srMontresor said:

Then do that! There's nothing forcing you to make a sociable ratling - one of my players made a grouchy, easily irritated ratling, who tended to keep to himself, after having seen much of his last regiment having been killed, and used to tell the normal human characters to quieten down (humans having larger chest cavities being naturally louder than the smaller ratlings), and that him being stuck with loud, clumsy 'norms' would get him killed before he could do his job (scouting and sniping). He was also a full on professional, disliking the stereotype that ratlings were all thieves, and stuck to doing his job, rather than being a black marketeer.

Amusingly, against the trope, he was actually the favoured soldier of the Commissar, since he was straight talking and followed orders, unlike the others.

In spite of my 'only good ratling is a dead ratling', I treat my intense dislike of them rather jovially.  If someone wanted to play one in my campaign, and they had a good concept which seemed like more than a silly cliche, I would absolutely let them.  I can't deny that I wouldn't smile when the dice robbed them of their Fate Points however . . .

As NPCs, I am very unlikely to ever have them show up.  There are certainly none in the Regiment, that's for sure.

Bagh. Here's hoping we get Squats and/or Beastmen.

Plushy said:

Then we'll have people claiming Squats haul all the beard and facial hair in the Guard, and "why can't I have a weapon specialist with a manawesome beard too?"

But since FFg follows the TT version of the races a bit more faithfully than what they think, I do not beleive Squats will be in the future.

They *may* be in Hammer of the Emperor, but that will be something that,ll surprise me greatly (and satisfy me as well, if only for colourful scenes they can be made)

Braddoc said:

That all depends on whether the Squat's comrade gets a Groom Beard action.

Squats simply will not appear in the books as anything playable - they are no longer supported as existing by GW and FFG has to get everything it publishes approved by GW lawyer type guys. Subtle references to the imperial guard fielding abhuman regiments in the past might be mentioned but don't expect stats and expansive fluff.

Braddoc said:

And there won't be Beastmen, considering the fluff in the 6th ed rulebook that they are explicitly restricted from being part of the tithe, and have pretty much zero rights.

The Forgemasters from the Laith Worlds Dark Heresy Suppliment are for all intents and purposes Squats, short muscly technology minded dwarfs (wih hammers!). So Fantasy Flight has already done squats!

Seeing how most people's rub with Ratlings is that bad roleplayers play them very cliche and uninterestingly, then the solution is less 'kill the most annoying cliches' and more 'find a better group.'

I've played with a few bad groups before, generally tollerable outside of a single individual who actively did annoying and suicidal things while the DM wasn't experienced enough to adapt or kick them out before they wrecked the game. However, the group I've been playing with for the past year or so actually understands that, in pen and paper, the story they create comes first. There's no actions of, "I charge Kobold 4 and attack him with my bastard sword. Roll to hit," nor are there any character archetypes that are played straight or wildly subverted, which makes our games both interesting and free of special snowflakes.

In short, it might be more prudent to examine whether it's the race associated with a stereotype that you don't like, or the players who play that stereotype to a T that you dislike.

Kasatka said:

Huh I heard they might be coming back in the next ed of the Table Top game (Would make sense since people still recall them foundly.) Anywho onto Ratlings, basically I am pretty cool with em as well as the Ogryn, they got there place in the game and have a few good hooks to em. Real problem is the Players, in my group we have a off an on again player who generally goes for Gnomes if that option is present. Now banning gnomes would not stop her for one simple reason….she knows the system and its break points, it does not matter what system it is she KNOWS IT BETTER THEN YOU. One of the many reasons we still let her play is that Despite being able to make the rules sit up, roll over, and beg, and despite generally being goofy and light hearted, she is a DAMN FINE role player, she places the groups fun ahead of her own, she is effective during play (if a little loopy in her thinking.) and, this is the important bit she made things FUN! So don't hate the charater race, hate the player.

The ratling in our party, doesn't like sniping, he's from a feral world and is a skilful hunter. He ambushes orks with his bolas and great weapon and ironically is better at killing orks than anyone else in our party (think an uber ewok and you wouldn't be far off). He uses mantraps too, and on occasion disguises as a gretchin to infiltrate ork encampments. Using deceive to lure them into traps and ambushes. He also has an obsession with collecting the ears of every greenskin he kills. The first time he snared an ork with a mantrap, he dropped from a tree and decapitated it in one blow our party was amazed (snares make targets helpless, helpless targets are hit automatically and you roll damage twice and add it together so 4d10+ with a great weapon). He's been a real asset to the party with his perception and survival skills, as well as cunningly using deceive to get the upper hand. When your 3ft tall you never fight fair. He's about as grim dark as you can get.

So I really think it comes down to your group of players.

Mushkilla said:

I just looked at the Snare rule and oh. my. glob. I want bolas. All the bolas.

Flail-Bot said:

Mantraps imobalise targets too, and has almost the same rule as snare word for word, with the exception that it mentions imobalised but not helpess, however the intent is clear considering that the mantrap rules are effectivelly snare(1). Bolas, and mantraps are what make the survival skill even more amazing than it already is. You can forage for food, wrangle animals, make shelter, track pray, and make low tech weapons and gear… So 1d5 hours to make a mantrap, another 1d5 hours to make a bolas, another 1d5 hours to make a great weapon and your a certified ork hunter.

The ratling in our squad likes to sneaks up on orks his axe in his left hand and his bolas in the right, throws the bolas point blank, snares the ork and then grips his axe in two hands (great weapon) and makes heads roll. Three foot of pure killing machine. :)

An excerpt from my House Rules for Only War:

"I despise Halflings and Hobbits. Same goes for Nelwin. Always have. To be clear, however, I have no problem with Dwarfism or Primordial Dwarfism. However, in 40K, Ratlings are just Hobbits in space, and I despise them, too. Call me a racist, but when it comes to this particular ab-Human my hackles come up.

First, the designation of "Ratling" is both their racial name and their Specialty; that is racist. Second, but more to the point, "Ratling" is now an affectionate Imperial Guard colloquialism that means "Squad-Dedicated Recon", or SDR.

Nobody will be calling anybody a "peck", and there will be no Master-Blaster.
All SDR are Human."

I can't say I'm entirely opposed to the idea of allowing someone to play a (legitimate) Ratling, but it is my game, and I much prefer to not.