11th edition starter speculation.

[CL_Mission]

15 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

It could be so, but I think the way they do it currently does do a pretty good job. How they view it is that with generic SM in the box, it'll sell, but then you can convert a lot of those players over to start the Xenos or Chaos force that were paired with them. So it causes there to be a lot more Death Guard, Necrons, Tyranids, and so forth players.

 

So if they did Orks vs Dark Eldar, a lot of people may just end up skipping the box, whereas if they did the SM vs Dark Eldar, you'd see a significant increase in DE players.

It certainly worked that way for me, I wouldn't be collecting Necrons now if I didn't have the base Indomitus provided me and Leviathan has given me the start of a future Tyranid army. At the same time my Space Marine chapter is ever expanding and the starter boxes are a huge help in that regard.

Not sure it would work again with Orks but who knows once I get the (hypothetical) box in my hands. I'd my rather Dark Eldar be the opposing force but I'm not counting on it.

A box without Marines is would be need to have at least one faction I'm already collecting or strongly interested in collecting for me to be tempted and there are a few factions that don't fall into those categories.

 

[ThaneOfTas]

3 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

10th still has just as many strats, but GW chooses which strats get grouped into collections.

 

NOBODY in 9th used all 36 strats, but we did get to choose for ourselves which 6 strats we were going to lean on.

 

It's like a pizzeria offering 40 toppings and saying "Build what you want." vs. "we sell these six premade pies- buy one of those or eat elsewhere."

Then there's the fact that each and every unit has an unique ability that you need to keep track of, some of them have multiple, including ones that can only be used once per game.

 

When people talk about 10th having a lower cognitive load I genuinely do not know what they are talking about, because it seems as bad as ever from where I'm sitting, the biggest change is all of the cards that they sell you to keep track of it. 

 

Anyway, back on topic.

My bet for the Marine half is;

 

VanVets,

 

Jump Chaplain or Jump Lt

 

Assault Termies and a character in Terminator Armour, Probably a lieutenant or an Ancient.

 

Tactical Intercessors

 

Maybe a Librarian in Gravis

 

and then I'm not sure about a big thing to round it out, but Im going to go a little nuts and say a specialist Dreadnaught, Something like a chaplain or Librarian Dread. 

Edited January 20 by ThaneOfTas

[Special Officer Doofy]

3 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

 

10th still has just as many strats, but GW chooses which strats get grouped into collections.

 

NOBODY in 9th used all 36 strats, but we did get to choose for ourselves which 6 strats we were going to lean on.

 

It's like a pizzeria offering 40 toppings and saying "Build what you want." vs. "we sell these six premade pies- buy one of those or eat elsewhere."

 

(You know, ever since Subway put 15 premade subs on their menu, I've never been able to find one that's perfect for me? I always order a basic club and dress it with MY OWN CHOICES)

 

Obviously, you have a right to your own preferences, and if you like 10th, enjoy it while it lasts. But 9th, which you call a bloated mess, was the closest 40k has ever come with aligning perfectly with my own preferences. It was a gigantic sandbox where all factions had subfactions, and even build your own subfaction rules. In 10th, we've returned to "Oh, sorry, subfactions are only for Marines" except we've added "But don't worry, if you like the colour red but love Spacewolves, your Blood Angel models will be just as good at Spacewolfing, they just have to use the Spacewolves detachment."

 

Ever read the detachments and think "This is a great detachment but it would match my concept so much more if I could swap this enhancement with one from another detachment and that strat from another detachment"?

 

That's a problem no one had in 9th.

 

9th editions issues were more than just "36 strats". You had armies like marines that had a subfaction ability, a mono bonus, a second mono bonus, bonuses on top of those like Deathwing bonuses, and handing out AP on every single weapon in the game. That's another 3+ rules on every unit and not even addressing strats.

 

Making the baseline marine unit's gun have 1 ap and then giving marines another ap from the mono bonus started the spiral that got out of control and made termagants gun S5 with 1ap closer to the end of the edition, which is why armor of contempt became a thing. I know you love your subfaction identity, but the arms race had to be wrangled in.

