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.

 Elfric wrote:

-Guardsman- wrote:

 Elfric wrote:
I didn't ask how to one shot him with your army I asked what 1 unit in the game can beat him in close combat

I don't know if that's a useful question. This isn't a pit fight. It's a battle.

However...

Archons are known to be able to punch well above their weight class when they're lucky with their Shadowfield. Of course, you can't rely on "being lucky". How good is Gazh at dishing out mortal wounds?

.

I play orks and dark eldar. There is no way an Archon is beating him in cc, no matter how he is kitted out. If this isn't a put fight then why have any big hard hitting monsters. Everyone is arguing that Ghaz is trash and I am arguing that he is potentially the best CC unit in the game. Apart from Magnus I am not sure what other 1 unit is beating him

I didn't realise 'what 1 unit can beat it' is the metric by which 'best cc unit in the game' is measured. And you've had an answer that you seem to be ignoring.... Bloodletters, Poxwalkers, Ork Boyz...

Your question is irrelevant and has absolutely no bearing on whether Ghaz is 'the best cc unit in the game'. If he never gets into cc, he is utterly useless. If he never gets into cc with his intended targets he is utterly useless. He moves 7" MAX and has no way to improve on a 9inch charge from deep strike (less than 50% chance of making the charge). He can't even advance and charge. He is garbage at 285 pts. You will never see him in competitive lists and this thread is kinda revealing in terms of the demographics of this forum.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ghaz, as I see it, runs two ways.

Either surrounded by gobs of bikes and boyz or oversaturated with melee vehicles so as to force shots on to Ghaz in lieu of going after vehicles. Evil Sunz BBs with a 15" + 4.5" + advance and charge on top of needing to shoot a deepstriking Ghaz? Seems like a slightly tall order.

Unfortunately Dae, you don't know what you're talking about in this regard. You thought he could fight twice and you seem to be adding an attack to him for some reason, you don't know Orks well enough.

He isn't a good unit, unfortunately.

I know them quite well. Forgetting he's a monster and fight twice is infantry is really inconsequential. Did he lose his warlord trait for some unknown reason?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ghaz, as I see it, runs two ways.

Either surrounded by gobs of bikes and boyz or oversaturated with melee vehicles so as to force shots on to Ghaz in lieu of going after vehicles. Evil Sunz BBs with a 15" + 4.5" + advance and charge on top of needing to shoot a deepstriking Ghaz? Seems like a slightly tall order.

Unfortunately Dae, you don't know what you're talking about in this regard. You thought he could fight twice and you seem to be adding an attack to him for some reason, you don't know Orks well enough.

He isn't a good unit, unfortunately.

I know them quite well. Forgetting he's a monster and fight twice is infantry is really inconsequential. Did he lose his warlord trait for some unknown reason?

Not that I know of, but why is a competitive player taking a Goff detachment? Does he always charge first despite being slower and unable to advance and charge?

Forgetting he can't fight twice without dying is actually huge. It halves his potential damage output. It's also the reason he can't be jumped, advance and charge, benefit from the painboy aura, go on terrain features and is generally awful.

Unlike most other codices we don't have a list matching characters to traits, but a rule on page 132 of the ork codex stating that named characters must always use the warlord trait of their corresponding clan, with Thrakka used as an example.

But yes, AAE is right, no one uses goff detachments and Thrakka for sure is not a reason to start doing so.

You also wouldn't want make Thrakka your warlord for dozens of reasons. But who am I talking to, "I know them quite well." has been proven wrong so many times... *points to signature*

Ironically us Ork players have discussed Thraka at length. We all want him to be competitive. Like desperately. None of us (and I mean none) can work out how to make him work. It's a shame, the model is soo nice and true to my word I've pre-ordered him because 'new Ork release'.

This is why all these counter arguments are rolling off the tongues of us Ork players - we've assessed him, at length and with the intention of making him work, it just doesn't seem feasible.

As I've said before, I'm not a fan of the 4-wounds-per-phase limit simply because it's another example of GW papering over the cracks in their system rather than actually addressing the core issues.

However, in terms of actual power level, I'd much prefer that Primarchs and the like were closer to Ghazghkull than vice versa.

I think the game would be far better off if people were fielding special characters solely because they liked their models - not because they have incredible auras, unrivalled psychic powers or any other such.

To put it another way, I actually think it's better when special characters don't represent the best possible value for their points.

 vipoid wrote:
As I've said before, I'm not a fan of the 4-wounds-per-phase limit simply because it's another example of GW papering over the cracks in their system rather than actually addressing the core issues.

However, in terms of actual power level, I'd much prefer that Primarchs and the like were closer to Ghazghkull than vice versa.

I think the game would be far better off if people were fielding special characters solely because they liked their models - not because they have incredible auras, unrivalled psychic powers or any other such.

