Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I've been thinking about doing some proposed rules for Rogue Traders and other high end humans and I'm running into a mental block.

I hate, haight, h8, the special snowflake rules that have proliferated over the years. The Adeptus Mech books are particularly egregious offenders where they have guns, but the guns don't match any existing Imperial weapons. Even their plasma guns aren't plasma guns, but special 3 shot 18" plasma guns.

But when I sit down to write rules for Rogue Traders, or Arbites, or Imperial nobles or whatever I too want to throw in special snowflake rules.

Otherwise I might as well just write 'use inquisitor rules or IG officers or whatever' and head for the pub. And where's the fun in that?

But how much is too much?

1 or 2 special rules per unit? No special rules (or at least no unique rules) for troops, only for elites and other rarities?

How much is too little?

Would SoBs be good if they were just guardswomen with 3+ and bolters? Do they NEED special rules?
Can ork Freebooterz work as just boys with funny hats?

GW games try to balance having an engine with stats and having colorful special rules, but where it the right balance?

A big part of the problem is the engine is too small and the range too big. Right now 40k includes everything from a grot or ratling (T2, S2) to an Imperiator Titan and tries to accommodate them all on a 1-10 scale, where the vast majority of units are in 3, 4, 5 range.

Hence all these rules to accommodate things like Orks. An Ork should be stronger than a human, but weaker than a marine, but the scale only allows for S3 or S4, so they get various special rules to simulate S3.5.

And then I get rewriting the whole system and give up...

So what do people think of special rules?

I' try to go with common wargear andsuhc that is known. Use stuff that is well used bye the IG or by other IoM armies - as long as it fits to what you try to create.

Then you could add 1-2 special Rules to them. Or create 1 special rule that is unique to your faction.. Just to give them some spice.

I would absolutely refuse the temption to glue unique special rules in a doen to every unit.

1. its hard to keep them in mind
2. is gets fast out of control

so make a custom build. Use Stats that fit the body. add matching wargear n such and then think what USR could enhance to get your imagination of the unit to the table.
If there is realy a need for a unique special rule because the existing USR are not fiting. then write one. at max 2 . try to keep it as simple as possible.

Keeping to the minimum amount of special rules you need to express the unit's character is a good idea. If the deal with a unit of grunt infantry is that they have an unusual basic weapon then that's what they're going to have. If the deal with a faction is that they're allied with another, larger faction but have a vastly different history and are very insular anyway then them having plasma technology but not quite as we know it makes sense.

If rogue traders need a different set of rules and equipment to stand apart from inquisitors despite being similar in some basic ways then that's what they're going to have. They could still have troops that are essentially Imperial Guard so there'd be something familiar. Sisters of Battle have power armour and bolters but stand apart from marines on an individual basis by having plain human statlines and on an army basis by having faith powers.

Some things I think should be considered:

1) Not all special rules are equal in complexity. Giving a unit a USR or a different weapon profile is pretty straightforward. That 3-shot plasma gun might not be the same as other plasma weapons, but non-imperial players are already used to memorizing their own separate weapon lists and a weapon profile is a very simple thing that most people immediately understand. But contrast this with some of GW's worst offenders, where you roll dice to see what table to roll more dice on and then roll even more dice to resolve the effect. Similarly, rules that rarely apply just add more tedious complexity to memorize while things like weapon profiles are used every turn and tend to at least feel like their complexity is justified.

2) What special rules are necessary to define a unit, and which exist for the sake of making a unit into a special snowflake? A special rule that represents something important about a unit's fluff and/or in-game function is probably going to feel justified. A special rule that exists for the sole purpose of saying "this unit isn't the same as that other similar one" probably won't. For example, the LRBT would feel like a very different unit if it didn't have some form of "slow, but can fire all of its weapons" rule. But does a unit need yet another variation of "its weapons are slightly more accurate" instead of just making them re-roll to hit?

3) Using the same units in different ways makes an army feel different. Formations, FOC swaps, army-wide rules, etc, all make it feel like you're playing the game in a different way even if your individual unit rules are the same as other armies. 30k is a good example of this. The core of the marine list is the same for everyone, but each legion gets its own army-wide rules and a handful of special units. So a Raven Guard force with lots of infiltrating snipers and jump infantry is going to feel very different from a straightforward "lots of terminators in Land Raiders" army. This kind of thing gives you a lot of room to add gameplay and fluff depth without increasing complexity too much.

I guess it depends on the unit. Personally I would think that rogue traders themselves should have lots of unique rules, or at least access to them. After all, they've been roaming the galaxies for, in some cases, over a century and so would have seen tons of stuff and perfected many skills. I would also give them an extensive armoury including certain Xenos weapons, mechanicum weapons and whatever else you feel like. As for their retinues you could have troopers that are hardly different from guardsmen, or possibly give them more exotic weapon options. Maybe the trader has had extensive dealings with the Tau Empire, so his troopers have pulse weaponry as well as imperial tech.

