on them was the point value of the game you were playing.

Also, in 2nd edition, I think it was either a 2500- or 3000-point game before I had to field a tactical squad (and I don't think that was a rules thing, I think it was because I didn't own enough miniatures of the correct variety to spread the points out further.)

I must admit, though, random events and the wargear card aspects of 2nd edition that I thought I would miss at the changeover to 3rd edition, I didn't. Especially the Virus Outbreak and Virus Grenade cards. Anything that can remove several entire armies from the game before it even starts should never be in the game in the first place.

Thanks,
Howard


----------



## Siege (Jan 18, 2008)

I've never been a big fan of Special Characters in the past, though I do use them with my Dark Angels and I am going to be using a counts as Knight Commander Pask in my Punisher squadron for my Traitor Guard army.

So maybe I am a fan of Special Characters after all, I do like the flavour and variety that they can add to the game. I guess the only reason I have never used any Tau Special Characters is because they pretty much suck.


----------



## VictorLazarus (Mar 5, 2009)

I'm using sergeant Harker in one of my guard veteran squad. There was a really fitting model from my old 'Last Chancers' set holding a heavy bolter and looking catachan. He gives the squad some cool stuff but he's the only character I've been bothered to use so far in any army, lol.

MVL.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

I suppose The Red Terror could technically be called an aditional Tyranid Special Character.. I love using him.
If I used marines then I think I would almost always throw in a special character if I was playing 1500+ (unless doing a bike army) but most SC that I've seen are good but just not for their cost.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

Imagine if GW changed all ravener's to be like the red terror but without the amazing save but something modest save...


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

I've always used Drazhar, the Master of Blades, and occasionally Kruellagh the Vile.
When I got into Space Wolves, I used Ragnar Blackmane and Ulrik the Slayer quite a bit, but have never found a Logan Grimnar model... guess they get sold out before I get to them.
Later, when I decided to make my own Great Company, I just did a different paint-scheme and the two SCs that I used became a "ragular" Wolf Lord and Rune Priest.
I use Asurmen now that I no longer have to ask permission to field him; I used Abbadon a few times before I sold my Chaos army. I never had a special character for my Space Marines, I always used a Chapter Master and either a Captain or a Chaplain. Personally, I think the "counts as" rule for the Space Marines is retarded. I know GW now wants evertything to fit in a cookie cutter, but I hate the idea of it personally. I liked when there were different Chaos Legions, each of which had their own strengths and weaknesses. I liked when there was a difference between Ultra-Marines and White Scars, aside from colour scheme. I enjoyed playing Eldar when the Craftworlds could be easily identified when you looked at an army list and could tell if it was Iyanden, Ulthwe, and so on before you ever saw a painted model.


----------



## CamTheApostle (Oct 31, 2008)

One of the things I loved and truly miss about the 3rd edition CSM codex was that if you were willing to spend the points, you could make a character that could rival one of the special characters. There was this elaborate chart of all these 'daemonic gifts' a Chaos Lord could have. This was really a bonus of players like myself, who enjoy making unique and highly detailed models. They stripped that out within the 4th edition, but recent 5th edition codices have renewed my hopes that my 200+ point Chaos lord may once again be possible (if just as impractical as it once was).


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

CamTheApostle said:


> One of the things I loved and truly miss about the 3rd edition CSM codex was that if you were willing to spend the points, you could make a character that could rival one of the special characters. There was this elaborate chart of all these 'daemonic gifts' a Chaos Lord could have. This was really a bonus of players like myself, who enjoy making unique and highly detailed models. They stripped that out within the 4th edition, but recent 5th edition codices have renewed my hopes that my 200+ point Chaos lord may once again be possible (if just as impractical as it once was).





Are you talking about the Chaos Codex that got written with 4th edition in mind? Since I have an old 3rd edition codex, and you can't make anything that rivals a special character in it...
I think this latest codex IS the 5th edition one... so don't hold your breath.