 

Reset or not, GW NEEEDS to play test more. The hot mess that was the end of 9th at least had all the faction's in the 45-55% win rate. 10th rolled out with LoV and DG barely breaking 30% with Eldar pushing into the 70%s, all of which was glaringly obvious from the faction preview alone without point costs even factored in. Regardless if you're for or against balance slates and frequent adjustments, if GW actually play tested more the game would be more balanced and not need as many adjustments along the way.

Edited January 20 by Lord_Ikka

[Evil Eye]

SM vs Orks would be cool; Leviathan was basically Battle for Macragge 2.0, so an Assault on Black Reach 2.0 would be fitting.

 

As far as the edition cycle goes, yeah, the 3-year enforced edition cycle is getting silly. The 3rd-7th era very much felt like they had the formula down and edition changes were meant as a means of refining the system whilst keeping a lot of stuff from codices and supplements cross-compatible between editions. Effectively it was all one very long edition with gradual updates and refinements. They kinda lost their way midway through 5th, and late 5th through to 7th was a complete and total disaster but even then, there was good content buried in the garbage, and the issues that plagued the system seemed more related to GW's mismanagement than a flaw with the core of the system itself; the weird dork age of model design, Finecast, forcing superheavies and flyers into the main game and some highly questionable fluff, along with GW realizing they can make massive amounts of money by forcing everyone to buy their books all over again every edition, were the problem.

 

The problem is now, GW has somehow got it into their heads that the reason people hated the dork age wasn't the excessive piling on of extra features nobody was asking for onto the existing system in order to fit in ever more ridiculous toys, along with bad fluff, overly toyetic model design and rampant powercreep (which are all still problems), it was the system itself. They saw people getting annoyed at a nigh-indestructible tank that ignores Melta and spits out 3 S8 5" blasts a turn and decided the solution was to get rid of blast markers and armour values, rather than just, you know, not making such a ridiculously cheesy tank in the first place. They've also realized that by effectively reinventing the wheel every edition, they can minimize cross-compatibility as much as possible, making it so once a unit is no longer supported officially, it's effectively unplayable, forcing you to buy the shiny new replacement. Whereas before a previous-gen Codex would still work pretty well in a new edition with minimal effort (to the point that through the lifespan of the 4E Chaos Codex, it wasn't unheard of for people to keep using the vastly superior 3.5E book because the 4E one was just that bad and the 3.5E one was fully compatible), under the new system GW has created, last-gen rules become at best drastically subpar or at worst totally obsolete with edition changes.

 

To summarize, 40K edition changes used to be a necessary evil to fit new features into the game when the vision for the system outgrew the core rules, which were meant to last as long as possible and didn't change that much between editions. Now, the rules are designed to be replaced. We've gone from "we have a vision for what we want the game to be" to "our vision is that the game is never actually finished so we can keep selling replacements for stuff you already have".

 

In an ideal world where GW's upper management had a sudden Damascine conversion and used the huge amount of money they'd acquired to arrange "accidents" for their investors, the next edition change would be the final edition change- it'd be designed to be as long-lasting as possible with updates being new content rather than replacing old content. There'd be a point where GW could say "OK, this is it, we made 40K" and could focus their efforts on cool optional supplements, fun upgrade kits and alternate sculpts and other totally non-essential but highly welcomed add-ons that you could purchase if you wanted to, as opposed to feeling like you had to. But because selling a complete, finished project is anathema to the modern games designer (tabletop OR computer) this will never happen.

[-DonCorleone-]

Orks need a W. I can't believe GW made Ghazghkull job to Ragnar. Hopefully, they finally take Armageddon in 11th starter campaign.

[Wormwoods]

My guess for the 11th edition starter box is that the push-fit basic infantry for one or both sides will show up on eBay for cheap for the following 9 months. 

 

And I still won't be super into them, because they're often such a pain to kitbash.

