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.

Just played a game yesterday, suggested the "roll first - choose later" and it was heartily accepted by everyone in my group. So thanks for that house rule, that's now how we do it too.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Necrons don't even get a WL table. I have to use the BRB table.
The only really good ones for a cron army are the strategic ones though, so that narrows it down.

There is a Warlord Trait table for the Necron list in IA12 but you have to play that list to use it. What GW needs to do is work up Warlord Trait tables for those armies that don't have 6th edition codexes and put them in the WD or as a downloadable PDF like the FAQs.

 Zathras wrote:
put them in the WD

That would actually be a sound financial plan. Put one for each of the unpublished armies in one WD. (and throw in a battlereport for that army just to make it look like you've themed the issue) and watch as everyone that plays that specific army runs out to get that issue.

 Purifier wrote:

 Zathras wrote:
put them in the WD

That would actually be a sound financial plan. Put one for each of the unpublished armies in one WD. (and throw in a battlereport for that army just to make it look like you've themed the issue) and watch as everyone that plays that specific army runs out to get that issue.

Which is why we'll never see it happen.....it's GW....good ideas are something alien to them.

What I find, usually, is that if something "new" appears in an edition of warhammer, it's initial implementation is a little raw. Then, as codexes (codi?) are released, the new element becomes more refined, and improved by the time if features in the next edition.

Example. The rulebook magic lores for fantasy can be game breaking. They went with a concept of a "big" power for the 6th/ last spell, but it's too op and ends up dominating a game. However, in the army books released since 8th edition dropped, the 6th/ last spell is still a powerful AoE type spell, but much powered down compared to the rulebook, so the spell is still worth taking, but can't wreck face like the others do.

I fully expect the warlord tables will be refined and improved as time goes on.

I don't use them, they're fairly worthless for a Necron player.
I would have liked an errata with traits for each race.

 conker249 wrote:
I play sisters and one of my opponents was a rules lawyer. Told me I couldn't use the command trait "inspiring presence" I just rolled for St. Celestine. Reasoning was the entry says uses "HIS" leadership. Guy was completely serious. Told him he was full of s***. I packed up off the table and went to play a friend and had fun. I dont think I was in the wrong there. Never played that guy before, Probably not going to again either. My time for wargaming is my time spent to have fun.

Perhaps someone should point out to him that, in English, the neutral gender is masculine. If you don't know the gender of something you are talking about, it defaults to "he".

To answer the OP, I switch between Command and Strategic. I've been finding myself using strategic more often recently, only in the hope of getting the re-rolling my reserves trait. I don't think Warlord traits are especially useful - besides a few in the Tau codex.

Iranna.

Don't use them.
When games workshop brought all these random ideas to 40k, they must have been high on drugs,
Fantasy type rules, belong in WHFB not 40k.

As other people have said, we play "Roll a D6 and choose that number from whichever list you want". It works really well, enough randomness, but it greatly reduces the chance of you getting something useless whilst your opponent gets something great.

Most of the time we forget about them and I´ve never had one that I found usefull so I keep on forgetting.

 Lobukia wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
My friends and I just roll a D6 and choose from whichever list.

Doesn't apply to me anymore because I always take Eldrad.

Always done this... we like it (but if you want to go in your codex, you roll just on that table)

To me that isnt right, it gives the guy who is rolling BRB traits the ability to choose his trait, while i am stuck with a single roll.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
My friends and I just roll a D6 and choose from whichever list.

Doesn't apply to me anymore because I always take Eldrad.

Always done this... we like it (but if you want to go in your codex, you roll just on that table)

To me that isnt right, it gives the guy who is rolling BRB traits the ability to choose his trait, while i am stuck with a single roll.

No, you can choose from the BRB traits too.
If you won't do that, your own chart is clearly more powerful than being able to roll on 3 charts at once, and you don't need the handicap there then.
Seems more right to me that you can choose to do the same as everyone else, or choose to do something else on top of that, than that everyone else gets to roll on 3 charts and you get to roll on 4.
You have the better deal in BOTH circumstances. It's just a question of how much better the deal is for you than for the other person.

What you seem to be vexed by is that someone else might be able to get a trait that they can use now that you have an almost 100% chance to get a trait you can use.
You want your awesome list, but people that don't have that should be picking the worthless ones. You are clinging on to your dominance.

