When did Ragnar behead Ghaz?

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.

**Gadzilla666**

epronovost wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:

Makes sense as Space Wolves wouldn't be smart enough to knock him down to four wounds before charging in.

Well if they want to make it the story of Space Wolves shooting every anti-tank weapons available at Ghaz for half an afternoon and then sending Ragnar for the finishing blow they very well can, but then the heroic nearly impossible feat of the Space Wolf captain looks pretty damn weaker (this is actually how I will rationalise this idiocy). After looking at Ghaz's leaked stats, I doubt Ragnar would do well in a shooting contest against him. It's basically one dude with a tiny pistol against a giant dude with four cannons sticked together. At some point, quantity is a quality.

Which is why fair fights are for idiots. As every good Nostroman knows.

**BrianDavion**

honestly looking at the forces involved, etc I suspect that Ragnar'll be the canonical loser here. no way will ragnar and ten infiltrators beat Ghaz with 8 or so Nobs backing him up, that's just blatently lopsided.

**willhman1**

jareddm wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I'd rather have characters being killed off than ones that can't die, with only minor filler fodder characters dying. its not like you cant still have and use their miniatures. LOTRSBG manages it fine.

thats also why I like the heresy.. people are actually able to die. makes a much more interesting story.
You say this, but there's a reason everyone gets so obsessed about whatever new updates there are. Outside of Horus Heresy players, I've never met anyone interested in playing a narrative that wasn't set in the absolute most recent time period because, "You already know how it ends." You kill a character off, and sales of their model tank, sales of their books tank, and many fans who were invested in that character are likely to give up on 40k entirely. Because if there's one thing I've learned in introducing dozens and dozens of people to 40k, there are A LOT of one faction/one character fans, who are interested in one part of 40k and one part only.

I understand where your coming from, and that used to work with how 40k lore used to be because the game was set in a stagnant time period. Now though gw wants to move the narrative along, and by doing so they make it so that they need characters to die. They can't have it both ways, either let the narrative be stagnant and allow all the Heroes to stay around, or start killing it off to make it feel like the universe is moving.

**BrianDavion**

willhman1 wrote:
jareddm wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I'd rather have characters being killed off than ones that can't die, with only minor filler fodder characters dying. its not like you cant still have and use their miniatures. LOTRSBG manages it fine.

thats also why I like the heresy.. people are actually able to die. makes a much more interesting story.
You say this, but there's a reason everyone gets so obsessed about whatever new updates there are. Outside of Horus Heresy players, I've never met anyone interested in playing a narrative that wasn't set in the absolute most recent time period because, "You already know how it ends." You kill a character off, and sales of their model tank, sales of their books tank, and many fans who were invested in that character are likely to give up on 40k entirely. Because if there's one thing I've learned in introducing dozens and dozens of people to 40k, there are A LOT of one faction/one character fans, who are interested in one part of 40k and one part only.

I understand where your coming from, and that used to work with how 40k lore used to be because the game was set in a stagnant time period. Now though gw wants to move the narrative along, and by doing so they make it so that they need characters to die. They can't have it both ways, either let the narrative be stagnant and allow all the Heroes to stay around, or start killing it off to make it feel like the universe is moving.

there are plenty of other options to create a feel of a flowing narrative without killing characters. killing off characters to "create the feel of a story" is lazy writing. it also has limited returns. GRRM has a beginning middle and end to his story, GW wants to keep 40k alive as long as it can, I'm not saying character deaths shouldn't happen (and they have, colour sergant Kell is dead) but if they happened at the rate some people seem to think it should happen we'd blow through all our major chars in a 5 year time span. if character death is common it becomes well.. kind of a joke

**Grimtuff**

BrianDavion wrote:
GRRM has a beginning middle and end to his story,

Almost as if 40k has been hamfisted into an ongoing narrative from a relatively static setting...

Who'd thought it would feth up everything around it? /s

**BrianDavion**

Grimtuff wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
GRRM has a beginning middle and end to his story,

Almost as if 40k has been hamfisted into an ongoing narrative from a relatively static setting...

Who'd thought it would feth up everything around it? /s

except it hasn't. you act like GW's trying to tell a single massive story, so far evidance shows.. they're not. they've moved the timeline ahead a bit and are giving us more battle zones.

Incidently I do think Ghaz managed to kill Svangir and Ulfir given we don't see primaris ragnar beside a pair of wolves.

bad move Ghaz haven't you seen John Wick?

