WhiteDog wrote: It's basically a rock in your opponent's shoes. He will always wonder how to efficiently remove those 4 points each phase. Some armies won't be able to deal with him at all if they are too specialized (CC armies in particular). If your opponent has any beatstick you can just glue them in place with a unit that cannot lose more than 4 wounds a battle phase. People have been talking before about CSMCC powerhouse being effectively better (in terms of mobility, flexibility, etc.) than Ghaz for less and all that is true. But none of them can win a fight against Ghaz at all : that is not a useless fact from a strategical standpoint.
I'm not saying this is sufficient to make him into a satisfying unit - as said before the fact that he has no synergy with other units is ridiculous (even with himself considering his aura does not apply to him ...). But he is far from bad.
Since you seem to be genuinely interested in this, my personal analysis of Thrakka in more detail: I agree with you that a 4 wound cap would be very valuable on a high threat unit. Dealing 4 damage can happen really quickly if a high AP weapon rolls well, but might take long if you have to rely on rank&file guns. Having something like an executioner or doomsday ark shoot at him and lose lots of damage to overkill is a big win, too. His value against an army unable to deal damage through shooting can pretty much be ignored - orks bring along a minimum of 60+ expendable troops models, which can just act as a wall against any assault strategy while you shoot them off the board. He doesn't really help our own assault strategies either, most other assault armies are faster than orks and thus usually get the charge on them - meaning they strike first and kill boyz in droves, not only denying the extra attack from his Waaagh!, but also reducing the value of the goff kulture trait his new re-roll aura. If you are running Goff and Thrakka already, Makari is actually a great addition, but that's a pair of huge "if"s. Also note that despite having Makari, you still need a goff pain boy for the squig combo. Thrakka, the goff culture, skarboyz and the waaagh! banner are all solutions to a problem orks don't have: hitting hard enough in combat.
The reason why a daemon prince is a melee powerhouse is not because he can hit hard, has many attacks or can cast powers. The one reason why he is a powerhouse is because he is a character and simply cannot be shot. The other, more important one, is that he moves 12" and can FLY. When was the last time you have seen a daemon prince or hive tyrant without wings? A warboss without a bike? A smash captain without jump pack? One of the truths of 8th edition is that there is one condition every assault unit fulfill, and that is being able to get into combat with a valuable target without dying first. Every unit which doesn't fulfill this condition is automatically doomed to be inefficient, as it cannot possibly return its investment because it either dies halfway there, or gets stuck in combat with a unit it either spends killing multiple turns, gets fed cheap, expendable units or the enemy simply moves away from them. When you look at all the successful assault units in this edition, all of them either extremely fast (disco lords, swarmlord, shining spears, storm boyz) or have highly reliable deep strike charges (boyz, blood letters, centurions). Only very few exceptions rely on insane durability, like bullgryns or plague bearers - and I really don't think that "only 4 wounds per phase" fits into that category.
The new Ghazghkull Thrakka has two options to get into combat. One is moving up the board 7"+d6 turn one and then move another 7" - barely getting into your enemy's deployment zone with an average charge. Unless he is going for "board control", there is either nothing to charge, or something he wants you to charge. So, in order to find good target this way, you are looking at a turn 3 charge - plenty of time to kill him or whittle him down so he can be killed in in combat. The other options is tellyporting him in. A charge from deepstrike with 'ere we go has a chance of roughly 55% to succeed, which means that in half your games you have him sitting right in front of your opponent's army where they can try to kill, tarpit or kite him at will. So in the end, the question of what can win a fight against Thrakka is pretty irrelevant, as he is unable to pick his fights. There are units which can defeat him in combat, there are units which can tarpit him for multiple rounds of combat and there are plenty of units which just slow him down for a turn while he gets shot down. In this regard he also compares badly to many other options orks already have, because those can either join the Evil Suns clan and/or use the ramming speed stratagem for vastly improved odds of making their charges from deep strike, or are fast enough to just cross the board and charge in one turn.
Last, but not least, there is his gigantic point costs. Let's assume he did actually overcome all those hurdles - he still has some wounds left, he didn't get bogged down by chaff and managed to succeed his charge roll. He is now in the middle of some poor sod's Space Wolve army and then kills a unit for three turns in a row until he finally gets put down, the game ends or he is out of stuff to kill. He then still needs to kill 95 points per battleround to justify his point costs. Even if he manages to snag and destroy three eite infantry units, there is no guarantee that they cost that much. A warboss has almost made his points back the second he kills his first unit.
I agree with the assessment that points can be fixed, but without the ability to charge and advance, reliably charge from deep strikes, use transports or have some other way to cross the board faster, neither his costs nor his damage output really matter a whole lot.
I agree with everything you wrote, Ghaz needs something to make it into a top tier unit - advance and charge rules, or a change to his tag from monster to infantry (so that he can go into trukk / can be healed by painboyz). And that's fine. He still is not trash tier and his wouding rule makes him interesting in many ways.
Not Online!!! wrote: Honestly if Ghaz would've been W 9 then the tune would change allready alot.
Well yeah, then he wouldnt need the 4 damage a turn thing and this would all be moot
Lol he even could have that on top for all i'd care, he still is largely dead weight at his pricepoint, but instead of an anchor with a nose around your lists proverbial neck it's instead just a medium stone.
WhiteDog wrote: It's basically a rock in your opponent's shoes. He will always wonder how to efficiently remove those 4 points each phase. Some armies won't be able to deal with him at all if they are too specialized (CC armies in particular).
If your opponent has any beatstick you can just glue them in place with a unit that cannot lose more than 4 wounds a battle phase. People have been talking before about CSMCC powerhouse being effectively better (in terms of mobility, flexibility, etc.) than Ghaz for less and all that is true. But none of them can win a fight against Ghaz at all : that is not a useless fact from a strategical standpoint.
I'm not saying this is sufficient to make him into a satisfying unit - as said before the fact that he has no synergy with other units is ridiculous (even with himself considering his aura does not apply to him ...). But he is far from bad.
Since you seem to be genuinely interested in this, my personal analysis of Thrakka in more detail:
I agree with you that a 4 wound cap would be very valuable on a high threat unit. Dealing 4 damage can happen really quickly if a high AP weapon rolls well, but might take long if you have to rely on rank&file guns. Having something like an executioner or doomsday ark shoot at him and lose lots of damage to overkill is a big win, too.
His value against an army unable to deal damage through shooting can pretty much be ignored - orks bring along a minimum of 60+ expendable troops models, which can just act as a wall against any assault strategy while you shoot them off the board. He doesn't really help our own assault strategies either, most other assault armies are faster than orks and thus usually get the charge on them - meaning they strike first and kill boyz in droves, not only denying the extra attack from his Waaagh!, but also reducing the value of the goff kulture trait his new re-roll aura. If you are running Goff and Thrakka already, Makari is actually a great addition, but that's a pair of huge "if"s. Also note that despite having Makari, you still need a goff pain boy for the squig combo.
Thrakka, the goff culture, skarboyz and the waaagh! banner are all solutions to a problem orks don't have: hitting hard enough in combat.
The reason why a daemon prince is a melee powerhouse is not because he can hit hard, has many attacks or can cast powers. The one reason why he is a powerhouse is because he is a character and simply cannot be shot. The other, more important one, is that he moves 12" and can FLY. When was the last time you have seen a daemon prince or hive tyrant without wings? A warboss without a bike? A smash captain without jump pack?
One of the truths of 8th edition is that there is one condition every assault unit fulfill, and that is being able to get into combat with a valuable target without dying first. Every unit which doesn't fulfill this condition is automatically doomed to be inefficient, as it cannot possibly return its investment because it either dies halfway there, or gets stuck in combat with a unit it either spends killing multiple turns, gets fed cheap, expendable units or the enemy simply moves away from them.
When you look at all the successful assault units in this edition, all of them either extremely fast (disco lords, swarmlord, shining spears, storm boyz) or have highly reliable deep strike charges (boyz, blood letters, centurions).
Only very few exceptions rely on insane durability, like bullgryns or plague bearers - and I really don't think that "only 4 wounds per phase" fits into that category.
The new Ghazghkull Thrakka has two options to get into combat. One is moving up the board 7"+d6 turn one and then move another 7" - barely getting into your enemy's deployment zone with an average charge. Unless he is going for "board control", there is either nothing to charge, or something he wants you to charge. So, in order to find good target this way, you are looking at a turn 3 charge - plenty of time to kill him or whittle him down so he can be killed in in combat.
The other options is tellyporting him in. A charge from deepstrike with 'ere we go has a chance of roughly 55% to succeed, which means that in half your games you have him sitting right in front of your opponent's army where they can try to kill, tarpit or kite him at will.
So in the end, the question of what can win a fight against Thrakka is pretty irrelevant, as he is unable to pick his fights. There are units which can defeat him in combat, there are units which can tarpit him for multiple rounds of combat and there are plenty of units which just slow him down for a turn while he gets shot down.
In this regard he also compares badly to many other options orks already have, because those can either join the Evil Suns clan and/or use the ramming speed stratagem for vastly improved odds of making their charges from deep strike, or are fast enough to just cross the board and charge in one turn.
Last, but not least, there is his gigantic point costs. Let's assume he did actually overcome all those hurdles - he still has some wounds left, he didn't get bogged down by chaff and managed to succeed his charge roll. He is now in the middle of some poor sod's Space Wolve army and then kills a unit for three turns in a row until he finally gets put down, the game ends or he is out of stuff to kill. He then still needs to kill 95 points per battleround to justify his point costs. Even if he manages to snag and destroy three eite infantry units, there is no guarantee that they cost that much. A warboss has almost made his points back the second he kills his first unit.
I agree with the assessment that points can be fixed, but without the ability to charge and advance, reliably charge from deep strikes, use transports or have some other way to cross the board faster, neither his costs nor his damage output really matter a whole lot.
I agree with everything you wrote, Ghaz needs something to make it into a top tier unit - advance and charge rules, or a change to his tag from monster to infantry (so that he can go into trukk / can be healed by painboyz).
And that's fine. He still is not trash tier and his wouding rule makes him interesting in many ways.
He's trash because he's 300 points on top of his non-synergy.
Is fielding him in a mech list as a way drawing fire away from your other stuff the only potential use for him?
If your enemy has to waste half their AT to do 4 wounds on ghaz, maybe that’s enough to make him okay. He’d just need a Goff painboy to rub it in. Keep your buggies, Mek guns, dreads unhurt.
The only problem I see is that you might be able to ignore him because he’s not that hard to deal with if he reaches you undamaged anyway.
I dislike his "4 wounds max per phase" rule because its something that breaks the core of the game. If you can shoot something, you should be able to put it down, ghaz just ignores this. It reminds me of eliminators and their sniper shots that ignore line of sight. It just gets rid of the core concept that a sniper has to see something to shoot it, removing most counterplay (you can still hide the character in a transport but usually that means his special auras/psychic spells wont be used).
Hes a cool looking model that will sadly probably only be relegated to a count-as or to casual tables. Which isnt bad since many more people play with unoptimised lists than dakkadakka lets us think.
WhiteDog wrote: Who in their right mind will let Ghaz get stuck by a bunch of IG conscripts considering the tools the Ork army have to get rid of them ? This is silly.
I also think there's a lot of close-minded Ork baddies who haven't had a chance to play him, but it's a pretty casual playerbase for that army so this reaction doesn't surprise me. It's the same people who insist playtesting and experience aren't relevant every time, and have been wrong so many times in the past about stuff they were sure about.
Please do enlighten us 'close minded Ork baddies' on how you plan to make Ghaz' a good investment against an opponent that actively screens him out, runs from him if he gets into combat with his intended target(s) and makes no effort to kill him (so won't waste damage)?
Just playtest him already. It is fairly obvious that Ghaz has the potential to be a great tool, even if, as some suggested, he does not seem competitive as of yet due to his cost and his lack of synergy with the rest of the army.
Just imagine everything you can do with a unit that cannot lose more than 4 wounds a phase ...
That hasn't answered my question. Listen, I only play with painted models and Ghaz' deserves the best paint job i can muster. By the time I get to playtest him we'll probably be in an edition where he's decent. That ain't now though. Playtesting or not.
To give you some perspective - Ghaz' could have a rule where he is literally invulnerable too all damage all game and I still wouldn't take him. He is too slow, too ponderous and way too expensive to make good use of. His damage potential is reasonable (not good) if he gets to swing against his perfect targets. But he never will (unless your opponent is giving you the game, for some reason). Do you play Orks? You sound like you don't play Orks. Ghaz is a great trap for new/poor players. He has no place in competitive lists.
I write that Ghaz is not competitive but not bad, and you answer that I don't seem to play Ork because he's not competitive (PS: I don't play orks but I play against them).
The fact that you paint models slowly is of no interest to the discussion. Get back to the topic and respond to what is written.
I ask that you follow your own advice. Answer my question (bolded above). How is this competitive Ork player making Ghaz a good investment against an opponent that doesn't literally give him his ideal targets?
It's obvious you don't play Orks because you think Ghaz "is not bad". You have no idea, because you do not play the army and have no understanding of how it functions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aftersong wrote: well I meant makari being the shield for ghaz, but yeah forgot about the infantry requirement on grot shields.
You also seem to have forgotten that the grot model is SLAIN. There is no save made. No FNP. No invulnerable. Dead.
This is why these sorts of topics exist - people who have no idea what they are talking about attempting to discuss something with conviction. Let it go people. Ghaz is garbage. He will not be taken until he is changed.
I was typing on a phone and "you" takes fewer characters than "players suggesting taking mobs of bikes with Ghaz". I didn't mean to catch you in the crossfire given that you seem to have a correct take on the new Ork rules.
I guarantee you Ghaz becomes a feature of every ranked Orks list moving forward. He'll become an autotake in 2k games.
I just wanted to save this little quote for later because literally no ork player in the ork tactics section agrees with you in the slightest. We all think hes mediocre at best and basically stuck in friendly games only.
His impact on Tau didn't even occur to me. Huh. The idea of Ghaz parked in front of Tau castle smashing suits and drones like flies while they can basically do nothing to him other than 4 wounds per round is...never mind.
I change my mind. Ghaz is fine. Needs more wounds and attacks if anything.
You know overwatch is a thing right? Turn 1 Tau do 4 damage with ease to ghaz, turn 2 they do 4 more damage in the shooting phase, then in the charge phase they do 2-4 more wounds to him with relative ease, then guess what? in CC they need 1-2 more wounds and poof, dead ghaz. Plus, as mentioned, if you take ghaz and an infantry horde....thats like Tau players perfect enemy to play against. They would decimate the Ork player turn 1.
Within two months(of his model release not sure if this has happened yet or not) we will start seeing competitive lists featuring him and winning. I'll sig bet you if you like. Whatever you want. That's assuming civilization is continuing.
Yeah I am taking that bet, but only in big tournaments. Winning a 30 person local tourney doesn't mean diddly squat.
Alright, anyway, I am playing in an escalation league (stupid coronavirus) and my army is currently up to 1250 points, Lets go over my current list and how easy it would be for me to kill Ghaz first turn. Assuming my opponent doesn't screen him with anything too hard to kill.
Turn 1: Ghaz walks up the board, My turn 1 I move my 3 Scrapjets into charge range, Next I either smite Ghaz or I smite his unit of infantry screening him. Then I unleash a broadside into his screening infantry from my 36 Big shoota shots on my scrapjets, Rokkitz and missiles go elsewhere. My warlord who is a big mek with SSAG lights Ghaz up and easily plinks 4 wounds off him, my Mek Gunz either finish off the 4 wounds or help finish off the boyz Mob. Charge Phase (I have done 4 wounds in shooting and possibly up to D6 wounds in psychic) I pop ramming speed on one of my scrapjets and hit him with all 3 on a 2+ I do mortal wounds, then I have 3 4+s to do D3 more mortal wounds, in the charge phase. In CC phase my Scrapjets have 12 attacks hitting on 4s (6 hits) wounding on 3s (4 wounds) against a 4+ save either invuln or normal armor (-2 AP) so 2 go through, D3 damage each....and poof I just deleted Ghaz turn 1 with my army without that much effort. if I took a 2k army I would easily get a Smite off on him or possibly hit him with a Bomb in the movement phase. Point being, Ghaz is not competitive in the slightest, if my Escalation league army can kill him turn 1 with relative ease then SM's shouldn't have a hard time of it.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Yeah and if your anti-tank is say a Repulsor or two, you gotta overcommit or risk going under (which would be much worse).
So if your list is bad and only packs a single all or nothing source of anti-tank Ghaz is sort of okay... I'm seeing no issues here.
No, most armies over there are gonna run a pretty good chance of going over those 4 wounds every phase lol. You don’t just allocate a flat 4 wounds. It’s just a hidden advantage of Ghaz.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Yeah and if your anti-tank is say a Repulsor or two, you gotta overcommit or risk going under (which would be much worse).
So if your list is bad and only packs a single all or nothing source of anti-tank Ghaz is sort of okay... I'm seeing no issues here.
No, most armies over there are gonna run a pretty good chance of going over those 4 wounds every phase lol. You don’t just allocate a flat 4 wounds. It’s just a hidden advantage of Ghaz.
