What should 11th look like?

[Scribe]

17 minutes ago, DuskRaider said:

Chaos 3.5 was a trip for him, lol.

 

Honestly still love it. Its one of the very very few books I would hold on to, with the 5th Edition Dark Eldar Codex being another.

[skylerboodie]

I'd like to see Drukhari (or Emperor's Children, if not in 10th) as the edition launch protagonists with a range refresh comparable in size to the Death Guard's models in 8th.

[Dark Legionnare]

I have been having consistently good results and love from many local lads I keep slowly bringing into 7th edition with the caveats of "No decurions, no formations, and no relics (outside big games, for relics), only using Combined Arms detachment (or your race's one if you got one, like, say, orks)"

I've already had 6 people (5 of which never played an edition before 8th) fall in love with the oldhammer rules and "game design." Game design = templates, USR's so you're not looking up 20 different abilities per game, initiative, comparing weapon skills in close combat, etc, etc...  There's 3 others now (all guys who started in 9th) that are interested in getting in games as word of mouth has gotten around. The other 5 have been consistently asking for oldhammer over 10th.  (I know a huge part of this is that I put extreme emphasis on having fun and making fluffy stuff. Don't be netlisting, etc... Which is a bit harder to do in restricted force orgs, but that's covered below)

I doubt GW will "baby - bathwater" their way back to oldhammer style armor facings, etc... but that'd be the dream for me and the guys we keep converting every time they try 7th. "Oldhammer, without BS kruft/broken crap. Raw force org, raw armies, oldhammer styling, no "got'cha!" strategems (but leaving in simple stuff like a re-roll per phase or stuff like that would be fine), etc..."

The more realistic compromises is:

1. Keep the 10th style vehicle toughness increases, that's actually working pretty damn well in my opinion of all the games I've played.
2. Add back in at least WS vs WS for units.
   • But not HH 2.0's chart!
     • Let's say you don't "hit back on a 5+" until the opponent is at least 2WS higher than you, not just 1. One WS higher has made melee balancing in 2.0 abysmal
   • The better melee fighters hitting better on foes makes so much sense.
   • Initiative would be fun, but I understand how it can slow down games inordinately, even if I and others love it.
3. Bring back force ORG style along the lines of 1.0 HH.  That is a VERY tight, balanced FO. I am consistently rolling my eyes when I see "Oops, all firepower, no troops."
   • No allies aside from obvious stuff like demons and chaos(Completely rule out any balancing nonsense there)
   • The balancing problems this unrestricted spamability caused are completely negated by doing so. Who'da thunk?
4. GET RID OF THE ABSOLUTELY ASININE SQUAD-SIZE STUFF CAUSED BY POWER LEVEL, OOPS, I MEAN, "FIXED POINTS COSTS."
5. For heaven's sake, BRING BACK GRANULAR WEAPON COSTS. Yet another victim of POWER LEVEL, "simplified, not simple."
   • Watching GW jump through concentric hoops and do "Cirque Du Soleil-level" acrobatic maneuvers (Crisis suits being the most brazen example) to constantly slap on bandaids and designs choices to make the game balance/work with this design choice is simultaneously hilarious to our group, and depressing.
6. Bring back SIMPLE flavorful choices like picking space marine chapters, forge worlds, kabals, etc... Something like 7th ed chapter tactics/legion (CSM) traits.  (Keep away the obvious competitive bait like "one free hit and or wound per unit" type stuff.)

 

• To a lesser extent, stop using tourney data/lists to make balance decisions? I know this one is contentious and heavily dependent on your local circles. So This is "nice" for my perspective only. But I get that for some folks, it may be important to keep local "hyper competitive" folks in check.
  • The random swinging points consistently hit "casual" folks who just had one of a cool unit harder around here than anything else. For instance, local salamander player can no longer wield his 2k army anymore without cutting one of his infantry squads in half (hello again POWER LEVEL) because they raised the redeemer 35 points.
  • I have not met or played a game against a single WAAC player since 5th edition, and I don't know of anybody grumbling against a single player in our local circle, or local shops, about running "net lists" in all of the time I've been back into warhammer since 2018. We are apparently VERY lucky judging by what I read here sometimes, and online, so I understand why it can be helpful for plenty of folks for GW to balance around that "hyper competitive" angle.

