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.

One thing that GW is trying to push through is forging the narrative. But there own rules make it realy hard to do that. Especialy when it comes to psycic powers and warlord traits. While the psycic powers can be explained by game balance (everyone picking invesibility or iron arm would be kind of over the top) the warlord traits don't have as much gamebreaking potential (from my petspective at least). So why not rework the warlord traits and give players the possibility to pick or buy them. This would make listbuilding more fun and make the game more relyable.

 hordrak wrote:
One thing that GW is trying to push through is forging the narrative. But there own rules make it realy hard to do that. Especialy when it comes to psycic powers and warlord traits. While the psycic powers can be explained by game balance (everyone picking invesibility or iron arm would be kind of over the top) the warlord traits don't have as much gamebreaking potential (from my petspective at least). So why not rework the warlord traits and give players the possibility to pick or buy them. This would make listbuilding more fun and make the game more relyable.

Wouldn't it be exactly like everyone picking invisiblity or iron arm? Everyone would pick master of ambush, tenacity or lead by example or something...

Yeah, randomness is a nice lazy way to balance things.

Rather than coming up with a few dozen traits that are perfectly balanced and free, or assigning prices, GW just made them random.

So that's my answer, laziness.

 M0ff3l wrote:

Wouldn't it be exactly like everyone picking invisiblity or iron arm? Everyone would pick master of ambush, tenacity or lead by example or something...

Having to pay more for the more useful traits seems fair, making lists around a warlord trait just seems nice and fluffy not to mention it just makes sense rather than having a warlord trait that is useless most of the time...
I wish we could purchase powers instead of roll as well tbf...perhaps this thread would be better in proposed rules?

BTW love the old school Dervish pic

We hates it, precious!

Random Warlord Traits: My 400 year old chapter master fething knows how to wage war his own goddam way

 kronk wrote:
We hates it, precious!

Random Warlord Traits: My 400 year old chapter master fething knows how to wage war his own goddam way

Isn't that why most named characters have warlord traits assigned to them? GW doesn't account for the fluff you make for your own dudes.

I'm not saying that random traits is great, but I think it would require a bigger redesign than just 'you can now choose/buy traits'.

In casual games, me and my group just select our spells and warlord traits. turns out we have no real problem of balance.

epronovost wrote:
In casual games, me and my group just select our spells and warlord traits. turns out we have no real problem of balance.

Pfff, In wish my Nids could choose stuff. Catalyst and Paroxysm fo days.

Either:

roll a warlord trait randomly, then use that as part of the basis of your character's background

OR

come up with the background, then pick a suitable trait.

Do the same with psychic powers, if you like. If I were running a campaign, I'd rule that once characters have determined their warlord traits, psychic powers and whatnot, that they're recorded and remain unchanged for the campaign.

Personally, I'd rather determine it randomly the first time, rather than simply choosing the one I want, but YMMV.

Another reason why I play the Solar Auxilia. The Lord Marshall gets to pick his Warlord trait from any of the available tables. Take that Astartes and Primarchs!

I would be happy to have to buy traits.

 krodarklorr wrote:

epronovost wrote:
In casual games, me and my group just select our spells and warlord traits. turns out we have no real problem of balance.

Pfff, In wish my Nids could choose stuff. Catalyst and Paroxysm fo days.

Dude 40K is a open hand rule set. Your wishes trump any written rule. Its in fact the very first rule of every single rulebook since the 4th eddition. Plus considering that Nids are still stucked with a 6th eddition codex that was botched due to legal disputes, I don't think any oponnent would be against this very small advantage, especially if they are competitive.

 M0ff3l wrote:

 kronk wrote:
We hates it, precious!

Random Warlord Traits: My 400 year old chapter master fething knows how to wage war his own goddam way

Isn't that why most named characters have warlord traits assigned to them? GW doesn't account for the fluff you make for your own dudes.

I'm not saying that random traits is great, but I think it would require a bigger redesign than just 'you can now choose/buy traits'.

Warlord Traits are nowhere near close to the level of potential obnoxiousness that picking specific psychic powers would be.

