# why hate lash of submission



## grotrex76 (Nov 18, 2007)

i see that every one is starting to hate lash of submission. It may feel cheese to use but i think that is just one of those new rules that people say are cheesy. there is always cheese out there(genestealer hordes armored companies). But why such hatred over one psych power is it over powering or just so nifty to Chaos players that other armies have not caught on to counter it.


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

I haven't seen the lash of submission in use yet but i can't wait. Me and my mate are bulding chaos armies at the same time me khorene biggrin and him slannesh using the lash asthe main tactic. i can see why people hate it becuae it so god damn good. but its not difficult to tackle. take an inquisitor or a libraian.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

It's mostly just dumb. It's not broken, it's just stupid.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

I think the main issue is the frustration factor. It really sucks to get into the tactics of the game, positioning your units just so and out-thinking your enemy, only to have some schmuck with the latest cheese list show up and instantly bugger your tactics with one no-brainer power.

It's not that the power is necessarily over-powered, it's just a very frustrating, un-fun thing to do to someone, I think. That's why all the hate.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

I play SM and my brother and a friend both play CSM. My friend almost always uses the lash of submission and his tactics with it are generally annoying. He'll group my guys together then plaster them with plasma cannons, or he'll move them really far forward and leave one trailing behind so he can assault the squad, but they'll still be alive for him to stay in assault and not get shot. Then on my turn the assault ends with my guys dieing.

Overall, it's useful (and annoying) if you know how to use it, but you get used to it after a while and adapt some new tactics against it. Thats the point of warhammer, you fight stuff you don't really expect and adapt your tactics against it.


----------



## Morgal (Sep 26, 2007)

Well it's all nice to say "take a hood"
but some forces do not have that option..or that option requires much more.

For IG it means another hq choice out of a diffrent codex to buy a useless unit who's main purpouse for being in the hood. well if a tak ehim i may as well take assisins. and then my army is not really an ig force.
So if a counter it, i win before the game starts, if i don't he wins before the game starts. not quite that bad but it is frustrating.


----------



## Revelations (Mar 17, 2008)

Ah this old tired chess nut again... here are the primary reasons for the hate...

1. "I think it's broken" A rather unwarranted position, since everything is broken in it's own right. It has counters and may not work all the time. Hardly broken by any stretch of the imagination. Other things people also feel the same way about; 3 Wraithlords, Eldar Skimmers, Nidzillas, Armored Companies, Gift of Chaos, Nercon teleportation, etc.

2. "It let's someone else touch my models" A good thing to think about. A lot of people put a lot of work into modelling, painting and assembly, so I can understand where it's annoying to let that bugar eating punk across the table from you the oppertunity to get his grimey little hands all over your clean well kept models. 

3. "There's no way to fight it!" Well that's just poor commanding on your part then. We're not talking about some single model that has 10's in all it's stats and every special rule in the game. We're talking about a single power with a single purpose. Plan accordingly. 

4. "It breaks certain lists" Well no list is perfect is it? Even balanced lists with have difficulty with certain themed lists. I'm sorry my Armored Company slaughtered your Horde army. I'm also sorry your Mechdar army hosed my Armored Company. It goes round and round.

5. "It's not fun!" For who? Hey, I don't like having to roll 3 6's in a row to down an Eldar Skimmer, but I won't take that away from him just because I think it's annoying. The player is having fun with a power, just like other powers that are both fun and annoying; Fury of the Ancients, Fear of the Darkness, Synapse (you tell me that's not annoying for both players!), etc. 

6. "But... BUT!!!!!" But nothing. The rules are there. If you play tournament, get used to it. If you play friendly, take it up with your opponent or draft some house rules. Although if you start out lawing it, be prepared to allow him to outlaw your cheesy rule to, it's only fair. 

It's really one of the few edges CSM have anymore. So I can see why it's natural to hate what they have that's good. Don't worry, I'm sure GW will take care of that in short order.


----------



## Morgal (Sep 26, 2007)

Good points i won't neg a guy for using it, but that does not mean i like the spell.
I also do think that it could use some modification, but like [email protected][email protected] everyone has one.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I've been using double lash in the vassal tournament. I'm currently winning it, with a game against Jez coming up. Prior to the tournament I'd never used lash or a chaos army in 40k at all.

I find that one lash is not totally unreasonable. Double lash is totally unreasonable. If I was playing chaos competitively I can see no reason to take an hq that can't cast lash. It's not only that they are easily the most powerful HQs, they are pretty much the *cheapest*.

The ability to move a unit 4d6" in your shooting phase allows you to do ridiculous things. First turn charges with multiple units of khorne berzerkers, having started 24" from the enemy, for example. You move the enemy unit so that the zerkers get the maximum possible distance from their assault move. As already mentioned, leaving one guy outside the kill zone so that these zerkers can't be shot (and with a couple of I6 slaanesh guys to keep people from running off). Then these guys all massacre forward another D6", ready to assault into the rest of the army.

Done this way you have moved several of your units a bonus 6" assault move and D6" massacre towards the enemy, protected them from shooting and, almost as a bonus, killed an enemy unit. Your zerkers may get in combat on turn one, when otherwise they might have had to walk through shooting for 2-4 turns.

I've found that my army worked surprisingly well against mech. I have a fair amount of AT capability in obliterators and terminators. All I need is for one squad to fall out of its transport and the games begin.

