Librarium Online Forums banner

Why hate Named Characters

4K views 67 replies 36 participants last post by  LordLickly 
#1 ·
Ok, I don't get it. Why hate Named characters? GW has made it easier to use them by making them just a lord or hero choice. Saying they are overpowered is only goign to go so far as you can make some regular Lords and Heroes just as powerful.
 
#2 ·
The named characters in general are not playtested for balance nearly as much as normal characters. Because of this the points for these characters are not accurate for what they can do. It is difficult to place a points value on how powerful a special ability will be, and often the characters points and their rules do not match for better or worse. Many people wish to exclude them altogether because of the special abilities/points issue.
 
#5 ·
1. They are not your's. You did not make them, their fluff is someone else's, and if you actually care about YOUR army and you aren't just playing the game to slaughter your friends, you don't want characters built by someone else.

2. They are not well balanced.

3. Quite often these people NEVER fought the enemy you are.

4. Your friends don't use them.

5. No one wants to play AGAINST special characters unless they themselves are playing with them.

6. "The old ways are better"

Personally I HATE special characters and would walk away from a game if someone brought one without asking my consent beforehand.
 
#6 · (Edited)
Personally I HATE special characters and would walk away from a game if someone brought one without asking my consent beforehand.
What about the fact that, at least with the SM codex, you have to utilize special characters in order to actually play a certain type of faction?

I have a feeling this may be a trend with future books...
 
#9 ·
There are some times where special characters can just add an extra dimension to a game. When you have a group of regular gamers who have the same armies, the same combos etc. that they bring to every game it can be refreshing to bring a special character along to mix things up a bit, especially if the character messes about with the organisation.

For example, I once did a Kroq-Gar themed LM army which at the time meant all saurus cav were core and foot saurus were special. The army played completely differently, and still led to a fun, balanced game vs. a friend. However, this was not a tournament legal army, and I wouldn't want to take it to tournaments.

However, I do agree that there are now too many, and they aren't special anymore. And some are just plain wrong, I mean an army of fleeting terminators with 3+ invulnerables. Try justifying that and not sounding like a power gamer. Yet its perfectly "legal" for tournaments. Go figure.

Don't get me wrong, I do like the way marines can now have the different chapter tactics, and you can very easily represent your favourite chapters easily from the standard book, but somehow it doesn't quite feel right sometimes.
 
#10 ·
I would use them if i wanted to and i would not deny the other player to use them even if i was not for that game. This is a game of fun after all and there is nothing more fun than killing space marine special characters!
 
#11 ·
For example.

Kroq-gar cannot be at every battle that the lizardmen will ever do. You can't just field him every time you play, he'll get boring.

Hell what if two people used kroq at the same time in different scenarios in a campaign?

Would an intergalactic rift open up and consume the lizardmen players who were dull enough to try and make a "special" character exist in two different places?

Would kroq cease to exist?

Who knows.

"Special" characters are over rated and though I do think kroq is one of the best models in the lizardmen army, he shouldn't be used outside of "special" occations.

I'll just take an old blood on a carno' and buff him up.

Glavas
 
#12 ·
The problem with special characters is the value, either they are over the top good or over the top bad. I play eldar, Eldrad is hands down better than any farseer you can make. For less points you get improved toughness, a better save, an armor ignoring weapon, 3 powers a round, and divination special rule (comparing him to a fully decked out farseer ). Yriel is the same way hands down far and away better than any autarch you can make, unless you want an autarch to deepstrike in with spiders/hawks. On the flip side you have the phoenix lords they are all around 200 points and only the most expensive one has an inv save.

Like it or not though special characters are going to be around for a while in 40k, the new SM codex says that people should use counts as versions of them if they want to use them but aren't playing the correct chapter for them. This removes any fluff defense against special characters, as it will not be Pedro Cantor leading that salamanders sternguard list it will be bob captain of the 5th company leading them.
 
#15 ·
One of the most effective eldar armies I have ever seen runs Yriel and Eldrad with a full council either they split up to give the army two powerful units, or if faced with one of the melee units of doom they go all as one. Together and fortuned they are one of the most powerful melee units in the game. With enhance from a warlock he is I 8 WS 7 and wounds on a 2+. The fact that Yriel can break off and kill a full marine squad by himself with the eye adds to the overall power. Compare him to an autarch and he stands head and shoulders above them for combat and still gives the +1 to reserve rolls which is one of the big reasons people use autarchs at all for eldar. If it wasn't for farseers and their powers being so nice I think you would see him alot more.