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

CamTheApostle said:


> Interesting how in 40k, HQ choices have gone from a one-man army (supposedly how they are in WHF) to either a army augmenter (such as a SM captain who allows bikes to be taken as troop choices), heavy hitters (such as a daemon prince and greater daemons), and/or just expensive point sinks.


have you ever played Warcraft 3 (as there are still some remote tribes in the world who have not)? i thought i was probably the best balance between nameless infantry and characters in pretty much any computer and table-top battle game i've ever played. i really liked the fact that you could play narrative stories with one or two powerful heroes, or play battles with plenty of troops led by a hero. they seemed to have the balance just right. its a shame its not so easy to replicate in 40k or Fantasy.



Siege said:


> I've never been a big fan of Special Characters in the past,


you are certainly not the only one, i suspect that if we took a serious survey most gamers would have said they had no time and no love for special characters. its not easy to figure out a reason to take one when generic units are more flexible and usually better costed.

however, i suspect that from now on gamers will have a lot fonder memories of SCs. this may create something of a divide between vets who are stuck in their ways and noobs who don't know any different. but hopefully it will mostly make SCs a normal and worthwhile part of the game (something they really have never been before).



CamTheApostle said:


> One of the things I loved and truly miss about the 3rd edition CSM codex was that if you were willing to spend the points, you could make a character that could rival one of the special characters.


i think Vrykolas2k is right and you really mean the codex we tend to call the 3.5 (because it was the 2nd codex in 3rd Ed). either way, i think that the ability to pump up your HQ choice was a very important part of the themes, background and tactics of CSM. i was disapointed to see it go (and disappointed to see the Autarch introduced to the Eldar for the opposite reason).


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

You don't like the Autarch?
Personally, I love them.
Then again, I never was that keen on using a Farseer.
In 3rd and 4th 'ere the new codex, I'd use an Avatar and a Phoenix Lord.
Now, I use an Autarch, and either an Avatar or a Phoenix Lord.


----------



## CamTheApostle (Oct 31, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Are you talking about the Chaos Codex that got written with 4th edition in mind? Since I have an old 3rd edition codex, and you can't make anything that rivals a special character in it...
> I think this latest codex IS the 5th edition one... so don't hold your breath.


Nope, the current book is the 4th edition book. Was released during the 4th edition rules and so is 4th edition. While it includes a format that is used in the new 5th edition books, it is not a 5th edition book. As AdmiralDick pointed out, there were 2 3rd Edition codices. I was referring to the second 3rd Edition Codex, which was still a 3rd edition codex.

As for holding my breath, I'm not too hopeful. I mean, this edition may disappear as fast as 4th edition did, or it may stick around for long enough for Chaos to get a shiny new codex that isn't, as it was put by GW higher ups (so I understand), a disappointment. I, of course, refer to the lightly rumored 'codex chaos legion'.



admiraldick said:


> have you ever played Warcraft 3 (as there are still some remote tribes in the world who have not)? i thought i was probably the best balance between nameless infantry and characters in pretty much any computer and table-top battle game i've ever played. i really liked the fact that you could play narrative stories with one or two powerful heroes, or play battles with plenty of troops led by a hero. they seemed to have the balance just right. its a shame its not so easy to replicate in 40k or Fantasy.


I agree with you there. While a Hero started out as little more then a glorified basic unit with some unique abilities, he could eventually be pushed into being a powerhouse. Would be nice if you could that in 40k.



admiraldick said:


> i think Vrykolas2k is right and you really mean the codex we tend to call the 3.5 (because it was the 2nd codex in 3rd Ed). either way, i think that the ability to pump up your HQ choice was a very important part of the themes, background and tactics of CSM. i was disapointed to see it go (and disappointed to see the Autarch introduced to the Eldar for the opposite reason).


Yeah, I meant the 3.5 codex. Its a great codex that gave Chaos nine actual armies. Sad to see it go.