I was at a seminar with Jervis in October last year, where he defended Lash. He said that what we had to remember was that it doesn't kill anything. That, to me, demonstrates a really worrying lack of understanding of the game. Lash kills tons of things by changing the awy the board is set up, making units vulnerable to charges and shots that would not have otherwise happened, leading to your own units not getting shot or assaulted and follow ups from there on.

Effects that move your opponent's stuff around do exist in warhammer, and always have. Warhammer is very different to 40k though. First up, there is far more magic defence in warhammer, so every army has access to effective counters to spells, which is a game in itself. Secondly, charges are declared at the start of the turn in warhammer, so you can't immediately charge a unit that you move in the magic phase. In 40k lash takes place at some point during the shooting phase allowing for shooting before and after lash, and finally assaults (so you can rapid fire into a squad, lash it to be rapid fired by another squad, then lash it again to be charged by a third, if you really want).

I put lash on a totally different level to so called "cheese lists" like genestealer hordes and armoured companies (which by the way, after playing GTs for nearly a decade, I really do not think of as cheese lists). Those are both rock/paper/scissors one liner lists that really aren't difficult to deal with. Lash is something else.

Go ahead and tell me I'm a crap player because I can't think of a way around lash. There are things you can do to mitigate its effects, but none are reliable. Lash only has to work once to make a huge difference.

Edit: It's "Old chestnut" by the way, not chess nut.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

Well first off, the situation where you can rapid fire a unit, lash them into rapid fire range of another unit, then lash them into charge range, is so rare that it really says a lot about a commander who ends up in a situation like that. Also, that would have to be one hell of a high scoring unit to put that much fire power into it and then charge it too. Thats just a total waste to put BOTH HQ in one location to lash ONE unit where they can both get hit by heavy weapons fire at the same time. Not to mention if there's a vindicator in the area, once that Berzerker unit charges and and massacres, they're most likely going to be near one of the rapid firing units, so Mr. Vindicator can plaster half of both units. (I'm saying this as an another extremely extenuating circumstance)

Oh, another thing: Why does it even matter on the spelling? You have some mistakes on yours too, so don't be such a douchebag.:fuck:


----------



## Chaos&Beer (Apr 6, 2008)

I love lash, and use it every opportunity I have for the specific purpose of annoying the hell out of my opponent. 

I especially like using it on missions that require the securing of a single objective. I plant my two sorcs (or sorc and prince) there ASAP and just push people away from it. 

I'm glad that so many people hate it and get steamed when I use it, when people get angry they make mistakes. I sit back with a serene smile, sipping my drink, while they boil over. Oh, I love you Chaos.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Personally I don't mind lash, nor think it's dreadfully overpowered. It's a really nifty way to deal with the 30-man ork squad, or the death company, or triggering booby traps in buildings, etc.

Also, ever since starting to use it, I've found absolutely no reason whatsoever to take a lord. SWEET! One extra ws and the availability to use daemon weapons!

Oh wait, the slaanesh daemon weapon is just kind of a big force weapon.

And the force weapon comes standard on a sorceror whereas the lord has to buy it for two chaos marines and a melta gun.

And they both have about the same odds to harm the user (Psychic test mishaps vs 1/6 chance of harming yourself with daemon weapon)

If they didn't want us using grotesquely useful powers like lash and warptime, they probably should have spent more time fussing over our Lord HQ choice(Which is such a waste of points if he's not deep striking in terminator armour).

Because as I see it, lash is the single best device chaos has to deal with giant ork mobs, pathfinder squads, fishes of fury, and yes, even the dreaded harlequins can become puppets toward this wonderful tool.(Albeit at a ridiculously short range)


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

Hmmm...now that I think of it, maybe they should limit it like they do some of the stuff in the marine codex (Iron Halo, Admantine Mantle, and the like). Only one per army would be good, but not overpowered in any way. Although it would kind of nerf the awesomeness of the Lash. Maybe reduce it's range to 12 instead of 24? That would nerf it even worse...(or is it already 12?)


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

As with all broken rules, Lash is at its worst in the hands of "douchebags". 

My example of rapid firing a unit twice and then charging them is, of course, not common. It's just an example of how lash is different to warhammer rules that are otherwise comparable, due to the different turn sequence. I wanted to emphasise the degree of control Lash gives you and takes from your opponent.

You don't get to shoot them with the vindicator because they are in combat during your shooting phase, with the few guys they deliberately positioned outside the kill zone. That would be tricky to achieve, if they didn't have the ability to position the enemy unit just how they want it, thanks to lash.

Actually, they even bundle forwards into these guy after combat, so travelling yet further down the field.

There's no reason you would be all that bunched after the combat and massacre move. You can spread out the enemy unit before charging it.  Anyway, you will have some guns in your army. If there's a vindicator waiting for you, shoot it.

Of course, you need a fearless unit, or marines, to use as the victims. It doesn't work so well if you use kroot, which will just run off. Even so you have to get across the board somehow, and this way you have gone 12+d6" instead of 6", as well as killing an enemy unit.

Worst case, you get shot after the fight. You were going to get shot anyway, but for more turns as you walked across the board. With lash you can cover most of the distance very fast.

My club's tournament this year was decided by a 4 way game, 1000 points a side, with an objective to capture the middle of the board. Since I was using my Tau, and the other armies were blood angels, sisters of battle and chaos, I didn't rate my chances here.

The chaos player had the last turn, and had double lash of submission (yes, in 1000 points). Around the objective at the start of his turn were 3 units of sisters of battle, their Cannoness, a large death company with Mephsiton and Lemartes (yes, in 1000 points...) and a vet assault squad. Chaos won the game.