**An Actual Englishman**

BrianDavion wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I dunno AAE, Ghaz like all Orks sees fighting as fun doesn't he? and thus surely enjoys "fightin' 'n winnin"
I thought the trick was if the opponent felt "pride" in killing Lucius? Thinking about it the other outcome is the classic "Ghaz beats him but doesn't kill him because he loves the scrap", which will also stop Lucius spawning.

the exact wording, (per codex chaos 8 II) is "whomever kills him and suffers even a moment of sastifaction" Ghaz (or anyone else who doesn't know they just beat a legend) might not feel partiuclarly proud but you'd useally feel a small degree of sastifaction at a kill.

Dno man, for Orks killing is as natural as breathing. They are truly neutral. Do you feel satisfaction at taking a breath?

except Orks enjoy fighting. That's kinda a big part of their identity. win, lose it's all good fun to the Orks. or did the latest codex retcon that?

No they didn't, you're absolutely right. The thing is, enjoying fighting for the sake of fighting's sake is not the same as feeling satisfaction for killing a particularly kinky Purple Mariner.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
I'm not saying character deaths shouldn't happen (and they have, colour sergant Kell is dead)

Who?

**BrianDavion**

An Actual Englishman wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
I'm not saying character deaths shouldn't happen (and they have, colour sergant Kell is dead)
Who?

Creed's Makari

I agree, not exactly a terriably big character but let's face it, if GW kills people off it's not going to be characters like Ghazakul or Ragnar, it's going to be obscure characters no one really cares about, that GW's not worried about losing sales on (so old resin model)

**flandarz**

I think the issue is that they keep tossing these characters they don't want to kill at each other then having to come up with reasons WHY one or the other (or both) aren't dead. I'm fine with characters who don't die, but it kills the narrative when they clash.

**BrianDavion**

flandarz wrote:
I think the issue is that they keep tossing these characters they don't want to kill at each other then having to come up with reasons WHY one or the other (or both) aren't dead. I'm fine with characters who don't die, but it kills the narrative when they clash.

Don't entirely disagree, I mean Yarrick vs Ghaz was proably a better way of doing it, focus on "characters as commanders" rather then "characters as duelists"

**epronovost**

BrianDavion wrote:
Don't entirely disagree, I mean Yarrick vs Ghaz was proably a better way of doing it, focus on "characters as commanders" rather then "characters as duelists"

Is Yarrick even alive in the current timeline or did he die offscreen like so many other Imperial guard heroes?

**BrianDavion**

epronovost wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Don't entirely disagree, I mean Yarrick vs Ghaz was proably a better way of doing it, focus on "characters as commanders" rather then "characters as duelists"

Is Yarrick even alive in the current timeline or did he die offscreen like so many other Imperial guard heroes?

I doubt any of them are killed off screen. GW was more clever with the post Gathering storm era then a lot of people give them credit for,.with the opening of the rift, every world was impacted differantly by the timey whimy effects of the warp. this allows GW to effectively have their cake and eat it too, it allows them to have one world that has "known only war for the last thousand generations, since the great rift opened" and to also say "yeah the whole great rift thing happened a week ago for Yarrick, god that was a gak week"

**An Actual Englishman**

BrianDavion wrote:
epronovost wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Don't entirely disagree, I mean Yarrick vs Ghaz was proably a better way of doing it, focus on "characters as commanders" rather then "characters as duelists"

Is Yarrick even alive in the current timeline or did he die offscreen like so many other Imperial guard heroes?

I doubt any of them are killed off screen. GW was more clever with the post Gathering storm era then a lot of people give them credit for,.with the opening of the rift, every world was impacted differantly by the timey whimy effects of the warp. this allows GW to effectively have their cake and eat it too, it allows them to have one world that has "known only war for the last thousand generations, since the great rift opened" and to also say "yeah the whole great rift thing happened a week ago for Yarrick, god that was a gak week"

'Clever' is questionable here. GW made a simple excuse to explain how human heroes can still be alive in the setting. It's really, really contrived in my opinion.

**BrianDavion**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
epronovost wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Don't entirely disagree, I mean Yarrick vs Ghaz was proably a better way of doing it, focus on "characters as commanders" rather then "characters as duelists"

Is Yarrick even alive in the current timeline or did he die offscreen like so many other Imperial guard heroes?