One thing that encourages my belief that there will be a 5th edition CSM codex is that Chaos HQs and SCs have no army effect. That is present in the C:Ork, C:SM, and C:IG. In these, HQ choices grant some special benefit to the army they are in beyond the unit itself. That is absent in CSM 4th. So, here hoping.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

CamTheApostle said:


> Nope, the current book is the 4th edition book. Was released during the 4th edition rules and so is 4th edition. While it includes a format that is used in the new 5th edition books, it is not a 5th edition book. As AdmiralDick pointed out, there were 2 3rd Edition codices. I was referring to the second 3rd Edition Codex, which was still a 3rd edition codex.
> 
> As for holding my breath, I'm not too hopeful. I mean, this edition may disappear as fast as 4th edition did, or it may stick around for long enough for Chaos to get a shiny new codex that isn't, as it was put by GW higher ups (so I understand), a disappointment. I, of course, refer to the lightly rumored 'codex chaos legion'..



I know there are some stubborn people extant, but when the "3.5" Chaos Codex was released, 4th was in the works, and the format fit the other codices for 4th. Thus, it was the 4th edition codex. It wasn't even close to being balanced for 3rd.
Just like when the new Eldar, Ork, and Chaos codices were released at the end of 4th, 5th was in the works, and they follow those formats.
That's why I don't expect any codices to come out for those armies until 6th is either released or in the works an another two or three years. Yes, I am cynical. It was obvious GW was planning 5th and lying through their teeth when they said otherwise.
I told people that, and all I heard was "nuh-uh". Guess I was right... should have made some bets on it I suppose...


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> You don't like the Autarch?
> Personally, I love them.


don't get me wrong the Autarch is a perfectly acceptable unit for what it is, but it was the wrong solution to the problem.

the Eldar lacked an easily accessible heavy-hitting unit, and which the developers seemed to interpret as "the Eldar need a Chaos Lord". personally i don't think they did.

although the Craftworld Eldar have a high level of military training amongst the population (there is no such thing as a civilian), they are not a militaristic society and never have been, hence their command models are not military leaders. what i personally think would have been a much better idea for the Eldar, would have been to change the way Farseers and Warlocks were taken. if a sort of 'seer council' was a real option, that in of itself was not all that powerful (i.e. was not great in combat or brilliant in a fire fight) but had the capacity to cast a number of buffs onto other units, then you would have created a genuinely different and 'alien' feeling army. rather than you opponent seeing what you had put on the table and knowing what units to kill and what to ignore, he would have had to have given serious thought to trying to avoid all of the units, because at any point one of them could become that unit you don't want near you, and killing one unit doesn't mean an automatic end to that fear.

also, i think it would have added infinitely more to the Eldar background. it would have reinforced this idea that Space Marines are quite selfish and egotistical, so all their powers are about effectively just big guns or buffs for themselves, where as the Eldar would have come across as a lot more 'superior' and altruistic. they would have needed to work together and come up with combos (something that basically never happens in 40k). the Autarch, on the other hand, is something that doesn't really seem to add anything. the Eldar are now more like other races, because they have a distinct military leader, rather than being better defined. in fact the background of the Autarch and path system had to be changed simply to shoe horn them into the codex.

don't get me wrong, i think there is a time and a place for an Autarch like character, but that's Eldar Pirates and Saim Hann armies. i think the Phoenix Lords and Avatar offered plenty of scope and didn't really need a new unit muscling in on their territory.