Overkill, while wasteful, will rarely lose you the game, unless it's REALLY excessive.
If you drop 48 wounds on Ghaz, then yeah, you're probably in a bad spot. But I'd wager a guess that it'd be rare to drop more than 8 wounds on Ghaz a phase-and generally, shouldn't be too difficult to land 4 or 5 exactly.
I’m not saying it’s some massive overlooked thing that’s gonna win you a ton of games. It is however, another cool thing about the unit.
One of the best Ork players I know of in the world says Ghaz has potential and is differently a wrecking ball in some matches, and a late game crusher in others. The best Ork player I’ve met irl currently wont call it as good or bad, and says playtesting is required for such a unit. This is what good players are saying, and it’s where I’m inclined to sit as well. However This site has a notoriously casual yet disproportionately vocal Ork player base who don’t exactly have a good track record with this sort thing. It’s the same people in these threads everytime. I respect the level heads and experience of people like Jidmah, but there’s others who are WAY to sure of something that hasn’t actually hit playtesting yet - not that I think their low level playtesting would really be the measure, but considering how famously wrong some of the louder voices in here have been in the past, you’d think there’d at least be some level of restraint before making these “indisputable” declarations and calling everyone stupid who disagrees.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I’m not saying it’s some massive overlooked thing that’s gonna win you a ton of games. It is however, another cool thing about the unit.
One of the best Ork players I know of in the world says Ghaz has potential and is differently a wrecking ball in some matches, and a late game crusher in others. The best Ork player I’ve met irl currently wont call it as good or bad, and says playtesting is required for such a unit. This is what good players are saying, and it’s where I’m inclined to sit as well. However This site has a notoriously casual yet disproportionately vocal Ork player base who don’t exactly have a good track record with this sort thing. It’s the same people in these threads everytime. I respect the level heads and experience of people like Jidmah, but there’s others who are WAY to sure of something that hasn’t actually hit playtesting yet - not that I think their low level playtesting would really be the measure, but considering how famously wrong some of the louder voices in here have been in the past, you’d think there’d at least be some level of restraint before making these “indisputable” declarations and calling everyone stupid who disagrees.
Ah yes, I know someone who works at Nintendo and also happens to be the best Ork player ever too! Who is this mysterious Ork player you mention? Care to drop any names because otherwise your statement has 0 credibility.
Weird huh, that competitive Ork players seem to agree with all these 'notoriously casual but disproportionately vocal Ork playerbase'?
Now can you stop insulting an entire community with your inane and wrong claims. Ghaz is poor as he currently stands. A 'cool' (envious) ability does not change that.
Ghaz is very good at smashing characters and vehicles. That's about it, as his aura is basically goff locked. The only people that will take Ghaz in competitive lists are those that are trying to prove a point. What you will see is 'Ghaz Jr', being a warboss with the Killa Klaw and the new big boss stratagem. About as effective as mulching things as Ghaz is, for a third of the cost and untargetable.
Ghaz is good at what he does, but point for point (what this have ultimately boils down to) he's awful.
Nice! You link my buddy's site that I've helped write articles for as proof why I'm wrong! I gotta have a chuckle at that. But genuinely, thanks for promoting it, I haven't been able to be so active lately but GDFC really are those guys, they are really working hard to bring quality content with a fresher, more grounded take on the meta that isn't being influenced by any sort of promotional entities, and have shared some really great perspectives on the community and game as a whole that I wish some other places were brave enough to delve into.
I'm most definitely not insulting an entire community. There's nothing wrong with being casual, and thats not the entire community. Anyway, I'm not acquainted with Dustin but I respect his opinions, and I also respect the capability for two players to disagree on something... just like top players do with each other all the time. Have you ever listened to any of competitive players discuss the game on a podcast or in real life, like, ever, haha? There is rarely a universal opinion on anything, and there definitely isn't one for Ghaz yet. And just like my own opinions, putting them in article does not make them indisputable fact, and you are always open to disagree. Especially when it's first takes on leaked rules that haven't been playtested yet. I don't think these early takes on fresh new rules from people passionate about the game, are the uncheckable source you think they are. You have your opinions I have mine. But the article you linked doesn't even mirror your own opinion, he spoke to the good and the bad and made an early prediction, but most definitely did not claim his statements are the gospel. I'll try get in contact with him tonight and speak to him personally on the topic
The main issue is that Ghaz has no special requirements to kill him.
The average TAC list covers all bases fairly well, so dropping 4 wounds on him per turn/phase really isn’t difficult.
He has his uses, sure, but to make the most out of him you have to build around him.
This is great, but you are then hampering yourself even more as you are literally throwing points away to get use out of an over costed model.
If he were dropped in points or given a boost then sure, he wouldn’t be bad.
The only scenarios I’ve seen people give that have him on top are when people use ideal situations or against armies that are really struggling at the moment anyway.
In either case, a biker boss still works out better.
In terms of wound locks, AoS has this anyway.
Morathi has 12 wounds, locked to 3 per turn (not phase)
She also has instant death shooting, magic, high movement and solid combat.
She’s also over priced and barely ever used.
People really are over thinking and overestimating his survival.
Just saying “well once he’s in combat” is moot as he has to get there first.
He’s slow, if he’s in a transport that will take target priority.
If he’s teleported he’s in front of an entire army alone.
Also, the whole point of “well Ghaz also has an army with him” doesn’t go far either.
The other player also has an entire army and it doesn’t take that entire army to kill Ghaz, so sending in bikers etc assuming they will wipe everything without being shot off the board just won’t happen.
Any player at a tournament should know how to prioritise targets based on the turn and what’s needed.
If Ghaz is sat back and you send in a wave of bikes, those bikes will be melted first.
They also lack the ability to remove decent screens unless you throw in a biker boss.
At that point, you already have something better than Ghaz anyway for less points that does more.
Can we like... Close this thread now? That Roberts guy obviously has no clue about the meta and his claims are just ridiculous. Usually stuff like this is funny but that guy ist just infuriating.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Nice! You link my buddy's site that I've helped write articles for as proof why I'm wrong! I gotta have a chuckle at that. But genuinely, thanks for promoting it, I haven't been able to be so active lately but GDFC really are those guys, they are really working hard to bring quality content with a fresher, more grounded take on the meta that isn't being influenced by any sort of promotional entities, and have shared some really great perspectives on the community and game as a whole that I wish some other places were brave enough to delve into.
I'm most definitely not insulting an entire community. There's nothing wrong with being casual, and thats not the entire community. Anyway, I'm not acquainted with Dustin but I respect his opinions, and I also respect the capability for two players to disagree on something... just like top players do with each other all the time. Have you ever listened to any of competitive players discuss the game on a podcast or in real life, like, ever, haha? There is rarely a universal opinion on anything, and there definitely isn't one for Ghaz yet. And just like my own opinions, putting them in article does not make them indisputable fact, and you are always open to disagree. Especially when it's first takes on leaked rules that haven't been playtested yet. I don't think these early takes on fresh new rules from people passionate about the game, are the uncheckable source you think they are. You have your opinions I have mine. But the article you linked doesn't even mirror your own opinion, he spoke to the good and the bad and made an early prediction, but most definitely did not claim his statements are the gospel. I'll try get in contact with him tonight and speak to him personally on the topic
You are far too level headed and considered in your approach, that won't fly here where common sense is not considered an optimum attribute.
Genuinely amazing that people aren't willing to allow play testing to form a genuine conclusion. I mean, I'm pretty sure I did not read about or witness a leviathan dread in an Iron Hands list being suped up to the nines for months after the release of the supplement.
Now I'm not suggesting Ghaz has some convoluted power gaming synergy options like a leviathan had(s) in an IH list, but lets wait and see first before dismissing the rules completely outright, as like I said before, none of the people on here or in most other areas I read and review perceived that truly game breaking combo in the IH list, people just need to accept you cannot rule something out until you have exhausted all the possibilities.
What I do find interesting about Ghaz and where he has potential is most likely outside the ITC rule set. GW missions where there are central objectives to capture or more mid line objectives. Your opponent is going to have to move towards it at some point, and any way you can reduce the amount of movement Ghaz needs to make to reach the enemy will be a benefit to the model, especially if it's later game where a lot of the more killy units in the opponents army has been taken care of (or you'd hope so anyway).
What testing needs to be done? For 300 points you can get more Warbosses that are more likely to survive till T3 thanks to Character Protection rules, AND you'll have an easier time filling HQ slots.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Nice! You link my buddy's site that I've helped write articles for as proof why I'm wrong! I gotta have a chuckle at that. But genuinely, thanks for promoting it, I haven't been able to be so active lately but GDFC really are those guys, they are really working hard to bring quality content with a fresher, more grounded take on the meta that isn't being influenced by any sort of promotional entities, and have shared some really great perspectives on the community and game as a whole that I wish some other places were brave enough to delve into.
I'm most definitely not insulting an entire community. There's nothing wrong with being casual, and thats not the entire community. Anyway, I'm not acquainted with Dustin but I respect his opinions, and I also respect the capability for two players to disagree on something... just like top players do with each other all the time. Have you ever listened to any of competitive players discuss the game on a podcast or in real life, like, ever, haha? There is rarely a universal opinion on anything, and there definitely isn't one for Ghaz yet. And just like my own opinions, putting them in article does not make them indisputable fact, and you are always open to disagree. Especially when it's first takes on leaked rules that haven't been playtested yet. I don't think these early takes on fresh new rules from people passionate about the game, are the uncheckable source you think they are. You have your opinions I have mine. But the article you linked doesn't even mirror your own opinion, he spoke to the good and the bad and made an early prediction, but most definitely did not claim his statements are the gospel. I'll try get in contact with him tonight and speak to him personally on the topic
You are far too level headed and considered in your approach, that won't fly here where common sense is not considered an optimum attribute.
Genuinely amazing that people aren't willing to allow play testing to form a genuine conclusion. I mean, I'm pretty sure I did not read about or witness a leviathan dread in an Iron Hands list being suped up to the nines for months after the release of the supplement.
Now I'm not suggesting Ghaz has some convoluted power gaming synergy options like a leviathan had(s) in an IH list, but lets wait and see first before dismissing the rules completely outright, as like I said before, none of the people on here or in most other areas I read and review perceived that truly game breaking combo in the IH list, people just need to accept you cannot rule something out until you have exhausted all the possibilities.
What I do find interesting about Ghaz and where he has potential is most likely outside the ITC rule set. GW missions where there are central objectives to capture or more mid line objectives. Your opponent is going to have to move towards it at some point, and any way you can reduce the amount of movement Ghaz needs to make to reach the enemy will be a benefit to the model, especially if it's later game where a lot of the more killy units in the opponents army has been taken care of (or you'd hope so anyway).
We know how his basic stat line does at his cost though and the things we can and can't do with him.
Lammia wrote: We know how his basic stat line does at his cost though and the things we can and can't do with him.
This.
Thrakka is a thing that hits hard and moves 7". Which is no different from the hard hitting thing that moves 6" (deff dread) or the hard hitting thing that moves 8"(gorkanaut), the hard hitting thing which moves 10"(bonebreaka), or the hard hitting thing which moves 14" (biker warboss).
We have abundant experience how to make these work if we really want to and what their weaknesses are.
The only unknown quantity is his max 4 wounds rule, but that doesn't really make any of the problems go away that we know he will have - from the experience of playing those units listed above for multiple years.
If you have four rocks rolling downhill, you don't need to wait and see whether the fifth rock rolls uphill.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Nice! You link my buddy's site that I've helped write articles for as proof why I'm wrong! I gotta have a chuckle at that. But genuinely, thanks for promoting it, I haven't been able to be so active lately but GDFC really are those guys, they are really working hard to bring quality content with a fresher, more grounded take on the meta that isn't being influenced by any sort of promotional entities, and have shared some really great perspectives on the community and game as a whole that I wish some other places were brave enough to delve into.
I'm most definitely not insulting an entire community. There's nothing wrong with being casual, and thats not the entire community. Anyway, I'm not acquainted with Dustin but I respect his opinions, and I also respect the capability for two players to disagree on something... just like top players do with each other all the time. Have you ever listened to any of competitive players discuss the game on a podcast or in real life, like, ever, haha? There is rarely a universal opinion on anything, and there definitely isn't one for Ghaz yet. And just like my own opinions, putting them in article does not make them indisputable fact, and you are always open to disagree. Especially when it's first takes on leaked rules that haven't been playtested yet. I don't think these early takes on fresh new rules from people passionate about the game, are the uncheckable source you think they are. You have your opinions I have mine. But the article you linked doesn't even mirror your own opinion, he spoke to the good and the bad and made an early prediction, but most definitely did not claim his statements are the gospel. I'll try get in contact with him tonight and speak to him personally on the topic
Listen this is the best post I've seen you make in this thread and I'll give you the same courtesy you've shown me in a considered and intelligent response.
I don't believe I'm some authority on the subject and I don't believe my opinions are gospel. When I say something with conviction I don't mean to imply it is fact. I do think some of the things I've disregarded or claimed are facts though - currently Ghaz' cannot advance and charge through any means. This is a fact. He cannot be jumped or benefit from the painboy aura. Another fact. He cannot benefit from Grot Shields etc. There's plenty of people - intelligent people - who have made all sorts of rules mistakes about Ghaz' (such as those above) because they think they know his statline and rules. Those same people are often claiming he's 'OP'.
I believe Ghaz' is a trap. I don't think he's worth anywhere near the points he currently costs. I would love and hope to be wrong on this because I am getting the model and I want to put it on the table without nerfing myself. The problem I see with Ghaz', as an Ork player, is that he just won't make his points back unless your opponent makes a mistake. I don't think his durability is particularly difficult to overcome to do those 4 wounds a phase and in all honesty I think the wounds lock actually helps your opponent - once they have done 4 wounds they know they can ignore him for the remainder of the phase. Realistically this only saves Ghaz' in combat, but his odds of getting there whether Tellyporta'd or walking aren't that high IMO.
The easiest way to consider this is simply imagine if you'd take him in your army, forgetting army restrictions for a second. Would you really get that much value out of this near 300 pts model?
Again I hope I'm wrong. I'd love for some genius to work out a way to play him without gimping themselves. I have thought about a Goff detachment with Makari and maybe a Painboy myself but it just becomes soo expensive. Either way, we won't know until the circuit picks up again which is at least 2 months away so no point going round in circles here. Hopefully that makes more sense?
Nitro Zeus wrote: Nice! You link my buddy's site that I've helped write articles for as proof why I'm wrong! I gotta have a chuckle at that. But genuinely, thanks for promoting it, I haven't been able to be so active lately but GDFC really are those guys, they are really working hard to bring quality content with a fresher, more grounded take on the meta that isn't being influenced by any sort of promotional entities, and have shared some really great perspectives on the community and game as a whole that I wish some other places were brave enough to delve into.
I'm most definitely not insulting an entire community. There's nothing wrong with being casual, and thats not the entire community. Anyway, I'm not acquainted with Dustin but I respect his opinions, and I also respect the capability for two players to disagree on something... just like top players do with each other all the time. Have you ever listened to any of competitive players discuss the game on a podcast or in real life, like, ever, haha? There is rarely a universal opinion on anything, and there definitely isn't one for Ghaz yet. And just like my own opinions, putting them in article does not make them indisputable fact, and you are always open to disagree. Especially when it's first takes on leaked rules that haven't been playtested yet. I don't think these early takes on fresh new rules from people passionate about the game, are the uncheckable source you think they are. You have your opinions I have mine. But the article you linked doesn't even mirror your own opinion, he spoke to the good and the bad and made an early prediction, but most definitely did not claim his statements are the gospel. I'll try get in contact with him tonight and speak to him personally on the topic
Listen this is the best post I've seen you make in this thread and I'll give you the same courtesy you've shown me in a considered and intelligent response.
I don't believe I'm some authority on the subject and I don't believe my opinions are gospel. When I say something with conviction I don't mean to imply it is fact. I do think some of the things I've disregarded or claimed are facts though - currently Ghaz' cannot advance and charge through any means. This is a fact. He cannot be jumped or benefit from the painboy aura. Another fact. He cannot benefit from Grot Shields etc. There's plenty of people - intelligent people - who have made all sorts of rules mistakes about Ghaz' (such as those above) because they think they know his statline and rules. Those same people are often claiming he's 'OP'.
I believe Ghaz' is a trap. I don't think he's worth anywhere near the points he currently costs. I would love and hope to be wrong on this because I am getting the model and I want to put it on the table without nerfing myself. The problem I see with Ghaz', as an Ork player, is that he just won't make his points back unless your opponent makes a mistake. I don't think his durability is particularly difficult to overcome to do those 4 wounds a phase and in all honesty I think the wounds lock actually helps your opponent - once they have done 4 wounds they know they can ignore him for the remainder of the phase. Realistically this only saves Ghaz' in combat, but his odds of getting there whether Tellyporta'd or walking aren't that high IMO.
The easiest way to consider this is simply imagine if you'd take him in your army, forgetting army restrictions for a second. Would you really get that much value out of this near 300 pts model?
