Why the heck do we roll for warlord traits?

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.

**Stormonu**

pffft. Rolling for Warlord traits or psychic powers make about as much sense as rolling to see which units constitute your army.

If it's too powerful or unbalanced to pick warlord traits or psychic powers, what does that say about doing the same for units when building an army? I mean it's totally fair if I were to roll on an army table and get 2 troops + 1 fast attack while my enemy gets 1 character + 2 heavy, right? Over many games, the rolls should balance out and it forces you to try different things, right?

GW just needs to stop being lazy and assign points to the various Warlord traits and psychic powers. If they're still too unbalanced, then they need to work on the rules in the first place.

**Tropic Thunder**

Stormonu wrote:GW just needs to stop being lazy and assign points to the various Warlord traits and psychic powers. If they're still too unbalanced, then they need to work on the rules in the first place.

I think this is a great idea, especially paying points for Psychic Powers. I'm 100% for drawing points away from army composition in favor of specific powers to grant to your Psyker. That'll be a huge help to every army, especially Tau, Necron and Dark Eldar. Imagine how much less they'll be fielding thanks to the points they'll spend on Psychic Powers, instead.

Oh, wait...

**HoundsofDemos**

Tropic Thunder wrote:
HoundsofDemos wrote:
Tropic Thunder wrote:
I'm really not seeing there being a big problem with rolling for warlord traits as you make that decision immediately before you deploy. First off, you have a minimum of 4 tables to choose from (BRB 3 + at least 1 for your codex). Second, you know what enemy you're facing and what will likely be their advantage of deficit. Third, you know whether you're going first or second before you roll it, so certain tables are going to be more advantageous than others. And fourth, you know your own Warlord's weaknesses as far as Warlord traits go.

It's not GW being lazy here. It's players being too lazy to bother looking at all the options available before the game starts and coming up with strategies as to what table works best in assorted situations for your army.

The tables have general theme this is true, but it has nothing to due with laziness. It's pure bad game design. even with in each chart and assuming a reroll from a formation It's still unreliable. I can't plan a strategy around a maybe.

That's part of the problem, then. If you're hinging an entire army strategy on a warlord trait there are other issues to cope with. Warlord traits are cherries. You can still have a good sundae without one.[/quote

I don't hinge anything on a random roll, but I've seen games disproportionately influence by a good roll, and to some degree that's why I often try to make my warlord a character. Just looking at the Space Marine chart, Rites of War makes leadership checks basically pointless and Storm of Fire makes even bolters deadly. Champions of Humanity is equally strong in an ally list. I'd much prefer both players get to pick one than one player to roll the warlord gets fear vs a unit get's rending.

**Lord Ruby34**

Tropic Thunder wrote:
Stormonu wrote:GW just needs to stop being lazy and assign points to the various Warlord traits and psychic powers. If they're still too unbalanced, then they need to work on the rules in the first place.

I think this is a great idea, especially paying points for Psychic Powers. I'm 100% for drawing points away from army composition in favor of specific powers to grant to your Psyker. That'll be a huge help to every army, especially Tau, Necron and Dark Eldar. Imagine how much less they'll be fielding thanks to the points they'll spend on Psychic Powers, instead.

Oh, wait...

Putting a price on powers would, of course, mean that the psykers themselves get a points decrease to so they aren't worthless.

**Robin5t**

I'd be absolutely down with paying points for Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers (if you brought Psyker costs down to compensate.)

+4 to Seize the Initiative, every game? Yes please.

**pwntallica**

Brutus_Apex wrote:
I think that the generic ones should be rolled for, but the ones in the book should have default options.

For example:

If you choose one of the charts from the main rule book, then you can roll off one of those charts as normal.

If you choose the chart in your book then you roll on that. If you don't like the roll, you may default to one of options available for your specific HQ choice.