The worrying thing is that in 5th edition, if we are to believe the rumours, most games will be decided purely on who controls objectives, like in alpha missions now. It's really quite easy to win such games if you have the ability to move enemy units off objectives at will. I don't see double lash going away any time soon.


----------



## Morgal (Sep 26, 2007)

Would it be safe to say
"A single lash is powerfull and intresting mechanic and a good addition to the chaos codex; multiple lashes gives an unfair advatage to chaos that enables them to manipulate the too to great of a degree"


----------



## Revelations (Mar 17, 2008)

Someguy said:


> As with all broken rules, Lash is at its worst in the hands of "douchebags".


And this is really the biggest problem. Lash really isn't an issue, it's those that abuse it. I have a hard time playing people who play to win; they just don't have the sportsmanship qualities I like and really aren't entertained by the game if they aren't "pwning face". 

Same can be said for people who keep running lists with the same composition over and over again that only do it to be "beardy" (not really sure why that term is used). But what's funny is when you make a list to counter it, and they get pissy when you hose them. 

I could go so far to say that Lash of Submission is best in the hands of a really hot chick... but that would be going waaaaaaay off topic.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

Wow, really didn't need to know that about you...uke:

Anyway, did you mean 3 *models*, or three *whole* sisters squads? And same goes for the BA's, were the independent characters joined with the assault squad? Unless there were some Chaos guys there to I see no possible way for the Chaos forces could have won.


----------



## pyroanarchist (Feb 29, 2008)

Lash is a very powerful psychic power, I'll not argue there. I personally don't use lash because I primarily play my WE's and we hate the slaanesh scum and those who prefer fighting with thier mind instead of a nice chain axe. That said, I don't think Lash is overpowered. It has its limitations. 

It is powerful, and very effective (especially in objective games if you get last turn), but I don't think its broken. I can see why people lean towards that thought though. It's a very hard ability to counter. It can really turn your tactics into chaos. But really, what psychic power isn't effective and hard to counter? How is mind war any better to be hit with than Lash? I don't like getting my HQ mind warred and killed, but I don't think its broken.

Lash can be a very fun power to play with, or against, depending on the circumstances. Sometimes its a nice change to see your tactics go out the window and fight a battle a little differently still trying to overcome some odds you aren't used to. I think that lash is a very innovative psychic power and I really like how it changes the game. It adds more excitement in my eyes to a game I've been playing for years. It adds one more challenge to try to overcome.

Lets look at the down sides of Lash for a minute. Usually a lash sorc or prince is going to be on his own on the board, out of combat. This makes him a pretty easy target for any shooting attacks. If he's with a retinue the chaos player just spent a lot of points on some CSM that probably won't do a whole lot in the game other than keep the sorc alive, so thats not a bad trade off anyway. The lash moves the opponent's models 2d6 inches. There isn't much control over how far you can move your opponents and this can really blow up in your face. If you're planning on moving some enemy units into range of a charge and roll low you just gave them the movement they needed to assault your units. Lash can definately backfire on the Chaos player using it because it isn't very predictable. Of course there is also the psychic test that can wound your sorc/prince, but thats there with any psychic power.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

pyroanarchist said:


> Lets look at the down sides of Lash for a minute. Usually a lash sorc or prince is going to be on his own on the board, out of combat. This makes him a pretty easy target for any shooting attacks. If he's with a retinue the chaos player just spent a lot of points on some CSM that probably won't do a whole lot in the game other than keep the sorc alive, so thats not a bad trade off anyway. The lash moves the opponent's models 2d6 inches. There isn't much control over how far you can move your opponents and this can really blow up in your face. If you're planning on moving some enemy units into range of a charge and roll low you just gave them the movement they needed to assault your units. Lash can definately backfire on the Chaos player using it because it isn't very predictable. Of course there is also the psychic test that can wound your sorc/prince, but thats there with any psychic power.


Yeah, those are some really good points, but everyone wants to focus on the cheesy parts. It's a really fun power to fight against even when there's two.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

3 units of sisters. Not at full strength. Mephiston and Lemartes were attached to the DC. The VAS was a bit behind, and therefore wasn't really in the running tbh, though it was closer than any chaos guys at this point.

The DC was lashed away by the sorc. One unit of sisters was lashed towards two units of plague marines, who were able to massacre onto the objective. The other two sisters units were pounded with plasma cannons. Finished with plague marines on top of the objective (with the odd rule that the winner was the closest person). Most of the opposing stuff was dead, not just moved away.


----------



## Siege (Jan 18, 2008)

Well I play Tau and the lash can cause real problems for my army, I just try to shoot it off the table as quickly as possible, that doesn't always work, and I often resort to plan b, which is simply to shoot it again and hope for a better result. 

I've never come up against two though lashes, I have enough trouble dealing with one. Still I don't think it's broken, it's a powerful sure, and it can have a big impact on a game, but so can alot of other things.


----------



## SyNide (Nov 24, 2007)

Siege said:


> Well I play Tau and the lash can cause real problems for my army, I just try to shoot it off the table as quickly as possible, that doesn't always work, and I often resort to plan b, which is simply to shoot it again and hope for a better result.


Wait, Tau has another plan?! :laugh:

Lol...anyway, Lash of Submission, i think the reason people hate it most is that the other person is touching your lovely minis and putting them wherever he wants. The psychological effect of that is powerful, it's almost as good as getting mentally raped.