I disagree, I believe that they are getting the right to choose their trait while I am not. Lets say you get a 5, on my table that is skyfire, in which you may not have any flyers, suddenly you 5 a five, but in the brb, you get to choose which trait you would like, for example, i believe a 5 is a -1 to reserve. You have the abilty to choose while I do not have the ability. Now if i where also allowed the BRB that would indeed give me 4 tables, but that is only 1 more then the opposing player, which to me is acceptable

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I disagree, I believe that they are getting the right to choose their trait while I am not. Lets say you get a 5, on my table that is skyfire, in which you may not have any flyers, suddenly you 5 a five, but in the brb, you get to choose which trait you would like, for example, i believe a 5 is a -1 to reserve. You have the abilty to choose while I do not have the ability. Now if i where also allowed the BRB that would indeed give me 4 tables, but that is only 1 more then the opposing player, which to me is acceptable

Or you could roll on the BRB tables and get 3, just like the other person. Nothing is stopping you from doing that, except that you know that even rolling on those 3 tables, you have a better chance of getting something good on your 1 table.

You have the EXACT SAME options as the other guy... and one more.

" but that is only 1 more then the opposing player, which to me is acceptable" except that it is one more that is so good that there is one or at most two results you wouldn't take on that table, so the other 3 tables are only filling up holes in yours, giving what is practically a 100% success rate at getting a really good result for you.

If I played Tau, and was given the options as they are described by the house rule people are apparently using, I would still roll on the Tau chart. And I seem to be in the majority. That tells you something about the options at hand.

"They" is not a correct pronoun for an unknown singular. People use "they" to avoid saying he/she or just "he," but it is not correct especially in written writing since it is a plural pronoun. There is no perfect answer, but you should use either "he or she" (clunky), "he" (old fashioned), or alternate between male and female pronouns (although this can be strange depending on the context).

On topic: I usually don't even use warlord traits unless my opponent wants to. They usually are worthless and/or forgotten. I don't use magical terrain either for the same reason. There is enough crap to keep track of as it is.

You could always pick three tables (including your codex one if you have it).

Then you both have the same number of options...

 DakkaHammer wrote:
You could always pick three tables (including your codex one if you have it).

Then you both have the same number of options...

I would allow that if the other person cried about it because it seems a close enough to fair compromise, but I would never claim the right to it if I play an army that has its own chart and it is like the current codex specific ones. The codex traits so far are too consistently good to be compared to the BRB ones.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Yes the Warlord Traits are not overpowering. They are nice little freebee you get at the start of the game. It’s like looking into your wallet and finding a $20 bill when you thought you only had a $10.
It is just that little extra that adds to your army not the winning Lottery Ticket.

Also when I play my “Green-Wing” I take Azrael for just for the “Courage of the Lion” to help with Leadership Checks.

Although quite often you find yen or rubles instead of dollars in the wallet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

orkybenji wrote:
"They" is not a correct pronoun for an unknown singular. People use "they" to avoid saying he/she or just "he," but it is not correct especially in written writing since it is a plural pronoun. There is no perfect answer, but you should use either "he or she" (clunky), "he" (old fashioned), or alternate between male and female pronouns (although this can be strange depending on the context).

On topic: I usually don't even use warlord traits unless my opponent wants to. They usually are worthless and/or forgotten. I don't use magical terrain either for the same reason. There is enough crap to keep track of as it is.

This is the simple way his/her. Bam, done.

as an ork player the only warlord traits I ever use are the command traits. It's the only one where I feel whatever trait I get I can actually use in a game.

 conker249 wrote:
I play sisters and one of my opponents was a rules lawyer. Told me I couldn't use the command trait "inspiring presence" I just rolled for St. Celestine. Reasoning was the entry says uses "HIS" leadership. Guy was completely serious. Told him he was full of s***. I packed up off the table and went to play a friend and had fun. I dont think I was in the wrong there. Never played that guy before, Probably not going to again either. My time for wargaming is my time spent to have fun.

Should have just claimed you had a custom chapter, and your version of saint celestine was a hermaphrodite. Beat him at his own game that way.

 conker249 wrote:
I play sisters and one of my opponents was a rules lawyer. Told me I couldn't use the command trait "inspiring presence" I just rolled for St. Celestine. Reasoning was the entry says uses "HIS" leadership. Guy was completely serious. Told him he was full of s***. I packed up off the table and went to play a friend and had fun. I dont think I was in the wrong there. Never played that guy before, Probably not going to again either. My time for wargaming is my time spent to have fun.

Wow wait what? I really must know.... what army did he play? Well he must have problems playing against orks, nids, daemons, necrons, female inquisitor, female eldar farseer hq, etc. Good choice in how to react!

Me and my usual opponents simply choose warlord trait, be they in the brb or our respective codex's. Much simpler and far more enjoyable in our experience.