Edited July 10 by Dark Legionnare

[Evil Eye]

23 minutes ago, skylerboodie said:

I'd like to see Drukhari (or Emperor's Children, if not in 10th) as the edition launch protagonists with a range refresh comparable in size to the Death Guard's models in 8th.

Emperor's Children would be awesome for that- Drukhari less so as most of their range is already really REALLY good. The basic infantry (Kaballite Warriors and Wyches) are really good kits, with good posing options without looking weird, the vehicles are all awesome, and whilst there are gaps in the range, notably plastic replacements for the now-OOP Urien Rakarth, Grotesques and the Archon's Court, not to mention Asdrubael Vect and his Dais of Destruction, it doesn't need a full refresh.

[DuskRaider]

I really hope Emperor’s Children get the Death Guard treatment and not the World Eaters treatment… for the sake of EC players / fans. They could be an extremely interesting army if GW gives them the chance to be. 

[ZeroWolf]

Current rumours put Orks as the beneficiaries of the 11th starter, but given that we're still a year and a half out, plenty of time for that to change. Doubt it would ever be EC or DE though. On saying that, they would burn through starter forces quite quickly if they were limited to who they could pick.

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Personally I would love it to just use the rules for Horus Heresy. I find them much better than the nonsense that is 10th.

 

While we're at it bring back the Primarchs too. And get rid of those annoying npc xeno factions as well. 

[DuskRaider]

I’m all for getting rid of the Xenos, especially the filthy Space Elves. 

[Special Officer Doofy]

I would go back to more 8th/9th rules systems like wargear having costs, not having set unit sizes/costs, not having leaders join squads but limiting their abilities to pick an infantry unit within 6" and the like but using the one page rules and detachments of 10th and not the 30+ strats, free AP on everything and stacking rules of 9th. I had much more fun playing 8th-9th though than I ever did playing 3rd-6th (skipped 7th and didn't play 1st or 2nd edition). 

 

I'm glad there is about a 0% chance they go back to AV/vehicle facings, templates, initiative and WS v WS. Never cared for any of that. I don't need THAT much "realism" in a game where in the lore ships from space can easily blow up planets but instead send down 20 knights in space running around with chainswords when there are hand guns that can melt through tanks which still have treads in the year 40,000 when the modern tank today is nearing obsolete. Nothing in 40k is close to being real.

[WrathOfTheLion]

It may not be 'real', but it feels immersive. The artillery hitting with a pie plate is just fun as a concept, even brings that connection to an AoE attack in an RTS or tactical strategy game. I have always had more fun with 30k, but I did start in 7E. 8th I never liked, 9th was flawed, but fun and 10th is kind of somewhere in the middle I think. For 10E, I wish they went a bit further with the USRs, where there's still some rules that you can see really should have been codified as another category of USR.

 

That said, I've personally made my peace that those sorts of interactions will remain in 30k and not 40k, unless there's some substantial pivot in both the design philosophy and business direction of 40k.

[Special Officer Doofy]

16 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

The artillery hitting with a pie plate is just fun as a concept, even brings that connection to an AoE attack in an RTS or tactical strategy game.

 

Right, as a concept. But in execution it's not an absolute like rolling 5 hits, it's a template that is arbitrarily placed that can lead to arguments and number of models hit, and also makes the movement phase a chore with everyone spacing their infantry out as far as they could to reduce the number of models hit by a template.

 

I think leaving 40k simpler and having 30k more like older editions with things like templates will be the closest to appeasing everyone and giving them options. None of us will ever agree on exactly what we want from those game systems, but that's life.

