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.

Not really. Ragnar at least gives aura mechanics that are useful for the army. Ghaz offers an extra attack only on the charge (which isn't even necessary with how many attacks they put out) and a damage mechanic that won't last him that long. Plus you get the generic Warboss who can indeed get a 4++ with character protection mechanics.

I'd also argue that Ragnar is better in melee, ESPECIALLY for the points.

Tyel wrote:
I don't know - I just come away from this ... thinking the writers had no over all design philosophy for the game

8th edition 40k in a nutshell.

Even 2 Ragnars can't kill Ghaz, so yeah, he's twice as good in a certain way

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I don't know - I just come away from this ... thinking the writers had no over all design philosophy for the game

8th edition 40k in a nutshell.

That sums up 40k since I started really.

pm713 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I don't know - I just come away from this ... thinking the writers had no over all design philosophy for the game

8th edition 40k in a nutshell.

That sums up 40k since I started really.

It's a sales vehicle for the miniatures, so we should set our expectations accordingly.

 BertBert wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I don't know - I just come away from this ... thinking the writers had no over all design philosophy for the game

8th edition 40k in a nutshell.

That sums up 40k since I started really.

It's a sales vehicle for the miniatures, so we should set our expectations accordingly.

It may just be me but I imagine a well designed system would sell more miniatures.

pm713 wrote:


It may just be me but I imagine a well designed system would sell more miniatures.

And require a lot more resources to devise and maintain. It also makes it harder to incenitvise the purchase of specific units.

 Mr Morden wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

They also are running counter to the Ragnars awful theme:

what aweful theme is that? I'm not seeing any "aweful" theme

one thing annoying is the lack of an updated sheet for Urik the slayer, hopefully they'll errata that quick

Various people were bemoning and proclaiming he DOA - a bit like Ghaz.

You would hope they would - also sounds like they need one for the Morkai’s Teeth Bolts to stop IG artillery and the like getting the re-rolls

well you know how it is, unless a character can warp across a double sized boiard in one turn, one shot a knight and then tank the entire enemy armies firepower, all for 90 points or less, some people will claim he sucks

pm713 wrote:
It may just be me but I imagine a well designed system would sell more miniatures.

Actually, that's something that is well known and accepted in the gaming industry. Well, except for the GW bubble, who have been conditioned by GW over decades to believe otherwise.

BertBert wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I don't know - I just come away from this ... thinking the writers had no over all design philosophy for the game

8th edition 40k in a nutshell.

That sums up 40k since I started really.

It's a sales vehicle for the miniatures, so we should set our expectations accordingly.

aaaaannnnnnddd that's new?

The game is something cool you can do with your miniatures. not the other way around.

Well, they aren't trying to sell Thrakka or Makari for sure.

Tyel wrote:
I don't know - I just come away from this (and PA in general) thinking the writers had no over all design philosophy for the game and no idea that abilities/stratagems/subkultures etc should vaguely be balanced against each other. Instead its just "here's a pile of random stuff, some good, some bad, we don't know, if its too good we'll nerf it later I guess, if its crap, who cares?"

I am curious; why do you feel this is an element of PA and not just Warhammer? Because across both 40k and AoS that pretty much sums it up.

pm713 wrote:

 BertBert wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I don't know - I just come away from this ... thinking the writers had no over all design philosophy for the game

8th edition 40k in a nutshell.

That sums up 40k since I started really.

It's a sales vehicle for the miniatures, so we should set our expectations accordingly.

It may just be me but I imagine a well designed system would sell more miniatures.

Please cite an example of a well designed games system that sells more miniatures than 40k.

Say what you want about GW, but they know how to sell toy soldiers.

I summarised the new rules in a short video
https://youtu.be/aMPkjy8cmyM

Leggy wrote:


Please cite an example of a well designed games system that sells more miniatures than 40k.

Say what you want about GW, but they know how to sell toy soldiers.

Well, while 40K isn't perfect, it's still the best game by a good stretch.

Don't need to be perfect, as long as you're better than the competition.

 BertBert wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I don't know - I just come away from this ... thinking the writers had no over all design philosophy for the game

8th edition 40k in a nutshell.

That sums up 40k since I started really.

It's a sales vehicle for the miniatures, so we should set our expectations accordingly.

And still one could think the designers have an overall idea what they want the game to be and don't decide on the fly between two halfs of a release to change it

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Leggy wrote:


Please cite an example of a well designed games system that sells more miniatures than 40k.

Say what you want about GW, but they know how to sell toy soldiers.

Well, while 40K isn't perfect, it's still the best game by a good stretch.

Don't need to be perfect, as long as you're better than the competition.

Define best.

I'm quite sure many people who play 40k don't think it's near the best. I certainly don't, just look at their awful designs.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Leggy wrote:


Please cite an example of a well designed games system that sells more miniatures than 40k.

Say what you want about GW, but they know how to sell toy soldiers.

Well, while 40K isn't perfect, it's still the best game by a good stretch.

Don't need to be perfect, as long as you're better than the competition.

I would like to know which game has a worse design than 40k

no game is perfect but 40k is far from being better than anything else

Leggy wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 BertBert wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I don't know - I just come away from this ... thinking the writers had no over all design philosophy for the game

8th edition 40k in a nutshell.

That sums up 40k since I started really.