I think the Lash is only as powerful as the player wielding it.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

Someguy said:


> The DC was lashed away by the sorc. One unit of sisters was lashed towards two units of plague marines, who were able to massacre onto the objective. The other two sisters units were pounded with plasma cannons. Finished with plague marines on top of the objective (with the odd rule that the winner was the closest person). Most of the opposing stuff was dead, not just moved away.


Wow, that just sounds like a genius maneuver by the Chaos player. You see, if he rolled poorly, the DC may have moved only 2 inches away keeping them closest to the center, and if he cooked two of his plasma cannons or even missed with them then the sisters would still be in the running too. Not to mention the lucky roll for that massacre, he could have gotten just an Angry '1.'


----------



## Chaos&Beer (Apr 6, 2008)

Someguy said:


> As with all broken rules, Lash is at its worst in the hands of "douchebags".


HEY! I resemble that remark =)

But hey, Chaos is supposed to fight dirty; we're Chaos, that's what we do. If others don't like it, too bad for them. 

I don't complain when I get a crapton of spore mines deep-striked onto my head (all of which get to re-roll to appear because of those damned lichtors) , or when Abaddon gets turned into a squig by my buddy's Weirdboy, nobody else should complain about my Lash. 

Every army has something that could be considered OP in it, Lash happens to be ours.

While I do agree that there should be a 0-1 on Lash wielding units, there isn't, so I am going to exploit the living hell out of it in the name of Slaanesh.


----------



## Frostbite (Oct 17, 2007)

A lot of people hate it because it can rob them of their army's strength while exposing their weakness. Any army that relies on mobility, shooting or being able to charge is going to be hurt by this ability greatly. However, there are counters to it. One is to mech up and take away an viable targets, or use terrain to block LOS. I've only used it once, and it didn't make a huge difference in the game at all. I'm actually dropping the Slaaneshi sorcerer and his raptor body guard for a Daemon Prince of Tzeentch, simply because straightforward face bashing and shooting is more my style.

In short, Lash is a powerful and frustrating ability. Two lashes is pure cheese, but so are Broadsides with a Target Lock, or Death Company, or the C'Tan. All armies have cheese, it won't be long before people adapt to Lash and stop worrying about it.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

Frostbite said:


> In short, Lash is a powerful and frustrating ability. Two lashes is pure cheese, but so are Broadsides with a Target Lock, or Death Company, or the C'Tan. All armies have cheese, it won't be long before people adapt to Lash and stop worrying about it.


The C'Tan aren't the only cheese the necron's have! They've got Monolith's and the dumb gauss rule that says, "My weakest gun can pop a Land Raider!" Totally fair.


----------



## Siege (Jan 18, 2008)

Frostbite said:


> Two lashes is pure cheese, but so are Broadsides with a Target Lock, or Death Company, or the C'Tan. All armies have cheese, it won't be long before people adapt to Lash and stop worrying about it.


Why are Broadsides with Target Locks cheesy?


----------



## Regwon (Nov 22, 2007)

if you think lash is bad now, its going to get a lot worse in 5th. with a lot of terrain now no longer blocking line-of-sight there will be few ways to avoid it if you dont have counters in your army (farseer/hood). you will get lashed out of terrain and shot to peices and then at the end of the game you will get lashed away from objectives. 

i cant wait


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

The choice for me in the new edition goes something like this. Do I:

a) Work on a new army design, getting a new army for new rules.

b) Adapt my Tau, marines or Eldar for 5th.

c) Play double lash and just clearly have a better army.


----------



## Casmiricus (Mar 6, 2008)

*prays*

Ph beautificent Emperor, beloved by all, please help the GW staff to see your divine light and give the IG sanctioned psykers the ability to take Hoods in the new Codex. Amen.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

Hahahahahaha Thats awesome. 

I think it shows a truly good commander that can beat a Lash, and all in all, if you're going to bitch so much that you'll start a new army, I think you take this game *way* to seriously.


----------



## julio d (Apr 20, 2008)

Revelations said:


> It's really one of the few edges CSM have anymore. So I can see why it's natural to hate what they have that's good. Don't worry, I'm sure GW will take care of that in short order.


Umm... besides 15 point SM's with bolter bp ccw (and kraks i think) not to mention deamons, berzerkers, noise marines, Tsons, and plague marines, lol o and those spider demon tanks with battlecannons (stupid name forgettings)

PS... I want to see what happens when a Chaos sets up a crusader sqaud who has taken a casuality from shooting then lines them up for one of those berzerkers assaults but forgets about righteous zeal... that would be cool


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

(Defiler)

Holy crap, that would be scary!


----------



## Morgal (Sep 26, 2007)

Casmiricus said:


> *prays*
> 
> Ph beautificent Emperor, beloved by all, please help the GW staff to see your divine light and give the IG sanctioned psykers the ability to take Hoods in the new Codex. Amen.


Lol, that would be awsome, leadership 8 hoods.
they would have to limit it to hq choices tho so we don't take 18 hoods...or does the point cost do that?
also leadership 8 seems to balance out the effectivness of the hood.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

Hahahaha, that would be awesome, but Chaos only has to roll snake eyes once to lose, and with 18 hoods, that would statistically happen once every two sets of 18 rolls.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

18 hoods would be mitigated by the rule saying you can only try to dispel each power once...


----------



## Morgal (Sep 26, 2007)

Someguy said:


> 18 hoods would be mitigated by the rule saying you can only try to dispel each power once...


Kill joy

honestly that works well as it still fits the guard...crappy but we havea chance..


----------



## bishop5 (Jan 28, 2008)

what about the anti psyker assassin? could you get that to pwn face of the model/s with lash?