It's one thing for example if in my Tzeentch Daemon army, I were to simply pick the trait that allows my LoC to harness WC's on a 3+. That makes him an amazing caster, and by extention, will also help my other casters to push throw an extra couple spells/turn.

That's nothing however compared to the possibility of ALL my casters suddenly being 'perfect' in their spell selection, for example:
Lord of Change - Precognition + Forewarning + Misfortune + Prescience (Psychic Focus) + Flickering Fire (Chaos Psychic Focus)
Tzherald w/Greater Locus - Cursed Earth + Summoning + Prescience + Flickering Fire (Chaos Psychic Focus)
Tzherald w/Exalted Locus - Prescience + 'Ignores Cover' power + Str.D power + Flickering Fire (Chaos Psychic Focus)

God forbid you begin to build an army around say, Nurgle Princes - who could auto-take their new spell that adds +1-3T to Nurgle models/units, or else combine abilities such as the Horn of Contagion with every Slaanesh power that works off of Ld + Psy Shriek!


Psykers in general are too powerful nowadays to allow for outright choosing of powers. The combos one can build can easily become just as filthy & obnoxious as those criminally undercosted Wraithknights, Scatbikes, unkillable Necrons, etc...

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Yeah, randomness is a nice lazy way to balance things.

Rather than coming up with a few dozen traits that are perfectly balanced and free, or assigning prices, GW just made them random.

So that's my answer, laziness.

It's either this, or part of the trend in 6th and 7th edition to ramp up the dice rolling and randomness. In about three years and two editions, 40k gained the following randomly generated things: charge distances, psychic powers, warlord traits, mysterious objectives, mysterious terrain, and maelstrom of battle... while also snap firing. I guess rolling dice is... fun?

 hordrak wrote:
One thing that GW is trying to push through is forging the narrative.

GW is not trying to do anything regarding "forging the narrative". "Forging the narrative" is just their cheap excuse to justify lazy and/or incompetent rule writing.

The fact that some people have decided to buy such a pathetic excuse changes nothing (many of them currently sit on the AoS camp, I guess once you're willing to swallow such a turd of a game, you'll swallow anything).

Not up on the editions (I stopped playing when they went to a 2-year edition cycle) but do you still roll for it AFTER deployment? That's what killed me about it. You couldn't even plan for it and deploy accordingly.

As often is the case, Kid Kyoto has the right of it.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Not up on the editions (I stopped playing when they went to a 2-year edition cycle) but do you still roll for it AFTER deployment? That's what killed me about it. You couldn't even plan for it and deploy accordingly.

As often is the case, Kid Kyoto has the right of it.

You don't roll after deployment. Some warlord traits give infiltrate to D3 troops etc. So rolling those after deployment would be very silly.

huh, I must've been thinking of something else. I know there was something you rolled after deployment that made it completely useless at times.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
huh, I must've been thinking of something else. I know there was something you rolled after deployment that made it completely useless at times.

mysterious objectives?

Here's the problem with assigning point costs to Warlord Traits.

One of the traits give Stealth (ruins) and move through cover.
How much should it cost? Let's say 15 points.

Is it still worth 15 points if the terrain is 90% ruins? What if there are no ruins on the board?

When do you decide which warlord trait you are going to purchase? When you make your list, or at game time? What happens if you neglect to leave enough points for a warlord trait?

 Happyjew wrote:
Here's the problem with assigning point costs to Warlord Traits.

One of the traits give Stealth (ruins) and move through cover.
How much should it cost? Let's say 15 points.

Is it still worth 15 points if the terrain is 90% ruins? What if there are no ruins on the board?

When do you decide which warlord trait you are going to purchase? When you make your list, or at game time? What happens if you neglect to leave enough points for a warlord trait?

Choose the warlord trait when you are creating your list, preferably before you get to the table... if you don't have any ruins on the table that's tough luck... same if you buy AT when there are no enemy tanks or no AT when you go up against knights, you took a gamble and it didn't pay off

 Torus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Here's the problem with assigning point costs to Warlord Traits.

One of the traits give Stealth (ruins) and move through cover.
How much should it cost? Let's say 15 points.

Is it still worth 15 points if the terrain is 90% ruins? What if there are no ruins on the board?