 Kain wrote:

This is the simple way his/her. Bam, done.

It. There, a third person singular neutral pronoun.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Me and my usual opponents simply choose warlord trait, be they in the brb or our respective codex's. Much simpler and far more enjoyable in our experience.

Well, some traits are definitely more useful for some armies/scenarios than others, but being able to chose them does avoid the awkward situation of rolling something that literally does nothing for that game.

 Kain wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Me and my usual opponents simply choose warlord trait, be they in the brb or our respective codex's. Much simpler and far more enjoyable in our experience.

Well, some traits are definitely more useful for some armies/scenarios than others, but being able to chose them does avoid the awkward situation of rolling something that literally does nothing for that game.

It was definitely born from that exact occurence. Sometimes the results weren't fair very fair (one player getting something useful whil the other player a trait they literally could not apply) but more often than not they were just fairly useless to both parties.


Our frustration (my usualy group of opponents) with 6th edition is that often rather than give things point costs (traits/psychic powers) GW in its limited wisdom decided that random chance would be a good idea. Which is odd because they give you the choice of whether you want to randomize or select a mission/scenario.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Me and my usual opponents simply choose warlord trait, be they in the brb or our respective codex's. Much simpler and far more enjoyable in our experience.

Well, some traits are definitely more useful for some armies/scenarios than others, but being able to chose them does avoid the awkward situation of rolling something that literally does nothing for that game.

It was definitely born from that exact occurence. Sometimes the results weren't fair very fair (one player getting something useful whil the other player a trait they literally could not apply) but more often than not they were just fairly useless to both parties.


Our frustration (my usualy group of opponents) with 6th edition is that often rather than give things point costs (traits/psychic powers) GW in its limited wisdom decided that random chance would be a good idea. Which is odd because they give you the choice of whether you want to randomize or select a mission/scenario.

Do you do something similar with psychic powers?

As of yet no. One suggestion was allowing choice but using warp charge as currency, so basically if you're two warp charge you can pick 2 powers that are 1 warp charge each or 1 power that is 2 warp charges. If you're 3 warp charge you could have a 1 warp charge power and a 2 warp charge power.

The problem there is still similar to the problem of random, there is no context. Some powers are far more devestating depending on the psyker wielding said power.

Just flat out choosing is problematic because some armies can contain a lot of psykers. 5 daemon princes with iron arm may be a bit much if ya know what I mean.

No doubt psychic powers generally have far more effect on game balance than warlord traits.

I don't care for them at all.

In 2nd or 3rd edition they established the idea of the general representing the player on the battlefield. Do you really mean to tell me that I don't know what I'm good at??

 Purifier wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I disagree, I believe that they are getting the right to choose their trait while I am not. Lets say you get a 5, on my table that is skyfire, in which you may not have any flyers, suddenly you 5 a five, but in the brb, you get to choose which trait you would like, for example, i believe a 5 is a -1 to reserve. You have the abilty to choose while I do not have the ability. Now if i where also allowed the BRB that would indeed give me 4 tables, but that is only 1 more then the opposing player, which to me is acceptable

Or you could roll on the BRB tables and get 3, just like the other person. Nothing is stopping you from doing that, except that you know that even rolling on those 3 tables, you have a better chance of getting something good on your 1 table.

You have the EXACT SAME options as the other guy... and one more.

" but that is only 1 more then the opposing player, which to me is acceptable" except that it is one more that is so good that there is one or at most two results you wouldn't take on that table, so the other 3 tables are only filling up holes in yours, giving what is practically a 100% success rate at getting a really good result for you.

If I played Tau, and was given the options as they are described by the house rule people are apparently using, I would still roll on the Tau chart. And I seem to be in the majority. That tells you something about the options at hand.

I disagree, the Tau table is situational at best, with one use buff, the no scatter is useless to me. So im stuck with a useless roll, while the other guy gets a choice to get something that is good

 StarTrotter wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
I play sisters and one of my opponents was a rules lawyer. Told me I couldn't use the command trait "inspiring presence" I just rolled for St. Celestine. Reasoning was the entry says uses "HIS" leadership. Guy was completely serious. Told him he was full of s***. I packed up off the table and went to play a friend and had fun. I dont think I was in the wrong there. Never played that guy before, Probably not going to again either. My time for wargaming is my time spent to have fun.

Wow wait what? I really must know.... what army did he play? Well he must have problems playing against orks, nids, daemons, necrons, female inquisitor, female eldar farseer hq, etc. Good choice in how to react!

He played Black Templars. Luckily this was at my old store back before I moved.