Warlord Traits Tables

[malorn24]

When using a non named IC which Table do you usually roll on for your Warlord Trait?

[Lord Pariah]

... depends, if my warlord if with everyone, the command traits are good as it kind of makes a Area of effect buff

if my warlord if flying off to follow his dreams, the strategic traits are fun.. some go for the codex ones but the BRB has some that don't suck now...

 

assuming i read your question right?

[tdemayo]

Personal, usually, or the faction table for my force. I almost always get something useless, anyway. I'd be just as happy if the Warlord Traits didn't exist.

[Fibonacci]

The faction table.  Always.  Besides being fluffy, there are just better options in the codex tables than in the basic rules.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Besides being fluffy, there are just better options in the codex tables than in the basic rules.

 

That is not a universal truth; far from it. The SM and BA tables, for example, are terrible.

 

Personaly, I usualy roll on Strategic, though if playing an Assault army, I'd likely roll on Command instead.

[shandwen]

Blood angels recieved an awesome chart with the flesh tearers, and I dont mind thr blood angels one either. For BT or RG days I use strategic (sm book chart leaves much to be desired).

[Deschenus Maximus]

Blood angels recieved an awesome chart with the flesh tearers, and I dont mind thr blood angels one either.

 

The Flesh Tearer one is pretty alrigth, especialy with the reroll. The BA one, though... good God, I don't know what they were thinking. I would never, ever, EVER roll on that one.

[Aspiringchaoschampion]

It depends on what im facing. For example if im facing loyalists il generally use the chaos marine table. If not il use strategic. In either case tho if im playing maelstrom il use the tactical table

[Raktra]

 

[...]BA tables, for example, are terrible.

That's an extreme overstatement, really. There's only two that are kind of 'bad' overall (MC and Fearless), the rest are generally pretty useful.

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

 

[...]BA tables, for example, are terrible.

That's an extreme overstatement, really. There's only two that are kind of 'bad' overall (MC and Fearless), the rest are generally pretty useful.

 

 

Its really not an overstatement. Yes, those abilities in and of themselves are good (mostly), but you aren't considering the opportunity cost. While the BA table provides small, situational boosts, rolling on other tables provide boosts that benefit your whole army, or a large segment of it. THAT is the reason why the BA table is terrible.

[Raktra]

No different to a good chunk of the Personal Traits table. And Descent of Angels is probably, given the army it's in, the best trait around.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Personnal is terrible too. Given that there's nothing forcing you to roll on either instead of Command or Strategic, that point is moot.

[SyNidus]

Strategic traits, always amazing. 

[Armfelt]

More often than not I rely upon the strategic trait line.

[Hellios]

It depends my army and ,to one degree or another, the mission/enemy I'm playing.

 

Overall, I probably use strategic the most. This is probably followed by army specific tables, and command; I rarely use personal traits. 

[templargdt]

I always roll strategic.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I usually stick to the Codex traits for simplicity's sake, but when I don't, it's Strategic all the way.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Command is pretty solid for an aggressive army like Blood Angels and the like, because they can make good use of the assault/mobility boosts.

 

A more shooty army will likely benefit from Strategic much more.

[Syphid]

Strategic if I'm using Cities of Death or have a table with lots of ruins, Dark Angels otherwise with the occasional Command if I feel like mixing things up.

[Lysere]

I'd say the vast majority of the time I roll on the personal traits, if the warlord is going to be with a lot of models then I'll roll command. I leave the rest alone for the most part since most of my lists don't benefit from several results.