Lets say you play Chaos Space Marines. Different Warlord traits are available for the different legions for example:

Warlord Traits:
One model in your army must be selected to be the warlord. They may roll on this chart to see which warlord trait they benefit from, or may roll upon the warlord trait charts provided in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Any Warlord can default their roll on the chart to the “Lord of Chaos” result if they choose. Likewise, Warlords from the Black Legion may default to “Despoiler of Worlds”. Warlords from the Word Bearers Legion may default to “Blasphemous Rhetoric”. Warlords from the Night Lords Legion may default to “Midnight Clad”. Warlords from the Alpha Legion may default to “Black Operative”. Warlords from the Iron Warriors Legion may default to “Iron Resolve”.

1. Despoiler of Worlds: The Warlord may choose to re-roll any successful or unsuccessful reserves rolls.
2. Daemon Kin: The Warlord and his unit may re-roll any invulnerable saving throws of 1.
3. Midnight Clad: The Warlord and his unit gain the Shrouded special rule and may re-roll failed cover saves.
4. Black Operative: The Warlord and his unit gain the Infiltrate, Outflank, and Deepstrike special rules. If deployed in reserve, you may choose to come on automatically turn 1, 2 or 3.
5. Iron Resolve: The Warlord and his unit have Hatred and Relentless special rules.
6. Lord of Chaos: The Warlord has +1 Weapon Skill and Attack.

I was thinking something like a primaris warlord trait. A generic trait appropriate to the theme of the table that any warlord rolling on that table could at least benifit from but not as good as some of the ideal rollable traits.

**Torus**

D3 infiltrating wraithblades/howling banshees

Fearless Orks

Furious Charge captain with Burning Blade

Stealth in ruins and move through cover for a camo-netted mechanized list...

They would be so good for new army compositions... forgive me for being too idealistic but I want my warlords personality/traits/ abilities to shape the army they lead rather than an arbitrary random buff that as another poster put is just the 'cherry on top'

**Deadshot**

I remember years ago that armies had "strategy" points or something like that, that helped determine who went first I think. Something similar could be brought in here. Every HQ unit should be given a strategy rating, which can be used on things in game. For example, each Warlord Trait can have a number beside it, which is how many strategy points it costs, so characters can expend points to buy them straight up. Other options could be modifying your roll-offs for deployment/reserves/first turn/steal the initiative.

Example

Space Marine Captain has 3 SP. He expends one of them for the "Champion of Humanity" Space Marine Warlord Trait. during the set-up, he expends another when he rolls off to see who has first turn, giving him +1 to his roll, turning his 3 into a 4. During turn 2 he then expends his last SP to add +1 to all his reserve rolls during this turn.

**Torus**

Deadshot wrote:
I remember years ago that armies had "strategy" points or something like that, that helped determine who went first I think. Something similar could be brought in here. Every HQ unit should be given a strategy rating, which can be used on things in game. For example, each Warlord Trait can have a number beside it, which is how many strategy points it costs, so characters can expend points to buy them straight up. Other options could be modifying your roll-offs for deployment/reserves/first turn/steal the initiative.

Example

Space Marine Captain has 3 SP. He expends one of them for the "Champion of Humanity" Space Marine Warlord Trait. during the set-up, he expends another when he rolls off to see who has first turn, giving him +1 to his roll, turning his 3 into a 4. During turn 2 he then expends his last SP to add +1 to all his reserve rolls during this turn.

That's certainly a system I could get behind, since it allows more options in the game and promotes keeping you WL alive, not neccessarily because of points instead it's because while they are alive they can still impact the game and how the army functions

**Deadshot**

Torus wrote:
Deadshot wrote:
I remember years ago that armies had "strategy" points or something like that, that helped determine who went first I think. Something similar could be brought in here. Every HQ unit should be given a strategy rating, which can be used on things in game. For example, each Warlord Trait can have a number beside it, which is how many strategy points it costs, so characters can expend points to buy them straight up. Other options could be modifying your roll-offs for deployment/reserves/first turn/steal the initiative.

