The big problem with the old traits system was the abuse it underwent. Why bother taking one of the myriad of disadvantages that might actually have some effect on the way you could play when you could take the one that stopped you from taking allies?

One tournie I went to featured six marine lists with thw old traits, every single one of them took that disadvantage and every single player had the same reason for it: so that it didn't effect the list.



You don't really need any of the characters to represent any of the other chapters. You just need to have an idea of what theme the chapter runs by and try to follow that to a degree.

Take the Salamanders for example, they are a heavy chapter, with higher use of flame/melta weapons and the likes of terminator armour. Because of gravitational problems on Noctourne, they do not train with jump packs or land speeders. You don't need Vulkan in order to take or limit yourself from taking any of these things. Like many characters, he would provide buffs and slight improvements.

How about the Crimson Fists? A chapter that faced destruction and now has a high number of scouts and chapter veterans (the first from recruitment and the second the survivors of that destruction.) Kantor is great for what he does to veteran squads, but not a requirement. Let the scouts hold objectives and support the veterans while the veterans deal with the enemy. There is more than one way of securing an objective, sitting on it is but one method.



No offense, but with a thread like this all I see is a bit of whinging from people who want to get more powerful list without having to think.

 

It does seem that this thread can only really end in a flame war which is why i kept quiet. I would love to see a return of traits with a bit more balance so that each disadvantage is a propper disadvantage rather then being pointless as the person above me mentioned. That was the key issue, there was no real trade off. I dislike using special characters and would love less restriction but i would expect this thread to get bombed by people who feel the current lists/rules are perfect and don't need to be changed.

No offense, but with a thread like this all I see is a bit of whinging from people who want to get more powerful list without having to think.

I don't think comments like this are going to keep this thread constructive. Though you have very nicely summed up the key problems with Traits in the previous section of your post. Unbalanced traits with a lack of serious dissadvantages to keep them in check. So how do we balance it? Make the disadvantages more game effecting? impose a points value per model effected by the trait?

 

I think a compromise between "pick benefits and pick flaws" and "get a package from a character" might work. If each positive trait had a choice of one of two negative traits that must be taken it would prevent taking benefits and flaws purely to max out, and would make balancing different advantage easier.

For example (with no attempt at actual balance):

Benefit: Lighting Assault - all Infantry may take Jump Packs
Either: Flaw 1: lose 2 Heavy Support Slots
Or: Flaw 2: all units must test Leadership at the start of the Movement Phase; any that fail must advance toward the nearest enemy unit and attempt to charge in the assault phase.

This would let you take a CC force that is that way due to not having much ranged power or a force that was violent, but not a force that had sold all of it's friends to buy rocket-boots.

 

I think a compromise between "pick benefits and pick flaws" and "get a package from a character" might work. If each positive trait had a choice of one of two negative traits that must be taken it would prevent taking benefits and flaws purely to max out, and would make balancing different advantage easier.

.

Thank you! this was the point i was trying to get across. a useful advantage and a nasty disadvantage to even things. this could easily be applied to an army.

and in response to the 2nd postee (sorry, can't remember name) people like the crimson fists could have something like:
New blood, Old blood: with a generation gone, the chapter have a disproportionate amount of veterans to the rest of the army. the army gains 1 extra elite slot.
We have Recruits! you may take one tactiacl squad for every 2 scout squads, note this should be a 1:2 model ratio.
cost of greatness: All veterans cost 2 points per model extra.

this could be applied across the board to make all choices strategic, but you always feel a negative side.

 

I miss the old traits. They added another degree of individuality to the army, but as mentioned they were a bit unbalanced and often abused. Then again most things are unbalanced and can be abused.

Maybe just use the current model; Each army can replace combat tactics with a trait of their choosing. So all armies have the same disadvantage, which removes one of the major sources of abuse. Plus it's pretty simple.

With a bit of planning and common sense GW could make traits work, so don't hold your breath.

 

See i like this idea. It's more a akin to what we had in thrid edition with the chapter approved articles, so long as they stay balanced in relation to each other it could work really well.

 

Check out my solution in the Houserules and Homebrews section for my take on the matter :wink:

 

does anyone happen to have the old list for chapter traits / IG's doctrines? since i dont have a clue what this about.

 

basically the old codex had a chart in which you selected how divergent from the codex astartes your army is. so the more divergent, the greater the advantages and disadvantages gained, but there were no real restrictions on what you could do.

 

The trait system was a good idea it just needed some small adjustments to make it fairer. I personally would prefer the traits system to having to include named special characters.