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

would go back to more 8th/9th rules systems like wargear having costs, not having set unit sizes/costs, not having leaders join squads but limiting their abilities to pick an infantry unit within 6" and the like but using the one page rules and detachments of 10th and not the 30+ strats, free AP on everything and stacking rules of 9th. I had much more fun playing 8th-9th though than I ever did playing 3rd-6th (skipped 7th and didn't play 1st or 2nd edition). 

 

I like leaders attached to squads, because it feels fluffy but I wouldn't mind seeing a game that had some factions have very few leaders (Looking at you, Tyranids) and more aura figures would be pretty rad. 

 

Everything else you suggested is pretty much spot on for me too.  I could compromise on war gear if we just went back to having per body costs for squads and load out costs for vehicles. But I would also like to see the war gear come back if we are hoping.

 

If people really like the old stuff they should just try to figure out a group to play that stuff. If you let people proxy in with modern models there might even be that interest, like some other members have mentioned in their local community (choosing 7th seems crazy to me but hey, that's what life is about!  Choice!).

 

I enjoy how much quicker stuff moves compared to the reference table style of game play. Same reason I prefer Total War over Crusader Kings or other Pandemic titles. Sometimes the crunch can go to far.  It's nice having options. 

[DuskRaider]

I’m totally fine with playing 4th Edition with like minded people, I just wish GW would see there’s a base that appeals to and would release something like 40K Advanced. Give us the old style codices with a massive Wargear list and the option to field actual Chaos Legions, Eldar Craftworlds, Ork Klanz, etc. 

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

8 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

I’m all for getting rid of the Xenos, especially the filthy Space Elves. 

You tell ´em. The likes of elves, gnomes and pixies belong in a fairy tale and not in the grim darkness of the far future.

[Xenith]

11 hours ago, ZeroWolf said:

Current rumours put Orks as the beneficiaries of the 11th starter, but given that we're still a year and a half out, plenty of time for that to change.

 

Dear dark lords, rumours of 11th already  I assume it will be a refinement of 10th, I'd actually hope it would be given the changes, I'm getting real burnout from the modifications. Just keep the base rules unchanged, and increase the points on any unit that it turns out can massively abuse the core rules. 

[Cleon]

6 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Right, as a concept. But in execution it's not an absolute like rolling 5 hits, it's a template that is arbitrarily placed that can lead to arguments and number of models hit, and also makes the movement phase a chore with everyone spacing their infantry out as far as they could to reduce the number of models hit by a template.

 

I think leaving 40k simpler and having 30k more like older editions with things like templates will be the closest to appeasing everyone and giving them options. None of us will ever agree on exactly what we want from those game systems, but that's life.

 

The one thing I have to say on this is that if GW are planning to continue to break HH and 40k into an 'Old World/AoS' 'old styled game, new style game' split then sooner rather than later then they probably do need to add in some of the classic xenos for either 'Crusade' or 'Scouring' expansion books, because Orks and Eldar are what a lot of people who remember and love those rulesets will pay them a lot of money to play.

[Special Officer Doofy]

5 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

I like leaders attached to squads, because it feels fluffy but I wouldn't mind seeing a game that had some factions have very few leaders (Looking at you, Tyranids) and more aura figures would be pretty rad. 

 

I can take it or leave it, and it's definitely not the worse change they did and I can see how some like it. But it creates weird interactions for almost every faction but marines. Marines have different kinds of armor and it all fits nicely. Daemon Princes and larger characters obviously are not joining groups. They nerfed Abaddon from T6 to T5 in an edition where everything stayed the same or went up in toughness because (I believe) that way he would be in line with terminators then. A model that big should not be just T5 (not lore wise just model wise). Then you have weird things like a Winged Tyranid Prime being a 12" move flying model joining a unit without flying that only has 6" move.