Again I hope I'm wrong. I'd love for some genius to work out a way to play him without gimping themselves. I have thought about a Goff detachment with Makari and maybe a Painboy myself but it just becomes soo expensive. Either way, we won't know until the circuit picks up again which is at least 2 months away so no point going round in circles here. Hopefully that makes more sense?
I didn't realise he was the full 285 till just now. I'll admit that's a bit on the steep side. I was thinking 250 or under for some reason, but yeah he's probably about 50 or so too much. I don't think he's the worst thing you could take in the dex, but yeah I'm gonna say it too - he's probably just not doing it for that price. 235 he'd be lit.
This thread has been kind of hilarious to follow. In some ways, it kind of parallels the disconnect between GW rules writers, and the competitive player base at large, which has also been interesting.
Like most have said - he's way too expensive. Even more so when you consider how many more points Makari adds (he's not worth it either sadly). I initially DID think how difficult Ghaz might be for Tau to handle, but then I remembered how damn SLOW he is. They can largely ignore him.
Ever since their codex came out, my primary has been Death Guard, and Ghaz has all the same issues as a Lord of Contagion, but at a significantly higher cost. I call it "Mutilator Syndrome". GW has a habit of making units that are potentially strong in melee, and then making sure they have almost ZERO reliable ways of getting there.
As far as his 4 wounds per phase - I don't necessarily know if it's BAD game design, but it does feel like lazy game design. Like someone else said, it feels like they did that solely to help combat the fact that he can be targeted, but I don't know how much it actually helps ...
For my own Orks (a secondary army since second ed.), I'll take a Big Boss all day every day!
Nitro Zeus wrote: Nice! You link my buddy's site that I've helped write articles for as proof why I'm wrong! I gotta have a chuckle at that. But genuinely, thanks for promoting it, I haven't been able to be so active lately but GDFC really are those guys, they are really working hard to bring quality content with a fresher, more grounded take on the meta that isn't being influenced by any sort of promotional entities, and have shared some really great perspectives on the community and game as a whole that I wish some other places were brave enough to delve into.
I'm most definitely not insulting an entire community. There's nothing wrong with being casual, and thats not the entire community. Anyway, I'm not acquainted with Dustin but I respect his opinions, and I also respect the capability for two players to disagree on something... just like top players do with each other all the time. Have you ever listened to any of competitive players discuss the game on a podcast or in real life, like, ever, haha? There is rarely a universal opinion on anything, and there definitely isn't one for Ghaz yet. And just like my own opinions, putting them in article does not make them indisputable fact, and you are always open to disagree. Especially when it's first takes on leaked rules that haven't been playtested yet. I don't think these early takes on fresh new rules from people passionate about the game, are the uncheckable source you think they are. You have your opinions I have mine. But the article you linked doesn't even mirror your own opinion, he spoke to the good and the bad and made an early prediction, but most definitely did not claim his statements are the gospel. I'll try get in contact with him tonight and speak to him personally on the topic
Listen this is the best post I've seen you make in this thread and I'll give you the same courtesy you've shown me in a considered and intelligent response.
I don't believe I'm some authority on the subject and I don't believe my opinions are gospel. When I say something with conviction I don't mean to imply it is fact. I do think some of the things I've disregarded or claimed are facts though - currently Ghaz' cannot advance and charge through any means. This is a fact. He cannot be jumped or benefit from the painboy aura. Another fact. He cannot benefit from Grot Shields etc. There's plenty of people - intelligent people - who have made all sorts of rules mistakes about Ghaz' (such as those above) because they think they know his statline and rules. Those same people are often claiming he's 'OP'.
I believe Ghaz' is a trap. I don't think he's worth anywhere near the points he currently costs. I would love and hope to be wrong on this because I am getting the model and I want to put it on the table without nerfing myself. The problem I see with Ghaz', as an Ork player, is that he just won't make his points back unless your opponent makes a mistake. I don't think his durability is particularly difficult to overcome to do those 4 wounds a phase and in all honesty I think the wounds lock actually helps your opponent - once they have done 4 wounds they know they can ignore him for the remainder of the phase. Realistically this only saves Ghaz' in combat, but his odds of getting there whether Tellyporta'd or walking aren't that high IMO.
The easiest way to consider this is simply imagine if you'd take him in your army, forgetting army restrictions for a second. Would you really get that much value out of this near 300 pts model?
Again I hope I'm wrong. I'd love for some genius to work out a way to play him without gimping themselves. I have thought about a Goff detachment with Makari and maybe a Painboy myself but it just becomes soo expensive. Either way, we won't know until the circuit picks up again which is at least 2 months away so no point going round in circles here. Hopefully that makes more sense?
I didn't realise he was the full 285 till just now. I'll admit that's a bit on the steep side. I was thinking 250 or under for some reason, but yeah he's probably about 50 or so too much. I don't think he's the worst thing you could take in the dex, but yeah I'm gonna say it too - he's probably just not doing it for that price. 235 he'd be lit.
You realize when people were saying he was 300 points, they were only exaggerating by 15 right?
Honestly, at 200pts it would be a stretch to take him, 2 Warbosses for 160pts and 40pts left over for other stuff still sounds better then a Ghaz model.
Nitro Zeus wrote: Nice! You link my buddy's site that I've helped write articles for as proof why I'm wrong! I gotta have a chuckle at that. But genuinely, thanks for promoting it, I haven't been able to be so active lately but GDFC really are those guys, they are really working hard to bring quality content with a fresher, more grounded take on the meta that isn't being influenced by any sort of promotional entities, and have shared some really great perspectives on the community and game as a whole that I wish some other places were brave enough to delve into.
I'm most definitely not insulting an entire community. There's nothing wrong with being casual, and thats not the entire community. Anyway, I'm not acquainted with Dustin but I respect his opinions, and I also respect the capability for two players to disagree on something... just like top players do with each other all the time. Have you ever listened to any of competitive players discuss the game on a podcast or in real life, like, ever, haha? There is rarely a universal opinion on anything, and there definitely isn't one for Ghaz yet. And just like my own opinions, putting them in article does not make them indisputable fact, and you are always open to disagree. Especially when it's first takes on leaked rules that haven't been playtested yet. I don't think these early takes on fresh new rules from people passionate about the game, are the uncheckable source you think they are. You have your opinions I have mine. But the article you linked doesn't even mirror your own opinion, he spoke to the good and the bad and made an early prediction, but most definitely did not claim his statements are the gospel. I'll try get in contact with him tonight and speak to him personally on the topic
Listen this is the best post I've seen you make in this thread and I'll give you the same courtesy you've shown me in a considered and intelligent response.
I don't believe I'm some authority on the subject and I don't believe my opinions are gospel. When I say something with conviction I don't mean to imply it is fact. I do think some of the things I've disregarded or claimed are facts though - currently Ghaz' cannot advance and charge through any means. This is a fact. He cannot be jumped or benefit from the painboy aura. Another fact. He cannot benefit from Grot Shields etc. There's plenty of people - intelligent people - who have made all sorts of rules mistakes about Ghaz' (such as those above) because they think they know his statline and rules. Those same people are often claiming he's 'OP'.
I believe Ghaz' is a trap. I don't think he's worth anywhere near the points he currently costs. I would love and hope to be wrong on this because I am getting the model and I want to put it on the table without nerfing myself. The problem I see with Ghaz', as an Ork player, is that he just won't make his points back unless your opponent makes a mistake. I don't think his durability is particularly difficult to overcome to do those 4 wounds a phase and in all honesty I think the wounds lock actually helps your opponent - once they have done 4 wounds they know they can ignore him for the remainder of the phase. Realistically this only saves Ghaz' in combat, but his odds of getting there whether Tellyporta'd or walking aren't that high IMO.
The easiest way to consider this is simply imagine if you'd take him in your army, forgetting army restrictions for a second. Would you really get that much value out of this near 300 pts model?
Again I hope I'm wrong. I'd love for some genius to work out a way to play him without gimping themselves. I have thought about a Goff detachment with Makari and maybe a Painboy myself but it just becomes soo expensive. Either way, we won't know until the circuit picks up again which is at least 2 months away so no point going round in circles here. Hopefully that makes more sense?
I didn't realise he was the full 285 till just now. I'll admit that's a bit on the steep side. I was thinking 250 or under for some reason, but yeah he's probably about 50 or so too much. I don't think he's the worst thing you could take in the dex, but yeah I'm gonna say it too - he's probably just not doing it for that price. 235 he'd be lit.
You realize when people were saying he was 300 points, they were only exaggerating by 15 right?
I realise that now I'll hold the L on this one. Still not saying my opinion is gospel of course and I'm open to counter arguments, but my opinion is now that you guys are right, and that 285 is indeed just a bit too high for what he can offer.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I also think there's a lot of close-minded Ork baddies who haven't had a chance to play him, but it's a pretty casual playerbase for that army so this reaction doesn't surprise me. It's the same people who insist playtesting and experience aren't relevant every time, and have been wrong so many times in the past about stuff they were sure about.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I’m not saying it’s some massive overlooked thing that’s gonna win you a ton of games. It is however, another cool thing about the unit.
One of the best Ork players I know of in the world says Ghaz has potential and is differently a wrecking ball in some matches, and a late game crusher in others. The best Ork player I’ve met irl currently wont call it as good or bad, and says playtesting is required for such a unit. This is what good players are saying, and it’s where I’m inclined to sit as well. However This site has a notoriously casual yet disproportionately vocal Ork player base who don’t exactly have a good track record with this sort thing. It’s the same people in these threads everytime. I respect the level heads and experience of people like Jidmah, but there’s others who are WAY to sure of something that hasn’t actually hit playtesting yet - not that I think their low level playtesting would really be the measure, but considering how famously wrong some of the louder voices in here have been in the past, you’d think there’d at least be some level of restraint before making these “indisputable” declarations and calling everyone stupid who disagrees.
Between those two posts nine separate posters have referred to his point costs in 11 separate posts, not counting quotes. Berating people on how casual they are without even reading half the posts or bothering to check the topic at hand? Grand sport.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I also think there's a lot of close-minded Ork baddies who haven't had a chance to play him, but it's a pretty casual playerbase for that army so this reaction doesn't surprise me. It's the same people who insist playtesting and experience aren't relevant every time, and have been wrong so many times in the past about stuff they were sure about.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I’m not saying it’s some massive overlooked thing that’s gonna win you a ton of games. It is however, another cool thing about the unit.
One of the best Ork players I know of in the world says Ghaz has potential and is differently a wrecking ball in some matches, and a late game crusher in others. The best Ork player I’ve met irl currently wont call it as good or bad, and says playtesting is required for such a unit. This is what good players are saying, and it’s where I’m inclined to sit as well. However This site has a notoriously casual yet disproportionately vocal Ork player base who don’t exactly have a good track record with this sort thing. It’s the same people in these threads everytime. I respect the level heads and experience of people like Jidmah, but there’s others who are WAY to sure of something that hasn’t actually hit playtesting yet - not that I think their low level playtesting would really be the measure, but considering how famously wrong some of the louder voices in here have been in the past, you’d think there’d at least be some level of restraint before making these “indisputable” declarations and calling everyone stupid who disagrees.
Between those two posts nine separate posters have referred to his point costs in 11 separate posts, not counting quotes. Berating people on how casual they are without even reading half the posts or bothering to check the topic at hand? Grand sport.
Berating? You guys are way too extra. Yeah I didn't read through all 11 pages of this genius-tier thread, and when I see dakka posters post some gak like that I assume exaggeration, because, well, dakka. If anyone is berating at this point it's you, I was big enough to admit my mistaken understanding of the points, I agreed you guys were in the right, and said I'll hold the L on this one - what exactly are you berating me about now?
Yeah, that article assumes the following:
1) Ghaz has a 100% charge success rate.
2) your opponent is either gonna charge him with the stuff he *wants* to fight, or will not screen those things.
3) he doesn't take any damage at all until he meets those targets.
flandarz wrote: Yeah, that article assumes the following:
1) Ghaz has a 100% charge success rate.
2) your opponent is either gonna charge him with the stuff he *wants* to fight, or will not screen those things.
3) he doesn't take any damage at all until he meets those targets.
They let all opponents charge ghaz and they had 1 shooting/psychic phase beforehand.
Point 3 is still valid as, again, it assumes both opponents are within charge range of each other from the start. So none of them were able to shoot Ghaz as he crossed a minimum of 12" of board. Point 1 being invalid is fair.
flandarz wrote: Yeah, that article assumes the following:
1) Ghaz has a 100% charge success rate.
2) your opponent is either gonna charge him with the stuff he *wants* to fight, or will not screen those things.
3) he doesn't take any damage at all until he meets those targets.
They let all opponents charge ghaz and they had 1 shooting/psychic phase beforehand.
So points 1 and 3 are wrong here.
Ghaz is a melee beatstick and not much else, he is great at killing enemy LoW and what not simply because he is limited to 4 dmg per fight phase. So while theoretically Ghaz can inflict 28 dmg a phase his opponent can only do 4. Yeah no kidding he wins one on ones. But on the tabletop he is going to be garbage because unless you spend 2 CP to tellyport him he is going to lose at hte minimum 4 wounds in turn 1 shooting phase, and depending on who goes first either 4 more in the 2nd shooting phase or 1-2 more in the overwatch phase (depending on armies of course, Tau might pull off 4 without much trouble). realistically he is going to be a for fun only choice.
Please read the following only as an inquiry of a non-ork player out of curiosity:
Would it help Ghaz if he had some rule similar to the Knights Titanic feet that would allow him to do 3x the number of attacks, but weaker ones? Regardless of his survivability it would at least allow him to remove hordes of 1W models swarming him.
Pyroalchi wrote: Please read the following only as an inquiry of a non-ork player out of curiosity:
Would it help Ghaz if he had some rule similar to the Knights Titanic feet that would allow him to do 3x the number of attacks, but weaker ones? Regardless of his survivability it would at least allow him to remove hordes of 1W models swarming him.
Pyroalchi wrote: Please read the following only as an inquiry of a non-ork player out of curiosity:
Would it help Ghaz if he had some rule similar to the Knights Titanic feet that would allow him to do 3x the number of attacks, but weaker ones? Regardless of his survivability it would at least allow him to remove hordes of 1W models swarming him.
Absolutely.
that way atleast he could deal with screens without beeing on his last legs.
I kinda just wish Ghaz was an exception to the rule and that after his damage is dealt the excess damage spilled over, the way mortal wounds do. I think that would be a nice way for him to deal with being bogged down and maybe not too over the top.
I just cannot understand the arguments that the anti Ghaz are spouting. Screening are a problem for Ghaz ? Why ? When he use tela-tepula ?
Screening are not a problem for Ghaz, as the Ork army have plenty of tools to get rid of those ... Come on, can we get a little bit serious.
His problem is that : he lacks mobility, as a monster he lacks synergy with the rest of the army, and his cost is a little too much. That's it. He does not need more melee efficiency ... He is already better than most in this specific area.
If you have to take an entirely separate 210 pt unit to deal with screens, then I'd say screens are an issue for Ghaz. And, if that unit gets nuked (and, really, how many armies can't kill off at least 1 Boy mob a turn?) then your ability to deal with screens for Ghaz is reduced.
In certain conditions Ghaz gonna do really well. (Like if facing a pure Custodian army). Hes pretty much useless against an army that can shoot and CC well. I wish he was just the ork version of Abaddon. For how crappy his BS is too he should ether cost way less or his gun should be upped to flat 2 damage.
WhiteDog wrote: I just cannot understand the arguments that the anti Ghaz are spouting. Screening are a problem for Ghaz ? Why ? When he use tela-tepula ?
Screening are not a problem for Ghaz, as the Ork army have plenty of tools to get rid of those ... Come on, can we get a little bit serious.
His problem is that : he lacks mobility, as a monster he lacks synergy with the rest of the army, and his cost is a little too much. That's it. He does not need more melee efficiency ... He is already better than most in this specific area.
Screens are a problem for Ghaz because for him to even think about getting into CC he has to tellyporta in which btw is 2CP. And every turn you shoot a backfield screen to death you are doing 2 things. 1: giving your opponent plenty of time to move models around and reposition screens and expensive units and 2: not shooting important things. On top of that even if you Tellyporta Strike him in he is useless for his buff aura's (already kind of was anyway) and leaving him completely and utterly exposed.
And as for his cost. It isn't a little to high, its completely absurd. He doesn't synergize AT ALL with the ork army and his buffs don't benefit anyone for the most part. All for the low low price of 285pts. I wouldn't take him at 200pts let alone 285. I'll be taking the new Warboss strat that gives a warboss basically Ghaz levels of power but at 80pts instead of 285 and he can be character protected and healed by painboyz, use grot shields and can be whatever Kulture I want.
There are certainly armies and units against whom Ghaz will excel. The main issue is that all of these are things which Orkz can already handle more efficiently with other units. Like SAGs, Smashas, Lootas, Flash Gitz, Dreadz, MANz, etc. His sole advantage is that he can only take 4 Wounds a Phase, and even that is easily mitigated. Even if you built a list that doesn't have the tools to kill him, you can fairly easily hide from him, or kite him around the board.
WhiteDog wrote: I just cannot understand the arguments that the anti Ghaz are spouting. Screening are a problem for Ghaz ? Why ? When he use tela-tepula ?
