Special Characters

[nurglephill]

As the title says I was reading through the "the most competative army list possible" thread and the last few posts where about the use of special named characters and if you do or dont need them.

 

I find myself disappointed by the direction GW seems to be going with the naming of characters for a whole bunch of reasons. I don't, for example, see the chapter master of the ultramarines being involved in piddle little skirmishes in the middle of no where for no good reason...it just doesn't make sense to me PERSONALLY. ( I put this in capitals because these discussions can easily end in flaming and awkward 'tones etc and I want to avoid this here.)

 

If I had my way I think I would go back to the Rogue Trader Idea of having Major and Minor heroes but that is probably just me :)

 

The reason for this thread? Well, I was working out a list (as we all do when bored and should be working/studying) and to build a chapter master with a hammer and shield is a fraction less than just using Lysander's stats as a 'counts as' and you get a lot more bang for the fraction extra you pay (I think it was about 5pts more). So are these named characters priced to make them the obvious choice for any game reasons or is it to sell more models? Do they make it easier to win games?

 

Also, do you think to be competitive you need to use a named character of can you win tournaments with your bog standard codex HQ options?

 

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this subject as it not only ties in with game play, tactics and personal play styles but also GW policy and therefore the future of our hobby.

[Tinnock]

The reason for this thread? Well, I was working out a list (as we all do when bored and should be working/studying) and to build a chapter master with a hammer and shield is a fraction less than just using Lysander's stats as a 'counts as' and you get a lot more bang for the fraction extra you pay (I think it was about 5pts more). So are these named characters priced to make them the obvious choice for any game reasons or is it to sell more models? Do they make it easier to win games?

 

Lysander is a captain not a chapter master. a chapter master gets you access to orbital bombardment and Honour Guard which lysander doesnt have. it would be more accurate to compare a captain with Terminator armour + TH/SS to him which is a 30 pt difference not a 5 pt difference.

 

Some special characters should be a bit more expensive, but at the same time, some special characters are too expensive. All in all I think they did pretty well with them.

[thade]

Special Characters are not necessary. I do very well with my vanilla-styled list using only a Librarian in TDA w/ SS for my HQ, at times throwing a JP Reclusiarch on the field. Both of them have names that I gave them, so they're special to me. ;)

 

Special Characters add flavor to your list and can in many cases (Dante, Calgar, Vulkan, Lemartes, the DA characters for their respective Wings) change the way your entire army plays. Are any of them necessary? No. I've bowled over Vulkanized lists and done quite well against Dante DOA lists using Tacticals, Devs, and said Librarian. They change the game, but in my experience they do not break it, nor are they necessary.

[Chapter Master Ignis Domus]

I find myself disappointed by the direction GW seems to be going with the naming of characters for a whole bunch of reasons. I don't, for example, see the chapter master of the ultramarines being involved in piddle little skirmishes in the middle of no where for no good reason...it just doesn't make sense to me PERSONALLY. ( I put this in capitals because these discussions can easily end in flaming and awkward 'tones etc and I want to avoid this here.)

 

This gets more interesting when you have the Avatar as a 500 point game HQ. He's the Avatar of Khaela Mensha Khaine, incredibly important and hard to bring up, and he wanders around in a really small skirmish.

 

The reason for this thread? Well, I was working out a list (as we all do when bored and should be working/studying) and to build a chapter master with a hammer and shield is a fraction less than just using Lysander's stats as a 'counts as' and you get a lot more bang for the fraction extra you pay (I think it was about 5pts more). So are these named characters priced to make them the obvious choice for any game reasons or is it to sell more models? Do they make it easier to win games?

 

Interesting. I never noticed that. I wouldn't say they make it any easier to win games than any other model, but they're fun to use and add some flavor to your army.

 

Also, do you think to be competitive you need to use a named character of can you win tournaments with your bog standard codex HQ options?

 

You can easily win tournaments without any special characters. I haven't used any specials, excluding the one time I had Sicarius, in years.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

The Librarian and the Bike Captain are very good non-special choices.

 

I just read today some chap's theory about why Special Characters were so heavy in C:SM 5th ed.