I think a good rule of thumb would be the more basic a unit type, the fewer rules it should be getting. Troops should have just one or two rules and fewer wargear options, with elites getting some more, and HQs getting access to a large amount.

The main challenge with Rogue Traders is that functionally, there wouldn't be a whole lot of difference between them and Inquisitors. Both can make use of stuff that others cant, and both have experiences of a scope larger than say, a guard commander. Similarly, both would have exotic retinues and hand-picked personal soldiers, so really I would just use Inquisitors to represent rogue traders.

The Rogue Trader character really only needs 1 Special Rule:

Captain of the Ship

A model with this Special Rule is second only to the God-Emperor, Himself, while aboard his or her vessel. The lives of the vast array of personnel aboard the ship are theirs to command... as are their deaths. For this reason, and the fact that they have literally thousands of people to serve their whims in any endeavor, the Rogue Trader is never, themselves, present on the battlefield, and remains content to watch the proceedings from a comfortable command throne on the bridge.

Snowflakes have to be unique, but at the same time not stand out from the other snowflakes in the blizzard.

In other words, characters or units should have something that makes them different from other characters or units. If that difference can't be made in the stat line, it has to be made in a special rule or weapon. But I think not more than one special rule for units and two for characters or really special units. Too much, and it will be too complex, stand out too much and be more difficult to remember.

Having worked on a scratch-built ruleset for a dark ages fantasy setting, I'm inclined to agree with the notion that a proliferation of special snowflake rules is one of the main sympthons of lazy, rushed and underwhelming rule writing.

The current 40k (and the latest iterations of WHFB did, as well) suffers inmensely from this, and I'd argue is a result of the above plus...

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

A big part of the problem is the engine is too small and the range too big. Right now 40k includes everything from a grot or ratling (T2, S2) to an Imperiator Titan and tries to accommodate them all on a 1-10 scale, where the vast majority of units are in 3, 4, 5 range.

... this. The engine is just outdated and obsolete for the kind of diversity and scale the current 40k aims to represent. One of the main current problems, IMO, is that a D6 based system just falls short when you have to put so vastly different things against each other. You could say that gargantuan creatures and super heavy vehicles had no place in a 28mm scale tabletop game from the very beginning, and you'd be absolutely right. They would have been ok for a separated system (Apocalypse) as long as they stayed there. GW's greed and many players' lack of common sense have brought us to where we currently stad.

Back to the snowflake issue: any model, unit and army should have as few special rules as possible. If you can represent something with the stat system and numerical modifiers, then do it. A power fist doubles the user's strenght value, negates certain kinds of armor saves and strikes last. It doesn't need to be Concussive. The sillier the naming convention of the special rules, the worse. Seriously, Hammer of Wrath? Who came up with that? Was it so difficult to stick, under some unit types description, the sentence "on the charge, makes an extra attack at I10, with base strenght and no AP".

I.e., if you want your Chosen Snowflake Warriors to mean business, do yourself and everyone else a favour: instead of snowflake rules, give them +1WS, BS, A, W and Ld, then proper gear options, in exchange of a reasonable points cost. Done! Oh, you mean they're also expert jungle fighters? No malus when moving through forests, then. And that's it.

Bringing the Movement stat back could also help. So many things could be reflected on a M stat rather than resorting to special rules... it should actually be telling how insane the GW design process has been over the years, that the Movement stat was erased from the game in order to streamline things, then a pile of special rules was eventually added in order to make up for it.

 Korinov wrote:
Back to the snowflake issue: any model, unit and army should have as few special rules as possible. If you can represent something with the stat system and numerical modifiers, then do it. A power fist doubles the user's strenght value, negates certain kinds of armor saves and strikes last. It doesn't need to be Concussive. The sillier the naming convention of the special rules, the worse. Seriously, Hammer of Wrath? Who came up with that? Was it so difficult to stick, under some unit types description, the sentence "on the charge, makes an extra attack at I10, with base strenght and no AP".

It certainly keeps things streamlined if you can represent things with a simple plus or minus instead of something more complicated. Space Marines could have a lot of special snowflake rules (OK, a lot more than they already have) if you also wrote up uses for all the extra organs they have, but the descriptions would be long and convoluted and the potential uses very very few. A marine isn't going to stop for food on the tabletop so rules for his toxic screen and super-efficient stomach aren't necessary. A marine (and his opponents) probably wear a helmet so rules for spitting acid at people's faces aren't needed, especially seeing as the marine can easily kill you with his bare hands at that distance.

So the first question for the potential designer should be "how special do I want my snowflakes to be"?

I may be misinterpreting you, but the galaxy and it's factions is vast and extremely varied, even just withing the Imperium, so of course the gear and organization would be different!

 LeCacty wrote:
I may be misinterpreting you, but the galaxy and it's factions is vast and extremely varied, even just withing the Imperium, so of course the gear and organization would be different!

Yes, but not in a way that can be encapsulated in a game using a d6 base system. The mechanics aspect of 40K is not granular enough to reflect much difference between armies, which is why each point of a stat represents an absolute gulf of difference.

