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.

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

Wordbearers would like to say hi

Why should we be positive about incompetence like this? Why is "positivity" held up as some sacred ideal, regardless of whether or not the product being discussed is good? Why is criticism of failure automatically "not constructive"?

I hate how tiresome BCB can be at times but here hes absolutely right. This is just ... this shouldn't be a thing, to be honest. Give Goff a 6+ to regenerate CP because they are the most discipliend of the orks or something. It wasn't that difficult.

It's worth noting that, unlike many of the BCB posts about extreme RAW literalism involving rules where everyone understands and plays by obvious RAI, this is not a case of RAW vs RAI. It's just a really stupid rule that we should not excuse.

This basically shows that GW don't review their codexes before publishing, or are thoughtless when it comes to piecing together books.

They could've just reduced Ghaz's attacks by 1 instead of Depriving the codex from a Warlord trait, this is just plain bizzare.

Not to mention with the crazy gak about Gretchin around a Mekgun not existing but yet existing at the same time.

 Galas wrote:
I hate how tiresome BCB can be at times but here hes absolutely right. This is just ... this shouldn't be a thing, to be honest. Give Goff a 6+ to regenerate CP because they are the most discipliend of the orks or something. It wasn't that difficult.

That's the Blood Axe one atm, because Goffs are more about getting stuck in than being particularly tactical. It'd be fine if it was even just D3 attacks at the start of each Fight phase, or rerolling to hit and wounds rolls against characters.

Isn't comparing individual WL traits kind of pointless to begin with? Kulturs are package deals. You'd have to look at the stratagem, relics, wl traits, kultur bonus, and unique chars available to really call them out for poor balance/writing.

RogueApiary wrote:
Isn't comparing individual WL traits kind of pointless to begin with? Kulturs are package deals. You'd have to look at the stratagem, relics, wl traits, kultur bonus, and unique chars available to really call them out for poor balance/writing.

And really, you're also comparing the clan WL trait to the six standard WL traits. It doesn't really matter if clan trait A is better than clan trait B if generic trait C is better than both of them.

RogueApiary wrote:
Isn't comparing individual WL traits kind of pointless to begin with? Kulturs are package deals. You'd have to look at the stratagem, relics, wl traits, kultur bonus, and unique chars available to really call them out for poor balance/writing.

Except no one would ever take the Warlord Trait unless FORCED to.

The generic one-which IS available to Goffs-is just better.

If it WAS mandatory on more than Ghaz, then that'd be a better point.

I don't think it would have been that broken for Ghazkull to have one more attack. Isn't he supposed to be a massive beatstick character anyway, like the ork version of Guilliman?

 JNAProductions wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:
Isn't comparing individual WL traits kind of pointless to begin with? Kulturs are package deals. You'd have to look at the stratagem, relics, wl traits, kultur bonus, and unique chars available to really call them out for poor balance/writing.

Except no one would ever take the Warlord Trait unless FORCED to.

The generic one-which IS available to Goffs-is just better.

If it WAS mandatory on more than Ghaz, then that'd be a better point.

This isn't a unique situation to Orks. Several other codexes have special characters tied to near useless warlord traits. Take another HQ for your warlord and pick a better trait.

epronovost wrote:
I don't think it would have been that broken for Ghazkull to have one more attack. Isn't he supposed to be a massive beatstick character anyway, like the ork version of Guilliman?

You forget, he's a Xenos character.

You’re not looking at the warlord trait as a whole, even though the generic one is better than it’s counter part, it’s also on a table of warlord traits that are worse as a whole.

RogueApiary wrote:
Isn't comparing individual WL traits kind of pointless to begin with? Kulturs are package deals. You'd have to look at the stratagem, relics, wl traits, kultur bonus, and unique chars available to really call them out for poor balance/writing.

Except here comparison is to two trait goffs can take. And better one by all. Thus nobody will use the goff specific one.

No excuse whatsoever to have useless clan specific anything. If gw logic is better relic justifies worse warlord trait they are totally cluless about even basic principles of game design.

Besides goffs aren#t even good but among bottom ones...

Give Gahz his own warlord trait. Dont let him have any others. problem solved.

 Big Mac wrote:
You’re not looking at the warlord trait as a whole, even though the generic one is better than it’s counter part, it’s also on a table of warlord traits that are worse as a whole.

Who cares? You pick your trait, it doesn't matter what else is on the table

 JNAProductions wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:
Isn't comparing individual WL traits kind of pointless to begin with? Kulturs are package deals. You'd have to look at the stratagem, relics, wl traits, kultur bonus, and unique chars available to really call them out for poor balance/writing.

Except no one would ever take the Warlord Trait unless FORCED to.

The generic one-which IS available to Goffs-is just better.

If it WAS mandatory on more than Ghaz, then that'd be a better point.