[Mandragola]

For me, the marine side of leviathan was a bit of a failure. I don’t think many people are interested in Infernus marines, while I wanted the full kits of the terminators and  sternguard. Leviathan was the first big box I didn’t buy and I’m happy with that choice. I also particularly dislike the marine combat patrol for 11th. 
 

Skaventide is a better starter in my opinion.  It gives you more stuff for the skirmish game, with a decent set of models for both sides. I’d like to see that for 11th. 
 

Skaventide also reissues Liberators, the core faction unit. I wouldn’t be shocked if 11th gave us new intercessors. There’s nothing really wrong with the current ones but there are also no obvious gaps in the line to fill. Maybe something like jet bikes and/or vanguard veterans? E2B jump packs wouldn’t be easy. 

[ZeroWolf]

My current theory is that the idea to have the two halves of the box be combat patrols came after the contents were decided, as well as all the other changes that came the boxes way like the the rules on the instruction sheet for example.

 

Hopefully the 11th box is designed from the ground up like Skaventide was for the purpose of combat patrol.

[Frogian]

1 hour ago, Mandragola said:

For me, the marine side of leviathan was a bit of a failure. I don’t think many people are interested in Infernus marines, while I wanted the full kits of the terminators and  sternguard. Leviathan was the first big box I didn’t buy and I’m happy with that choice. I also particularly dislike the marine combat patrol for 11th. 
 

Yes about the Infernus marines, but getting a dread in there was pretty cool. Oh and agree the current combat patrol is pretty awful, especially compared to the past marine ones.

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

11 hours ago, Mandragola said:

For me, the marine side of leviathan was a bit of a failure. I don’t think many people are interested in Infernus marines, while I wanted the full kits of the terminators and  sternguard. Leviathan was the first big box I didn’t buy and I’m happy with that choice. I also particularly dislike the marine combat patrol for 11th. 
 

Skaventide is a better starter in my opinion.  It gives you more stuff for the skirmish game, with a decent set of models for both sides. I’d like to see that for 11th. 
 

Skaventide also reissues Liberators, the core faction unit. I wouldn’t be shocked if 11th gave us new intercessors. There’s nothing really wrong with the current ones but there are also no obvious gaps in the line to fill. Maybe something like jet bikes and/or vanguard veterans? E2B jump packs wouldn’t be easy. 

GW offered small squads in Leviathan so that the customer is incentivized to buy further boxes in order to complete said squads.

[ZeroWolf]

28 minutes ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

GW offered small squads in Leviathan so that the customer is incentivized to buy further boxes in order to complete said squads.

Not really? Infernus Marines and Termagants are maxed out with what you get in Leviathan, and the other squads are ones you might not even want more of anyway. What customers would be incentivized to buy are more units to complete the armies (like the Norn Emissary perhaps, or a couple of sm tanks).

[Flaherty]

I wouldn't be shocked to see a new "edition" drop this summer. They've got a massive video game driving new players to the setting en masse, a new product to get people hyped about the table top makes too much sense. Why wait for another year just to follow the arbitrary 3-year refresh cycle? The video game might be fading by then. 

 

There's also a gap in the edition release schedule and they've been staffing up the studio dramatically.

 

My hunch is that we'll see them moving to a two year "launch" cycle for 40K. AOS isn't a real peer product. Going to a 4-year cycle for that, and similar for HH would let them focus more resources on their big money-maker. I don't want them to go the WOTC route, but Space Marines are hotter than they've ever been and there needs to be more products that help on-ramp players. I think the new reality is that codices will still come out over three years. 

 

As for the contents, Valrak hasn't missed meaningfully, so Orks it is. I wish they'd use launch boxes to support factions that need serious overhauls – Dark Eldar, Tau, or launch new factions like Exodites, but I wouldn't bet against Jeff Goldblum.

 

 

[ZeroWolf]

8 minutes ago, Flaherty said:

I wouldn't be shocked to see a new "edition" drop this summer. They've got a massive video game driving new players to the setting en masse, a new product to get people hyped about the table top makes too much sense. Why wait for another year just to follow the arbitrary 3-year refresh cycle? The video game might be fading by then. 

