# Should there be Special Characters?



## Geist (Mar 9, 2010)

This is not a rant about how special characters should be banned from everything. They're cool, and I often want to make a count-as Straken for my airborne army. I just believe they are unnecessary.

My solution is this: more options. Put more wargear, maybe a few special abilities, which you can spend points on to make your commander, or other special character unique. There could be an independent character creator too, for when you want to make someone similar to Sly Marbo, or Commissar Yarrick(sorry for all the IG references, I'm an IG player and haven't played long enough to memorize all the other races). I mean, as long as you pay the points, it's legal right?


----------



## AngelofDeath (Jul 1, 2010)

Well I do also agree that it would be nice to be able to customize your commanders a bit more (especially for us Blood Angel players since we get less customizing ability than vanilla marines). However my thought on it is that they don't want you to be able to somehow find a way to make our captain or commander better than one of the special characters. I don't truly know but that is just my opinion.


----------



## Cocakoala (Apr 27, 2009)

I think you should have them, they add a certain fluffyness to some peoples army which couldnt be replicated by just some run of the mill guy with a flashy sword. The backstory for them created for you by games workshop lets you create unique armys true to fluff in more cases then if you didnt have the character. For example if you wanted to build an army based around the fire dragon aspect warriors of Biel-tan then who would be better to lead it then the eternal, ledgendary, Pheonix Lord Fuegan? Not a Autarch with a fusion gun i can tell you. They could be improved on however to stop every Tom, Dick and Harry taking them (i'm looking at you Eldrad). Something like that Tau commander guy who lets you take loads of battlesuits (farsight?) and no auxillerys. The special character should be what your army is based around.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

It would be cool, especially for the Grey Knight Grand Masters and other Space Marines, but I guess it will never happen, unless you dont join the game development team...


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Cocakoala said:


> I think you should have them, they add a certain fluffyness to some peoples army which couldnt be replicated by just some run of the mill guy with a flashy sword. The backstory for them created for you by games workshop lets you create unique armys true to fluff in more cases then if you didnt have the character. For example if you wanted to build an army based around the fire dragon aspect warriors of Biel-tan then who would be better to lead it then the eternal, ledgendary, Pheonix Lord Fuegan? Not a Autarch with a fusion gun i can tell you. They could be improved on however to stop every Tom, Dick and Harry taking them (i'm looking at you Eldrad). Something like that Tau commander guy who lets you take loads of battlesuits (farsight?) and no auxillerys. The special character should be what your army is based around.


I'd prefer that special characters went with the actual Chapter/ Craftworld/ whatever they're supposed to lead; now that it's mix-n-match, I'd rather they were dropped entirely.
The uniqueness just seems to be gone.


----------



## Azezel (May 23, 2010)

I'd sooner not see special characters in the game at all - at least, not outside of epic.

Oh look, it's a small skirmishing force, two dozen Ultramarines, two tanks and CHAPTER MASTER MARNEUS CALGAR. What, pray tell, is god-in-power-armour doing leading a tiny force into a skirmish (and remember, that's all a game of 40k is)? Doesn't he have more important things he could be doing?

Not all special characters are that silly of course, but I'd much rather have a list of options. I choose an HQ (or whatever) pick the wargear I want from an armoury list, and then pay additional points if I want a special rule like X counts as troops or Y weapons count as twin linked.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

What that guy said.


----------



## clever handle (Dec 14, 2009)

oh, I remember back in the good old days where this was possible... before the simplification-era came in. Back when a chaos player could select from an abundance of demonic gifts to further accentuate the prowess of his lords... When Tyranid big bugs could be all but unkillable... *le sigh*

I for one am opposed to the "take this named character to play this style of list" type of books that are coming out. If I want to play a veteran heavy, fluffy crimson fists force I shouldn't be FORCED to take Pedro Kantor to make it even remotely playable (Pedro / Sternguard taken as one of the least offensive versions of this type of codex...)