 

I mean I get none of those are big deals at all. It's just a nitpick of mine, not a hill I want to die on. I mostly don't like powerlevel pretending to be points. It creates less balance, less options and makes list building not fun. Hoping 11th edition changes that.

[Jings]

I think given the direction GW has taken 40K in regards to video gameification of the ruleset, the simplification of units, and the removal of out-of-box options indicates there will just be more of the same. 

 

I get the sense that they don't think the new blood in the hobby can work out the more complicated rulesets of the past, and the focus on the competitive scene also adds to that. 

 

What I would like is a rollback to something akin to 9th prior to the points blitz with the removal of strategems. Add some as once per turn/game abilities for units that you pay CP to use, the rest for unit upgrades (relics etc.). 

 

If they keep going in their current direction I'm just going to drop 40K entirely. 

[ThaneOfTas]

3 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

But it creates weird interactions for almost every faction but marines. Marines have different kinds of armor and it all fits nicely. Daemon Princes and larger characters obviously are not joining groups...

You're definitely not wrong about it getting somewhat clunky and awkward in some circumstances. I think that some of the problem character models should probably get their buff changed to an aura, and maybe have something like the tech marines ability to get Lone Operative if they're close enought to friendly models.

 

I recogniythat I'm basically re creating the "Lookout sir" rules from 8th/9th but my point is that they could allow both systems to be present for different characters.

 

Another option is to just change Precision so that it allocates to the character before the to wound roll, rather than after, then it wouldn't matter if the character has a wildly different T compared to its escort.

 

Still wouldn't fix stuff like the Tyranids, but again, Auras could do so easily for the units that it makes sense to.

[DemonGSides]

4 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Daemon Princes and larger characters obviously are not joining groups. They nerfed Abaddon from T6 to T5 in an edition where everything stayed the same or went up in toughness because (I believe) that way he would be in line with terminators then. A model that big should not be just T5 (not lore wise just model wise). Then you have weird things like a Winged Tyranid Prime being a 12" move flying model joining a unit without flying that only has 6" move.

 

Yeah this is what I mean by some leaders should be squad leader and other as aura leaders.

 

The fact that Abadon doesn't work almost exactly like gulliman and the Lion is real weird. 

Edited July 11 by DemonGSides

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I have an idea to compromise for the people who don’t want everything wounding everything, and the people who think those lasguns wounding land raider interactions are important.

 

T more than2x S confers a -1 to wound penalty.

functionally impossible under normal circumstances, but a +1 to wound buff can offset the penalty and return it to a 6+ to wound.

 

so lasgun would wound a gravis marine on a 6+ but would need a buff to wound if it wanted to try to shoot at a scout sentinel and be able to wound it.

Edited July 11 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[CL_Mission]

29 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I have an idea to compromise for the people who don’t want everything wounding everything, and the people who think those lasguns wounding land raider interactions are important.

 

T more than2x S confers a -1 to wound penalty.

functionally impossible under normal circumstances, but a +1 to wound buff can offset the penalty and return it to a 6+ to wound.

 

so lasgun would wound a gravis marine on a 6+ but would need a buff to wound if it wanted to try to shoot at a scout sentinel and be able to wound it.

Would it be more elegant to make it so the required roll for wounding something with toughness more than double the strength of the attack 7+. 

[DuskRaider]

Tanks don’t have wounds. Neither do Dreadnoughts. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, CL_Mission said:

Would it be more elegant to make it so the required roll for wounding something with toughness more than double the strength of the attack 7+. 

Same difference

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, DuskRaider said:

Tanks don’t have wounds. Neither do Dreadnoughts. 

I have no problem with them having wounds, give them fewer wounds but make it more difficult for weapons that aren’t dedicated AT to do damage.

 

like a leman Russ with 7-8 wounds, but find a way to make it very unlikely for anything under S8 to do damage even if absolutely spammed.

 

after all a twin linked heavy bolter with a +1 to wound buff is probably a better AT option than say a krak missile.