Even dropping 9" away he only has a 55% chance to reach melee with a charge. That isn't reliable enough to make him a good unit, so he's then stuck walking up the table to avoid a coinflip.
WhiteDog wrote: I just cannot understand the arguments that the anti Ghaz are spouting. Screening are a problem for Ghaz ? Why ? When he use tela-tepula ?
Even dropping 9" away he only has a 55% chance to reach melee with a charge. That isn't reliable enough to make him a good unit, so he's then stuck walking up the table to avoid a coinflip.
It's 48% chance is it not? You can't reroll a reroll and chances of making a 9" charge with Ere we go is 48%.
WhiteDog wrote: I just cannot understand the arguments that the anti Ghaz are spouting. Screening are a problem for Ghaz ? Why ? When he use tela-tepula ?
Even dropping 9" away he only has a 55% chance to reach melee with a charge. That isn't reliable enough to make him a good unit, so he's then stuck walking up the table to avoid a coinflip.
It's 48% chance is it not? You can't reroll a reroll and chances of making a 9" charge with Ere we go is 48%.
I'd heard quotes of 55% going around, but if it's 48% that's even less useful.
WhiteDog wrote: I just cannot understand the arguments that the anti Ghaz are spouting. Screening are a problem for Ghaz ? Why ? When he use tela-tepula ?
Even dropping 9" away he only has a 55% chance to reach melee with a charge. That isn't reliable enough to make him a good unit, so he's then stuck walking up the table to avoid a coinflip.
It's 48% chance is it not? You can't reroll a reroll and chances of making a 9" charge with Ere we go is 48%.
I'd heard quotes of 55% going around, but if it's 48% that's even less useful.
Indeed and apologies - my comment didn’t really add much of value to your assessment that I utterly agree with.
Xenomancers wrote: In certain conditions Ghaz gonna do really well. (Like if facing a pure Custodian army). Hes pretty much useless against an army that can shoot and CC well. I wish he was just the ork version of Abaddon. For how crappy his BS is too he should ether cost way less or his gun should be upped to flat 2 damage.
flandarz wrote: If you have to take an entirely separate 210 pt unit to deal with screens, then I'd say screens are an issue for Ghaz. And, if that unit gets nuked (and, really, how many armies can't kill off at least 1 Boy mob a turn?) then your ability to deal with screens for Ghaz is reduced.
I’m not saying Ghaz is good, but you already need to be trying to clear screens with Orks as is and that’s like your main game. I don’t think this is what’s holding him back I think it’s the cost.
flandarz wrote: If you have to take an entirely separate 210 pt unit to deal with screens, then I'd say screens are an issue for Ghaz. And, if that unit gets nuked (and, really, how many armies can't kill off at least 1 Boy mob a turn?) then your ability to deal with screens for Ghaz is reduced.
I’m not saying Ghaz is good, but you already need to be trying to clear screens with Orks as is and that’s like your main game. I don’t think this is what’s holding him back I think it’s the cost.
It's both? He's a giant beatstick that doesn't make its points back against most armies
I would be very interested to see a list with new Ghaz be competitive. I dont think it would happen but if it did, I dont see how 285 points of something else (boyz, mek gunz) in the same list wouldnt be better. Would LOVE to be proved wrong
It's definitely both. Even if they dropped him to 210 pts, he'd still cost as much as a full mob of Boyz, whereas we could field a Warboss with Brutal but Kunnin', Da Killa Klaw, and Da Biggest Boss and still have enough left over for 20 more Boyz. To become competitive on points alone, he'd need to be, at most, 50 pts more expensive than the standard Warboss. And even then you'd have to consider whether a Klaw Dread couldn't just handle the job better.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Let's be honest, most if not all of the hate towards the "Max 4 wounds per phase" rule is due to jealousy and not any real dislike for the rule itself.
Yep. No one can dislike a rule because it's a sloppy game mechanic. Always has to be envy.
I have yet to see a coherent reason as to why it is a 'sloppy game mechanic'. Ghaz would be paper without the rule. Is that what you want? A big, centrepiece model that dies immediately?
thats exactly what some people want.
despite all the complaints to the contrary some people WANT to be able to kill everything with a single turn alpha strike. it's why people judge many things on "IT'S CRAP IF IT CAN'T KILL A KNIGHT!"
An Actual Englishman wrote: Let's be honest, most if not all of the hate towards the "Max 4 wounds per phase" rule is due to jealousy and not any real dislike for the rule itself.
Yep. No one can dislike a rule because it's a sloppy game mechanic. Always has to be envy.
I have yet to see a coherent reason as to why it is a 'sloppy game mechanic'. Ghaz would be paper without the rule. Is that what you want? A big, centrepiece model that dies immediately?
thats exactly what some people want.
despite all the complaints to the contrary some people WANT to be able to kill everything with a single turn alpha strike. it's why people judge many things on "IT'S CRAP IF IT CAN'T KILL A KNIGHT!"
The problem is its become the expectation, and anything that costs nearly as much as a knight but isnt as durable isnt usually worth its points
An Actual Englishman wrote: Let's be honest, most if not all of the hate towards the "Max 4 wounds per phase" rule is due to jealousy and not any real dislike for the rule itself.
Yep. No one can dislike a rule because it's a sloppy game mechanic. Always has to be envy.
I have yet to see a coherent reason as to why it is a 'sloppy game mechanic'. Ghaz would be paper without the rule. Is that what you want? A big, centrepiece model that dies immediately?
thats exactly what some people want.
despite all the complaints to the contrary some people WANT to be able to kill everything with a single turn alpha strike. it's why people judge many things on "IT'S CRAP IF IT CAN'T KILL A KNIGHT!"
The problem is its become the expectation, and anything that costs nearly as much as a knight but isnt as durable isnt usually worth its points
yeah, I'd like to see more things have some special rules to ensure they get a turn on the table. nothing is worse then having a 200+ dollar model that you spent the last 3 months lovingly crafting and painting, die within 15 seconds of the games start
An Actual Englishman wrote: Let's be honest, most if not all of the hate towards the "Max 4 wounds per phase" rule is due to jealousy and not any real dislike for the rule itself.
Yep. No one can dislike a rule because it's a sloppy game mechanic. Always has to be envy.
I have yet to see a coherent reason as to why it is a 'sloppy game mechanic'. Ghaz would be paper without the rule. Is that what you want? A big, centrepiece model that dies immediately?
thats exactly what some people want.
despite all the complaints to the contrary some people WANT to be able to kill everything with a single turn alpha strike. it's why people judge many things on "IT'S CRAP IF IT CAN'T KILL A KNIGHT!"
The problem is its become the expectation, and anything that costs nearly as much as a knight but isnt as durable isnt usually worth its points
yeah, I'd like to see more things have some special rules to ensure they get a turn on the table. nothing is worse then having a 200+ dollar model that you spent the last 3 months lovingly crafting and painting, die within 15 seconds of the games start
Of course you also want this rule. As predicted.
No unique mechanics for xenos!
Which is fine, if those same models get an appropriate reduction in wounds and toughness to compensate.
Roberts84 wrote: OK, I'm not trying start an Ork hate festival here, but Ghaz is flat-out broken. I'm also reading his data from saga of the beast from Belle of lost souls, so if this has been redacted or something I apologize. Just going on the information I have.
Firstly, no unit in the game should ever have a cap on how many wounds they can take per phase. This literally breaks the system, because anything attacking him will have to gamble wasting firepower on him due to the very real--indeed, probable, outcome that they will waste wounds should they exceed that cap. This is compounded by the fact that because he's got a 4+ invuln and 12 wounds (Holy gak BTW) that enemies will have to sink lots of attacks into him. Add to this a 6+ FNP with a banner and it gets even more bananas. Oh--and he's fething T7 along for the bargain.
It gets worse the more you think about it. Grey knights do most of their wounds in the psychic phase, so they're out of luck against him. Blood Angels basically do all their work in the fight phase. No joy there. Raven Guard benefit from character targeting and the shooting phase in general. Not a big deal since he can only take 4 wounds in that phase, too.
You can extend this problem to basically every faction in the game. GW has made something that is ridiculously effective against literally every faction in the game. Moreover he gets X attacks with a -4 APD4 Melee weapon, and he's pretty much always going to make the charge. He will basically just death-chain around the board and be effectively unkillable. Oh--and morale fails made for orks around him mean far less than before given he has a special rule granting D3 mortal wounds.
Wow, you first posted here 23 days ago stating you're new to 40k, then proceeded immediatly to establish yourself as a typical "that guy" and now after not even a month you dare make predictions about the competitive meta and call everyone who doesnt agree with you delusional? Wow. The sooner you get banned from these forums the better. We already have enough of those guys here. Go and play the game a few dozen times before trying to lecture someone maybe.
Roberts84 wrote: OK, I'm not trying start an Ork hate festival here, but Ghaz is flat-out broken. I'm also reading his data from saga of the beast from Belle of lost souls, so if this has been redacted or something I apologize. Just going on the information I have.
Firstly, no unit in the game should ever have a cap on how many wounds they can take per phase. This literally breaks the system, because anything attacking him will have to gamble wasting firepower on him due to the very real--indeed, probable, outcome that they will waste wounds should they exceed that cap. This is compounded by the fact that because he's got a 4+ invuln and 12 wounds (Holy gak BTW) that enemies will have to sink lots of attacks into him. Add to this a 6+ FNP with a banner and it gets even more bananas. Oh--and he's fething T7 along for the bargain.
It gets worse the more you think about it. Grey knights do most of their wounds in the psychic phase, so they're out of luck against him. Blood Angels basically do all their work in the fight phase. No joy there. Raven Guard benefit from character targeting and the shooting phase in general. Not a big deal since he can only take 4 wounds in that phase, too.
You can extend this problem to basically every faction in the game. GW has made something that is ridiculously effective against literally every faction in the game. Moreover he gets X attacks with a -4 APD4 Melee weapon, and he's pretty much always going to make the charge. He will basically just death-chain around the board and be effectively unkillable. Oh--and morale fails made for orks around him mean far less than before given he has a special rule granting D3 mortal wounds.
Wow, you first posted here 23 days ago stating you're new to 40k, then proceeded immediatly to establish yourself as a typical "that guy" and now after not even a month you dare make predictions about the competitive meta and call everyone who doesnt agree with you delusional? Wow. The sooner you get banned from these forums the better. We already have enough of those guys here. Go and play the game a few dozen times before trying to lecture someone maybe.
So rather than an intellectual debate, your response is just pure toxicity?
May as well ban you both at the same time and do the other posters a favour.
It’s adds nothing to a debate that’s already been done to death now from both sides.
Roberts84 wrote: OK, I'm not trying start an Ork hate festival here, but Ghaz is flat-out broken. I'm also reading his data from saga of the beast from Belle of lost souls, so if this has been redacted or something I apologize. Just going on the information I have.
Firstly, no unit in the game should ever have a cap on how many wounds they can take per phase. This literally breaks the system, because anything attacking him will have to gamble wasting firepower on him due to the very real--indeed, probable, outcome that they will waste wounds should they exceed that cap. This is compounded by the fact that because he's got a 4+ invuln and 12 wounds (Holy gak BTW) that enemies will have to sink lots of attacks into him. Add to this a 6+ FNP with a banner and it gets even more bananas. Oh--and he's fething T7 along for the bargain.
It gets worse the more you think about it. Grey knights do most of their wounds in the psychic phase, so they're out of luck against him. Blood Angels basically do all their work in the fight phase. No joy there. Raven Guard benefit from character targeting and the shooting phase in general. Not a big deal since he can only take 4 wounds in that phase, too.
You can extend this problem to basically every faction in the game. GW has made something that is ridiculously effective against literally every faction in the game. Moreover he gets X attacks with a -4 APD4 Melee weapon, and he's pretty much always going to make the charge. He will basically just death-chain around the board and be effectively unkillable. Oh--and morale fails made for orks around him mean far less than before given he has a special rule granting D3 mortal wounds.
Wow, you first posted here 23 days ago stating you're new to 40k, then proceeded immediatly to establish yourself as a typical "that guy" and now after not even a month you dare make predictions about the competitive meta and call everyone who doesnt agree with you delusional? Wow. The sooner you get banned from these forums the better. We already have enough of those guys here. Go and play the game a few dozen times before trying to lecture someone maybe.
He won't get banned, you're allowed to baselessly whine all you want on these forums no matter how new and bad you are.
Intellectual... debate... yes... that's what I'd call this... certainly I wouldn't call it a self-professed newbie who's only played for less than a month, whining indignantly about how something is going to be taken by every single competitive player ever and aggressively getting in the face of people who disagree with him, while making asinine arguments about how it's bad that a 300 point model is hard to kill in one turn...
No... I wouldn't call it that, at all... nope... definitely an... 'intellectual'... 'debate'...
More bluntly on topic, I guess, Ghaz sacrifices way too much to be broken. His +1 attack aura does not apply to himself. Warboss auras to run and charge do not apply to him, including his own aura. Painboyz can't heal him or give him FNP. He can't get Da Jump, or a Grot Shield, or the Fight Twice stratagem. And terrain blocks him far more than it does his Boyz, meaning they will leave him behind. He is a slow, plodding monster whose only saving grace is he can only take four wounds per phase. And for 300 points, that's really just not enough to make him "broken" or even "powerful".
An Actual Englishman wrote: Let's be honest, most if not all of the hate towards the "Max 4 wounds per phase" rule is due to jealousy and not any real dislike for the rule itself.
Yep. No one can dislike a rule because it's a sloppy game mechanic. Always has to be envy.
I have yet to see a coherent reason as to why it is a 'sloppy game mechanic'. Ghaz would be paper without the rule. Is that what you want? A big, centrepiece model that dies immediately?
thats exactly what some people want.
despite all the complaints to the contrary some people WANT to be able to kill everything with a single turn alpha strike. it's why people judge many things on "IT'S CRAP IF IT CAN'T KILL A KNIGHT!"
The problem is its become the expectation, and anything that costs nearly as much as a knight but isnt as durable isnt usually worth its points
Gee, it's almost as though letting the opponent get a whole turn before you can do anything leads to bad design overall like Ghaz's new rule or the absurd "everyone gets cover if you go second" Strat.
For future posters who think Ghaz is amazing I want you to answer these simple questions.
1: How do you get around him being slower than boyz since he can't Da Jump, he can't advance and charge, not to mention since he is a monster he can't walk through ruins so he is going to have to walk around them.
2: What does he bring to the table that orkz don't have a better choice for. He isn't shooty thats for damn sure. He isn't overly choppy when compared to similarly pointed units (Gorkanaut, dreads or even a bonebreaker wagon) and his buffs don't synergize well with any army except goffs who don't need his buffs because they are already more then choppy enough.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Gee, it's almost as though letting the opponent get a whole turn before you can do anything leads to bad design overall like Ghaz's new rule or the absurd "everyone gets cover if you go second" Strat.
I don't necessarily disagree but I also think it's far to say that this isn't necessarily the core problem. 40k has been IGOUGO since at least 3rd (that's as far back as my experience of the game goes), and it's previously worked a lot better than this.
I think there are a number of contributing factors:
- Gradual increase in long-range weapons. With the addition of Knights, Fliers, Riptides, Leviathans etc., the game has gradually acquired more and more long-range weapons that also tend to be very powerful. So not only do armies have a greater ability to reach across the table on turn 1, they also have a far better chance to eliminate key units outright (as opposed to in the past where, unless you got lucky, you'd mostly just expect to stun or shake your opponent's vehicles or chip off some wounds from a MC).
- Increase in movement and mobility. In the past there were very few (if any) units that could move more than 12", prior to the Assault Phase. But with the Movement stat, movement rates have (on average) increased significantly - especially for many vehicles (especially given that every unit can now make a Run move - not just those with Fleet of Foot). Hell, we've got units the size of buildings that fly across the table with no seemingly no penalties whatsoever for their sheer size.
What's more, moving used to impose far harsher penalties. It used to be that Rapid-Fire weapons could only fire at 24" if they remained stationary (IIRC, back in 3rd moving meant they could only fire a single shot at 12"), and Heavy Weapons generally couldn't fire at all if they moved. It also used to be that vehicles could only fire all of their weapons if they remained stationary, just 1 if they moved 6" and none at all if they moved more. Now, though, Rapid Fire weapons can fire to full effect regardless of whether the model moved, and moving with a Heavy Weapon imposes a meagre -1 penalty on the shooter (and many units - including basic heavy-weapon infantry like Havocs - ignore even that pitiful penalty). Vehicles, meanwhile, can move their maximum speed and still fire all their weapons.
- Then we've got the cover mechanics, which might as well not exist. Shooting through units no longer imposes any penalties whatsoever. Nor does shooting through walls or shooting at units that are out of LoS.
The upshot is that it's much, much easier to get units into effective range on turn 1 than it was in past editions. There are more and greater long-range weapons, many units can move further, there are fewer penalties for moving, it's much harder for defenders to gain meaningful cover, and sniping non-character assets is incredibly easy.
And this is before we even get into the removal of Night Fighting rules, general increases in damage for long-range weapons, auras, stratagems (especially ones that allow a unit to fire twice) etc.