Example

Space Marine Captain has 3 SP. He expends one of them for the "Champion of Humanity" Space Marine Warlord Trait. during the set-up, he expends another when he rolls off to see who has first turn, giving him +1 to his roll, turning his 3 into a 4. During turn 2 he then expends his last SP to add +1 to all his reserve rolls during this turn.

That's certainly a system I could get behind, since it allows more options in the game and promotes keeping you WL alive, not neccessarily because of points instead it's because while they are alive they can still impact the game and how the army functions

There are many things that you could do with a system like this;

Warlord Traits (maybe even multiple Traits?)
Reserve Roll modifiers (both + and -)
Outflank (for which side you arrive)
Deep Strike Scatter
Night Fighting
Roll to determine if game ends or not
First turn roll
Deployment roll
Steal the Initiative
Tactical Objectives
Mysterious Objectives
Psychic Powers (each power has a set cost of SP if you wish to choose it, or expend 1 to reroll a power)

It could also breathe some life back into more "leader" HQs like Captains and the like by giving them a much high Strategy rating than say, a Librarian. A Librarian or Chaplain might have 2 Sp, and a Catpain 4. Sergeant Telion would only have 1 but be much cheaper, and Marneus Calgar being a master of warfare would have maybe 6, and Castellan CREEEEDDDD have 15 or something.it could really reshape the game and the way things are played. of course, upgrade charcaters like Sergeants wouldn't have any Strategy ratings, or maybe 1 at most if they are a special character (such as a special squad sergeant).

**Mr. CyberPunk**

While I'd like the possibility to customize my warlord as I want. I'm not necessarily against rolling off for my Warlord Traits. Problems is, some are so much useful than other. For example, in the Orks codex, getting the +1 S traits is basically always useless since most of the time, you'll already have S10 from the nearly mandatory power klaw. Another example is the reroling failed morale test vs fearless on the Waaagh! Turn. But with formations that allows you to Waagh every turn (or nearly every turn), one is so, so much more useful than the other it's not even funny, GW has to think of every situation possible when making them and balance them in consideration (for example, if your Warlord has a Power Klaw, the +1 S grants AP 1 instead). Admittedly, this would definitely be harder for generic WT, but for the race specific ones, it shouldn't be really hard with proper game testing (I know lol)

**AllSeeingSkink**

I'd be down for paying points for Warlord Traits. If it wouldn't work because some are too powerful and some are too weak... err... make the powerful ones less powerful and the weak ones less weak

Making them random doesn't balance the game, it just gives you a dice roll to determine how unbalanced the game is going to be.

**Deadshot**

Proposed rule thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/682290.page

**Toofast**

Because GW is lazy and totally incompetent when it comes to assigning a point cost to something. They would rather throw it on a random D6 table and then tell you you're playing the wrong way for using it when you point out how unbalanced it is.

**=Angel=**

Deadshot wrote:

It could also breathe some life back into more "leader" HQs like Captains and the like by giving them a much high Strategy rating than say, a Librarian. A Librarian or Chaplain might have 2 Sp, and a Catpain 4. Sergeant Telion would only have 1 but be much cheaper, and Marneus Calgar being a master of warfare would have maybe 6, and Castellan CREEEEDDDD have 15 or something.it could really reshape the game and the way things are played. of course, upgrade charcaters like Sergeants wouldn't have any Strategy ratings, or maybe 1 at most if they are a special character (such as a special squad sergeant).

It would also help differentiate between beatstick 'commanders' and Commanding officers.

You could either spend your strategy points on WS boosts and extra choppy, or reserve them for tactical use of cover, careful maneuvering and critical rerolls- representing the old school illiterate barbarian in power armour Space marine type or the more cunning Space marine commander.

GW told us for years that we should theme our lists but instead of enabling that with rules like regimental doctrines/chapter traits they give us strategic tables that give our guard commander a scary face(2) when he was trying to encourage his man to be accurate and not overheat their plasmaguns(5).

