PDA

View Full Version : Racial Rules



Firaxin
27-04-2010, 00:17
I'm not talking about different weapon stats or psychic powers or Orders under different names, but something major and definitive of the entire army, which no other race has an equivalent of. Seems to be a recent trend in Fantasy's design philosophy--High Elves always strike first, all dark eldar hate, etc.

They exist, but not evenly. Should everyone have them?

Some, like Tyranids' Synapse or Necrons' Phase Out are clearly disadvantageous. Maybe each race should have an exposed exhaust shaft with a clearly defined trench run (so to speak) for enemies to exploit?

You kill the Synapse Creatures, the 'nid army falls apart.
You kill enough Warriors, the Necrons de-res.

What would the other races be?

Orks could have something similar to animosity... if the Warboss dies, the highest ranking Nobs attack each other as they each attempt to take over the Waaagh. When one wins, he replaces the Warboss.

Because gene seed (not to mention stuff like power armor) is so powerful, any marine squad wiped out to a man is replaced by an objective token, which the marine player will have to dedicate resources to reclaiming unless they want to hand their opponent free points. Would make deepstriking/outflanking suicide units less popular.

Tau would need to worry about Battlesuit Neurosis?

Guard would have to worry about logistics/running out of ammo, or perhaps they're in danger of receiving wrong orders from the Munitorum?

I don't know, I'm open to ideas.



(Sorry if that was all a bit of a ramble, I had to put my thoughts down somewhere. This would probably be too complex to institute in reality, but I just really like the idea of forcing space marines to secure their fallen brethren)

muskrat
27-04-2010, 00:28
SM's don't really fight like that though, they mostly recover bodies after a battle, or by target of opportunity if the Apothecary is around/the battle is going badly.

For chaos: If the lord/DP dies, all demons faze out, and any retinue is mired in squabbling over who leads the force.

The_carpenter
27-04-2010, 00:30
Fluff wise it would be a nice addition, I could see Craftworld Eldar having the same rule as Marines given their spirit stones... though how that would be balanced with space marines being so much more resilient than say Guardians I don't know...

so in the fluff I like the idea, but GW will never go for it because it nerf's marines and therefore may lose them sales :p

Bestaltan
27-04-2010, 00:30
As both a Tyranid and a (former) Fantasy Orc player, I have grumbled a LOT about disadvantageous racial rules. Honestly, in my experience the people most likely to say "Oh, but they're fluffy" have never tried to run an army that has them. Oh, and the 6th edition High Elf racial gets it's shout out too. Oh look, my leadership 8 level 1 dispel scroll caddy is the general! Yay!:rolleyes:

Honestly, I have zero idea why GW hobbles some armies with racial rules while making other racial rules absolutely amazing. Case in point........red thirst. Gee, if I roll a '1' my unit gets BETTER? For FREE? And then on the flip side we have synapse. Um......what?

I don't like the idea of hobbling any army, actually. Just get rid of racial rules that hurt the army. At least with 4th edition Tyranids, synapse gave you a major advantage (immune to ID was WELL worth the drawbacks). If an army has a racial rule, make it an advantage only, or if there is a disadvantage, make the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

e2055261
27-04-2010, 00:35
Most codexes have some sort of army wide special rule already. SMs have TSKNF and combat tactics, IG have orders and combined squads, Tyranids have synapse, orks have furious charge, etc. Having army wide special rules that do bad things would mean that points values need to be adjusted. With so much talk about army balance, it's not likely that many people would agree to your suggestions.

The_carpenter
27-04-2010, 00:38
Honestly, I have zero idea why GW hobbles some armies with racial rules while making other racial rules absolutely amazing. Case in point........red thirst. Gee, if I roll a '1' my unit gets BETTER? For FREE? And then on the flip side we have synapse. Um......what?

I don't like the idea of hobbling any army, actually. Just get rid of racial rules that hurt the army. At least with 4th edition Tyranids, synapse gave you a major advantage (immune to ID was WELL worth the drawbacks). If an army has a racial rule, make it an advantage only, or if there is a disadvantage, make the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

I think the old rule for the red thirst from 3rd edition was more fluffy... something like on a roll of a 1 the unit has to move forward not nice when it happens to your devastators!