It's a sales vehicle for the miniatures, so we should set our expectations accordingly.

It may just be me but I imagine a well designed system would sell more miniatures.

Please cite an example of a well designed games system that sells more miniatures than 40k.

Say what you want about GW, but they know how to sellTOY SOLDIERS.

Which is the thing they sell the most of....o that & video game licenses, which they whore out endlessly.

cuz if the minis suck, no matter how great the game is, it would suck nonetheless.

 kodos wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Leggy wrote:


Please cite an example of a well designed games system that sells more miniatures than 40k.

Say what you want about GW, but they know how to sell toy soldiers.

Well, while 40K isn't perfect, it's still the best game by a good stretch.

Don't need to be perfect, as long as you're better than the competition.

I would like to know which game has a worse design than 40k

no game is perfect but 40k is far from being better than anything else

Well, I admittedly haven't played every miniatures game. But a I think I played all the more common ones like Bolt Action, Infinity, Warmachine, the various FFG-Star Wars stuff, etc.. some smaller ones like SAGA, Frostgrave, etc..

None of those come close to 40K in either immersion from a narrative/lore-gaming perspective, nor in tactical challenges and choices from a gamers-gaming perspective (in my opinion).

Kinda makes sense. If there were a game that is better than 40K, I'd not be playing 40K (as my "main" game). That'd be pretty insane. For a good while in 6th and 7th, I didn't play 40K and shopped around a lot. For a few years, I didn't think it necessarily was the best on the market.

Nothing is more immersive than the opponent destroying half your army with no response. Excellent design. For sure. So tactically challenging to fight your opponent with just half your army or making them fight with just half their army.

Imagine actually making the statement seriously 40k is well designed LOL

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I am curious; why do you feel this is an element of PA and not just Warhammer? Because across both 40k and AoS that pretty much sums it up.

I guess because... I don't really think that?
I've never really got the "40k sucks, and GW sucks, and they've sucked for 20 years, and yet for some reason I'm still turning up on forums to talk to people about it...."

I genuinely think 8th is the best 40k has been in ages - possibly ever. Its miles better than 7th.

And a major reason for that is the chapter approved points changes. Its not some mathematically defined perfection - but overperformers can be made more expensive, and underperformers can be made cheaper. It pushes things towards a sweet spot. It massively beats "here's a codex. Oh its bad? See you in however many years..."

I think Ghaz is going to suck at 285 points. But if he does, I have some hope he will be knocked down to a more reasonable level (230? Less?) in CA2020. Well, maybe not, as that will probably be getting written about now, but still - the year after that. In the fullness of time it will improve.

But all the features that are not points related are much less likely to be fixed - and PA seems to have been about dramatically expanding them. Really I just think its been a missed opportunity to consolidate the system as existed, and instead its just taken a scattershot approach to doing something else. I know GW tends to do rules bloat - and I understand they have to sell new stuff like all collection based games. But I think its been a mistake.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nothing is more immersive than the opponent destroying half your army with no response. Excellent design. For sure. So tactically challenging to fight your opponent with just half your army or making them fight with just half their army.

Imagine actually making the statement seriously 40k is well designed LOL

How many other miniature games have you played slayer? I would guess few if any.

I would guess this is all off topic.


On topic, I'm pretty excited by a lot of the ork custom jobs and stratagems. Lots of new ideas for themed lists to take advantage of some of the subcultures. Too bad the new psychic powers mainly seem naff. Then again, they still need to make a wyrdboy in plastic. And I'm looking forward to building ghazzy and the various jobs from the box set. Ork models are just fun to build and kitbash minus the monobuild buggies. Those were a major miss modelwise, though they have a lot more fun now ruleswise.

pm713 wrote:

 BertBert wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I don't know - I just come away from this ... thinking the writers had no over all design philosophy for the game

8th edition 40k in a nutshell.

That sums up 40k since I started really.

It's a sales vehicle for the miniatures, so we should set our expectations accordingly.

It may just be me but I imagine a well designed system would sell more miniatures.

Plenty of companies have thought the same thing, but I've seen time after time for nearly 30 years pretty much every better designed challenger fall by the wayside. Outside of the bigger historical, only Warmachine/Hordes and Flames of War have really had the staying power to stick around alongside the king. 40K is the WoW of tabletop, everyone wants to be the "WoW killer".

And 40k maintains it's lead in the same sunk cost fallacy and existing community inertial fashion.

If it works, and the 'community' continues to exist, is it really a fallacy?

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
I would guess this is all off topic.


On topic, I'm pretty excited by a lot of the ork custom jobs and stratagems. Lots of new ideas for themed lists to take advantage of some of the subcultures. Too bad the new psychic powers mainly seem naff. Then again, they still need to make a wyrdboy in plastic. And I'm looking forward to building ghazzy and the various jobs from the box set. Ork models are just fun to build and kitbash minus the monobuild buggies. Those were a major miss modelwise, though they have a lot more fun now ruleswise.

I agree the rules allowing for fun theme lists to "be semi-viable" is a nice touch.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
On topic, I'm pretty excited by a lot of the ork custom jobs and stratagems.

I would be too if they didn't require the purchase of a terrain piece.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
On topic, I'm pretty excited by a lot of the ork custom jobs and stratagems.

I would be too if they didn't require the purchase of a terrain piece.

They don’t.