I doubt any of them are killed off screen. GW was more clever with the post Gathering storm era then a lot of people give them credit for,.with the opening of the rift, every world was impacted differantly by the timey whimy effects of the warp. this allows GW to effectively have their cake and eat it too, it allows them to have one world that has "known only war for the last thousand generations, since the great rift opened" and to also say "yeah the whole great rift thing happened a week ago for Yarrick, god that was a gak week"
'Clever' is questionable here. GW made a simple excuse to explain how human heroes can still be alive in the setting. It's really, really contrived in my opinion.

except the warp having well.. time warping effects is well documented. really this is just more GW formally admitted "yeah we don't have any sort of unified timeline" in fairness this has been obvious for YEAAARS given the number of events they've been jamming into M.41 999

**Kid_Kyoto**

I would have loved to see a new Yarrick with a rag tag vet squad ala the Last Chancers. A dirty dozen IG vets and Yarrick vs Ghaz would be cool.

**DivineVisitor**

Just read a short story from White Dwarf 158 published in February 1993:

Spoiler:

Given Ragnar's last line it looks like this story has been 27 years in the making.

**beast_gts**

BrianDavion wrote:
Incidently I do think Ghaz managed to kill Svangir and Ulfir given we don't see primaris ragnar beside a pair of wolves.

They're dead, but it was one of his underlings -

Spoiler:

**nareik**

They killed off Urk ‘Eadkrumpa? How dare they!

**Kid_Kyoto**

Well there we go, it was in 1993.

Guess we can close this thread now

**BrianDavion**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Well there we go, it was in 1993.

Guess we can close this thread now

well guess that addresses the complaints that this was an out of no where rivlary

**Kid_Kyoto**

BrianDavion wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Well there we go, it was in 1993.

Guess we can close this thread now

well guess that addresses the complaints that this was an out of no where rivlary

Yeah and they probably kept quiet about it because that's the kind of guys Ghaz and Ragnar are, not ones to go around boasting and bragging. The strong silent types.

**Insectum7**

BrianDavion wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Well there we go, it was in 1993.

Guess we can close this thread now

well guess that addresses the complaints that this was an out of no where rivlary

Imperial heroes outnumber the xenos ones, so some opposing characters have to be shared for rivalries. One of those turned into a major event/campaign book, so thats what people recall. I don't know much about Ragnar, but Yarrick is more or less defined by Ghazghull through Armageddon 2 and 3. Ragnar presumably less so.

It probably all started with personal studio armies anyways.

**BrianDavion**

Insectum7 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Well there we go, it was in 1993.

Guess we can close this thread now

well guess that addresses the complaints that this was an out of no where rivlary

Imperial heroes outnumber the xenos ones, so some opposing characters have to be shared for rivalries. One of those turned into a major event/campaign book, so thats what people recall. I don't know much about Ragnar, but Yarrick is more or less defined by Ghazghull through Armageddon 2 and 3. Ragnar presumably less so.

It probably all started with personal studio armies anyways.

yeah, Ragnar's been around for awhile but never really was a featured character in a campaig which really is a pity.

**DivineVisitor**

Given the 1993 story specifically has Ragnar saying he will take Ghazghul's head I've no doubt it is the basis for the Saga of the Beast outcome. Can't be a concidence.

**pm713**

You think GW are that aware of past writing?

**DivineVisitor**

pm713 wrote:
You think GW are that aware of past writing?

You don't think it's possible they drew inspiration from this short story?

Ghaz having his head cut off by the only character to my knowledge who has said he would take Ghaz's head?

I would like to think that writers do carry out at least a little bit of research on characters prior to writing about them. And given there are not many stories involving Ghaz and Ragnar together this wouldn't have been that hard to come across. I found it easily enough after all.

**pm713**

DivineVisitor wrote:
pm713 wrote:
You think GW are that aware of past writing?

You don't think it's possible they drew inspiration from this short story?

Ghaz having his head cut off by the only character to my knowledge who has said he would take Ghaz's head?

I would like to think that writers do carry out at least a little bit of research on characters prior to writing about them. And given there are not many stories involving Ghaz and Ragnar together this wouldn't have been that hard to come across. I found it easily enough after all.

It's not impossible just feels unlikely to me.

Decapitation is a pretty common way of trying to ensure someones dead and I don't really credit GW with putting effort into things. They certainly don't seem to feel much pride in their work seeing what they do with their license.

**Kid_Kyoto**

Does GW mine their past for new storylines? You seriously doubt that?

Um have you ever read the original HH story?

GW is totally capable of taking a one liner and making a 500 page book (or 53 book series) out of it.

**pm713**

I think making a story out of the Heresy is different to making a story out of a White Dwarf that's older than a lot of the players.

**Hellebore**

They have shown they do this in the past at least.

Ie the name c'tan comes from an.outbox flavour quote about the quiescent perils of the c'tan, which was later used to describe the callidus c'tan phase sword and then later added to the necrons.

So I would at least entertain the possibility that it happened.