----------



## Triumph Of Man (Dec 27, 2007)

bishop5 said:


> what about the anti psyker assassin? could you get that to pwn face of the model/s with lash?


Not really, because he's gotta get so close to do that it isn't funny, and won't stand up against a unit rapidfiring him.

Then there's also the issue that you have to take a crappy Inquisitor Lord if you're allying the Culexus in.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

Morgal said:


> Kill joy


He seems quite adept at doing that.


----------



## julio d (Apr 20, 2008)

Tanrel said:


> (Defiler)
> 
> Holy crap, that would be scary!



haha lolim gonna try to set that up now, thank you chaos psychic power bashing thread


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Tanrel said:


> He seems quite adept at doing that.


I'm sorry that the tone of my replies is a bit strong here. Lash makes me genuinely angry. I hate how GW can fail so badly at codex design and let in things like this.

There's an apparent assumption among some people that GW can do no wrong. Anything they have put in a codex must be balanced and it's up to players to work around it. 

Unfortunately, I do not believe that this is true at all. I think that GW, like other game designers, does make mistakes. Some units are simply more effective than others all the time and lash is the worst of the lot.

I don't really get how people can maintain that Lash is fine when you have people who use it saying it's broken, or that they use it because it's broken and they enjoy tormenting their opponents.

For example, did you ever try using a Tau army against old style Slaanesh with a siren lord and siren lieutenant as the only models deployed on the board? I did. You can't shoot them and you can't even charge them until they are locked in CC, and therefore unable to cast the spell. I have to wait till a daemon prince is in my lines and I can then try fighting in CC. Great. I actually did win games against this, and I've won most of my games against Iron warriors, Blood angels with free death company, eldar with ranger disruption and Ulthwe seer councils. 

The thing is, I shouldn't have to. Armies should be balanced, they shouldn't be a set of tricks for which we are supposed to have answers, or lose if we don't. Victory should be determined by strategy, not paper scissor stone army selection. A very common question when helping others with a tournament army list is "but how do you deal with X?". In some cases a trick is so powerful that playing against it with no counter is pretty much auto loss. For example, my 3rd edition alaitoc army massacred (difference of 1200 vps or more) every single marine army it ever played, including at GTs for several years running.

All too often I think these things have got through because GW simply failed to test them. I don't think they ever tried a game with 9 obliterators or a daemon prince with 7 minor psychic powers before releasing the 4th ed chaos codex and I don't think they tried double lash before releasing the 5th ed one.

I knew lash was broken the first moment I saw it. I was reading the book, thinking that it was quite well put together and there was lots of interesting stuff, when I came to this rule and had a double take. I literally had to re-read the rule several times because I was convinced I must have made a mistake. I kept thinking "so can I...? Yes. And can I...? Yes" as I went through the many, many ways in which you can use lash to mess up an opponent.

Somehow they managed to decide that, not only should this power be included, but it should be pretty cheap. Since mark of Slaanesh is also considered to be poor by the game designers (apparently striking before your opponent with a force weapon isn't that great) a lash sorceror is one of the cheapest HQs available to a chaos player. You have to decide whether you want a pure combat HQ that costs more, or a lash caster that is still great in CC. Many people conclude that lash is the better option since, even without all the other things you can do with it, it's still better to be a lash caster in CC than a lord with blissgiver, or whatever, not in CC.

This is how I define a broken rule. It's where you look at all the options available to you and one stands out way above the others. In theory, you should not see armies with 3 falcons/fire prisms because a combination of unit types should be better than 3 of the same thing, but the falcons are so damn good that quite a lot of people think they are worth it. Other times you get a choice between two units with broadly the same role, like tank busters and lootas in the ork codex, and the lootas are clearly miles better.

It all leads to bland armies, repetitive tactics and a worse game overall. It should not happen.

Edit: I'd be quite happy about righteous zeal. For one thing, lashing a unit doesn't trigger it, so if they are already in charge range after lash I won't shoot them. However if I'm trying to bring a unit closer then RZ gives me the option of shooting them a little bit and having them run nearer the guys who are trying to charge them. Great.


----------



## Triumph Of Man (Dec 27, 2007)

> There's an apparent assumption among some people that GW can do no wrong. Anything they have put in a codex must be balanced and it's up to players to work around it.


*Crowd stares at Torealis*



> I don't really get how people can maintain that Lash is fine when you have people who use it saying it's broken, or that they use it because it's broken and they enjoy tormenting their opponents.


Problem with this is that sometimes people scream "broken" at something that, well, isn't actually broken.

Take the old Infiltrate/Speed prince. People screamed that he was broken because he could get into CC first turn. Yet doing so was nothing short of pure suicide. I should know, I ran one myself and charging out on first turn was asking to get isolated and cop a lascannon or powerfist to the face. 

The best use of him was to stay put behind some cover as a goal keeper, or to charge when Daemon Support was ready. Meaning he'd get into combat on turn 2 or 3, no faster than your Jump Packing hero. Then there'd be games he spent the entire time running _away_ from the enemy shitting himself because lets face it, nobody fucks with 30 Slugga Boyz. Not even a Daemon Prince from 3rd ed.

That being said, I can agree with your sentiments about the Double Lash, it's genuinely up there with the Falcon spams and the like as a total no brainer choice.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Triumph Of Man said:


> Problem with this is that sometimes people scream "broken" at something that, well, isn't actually broken.


It's extremely common to have people say that X, Y or Z is broken after playing against it and being beaten. Sometimes it's true but a lot of time time it's just people annoyed at having lost.

