Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Page 132 Codex: Orks (Warlord Traits) wrote:MIGHT IS RIGHT
A solid slab of muscle and aggression, this Ork’s strength is unsurpassed.
Add 1 to your Warlord’s Strength and Attacks characteristics

Page 133 Codex: Orks (Clan Warlord Traits) wrote:GOFFS: PROPER KILLY
Goff bosses are the most brutal of an already brutal breed. They are unstoppable engines of destruction who rampage through the enemy ranks and leave mounds of crushed and brutalised corpses in their wake.
Add 1 to your Warlord’s Attacks characteristic.

Anyone else notice the slight problem here?

Either this is intended, in which case I have to wonder what the heck the rules writers were smoking and may I please have some, or it's a mistake in which case GW keep up their record of 100% error filled books.

Edit: I have been informed it's so that Ghazgul only gets +1 attack, which is a very stupid way of doing things since it basically means Goff's don't get a unique Warlord Trait. It should have been +2 attacks and if Ghaz was a problem, just lower his base attacks by 1.

You mean 100% record of books containing at least 1 error? You've written that sentence in a manner suggesting the full contents is errenous.

Also please find me literally any miniature games rulebook that doesn't have any errors at all. I'm including grammatical whoopsies.

I think there's a relic that let's you take an additional Warlord Trait, so presumably the intent is to stack them together or just use the superior one if you're not using that relic.

xlDuke wrote:
I think there's a relic that let's you take an additional Warlord Trait, so presumably the intent is to stack them together or just use the superior one if you're not using that relic.

Isn't that relic specific to blood axes though? If so, a Goff warlord wouldn't be able to take it.
But yeah, badly designed warlord trait is badly designed. It would have been more interesting if it gave all goff units within 6" an extra attack.

That is kind of lame, but as a Iyanden player, I'm used to lame warlord traits.

'Morgog’s Finkin’ Kap' is Blood Axe only. I think the only reason that Trait exists is that it's Ghazghkull Thrakas.

Between Warlord Traits and Relics, it seems there's usually something...

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Anyone else notice the slight problem here?

Not the first time though.
The current sisters warlord trait is a strictly worse version of the generic rulebook leadership trait and it directly conflicts with the only rule moral booster in the sisters codex.

beast_gts wrote:
'Morgog’s Finkin’ Kap' is Blood Axe only. I think the only reason that Trait exists is that it's Ghazghkull Thrakas.

That's terrible design though. It should be viable for generic Warbosses too.
They should have given Ghazkull 2 less attacks and made the Goff warlord trait give 2 attacks.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

They should have given Ghazkull 2 less attacks and made the Goff warlord trait give 2 attacks.

Ghaz is a 235pts model with no shooting and only 8 woundd. Even with 8 attacks he wouldn't be broken.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Edit: I have been informed it's so that Ghazgul only gets +1 attack, which is a very stupid way of doing things since it basically means Goff's don't get a unique Warlord Trait. It should have been +2 attacks and if Ghaz was a problem, just lower his base attacks by 1.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/11/03 11:43:50

If you can't even manage three lines of text without an error, why are you so upset that there are some faults in these books?

 davou wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Edit: I have been informed it's so that Ghazgul only gets +1 attack, which is a very stupid way of doing things since it basically means Goff's don't get a unique Warlord Trait. It should have been +2 attacks and if Ghaz was a problem, just lower his base attacks by 1.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/11/03 11:43:50

If you can't even manage three lines of text without an error, why are you so upset that there are some faults in these books?

When you start paying me $100 per post, then you get to complain.

-removed by insaniak-

 Nym wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

They should have given Ghazkull 2 less attacks and made the Goff warlord trait give 2 attacks.

Ghaz is a 235pts model with no shooting and only 8 woundd. Even with 8 attacks he wouldn't be broken.

Hang on - Ghaz has no shooting? What the frak?

Both Ghazghkull models have had some form of shoota weapon on them...

 Dysartes wrote:

 Nym wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

They should have given Ghazkull 2 less attacks and made the Goff warlord trait give 2 attacks.

Ghaz is a 235pts model with no shooting and only 8 woundd. Even with 8 attacks he wouldn't be broken.

Hang on - Ghaz has no shooting? What the frak?

Both Ghazghkull models have had some form of shoota weapon on them...

He has a twin big shoota and stikkbombs.

