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.

That's why GW wants you to have multiple of those models.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 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.

To be fair, if this model sucks as bad as you say it does, it's kinda wasted if we never use the mechanic again.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
That's why GW wants you to have multiple of those models.

right multiple mortarians. magnus? etc?

BrianDavion wrote:

 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.

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 AP D4 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.

Morkphoiz wrote:

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 AP D4 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.

Easiest answer is lock it down and move on.

Morkphoiz wrote:

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 AP D4 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.

Jackal90 wrote:
So rather than an intellectual debate

*eyes the first page of this thread*

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".

 Billagio wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 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.

All of what vipoid said.

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.

 vipoid wrote:

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.

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.

 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.

 Melissia wrote:
It was just as much of a problem, see also lists like Leafblower.

In fairness, Leafblower was a single build within a single army. And there were plenty of competing lists from factions with a strong melee focus.

I really don't think that compares to the current level of legality and alpha-strike potential.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
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.

Oh absolutely. I don't think it was as bad in the past but it was definitely still an issue.

But yeah, I'd certainly have no objections to the game adopting alternate activations over IGOUGO.

Look, I'm just saying, let's not use the gilded glasses to look at the past. The past was gak, too.

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.

T1 Deep Strike wasn't the issue, it was the issue of like 3 select units doing it.

In 5th edition, the problem was stuff didn't die fast enough. It is why they invented hull points and changed the cover rules in 6th.

The playerbase wants to delete stuff in a single go.

Tyel wrote:
I'm afraid I can't agree with this view that the past was some halcyon time when stuff didn't die.

Just to be clear, I didn't say stuff didn't die in the past so please don't strawman me.

What I actually said was that it used to be a lot harder to cause significant damage and remove key elements of the enemy army on the first turn.

Tyel wrote:

If you wander all the way back to 5th then maybe

I was indeed going back to 5th because 6th and 7th were dumpster-fires.

Morkphoiz wrote:


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.

 vipoid wrote:

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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 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.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

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:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

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.