It is somewhat to do with dealing with Warmahordes. Basically, you have your named character in that game, and his/her survival is crucial to you winning the game.

Such Herohammer is very appealing to teens and pre-teens in particular and even quite a few adults. If a growing competitor has that as part of their on table culture, then forcing hero-hammer into C:SM is a way of combating young eyes looking on with envy at another game with "real heroes" rather than the 'bland & beige' squad based game.

 

Also, GW has spent X dollars on creating the nice sculpts of Vulkan, etc. and so they make these guys great bang for buck to make a return. Why do you think that the Vendetta is far cheaper points wise than the 3Las Pred?

 

The traits system of C:SM 4th ed. was brilliant and GW really regressed by having Chapter X guy being the only way to get your dudes to play like the Chapter 'should' play like. The only reason I can think of GW deliberately putting an inferior method into C:SM was to combat the herohammer of Warmahordes, otherwise they just made a bad mistake.

 

If Salamanders are supposed to be extra burny in the fluff, but you don't want to play with Vulkan and all your 'Salamanders' are is Green Ultramarines, then that is really boring.

What if, as was mentioned, you want to play at 500 pts and a 200ish points hero is too much for what you want? You either buy him or play, in effect, as Ultramarines.

 

That's just silly. Salamanders still fight like Salamanders whether Chapter X guy is there or not.

 

Also, interests sake. We know Vulkan and others are great value for money. But what if you wanted Vulkan on a bike, or give Khan a Storm shield, etc?

 

If you want to win and you don't want to take a Special Character, it is the Librarian who is both cheap and effective. If you want Bikes as TROOPS, then the Bike Captain also offers good value.

Vulkan is probably the easiest SC to use, but beware of over-capitalising on melta & flame weapons just because his are better - it can leave you short on precious long and even medium ranged guns.

 

I think Lysander, Shrike and Khan offer less in terms of helping your list win. Losing combat tactics is a big deal. Stubborn, fleet and outflank are, imo, generally inferior to army wide combat tactics.

But the unit that Lysander is with can be game winning, as can fleet'ing Terminators, or hit&run + furious charge'ing Terminators.

So you need to weigh up whether having a better one unit in your army is worth the loss of combat tactics across your whole army. If you play in smaller games [less than 1500 pts] then yes it might be. If you play in larger games, then it probably won't be.

This all depends on various things, but I am sure you catch my drift ;)

 

Pedro is funny. People go gaga for him, because he makes Sternguard scoring. w00t?

You still have to buy two TROOPS anyway, and all you need is one Objective and you can still beat your opponent even in the Objectives based games. Tau do it with just a single Fire Warriors unit. So why do you need three Scoring Sternguard as well as the TROOPS you are forced to buy? You don't.

Considering you lose combat tactics for stubborn [which is a bad deal] and gain Scoring Sternguard [which you don't need] you generally don't get a good deal from Pedro. Unless you pick him for fluff reasons :(

 

His loadout isn't particularly good anyway.

s8 powerfist. w00t? Not at the cost of i5.

power armour and an ap4 gun. w00t? Who has trouble taking out sv4+ things anyway?

His +1a bubble is nice, but remember: Marines are a shooty army. Forget the fluff of them being heroic. On table, Marines shoot shoot shoot like SoB. Not very heroic, but that is how the Dex plays. Why do you think Wolves and Bloods are so popular? Because people get to be heroic with them in mêlée.

Trying to make Marines into pseudo-Wolves with Pedro's +1a bubble is a nice try, but when he dies, all you are left with is not-Wolves stuck in combat. Boo!

Combat tactics far more matches the shoot shoot shoot identity that Marines have.

 

Those are my thoughts on SC and the Marine Dex. ;)

[breng77]

The answer (in any codex) is NO. You don't need a named character, that said depending on what you choose for your HQ a Named character might do the same thing better. Many players, for example, will lead their SM force with a Librarian. The special character librarian is not a better choice. That said if you are using a stock captain/chaptermaster in most cases the SC is probably better

[Captain Idaho]

I would dispute a Chapter Master is better as a Special Character rather than just different, simple because the options are either really expensive or Kantor...