 

There's also a gap in the edition release schedule and they've been staffing up the studio dramatically.

 

My hunch is that we'll see them moving to a two year "launch" cycle for 40K. AOS isn't a real peer product. Going to a 4-year cycle for that, and similar for HH would let them focus more resources on their big money-maker. I don't want them to go the WOTC route, but Space Marines are hotter than they've ever been and there needs to be more products that help on-ramp players. I think the new reality is that codices will still come out over three years. 

 

As for the contents, Valrak hasn't missed meaningfully, so Orks it is. I wish they'd use launch boxes to support factions that need serious overhauls – Dark Eldar, Tau, or launch new factions like Exodites, but I wouldn't bet against Jeff Goldblum.

 

 

Won't be this summer as there's also something planned for HH. Plus any change in the cycle would have been planned back when 10th dropped. GW can't turn on a dime (if you pardon the expression) because of the way they've organised themselves. It's been stated before in their investor reports that they themselves work in 3 year cycles in terms of factory planning. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 1/19/2025 at 5:27 PM, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

If it's Xenos then Orks. 

 

Though GW may also want to rotate between Chaos and Xenos, in which case we could have a new round of Chaos. Rather than legion specific, I would guess 'standard' Chaos Space Marines. Personally I'd like it to be Orks. 

 

Also, I hate the 3 year cycle. 

I think most people hate the 3 year cycle.

[Jscarlos18]

The 3 year cycle is too short considering how many factions are already in the game, and possibly more to come since the Primarchs returning is now inevitable($$$) and is most likely GW will give them all their respective codices.

 

Space Wolves seem to be next for their Primarch return and a hefty update to accompany Russ just like Lion with DA in 10th, helped by some people identifying the shadow teaser during this last roadmap.

 

Orks being for 11th makes me wonder what they will get but is true that Drukhari are in need of a big refresh. Looking at GW's pattern with Kill Team, they seem to be using it as a testing bed to determine big updates. Kroot got a much deserved expansion so I'm excited to see if Vespids will get the same treatment now that they got a new kit.

 

Eldar have now most of their basic range refreshed outside vehicles and wraith constructs, but poor Karandras has been left forgotten, hopefully they give him a new sculpt next edition.

 

Leagues of Votann also could do with a second wave of releases, their players are in need of new options.

 

Necrons got a pretty good expansion in 9th but normal lockusth destroyers still use green rods, so they should be next.

 

I'm happy for the Tyranids we got, now the only things remaining are Tyranid Warriors, Carnifexes and Hive Tyrants for update. Maybe next edition will give them a refresh but most likely will be 1 or 2 models just like Necrons in 10th got Imotekh, a necron overlord with teleport and Orikan.

 

 

 

[Halandaar]

15 hours ago, Flaherty said:

AOS isn't a real peer product

 

40K has been chasing what makes AoS good for the best part of three editions now. It's audience is growing and unlike 40k, it actually improves every edition. Even if you don't see it as a peer product, GW does.

 

If the hypothetical here is true (GW pushing 40K editions out to four years with a midpoint box every second year), that will be alongside what they currently do, not instead of it. They are trying to increase output after all, that's what the new factory facilities are in aid of. If anything AoS would probably join it on the 2+2 cycle. Gives them a reliable major release every summer and Heresy can go into the Winter specialist game rotation that MESBG was in this year and Old World was last year (this is the third year since HH2 so you would think if that was on the three-year cycle as well we would have heard about it by now)

[Flaherty]

15 hours ago, ZeroWolf said:

Won't be this summer as there's also something planned for HH. Plus any change in the cycle would have been planned back when 10th dropped. GW can't turn on a dime (if you pardon the expression) because of the way they've organised themselves. It's been stated before in their investor reports that they themselves work in 3 year cycles in terms of factory planning. 

Valrak seems to be hinting that it's coming soon. We'll know at Adepticon.