To put it another way, I actually think it's better when special characters don't represent the best possible value for their points.

Well Crowe is an example of being worse than the generic version of an HQ

 vipoid wrote:
As I've said before, I'm not a fan of the 4-wounds-per-phase limit simply because it's another example of GW papering over the cracks in their system rather than actually addressing the core issues.

However, in terms of actual power level, I'd much prefer that Primarchs and the like were closer to Ghazghkull than vice versa.

I think the game would be far better off if people were fielding special characters solely because they liked their models - not because they have incredible auras, unrivalled psychic powers or any other such.

To put it another way, I actually think it's better when special characters don't represent the best possible value for their points.

In my opinion, rank and file characters should be what holds an army together and special characters should either have unique, whacky rules or do stuff that you can get away with having once in your army but would blow up if you had multiples.

Thrakka being Warboss+1 is just as bad as being Warboss-1. In a perfect world, Thrakka should be a valid alternative to a warboss, with pros and cons. Right now it's all cons.

Special characters do need to do something special, but special does not mean it has to be better, special can be different and appropriately costed for it.

A space marine captain SC that can decide to be either re-roll 1's to hit or re-roll 1's to wound at the start of the turn.

Yeah, many people won't see the benefit in that, or not be happy as it is not super powerful, but it is different, and in a crux different can be useful.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Special characters do need to do something special, but special does not mean it has to be better, special can be different and appropriately costed for it.

A space marine captain SC that can decide to be either re-roll 1's to hit to re-roll 1's to wound at the start of the turn.

Yeah, many people won't see the benefit in that, or not be happy as it is not super powerful, but it is different, and in a crux different can be useful.

Sometimes just doing different isn't good. Look at Crowe and Stern for Grey Knights as an example. They're definitely more unique compared to the generic versions, but they're so absurdly worse as a choice it's kinda hilarious.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Special characters do need to do something special, but special does not mean it has to be better, special can be different and appropriately costed for it.

A space marine captain SC that can decide to be either re-roll 1's to hit to re-roll 1's to wound at the start of the turn.

Yeah, many people won't see the benefit in that, or not be happy as it is not super powerful, but it is different, and in a crux different can be useful.

Sometimes just doing different isn't good. Look at Crowe and Stern for Grey Knights as an example. They're definitely more unique compared to the generic versions, but they're so absurdly worse as a choice it's kinda hilarious.

That's why it should be built for the most part on existing rules. TBF I like universal special rules and would limit the use of unique special rule(s) to 1 or 2 characters per faction.

I actually really like Ghaz and his rules for the most part. They should have just sorted his movement out or given him access to mitigate it, allowing him to teleport deep strike and say his charge range is 6 +D6.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ghaz, as I see it, runs two ways.

Either surrounded by gobs of bikes and boyz or oversaturated with melee vehicles so as to force shots on to Ghaz in lieu of going after vehicles. Evil Sunz BBs with a 15" + 4.5" + advance and charge on top of needing to shoot a deepstriking Ghaz? Seems like a slightly tall order.

Unfortunately Dae, you don't know what you're talking about in this regard. You thought he could fight twice and you seem to be adding an attack to him for some reason, you don't know Orks well enough.

He isn't a good unit, unfortunately.

I know them quite well. Forgetting he's a monster and fight twice is infantry is really inconsequential. Did he lose his warlord trait for some unknown reason?

It is for anyone else.

Or are you forgetting what is in your bloody signature...?

Also why would you make Ghaz your Warlord LOL

Gadzilla666 wrote:
40 points of cultists or guardsmen a turn and Ghaz is just a pretty face with a big price tag. Fare trade.

This is a non argument because Orks do not lack tools to deal easily with 40 points of cultists. Anybody who play Ghaz will, obviously, deal with screens with other units. Not to mention Ghaz is not that mobile to begin with.

Also, the argument around the point cost of Ghaz is a non argument : who take the point cost seriously in this day and age ? He will drop in the next chapter approved for sure.

There are two things that makes me believe Ghaz is not OP : he is a monster, which means that as of now he cannot be healed by a medic - and that's silly considering who he is (and his fluff). And, as a monster, he cannot go into a transport either.

The point costs are as is. You can't make guesstimates on what MIGHT be a future point cost. After all, Ogryns went up in price.

I think a lot of people want to frame him into pre-conceived their box. Same thing happens with Magnus - "if you don't warptime him into combat as fast as possible then you're not maximizing him", but come to find out that isn't the only way to play him.

gak, Abaddon is great and even got a point cut and you still don't see him much, but just because you don't see him at majors doesn't mean he can't do well.

People just don't like to lean forward into melee and would rather sit on their ass with Mek Gunz.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also why would you make Ghaz your Warlord LOL

Hard to be warlord from the display cabinet!