On the other hand, it is far rarer to have people saying that something they use themselves is far too good. I'm not the only person in this thread saying that. It is the opinion of many people who use lash, as well as the people they beat, that it is too powerful.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

Every single Chaos player I fight against says it's not broken, and hey! Guess what? Neither do I! Sure it's annoying as hell, but it's not broken. It could use some mods just like a lot of things (Like the monolith costing more). It's a pain in the ass, but it's not really game ending. In the best of circumstances it can knock out one squad each turn, and if you aren't lucky, you can lash them, assault them, and your squad dies.


----------



## julio d (Apr 20, 2008)

Someguy said:


> Edit: I'd be quite happy about righteous zeal. For one thing, lashing a unit doesn't trigger it, so if they are already in charge range after lash I won't shoot them. However if I'm trying to bring a unit closer then RZ gives me the option of shooting them a little bit and having them run nearer the guys who are trying to charge them. Great.


Haahh well I'm betting on my chaos adversary to not be so smart lol, but yeah that's what happens and thats why they're BT

oh yeah new club name for Lash... Cheese Whip hahaha


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

wow, thats terrible! ^_^


----------



## julio d (Apr 20, 2008)

Yes it is


----------



## Gore Hunter (Nov 5, 2007)

Probably because it is an awesomely unfair ability


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

I happen to think that Lash itself is not broken, it is the double lash deamon princes that is broken. And your fears about it will be shortly gone the way of the dodo once 5th ed comes out and IC's are no longer untargetable. Once that happens, the short range of the Lash (and yes 24" is short range) will be a major drawback as you will be forced to bring that Lash caster that much closer to enemies who can target him with impunity. That or you will have to join him to a squad and target what they target. Yes it will still be a good power but it won't be as good.

Should I now bemoan everything in the game that is somewhat more powerful than other things? Psychic hoods are bs with the ability to cancel each and every spell cast each and every turn for no real cost, Runes of Warding are RIDICULOUSLY overpowered and fuck over my Tson army completely, etc, etc, etc. This is the way the game is, deal with it and move on. Yes Lash is a powerful ability but then again so are my Tsons AP3 bolters when facing marines. Not so much against Orks though so I should scream cheese and bullshit regarding Orks because it is next to impossible for a Tson army to face Orks on an even footing?

The fact remains that there are ways to deal with Lash, some more effective or more readily available than others. Lash has NEVER won my game for me on its own. Not once. Sure it has helped but it doesn't make my games auto wins. Just this past weekend I got PASTED in 2 turns by an Ork player even while I was using Lash for both turns. A fellow Chaos player and his Plague Marines did me in quite easily as well despite Lashing the hell out of him. Now while I do agree that the ability to take 2 Lashes is too much, one is not the game breaking thing it is being made out to be.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

I totally agree with Tson dude. However, another drawback to having that new 5th edition rule is that the lash can target your IC's. And with a daemon prince, that could hurt.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

If double lash is broken, as many people are saying, then lash is broken. It's broken becauese you can take two of them and cast both on the same unit, without hampering the rest of your army in any real way. A rule that can be used in an unfair way is clearly a broken rule.

It emphasises the point I made earlier; a unit that is so good that taking multiples of it is the best option, rather than a selection of different units, is too good. A unit should not combo with itself.

For example one invincible falcon isn't too bad, because shooting can be directed elsewhere and still has an effect. 3 invincible falcons can often be the only available targets, meaning that enemy shooting can often have no effect at all.

It's actually a very common principle in 40k. Take no vehicles, so the other guy's AT weapons are wasted, or take loads of vehicles so he doesn't have enough AT.

However, double lash is a more extreme example than the others because of the way it increases the effectiveness of other units in your army. Zerkers are costed with the assumption that they won't be in assault on turn one, and space marine devastators are costed with the assumption that they won't be in assault with those zerkers on turn one.


----------



## njfed (Jan 28, 2008)

The Wraithlord said:


> I happen to think that Lash itself is not broken, it is the double lash deamon princes that is broken. And your fears about it will be shortly gone the way of the dodo once 5th ed comes out and IC's are no longer untargetable. Once that happens, the short range of the Lash (and yes 24" is short range) will be a major drawback as you will be forced to bring that Lash caster that much closer to enemies who can target him with impunity. That or you will have to join him to a squad and target what they target. Yes it will still be a good power but it won't be as good.


I use one prince and one sorcerer. The sorcerer is always hidden in a squad of Khorne zerkers. I have never lashed the same unit twice in the same turn. My battle plan does not rely on that as I use lash for defense as much as offense. I don't think lash is broken, but that just may be because my definition of broken is not that same as yours. Broken means two rules conflict with each other. Saying something is overpowered for the points you pay is very hard to prove and does not mean it is broken.

I can state many ways to counter lash. The power also has a habit of causing my sorcrer's head to explode as just the worst possible moment. Sure it is a special power that must be accounted for, but it is not game breaking.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

> If double lash is broken, as many people are saying, then lash is broken. It's broken becauese you can take two of them and cast both on the same unit, without hampering the rest of your army in any real way. A rule that can be used in an unfair way is clearly a broken rule.


By that reasoning then Orks are broken because Lootas are broken. No way in hell should they be in the Elites section and no Ork player is ever going to field an army without a squad, maybe two. List their drawbacks all you want, they are insanely powerful and being in the elites section allows you so see where your opponents heavy hitters are and place accordingly. A unit that can fire 30 autocannon shots from just 10 models is broken, period. So therefore Orks are broken as well right?