I, as most every chaos player, am eagerly awaiting the day when our codex gets a modicum of the old flavour thrown back in - but I worry that it will be "to play an thousand sons warband you MUST take Ahriman and then...."


----------



## Stone220 (Aug 29, 2010)

Vrykolas2k said:


> I'd prefer that special characters went with the actual Chapter/ Craftworld/ whatever they're supposed to lead; now that it's mix-n-match, I'd rather they were dropped entirely.
> The uniqueness just seems to be gone.


I agree that they should be specific to what they are intended to lead no for example taking Calgar with Imperial Fists or Eldrad with any Craftworld other than Ulthwe. I'm not sure that special characters need be done away with altogether, I know some people like using them though I am not a fan, I think it's just as easy to make a formidable model for 50 or so points less, now they won't have all the abilites that a special character would have but cost less points and can be just as if not more effective in that the saved points allow more units or extra wargear to be taken. One exception however in my opinion is the Emperor's Champion as he is a required Special Character at 750 points+, I think however that the option for forces below that amount to take him should be dropped as I doubt smaller forces such as raiding/skirmish parties would need one. Special Characters are over used and a lot of armies are based around them meaning that if the special character is killed the army falls apart, I have seen this happen many a time that being another reason I don't take them.


----------



## The Boz (Aug 16, 2010)

SteelSpectre said:


> This is not a rant about how special characters should be banned from everything. They're cool, and I often want to make a count-as Straken for my airborne army. I just believe they are unnecessary.
> 
> My solution is this: more options. Put more wargear, maybe a few special abilities, which you can spend points on to make your commander, or other special character unique. There could be an independent character creator too, for when you want to make someone similar to Sly Marbo, or Commissar Yarrick(sorry for all the IG references, I'm an IG player and haven't played long enough to memorize all the other races). I mean, as long as you pay the points, it's legal right?


 I agree completely.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

I see the issue as the way special characters are used for something different to what fluff-wise they are.

For instance, if I want to play like a variant chapter I have to take one named character who makes the vanilla list play like that Chapter (often the chapter master himself); this forces my small skirmish force to unrealistically include a famous character.

instead I would like the "variant group of this type" to be in the normal character, so for Space Marines you get to pick your Combat tactics from a list


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Special characters can never be removed from the game.
They give uniqueness (in some cases) with their special abilities.
Going back to having to agree to use them (like 3rd) would kill almost everyones fluff and style for their list.

But on the other hand, i dont think special characters should have ever been introduced in the first place for the following reasons....

*insert unit name here* is fighting against a Ctan and scarabs....
"Hey guys, check this out, kill off the scarabs and the Ctan kills himself.... We just killed a God."

Dark Eldar fire a Dark Lance at Doom of Malan'tai, instant killing him....
"Hmmm... that was easy. I dont see why the Eldar had so much trouble"

Noise Marines taking pleasure in their kills...
"Muhahahahaha, we just killed the mighty Ghazkhull!!! Lets celebra...... wait.... is that him again 2 tables over? Holy shit it is too!!!! Look, there he is again 3 tables to the left!!!! WTF!!!!!"


----------



## PanzerPig (Apr 15, 2008)

I'd rather not see special characters in my games, they don't add uniqueness at all, if you wanted to be unique then make your own chapter master/farseer/warboss and then make a back story for him/her. 

Making a fluffly army involves more than throwing a special character in, Pedro does not make you the Crimson Fists, using a play style that fits with there combat tactics does. Unless ofc you think that Crimson Fists only ever fight when Pedro is around, like one giant game of skirking off work until the boss is looking over your shoulder. 'But Pedro gives them abilities to do that' I hear you cry, and true he does help, but if you really wanted to do Crimson Fists without you could, you could fill up your elites with sternguard and have some tac squads modelled and equipped like sternguard. 