I’ll just add the change to AP modifiers rather than the old “all or nothing” save system. The space marine codex’s Doctrine system reiterated that GW doesn’t understand just how much effect reducing saves has.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Gee, it's almost as though letting the opponent get a whole turn before you can do anything leads to bad design overall like Ghaz's new rule or the absurd "everyone gets cover if you go second" Strat.
I don't necessarily disagree but I also think it's far to say that this isn't necessarily the core problem. 40k has been IGOUGO since at least 3rd (that's as far back as my experience of the game goes), and it's previously worked a lot better than this.
I think there are a number of contributing factors:
- Gradual increase in long-range weapons. With the addition of Knights, Fliers, Riptides, Leviathans etc., the game has gradually acquired more and more long-range weapons that also tend to be very powerful. So not only do armies have a greater ability to reach across the table on turn 1, they also have a far better chance to eliminate key units outright (as opposed to in the past where, unless you got lucky, you'd mostly just expect to stun or shake your opponent's vehicles or chip off some wounds from a MC).
- Increase in movement and mobility. In the past there were very few (if any) units that could move more than 12", prior to the Assault Phase. But with the Movement stat, movement rates have (on average) increased significantly - especially for many vehicles (especially given that every unit can now make a Run move - not just those with Fleet of Foot). Hell, we've got units the size of buildings that fly across the table with no seemingly no penalties whatsoever for their sheer size.
What's more, moving used to impose far harsher penalties. It used to be that Rapid-Fire weapons could only fire at 24" if they remained stationary (IIRC, back in 3rd moving meant they could only fire a single shot at 12"), and Heavy Weapons generally couldn't fire at all if they moved. It also used to be that vehicles could only fire all of their weapons if they remained stationary, just 1 if they moved 6" and none at all if they moved more. Now, though, Rapid Fire weapons can fire to full effect regardless of whether the model moved, and moving with a Heavy Weapon imposes a meagre -1 penalty on the shooter (and many units - including basic heavy-weapon infantry like Havocs - ignore even that pitiful penalty). Vehicles, meanwhile, can move their maximum speed and still fire all their weapons.
- Then we've got the cover mechanics, which might as well not exist. Shooting through units no longer imposes any penalties whatsoever. Nor does shooting through walls or shooting at units that are out of LoS.
The upshot is that it's much, much easier to get units into effective range on turn 1 than it was in past editions. There are more and greater long-range weapons, many units can move further, there are fewer penalties for moving, it's much harder for defenders to gain meaningful cover, and sniping non-character assets is incredibly easy.
And this is before we even get into the removal of Night Fighting rules, general increases in damage for long-range weapons, auras, stratagems (especially ones that allow a unit to fire twice) etc.
Even back then one person getting a whole turn was a problem. We can agree it wasn't as MUCH a problem but it still was.
Melissia wrote: It was just as much of a problem, see also lists like Leafblower. Let's not fool ourselves in to thinking that this is a special time in this regard.
It's still better than what it was in sixth and seventh, and only fifth was arguably better IMO.
I would generally agree with you however I would say the game is more reliably lethal. GW has smoothed out the curve with rerolls and mechanics like miracle dice. Older editions could be just as lethal but were more random. That is true even with 5th.
I'm afraid I can't agree with this view that the past was some halcyon time when stuff didn't die.
If you wander all the way back to 5th then maybe (and really I think we are talking certain multi-wound shenanigans and the fact everyone came in metal boxes that could be annoying to kill) but its not been true for ages.
In 7th the good factions (Eldar, Tau, Marines etc) could do loads of things from turn one - and were hitting maximum output by turn 2. The problem is the crap armies were, well, a bit crap, and couldn't usually be built to ever really work with the exception of a few units. (I.E. Reaver Jetbikes, Flying Hive Tyrants).
So I guess yes if IG faced off against Orks it was often a relatively slow paced game where things were touch and go before to a mad dash onto objectives in turn 6. But this is because both armies were frankly rubbish - and were highly likely just get tabled by turn 4 by the above factions (unless you could hide for the entire game behind LOS blocking terrain.)
8th was worse when it had turn 1 deep strike (what could go wrong?) but that was increasingly a long time ago.
Anyway I think Ghaz is just the ultimate Timmy piece. You can see this in the Warhammer Community article. Look he can solo all these characters - he can even solo a knight! For some people that's enough and it doesn't therefore matter if he winds up not doing very much in a lot of games. For people who want to go and win tournaments however it won't be.
Wow, you first posted here 23 days ago stating you're new to 40k, then proceeded immediatly to establish yourself as a typical "that guy" and now after not even a month you dare make predictions about the competitive meta and call everyone who doesnt agree with you delusional? Wow. The sooner you get banned from these forums the better. We already have enough of those guys here. Go and play the game a few dozen times before trying to lecture someone maybe.
He's just as toxic, and a massive pita, on the Lore forum as well.
But neither of those traits warrant bans, so he'll be around until quarantine gets lifted and they make him go back to school.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Gee, it's almost as though letting the opponent get a whole turn before you can do anything leads to bad design overall like Ghaz's new rule or the absurd "everyone gets cover if you go second" Strat.
I don't necessarily disagree but I also think it's far to say that this isn't necessarily the core problem. 40k has been IGOUGO since at least 3rd (that's as far back as my experience of the game goes), and it's previously worked a lot better than this.
I think there are a number of contributing factors:
- Gradual increase in long-range weapons. With the addition of Knights, Fliers, Riptides, Leviathans etc., the game has gradually acquired more and more long-range weapons that also tend to be very powerful. So not only do armies have a greater ability to reach across the table on turn 1, they also have a far better chance to eliminate key units outright (as opposed to in the past where, unless you got lucky, you'd mostly just expect to stun or shake your opponent's vehicles or chip off some wounds from a MC).
- Increase in movement and mobility. In the past there were very few (if any) units that could move more than 12", prior to the Assault Phase. But with the Movement stat, movement rates have (on average) increased significantly - especially for many vehicles (especially given that every unit can now make a Run move - not just those with Fleet of Foot). Hell, we've got units the size of buildings that fly across the table with no seemingly no penalties whatsoever for their sheer size.
What's more, moving used to impose far harsher penalties. It used to be that Rapid-Fire weapons could only fire at 24" if they remained stationary (IIRC, back in 3rd moving meant they could only fire a single shot at 12"), and Heavy Weapons generally couldn't fire at all if they moved. It also used to be that vehicles could only fire all of their weapons if they remained stationary, just 1 if they moved 6" and none at all if they moved more. Now, though, Rapid Fire weapons can fire to full effect regardless of whether the model moved, and moving with a Heavy Weapon imposes a meagre -1 penalty on the shooter (and many units - including basic heavy-weapon infantry like Havocs - ignore even that pitiful penalty). Vehicles, meanwhile, can move their maximum speed and still fire all their weapons.
- Then we've got the cover mechanics, which might as well not exist. Shooting through units no longer imposes any penalties whatsoever. Nor does shooting through walls or shooting at units that are out of LoS.
The upshot is that it's much, much easier to get units into effective range on turn 1 than it was in past editions. There are more and greater long-range weapons, many units can move further, there are fewer penalties for moving, it's much harder for defenders to gain meaningful cover, and sniping non-character assets is incredibly easy.
And this is before we even get into the removal of Night Fighting rules, general increases in damage for long-range weapons, auras, stratagems (especially ones that allow a unit to fire twice) etc.
Very true - 30k still active today really highlights these differences imo and it doesn't even have the variety that 40k used to do since 80% of the field is some flavor of Marines.
vipoid wrote: And this is before we even get into the removal of Night Fighting rules, general increases in damage for long-range weapons, auras, stratagems (especially ones that allow a unit to fire twice) etc.
Searchlights and other such stuff is gone, but there are still simplified 'night fight' rules. It could definitely be used more, but I don't remember it ever being popular.
Nitro Zeus wrote: That's why GW wants you to have multiple of those models.
right multiple mortarians. magnus? etc?
No, multiple of said category, yes.
Superfriends was a thing you know.
Isn't it still a thing? a ton of armies in both w40k are build with take 3 of big high cost kit, sprinkle in some buffers, aura bots and minimum of chaff to make the perfect list. Specially in AoS this seems to be a thing, most of their lists I have seen winning are 3xKoS, 3xBloodthiresters etc. In w40k it is the same, marines take 9 eliminators, eldar were maxing reapers when they were able to double tap with them etc. Redundancy and overpowering opponents ability to counter stuff, could be the second name of GW games. Because if one model or unit is powerfu, then 3 are going to be even more powerful, specially if they can kill the counters an opponent may have. To get a singel worth running we either have to get something like the old raven castellan or a special character.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Gee, it's almost as though letting the opponent get a whole turn before you can do anything leads to bad design overall like Ghaz's new rule or the absurd "everyone gets cover if you go second" Strat.
I don't necessarily disagree but I also think it's far to say that this isn't necessarily the core problem. 40k has been IGOUGO since at least 3rd (that's as far back as my experience of the game goes), and it's previously worked a lot better than this.
I think there are a number of contributing factors:
- Gradual increase in long-range weapons. With the addition of Knights, Fliers, Riptides, Leviathans etc., the game has gradually acquired more and more long-range weapons that also tend to be very powerful. So not only do armies have a greater ability to reach across the table on turn 1, they also have a far better chance to eliminate key units outright (as opposed to in the past where, unless you got lucky, you'd mostly just expect to stun or shake your opponent's vehicles or chip off some wounds from a MC).
- Increase in movement and mobility. In the past there were very few (if any) units that could move more than 12", prior to the Assault Phase. But with the Movement stat, movement rates have (on average) increased significantly - especially for many vehicles (especially given that every unit can now make a Run move - not just those with Fleet of Foot). Hell, we've got units the size of buildings that fly across the table with no seemingly no penalties whatsoever for their sheer size.
What's more, moving used to impose far harsher penalties. It used to be that Rapid-Fire weapons could only fire at 24" if they remained stationary (IIRC, back in 3rd moving meant they could only fire a single shot at 12"), and Heavy Weapons generally couldn't fire at all if they moved. It also used to be that vehicles could only fire all of their weapons if they remained stationary, just 1 if they moved 6" and none at all if they moved more. Now, though, Rapid Fire weapons can fire to full effect regardless of whether the model moved, and moving with a Heavy Weapon imposes a meagre -1 penalty on the shooter (and many units - including basic heavy-weapon infantry like Havocs - ignore even that pitiful penalty). Vehicles, meanwhile, can move their maximum speed and still fire all their weapons.
- Then we've got the cover mechanics, which might as well not exist. Shooting through units no longer imposes any penalties whatsoever. Nor does shooting through walls or shooting at units that are out of LoS.
The upshot is that it's much, much easier to get units into effective range on turn 1 than it was in past editions. There are more and greater long-range weapons, many units can move further, there are fewer penalties for moving, it's much harder for defenders to gain meaningful cover, and sniping non-character assets is incredibly easy.
And this is before we even get into the removal of Night Fighting rules, general increases in damage for long-range weapons, auras, stratagems (especially ones that allow a unit to fire twice) etc.
Very true - 30k still active today really highlights these differences imo and it doesn't even have the variety that 40k used to do since 80% of the field is some flavor of Marines.
30k has exactly the same problem so I haven't a clue what you're going on about.
I just realized that my GSC detachment can theoretically kill Ghaz in one turn. Infiltrating Neophytes can shoot their 'wish i was a lasscannon' lasers during movement, Magus can make a orc unit shoot him during psychic (or smite, or mind war), Neophytes or gunslinger during shooting, and hybrids finish him with saws in assault.
Now, I wouldn't rely on any of it working because each part is iffy at best. He needs to be in position to be charged, the Neophytes are hoping their one hit gets through and gets 4 damage, the psychic tricks are situational.
However, this is a GSC battalion that I'm running in support of my Warrior + Exocrine Nids, so realizing that i could potentially one shot him was fun.
babelfish wrote: I just realized that my GSC detachment can theoretically kill Ghaz in one turn. Infiltrating Neophytes can shoot their 'wish i was a lasscannon' lasers during movement, Magus can make a orc unit shoot him during psychic (or smite, or mind war), Neophytes or gunslinger during shooting, and hybrids finish him with saws in assault.
Now, I wouldn't rely on any of it working because each part is iffy at best. He needs to be in position to be charged, the Neophytes are hoping their one hit gets through and gets 4 damage, the psychic tricks are situational.
However, this is a GSC battalion that I'm running in support of my Warrior + Exocrine Nids, so realizing that i could potentially one shot him was fun.
From my first test runs, the most efficient way to get rid of Thrakka seems to be shoot him once, shoot him twice, and then finish him off in a counter-charge. Mortal wounds of any sort mostly serve to make the last part less likely to fail.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Gee, it's almost as though letting the opponent get a whole turn before you can do anything leads to bad design overall like Ghaz's new rule or the absurd "everyone gets cover if you go second" Strat.
I don't necessarily disagree but I also think it's far to say that this isn't necessarily the core problem. 40k has been IGOUGO since at least 3rd (that's as far back as my experience of the game goes), and it's previously worked a lot better than this.
I think there are a number of contributing factors:
- Gradual increase in long-range weapons. With the addition of Knights, Fliers, Riptides, Leviathans etc., the game has gradually acquired more and more long-range weapons that also tend to be very powerful. So not only do armies have a greater ability to reach across the table on turn 1, they also have a far better chance to eliminate key units outright (as opposed to in the past where, unless you got lucky, you'd mostly just expect to stun or shake your opponent's vehicles or chip off some wounds from a MC).
- Increase in movement and mobility. In the past there were very few (if any) units that could move more than 12", prior to the Assault Phase. But with the Movement stat, movement rates have (on average) increased significantly - especially for many vehicles (especially given that every unit can now make a Run move - not just those with Fleet of Foot). Hell, we've got units the size of buildings that fly across the table with no seemingly no penalties whatsoever for their sheer size.
What's more, moving used to impose far harsher penalties. It used to be that Rapid-Fire weapons could only fire at 24" if they remained stationary (IIRC, back in 3rd moving meant they could only fire a single shot at 12"), and Heavy Weapons generally couldn't fire at all if they moved. It also used to be that vehicles could only fire all of their weapons if they remained stationary, just 1 if they moved 6" and none at all if they moved more. Now, though, Rapid Fire weapons can fire to full effect regardless of whether the model moved, and moving with a Heavy Weapon imposes a meagre -1 penalty on the shooter (and many units - including basic heavy-weapon infantry like Havocs - ignore even that pitiful penalty). Vehicles, meanwhile, can move their maximum speed and still fire all their weapons.
- Then we've got the cover mechanics, which might as well not exist. Shooting through units no longer imposes any penalties whatsoever. Nor does shooting through walls or shooting at units that are out of LoS.
The upshot is that it's much, much easier to get units into effective range on turn 1 than it was in past editions. There are more and greater long-range weapons, many units can move further, there are fewer penalties for moving, it's much harder for defenders to gain meaningful cover, and sniping non-character assets is incredibly easy.
And this is before we even get into the removal of Night Fighting rules, general increases in damage for long-range weapons, auras, stratagems (especially ones that allow a unit to fire twice) etc.
Very true - 30k still active today really highlights these differences imo and it doesn't even have the variety that 40k used to do since 80% of the field is some flavor of Marines.
30k has exactly the same problem so I haven't a clue what you're going on about.
Slayer - do you play 30k?
VERY unlikely you lose a Knight turn 1 at 2k points in 30k. 30k has nice anti-Marine weaponry like Phosphex that makes power armor a risk - but the game isn't only Marines anymore so that's not always a problem.
Things are allowed to die turn 1. "The exact same problem" of losing most your strength turn? nah. Not at all. There's a reason the Land Raider is one of the most played units in the game, that alone should tell you the difference between 30k and 40k.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Gee, it's almost as though letting the opponent get a whole turn before you can do anything leads to bad design overall like Ghaz's new rule or the absurd "everyone gets cover if you go second" Strat.
I don't necessarily disagree but I also think it's far to say that this isn't necessarily the core problem. 40k has been IGOUGO since at least 3rd (that's as far back as my experience of the game goes), and it's previously worked a lot better than this.
I think there are a number of contributing factors:
- Gradual increase in long-range weapons. With the addition of Knights, Fliers, Riptides, Leviathans etc., the game has gradually acquired more and more long-range weapons that also tend to be very powerful. So not only do armies have a greater ability to reach across the table on turn 1, they also have a far better chance to eliminate key units outright (as opposed to in the past where, unless you got lucky, you'd mostly just expect to stun or shake your opponent's vehicles or chip off some wounds from a MC).
- Increase in movement and mobility. In the past there were very few (if any) units that could move more than 12", prior to the Assault Phase. But with the Movement stat, movement rates have (on average) increased significantly - especially for many vehicles (especially given that every unit can now make a Run move - not just those with Fleet of Foot). Hell, we've got units the size of buildings that fly across the table with no seemingly no penalties whatsoever for their sheer size.