As for Synapse being immune to pinning and morale etc is pretty handy by the sounds of it but to be honest I haven't played them since 3rd ed

electricblooz
27-04-2010, 00:43
The idea has merit but I think I dispute your underlying premise (i.e. that some armies have built in disadvantages while others do not).

For example, Necron were saddled with Phase out because they got WBB. WBB is a clear advantage that no other army receives so both game balance and army character demanded that their be some counter-balance to the rule.

Likewise, for the Nids, Synapse is both a positive and a negative rule in that it provides fearlessness to the army at practically no cost while it also places the army in the position of both needing to protect the synapse creatures (which I would argue is not the difficult given that most are multi-wound high toughness creatures) and facing NoRetreat in close combat (I would agree this is an unreasonable side-effect of Synapse).

Now, I know that you are going to argue that neither of the armies above get the bonuses from their special rules, only the detriments. For instance you might argue against me in the case of Necrons by noting the WBB does not work against sweeping and thus the Necron player is deprived of the bonus while still suffering the detriment. But, you would be wrong in this case; as you said, the Necrons have a very clearly defined "trench-run" and that is manuevering the Necron play into situations where she/he cannot use WBB. This is tactics, not bad army design.

In the case of Nids, I would agree that making swarms take NoRetreat wounds when they autopass a morale test due to fearlessness is unfair. The Synapse blanket should function more like the =I='s chose-to-pass-regardless rule and GW should amend the FAQ so that this function is not the same as autopassing due to fearlessness.

Now, let talk about the other armies. I would argue that many armies do, in fact have the same kinds of built in "hooks," though I agree they are not as obvious. For instance, IG's clear hook is that the vast majority of their force are very "squishy," and while their tanks are rock hard, tanks cannot hold objectives so destroying the infantry removes the IG's ability to win the game.

In short, I agree that these "racial rules" would add flavor to the game and would support a balanced look into such an idea. I would not support saddling armies with these rules just because they are currently conceived to be overpowered or un-balanced.

ehlijen
27-04-2010, 00:44
Synapse is not just a drawback, you also get fearless while in it (and regardless of what fearless does to you when you loose combat, it's still better than not being fearless in the same circumstances) as well as super rally.

Most races already have weaknesses

Tau: Kill the ethereal and their leadership sucks. If they don't bring one it does from the get go. Also, combat.
Guard: Kill the officers, their squads are small.
Marines: Kill a few, there won't be many left.
Orks: Take large mobs or your leadership sucks.
etc

It doesn't need to be worse than that.

Phase out only exists to add a drawback to mono or c'tan spam.
Synapse is a mixed bag that's meant to show the nids reliance on brain bugs. You gain some you loose some.

GrogDaTyrant
27-04-2010, 01:05
I don't like the idea of hobbling any army, actually. Just get rid of racial rules that hurt the army. At least with 4th edition Tyranids, synapse gave you a major advantage (immune to ID was WELL worth the drawbacks). If an army has a racial rule, make it an advantage only, or if there is a disadvantage, make the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

I gotta agree with this 100%. Having "Lol fun" rules that are more of a hinderance than a benefit, is one of the primary reasons why Orcs and Goblins are currently ones of the lowest ranking Fantasy army books. While it may seem fun and fluffy, such drawbacks also tend to discourage players from wanting to play the army. There's also something to say about GW not being able to properly balance such 'quirks' with comparable bonuses.



Synapse is not just a drawback, you also get fearless while in it (and regardless of what fearless does to you when you loose combat, it's still better than not being fearless in the same circumstances) as well as super rally.

To a degree. The 'randomly falling over dead rule' (A.K.A. No Retreat) means more for a unit that has higher armor saves, and purely that. Low-cost units of Gaunts/Orks already have their point-cost associated around their low stat line and poor survivability. Having to loose even MORE models simply because you inflicted less total wounds (despite the fact you may have killed 20x the point cost of what you lost yourself) is not as much of a benefit as it may seem. While suffering wounds from loosing combat while fearless was theoretically a balanced way of handling 3rd/4th ed's Fearless problem, 5th ed's combat resolution system isn't refined enough to truly balance it the way it needs to be.