**Brennonjw**

To add a bit of 'randomness' into the game. Technically speaking: you chose a generic chapter master, so you don't know what he's good at. same goes for generic psykers: who knows what they know how to do (crunch wise) untill they are there. I think this is a part of "forging the narrative" that GW is pushing: If you don't wanna roll, don't. Outside of Tournaments run it past your opponent "Hey, here's my chapter master, and here's his fluff, would you mind (and you can do it too) if we just chose warlord traits?" so long as you aren't being a dick about it, then it makes sense. Same goes for psykers, however, we all know that most dicks out there would just spam the best-of-the-best rather then what out fluff says.

**nareik**

Yes, you don't know who the incumbent chaptermaster is (or what his FOTM tactics are), but going back to warhammer's RPGesque origins, the warlord is meant to represent you the player on the table, so you should get to choose his strategic preferences.

That said, people would generally default to the same warlord trait every battle, so at least having some level of random determination for the traits makes the game slightly more dynamic. Replaying the same game over and over again can get boring (warhammer fantasy 7th ed!)

**HoundsofDemos**

Brennonjw wrote:
To add a bit of 'randomness' into the game. Technically speaking: you chose a generic chapter master, so you don't know what he's good at. same goes for generic psykers: who knows what they know how to do (crunch wise) untill they are there. I think this is a part of "forging the narrative" that GW is pushing: If you don't wanna roll, don't. Outside of Tournaments run it past your opponent "Hey, here's my chapter master, and here's his fluff, would you mind (and you can do it too) if we just chose warlord traits?" so long as you aren't being a dick about it, then it makes sense. Same goes for psykers, however, we all know that most dicks out there would just spam the best-of-the-best rather then what out fluff says.

Putting aside that two players can choose to change any and all rules. I find the random traits and powers very immersion breaking and therefore bad game design. Rules as written force my warlord to put a new hat on every game. Except to me he isn't generic or random, my leaders are the same each and every game.

**nareik**

With Space Marines, I like to pretend the rolled warlord trait represents whichever page of the Codex Astartes the commander happened to look at most recently.

**=Angel=**

nareik wrote:
With Space Marines, I like to pretend the rolled warlord trait represents whichever page of the Codex Astartes the commander happened to look at most recently.

'The Codex Astartes calls this maneuvre...' (furtively flips to page and glances) ' Steel Rain.'

**nareik**

master of ordinance wrote:
Take a game I had some months back: My Tank Commander ended up with Outflank. So, as I was using a CAD and not exactly eager to commit my Warlord to a suicidal manoeuvre I chose to reroll.... And ended up with Furious Charge. On my Tank Commander.

Out of curiosity, why exactly were you rolling on this table for a tank commander? Which result were you hoping to get? How good is a tank in a challenge? Does FNP even help tanks?

You had another character in your army that could have been warlord as you were running CAD (so had to have at least a squad sergeant), and even if you didn't/didn't want to, why didn't you just choose a table that better suited a tank?

Honestly, your story doesn't make much sense to me as a criticism of random traits. It's not like you have to roll for which table you select from.

**RavenGuard55**

My group has house ruled on this exact issue. We feel our warlords would know the battlefield roles they would need to fill in order to win the battle, calling in reserves when needed, capping objectives, moving thru cover better, etc. House rules for the win!

**master of ordinance**

nareik wrote:
master of ordinance wrote:
Take a game I had some months back: My Tank Commander ended up with Outflank. So, as I was using a CAD and not exactly eager to commit my Warlord to a suicidal manoeuvre I chose to reroll.... And ended up with Furious Charge. On my Tank Commander.
Out of curiosity, why exactly were you rolling on this table for a tank commander? Which result were you hoping to get? How good is a tank in a challenge? Does FNP even help tanks?

You had another character in your army that could have been warlord as you were running CAD (so had to have at least a squad sergeant), and even if you didn't/didn't want to, why didn't you just choose a table that better suited a tank?

Honestly, your story doesn't make much sense to me as a criticism of random traits. It's not like you have to roll for which table you select from.

Number 6 give 'It Will Not Die'. I can say from experience how fun this is on a Tank Commander with an Artificer Hull upgrade.