I'd even go as far to say if someone is claiming to add some fluff aspect to their army by including a special character, I would rather see it as a 'counts as' special, at least that way they put some thought into it. Overall I agree with King of Cheese, killing a special character doesn't mean anything if its being done two tables over. 

As a side note while I don't play tournies this is not aimed at the tourny folk, in that environment your there to win, bugger to the fluff. I don't play tournies for this reason but I can understand it.


----------



## Daddysen (May 31, 2010)

I personally would like some form of tailoring your own special character. 
the only problem with that is there will be some superior combination that will rise above the rest and all the uniqueness that was potentially there will be thrown out the window.

I think for the special characters Like Eldrad, and Kharn, and such there should be Limitations on the army builds. for example Kharn could lead your army but you have to include at least 2 squads of bezerkers with him and no psykers(i mean honestly do you think Kharn would hesitate for a minute taking the skull of a cowardly psyker the second he layed eyes on him). I think that would make it more chalenging to use them and fun.

For the tailor your hero build I think for each power or ability that you choose it should come with an offset to keep it balanced like in the 4th edition Space Marines you could pick certain attributes for your army that would give them an edge but it came with a price you had to pick a down side as well And/or the more abilities you pick I think they should get increasingly more expensive so yeah you could make a psychic character like Eldrad or Tigurius but at what point cost? would it be worth it? It Might be worth it in Large games and i feel these types of characters would rarly show up unless it was a serious encounter. I mean would Kharn show up if there was only gonna be 20 heads to decap? now a large battle is more tempting as the foes will be thick. you know stuff like that. anyway thats just my 2 cents.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

I think the main reason they have them in is for flavour purposes, but also, and probably more importantly, if you are given a huge number of options, it is very possible to BREAK THE GAME.

When one BREAKS THE GAME, you've done something which is obscenely overpowered, undermines the foundations of the rules in some way, or some other horribly weird situation.
Absolute customisation is a very difficult thing to do well, without a whole lot of moderation, and we all know that GW doesn't like changing the rules, as seen by Space Marine Devastators still having over-priced guns :\

While it would be nice to have simpler things to change your army in some way (like a Space Marine Captain on a bike allowing bikers to be troops), and I don't fully understand why GW hasn't done that without having to take a Special Character, it's not the easiest of things to implement without causing some horrible strategy which is too good.


Also most of you guys seem to be overlooking the fact that you're perfectly allowed to take a Special Character and counts-as him, you can take Marneus in a non-Ultramarines army for this very reason, he just counts as someone else.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Winterous said:


> I think the main reason they have them in is for flavour purposes, but also, and probably more importantly, if you are given a huge number of options, it is very possible to BREAK THE GAME.
> 
> When one BREAKS THE GAME, you've done something which is obscenely overpowered, undermines the foundations of the rules in some way, or some other horribly weird situation.
> Absolute customisation is a very difficult thing to do well, without a whole lot of moderation, and we all know that GW doesn't like changing the rules, as seen by Space Marine Devastators still having over-priced guns :
> ...


Which destroys the uniqueness of Calgar and his wargear.
Some things, like Stalker Pattern Bolters, should be allowed since they're not exactly one-of-a-kind, just uncommon... but the Gauntlets of Ultramar shouldn't have any duplicates.
As examples.


----------



## space cowboy (Apr 3, 2009)

First off, I will say that I am one of those people who likes having special characters in the game. One of the most enjoyable games of 40k I ever played was a 'Last Man Standing' game in 2nd edition where Marneus Calgar and Ancient Helveticus were the last two models in a 5 player 5000 points per person epic free-for-all.

That being said, I think they should have a points restriction on them (and not something dumb that no one plays like 1000 points) and they should have to be fielded with certain requirements. I doubt GW would ever go so far as to publish unique army lists similar to the Index Astartes lists again, but some sort of 'Choose Your Trait' system like replacing combat tactics as mentioned earlier or something similar to the 4th edition system except without the pretense of having to take a drawback that won't actually be a drawback.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

space cowboy said:


> something similar to the 4th edition system except without the pretense of having to take a drawback that won't actually be a drawback.