IMHO No Retreat! should have either been a toughness-check (which makes more sense than how good your armor save is), or combat resolution should have involved far more than 'who killed more individual models'.

technotemplar
27-04-2010, 01:30
As both a Tyranid and a (former) Fantasy Orc player, I have grumbled a LOT about disadvantageous racial rules. Honestly, in my experience the people most likely to say "Oh, but they're fluffy" have never tried to run an army that has them. Oh, and the 6th edition High Elf racial gets it's shout out too. Oh look, my leadership 8 level 1 dispel scroll caddy is the general! Yay!:rolleyes:

Honestly, I have zero idea why GW hobbles some armies with racial rules while making other racial rules absolutely amazing. Case in point........red thirst. Gee, if I roll a '1' my unit gets BETTER? For FREE? And then on the flip side we have synapse. Um......what?

I don't like the idea of hobbling any army, actually. Just get rid of racial rules that hurt the army. At least with 4th edition Tyranids, synapse gave you a major advantage (immune to ID was WELL worth the drawbacks). If an army has a racial rule, make it an advantage only, or if there is a disadvantage, make the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

I am a blood angels player, and I agree the new red thirst is a tad unbalanced. Adding "rage" to the list of effects would make it more fair, or at least forcing a leadership test to avoid running blindly at something to kill

Bestaltan
27-04-2010, 01:39
I gotta agree with this 100%. Having "Lol fun" rules that are more of a hinderance than a benefit, is one of the primary reasons why Orcs and Goblins are currently ones of the lowest ranking Fantasy army books. While it may seem fun and fluffy, such drawbacks also tend to discourage players from wanting to play the army. There's also something to say about GW not being able to properly balance such 'quirks' with comparable bonuses.


Honestly, it was the animosity rule that finally made me quit Fantasy in disgust. I just got sick and tired of outmaneuvering my opponent, getting the game-winning charge set up with wolfriders or orc cav, then rolling that '1' for the unit to take my victory into a crushing tailspin of defeat. I shouldn't lose a game because GW thinks a rule is "fluffy".

As far as synapse goes.......True, synapse allows units to be fearless. The problem is that by removing ID immunity, it is very tough to keep synapse critters alive, even with a number of them T6 and multi-wound. And when you remove the 3-5 models that have synapse, the entire army collapses. And I've seen all but one of my synapse models drop first turn from concentrated Guard fire. That's when the synapse rule is a hindrance, when you can win a game first turn just by shooting up 3 models. Did I mention that every synapse model can be targeted independently of any unit nearby (with one exception.....the alpha. Which almost forces people to take him.)

Also, ehlijen, in regards to the armies you listed, those aren't racial rules, but unit extensions. Nobody need take an ethereal (and heaven help you if you do). Killing Guard officers doesn't do much to the army as a whole, since it is the tanks of the Guard that will rip you a new one. For Orks, they're cheap as dirt point-wise for that very reason. For a racial rule, we're talking about something you just can't avoid no matter what units you take. And simply put, there are some armies that are saddled with painful racial rules that they simply can't avoid.

For example, how rough would Tau players have it if they HAD to take an ethereal? Or if Marines HAD to take a combination of scouts, tacticals, assault, and devastators squads in every list (as that is the common battlefield deployment for a company in major engagements)? Eldar couldn't run the avatar in games under 2500 points (as that size engagement wouldn't be large enough to bother with the sacrifice of the Young King)? Demonhunters couldn't show up without demons? Demon armies couldn't show up without at least one psycher in the enemy army? These would be racial rules, and they would hobble the creativity or playability of a codex. Nevertheless, some codeces do indeed have these sorts of rules, and it frustrates those of us playing those armies.

Bestaltan
27-04-2010, 01:40
I am a blood angels player, and I agree the new red thirst is a tad unbalanced. Adding "rage" to the list of effects would make it more fair, or at least forcing a leadership test to avoid running blindly at something to kill

Especially considering the BA's even have a special character that can upgrade the roll to a 1-3........

Actually, when I read the fluff behind the rule, I immediately thought "Ah, fearless, furious charge, and rage. Nice balanced racial rule." Then I saw there was no rage.........