Wrong. Orks are powerful but not broken. Lootas may be over the top but they are not broken or game winning in and of themselves. It is the cheesemongers out there who take more than a single Loota squad or double Lash, or 9 Oblits, etc, that are the problem. People like that find the most powerful things in a codex and maximize on it because they MUST win at all costs (after all their manhood depends on winning a game of toy soldiers you know :laugh and these are the same people that do not care if their opponent has fun with the game as well. That is the problem.

I use Lash and will continue to do so. I will not use two however. On the same note, when I start Orks I will use Lootas but I will not take two units of them.



> I can state many ways to counter lash. The power also has a habit of causing my sorcrer's head to explode as just the worst possible moment. Sure it is a special power that must be accounted for, but it is not game breaking.


Bingo. Happens to me all the time


----------



## Revelations (Mar 17, 2008)

Someguy said:


> If double lash is broken, as many people are saying, then lash is broken. It's broken becauese you can take two of them and cast both on the same unit, without hampering the rest of your army in any real way. A rule that can be used in an unfair way is clearly a broken rule.


Using a rule as intended is broken? How if this unfair?


Someguy said:


> It emphasises the point I made earlier; a unit that is so good that taking multiples of it is the best option, rather than a selection of different units, is too good. A unit should not combo with itself.


So a Havoc squad armed with Heavy Bolters should never be used with another Havoc squad armed with Las Cannons?


Someguy said:


> It's actually a very common principle in 40k. Take no vehicles, so the other guy's AT weapons are wasted, or take loads of vehicles so he doesn't have enough AT.


So one list will perform better against one list while performing poorer against another list?


Someguy said:


> Zerkers are costed with the assumption that they won't be in assault on turn one, and space marine devastators are costed with the assumption that they won't be in assault with those zerkers on turn one.


...GW discerning costs... I'm not touching this one with a 10ft pole...


Someguy said:


> However, double lash is a more extreme example than the others because of the way it increases the effectiveness of other units in your army.


So can we get rid of other like effects? Doom, Fortune, Guide, Space Marine Leaderships, Synapse, etc. All of which benefit your entire army for minimal costs, no risk and no affective way to counter.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

The Wraithlord said:


> By that reasoning then Orks are broken because Lootas are broken.


Yes and no. Orks are not broken, just as chaos is not broken. Lash is broken and lootas are broken.

You have the option of not abusing these rules. Fine. However the rules are *open to abuse*. Yell cheese all you want, feel free to insult players who do it, but ultimately a player is entirely within their rights to field 45 lootas, 9 oblitorators, double lash or 3 falcons. People do, and not only in tournaments. Good rules are not subject to abuse in this way.

I call things broken when they are too good. Thankfully, GW doesn't tend to put out rules that simply do not work, so the other definition is not required. Other people say they are imbalancd, overpowered or whatever. These are terms that are regularly applied to Lash.


----------



## retardonice (Jan 1, 2008)

chaos deamons have almost the same ability as lash, only its not a psychic power, and they even have a unit that can shoot it 3 times at different units, and i use it and it is completely OP but, there are ways around it like killing the unit that has it really fast with heavy weapons or charging/ tying it up. Mabye they will fix it somewhat in 5th edition though, cause without 5th edition, i cant even use the awsome assault and defensive grenades


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

So, basically someguy, what you're saying is every army has something broken in it? Then quit bitching!


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Tanrel said:


> So, basically someguy, what you're saying is every army has something broken in it? Then quit bitching!


Many armies have broken units. This leads to 40k becoming fights between those units to a far greater extent than it should do, which is a bad thing. Units should be balanced within a codex so that you get variety in selections. 
I maintain that Lash is the worst of the lot.

A couple of years back I was playing on table 3 at a GT using my Tau (yeah, it wasn't going very well ). My opponent was using Ulthwe, and all the 4 players to our left and right (tables 2 and 4) were using Ulthwe or Iron Warriors. This is not what the game should be about. 

The situation has improved since then but Lash really echoes back to the time of broken lists that got free bonusses for nothing. Back then it was black guardians, death company, ranger disruption and 7 heavy support choices in IW armies. Now it's an HQ choice that is the cheapest available and by far the most powerful.

To retardonice, I haven't actually got the new Daemon book yet but as I understand it, pavanne is very much the weaker relative of lash. It requires a roll to hit, moves a unit D6" and each enemy unit can only be affected once. It can't be used to get first turn charges since by their very nature daemons can't charge on the first turn, as they deep strike in. Slaanesh guys who can cast pavanne tend to be fleet, so they kind of may as well just do that instead.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

Why does it matter that they play the same armies? In the end, it all comes down to who's the better commander. You're probably just whinning because you get your ass beat constantly because you, either, aren't a good commander, are playing tau, or are just plain unlucky. And I guess when it comes to fighting against a lash or two, things don't go according to your linear plan and you end up losing in two turns.

I fight against a Chaos lash almost every week and I go toe to toe for 6 rounds, sometimes more if we lose track of which turn it is. Now mind you, I don't win every time, in fact I lose most of the time, but thats because my opponent is very clever and can predict where I'm going to go, we've played that much. Anyway, 95% of the time, it's not the lash that causes me the most trouble, it's his marked troops and possessed. He uses Tson's and Plague Marines loaded into rhino's. he also has 3 squads of possessed that infiltrate with 3 melta guns in two and 3 plasma's in the other.