That was fucking lol.
YOUR DUDES ARE BETTER!
But you can't Deep Strike.

Sweet, I'm cool with that, didn't want to anyway


----------



## Unforgiven302 (Oct 20, 2008)

For those who do not like special or named characters, you really should be playing necrons. Seriously, they don't have any names or unique HQ's unless you count the c'tans, (and you don't have to use one of them if you don't want to.) You get to choose between a lord and a flying lord, then you kit them out with a points cap of 100 on a list of upgrades. Sounds like the exact setup a lot of people have said they wanted. A base character with a list of upgrades to equip it with. Well, there it is.

Secondly, I believe special characters are fun. They add the ability to tailor your build around a back story or because of something that interests you. Because GW doesn't put 30 pages of special characters in each codex people get bored with seeing the same 5-6 over and over again. Repetition can be a drag. 

Third, the codex is not the end-all-be-all for characters or HQ choices. 40k is is very supportive of the player expanding the game for themselves. You don't like the characters GW put in the codex? Make your own. Make the rules, the stats and the points costs along with a background story for a character or HQ as you see fit. Of course you don't want to create "captain overkill," but you can make a unique and fair special character that makes you happy and isn't broken. Obviously you need your opponent to agree for you to use it, but most people will never have a problem as long as the characters abilities are equal to the points cost. 

Fourth, high cost unique characters should have had a points cap for them to be used. Say 2,000 points and above and you are now allowed Calgar or Abbadon to be chosen. I do agree that having Abbadon in a 1,000 point game is a bit of a silly thing. But then again, a lower point game including a super HQ could represent the fighting going on directly around him/her and not the entire "war" in which the game is resembling. You just need to put the game in some form of context for it to have any semblance of rationality to the background stories we all love to read. Abbadon in a 1,000 point game could be likened to him marching into a newly conquered city only to be met with the last vestiges of resistance in a suicide attack. Make a small story for your game and the game now makes more sense...

Just my thoughts on the topic...


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Or, alternatively, he's leading a large force across the surface of a planet, but they aren't all in one clump.
And BAM, enemies.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

In short. No. But I can see why they are allowed, and understand all the arguements for them.

I think that, like unforgiven said, they should have a points level before being allowed ot be fielded, like older edition dex's. However you justify it, you cant really say there is nothing beardy/cheesy about bringing marneus calgar to a 1000pt game. 

I think that there should be either A) A template of a few types of characters, with character specific upgrades. or B) Like the old codexs wargear sections where you just totally build it from scratch.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I agree that a minimum points limit (say 2000 since this slightly more than the average game) should be implemented. I wish to bring back the whole ask your opponent thing as well as outlaw them from tournaments. It would not only bring them back as characters that do not appear often but injects fun and uniqueness back in the game. Seeing Calgar in 3rd was special and unique. Seeing the 9th or 10th Calgar in a row in 5th is not special or unique.

Being honest I blame codex marines for bringing tonnes of special characters in the game with the wannabe license. You know the one that says include count as special characters in different paint jobs.


----------



## Warsmith40 (Feb 8, 2010)

I'd like to think the characters I make in 5th are far more cost effective badasses than SC  This said, I also value the otherwise unavailable perks of SC. For example, a friend of mine regularly fields Pedro Kantor, and I have a healthy respect for his particular flavor of whoopass. The Arrow of Dorn is rediculous :shok:

As for me, I prefer to field my Hellfire Bolter/Relic Blade Captain, saving me the 25 points a basic Chapter Master would add or the 50 or so points of a SC. I actually like the Combat Tactics rule, although I'd love to have a list of "freebie" options to swap out for (ah for the days of True Grit SM...), since it benefits my whole army rather than just one character/weapon type/unit.