 Grimtuff wrote:


It is for anyone else.

Or are you forgetting what is in your bloody signature...?

Ah, I see. Sorry for being human and making a simple mistake. Getting cheap petty shots in - that's what friends are for, right?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think a lot of people want to frame him into pre-conceived their box. Same thing happens with Magnus - "if you don't warptime him into combat as fast as possible then you're not maximizing him", but come to find out that isn't the only way to play him.

gak, Abaddon is great and even got a point cut and you still don't see him much, but just because you don't see him at majors doesn't mean he can't do well.

People just don't like to lean forward into melee and would rather sit on their ass with Mek Gunz.

Yeah I totally agree with you. He will be an effective unit if they fix a few things on him (mostly letting painboyz healing him without having to use a strata and his aura) and tweak his cost a little.
His wounding rule can makes him a very interesting unit if played well imo.

This thread is amazing. Ghaz is basically a 285 point smash captain without fly. You are paying a ludicrous sum of points just so he can't be insta-gibbed at some point. I think he might be okay in a casual setting - because yes, 55%~ of the time his charges work every time. In a tournament you are going to have to get very lucky not to have multiple games where he comes down, fails that charge, and so you've potentially taken 3 turns from your opponent while Ghaz has done nothing.

Then you have the problem that his attacks are quite specialised - and so yes, easily screened. Saying "orks can clear screens" is weird. They can - almost everyone can - but Ghaz has to then be in position to then charge something else. He shouldn't be until late into the game when either running up or DSing in.

But really - why don't people like the "only do X wounds a phase" thing? People often complain that stuff in modern 40k dies far too easily and this seems like a good solution. I can see the argument this should apply to all characters - arguably its a more epic form of protection than the current system of "can't touch this, can't touch this, oh no I is kill" which has provoked various dubious rules interactions in 8th. It would allow for more interesting character duels rather than *I charge, I kill unless you luck out on invuls*.

It would require a rebalance of the game, but thats not the end of the world.

It seems to me that the argument in this thread boils down to ghaz Is amazing in a vacuum vs
Ghaz is terrible in a vacuum

Lots of people citing that ghazzy is an easy kill but forgetting that there will also be 1700 points of orks on the table!
And others believing that ghazzy is simply an unkillable wrecking ball in an edition that wrecks knights.

I’m kind of in between.

Ghazzy can do work in a list and if you build around him he may even be decent in casual games he’s not amazing but he’s also not terrible.

The biggest issue is tournaments and that’s where allot of people are drawing their power level of ghazzy from,
IMO he’s just not efficient in any tournament format, the investment is too high for a poor return

Tyel wrote:


But really - why don't people like the "only do X wounds a phase" thing? People often complain that stuff in modern 40k dies far too easily and this seems like a good solution. I can see the argument this should apply to all characters - arguably its a more epic form of protection than the current system of "can't touch this, can't touch this, oh no I is kill" which has provoked various dubious rules interactions in 8th. It would allow for more interesting character duels rather than *I charge, I kill unless you luck out on invuls*.

It actually feels like a half baked idea to reduce the killiness of the most killy edition of 40k yet. They have zero way to balance all the huge shooting AND make characters effective without resorting to really stretching things to help them survive. Its yet another patch to an overly bloated mess.

The reaction is the usual armchair general reaction, plus a vague guess about its "competitive, tournament" worthiness. For anyone else who plays orks and wants to field Ghaz, in club games and similar, he'll be just fine.

The biggest issue with Ghaz is that you can spend 1 CP and a Relic and make an 80pt Warboss as good in some aspects and better in many others. And to do this, you CAN'T include Ghaz. He can work just fine in your local scene, but you're giving up a lot to field him.

Tyel wrote:
But really - why don't people like the "only do X wounds a phase" thing? People often complain that stuff in modern 40k dies far too easily and this seems like a good solution. I can see the argument this should apply to all characters - arguably its a more epic form of protection than the current system of "can't touch this, can't touch this, oh no I is kill" which has provoked various dubious rules interactions in 8th. It would allow for more interesting character duels rather than *I charge, I kill unless you luck out on invuls*.

It's a really ham fisted mechanic, it essentially shuts down a level of interactivity, and just feels really forced, a poor solution to a real problem, and breaks a level of immersion when something can just start absorbing infinite levels of killing power at some point. Of greater importance, is that a mechanic like this can basically result in a truly unkillable unit if an appropriate healing mechanic is made available at some point, and GW likes to go and do things like that, sometimes without meaning to.

That said I don't think Ghaz is broken, I just really don't like that particular mechanic. I'd really have preferred Ghaz just remain a character with less than 10 wounds, this upscaling to bigger-than-primarch size is a bit odd, especially for character who's arch-nemesis is an old unaugmented human.