When do you decide which warlord trait you are going to purchase? When you make your list, or at game time? What happens if you neglect to leave enough points for a warlord trait?

Choose the warlord trait when you are creating your list, preferably before you get to the table... if you don't have any ruins on the table that's tough luck... same if you buy AT when there are no enemy tanks or no AT when you go up against knights, you took a gamble and it didn't pay off

AT still has its use if the other player has no tanks, since the lists with no tanks tend to either be very foot heavy or have MCs instead.

 Kanluwen wrote:

AT still has its use if the other player has no tanks, since the lists with no tanks tend to either be very foot heavy or have MCs instead.

And the other extreme? All Imperial knight and having nothing but AT?

Bringing this back to topic, every game I've played has incorporated at least one ruin and as such that particular warlord trait is somewhat useful... I would rather pay points for a warlord trait that has a variable benefit rather than roll for a trait that is unusable ("I.e yay split fire for my warlord's unit that don't have guns...")

 Torus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

AT still has its use if the other player has no tanks, since the lists with no tanks tend to either be very foot heavy or have MCs instead.

An the other extreme? All Imperial knightand having nothing but AT?

If you're facing all Imperial Knights and you have nothing but AT, well damn. You lucked out?

Bringing this back to topic, every game I've played has incorporated at least one ruin and as such it's been useful that particular warlord trait is useful... I would rather pay points for a warlord trait that has a variable benefit rather than roll for a trait that is unusable ("I.e yay split fire for my warlord's unit that don't have guns...")

Nobody told you to roll on a table with Split Fire for your melee centric unit.

There's four book Warlord Trait tables. The "Personal Traits" table, for example, has nothing to do with ballistic weapons.

I would really like to be able to buy them. Kinda reminds me to the old bretonnian virtues. This would allow you to really build your army around your own "named" warlord. Instead of hoping to roll not something completely useless.

[/spoiler]

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Torus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

AT still has its use if the other player has no tanks, since the lists with no tanks tend to either be very foot heavy or have MCs instead.

An the other extreme? All Imperial knightand having nothing but AT?

If you're facing all Imperial Knights and you have nothing but AT, well damn. You lucked out?

Bringing this back to topic, every game I've played has incorporated at least one ruin and as such it's been useful that particular warlord trait is useful... I would rather pay points for a warlord trait that has a variable benefit rather than roll for a trait that is unusable ("I.e yay split fire for my warlord's unit that don't have guns...")

Nobody told you to roll on a table with Split Fire for your melee centric unit.

There's four book Warlord Trait tables. The "Personal Traits" table, for example, has nothing to do with ballistic weapons.

[spoiler]

some characters have set warlord traits. Some have the ability to pick from a certain table.

It could be something as simple as a seasoned veteran upgrade. 15-20 points, your warlord can select his trait rather than roll it.. You can still go random if you're feeling lucky, tight on points, or want to rely on the reroll provided by some detachments.

Most warlord traits aren't THAT game changing that being able to pick instead of a 1 in 6 chance (before any reroll) shouldn't be worth more than 15ish points.

Psychic powers is a different issue. As they vary much more and can have much more of an impact on the game and your army build, they would have to each be costed, as some should be worth more than others.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoiler:

 Torus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

AT still has its use if the other player has no tanks, since the lists with no tanks tend to either be very foot heavy or have MCs instead.

An the other extreme? All Imperial knightand having nothing but AT?

If you're facing all Imperial Knights and you have nothing but AT, well damn. You lucked out?

Bringing this back to topic, every game I've played has incorporated at least one ruin and as such it's been useful that particular warlord trait is useful... I would rather pay points for a warlord trait that has a variable benefit rather than roll for a trait that is unusable ("I.e yay split fire for my warlord's unit that don't have guns...")

Nobody told you to roll on a table with Split Fire for your melee centric unit.

There's four book Warlord Trait tables. The "Personal Traits" table, for example, has nothing to do with ballistic weapons.

Warlord Traits, Psychic Powers, Random Rewards, etc..

they should all have balanced points values.

But that also means making powers like Invisibility cost a lot of points. Or toning them down to make them less gamechanging.

I think the best solution for warlord traits would just be to assign them point costs.