I am suprised you haven't seen shrike much. Infiltrating fleeting assault terminators is more that a bit absurd but he lets you pull it off ( first turn charge with terminators should not be possible ever ). Look at the special characters that are not fielded often and you will find that they either don't fit with the rest of the codex (farsight falls into this catagory I feel, as he is more or less a melee character that gives melee bonuses against orcs, but then removes the one unit tau have that are even slighty good at melee and restricts your other unit choices as well ). Or they simply are not worth the points compared to other units for that army. The ones people always use are always used because they are so good for what they cost.
 
#16 ·
I have no real issues with named characters. They are fun for more themed games where Eldrad tries to hinder Ahriman getting his hands on a Webway portal, etc.

What I dislike is when GW FORCES people to use named characters to be able to play certain lists (Wazzdakka for Orks and every Marine character). If GW were so desperate to make people play themed armies then why didn't they keep the traits, the doctrines, the alternate Craftworlds? Even if you say that your Ork boss on bike that makes bikers troops is called Wuzzdukka, he will still be Wazzdakka in the end, with the exact same equipment and abilities. It makes the game bland and boring, IMO.
 
#17 ·
I like named characters, they have pretty models or the challenge of making a conversion. In matches I only ever take one named character for his special abilities, I find my own custom HQs far better at killing and surviving. I don't need special chars but since traits have gone bye bye this is only thing I have left to instill some small bit of individuality in my army but then I may be biased cause I play for fun and don't start frothing at the mouth when someone puts down Vulkan or Abaddon.
 
#19 ·
To, me it's all about bringing other options to the table. And bringing a special character mixes things up, and allows for new strategies and.. more fun, which is the no. 1 rule of Warhammer universes.

So, not bringing special characters would be... against the rules!!!! (wink wink).

Also, some statements have been made about permissions and balance.

I will obey a rule that tells me that I have to ask for a permission from my opponent. But tell me where exactly I will find that rule: armybook/codex, Rulebook or FAQ/errata. That's it. Of course, if my ooponent said: that special character is broken against my army for this and this reason, I'd retire it following the no. 1 rule.

Where can I find a quote about a GW representative saying we don't playtest the special characters as much?

After all, you can't playtest all the combinations of equipement/abilities that characters can have, there's an infinity (almost) of them. Special characters usually have fixed equipment/abilities. That way, they can be playtested a lot more efficiently (and accurately cost/pointed).
 
#20 ·
I'd rather make my own characters, because thinking up backgrounds and fluff is one of the things I enjoy about the hobby. Additionally the same character in every battle, even in small skirmishes. On the other hand I like special characters for 2 reasons.

1) As mentioned above, change their name and they are just a replacement for traits/doctrines/alternative lists.
2) I like playing games when I know the story and the characters involved. I'd rather play against a character my opponent has made up, but I'd rather play against a special character than 'unnamed generic lash sorcerer no. 134'.
 
#25 ·
If the special character is actually for that army, then it should be ok, because fluffwise it works out. Problem is, two of the same army against each other / tagging up with eachother.

Double of the same hero, what the? The only way to explain this is a parallel dimension has opened up and both dimensions began fighting together / against eachother. Suddenly, when the battle ends, the dimensions fade back to normal and all events there in are reversed, back to the exact time before the dimensional rift.

On the other hand, Just plain out using overpowered characters is just plain cheesy, athough I don't really have any experience against them because nobody ever used characters when I played them. Noobish Ultramarines ftw!
 
#27 ·
Has nobody considered simply running a special character and treating it as something different?

Run "Eldrad Ulthran" in terms of rules but simply use a normal farseer model for Craftworld Cys'varnia'myn'okay'lol'wut and name him Bob the Farseer. Just because you're using the stats of Eldrad doesn't mean you're actually using Eldrad.

Of course it gets moderately unfluffy when somehow a generic Ork Waagh suddenly has a leader comparable to Wazdakka Gutsmek, but that storyline reasoning is for you apologetics to discuss.
 
#28 ·
Special characters are strong, but if you want them to fit in with common sense warfare, they would need to be uber strong.