CamTheApostle said:


> One thing that encourages my belief that there will be a 5th edition CSM codex is that Chaos HQs and SCs have no army effect. That is present in the C:Ork, C:SM, and C:IG. In these, HQ choices grant some special benefit to the army they are in beyond the unit itself. That is absent in CSM 4th. So, here hoping.


again, i wouldn't hold your breath on that one. it seems to me that the C: CSM was something of a mistake and GW don't like admitting to mistakes (they still say that the first round of 3rd Ed codexes were perfectly good). i think if they do anything before 6th Ed it will be a Legions book. but i wouldn't get my hopes up, because that is a serious commitment (or at least should be) as it will mean yet another codex that needs to be supported from now on.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

admiraldick said:


> don't get me wrong the Autarch is a perfectly acceptable unit for what it is, but it was the wrong solution to the problem.
> 
> the Eldar lacked an easily accessible heavy-hitting unit, and which the developers seemed to interpret as "the Eldar need a Chaos Lord". personally i don't think they did.
> 
> ...




I agree about the Autarch needing to be a Corsair HQ unit (which is precisely why my Eldar are Corsairs), but GW wants cookie-cutter armies with no variance other than paint scheme now, so that's what we get. So Corsairs can have Avatars (retarded) and Craftworlds can have Autarchs. It makes sense for Iyanden, but if they left it that way, "oh noes, that Craftworld is different from the cookie-cutters!!!"


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> I know there are some stubborn people extant, but when the "3.5" Chaos Codex was released, 4th was in the works, and the format fit the other codices for 4th.


i'm afraid i have to disagree with you on that one. eras of design philosophy and game edition do not match up. during 3rd Ed codexes were released for SM (w/ BA, DA and SW), DE, Eldar, Orks, CSM and IG. these were all very quick releases and players did not like them, so about 3 years in and halfway through the life of 3rd, there was a change of design philosophy that wanted more complex armies. the Tyranids are probably the first army to have a codex published with this in mind, followed by CWE, C: Catachans, Tau, DH, WH, 2nd C: IG, 2nd C: CSM (other gaming material like City Fight, Armageddon & the EoT campaigns and more rules in WD were also a part of this new approach). this design philosophy obviously did not have a massive impact on the writers of 4th because many of the elements that were key to it were dropped (such as number of hands) or down played greatly (such as being able to change the FOC). perhaps it was seen as being too complex and slowing the learning and understanding of the game down. either way this same philosophy only lasted for 2 codexes, the C: SM (with Traits) and the C: Tyrainds (with a much watered down version of the mutable genus stuff).

after that there was a slew of SM codexes that made as little reliance on the 'traits' ridden codex as they could, interspersed with the Eldar, Tau Empires, CSM and Orks. the xeno books were very well written whilst the PA books were much weaker, but clearly they were all a part of the same philosophy of simplicity with detail. only the C: CSM and C: Orks were really written with 5th Ed in mind (using 5th Ed rules and language).

if you are suggesting otherwise then you will have to admit that only 2 of the codexes released in 4th Ed were intended to be played in 4th Ed, which is rather an odd claim.



Vrykolas2k said:


> I agree about the Autarch needing to be a Corsair HQ unit (which is precisely why my Eldar are Corsairs), but GW wants cookie-cutter armies with no variance other than paint scheme now, so that's what we get. So Corsairs can have Avatars (retarded) and Craftworlds can have Autarchs. It makes sense for Iyanden, but if they left it that way, "oh noes, that Craftworld is different from the cookie-cutters!!!"


i'm not sure that it makes any greater sense for Iyanden to have Autarchs than any other Craftworld. they have one famous character who could be described as an Autarch, but they are certainly not noted for their Autarchs.

either way, i think that the current run of Codex have a lot of the boundaries between factions all wrong (which is why they can seem very middle of the road). there ought to be a book for Legions and a book for Chapters, irrespective of whether they are Chaotic or not. and their ought to be one book for Craft World Eldar and one for DE and Pirates, rather than trying to mix two things that don't go well together.

but i digress...