It's also mandatory on Zagstrukk and Mekboss Buzzgob, if you make them warlords

But yeah, there is nothing to this but GW being weirdly afraid of buffing Thrakka too much. I guess when fighting twice, and then getting back up to fight another time he could one-shot a castellan, but there are more elegant ways to prevent such things from happening.

While the trait is objectively trash...

You do realize that you are under no requirement(except for ghazzy) to take the goff klan trait, right?

There are going to be 6 other traits for Orks, plus you have the BRB traits still available.

On top of that, Goff Kulture grants exploding 6s to melee as well as shooting that all orks get.

You can choose the BRB trait for +1 S and A; or one of the 6 likely better traits available regardless of Klan, or even any of the other brb traits(that are all applicable).

Every codex has at least one trash <KEYWORD> warlord trait, usually attached to one of the better <KEYWORD> subfactions.

Woah this seems like terrible design. I sure hope we won't get bad decisions like this in the Sisters codex. Though at least I'm playing a custom order so I can really pick and chose between the Convictions at will.

It does seem odd, this Codex should not have been in a rush and I think the folks at GW speak and read "the queen's english" so some care should have been given.

I agree that if you are worried that a model needs a limit on it's stats, it should say as such on the entry not do strange things with the traits list.
There are many situations where you would apply generic rules "unless otherwise stated", that is how you ensure the critical items are controlled better by giving them specific rules: it is to be expected.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
This basically shows that GW don't review their codexes before publishing, or are thoughtless when it comes to piecing together books.

They could've just reduced Ghaz's attacks by 1 instead of Depriving the codex from a Warlord trait, this is just plain bizzare.

That would make Ghaz worse when he's not the warlord without gaining much other than letting people feel like they have another choice.

The codex is designed for Ork soup, not to run a single kultur as your entire army. You've got the option of taking Ghaz as your Warlord in a Goff detachment, or you can make one of the HQs in one of your other two kulturs the Warlord instead.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why should we be positive about incompetence like this? Why is "positivity" held up as some sacred ideal, regardless of whether or not the product being discussed is good? Why is criticism of failure automatically "not constructive"?

Because complaining has a weird (and unfair) connotation of being childish. Parents probably punished kids for complaining and conditioned them not to complain. I think this is where it comes from. Basically it's bad parenting. lol.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why should we be positive about incompetence like this? Why is "positivity" held up as some sacred ideal, regardless of whether or not the product being discussed is good? Why is criticism of failure automatically "not constructive"?

Because complaining has a weird (and unfair) connotation of being childish. Parents probably punished kids for complaining and conditioned them not to complain. I think this is where it comes from. Basically it's bad parenting. lol.

Because complaining is what children, and other people that see themselves as powerless, do. Whining and moaning and carrying on is the refuge of those that do not wish to improve their lot.

Virtually no one is going to make Ghaz their warlord, as he desperately wants to be on the front lines. Nobody else needs to take the trait. Done.

Yes, it's dumb. It's easily worked around. Unless you desperately need the ego boost for discovering an error, or you want to fuel some sort of pathetic fever dream that GW is out to get you as an Ork player, further discussion is going to have very little value.

 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...

What he means is that ghaz effectively has no shooting. He almost always advances, in order to charge, so his 6 str 5 ap0 shots hit on 6s. So, ghaz can usually skip his shooting phase, as it's usually just for fun.

As for the OP, yeah, it's a bit mind-boggling. But it's fine, overall.

 Polonius wrote:
Because complaining is what children, and other people that see themselves as powerless, do. Whining and moaning and carrying on is the refuge of those that do not wish to improve their lot.

Sister of Battle player here.
Complaining worked out in the end .

 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.

That doesn't solve the problem, either.

Making it +2A puts a normal Warboss on 6. What if they just wanted them at 5 attacks? You can't suddenly lower the Warboss to 3 attacks to compensate.

They also apparently didn't want to just give the +1S to this one, either, because it would make Ghaz S14 and it would also be the same as the other trait.

So, what is "Goff" that doesn't disrupt those things?

A +1 hit might be ok since Ghaz won't care about it so much. Moot point anyway - just use the other ones.

They could just have given them a trait that benefits models around him and not himself. There are plenty of those in other codices.
Or one of those traits which rewards smashing characters with him, with Goffs being da biggest an da best. Not awesome, but better than stricktly redundant.

Nothing you couldn't have fixed within half an hour in a brainstorm session. They probably had to replace the trait they had before last minute and just went with whatever...

The FAQ changed this trait, it now also improves the AP of melee weapons on the charge, or if charged, or heroic interventions. Which is pretty nice.

Indeed, I am happy. It's a sidegrade to the Generic Trait now instead of a Downgrade. Makes Ghaz even more killy!