What's more, moving used to impose far harsher penalties. It used to be that Rapid-Fire weapons could only fire at 24" if they remained stationary (IIRC, back in 3rd moving meant they could only fire a single shot at 12"), and Heavy Weapons generally couldn't fire at all if they moved. It also used to be that vehicles could only fire all of their weapons if they remained stationary, just 1 if they moved 6" and none at all if they moved more. Now, though, Rapid Fire weapons can fire to full effect regardless of whether the model moved, and moving with a Heavy Weapon imposes a meagre -1 penalty on the shooter (and many units - including basic heavy-weapon infantry like Havocs - ignore even that pitiful penalty). Vehicles, meanwhile, can move their maximum speed and still fire all their weapons.
- Then we've got the cover mechanics, which might as well not exist. Shooting through units no longer imposes any penalties whatsoever. Nor does shooting through walls or shooting at units that are out of LoS.
The upshot is that it's much, much easier to get units into effective range on turn 1 than it was in past editions. There are more and greater long-range weapons, many units can move further, there are fewer penalties for moving, it's much harder for defenders to gain meaningful cover, and sniping non-character assets is incredibly easy.
And this is before we even get into the removal of Night Fighting rules, general increases in damage for long-range weapons, auras, stratagems (especially ones that allow a unit to fire twice) etc.
Very true - 30k still active today really highlights these differences imo and it doesn't even have the variety that 40k used to do since 80% of the field is some flavor of Marines.
30k has exactly the same problem so I haven't a clue what you're going on about.
Slayer - do you play 30k?
VERY unlikely you lose a Knight turn 1 at 2k points in 30k. 30k has nice anti-Marine weaponry like Phosphex that makes power armor a risk - but the game isn't only Marines anymore so that's not always a problem.
Things are allowed to die turn 1. "The exact same problem" of losing most your strength turn? nah. Not at all. There's a reason the Land Raider is one of the most played units in the game, that alone should tell you the difference between 30k and 40k.
Don't forget that all the legions actually have pretty good rules, and that they're actually drawbacks tied into rules in order to give some balance.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I’m not saying it’s some massive overlooked thing that’s gonna win you a ton of games. It is however, another cool thing about the unit.
One of the best Ork players I know of in the world says Ghaz has potential and is differently a wrecking ball in some matches, and a late game crusher in others. The best Ork player I’ve met irl currently wont call it as good or bad, and says playtesting is required for such a unit. This is what good players are saying, and it’s where I’m inclined to sit as well. However This site has a notoriously casual yet disproportionately vocal Ork player base who don’t exactly have a good track record with this sort thing. It’s the same people in these threads everytime. I respect the level heads and experience of people like Jidmah, but there’s others who are WAY to sure of something that hasn’t actually hit playtesting yet - not that I think their low level playtesting would really be the measure, but considering how famously wrong some of the louder voices in here have been in the past, you’d think there’d at least be some level of restraint before making these “indisputable” declarations and calling everyone stupid who disagrees.
Ah yes, I know someone who works at Nintendo and also happens to be the best Ork player ever too! Who is this mysterious Ork player you mention? Care to drop any names because otherwise your statement has 0 credibility.
Weird huh, that competitive Ork players seem to agree with all these 'notoriously casual but disproportionately vocal Ork playerbase'?
Now can you stop insulting an entire community with your inane and wrong claims. Ghaz is poor as he currently stands. A 'cool' (envious) ability does not change that.
Ok so now that the article has dropped, I think I'm free to share who I was referring to here to provide some credibility to my original statements.
Steven Pampreen, 2019 ITC's #1 Ork player by no short measure, thinks Ghaz has competitive potential, and he goes into detail about why he thinks so in the article.
At the price I'm still personally ambivalent, but I do think playtesting is definitely in order and I don't think Ghaz is "awful and trash" anymore than I think he is "Absurdly OP" like the OP claimed. Like most Dakka debates, I think the reality is a bit more nuanced and measured, and lies somewhere in the middle.
I'm not sure if you're referring to my statements or his, but neither of us are giving a big endorsement to the model or anything like that, which is why it wouldn't seem like one. It's a statement that he may have some use competitively and some ideas on how to run him.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I'm not sure if you're referring to my statements or his, but neither of us are giving a big endorsement to the model or anything like that, which is why it wouldn't seem like one. It's a statement that he may have some use competitively and some ideas on how to run him.
Well at the very least, GW seems to have been able to make Ghaz somewhat efficient in a traditionnal Goff army which was the least we could ask for.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I'm not sure if you're referring to my statements or his, but neither of us are giving a big endorsement to the model or anything like that, which is why it wouldn't seem like one. It's a statement that he may have some use competitively and some ideas on how to run him.
Well, to be blunt, the goff horde idea is not going to work. Old Ghaz could already do that and yet nobody did. Outside of Ghaz, the list has gotten nothing from PA, so it's just as bad as it was before.
For the vehicle idea he basically says "It's a distraction carnifex" which is just an euphemism for "this unit does nothing" - a naut also draws fire from you vehicles, but can usually shoot at least once.
He also stated that Thrakka was just killed off without much of an effect in both his test games.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I'm not sure if you're referring to my statements or his, but neither of us are giving a big endorsement to the model or anything like that, which is why it wouldn't seem like one. It's a statement that he may have some use competitively and some ideas on how to run him.
Well, to be blunt, the goff horde idea is not going to work. Old Ghaz could already do that and yet nobody did. Outside of Ghaz, the list has gotten nothing from PA, so it's just as bad as it was before.
For the vehicle idea he basically says "It's a distraction carnifex" which is just an euphemism for "this unit does nothing" - a naut also draws fire from you vehicles, but can usually shoot at least once.
He also stated that Thrakka was just killed off without much of an effect in both his test games.
To be fair, you're probably not going to do a Goff horde. Seems like a possible use for a mixed Battalion.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I'm not sure if you're referring to my statements or his, but neither of us are giving a big endorsement to the model or anything like that, which is why it wouldn't seem like one. It's a statement that he may have some use competitively and some ideas on how to run him.
Well, to be blunt, the goff horde idea is not going to work. Old Ghaz could already do that and yet nobody did. Outside of Ghaz, the list has gotten nothing from PA, so it's just as bad as it was before. For the vehicle idea he basically says "It's a distraction carnifex" which is just an euphemism for "this unit does nothing" - a naut also draws fire from you vehicles, but can usually shoot at least once. He also stated that Thrakka was just killed off without much of an effect in both his test games.
All good. I was just asked to support my statements earlier and now that I can, I went back and did. Like I said, I'm not sold on Ghaz either now that I've seen the official price.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I’m not saying it’s some massive overlooked thing that’s gonna win you a ton of games. It is however, another cool thing about the unit.
One of the best Ork players I know of in the world says Ghaz has potential and is differently a wrecking ball in some matches, and a late game crusher in others. The best Ork player I’ve met irl currently wont call it as good or bad, and says playtesting is required for such a unit. This is what good players are saying, and it’s where I’m inclined to sit as well. However This site has a notoriously casual yet disproportionately vocal Ork player base who don’t exactly have a good track record with this sort thing. It’s the same people in these threads everytime. I respect the level heads and experience of people like Jidmah, but there’s others who are WAY to sure of something that hasn’t actually hit playtesting yet - not that I think their low level playtesting would really be the measure, but considering how famously wrong some of the louder voices in here have been in the past, you’d think there’d at least be some level of restraint before making these “indisputable” declarations and calling everyone stupid who disagrees.
Ah yes, I know someone who works at Nintendo and also happens to be the best Ork player ever too! Who is this mysterious Ork player you mention? Care to drop any names because otherwise your statement has 0 credibility.
Weird huh, that competitive Ork players seem to agree with all these 'notoriously casual but disproportionately vocal Ork playerbase'?
Now can you stop insulting an entire community with your inane and wrong claims. Ghaz is poor as he currently stands. A 'cool' (envious) ability does not change that.
Ok so now that the article has dropped, I think I'm free to share who I was referring to here to provide some credibility to my original statements.
Steven Pampreen, 2019 ITC's #1 Ork player by no short measure, thinks Ghaz has competitive potential, and he goes into detail about why he thinks so in the article.
At the price I'm still personally ambivalent, but I do think playtesting is definitely in order and I don't think Ghaz is "awful and trash" anymore than I think he is "Absurdly OP" like the OP claimed. Like most Dakka debates, I think the reality is a bit more nuanced and measured, and lies somewhere in the middle.
This was completely unnecessary really, since, now you realise the points cost, you agree that Ghaz is too expensive for what he offers.
As for his credibility - Pampreen stopped playing Orks as soon as IH released. His opinion is no more gospel than mine or yours.
I'll await him to win a few majors with Ghaz before I rescind my opinion (I don't think this will happen).
I don't know if ghaz is or isn't powerful, but the damage limit rule is a powerful on. If it was on a faster model, it could become a problem, and it is not like anything is stopping GW from saying that some unit is super resilient, and now is getting the same treatment. An imperial or eldar knight, or a space marine tank could become OP, if it got a rule like that or similar.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I’m not saying it’s some massive overlooked thing that’s gonna win you a ton of games. It is however, another cool thing about the unit.
One of the best Ork players I know of in the world says Ghaz has potential and is differently a wrecking ball in some matches, and a late game crusher in others. The best Ork player I’ve met irl currently wont call it as good or bad, and says playtesting is required for such a unit. This is what good players are saying, and it’s where I’m inclined to sit as well. However This site has a notoriously casual yet disproportionately vocal Ork player base who don’t exactly have a good track record with this sort thing. It’s the same people in these threads everytime. I respect the level heads and experience of people like Jidmah, but there’s others who are WAY to sure of something that hasn’t actually hit playtesting yet - not that I think their low level playtesting would really be the measure, but considering how famously wrong some of the louder voices in here have been in the past, you’d think there’d at least be some level of restraint before making these “indisputable” declarations and calling everyone stupid who disagrees.
Ah yes, I know someone who works at Nintendo and also happens to be the best Ork player ever too! Who is this mysterious Ork player you mention? Care to drop any names because otherwise your statement has 0 credibility.
Weird huh, that competitive Ork players seem to agree with all these 'notoriously casual but disproportionately vocal Ork playerbase'?
Now can you stop insulting an entire community with your inane and wrong claims. Ghaz is poor as he currently stands. A 'cool' (envious) ability does not change that.
Ok so now that the article has dropped, I think I'm free to share who I was referring to here to provide some credibility to my original statements.
Steven Pampreen, 2019 ITC's #1 Ork player by no short measure, thinks Ghaz has competitive potential, and he goes into detail about why he thinks so in the article.
At the price I'm still personally ambivalent, but I do think playtesting is definitely in order and I don't think Ghaz is "awful and trash" anymore than I think he is "Absurdly OP" like the OP claimed. Like most Dakka debates, I think the reality is a bit more nuanced and measured, and lies somewhere in the middle.
This was completely unnecessary really, since, now you realise the points cost, you agree that Ghaz is too expensive for what he offers.
As for his credibility - Pampreen stopped playing Orks as soon as IH released. His opinion is no more gospel than mine or yours.
I'll await him to win a few majors with Ghaz before I rescind my opinion (I don't think this will happen).
But... you made a big deal about "Aha i know someone who works at nintendo!" and went out your way to mock my credibility. It doesn't matter what my stance is. I'm confirming that the statements I made about how top Ork players feel, were in fact, coming from a place of knowledge.
Also, my stance does not mirror your own. I don't think he's this excellent model anymore, because 285 is just a bit too costly to call it that. I also don't think he's "garbage" or useless however.
Pampreen is a proven amazing Ork player who has seen better results than any other player with this dex. You're joking to dismiss his opinion because he picked up Iron Hands like 90% of the rest of the meta lol. I didn't say anything about his opinion being the gospel, in fact I'm pretty sure I'm the one who said you're free to disagree with anything you like. But you posited that all "competitive players" are agreeing with you, and that's simply not the case.
Here's from Nick Nanavati himself about Ghaz:
"I think he's not an auto include by any stretch, but he is very good. His rule opens up a lot of play that I think has hidden value people may not see off the cusp. Though 285 is a lot no matter how you slice it."
So yeah I was definitely right about some of the best players feeling this way, and that's okay to recognise. You can just disagree with them They are also humans.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I’m not saying it’s some massive overlooked thing that’s gonna win you a ton of games. It is however, another cool thing about the unit.
One of the best Ork players I know of in the world says Ghaz has potential and is differently a wrecking ball in some matches, and a late game crusher in others. The best Ork player I’ve met irl currently wont call it as good or bad, and says playtesting is required for such a unit. This is what good players are saying, and it’s where I’m inclined to sit as well. However This site has a notoriously casual yet disproportionately vocal Ork player base who don’t exactly have a good track record with this sort thing. It’s the same people in these threads everytime. I respect the level heads and experience of people like Jidmah, but there’s others who are WAY to sure of something that hasn’t actually hit playtesting yet - not that I think their low level playtesting would really be the measure, but considering how famously wrong some of the louder voices in here have been in the past, you’d think there’d at least be some level of restraint before making these “indisputable” declarations and calling everyone stupid who disagrees.
Ah yes, I know someone who works at Nintendo and also happens to be the best Ork player ever too! Who is this mysterious Ork player you mention? Care to drop any names because otherwise your statement has 0 credibility.
Weird huh, that competitive Ork players seem to agree with all these 'notoriously casual but disproportionately vocal Ork playerbase'?
Now can you stop insulting an entire community with your inane and wrong claims. Ghaz is poor as he currently stands. A 'cool' (envious) ability does not change that.
Ok so now that the article has dropped, I think I'm free to share who I was referring to here to provide some credibility to my original statements.
Steven Pampreen, 2019 ITC's #1 Ork player by no short measure, thinks Ghaz has competitive potential, and he goes into detail about why he thinks so in the article.
At the price I'm still personally ambivalent, but I do think playtesting is definitely in order and I don't think Ghaz is "awful and trash" anymore than I think he is "Absurdly OP" like the OP claimed. Like most Dakka debates, I think the reality is a bit more nuanced and measured, and lies somewhere in the middle.
This was completely unnecessary really, since, now you realise the points cost, you agree that Ghaz is too expensive for what he offers.
As for his credibility - Pampreen stopped playing Orks as soon as IH released. His opinion is no more gospel than mine or yours.
I'll await him to win a few majors with Ghaz before I rescind my opinion (I don't think this will happen).
But... you made a big deal about "Aha i know someone who works at nintendo!" and went out your way to mock my credibility. It doesn't matter what my stance is. I'm confirming that the statements I made about how top Ork players feel, were in fact, coming from a place of knowledge.
Pampreen is a proven amazing Ork player who has seen better results than any other player with this dex. You're joking to dismiss his opinion because he picked up Iron Hands like 90% of the rest of the meta lol. I didn't say anything about his opinion being the gospel, in fact I'm pretty sure I'm the one who said you're free to disagree with anything you like. But you posited that all "competitive players" are agreeing with you, and that's simply not the case.
Here's from Nick Nanavati himself about Ghaz:
"I think he's not an auto include by any stretch, but he is very good. His rule opens up a lot of play that I think has hidden value people may not see off the cusp. Though 285 is a lot no matter how you slice it."
So yeah I was definitely right about some of the best players feeling this way, and that's okay to recognise. You can just disagree with them They are also humans.
Of course you were right ... It's obvious that this specific wounding rule opens up a lot of possibility, and people that were arguing he was trash (like in the news and rumor PA thread) were just talking without carefully assessing the facts. This doesn't change the fact that his cost is too high and that some of the problem that comes with his new monster tag greatly reduce his utility.
"I think he's not an auto include by any stretch, but he is very good. His rule opens up a lot of play that I think has hidden value people may not see off the cusp. Though 285 is a lot no matter how you slice it."
So yeah I was definitely right about some of the best players feeling this way, and that's okay to recognise. You can just disagree with them They are also humans.
I'd like to point out that Nick isn't actually someone who actually knows his way around orks. When the codex dropped, he had tons of articles and posts about how orks were by far the most powerful codex and proclaimed that certain units were hidden gems just waiting to be found. He never got orks to work, almost completely dropping from the radar while he played them. Some of the people you called "casuals" just a few pages back have more top placements in GTs with orks than Nick does. Only when he switched to GSC he started placing well again. He is a great player, but not someone you should listen to when it comes to orks.
The thing is, many people apply their knowledge from their army to orks. Eldar, tau, necrons, guard and the entire marines rainbow all work kind of similar and follow certain patterns. If you try to apply those patterns to orks, you will fall flat on your face. However, this has never stopped those people from doing so when theorycrafting - see my signature for an example. There also is Reece infamous review of the orks codex, claiming the stompa to be one of the best units in the game and that melee gretchin are the best troops in the game. I've joined dakka over nine years ago, and the pattern has always been the same. Orks get something and half the forum evaluates it in the context of their army and claim how OP it is, ignoring the context of a codex which doesn't have what the vast majority of other armies take as given.
There also is another thing: Just like real orks, the ork community here on dakka rarely agrees on anything. If all ork players tell you a unit is bad, the chances of it being good anyways is basically zero. From all the releases I experienced here on dakka, the only models which got an as unified opinion out of our ork community was the mekboy workshop and the squigbuggy.
There's a reason the Land Raider is one of the most played units in the game, that alone should tell you the difference between 30k and 40k.
