A Treatise on Special Characters: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Trust That the Paradigm of the Use of Special Characters has Shifted in 5th Ed

So today we've got a write-in post from JibJeb. Here goes:

Your views may not be completely unfounded (only mostly), oh 40ker from editions past, but they are certainly antiquated. As you all very well know, the nature of special characters has been given an overhaul. Most noticeably, for C:SM, a chapters identity and how it differs from those of UM are completely dependent on purchasing a 'special' character instead of a 'normal' character. This, for the majority of SM fans, is a travesty....why must each IF force be lead by Lysander? The changes in regards to the availability of special characters leads to the famous observation: "I've killed Eldrad about 8 times this tourney, (darn) dude just won't die!" While these things seem silly, the venom and 'turned-up-nose'-yness of 40K boards and gaming groups by diehards from editions past has caused some tension between gamers. The purpose of this post is for those out there to challenge my personal opinion on the matter: the anger is completely misdirected, and should be directed towards GW in general and not the users of said characters. Namely, a never ending cycle of complaining and hypocrisy ensues with blaming players for playing within the rules, and this isn't healthy. Having seen the light in regards to this a bit back, I've been a much happier player.

To keep this semi-short, we'll dive into the heart of things: there is a following that preaches that if you take special characters (SC) you are somehow not being very sportsmanlike. If we look at this closely, however, I believe the SCs are getting a disproportionally large amount of attention because of there previous segregation within codexes. No longer do you need your opponents permission to take one in the 5th ed codexes, and moreover, you can play many special characters in a given engagement. The codex layout in general suggests we need so see these SC in a different light. Using C:SM as an example, not only are the selections for SC not set aside, they bleed right into the other HQ selections directly. If we look at the 2nd Ed C:UM, we see this is not the case...same for the 3rd Ed. While you learned and got an opinion of SC back then, and rightfully so, didn't see many SC, the normalizing of SC within the codex, and the unlocking of chapter specific 'traits' through there purchase means that we cannot lump the new SC in the same category as the old SC, even though many share the same name. Realize then, that some players are not just players, but enjoy the universe, and are emotionally invested in a given chapter lets say. Not everyone wants to be an UM. So the choice, as an opponent, comes down to realizing that if you are playing someone who enjoys the stubborn determination of IFs, and the only way to get that to play out on the battlefield is by taking X or Y now, it isn't their fault. GW leaves only these options, and these alone, and these options coincide with the changing of how SC work, and thus how they should be viewed.

Also, as noted above, you also open yourself up for criticism, and the never-ending cycle of what is 'cheese' in a given army or build, and how it is unfair with focusing on SCs. This is unhealthy in all settings. In a tourney setting especially, where people are approaching things with a competitive attitude, seeing SC should not be a shock anymore. They have a name, yes, but this alone does not warrant criticism (see above). Moreover, powerful HQ units are found in all codexes (122pt Canoness, C:BT Chaplain and the ability to give any HQ eternal warrior, Mephiston, LS Sammy, Kharn, DE crazyness, and on and on), and so if you play guard congratulations for avoiding the list (oh, that is until May or so). It's the 'cast not the first stone' syndrome. What is also true with all codexes is that they are the only official, end-all-be-all enders-of-arguments as they contain the rules...the HQ selections that appear in them that are not prohibited in any fashion are a part of the 'big picture' of the given game-tested and balanced codex (this point [balance] is to be contended, but this is where GW gets the blame and not the player). Kharn might seem insane, or 'zerks in general, but man are they expensive...as a rule the bigger picture is almost missed when comparing HQ units directly from codex to codex.

As an example, for the tourney at AGG, I took Kantor (as noted in the tourneyrep by Farmpunk). I was going to use my Khan build, but felt it would go against my Dornish nature and instead felt Vladimir Pugh (as Kantor) would lead the IF to battle. I made this decision out of my own personal view that I'd rather win with Dorn, then win with Khan (a better, more dynamic list for a tourney on 4x4 tables, but against my nature). If I made this choice to avoid criticism alone, I believe it would have been the wrong choice. In a tourney setting especially, relish the challenge, 40ker of editions past, of beating a SC, but as noted above it is now given by GW as a valid choice.

Try seeing the light, or wait until your codex gets the same treatment (different colored necron lords are coming, and the IG rumours are well known) and then make judgments, but until then, see that the nature of the SC is different, and as they are not set aside in any fashion within the codex anymore, the players who enjoy their use should not be set aside either. The cheese game in general gets tiresome, and a happy 40Ker is one who accepts challenges instead of glaring at the players who present them with such sport.

Sigismund's Own Jibjeb.