50 points worth a roll on the Strat table?

Assuming a list that doesn't require an Archon or a Haemy.  Would you guys consider paying the extra 50 points to take an Archon over a Lhamaean, just to get a roll on the Strategic Warlord table?

No. Besides every Character can roll for WL traits. Even an Abberation, a Klaivex, Arena Champion... in short: every unit champion can get WL Traits.
Only if you go without a single character you won't get a trait... rarley happens

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

No. Besides every Character can roll for WL traits. Even an Abberation, a Klaivex, Arena Champion... in short: every unit champion can get WL Traits.
Only if you go without a single character you won't get a trait... rarley happens

A Lahamaean is not a character, which is, I'm assuming, what the poll is meaning.

but no, if I were considering going down that route, it wouldn't sway my decision.

I never take Characters. Ever. Saying that, the sensible thing I've just learned from this, is of course, for 10 points I can make a Kabalite a Character and take a WL Trait!! Thank you kind sir

I played the last 2 games withour a real HQ, just using a lhamean as HQ and my arena champion as WL, and I'm really happy of that: no nome adding 140 pts to your main unit creating a totally first priority target, and if my enemy wants to concentrate fire on the 3++ reavers is good to me, it means he is not shoting to wraithguards, blasterborns, venoms or more useful units.

The only bad thing is that fluffwise I love my archon... but at the moment I'm using his model to represent lhamean, saying that he is a clone/double of the real archon. Every dictator of history had doubles! XD

That said I think WL traits are really important: some of them can be real game changers.

Hellstrom wrote:

I never take Characters.  Ever.  Saying that, the sensible thing I've just learned from this, is of course, for 10 points I can make a Kabalite a Character and take a WL Trait!!  Thank you kind sir

I never bring a character in a competitive list even a Sargent. This allows me to pick who I want to be my warlord depending on who I am playing and what I feel like. Do I want a reaver that you will never reach to be the warlord, or a warrior in a venom that has 4 inflated wounds, or the llhamean because you wouldnt target him otherwise.

Bleaksoul Brethren wrote:

Hellstrom wrote:

I never take Characters.  Ever.  Saying that, the sensible thing I've just learned from this, is of course, for 10 points I can make a Kabalite a Character and take a WL Trait!!  Thank you kind sir

I never bring a character in a competitive list even a Sargent. This allows me to pick who I want to be my warlord depending on who I am playing and what I feel like. Do I want a reaver that you will never reach to be the warlord, or a warrior in a venom that has 4 inflated wounds, or the llhamean because you wouldnt target him otherwise.

So you don't bother with warlord traits? Interesting.

It would depend on the point range of the game and what list I am running. For games of 1000 and under, I probably won't take an archon. But I might pay to uppgrade a grot to abberation and roll on the DE traits.
For 1250 pts and up i will have an archon for the WWP and will roll on the strategic chart from the rulebook. But paying for an archon just to get to roll is not worth it for me. I cant think of any games I've had lately where the warlord trait has mattered for the outcome.

Mushkilla wrote:

Bleaksoul Brethren wrote:

Hellstrom wrote:

I never take Characters.  Ever.  Saying that, the sensible thing I've just learned from this, is of course, for 10 points I can make a Kabalite a Character and take a WL Trait!!  Thank you kind sir

I never bring a character in a competitive list even a Sargent. This allows me to pick who I want to be my warlord depending on who I am playing and what I feel like. Do I want a reaver that you will never reach to be the warlord, or a warrior in a venom that has 4 inflated wounds, or the llhamean because you wouldnt target him otherwise.

So you don't bother with warlord traits? Interesting.

Everything in my pure DE list is set. I play the averages. Venoms will do 4 wounds to t models, Dark Lances and blasters will glance on 4's. Nothing is expected to do above that or lower than that (though the dice gods do like to be finicky). I normally play the averages and have nothing in the list left to chance like a warlord trait.

Bleaksoul Brethren wrote:

Everything in my pure DE list is set. I play the averages. Venoms will do 4 wounds to t models, Dark Lances and blasters will glance on 4's. Nothing is expected to do above that or lower than that (though the dice gods do like to be finicky). I normally play the averages and have nothing in the list left to chance like a warlord trait.

The thing is you don't really roll enough dice in a single game for there to be an average distribution. If you want to go down that route, and minimise risk and expectations of your units, which I think is valid (I do it with my list). Then I would suggest factoring out as much as possible, and when you do that you distill the game down to the mission, objective placement, deployment, movement and positioning. My army doesn't have to do any damage to win the game, just be in the right place at the right time.

However, that being said. Just because you minimise risk and your own expectations regarding what your units can accomplish doesn't mean random rolls are detrimental to your strategy. My army doesn't depend on warlord traits, but it doesn't mean rolling a good warlord trait can't make victory an even more likely outcome. How many mysterious objective rolls, tactical objective draws, random game length rolls have made victory come more easily? Quite a few in my case.

Why pass up on a roll that can give you an edge? You are only leaving things to chance if a roll can be detrimental to your strategy, warlord traits can only be positive.

Seriously if you really want to minimise what you leave to chance then factor shooting and assault completely out of your strategy, or to the point where combinatorics maths ensures there is a 99% success rate in your action.

Taking this thread in a different direction, what warlord trait do you aim for the most?

Running a RSR reserve list, Labyrinth Cunning is too good not to roll for.

You don't get a WL trait with RSR do you?

Sky Serpent wrote:

Running a RSR reserve list, Labyrinth Cunning is too good not to roll for.

This

You do get a WLT with RSR. It allows you to reroll from the DE dex even.

If I was rolling off of the DE table I would really really want Labyrinthine cunning. Specifically for the reserve reroll. Because my RSR army would be 6 RZWF. (But chances are if I was serious about the list I would have a coms relay anyway...)

Although taking the chance which is totally the DE way that would be 80pts I could definitely find a good use for. Getting all 6 flyers in on turn 2 isn't exactly necessary all of the time.

If I am playing Maelstrom I roll off of the tactical traits basically solely. Probably would prefer two discards. (1)

If I am playing Eternal War missions I roll off of the Strategic Table. I love the move through cover rule and -1 to enemy reserves is usually pretty good (1 5 respectively)