And I now have a Captian Cortez model (yay Games Day freebies!) which I would have loved to have rules for. Now I just get to field him as a captain with power fist (and storm shield if my opponent is kind enough to bend WYSIWYG to try and mimic the SC Cortez of old). Oh well :drinks:


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

All I have to say is they are called "special characters" as in they are the most Elite of the elite and yet some can be instantly killed. Im sorry but for the points they cost there is no way in hell that they can fall to a 25 point LC shot.

I would love to run Specific Elite HQ's in some of my armies but for their points you rarely make them back. Its just a waste.

Cheers,
Chaosftw


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Chaosftw said:


> All I have to say is they are called "special characters" as in they are the most Elite of the elite and yet some can be instantly killed. Im sorry but for the points they cost there is no way in hell that they can fall to a 25 point LC shot.


You'd hate to play Tyranids then, because you can spend upwards of 300 points on a Hive Tyrant, only to have it FORCE WEAPON'D.


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

Winterous said:


> You'd hate to play Tyranids then, because you can spend upwards of 300 points on a Hive Tyrant, only to have it FORCE WEAPON'D.


Oh I did it to one. I then Laughed and sighed at the same time. 'Look at me I am a big expensive bad a$$' and that little 100 point no name HQ that has a force weapon for 35 points just 1 shot me.. Thanks for the fighting chance GW!

heh :ireful2::ireful2::ireful2:


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I was about to throw this out in another forum and thought better of it, and did a quick search. =)

I agree with most of the previous posters. Special characters are hardly special if they can show up in any size game and in any army type. They really added to the fluffy nature of a game if they really informed the whole list.

A system of ability customization would be lovely, but I also likely too easy to abuse. The flip side requires probably more play testing or errata than I think GW wants to do. Think back to 2nd ed. I ran a warhammer/40K league and most of my job was being the rules encyclopedia, usually with wargear cards.

Unfortunately, since then we've moved largely towards such a high level of standardization that a game breaking change is easier to create because ALL the lists are calcified. The variability in every list ti equip your units more how you wanted, meant that every list was more flexible and wasn't by definition fodder for some other rock/paper/scissors build.

Special characters I think are a symptom of this. They're there to add fluff and variability. But with that level of ubiquity or necessity, don't they become a crutch?

*Shrug* Back then anyone taking them seemed like they couldn't write a list or equip a character so they needed to take the overpowered ones workshop provided. Now nobody has that much control over equipment and they seem like an even bigger crutch. *Frown*


My 2 cents.

Kreuger


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

You're absolutely right Kreuger, they are something that you commonly use as a big part of your list, and it would be nice to have that special access as a part of normal characters; however, you also hit the nail when you said that can lead to game-breaking outfits, which is certainly not something we want.

I think that the way GW have used SC is the 'easy' way out of balancing that customisation ability, since it would be quite difficult to correctly balance it.


----------



## Raptor_00 (Mar 17, 2008)

Unforgiven302 said:


> ...Third, the codex is not the end-all-be-all for characters or HQ choices. 40k is is very supportive of the player expanding the game for themselves. You don't like the characters GW put in the codex? Make your own. Make the rules, the stats and the points costs along with a background story for a character or HQ as you see fit. Of course you don't want to create "captain overkill," but you can make a unique and fair special character that makes you happy and isn't broken. Obviously you need your opponent to agree for you to use it, but most people will never have a problem as long as the characters abilities are equal to the points cost...


Only problem is that in a friendly game sure, most people will allow a fair and balanced home made character. Some won't no matter what because "it's not in the rules". At tournaments they won't be allowed no mater how well balanced they may be.
But, if GW came out with a "pick a trait" system it would allow that player to be played anywhere at anytime. It wouldn't be any easy task, each combination would have to be play tested hundreds of times to ensure it wasn't unfair (something I doubt GW would be capable of doing). It would almost have to be a separate book released at the same time of every BRB release.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Not really, because you dont give things like stealth to orks, etc. etc. Each army would get its own list of traits, think 3rd ed chaos armory, Tau battlesuit upgrades, that kind of Idea.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> Not really, because you dont give things like stealth to orks, etc. etc. Each army would get its own list of traits, think 3rd ed chaos armory, Tau battlesuit upgrades, that kind of Idea.