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

I don't personally mind that special characters exist, the one thing that I do hate about what GW is doing with all these new codexes is that they are almost forcing you to use them for any sort of competitive lists. Take the SM codex as an example. A chappy is 100pts base, or for 25 more points you can take a named chappy who has 2 more toughness, a mc combi flamer with hellfire rounds. He needs to cost so much more than he does. Then you have all these special rules you can do which used to be in a trait system which if you wanted to you could make your army damn near unique, but now the codex to me is much more bland. I could argue that the same has been done with IG and that since Doctrines are gone away, you need to have special characters do anything unique in your army (Not nearly as bad as in the SM codex though). Its almost like GW has just given up trying to be creative and is just making every codex in the same cookie cutter format. I guess I am just tired of seeing Lysander in nearly every battle, or Eldrad in every damn eldar game. 

Why GW? Why remove cool features that make armies unique and fluffy just to sell models??!

Luckily we have a house rule where no SC can be used around here. Not even upgrade characters like Tellion, or Snikrot.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

admiraldick said:


> i'm afraid i have to disagree with you on that one. eras of design philosophy and game edition do not match up. during 3rd Ed codexes were released for SM (w/ BA, DA and SW), DE, Eldar, Orks, CSM and IG. these were all very quick releases and players did not like them, so about 3 years in and halfway through the life of 3rd, there was a change of design philosophy that wanted more complex armies. the Tyranids are probably the first army to have a codex published with this in mind, followed by CWE, C: Catachans, Tau, DH, WH, 2nd C: IG, 2nd C: CSM (other gaming material like City Fight, Armageddon & the EoT campaigns and more rules in WD were also a part of this new approach). this design philosophy obviously did not have a massive impact on the writers of 4th because many of the elements that were key to it were dropped (such as number of hands) or down played greatly (such as being able to change the FOC). perhaps it was seen as being too complex and slowing the learning and understanding of the game down. either way this same philosophy only lasted for 2 codexes, the C: SM (with Traits) and the C: Tyrainds (with a much watered down version of the mutable genus stuff).
> 
> after that there was a slew of SM codexes that made as little reliance on the 'traits' ridden codex as they could, interspersed with the Eldar, Tau Empires, CSM and Orks. the xeno books were very well written whilst the PA books were much weaker, but clearly they were all a part of the same philosophy of simplicity with detail. only the C: CSM and C: Orks were really written with 5th Ed in mind (using 5th Ed rules and language).
> 
> ...





I only think it makes sense due to the fact Iyanden was saved by a fleet of Corsair ships, not a single one... so I'd think Autarchs might be a more common leader for them than Farseers would be.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

If you want to use a Special Character, but don't like the model or fluff, then just represent.
No-one in their right mind would object to your suitably fancy looking Space Marine Captain using the rules of Pedro Kantor.
Seriously, I'd even let someone use a regular dreadnought as that Witch Hunters guy on the dreadnought-chair thing; what difference does it make?


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

so what do you guys think of the new IG special characters?


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

admiraldick said:


> so what do you guys think of the new IG special characters?


I like them.
But I'd have to experiment to see which ones I want to use.

The only ones I probably would use a Straken, Morbo (MAYBE), and Creed (he's awesome!).


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Played against one the other day (forget his name though- straken or something like) with S6, T4 fearless, hits as a monstrous creature on vexs and gives everyone within 12" counter attack and furious charge... ouch is this guy nasty
S4 I4 guardsmen with 2 attacks even when you charge them is not something to laugh at. Luckily I play shooty nids and killed him long before he did anything, but I had watched the game before when he basically held the IG centre against 15 honour guard with banner and marneus calgar (btw seeing 60 shots killing 2 marines and it being jammy is something to see )


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

admiraldick said:


> so what do you guys think of the new IG special characters?


I like them, they seem to be more well thought out as apposed to the travesties in the Marine codex, some require some thought to implement properly as well which I like, and can really affect the layout of your force but not completely buggering it up into a mosh of cheese (shrike+pedo Kantor)

although there is 1 character who is beyond a steaming pile of shit, Rambo....errr Marbo sorry, comes in shoots once gets filled with lead next turn, wow.