There is a kind of background precedent for Ghazzy having such protection though; the Black Templars destroyed his fleet, yet he somehow survived.

nareik wrote:
There is a kind of background precedent for Ghazzy having such protection though; the Black Templars destroyed his fleet, yet he somehow survived.

This is a typical narrative line in any kind of fluff that a character, after some time, is surrounded by mythical rumors and whatnot. Cypher for exemple is the same and yet he has no substantial rule that translate that in the game. So it's not specific to Ghaz and it doesn't have to be represented in game.
They did this because they felt the need to make Ghaz into a big character with more than 9 HP but not at primarch level, for obvious reasons.

 kastelen wrote:

Yazima wrote:
I think this thread gave me brain damage, or maybe it was the corona virus. "Ghaz OP damage" - disproved, "Ghaz OP survivability" - disproved. "I'm a competitive WoW player" - What? "40k takes no skill" - Well maybe you should learn the rules properly before you comment.

Yes this should be locked, its just a venting portal for a toxic loudmouth

Keep it open for 2 months at the very least, I need to prove OP wrong.

You don't need two months. Here lets say Ghaz vs Tau (and its battlesuit based because lolz).

1. I think we agree footslogging to the Great Unassailable Gunline is a bad strategy for Ghaz, that's 2 turns of shooting and then he gets killed in overwatch, his army gets to move really fast, so maybe thats his best use.
2. He teleports into the great unassailable gunline, way more fun. And somehow he makes that 50/50 charge. Now he gets overwatched on... and gets 4 wounds. Now he gets to fight... 6 Attacks... 4 damage each... OMG 24 wounds!! That Riptide that he charged must surely be dead? Plus we'll give Roberts84 the benefit of this being a lousy unskilled tau player.. therefore he forgot to use sheild drones to soak all the wounds, and forgot to use the Riptides ability to have a 3+ invulnerable save. That sucks right... well with a 5+ native invulnerable... big all Ghaz lands... yup 12.96 wounds. Riptide lives, but lets say with just 1 hp left. Next turn... Ghaz gets shot for 4 more, and when he charges again, he dies in overwatch, and that riptide is still alive.
3. If Ghaz fails the charge, he gets overwatched for 4, then shot for 4, then... dies in overwatch the next turn, having done exactly zero for Ghaz, zero for the army.

Now you prove the OP is wrong :-)

 Vaktathi wrote:

Tyel wrote:
But really - why don't people like the "only do X wounds a phase" thing? People often complain that stuff in modern 40k dies far too easily and this seems like a good solution. I can see the argument this should apply to all characters - arguably its a more epic form of protection than the current system of "can't touch this, can't touch this, oh no I is kill" which has provoked various dubious rules interactions in 8th. It would allow for more interesting character duels rather than *I charge, I kill unless you luck out on invuls*.

It's a really ham fisted mechanic, it essentially shuts down a level of interactivity, and just feels really forced, a poor solution to a real problem, and breaks a level of immersion when something can just start absorbing infinite levels of killing power at some point. Of greater importance, is that a mechanic like this can basically result in a truly unkillable unit if an appropriate healing mechanic is made available at some point, and GW likes to go and do things like that, sometimes without meaning to.

That said I don't think Ghaz is broken, I just really don't like that particular mechanic. I'd really have preferred Ghaz just remain a character with less than 10 wounds, this upscaling to bigger-than-primarch size is a bit odd, especially for character who's arch-nemesis is an old unaugmented human.

Thing is, it's not really a new mechanic, even for GW. Malekith in 6th ed WHFB had a similar form of protection from his armour, where he could only suffer a single wound from each hit. Archaon had a similar kind of protection, where he could only be wounded on a 3+ at best.

It strikes me as another one of those things GW has swiped from Warmahordes, without realising there are things in that game that can do an auto single point of damage. Both the Covenant of Menoth and the Hermit of Hengehold have such a rule where you can only do a single point of damage to them per attack.

Sure, it's a bit "gamey" but GW have brought this on themselves by taking the gloves off with 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WhiteDog wrote:

nareik wrote:
There is a kind of background precedent for Ghazzy having such protection though; the Black Templars destroyed his fleet, yet he somehow survived.

This is a typical narrative line in any kind of fluff that a character, after some time, is surrounded by mythical rumors and whatnot. Cypher for exemple is the same and yet he has no substantial rule that translate that in the game.

Not any more. Once upon a time Cypher had a 4++ after he had died on 3D6, if you passed you got zero VPs for killing him.

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.

I'm sure, thanks to all the whining when the rule was first previewed, that it will find it's way to Imperial and Chaos units, because of course Xenos armies can't have unique and interesting rules. No doubt those units will be far superior to Ghaz with the same rule (as even with it, he sucks).

I don’t think it’s a good rule, full stop.