I mean the like, army special rules, thing.
And the 3rd ed CSM armoury was BROKEN dude


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

eh, I know, But I mean that general idea, the guy before was suggesting like its own rulebook for traits, but some armies wouldnt get certain traits/abilites for obvious reasons, so something with that level of variety, or close, so for example you take a SM captain on bike, for +15 points, his squad gains hit and run, that kind of deal, Termie armoured captain, One unit of terminators can be troops, like that.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Winterous said:


> I mean the like, army special rules, thing.
> And the 3rd ed CSM armoury was BROKEN dude


*remembers the good old days*


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

KingOfCheese said:


> *remembers the good old days*


When you could field like 20 models at 1500...


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

I'm all for allowing more options for characters (in fact my game group now allows for earier edition units including characters to be used in apocalypse games) and whilst i get that some people enjoy the games workshop created characters i really don't feel that they shoudl be the only options available. 

Yes there were issues in some of the other editions with characters being unbalanced but on the most part this was due to innacurate pricing and options gone mad. I can see no problem with rules thatallow for expensive characters to be created because at the end of the day the extra points are being paid. Same as taking an expensive elite unit over a cheaper unit., yes it is more powerful but you are paying for it. The problem comes when points costing is not done correctly and is unbalanced. 

The arguement that special characters add more background and individuality then a custom character is preposterous in my books. For 3rd and 4th ed i ran a chaos lord which i had written a full background for, including what he was up to during the heresy and how he rose to power. As his background was that he was a former master techpriest i gave him a servo arm and used the "deamonic attack" special ability in the chaos codex to represent it. 
Likewise i had a full story for the rebirth of my ork warboss(you can find the rewrite i did for the fiction contest this year here) My point is that everyone who gets into this hobby does so for creative reasons.
Whether it's for the modelling, painting, sculpting, list developing or background writing. Everyone is using their creative juices. Admitedly some people won't be bothered to create their own characters and thats exactly why the sc's are here but why should those of us that have been bothered to write a good background and storyline be forced to use an out of the box character. It's like saying that all speed freaks must be painted red or that models may not be converted.

By taking the ability to create and play these characters in games or at least make them viable alternatives to the SC, gw have nerfed one of the aspects that attracted myself and probabley a great deal of other players to the hobby in the first place. 
When i used to play there was one person who had multiple sc's in his army. Everyone else had their own comanders and the games were still tense and varied. Now i can guarantee that if my opponent is fielding an ork warboss in mega armour it is a counts as ghazskul or that any SM army i have will be lead by some rule transplanted famous chapter master. It just gets boring.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Winterous said:


> You're absolutely right Kreuger, they are something that you commonly use as a big part of your list, and it would be nice to have that special access as a part of normal characters; however, you also hit the nail when you said that can lead to game-breaking outfits, which is certainly not something we want.
> 
> I think that the way GW have used SC is the 'easy' way out of balancing that customisation ability, since it would be quite difficult to correctly balance it.


The best way to balance things out again would be to go back to using the special characters in the army they are meant for, and only that army, so that you'd see none of the Eldrad/ Yriel or Calger/ Vulcan type combos.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Vrykolas2k said:


> The best way to balance things out again would be to go back to using the special characters in the army they are meant for, and only that army, so that you'd see none of the Eldrad/ Yriel or Calger/ Vulcan type combos.


Or, rather than completely fuck over anyone who wants to have a homebrew army, just have character incompatibilities.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Winterous said:


> I mean the like, army special rules, thing.
> And the 3rd ed CSM armoury was BROKEN dude


I disagree.
I never had that much of a problem beating Chaos, nor did I ever have a completely unbeatable Chaos list.
Hell, the 4th ed. Chaos codex was more potent than 3rd. Also superior to the 5th ed. one we have to use now, where they've pretty much castrated the Legions.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Winterous said:


> Or, rather than completely fuck over anyone who wants to have a homebrew army, just have character incompatibilities.