Creed is great though, and I do like how he is separate from Kell now, which is great fluffwise for my Armanian 1st Guards "governors own" company, which the governor leads


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> I like them, they seem to be more well thought out as apposed to the travesties in the Marine codex, some require some thought to implement properly as well which I like, and can really affect the layout of your force but not completely buggering it up into a mosh of cheese (shrike+pedo Kantor)
> 
> although there is 1 character who is beyond a steaming pile of shit, Rambo....errr Marbo sorry, comes in shoots once gets filled with lead next turn, wow.
> 
> Creed is great though, and I do like how he is separate from Kell now, which is great fluffwise for my Armanian 1st Guards "governors own" company, which the governor leads


Think about it this way.
He comes in, into cover, and can potentially throw his demolition charge on the turn he comes in.
He gets a 3+ cover save (probably), and your enemy also might have to resist a pinning test if you use your ripper pistol, also they have to make a unit target him, which is a big deal for 1 guy.

IF he survives the first turn, he can move on to do some serious damage.
Charging into combat with vehicles and monstrous creatures (preferably low initiative ones) with 6 attacks that wound on a 2+, or melta bombs.
Alternatively he could obliterate a squad of space marines, using his Demo charge. A battle cannon shot from behind at BS5? HELL YES!

Unfortunately though, as you indicated, he's easy as fuck to kill.
So the chance he'll do anything for more than 1 turn (unless you have some serious suppression fire, or they have more important targets) is quite low.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

if he had a bow and arrow with explosive tips, then I'd be interested


----------



## World Eater XII (Dec 12, 2008)

haha how about a gun that never stops firing? or the ability to heal wounds with gun powder and a hot stick?


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> if he had a bow and arrow with explosive tips, then I'd be interested


But alas, all he carries is a battle cannon shell which he throws at his foes, and a sawn-off Exitus rifle!


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Winterous said:


> But alas, all he carries is a battle cannon shell which he throws at his foes, and a sawn-off Exitus rifle!


yeah, kinda pants for a special character based off a bloke who we obviously don't know


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> if he had a bow and arrow with explosive tips, then I'd be interested





And a big knife, a headband, and a funny look on his face...
Maybe a pair of boxing gloves hanging around his neck...


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Vrykolas2k said:


> And a big knife, a headband, and a funny look on his face...
> Maybe a pair of boxing gloves hanging around his neck...


Well, he DOES have a big knife, and DOES have a funny look on his face.
Just not as funny as Rambo XD


----------



## Concrete Hero (Jun 9, 2008)

Winterous said:


> Well, he DOES have a big knife, and DOES have a funny look on his face.
> Just not as funny as Rambo XD


You've said it now... Ruined the joke XD


----------



## asianavatar (Aug 20, 2007)

> if he had a bow and arrow with explosive tips, then I'd be interested


I think someone will have a rambo model represent him in a month time.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

asianavatar said:


> I think someone will have a rambo model represent him in a month time.


I'd be surprised if one wasn't already in the works XD


----------



## iron panda (Jan 7, 2009)

Not a big fan of Special Characters at all and I just don't like GW placing too much emphasis on them. Building a 40k army fosters, at least for me, a sense of personalizing it and making it my own. Adding a Special Character ruins the "feel" of the army itself. I'd rather have a generic HQ choice (personally named, of course.) and play him to the fullest regarding of any outcomes.

I remember fondly when I first built my 40K BA army many,many years ago. They were originally led by Captain Arcadio (a typical HQ choice) through countless bloody campaigns. Lately (thanks to the new codex) he's more or less relegated to administrative duties, while fiery Chaplain Bellisario has risen to the fore to take command.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

iron panda said:


> Not a big fan of Special Characters at all and I just don't like GW placing too much emphasis on them. Building a 40k army fosters, at least for me, a sense of personalizing it and making it my own. Adding a Special Character ruins the "feel" of the army itself. I'd rather have a generic HQ choice (personally named, of course.) and play him to the fullest regarding of any outcomes.
> 
> I remember fondly when I first built my 40K BA army many,many years ago. They were originally led by Captain Arcadio (a typical HQ choice) through countless bloody campaigns. Lately (thanks to the new codex) he's more or less relegated to administrative duties, while fiery Chaplain Bellisario has risen to the fore to take command.