Of course they will die regularly when you play but in reality a war hero wouldn't die every other game you play, they would be strong enough to draw a ton of fire and make it out unharmed. Remember, this is just a game

Its just a way to have a cool looking guy lead your army and stand out from every other figure. Space Marines would be much more than 3 times the worth of a normal grunt in real life, unlike the points show currently
 
#29 ·
Of course they will die regularly when you play but in reality a war hero wouldn't die every other game you play, they would be strong enough to draw a ton of fire and make it out unharmed.
In reality, a hero would survive a battle either because I) They outright refused to get their hands dirty (might mess up their nailpolish) II) Very few people actually died in battle. Around 30% deaths would be considered excessively bloody, and the battle would be won when one side routed, as anyone with common sense and the absence of a deathwish would fall back rather than fight two or three people.

If you want to bring fluff into this, I'd like to know why Marneus Calgar would bother fighting every battle the Ultramarines get into.
Tactical Marine: "Marneus, my liege, live forever! You fought like the great primarchs of old. Teach me to fight like you."
Marneus: "Got to go. A scouting party is fighting in some obscure corner of the galaxy with no strategic value whatsoever against some race no-one cares about. Stay cool, and look to the eastern skies when you next encounter the enemy!"
<Marneus summons his private Thunderhawk, opens a bottle of champagne, and vanishes into the horizon, ready to fight again>

For gaming terms, take a look at Thorek Ironbrow and his personal collection of cheddar mills and tell me you genuinely don't know why people dislike facing special characters.
 
#35 ·
Ok, I get the dislike from a fluff point of view, the leaders of world and nations don't fight every little battle.

However from an 'it makes the game unfair' point of view I don't. I must say I don't quite get this, refusing to play people who play special characters and don't ask first, they are different and powerful, but it's one step from that to saying "I won't play you if you use lash of submission' then 'I won't play you if you use that unit because its too effective' then 'I won't play that codex 'cos its over powered or nerfed'. Soon your vetting everything each other bring. If its in an army book/codex its been tested to at least some extent, perfect balance is never possible, there are just too many variables, so why not just let people choose what is legal within the rules and get on

How is using a special character to get cool rules into your game to make your army more effective any worse than using the popular combination of imperial guard traits etc for the same reason?
 
#36 ·
However from an 'it makes the game unfair' point of view I don't. I must say I don't quite get this, refusing to play people who play special characters and don't ask first, they are different and powerful, but it's one step from that to saying "I won't play you if you use lash of submission' then 'I won't play you if you use that unit because its too effective' then 'I won't play that codex 'cos its over powered or nerfed'.
I wouldn't walk from an opponent using one. But if ever I decide to take up the javelin, I may one day decide to show up to their house to do a bit of target practise. In seriousness, if they want to powergame, it's their choice.

Soon your vetting everything each other bring. If its in an army book/codex its been tested to at least some extent, perfect balance is never possible, there are just too many variables, so why not just let people choose what is legal within the rules and get on
This is the problem. Generally, the special characters aren't so well playtested. The later ones are admittedly a bit of a "citation needed" thing, but someone more in the know than I should be able to give a more definitive word here.

How is using a special character to get cool rules into your game to make your army more effective any worse than using the popular combination of imperial guard traits etc for the same reason?
The main difference is that special characters are often more points-effective than other characters of similar type, as has been brought up earlier in this thread. Special characters also often have powerful special rules that make them very hard to place a points value on (such as, 'all dudes within 12" hit Orks on a 2+' - how can you place a value on that?).
 
#37 ·
I find they should be only a good example of possible own characters to create. The galaxy is so huge that meeting Kharn the Betrayer on every battle against Khorne is just basurd. It is as if he was suffering from a warp illness which makes him appear in many places at the same time. They should be inspiring, but not centerpieces.
 
#40 · (Edited)
The galaxy is so huge that meeting Kharn the Betrayer on every battle against Khorne is just absurd.
Ya know, as we're playing games that have dragons battling steam powered tanks (WHFB ), or aliens/cyborgs/mutants/demons participating in intra-galactic warfare(WH40k) , I'm not entirely sure why folks keep demanding so much for things to "make sense". On the other hand...

Fluff is always really easy to fix anyway. For instance, the case of Calgar personally directing Scouts, just say that the skirmish on the table is part of a larger battle; the scouts found something interesting (Great excuse to make cool objective markers?) that Calgar decided to personally inspect. Meanwhile, the main force partakes in the larger battle at hand.

When you say that your opponent is being "unfluffy" just for taking a character, then consider this:

Before the match, did you announce your army's entire backstory, giving all the reasons for their particular unit choices and wargear, and what their goals are in the battle?
Do you use new character models every time you lose one in a game?
For that matter, do you create new squads every time one is wiped in game?

As you see, its purely subjective.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top