I play homebrew armies.
No special characters.
When I play an established army, sometimes I use special characters... but not often.
I'd use Kruellagh the Vile very occasionally, but have only used Vect once, as examples. And I've played Dark Eldar since even before they revised the codex.
I see what you're saying to an extent, but really it comes down to choices. I play Ulthwe', have since 3rd, but never used Eldrad and only rarely use a Phoenix Lord. I certainly wouldn't conceive of using Eldrad with... Biel-Tan, for instance. They'd trust their own Farseer.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Vrykolas2k said:


> I play homebrew armies.
> No special characters.


What's your point?
Some people will want to, and if GW were to say "You HAVE to be an Ultramarines army to use Cowgar." then anyone with a homebrew army couldn't have a Calgar equivalent.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Hell, the 4th ed. Chaos codex was more potent than 3rd. Also superior to the 5th ed. one we have to use now, where they've pretty much castrated the Legions.


Chaos don't have a 5th ed codex....


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

KingOfCheese said:


> Chaos don't have a 5th ed codex....


I call the current one 5th, due to the format and the fact it was written while 5th was in the works.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Winterous said:


> What's your point?
> Some people will want to, and if GW were to say "You HAVE to be an Ultramarines army to use Cowgar." then anyone with a homebrew army couldn't have a Calgar equivalent.


Fine with me.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Fine with me.


Not fine with most people.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Vrykolas2k said:


> I call the current one 5th, due to the format and the fact it was written while 5th was in the works.


So, to seek clarity, the codex you call 4th Ed is the one before the current one, i.e. what most people call 3rd Ed; and the one you call 3rd Ed is which Edition?


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> So, to seek clarity, the codex you call 4th Ed is the one before the current one, i.e. what most people call 3rd Ed; and the one you call 3rd Ed is which Edition?


There were 2 in 3rd ed.

3rd ed codex - Crap.
3.5 ed codex - God of all codices. Bow to it or be raped by Slaanesh.
4th ed codex - The current one (Codex Renegades basically)


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

KingOfCheese said:


> There were 2 in 3rd ed.
> 
> 3rd ed codex - Crap.
> 3.5 ed codex - God of all codices. Bow to it or be raped by Slaanesh.
> 4th ed codex - The current one (Codex Renegades basically)


I know; I wanted to check whether he was counting 3.0 and 3.1 as 3rd and 4th or whether he was counting both 3.0 and 3.1 as 4th, and using 3rd to refer ot a previuos edition.


----------



## Lyuben (Oct 23, 2010)

I have not read the whole thing so forgive me if this has been said.

I love special characters. They can be used to bring flavour and certain tactics into an army should you so choose. Nobody forces you to use them. And they usually have very unique gear and stuff, this goes greatly with the whole 'counts as' thing which GW encourages. Which means you use a special characters stats, rules, points cost and maybe even model and simply call it something else. Thats what I think is pretty fun.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Lyuben said:


> I have not read the whole thing so forgive me if this has been said.
> 
> I love special characters. They can be used to bring flavour and certain tactics into an army should you so choose. Nobody forces you to use them. And they usually have very unique gear and stuff, this goes greatly with the whole 'counts as' thing which GW encourages. Which means you use a special characters stats, rules, points cost and maybe even model and simply call it something else. Thats what I think is pretty fun.


The thing is, Special Characters are a controlled way to allow army changes, like taking Sanguinary Guard as Troops, for example.
The alternative is allowing regular characters to take upgrades which modify the army; this would be great, but it's difficult to balance properly, unlike an SC who has to be taken as-is.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> So, to seek clarity, the codex you call 4th Ed is the one before the current one, i.e. what most people call 3rd Ed; and the one you call 3rd Ed is which Edition?