Well, that's good to hear - didn't pick up either Index: Xenos, and haven't looked at Codex: Orks yet

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 davou wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Edit: I have been informed it's so that Ghazgul only gets +1 attack, which is a very stupid way of doing things since it basically means Goff's don't get a unique Warlord Trait. It should have been +2 attacks and if Ghaz was a problem, just lower his base attacks by 1.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/11/03 11:43:50

If you can't even manage three lines of text without an error, why are you so upset that there are some faults in these books?

When you start paying me $100 per post, then you get to complain.

when you start writing 200 page posts then you can demand a hundred bucks, for a 2-3 sentence post? Have a penny. *throws a penny at BCB*

You don't understand, this is the NEW Games Workshop! Poor writing is okay, don't be so entitled.

 Arbitrator wrote:
You don't understand, this is the NEW Games Workshop! Poor writing is okay, don't be so entitled.

The writing is not substantially better or worse. All games systems this size have a bunch of errors or grey areas or unintended consequences to rules interactions.

Difference in my opinion is people are complaining more, probably because GW are attempting to fix things rather than letting them stand and that draws more attention to it.

Given thats what Ghaz gets it would have been better to give him +1A in his profile then had a GOFF trait that did something else - maybe allowed advance & charge in a larger aura or something

leopard wrote:
Given thats what Ghaz gets it would have been better to give him +1A in his profile then had a GOFF trait that did something else - maybe allowed advance & charge in a larger aura or something

They don't want to give Ghaz +1 attack(or want to force you to spend your WL trait to do it) that's why they designed it that way.
Just means GOFF Warbosses don't get a unique trait to consider taking...

-removed by insaniak-

Lammia wrote:

leopard wrote:
Given thats what Ghaz gets it would have been better to give him +1A in his profile then had a GOFF trait that did something else - maybe allowed advance & charge in a larger aura or something

They don't want to give Ghaz +1 attack(or want to force you to spend your WL trait to do it) that's why they designed it that way.
Just means GOFF Warbosses don't get a unique trait to consider taking...

Which is bad design. What if you don't want to take Ghaz, but want to take a GOFF warboss with a GOFF trait? You'll be hobbling yourself.

Usual BCB hyperbole aside, I think this is indeed stupid. They should have bundled that with some other benefit, and if Ghazkull is the problem adjust his stats accordingly.

The most probable cause is different people writing different sections and not even bothering to read each others' stuff.

Malign Sorcery has 80+ artefacts and there are LOADS of duplicates and strictly better/worse variants of the same effect.

I'm going to try and be shocked...no can't do it

The current devs are crap this has become the norm not the exception.

I second that the basic issue is GW does not seem to have someone reading ALL aspects of the rules, but people in separate areas writing portions without comparison. I did this job for many years for the college I taught at for their in-house produced documentation. It is NOT an easy job, and everyone misses things. There is a reason continuity checkers, editors, etc exist, require training and experience, and make good money. Being a gamin' nerd who may be smart does not mean you have the skill and thought process. Knowing the language and being able to type does not make you a writer. Both are rare abilities that many people fail to see as rare abilities. Including many companies who think this is an area money can be saved.

I say this because as others have pointed out this type of "special ability is weaker than basic or other" is common throughout the system (Don't let me get started on the absolute pile the White Scars got handed as Warlord trait, stratagem, Unique HQ). It isn't going to change because the basic thought process is in the company DNA. I do give them credit for attempting change when others do notice it, and the volume of rules compounds the process. Problems within one codex is pretty bad though.

Have worked on writing multi-million pound (as in nine figure) tender documents, working as "group writing", I asked a few simple questions like:

- what tense do we write in? (present, future etc)
- how are we defining the company (by name, "us" etc)
- what writing style should be use (formal, easy to read etc)
- was there a template to use?

The look I got was one of utter confusion as they didn't understand why this made a difference.

Not hard to see why GW would suffer from it, indeed warts and all GWs writing is better...


I prided myself on the bit I wrote constantly scoring 90%+ on evaluation.. the rest.. less so

Let's calm down here, folks. We're getting awfully close to breaking Rule #1.

In threads like these where you don't like the premise, you can skip the thread entirely. Posting in these threads only gives them more attention; if that's not your goal, don't post.

If something like this happens in a thread about something else, you can not reply to the post (if it's on topic) or report it with the yellow Moderator Alert triangle in the upper right of each post (if it's off topic).

If you want to make a positive impact, start new threads about topics you'd like to discuss.

Wow! The goff warlord trait is indeed trash. What a terrible internal balance...