That was the first thing I thought about when I read Slayer's statement ... I know Slayer has been around for a while, but his posts (lately) are reading more and more like Peregrine's ie "I just came here to bash everything ..."
As for the actual thread topic - As I mentioned, my primary is DG, but I have a large Ork force that I use as one of my more "fun/casual/hobby" armies. My Ork lists tend to just be focused around something I think will be amusing to play, and tend not be what you would consider a "good" Ork list, but as I was looking at my codex last night, it struck me that I'd rather take "old Ghaz" than "new Ghaz". What do you all (who play Orks more seriously than I do) think about that? Am I crazy, or is that a thing?
Regardless, new Ghaz is going to see some tables, and I don't think he's complete trash, but man, a 285pt "distraction carnifex" that's slow as slow can be, is completely hampered by even a small wall, can't be transported, can't be da-jumped, but CAN be targeted? That's just too much work for me ...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Gee, it's almost as though letting the opponent get a whole turn before you can do anything leads to bad design overall like Ghaz's new rule or the absurd "everyone gets cover if you go second" Strat.
I don't necessarily disagree but I also think it's far to say that this isn't necessarily the core problem. 40k has been IGOUGO since at least 3rd (that's as far back as my experience of the game goes), and it's previously worked a lot better than this.
I think there are a number of contributing factors:
- Gradual increase in long-range weapons. With the addition of Knights, Fliers, Riptides, Leviathans etc., the game has gradually acquired more and more long-range weapons that also tend to be very powerful. So not only do armies have a greater ability to reach across the table on turn 1, they also have a far better chance to eliminate key units outright (as opposed to in the past where, unless you got lucky, you'd mostly just expect to stun or shake your opponent's vehicles or chip off some wounds from a MC).
- Increase in movement and mobility. In the past there were very few (if any) units that could move more than 12", prior to the Assault Phase. But with the Movement stat, movement rates have (on average) increased significantly - especially for many vehicles (especially given that every unit can now make a Run move - not just those with Fleet of Foot). Hell, we've got units the size of buildings that fly across the table with no seemingly no penalties whatsoever for their sheer size.
What's more, moving used to impose far harsher penalties. It used to be that Rapid-Fire weapons could only fire at 24" if they remained stationary (IIRC, back in 3rd moving meant they could only fire a single shot at 12"), and Heavy Weapons generally couldn't fire at all if they moved. It also used to be that vehicles could only fire all of their weapons if they remained stationary, just 1 if they moved 6" and none at all if they moved more. Now, though, Rapid Fire weapons can fire to full effect regardless of whether the model moved, and moving with a Heavy Weapon imposes a meagre -1 penalty on the shooter (and many units - including basic heavy-weapon infantry like Havocs - ignore even that pitiful penalty). Vehicles, meanwhile, can move their maximum speed and still fire all their weapons.
- Then we've got the cover mechanics, which might as well not exist. Shooting through units no longer imposes any penalties whatsoever. Nor does shooting through walls or shooting at units that are out of LoS.
The upshot is that it's much, much easier to get units into effective range on turn 1 than it was in past editions. There are more and greater long-range weapons, many units can move further, there are fewer penalties for moving, it's much harder for defenders to gain meaningful cover, and sniping non-character assets is incredibly easy.
And this is before we even get into the removal of Night Fighting rules, general increases in damage for long-range weapons, auras, stratagems (especially ones that allow a unit to fire twice) etc.
Very true - 30k still active today really highlights these differences imo and it doesn't even have the variety that 40k used to do since 80% of the field is some flavor of Marines.
30k has exactly the same problem so I haven't a clue what you're going on about.
Slayer - do you play 30k?
VERY unlikely you lose a Knight turn 1 at 2k points in 30k. 30k has nice anti-Marine weaponry like Phosphex that makes power armor a risk - but the game isn't only Marines anymore so that's not always a problem.
Things are allowed to die turn 1. "The exact same problem" of losing most your strength turn? nah. Not at all. There's a reason the Land Raider is one of the most played units in the game, that alone should tell you the difference between 30k and 40k.
Don't forget that all the legions actually have pretty good rules, and that they're actually drawbacks tied into rules in order to give some balance.
I actually have played 30k thank you very much, with both Word Bearers and Alpha Legion. LOL Land Raiders are not that heavily picked. I've seen the Spartan sometimes but the Land Raider no, all for the same reason as they weren't picked in 6th and 7th.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Gee, it's almost as though letting the opponent get a whole turn before you can do anything leads to bad design overall like Ghaz's new rule or the absurd "everyone gets cover if you go second" Strat.
I don't necessarily disagree but I also think it's far to say that this isn't necessarily the core problem. 40k has been IGOUGO since at least 3rd (that's as far back as my experience of the game goes), and it's previously worked a lot better than this.
I think there are a number of contributing factors:
- Gradual increase in long-range weapons. With the addition of Knights, Fliers, Riptides, Leviathans etc., the game has gradually acquired more and more long-range weapons that also tend to be very powerful. So not only do armies have a greater ability to reach across the table on turn 1, they also have a far better chance to eliminate key units outright (as opposed to in the past where, unless you got lucky, you'd mostly just expect to stun or shake your opponent's vehicles or chip off some wounds from a MC).
- Increase in movement and mobility. In the past there were very few (if any) units that could move more than 12", prior to the Assault Phase. But with the Movement stat, movement rates have (on average) increased significantly - especially for many vehicles (especially given that every unit can now make a Run move - not just those with Fleet of Foot). Hell, we've got units the size of buildings that fly across the table with no seemingly no penalties whatsoever for their sheer size.
What's more, moving used to impose far harsher penalties. It used to be that Rapid-Fire weapons could only fire at 24" if they remained stationary (IIRC, back in 3rd moving meant they could only fire a single shot at 12"), and Heavy Weapons generally couldn't fire at all if they moved. It also used to be that vehicles could only fire all of their weapons if they remained stationary, just 1 if they moved 6" and none at all if they moved more. Now, though, Rapid Fire weapons can fire to full effect regardless of whether the model moved, and moving with a Heavy Weapon imposes a meagre -1 penalty on the shooter (and many units - including basic heavy-weapon infantry like Havocs - ignore even that pitiful penalty). Vehicles, meanwhile, can move their maximum speed and still fire all their weapons.
- Then we've got the cover mechanics, which might as well not exist. Shooting through units no longer imposes any penalties whatsoever. Nor does shooting through walls or shooting at units that are out of LoS.
The upshot is that it's much, much easier to get units into effective range on turn 1 than it was in past editions. There are more and greater long-range weapons, many units can move further, there are fewer penalties for moving, it's much harder for defenders to gain meaningful cover, and sniping non-character assets is incredibly easy.
And this is before we even get into the removal of Night Fighting rules, general increases in damage for long-range weapons, auras, stratagems (especially ones that allow a unit to fire twice) etc.
Very true - 30k still active today really highlights these differences imo and it doesn't even have the variety that 40k used to do since 80% of the field is some flavor of Marines.
30k has exactly the same problem so I haven't a clue what you're going on about.
Slayer - do you play 30k?
VERY unlikely you lose a Knight turn 1 at 2k points in 30k. 30k has nice anti-Marine weaponry like Phosphex that makes power armor a risk - but the game isn't only Marines anymore so that's not always a problem.
Things are allowed to die turn 1. "The exact same problem" of losing most your strength turn? nah. Not at all. There's a reason the Land Raider is one of the most played units in the game, that alone should tell you the difference between 30k and 40k.
Don't forget that all the legions actually have pretty good rules, and that they're actually drawbacks tied into rules in order to give some balance.
I actually have played 30k thank you very much, with both Word Bearers and Alpha Legion. LOL Land Raiders are not that heavily picked. I've seen the Spartan sometimes but the Land Raider no, all for the same reason as they weren't picked in 6th and 7th.
Can't speak for Nitro Zeus, but I was referring to how I think the way the legions are handled and the fact that good rules/chapter tactics (basically) come with drawbacks instead of just advantages is better to what they've done in 8th edition, not your personal experience.
I've not played 30k (I've at various times thought about building armies - but it seemed an expense too far) - but I'd have thought the balance is that the bulk of lists are pulling from the same codex. This doesn't stop you getting an overpowered chapter tactic, or Primarch or 2~ unique units, but if something generic is overpowered everyone can just jump on it. (Duel plas Moritat for a while before it was nerfed? Its been a long time, I could be wrong.)
In practice most people who do 30k seem to be doing it more for the love of the hobby (and an exhibition of often great painting/conversion skills) - so there is less meta chasing anyway.
There would still be a tier list, but if 90% of players played Codex Space Marines and supplements, and GW tweaked a few things each year, the game would be almost certainly be more balanced.
Anyway! For Orks - I don't think Pampreen's comments on Ghaz are anything everyone else hasn't already said - and I'm not convinced what he does say is an endorsement.
Perhaps from my perspective the more interesting thing in the article is a grot army - because I think thats what a lot of players have wanted, even if in a not terribly competitive sense. I'm not... convinced however by 6 man Kan squads thouhg. Losing models to morale feels bad. Really though I think this was more a musing on the theme rather than tailored to perfection. You are making small arms largely a waste of time due to only giving them grots to shoot at.
"I think he's not an auto include by any stretch, but he is very good. His rule opens up a lot of play that I think has hidden value people may not see off the cusp. Though 285 is a lot no matter how you slice it."
So yeah I was definitely right about some of the best players feeling this way, and that's okay to recognise. You can just disagree with them They are also humans.
I'd like to point out that Nick isn't actually someone who actually knows his way around orks. When the codex dropped, he had tons of articles and posts about how orks were by far the most powerful codex and proclaimed that certain units were hidden gems just waiting to be found.
He never got orks to work, almost completely dropping from the radar while he played them. Some of the people you called "casuals" just a few pages back have more top placements in GTs with orks than Nick does. Only when he switched to GSC he started placing well again.
He is a great player, but not someone you should listen to when it comes to orks.
The thing is, many people apply their knowledge from their army to orks. Eldar, tau, necrons, guard and the entire marines rainbow all work kind of similar and follow certain patterns. If you try to apply those patterns to orks, you will fall flat on your face. However, this has never stopped those people from doing so when theorycrafting - see my signature for an example. There also is Reece infamous review of the orks codex, claiming the stompa to be one of the best units in the game and that melee gretchin are the best troops in the game.
I've joined dakka over nine years ago, and the pattern has always been the same. Orks get something and half the forum evaluates it in the context of their army and claim how OP it is, ignoring the context of a codex which doesn't have what the vast majority of other armies take as given.
There also is another thing: Just like real orks, the ork community here on dakka rarely agrees on anything. If all ork players tell you a unit is bad, the chances of it being good anyways is basically zero. From all the releases I experienced here on dakka, the only models which got an as unified opinion out of our ork community was the mekboy workshop and the squigbuggy.
Orks would be a great army if they had infinity CP or some of their strats were just inherent abilities on those units instead. All my games against Orks after the codex dropped largely end the same. The ork army is scary turn 1 and turn 2 but then on turn 3 the ork player runs out of CP and then loses all momentum.
For the record I think the new gaz is bad personally. If he was a SM model I wouldn't take him.
Nitro Zeus wrote: But... you made a big deal about "Aha i know someone who works at nintendo!" and went out your way to mock my credibility. It doesn't matter what my stance is. I'm confirming that the statements I made about how top Ork players feel, were in fact, coming from a place of knowledge.
Also, my stance does not mirror your own. I don't think he's this excellent model anymore, because 285 is just a bit too costly to call it that. I also don't think he's "garbage" or useless however.
Pampreen is a proven amazing Ork player who has seen better results than any other player with this dex. You're joking to dismiss his opinion because he picked up Iron Hands like 90% of the rest of the meta lol. I didn't say anything about his opinion being the gospel, in fact I'm pretty sure I'm the one who said you're free to disagree with anything you like. But you posited that all "competitive players" are agreeing with you, and that's simply not the case.
Here's from Nick Nanavati himself about Ghaz:
"I think he's not an auto include by any stretch, but he is very good. His rule opens up a lot of play that I think has hidden value people may not see off the cusp. Though 285 is a lot no matter how you slice it."
So yeah I was definitely right about some of the best players feeling this way, and that's okay to recognise. You can just disagree with them They are also humans.
You are no more credible because you found a single article from a single (ex)competitive Ork player saying that Ghaz MAYBE has potential. That is almost as vague as my horoscope for today ('someone at work might like you', if you're interested). I have already provided one from another player who was the second or third highest ranking Ork at the LVO this year refuting the claim that Ghaz has any competitive play. So I guess we're 1 for 1 on that front?
You've been told this repeatedly so I doubt it's going to sink in this time but let's give it one more go; Ghaz is garbage in the context of the Ork army because there is nothing he can do that a Warboss on Bike can't do for better and cheaper, excluding his 4 wounds a phase gimmick (and it is a gimmick). I can't say it any more succinctly or clearer than that. If you have units A and B and unit A can do everything unit B can but for half the price, why are you ever taking unit B, regardless of how good it is compared to other units from other codexes? Ghaz is unit B.
Now, if you believe that the 4 wounds a phase ability is worth roughly 175 extra points, a quarter of the movement speed and the almost necessity to take a Goff detachment - be my guest and go for it man. Don't let me stand in the way of creativity. I would be very, very surprised however. It's a shame that the competitive circuit is dead at the minute and we can't put this meme-worthy claim to bed. Likely by the time tournaments start again proper people will have forgotten this topic ever existed or there'll be other releases that evolve the meta before Ghaz even gets a run.
Out of interest just how much do you think Ghaz should cost? Since he is "just a bit too costly"?
Also I should add - if the meta significantly changes, if we see more Knights or other superheavy models much more frequently for example, of course Ghaz may have a place. In the meta as it was before Coronavirus hit he doesn't really have a chance of sneaking into a competitive list (IMO).
I should add again - we've seen this time and time again with Ork units, I recall a number of posters claiming that Death Skulls Shokkjump Dragsters were 'broken good' right as the Ork codex dropped. That we'd see entire armies of them on the competitive scene everywhere. Surprise surprise it didn't happen. This is one of those moments.
My personal favorite will always be Reece saying the Stompa would be amazing and half of Dakkadakka lost their marbles about the OP stompa, then when it got buffed with more dakka the same thing happened, and just recently we had it drop by like 50pts and people were upset that it was going to be too good now. Surprising not a single ork player...no, not it isn't competitive at all.
Can't remember who said it, but they were spot on, when a player with a different main army sees an Ork unit they view it in the mindset of their chosen army and think of all the shenanigans they could do with it. I mean, right now there are a TON of units from other armies I would love in my codex, but I know that for the most part, they are a completely different unit when placed in the ork codex.
So, as of this post i have tried out Ghaz a few times (4 times total using my old model) against my current narrative campaign army he has yet to live past turn 2 and so far as been nothing more then a distraction unit...and not even a very good one. I have Smasha Mek Gunz in my army and so far it takes about 2 mek gunz to dish out 4 wounds to him. Twice I managed it with the 1st gun mostly due to lucky roles. So turn 1 I do 4 damage with just Mek gunz. Turn 2 i repeat and do 4 more damage and finish him with scrapjets bum rushing him and dealing mortal wounds and if necessary CC wounds. If my narrative campaign army can beat Ghaz in 2 turns or less I don't see how meta lists would have any trouble at all.
My personal favorite will always be Reece saying the Stompa would be amazing and half of Dakkadakka lost their marbles about the OP stompa, then when it got buffed with more dakka the same thing happened, and just recently we had it drop by like 50pts and people were upset that it was going to be too good now. Surprising not a single ork player...no, not it isn't competitive at all.
the "stompa is OP now" thread when it was dropped 50 points was VERY much tongue in cheek.
as for Ghaz, if the only thing stopping him from being good is his points that's... long term not too big, they can always reduce him points, IMHO if he was dropped to 200-250 points he'd be a MUCH better take
My personal favorite will always be Reece saying the Stompa would be amazing and half of Dakkadakka lost their marbles about the OP stompa, then when it got buffed with more dakka the same thing happened, and just recently we had it drop by like 50pts and people were upset that it was going to be too good now. Surprising not a single ork player...no, not it isn't competitive at all.
the "stompa is OP now" thread when it was dropped 50 points was VERY much tongue in cheek.
as for Ghaz, if the only thing stopping him from being good is his points that's... long term not too big, they can always reduce him points, IMHO if he was dropped to 200-250 points he'd be a MUCH better take
BrianDavion wrote: as for Ghaz, if the only thing stopping him from being good is his points that's... long term not too big, they can always reduce him points, IMHO if he was dropped to 200-250 points he'd be a MUCH better take
What he needs is the ability to advance and charge. Without that he is too slow to do anything until the point costs drop to a point where he is too durable for what you pay.
My personal favorite will always be Reece saying the Stompa would be amazing and half of Dakkadakka lost their marbles about the OP stompa, then when it got buffed with more dakka the same thing happened, and just recently we had it drop by like 50pts and people were upset that it was going to be too good now. Surprising not a single ork player...no, not it isn't competitive at all.
the "stompa is OP now" thread when it was dropped 50 points was VERY much tongue in cheek.
as for Ghaz, if the only thing stopping him from being good is his points that's... long term not too big, they can always reduce him points, IMHO if he was dropped to 200-250 points he'd be a MUCH better take
LMAO, I started the thread I am aware my own intent was tongue in cheek, but several posters were actually serious which is kind of sad in a way
You are no more credible because you found a single article from a single (ex)competitive Ork player saying that Ghaz MAYBE has potential. That is almost as vague as my horoscope for today ('someone at work might like you', if you're interested).