3rd edition.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Is that 3rd Edition or 3.5 version of the Codex?

Aramoro


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

KingOfCheese said:


> There were 2 in 3rd ed.
> 
> 3rd ed codex - Crap.
> 3.5 ed codex - God of all codices. Bow to it or be raped by Slaanesh.
> 4th ed codex - The current one (Codex Renegades basically)


Due to the format, and the fact that 4th edition was in the works, I consider the "second 3rd edition codex" to be 4th edition.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Due to the format, and the fact that 4th edition was in the works, I consider the "second 3rd edition codex" to be 4th edition.


Oh well that's just confusing now. Can we not all just agree on 3rd, 3.5 and 4th. 

3.5 was a little bit bent I think we can all agree on that. 

Aramoro


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Aramoro said:


> Oh well that's just confusing now. Can we not all just agree on 3rd, 3.5 and 4th.
> 
> 3.5 was a little bit bent I think we can all agree on that.
> 
> Aramoro


I don't.
It just wasn't jail-house raped like the previous and following codices were. It wasn't unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## space cowboy (Apr 3, 2009)

Vrykolas2k said:


> I don't.
> It just wasn't jail-house raped like the previous and following codices were. It wasn't unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination.


And it was more fun to use. Ah for the good old days when I used to have some variety to my army.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

space cowboy said:


> And it was more fun to use. Ah for the good old days when I used to have some variety to my army.


GW seems to prefer cookie-cutter armies, sadly...
Thus the "counts as" rule, among other things.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Due to the format, and the fact that 4th edition was in the works, I consider the "second 3rd edition codex" to be 4th edition.


Cheers for clarifying.



Aramoro said:


> Can we not all just agree on 3rd, 3.5 and 4th.


The official GW nomenclature appears to be "Second Printing"; as that is a mouthful I have can understand why it is not used. However, I dislike 3.5 as it implies a 3.4 &c. Does anyone know what it was called internally?

In an ideal world I would like it to be abbreviated to 3.1.



Vrykolas2k said:


> GW seems to prefer cookie-cutter armies, sadly...
> Thus the "counts as" rule, among other things.


I prefer the "counts as" rule to the lots of very similar units/codicies required to permit you to play something similar to the norm. The latest CSM Codex appears to have been the far end of the swing into simplicity that GW used to make the game more accessible to those less gifted at mathematics.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

OKay lets try a different line of thought with this thread. If GW were to release officially sanctioned character creation rules in a similar context to the vehicle design rules woudl it be something that people would be tempted to use even if only in friendly games or apocalypse games? 
I think we can all agree that for a more tournament style of play that some of the wargear options in the previous Dex's were slightly unbalancing. Keep the spec characters in all versions of the game but only allow CDR characters to be used in apocalypse and to be overpriced in a similar way to the cutom vehicles. 

i see this as a happy middle ground trade off. People who want to have their own characters created will still be able to field them in games which are already designed for unbalanced armies and will have a structured way to create said characters albeit with their opponents consent. People who want pure tournament/ competative play without having to worry about the balance of certain pieces of wargear or coming up against a 500point monster hq that will eat their army on it's own.

Whilst a vehicle design list is not all that difficult a character designer could be moreso but it is still something which a big company could produce. I mean heck somone had to work out how to create and level characters for D20 games and inquisitor so why not for Apocalypse.


----------



## Abomination (Jul 6, 2008)

I like the idea of a bit more options for special characters. I enjoy having special characters in the game. I think they deserve their place. I think maybe the problem is that they are just being overused in todays game.


----------



## nightfish (Feb 16, 2009)

40k for me is about ordinary soldiers doing well rather than games dominated by special characters.

I think there is a place for them, just in larger games i.e. excess of 2000 points.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

I liked special characters because they made an army unique.
Now they're just another way to make cardboard armies.


----------