 Psienesis wrote:

 LeCacty wrote:
I may be misinterpreting you, but the galaxy and it's factions is vast and extremely varied, even just withing the Imperium, so of course the gear and organization would be different!

Yes, but not in a way that can be encapsulated in a game using a d6 base system. The mechanics aspect of 40K is not granular enough to reflect much difference between armies, which is why each point of a stat represents an absolute gulf of difference.

Fair enough. I guess having wildly different stats across armies would end up with unbalance no matter how well crafted the game system was.

 Psienesis wrote:
The Rogue Trader character really only needs 1 Special Rule:

Captain of the Ship

A model with this Special Rule is second only to the God-Emperor, Himself, while aboard his or her vessel. The lives of the vast array of personnel aboard the ship are theirs to command... as are their deaths. For this reason, and the fact that they have literally thousands of people to serve their whims in any endeavor, the Rogue Trader is never, themselves, present on the battlefield, and remains content to watch the proceedings from a comfortable command throne on the bridge.

My Captain Sawyer in the rogue trader rpg would disagree. The law of first rights states that when salvage is found it belongs to the first Rogue Trader to find it, and more importantly the first man to step off his ship. There are some grey areas that me simply being there and seeing the ship I'm looting is enough but to be absolutely sure I made sure to always be the first man out of our transport so there could be no doubt to the law of first right. It could just be something my GM made up, but it sounds fluffy and something that might be in the book.

Coincidentally I made sure to invest in mastercrafted power armor, nearly relic level of plasma pistol, a bolt pistol crafted by the finest of techpriests and of course a power sword of legendary renown. I'm a practical man and I can't count the number of times I nearly died with my power armor. Imagine if I didn't have it at all? My less fortunate crew mates (fellow players) would frequently be gibbed and need new characters. Wide floppy hat would go over my helmet.

Units, I feel, should have no more than two special rules on top of any over all faction special rules that may apply. These rules should reflect how the squad goes about doing what ever it is they are supposed to be good at. The biggest determining factor of what a squad is supposed to do should be its equipment.

Special characters however can have as many special rules as you would like to represent the individualistic nature of the character. However all of these things need to be pointed correctly.

If your looking for examples to follow, I'd look at older codexs 4th edition or 5th edition. Before the bloat and the stacking of ability over ability ontop of some other bonus ability. Its made the game all but unplayable.

I would ask - why come up with homebrewed rules at all? I think in general, people are going to be a lot more impressed if you come up with a clever way to represent your force using existing rules on a Counts As basis than they would be if you invent new rules. For instance, I don't see any reason you couldn't just use Astra Militarum rules for your RT's forces, with your selections being suitable for the force he'd have on hand - probably no Leman Russes or heavy artillery, but certainly the flyers, the transports, Hellhound variants, Sentinels, and all of the infantry choices. Go nuts with conversions to make them look different. Maybe use an allied Inquisitor to represent your RT captain. Making an existing set of rules fit your theme and having conversions all around to make the army look appropriate to your theme takes a lot more creativity than making up rules and using existing models.

Also, other players will be a lot more comfortable playing against existing rules on a Counts As basis than they would be playing against an army with homebrewed rules.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
<snip>

So what do people think of special rules?

And here is why one of the reasons why Age of Sigmar is so good. (not here to debate if AoS is good or not, but one of the good things of AoS) Few little rules, but the individual minis have fluffy specific rules for them that make them stand out.

So I think it would be great to get rid of all the special rules, and just have special rules for each mini, to make them more unique.

Lots of good ideas here so let me throw in some of my take aways.

In these days of unbound, allies, formations, Forge World, plus 6.022 * 10^23 codexes and dataslates there is less need than ever for home made rules for niche armies. It's easier than ever to make a decent Rogue Trader, Sensei, Arbites or Chaos Cult army. It won't be perfect but it can be done.

Of course it's kind of like the politician who doesn't like special interests, except for his own. I don't like special rules, except for the clever and totally balanced ones I come up with. And coming up with house rules is fun.

Whenever possible unique features should be incorporated in a model's stat line, ie a toughness buff rather than Feel No Pain ( if I ran this game...). Failing that universal special rules should be used. Only when those first two don't work should unique rules be created for a unit. And the rules should be use frequently enough that they're not forgotten.

40k as a whole has too many special rules that could be covered by stats or universal rules. Looking at you Feel No Pain.

Not all fluff has to be reflected in rules. Look at how GW artfully decided that everything short of a light saber, whether an axe, a rifle butt, a knife, a mono-moloecular dicoated katana, or chainsaw that's also a sword is just a close combat weapon. Or how every assault rifle in the world is just an autogun. At the scale 40k is played at, it really does not matter if you're carrying a revolver, an automatic or a laser pistol, they're all functionally the same.

Usually rules writers come up with fluff first then try to to make a rule to go with it. It might be better to first come up with a clever and fun mechanic first. After all some rules are more fun than others. Saving throws? Fun! Range and cover modifiers? Not fun!

How's that for a summary?