----------



## Triumph Of Man (Dec 27, 2007)

> Why does it matter that they play the same armies? In the end, it all comes down to who's the better commander. You're probably just whinning because you get your ass beat constantly because you, either, aren't a good commander, are playing tau, or are just plain unlucky. And I guess when it comes to fighting against a lash or two, things don't go according to your linear plan and you end up losing in two turns.


Them's fighting words, to vassal!


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Okay everyone, that is quite enough. The flame baiting stops here and now. If we can't continue this conversation in a civil manner, we won't continue it at all and I'll be sure to have this thread closed.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

Aye aye, madam. Many apologies Someguy, I was out of line.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

If you read my earlier posts I am not complaining about having Lash used against me and losing as a result (though I do think it is unfair on armies like my Tau that have no counter to it, my kroot especially). I am saying that I have used Lash myself and consider it broken.

I'm not all that concerned by being called a bad player. I'm relatively well known on the tournament scene here in the UK as it happens. Water off a duck's back. 

I really do think that Lash is a problem, and a worse one even than IW and Ulthwe were. Those armies were powerful but were locked into a particular play style, and the same can be said for flying circus lists, ork hordes and so on. You know what they are going to do and you counter it to win. In the tournament where my Tau were surrounded by Ulthwe and Iron Warriors I finished second overall.

What makes Lash different is that it does not lock you into any particular play style at all. Different Lash armies can use totally different tactics so you can't easily plan against it. It's effectively just a very cheap addon for your HQs that give you enormous control over the board, while leaving you totally free to choose the rest of your army. You can have a shooty army that uses Lash to move enemy assaulters away, or into nice formations to hit with plasma cannons, or you can have a CC army that drags enemy units into charge range. Unlike other "cheese lists" there is no penalty at all with lash.


----------



## Kronus (Mar 1, 2008)

Someguy said:


> What makes Lash different is that it does not lock you into any particular play style at all. Different Lash armies can use totally different tactics so you can't easily plan against it. It's effectively just a very cheap addon for your HQs that give you enormous control over the board, while leaving you totally free to choose the rest of your army. You can have a shooty army that uses Lash to move enemy assaulters away, or into nice formations to hit with plasma cannons, or you can have a CC army that drags enemy units into charge range. Unlike other "cheese lists" there is no penalty at all with lash.


I agree. Most armies that are really scary are normally not balanced one trick ponies that can play most people and win such as Nidzilla, Flying Circus, Stealer. The rely on the same core of units and the same old tactics tactic’s to win. LoS is a winning piece of kit but it is also cheap and had no set playing style which makes it all the more dangerous. 

The only thing I dislike about it other then the one time a 14 yr old picked up my heavily modded Warboss on Bike and dropped him (clumsy idiots should not be allowed to use the Lash) is the reorganisation of a squad. Bunching I can accept but it moving my Orc Nobz 2 inch’s away from everyone else so the can kill him that seems to my mind abusing it in way it wasn't intended. The whole point was to move a squad out of cover, into assault or rapid fire range etc not to rearrange it in such a way that the squads formation is completely unrecognisable. That said if they do that I inform them the need to move the whole squad the amount rolled (as it doesn't say u can move less) then tell him he has to do so with everyone of the 30 Boyz in Mob. If your going to abuse the lash to my mind then I am going to make you waste your time using it 

In general I don't mind it or its application but a 2 Lash list wont make you any friends. To be honest however I wouldn't want to go as far as getting rid of it simply pointing it up appropriately or better still just give the LoS to every army under the sun.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

According to the official FAQs released yesterday you don't have to move the full distance and lash movement is treated exactly like a normal move. You are allowed to leave the nob with PK at the back so he can't attack, for example. However in 5th kill zones are being removed and there is even rumoured to be a response move giving everything, effectively, counter attack. This would negate most of the benefits of rearranging squads, other than for then shooting blast weps at the unit.

There's a weird statement that you can't lash a unit a second time if it gets pinned the first time, which suggests that it doesn't work on pinned units. Previously it didn't seem to matter if a unit was pinned when lashed, but now questions arise over that and other things, like if a unit is broken.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

Lord Kronus said:


> I agree. Most armies that are really scary are normally not balanced one trick ponies that can play most people and win such as Nidzilla, Flying Circus, Stealer. The rely on the same core of units and the same old tactics tactic’s to win. LoS is a winning piece of kit but it is also cheap and had no set playing style which makes it all the more dangerous.


It really isn't game winning, I think we've all agreed on that. And I'm pretty sure there is a predictable way to play Lash: Lash them into assault range -or- Lash their assaulters away -or- lash the enemy squad into rapid fire range. That's only 3 different plans I can think of. And as for the moving the squad around I'm totally fine with my opponents moving my squad either really close together for some template pounding, or trailing one behind so my squad can be assaulted but have one guy guaranteed to be alive. I think that is amazingly clever. I love seeing clever plans, it makes the game that much more interesting. And isn't it a good thing to not be able to predict your opponent? Whats the problem with an ulthwe or IW army if they're so predictable?

Giving it to every army would be stupid, that would just make the game boring because there's no one who wouldn't take it. You'd see it everywhere.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

> The only thing I dislike about it other then the one time a 14 yr old picked up my heavily modded Warboss on Bike and dropped him (clumsy idiots should not be allowed to use the Lash)


Now that I can agree with. I inform my opponent how I would like the models moved and let him/her do it. I have yet to bother with the alternate placing of the unit champ or anything like that. I generally use Lash to move a unit closer or farther away.


----------



## Tanrel (May 8, 2008)

It would suck for that to happen! I have a guy with wings I moded, it would suck so hard if they broke them!


----------

