Again, I think I agree with most people in wishing that Ratling as a race and Sniper as a class were separate, but I think it comes down to game design and GW restriction. I'll admit I'm not super well versed in Ratling lore, but I do know that they're mostly known for A) Sniper ability B) Cooking ability and C) Underhanded trading and the equivalent of the IG black market. 

However, from a game design standpoint, all of the classes are focused in a combat sense: Heavy Weapons and Sergeant are obvious, Operator and Techpriest have clear roles, and in general you can point at a given class and see exactly what their combat role is in the squad and how they fit into that.

If you removed the inherent Sniper-qualities from the Ratling, then you suddenly have a class that does not have a clearly defined role within the squad, and because of GW restrictions, there's no other "combat role" they can fill while still fitting in the role (I suppose you could make them a generic Scout instead of Sniper, but the roles overlap so much there's only a very minor difference in my mind).

The counterargument would probably be "It's ok to not have a Combat-focused class, and have a Cook or Black-marketeer or whatever!" And I agree in general that social/support classes like that are great, and I'm sure many players might play them; however, this seems to be against the game design philosophy behind OW, since every single other class is combat-role-first, everything else second. 

This could be a misreading on my part, but I personally see a lot of support for this; it is, after all, suppose to be a system to replicate playing IG combat missions. 

Anyway, if Ratlings stay the way they are, I won't be entirely surprised. I think everyone's comments and desires are very valid, but I think the proposed suggestions people have made work in the theoretical, they don't work when applied to the existing OW framework. If anyone sees any faults in what I'm saying, please let me know though, since in this case I'm happy to be wrong :-P. 

the ratling is a horrible marketeer, commerce is an Int check…

vogue69 said:

Not sure that can really be a supportable statement.  Ratlings certainly don't take a minus to Int, and while they don't come with a starting aptitude in Intelligence they're no worse off then most other Scroungers as heart like say,…Trooper Varl from the Ghosts (and neither Weapons Specialist nor Sergeant, either path for Varl, come with Intelligence as a given Aptitude).

As for the other stuff,…yeah, I understand constraints based on Tabletop and GW are there. But I can still voice that dissatisfaction and state this causes more problems by being mindlessly wed to TT as opposed to thinking, "you know what?  Maybe this DOES need to get tweaked!".  But that's me.

Oh, and while there is some overlap between Scout and Sniper, it's like the overlap between Weapon Specialist and Heavy Gunner.  Just saying, since I've been a field troop m'self for over two decades and worked with both. 

MorganKeyes said:

yeah commerce in this game is Intelligence + Knowledge and tests Intelligence. Non of which a Ratling has. Fellowship 80 doesn't mean crap when it comes to comerce. Your average medic, psyker, techpriest is way more of a blackmarket expert then the cooking ratling will ever be.

I would change commerce to Fellowship, Knowledge. Or even Fellowship, Social because bartering for better equipment is illegal and has nothing to do with red-tape and rule gaps.

I don't really care what they do with the Ratling, none of my players care about them…at all.

What my players DO care about is having a sniper in the squad. However they also enjoy actual roleplaying, and none of them want to roleplay a Ratling, so they have no real sniper because only space-hobbits are allowed to be snipers. I've since house-ruled in a Sniper class by reverse-engineering the Ratling, but house-rules should be a last-resort solution.

Xyklos said:

Honestly, it doesn't seem that hard for a Weapon Specialist to buy Deadeye Shot. Let them have a Long-Las and if you want to, house rule that they can take the Ratling Comrade advances instead of the Weapon Specialist ones. Am I missing something?

LuciusT said:

Yes, you are missing something.

Houserules should NEVER be the immediate solution. They should be a last-resort, and only used sparingly.

As it stands, the Weapon Specialist will never be as good at sniping as a ratling, to say nothing of the Ratling's advantage when it comes to Stealth and Social stuff.

"Sniper" is a very basic military archtype that many players would like to play, while Friendly Space-Hobbit Who Cooks is…not so much. There is no reason to have them rolled into the same class, with no efficient alternative.

Gotta say I disagree with you on the house rules thing. The intent of gaming is usually to have fun, so altering the rules to facilitate that (as long as the core balance/challenge of the game is preserved), is by no means a bad thing.

That said, I'm not sure it would take much house ruling to call a Weapon Specialist the sniper.

First, it can be done by the rules by selecting sniper/long las as the company favoured basic weapon, and have the specialist take that.

The comrade advances for the specialist are perfectly fine and appropriate for a sniper. The comrade still can function as a spotter (giving the comrade bonus to BS. Its just not the same quality as what the Ratling gets, but its fairly minor). Also, they do lose the undodgeable shot, which does sort of stink.

What the specialist gains though is pinning, which is also an excellent feature though. Ruining the enemies economy of actions is always helpful. And I'm pretty sure it doesn't even need to hit to do its work.

Aptitude wise, the specialist is fine, and has the needed bases covered.

Now, if you don't want to pick sniper/long las as regimental favoured basic weapon, that is going to take some house ruling, but balance wise, I don't think much is lost. The availibility of either the long las or sniper rifle is scarce. It is equal to that of the other "standard" options for the Weapon Specialist. Given that the option for regiment favoured weapon goes up to Very Rare, I'm not sure scarce affects much at all balance wise.

Also, house rules are in the rules. Its called Rule 0. Its on p. 216. The GM is within his rights to alter the game as needed to facilitate having fun. Is it a "last resort"? Maybe. But that doesn't mean its not on option.