You LITERALLY called me out for saying that the best Ork player I know feels this way, and called it a completely non-credible statement. So, now that 2019's #1 Ork player ITC and the person who has seen the most success with this dex by a MASSIVE margin released the article, I mention this was who I was referring to, and you act like this was a completely unreasonable statement. Let's be real - there is no answer that would have satisfied you here.
An Actual Englishman wrote: You've been told this repeatedly so I doubt it's going to sink in this time but let's give it one more go; Ghaz is garbage in the context of the Ork army because there is nothing he can do that a Warboss on Bike can't do for better and cheaper, excluding his 4 wounds a phase gimmick (and it is a gimmick). I can't say it any more succinctly or clearer than that. If you have units A and B and unit A can do everything unit B can but for half the price, why are you ever taking unit B, regardless of how good it is compared to other units from other codexes? Ghaz is unit B.
Oh the irony. Considering I said, and I quote, "I think his strength is contested by that of the generic Warboss.", perhaps its you who should take a step back and try to let someone else's opinion sink in, considering this entire rant was literally already acknowledged in my opening statement on the unit. I think the Warboss is better. I don't think Ghaz is some amazing unit. What are you actually arguing about here?
You are way too aggressively overconfident and certain in your conviction that what you say just HAS to be said, for someone who doesn't really have an argument against me here other than "REEEEEE he mentioned that someone else said my Orks aren't trash!". Take a step back and look at what you're actually arguing at this point.
BrianDavion wrote: as for Ghaz, if the only thing stopping him from being good is his points that's... long term not too big, they can always reduce him points, IMHO if he was dropped to 200-250 points he'd be a MUCH better take
What he needs is the ability to advance and charge. Without that he is too slow to do anything until the point costs drop to a point where he is too durable for what you pay.
Are you just going to ignore my last post? I know you saw it, you've responded to every other post I've made in this thread even though none were directed at you. So this one spoken right to you - again, because I'm genuinely curious - name me one person I called casual who has a better tournament placings with Orks than Nick, as you've claimed.
Or did you just think it would sound good to say that and that nobody would check you on that?
"I think he's not an auto include by any stretch, but he is very good. His rule opens up a lot of play that I think has hidden value people may not see off the cusp. Though 285 is a lot no matter how you slice it."
So yeah I was definitely right about some of the best players feeling this way, and that's okay to recognise. You can just disagree with them They are also humans.
Is that the guy who also claimed stompas would be stupidly broken when codex drops? If guy is same(name seems familiar) then...well he might be top player with imperial/eldar soup but not with orks.
BrianDavion wrote: as for Ghaz, if the only thing stopping him from being good is his points that's... long term not too big, they can always reduce him points, IMHO if he was dropped to 200-250 points he'd be a MUCH better take
What he needs is the ability to advance and charge. Without that he is too slow to do anything until the point costs drop to a point where he is too durable for what you pay.
But if he's still too slow does it really matter if he's too durable for his points?
"I think he's not an auto include by any stretch, but he is very good. His rule opens up a lot of play that I think has hidden value people may not see off the cusp. Though 285 is a lot no matter how you slice it."
So yeah I was definitely right about some of the best players feeling this way, and that's okay to recognise. You can just disagree with them They are also humans.
Is that the guy who also claimed stompas would be stupidly broken when codex drops? If guy is same(name seems familiar) then...well he might be top player with imperial/eldar soup but not with orks.
Yes.
Everyone to have an opinion ever about Ghaz that you disagree with, has to also be attributed as unironically calling the stompa OP and then promptly dismissed, thanks to that one thread made on Dakka, that was totally-definitely not satire or anything.
Or, perhaps there's another reason his name might be familiar. Can't possibly think what that might be though.
ccs wrote: But if he's still too slow does it really matter if he's too durable for his points?
Taken to extremes points solve everything.
If Ghaz was 100 points firstly you would have another 185 points of stuff - but you would also have a model which is very inefficient to deal with, as you are only taking off 100 points if you successfully do so.
At the same time Ghaz would only need to get a charge into just about anything but 4-7 point chaff to make a 100 point size dent in your opponents list. With potentially massive upside if you get him into a knight, or a blob of Centurions or whatever.
Right now because he's so expensive your opponent is rewarded for dealing with him properly - and its hard for him to have the necessary impact on the table because he has to connect with a relatively small pool of targets with no movement bonuses.
On the thread in general - really not finding this appeal to authority very compelling. Great players are great players - watching high level LVO games is great for dismissing silly claims that there is no skill in 40k.
But there have been various predictions about Orks and most of them didn't come true. They were meant to dominate the meta with their codex release, and they didn't. I don't know if this is due to "thinking like a Space Marine/Eldar/Tau player" - but frankly I think a lot of people forget just how easily Orks can disappear if you bring the right weapons. Its just a lot of lists - with eye to say Eldar Flyers, or then Space Marines with all the high save/multi wound models, didn't. In a tournament where you need to go 6-0 to win odds are however you will run into someone who does.
Orks are unlikely to ever became dominant, without major point/rule changes, because you could build against them incredibly easily. And so it will be with Ghaz.
Or, perhaps there's another reason his name might be familiar. Can't possibly think what that might be though.
$97 a month?! The hubris you need to charge that kind of money for access to knowledge that is so ridiculously temporal, because of the constant releases and FAQs... Good grief.
I mean, I understand the dude has a team and they all need to get paid for their work, but I kinda feel like nearly a hundred bucks a month (or 800 of you do a yearly thing) is a lot for advice. I can get advice here for free. At the very least, give the folks a once monthly game (on TTS) to get a feel for what they're running and so you can give them play-by-play pointers.
You are no more credible because you found a single article from a single (ex)competitive Ork player saying that Ghaz MAYBE has potential. That is almost as vague as my horoscope for today ('someone at work might like you', if you're interested).
You LITERALLY called me out for saying that the best Ork player I know feels this way, and called it a completely non-credible statement. So, now that 2019's #1 Ork player ITC and the person who has seen the most success with this dex by a MASSIVE margin released the article, I mention this was who I was referring to, and you act like this was a completely unreasonable statement. Let's be real - there is no answer that would have satisfied you here.
An Actual Englishman wrote: You've been told this repeatedly so I doubt it's going to sink in this time but let's give it one more go; Ghaz is garbage in the context of the Ork army because there is nothing he can do that a Warboss on Bike can't do for better and cheaper, excluding his 4 wounds a phase gimmick (and it is a gimmick). I can't say it any more succinctly or clearer than that. If you have units A and B and unit A can do everything unit B can but for half the price, why are you ever taking unit B, regardless of how good it is compared to other units from other codexes? Ghaz is unit B.
Oh the irony. Considering I said, and I quote, "I think his strength is contested by that of the generic Warboss.", perhaps its you who should take a step back and try to let someone else's opinion sink in, considering this entire rant was literally already acknowledged in my opening statement on the unit. I think the Warboss is better. I don't think Ghaz is some amazing unit. What are you actually arguing about here?
You are way too aggressively overconfident and certain in your conviction that what you say just HAS to be said, for someone who doesn't really have an argument against me here other than "REEEEEE he mentioned that someone else said my Orks aren't trash!". Take a step back and look at what you're actually arguing at this point.
BrianDavion wrote: as for Ghaz, if the only thing stopping him from being good is his points that's... long term not too big, they can always reduce him points, IMHO if he was dropped to 200-250 points he'd be a MUCH better take
What he needs is the ability to advance and charge. Without that he is too slow to do anything until the point costs drop to a point where he is too durable for what you pay.
Are you just going to ignore my last post? I know you saw it, you've responded to every other post I've made in this thread even though none were directed at you. So this one spoken right to you - again, because I'm genuinely curious - name me one person I called casual who has a better tournament placings with Orks than Nick, as you've claimed.
Or did you just think it would sound good to say that and that nobody would check you on that?
'Stop ignoring my posts, I KNOW you saw it.' and you claim I need to take a step back?
Answer the rest of my post that you completely ignored if you want the same consideration back. How many points should he cost?
You post an article by Pampreen like it utterly confirms your point of view, that seems to flitter between 'Ghaz is 'contested by a generic warboss' (which, as I have shown above, means he is useless) and 'he is just a teeny, tiny, little bit too expensive'. These two viewpoints of yours don't really coexist. Decide which you feel. Or don't. Your opinion is of very little value because you have virtually no idea what you're talking about and you seem content to hide behind the opinions of others. Do you play Orks? Have you ever?
I wouldn’t pay for it, but I know someone who did and was more than happy with the quality of the service. It’s not just access to premium articles, it’s hours of one on one time every week, personalised list advice and in depth breakdowns, games against himself and other top tournament players, his mobile phone number for any time you have the random competitive question for Nick he can immediately answer you, etc. And then of course, all the premium articles he spends tons of his time writing each week, and if you’ve ever seen a Nick N premo article, you know he puts a ton of time into these things gathering up statistics drawing up graphs and playtesting the topic. And also a bunch of giveaways and prizes and gak too, and access to a very competitive community of people trying to improve their game as opposed to the average poster you see on a page like this.
I believe it actually started out a lot cheaper for just site access, but people wanted more and more out of him and wanted to pay more for it, so the product started to match the demand. How much would you charge for hours of your time, every single week? Because $100 a month is still like only around $20 a week for that, and that’s not including all the time spent on the premium content he makes for them too.
I think you guys are mistaking a service that you have no interest in, for a service of bad quality. This isn’t entry level noob rules explanations. You are literally getting one on one advice with probably the most accomplished and definitely one of the highest skilled players to touch this game, it’s the equivalent of going to Lebron for basketball lessons. I understand the majority of this site has very little REAL competitive aspirations, but I’ve heard nothing but good feedback about Nick’s service. I’ve only ever subbed to his podcast, and that’s possibly the best value for money that a person could get if they wanted a high level content in that media. There’s paintwork artists out there on patreon charging $30 monthly for clips of models they were gonna paint anyway, with about 20 sentences of voice overs spaced through cut and sped up clip. Does it interest me? No. Does that mean it’s bad value? Also no, but it’s a crapton less work and people encourage supporting that.... the competitive scene may not be your interest but don’t gak on someone for selling their hard work.
ccs wrote: But if he's still too slow does it really matter if he's too durable for his points?
Taken to extremes points solve everything.
If Ghaz was 100 points firstly you would have another 185 points of stuff - but you would also have a model which is very inefficient to deal with, as you are only taking off 100 points if you successfully do so.
At the same time Ghaz would only need to get a charge into just about anything but 4-7 point chaff to make a 100 point size dent in your opponents list. With potentially massive upside if you get him into a knight, or a blob of Centurions or whatever.
Right now because he's so expensive your opponent is rewarded for dealing with him properly - and its hard for him to have the necessary impact on the table because he has to connect with a relatively small pool of targets with no movement bonuses.
Well that's one way to look at it.
Me? If he were 100 pts (& no other changes) & my opponent brought him?
1) I'd think "Good, my opponents already down 100 pts!" I mean, he could've brought 285 pts worth of other stuff. But instead opted for only 185 pts worth.
2) I'll deal with this slow moving thing the same way whatever his pts cost (unless he's stupid expensive & victory actually hinges on the pts value of stuff I kill. Then....). I.E.; I'll just move out of it's way. What's it going to do? Catch me? And it sure as hell isn't going to catch anything of mine that'll be worth a fart pts wise. Meanwhile I'll still take potshots at it as the opportunities present.
Yeah, Jidmah did respond the second time and I saw the post before it was deleted. Not sure why his post was deleted, but let's just say that I'm still waiting to hear who are the players that I said were "casual" in this thread who actually have more top placings at GT's than Nick Nanavati are. I think we all know that was a statement that was never gonna be supported though.
No no, no we didn't do that. In fact, I believe my exact words were that "putting something in article does not make it indisputable fact, and you are always open to disagree". Try to keep up.
I posted the article as confirmation that when I cited the opinions of one of the best Ork players in the world, that I was in fact, citing the opinions of the best Ork player in the world, a point that was only in dispute because of you. That doesn't mean you can't disagree with said opinions. But it does mean that you can hold the L on the whole snide "my uncle works for nintendo too!" nonsense.
I don't know if it's selective memory or if you're this actually awful at keeping up with your own arguments, but I'll direct your attention to the part where you directly asked me to source who I was talking about with those claims and tried to blow me up for it:
An Actual Englishman wrote: Ah yes, I know someone who works at Nintendo and also happens to be the best Ork player ever too! Who is this mysterious Ork player you mention? Care to drop any names because otherwise your statement has 0 credibility.
It was right before the part where you linked my friend's website for "proof" from "real competitive players" for why I'm wrong, if you need a reminder But keep the laughs coming please, you're always very entertaining with how irrational you get concerning this sort of thing.
flandarz wrote: I mean, I understand the dude has a team and they all need to get paid for their work, but I kinda feel like nearly a hundred bucks a month (or 800 of you do a yearly thing) is a lot for advice. I can get advice here for free. At the very least, give the folks a once monthly game (on TTS) to get a feel for what they're running and so you can give them play-by-play pointers.
Yeah wow. Who pays for that? The website itself looks so... like a scam. Ick.
And about Ghaz, wouldnt it be better to just buy the box and try it out? Cost about 1 month... if not good then get experience plus models = winning!
But this is free advice. Maybe i should charge for that? ¿
Nitro Zeus wrote: Yeah, Jidmah did respond the second time and I saw the post before it was deleted. Not sure why his post was deleted, but let's just say that I'm still waiting to hear who are the players that I said were "casual" in this thread who actually have more top placings at GT's than Nick Nanavati are. I think we all know that was a statement that was never gonna be supported though.
1) If you have read it, you can find that answer yourself.
2) The mods explicitly told us to drop the issue.
flandarz wrote: I mean, I understand the dude has a team and they all need to get paid for their work, but I kinda feel like nearly a hundred bucks a month (or 800 of you do a yearly thing) is a lot for advice. I can get advice here for free. At the very least, give the folks a once monthly game (on TTS) to get a feel for what they're running and so you can give them play-by-play pointers.
Yeah wow. Who pays for that? The website itself looks so... like a scam. Ick.
And about Ghaz, wouldnt it be better to just buy the box and try it out? Cost about 1 month... if not good then get experience plus models = winning!
But this is free advice. Maybe i should charge for that? ¿
I have 3 bottlecaps and a CHF, is this enough or should i bleach my brain?
Jokes aside.
at an 1/8th+ off a 2000 pts army with his only gimick in his favour beeing a 4dmg / phase then yeah i just don't see him even as a annoyment to deal with unit niche.
flandarz wrote: I mean, I understand the dude has a team and they all need to get paid for their work, but I kinda feel like nearly a hundred bucks a month (or 800 of you do a yearly thing) is a lot for advice. I can get advice here for free. At the very least, give the folks a once monthly game (on TTS) to get a feel for what they're running and so you can give them play-by-play pointers.
Yeah wow. Who pays for that? The website itself looks so... like a scam. Ick.
And about Ghaz, wouldnt it be better to just buy the box and try it out? Cost about 1 month... if not good then get experience plus models = winning!
But this is free advice. Maybe i should charge for that? ¿
Do you know these fortune cookies that say "if you think a cookie can tell the future, rethink your life"? Maybe his page is just like that
Nitro Zeus wrote: Yeah, Jidmah did respond the second time and I saw the post before it was deleted. Not sure why his post was deleted, but let's just say that I'm still waiting to hear who are the players that I said were "casual" in this thread who actually have more top placings at GT's than Nick Nanavati are. I think we all know that was a statement that was never gonna be supported though.
1) If you have read it, you can find that answer yourself.
2) The mods explicitly told us to drop the issue.
1) you made the claim that some of the casual players in this very thread have a better GT track record than Nick Nanavati with Orks. That turned out to be a lie however, as when questioned on it, your response was "read through a 300 page thread about Orks and cross reference it with 50 reddit threads each averaging 150 posts if you want to find out if I'm telling the truth", making it unmistakably clear that you were of course, making it up.
2) the mods have said absolutely nothing to me, unsure what they said to you. In fact in your last post implied you had no idea why they were removed. What did the mods explicitly tell you?
Dude, Nick had a single top 4 placement with orks, in 4th place at adepticon. With a list that goes against the very advise he has given in his videos and his blog posts.
How hard do you think it is to beat that?
Elfric wrote: So we are now trying to bash people offering a paid service. No one here has to pay for anything if they think they know everything already.
I think people are bashing the price of said service though personally I don't see why anyone would pay to have one of the most fun aspects of the hobby given to someone else.
.
I'll hold the L on this one. Still not saying my opinion is gospel of course and I'm open to counter arguments, but my opinion is now that you guys are right, and that 285 is indeed just a bit too high for what he can offer.
I am aware my own intent was tongue in cheek, but several posters were actually serious which is kind of sad in a way 