I agree with you, I don't like using them at all.
But ultimately you kinda have to sometimes in the new rules, and it's best to just make your own model and call it something else.


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

sorry to drag this thread back from near death, but i've been reading and re-reading the latest C: IG and another couple of questions have struck me.

is it possible and/or competative to take an IG army without Special Characters? or are the tackle advantages of the new batch of SCs simply too good to miss?

and leading on from that, are they still 'Special' or are they just 'Characters'?


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

admiraldick said:


> is it possible and/or competitive to take an IG army without Special Characters? or are the tackle advantages of the new batch of SCs simply too good to miss?


I believe it is possible, it was done before without Unique characters (should get used to not calling them special since they no longer exist) and the basics of the guard have not changed, I only took Al'rahem because hes interesting, no other reason, but I'd be confident enough without him anywhere near my list or any characters


admiraldick said:


> and leading on from that, are they still 'Special' or are they just 'Characters'?


there just unique characters, you can only have 1, but thats the only restriction, you can use them just like the Marine characters, anyone can use them


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

admiraldick said:


> sorry to drag this thread back from near death, but i've been reading and re-reading the latest C: IG and another couple of questions have struck me.
> 
> is it possible and/or competative to take an IG army without Special Characters? or are the tackle advantages of the new batch of SCs simply too good to miss?
> 
> and leading on from that, are they still 'Special' or are they just 'Characters'?


I'd say yes, a list without uniques is just as competitive as a list with uniques.
The uniques just allow you to apply a different tactic.

In IG:
Straken allows a melee army, not normally viable.
Creed allows a very strong gunline due to orders, and also some interesting outflank possibilities.
Kell allows a little more reliability, and also a fair bit of melee skill.
Morbo lets you. Umm, fail dismally.
Al'rahem allows some very interesting tactics, because of the outflank stuff.
Chenkov just lets you do awesome conscript body walls.

In SM:
Curiously enough, NONE of the Ultra Marine ones actually allow interesting tactics, they're all just good single guys.
Kantor gives you the potential for melee spam, and also makes Sternguard useful for deep striking onto enemy objectives.
Shrike, lets you infiltrate any unit, woo!
Kor'Sarro allows you to Outflank everything in your army, that speaks for itself.

So, they did a better job with characters in the IG codex than in SM, but they were learning from experience, so let's leave them alone shall we?
I'm sure the next codex to be released (AHEM DARK ELDAR OR GTFO AHEM) will have some very interesting Unique additions, and hopefully with a fair degree of customisation possible too. (Calgar can choose not to have Terminator armour, Kor'Sarro can choose not to have his bike, why not anyone else?)


----------



## Wolfgang_Molder (Mar 3, 2008)

I personally love using my special characters, Ulrik, Ragnar and Logan are frequently seen in my games wreaking havoc here and there, Apocalypse just means that they get to run around with alot more people to kill, i will admit that my dear chapter master is quite a point sink, though i still love setting him love setting him loose whenever i get the chance and Ulrik i never find any real use for beyond that of a normal wolf priest, i still think though that they add an element of excitement to the game that would be lost without them "HAH! i just blew off Abbadon's head!" or those epic duels between two heroic figures Ragnar vs. Asurmen or Lucius taking on Yarrick, i think it just makes the game that little bit more fun, however, nothing annoys me more than these "counts as" players, i can say my calculator is a rhino, but it isn't. If you start saying everything counts as something else it just confuses people, if you want to make your own character then do so and write up your own rules/stats for him and ask someone if you can let him wreak havoc in an apocalypse game or something, no one will care beleive me


----------