I agree with Houserules never being the solution.  And my main reason is if I'm not GMing it REQUIRES a GM who is ok with them, which I've never had before.  Otherwise good GMs, but if they nix it I'm stuck having to be Vassily Baggins, not Vassily Zaitsev.

Dulahan said:

I'm truly sorry if you've never had a GM ok with houserules, that's unfathomable to me. I have literally never had a campaign (with a pool of about 4 GMs) who hasn't given almost every player a "special request" of some kind for each, to the point where it's almost standard practice across my gaming group. As KommissarK pointed out, it's explicitly IN the rulebook that the "rules' are more like Guidelines, and GMs and Players should bend them as needed to make a fun experience. If those GMs are treating the rulebook as a Holy Bible that cannot be spoken against, they need to readjust their perspective. 

Also, if people's issues are roleplaying a Ratling, then why not just pick the ratling option and say in-game it's just a short human? The only thing that makes a Ratling different than the other Guardsmen is the Size (Weedy) attribute, and you could either just say the person is short or simply drop that attribute. Other than that, you have nothing that makes the Ratling inherently Ratling-like that couldn't be found in "normal" humans. 

HTMC said:

I never said ANY houserules, I've had GMs that have houseruled games in ways that made them almost entirely unfun for me. 

My point though is that it REQUIRES a special request.  That should -never- be the answer for something that's such a frankly basic concept.  Seriously, a Sniper in a military game should be as common as a Thief or Mage in a fantasy game.  And making them ONLY be a Ratling is a problem on multiple levels.

But beyond that, I believe your "Rule 0" cite is fallacious.  Because you miss the part where it requires GM Approval.  That's the key.  GM Approval!  And probably other players being ok with it.  And I FULLY disagree with not treating the rulebook as a 'holy bible' - because I've gotten into games that were so heavily modified they weren't the game I signed up for.  We're talking things along the lines of "Why do I even have a corebook then?" style changes.  It can go much too far, and really kill the fun (especially in a system I might like!).  The fact is when I'm trying to find a game to play, it's likely because I want to play the rules I know.  A minor change here and there, ok, but things that mess with balance on the lines of the ratling thing?  Big  issue for me.  As a player I'd be suspicious "Special Snowflake" style accusations in my head.

So yes, if being a sniper with such generic advances as the ratling one has REQUIRES GM approval, which is THE POINT of Rule Zero.  Then it's a failure in my opinion.  And just because you can't fathom a GM who isn't acquiescant to such things doesn't mean it isn't an issue. That's sort of the point of a Beta, to catch these sorts of issues.

EDIT:  Honestly, to add something constructive here.  Why not make ALL, or at least most, of the Comrade Advances "Specialist Agnostic" - completely take anything but some of the most blatantly specific stuff like the Priest's "Chanting" guy  and make them generic.  So any specialty could take them if they paid the XP?  Might require a change in costs, perhaps, or maybe some Specialties get a slight discount.  But by doing that suddenly things can be a lot more customizable yet, which is, IMHO, a VERY good thing.

and it would totally ruin the feel of an army based game. IMHO anyway.

Dulahan said:

I think this is an excellent idea.

LuciusT said:

I think it's a horrible idea. There's already not that much that differentiates the different Specialities, considering that OW has adopted the freeform advance model of BC. Making that kind of change basically means you get your starting bonuses and equipment at character creation, and the suddenly it pretty much does not matter what Speciality you picked. Having Speciality-specific companions helps keep the flavor of the different Specialities, and a lot of them just don't make sense in the context of other Specialities: why would an Ogryn have a Servitor following him around, or why would a Medic need someone carrying weapons for him?

Sure, it's technically more customizable, but the system is already very customizable (especially considering the recent reduction of XP costs with the latest update). A completely customizable system would just do away with Specialities/Classes all-together and just do something like the Regiment Creation Rules but for PCs, and while that might be appealing to some, I think it makes zero sense in the context of  war-simulation RPG, where the PCs are supposed to be members of the armed forces with very clearly laid-out roles. 

And @Dulahan: Again, this is not being condescending, but it sounds like your history of RPing is pretty unfortunate, and doesn't at all match the experience of anyone I personally know who has RPed. I fully believe you've had groups and GMs like you described, but I would hope that worldwide that's a minority experience rather than a commonality, but obviously neither of us can say for sure. In my mind Rule 0 boils down to treating the rules as rules except when they get in the way of player enjoyment, because RPGs are supposed to be a fun group experience rather than a competition (I realize some RPGs break this rule, but within the context of 40kRPGs). You make GM and fellow PC approval sound like a huge obstacle, but again, in my experience with multiple GMs and groups, this has never been an issue. Maybe I am in the minority here; again, I have no way of knowing, but I can only speak from my experience. What this does highlight is that different people play different all across the world, so even if "Rule 0" and house-ruling is a big no-no to you, it's perfectly viable for lots of people: for instance, go take a look at the RT forums, which has a full subforum dedicated to house-ruling. Based on that, I would assume the FFG design philosophy falls more in line with accepting house-rules rather than trying to avoid them, which I guess is unfortunate in your case. Again, not trying to belittle your views, since I believe they're fully valid, I'm just trying to express my own and what seems to be others'. I would definitely be annoyed (and probably quit) if a game I knew had been house-ruled beyond recognition, but I feel that's far more an issue with the GM and group than with the system/rules itself. 

HTMC said:

I think that's an excellent idea too…

The Specialities, like my understanding of the archetypes in the Black Crusade, give a good starting point. How the character develops is, and should be, up to the players and the game… not up to the game designers and their vision of how a given character archetype should develop.