[breng77]

True if you really want a chapter master (which in itself means you want either Honor Guard or the Orbital Strike). If what you want is a SM HQ who is good in combat, then SCs are generally better for the points, and usually buff your army in some way

[vanguardwolf]

i think using named or special characters depends on the pt cost/effectiveness of the character in question

the most important reason to take them are the special rules and/or wargear.

 

thing is some are very expensive, and with all "spacemarine" special characters that most of them(unless they have EW)

they die as fast as normal HQ's.

 

take ragnar blackmane for example:

he has great assault rules and is t cc beast, but if he is singeld out in cc by some thing st8 of higher

he is gone and with his 3+ save(not even runic armour) and a 4++ save he is kinda soft for a 240 pt model

giving him 2 wolves gives him some extra protection but not in CC.

 

or canis wolfborne:

he has ld 8 yes LD8 and just a 3+ save, and no inv save

and his special rules are not that good.

take a wolflord with runic-armour, SS/PW on TW for 210

2+/3++, LD 10

 

i dont have the C:SM by hand, but t think you will find the same thing there

 

compare the special rule's, and benefits with the pointscost

and you might find some nice hq's for a bit less or more points, that kick ass

 

 

greets

[Captain Juan Juarez]

Special Characters, like units et al, should never be game-breaking; use them for nifty/colourful special rules or for a special scenario.

 

You don't need SCs, but the sad fact is for many Chapters - particularly those that use C:SM - a Special Character is all there really is model-wise.

[DarkGuard]

True if you really want a chapter master (which in itself means you want either Honor Guard or the Orbital Strike). If what you want is a SM HQ who is good in combat, then SCs are generally better for the points, and usually buff your army in some way

 

Depends on the character. Vulkan, Lysander and I suppose Calgar are good for their points. All have 2+, two have 3++, two have EW, and all wound most infantry on 2s etc. Plus their abilities are good.

 

However, Shrike and Khan are onpar with normal units in terms of close combat IMO. Khan, while getting a higher I, doesn't really need it, that's more for his unit. S5 is cool, but you can get a S6 relic blade with a Captain. Shrike is also cool, and dual LCs are good, but many people prefer RB/SS for prolonged combat, and both Shrike and Khan only have a 3+/4++ save as opposed to the 2+/3++ S6 attacks a Captain can get for 160pts. If you don't need Outflank or Fleet then the Captain wins hands down.

 

Sicarius as a combat character is outshone by other units, he's good, but not as good as RB/SS or dual LCs in my book. Pedro as we all know isn't that good in combat either. No EW, only a 3+/4++ and a power fist, don't amazing in combat.

 

So if you want a character in combat you'll probably find it's Vulkan, Lysander or Calgar, and all of these cost 190pts+. Sure they do cool other things or are really hard, but a good Master can come to 170pts and then you've got Honour Guard, while a maxed out Captain comes to 170pts himself and he can still run with the Command squad etc.

 

In the end SCs should be for flavour and different playstyles, but thanks to counts as I actually find normal ICs with combat tactics more flavoursome and characterful, as they are tailored to your army and not Vulkan running around with a different armour scheme colour.

[TyrionTheImp]

Concerning most 5th Edition books, having special characters doesn't make your army any more likely to win. I personally don't believe any of them are particularly overpowered, though some may be slightly underpriced (Cassius and Vulkan come to mind) while others are a little overpriced (Tigerius). Really, the only marine book I can think of that Special Characters are good enough that almost every army should have them is Dark Angels, and that's not necessarily because the characters themselves are amazing, but more that the armies you can make with those characters are amazing compared to the armies you can make without.

 

I think they add variety to the game as you can take one and make armies otherwise unavailable from generics. Of course, I'm of the thought that any chapter should be able to be represented accurately with generics, not only by bring SCs. After all it's far more fulfilling for your own character to make his own stories than to use a prefabricated SC with a story already behind him isn't it?

 

As for SC's "limiting the scope of your army" well, yes they do, but you're the one making the army, so that's obviously your choice to make your army in a way that benefits the SC most. If it works for you, and it's your playstyle, go for it, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Same goes for the generics HQs, I have yet to use any Special Character in a C:SM army.