 

I understand the logic of the three-year cycles but GW is growing and needs to grow faster now that it's part of the FTSE 100. A HH box isn't going to anchor the summer. Maybe they can just power through with rapid army releases – Krieg, Eldar, EC, etc.

 

This is partly a semantic argument. I think the concept of "New Edition™" as we've known it will end. Instead, we'll have biennial on-boarding events for new players that are called "new editions." They'll be less full rewriting of the core rule set and more opportunities to sell premium price Space Marine boxes. Maybe it's just a "summer of Space Marines."

 

In any case, it would be mismanagement of the highest order to not to have a showcase for the 40K poster boys the summer after one of the biggest games of 2024 created legions of new fans. 

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I also think that the 3 year release schedule combined with modern technology making it so easy to make updates/changes has encouraged extreme laziness and negligence in GW at least amongst the 40K team and the guard codex this edition is a perfect example. It seems like there was absolutely 0 proof reading/editing, and little to no thought put into points values, and little effort put into balancing the various detachments.

[Dark Shepherd]

From a GW Business POV is summer actually the best time for an edition launch? Parents pushing kids outside, grownups going on holidays or to festivals, stadium gigs etc

 

Whereas October or late Jan/Feb people are indoors more often, extra spike of vouchers or models as Christmas presents

 

I know a big draw for summer is starting the financial year with a bang but if the overall financial year improves then who cares

 

[Indy Techwisp]

10 minutes ago, Dark Shepherd said:

From a GW Business POV is summer actually the best time for an edition launch? Parents pushing kids outside, grownups going on holidays or to festivals, stadium gigs etc

 

Whereas October or late Jan/Feb people are indoors more often, extra spike of vouchers or models as Christmas presents

 

I know a big draw for summer is starting the financial year with a bang but if the overall financial year improves then who cares

 

Best placement for any major product release is December/January because then you have the Christmas Market to boost sales.

[ZeroWolf]

2 minutes ago, Dark Shepherd said:

From a GW Business POV is summer actually the best time for an edition launch? Parents pushing kids outside, grownups going on holidays or to festivals, stadium gigs etc

 

Whereas October or late Jan/Feb people are indoors more often, extra spike of vouchers or models as Christmas presents

 

I know a big draw for summer is starting the financial year with a bang but if the overall financial year improves then who cares

 

GW apparently care as they've done it how many times in a row now?

 

The HH box, it should be noted, is a new 'edition' of the game. I've put edition in quotes as it's unknown currently as how much (if anything) is changing, other than the poster boys becoming Iron Warriors vs Salamanders (I believe it was anyway). People seem to be hoping for a rules clean up rather than full refresh, which i think the former is what we'll get.

 

Coincidentally I think that's what 11th will be as well, a tidy up of 10th instead of anything drastically new.

42 minutes ago, Flaherty said:

Valrak seems to be hinting that it's coming soon. We'll know at Adepticon.

 

I understand the logic of the three-year cycles but GW is growing and needs to grow faster now that it's part of the FTSE 100. A HH box isn't going to anchor the summer. Maybe they can just power through with rapid army releases – Krieg, Eldar, EC, etc.

 

This is partly a semantic argument. I think the concept of "New Edition™" as we've known it will end. Instead, we'll have biennial on-boarding events for new players that are called "new editions." They'll be less full rewriting of the core rule set and more opportunities to sell premium price Space Marine boxes. Maybe it's just a "summer of Space Marines."

 

In any case, it would be mismanagement of the highest order to not to have a showcase for the 40K poster boys the summer after one of the biggest games of 2024 created legions of new fans. 

 

 

Again, for a summer release this year, they would have had to have planned it, three years ago. However, I do think you may be correct as far as new editions are concerned. If there is to be a new edition this year, it'll be autumn time, sort of the same slot as Lord of the Rings was, a game which I bet didn't go as smoothly as GW wanted.

[Ahzek451]

On 1/19/2025 at 2:46 PM, ThePenitentOne said:

 

10th still has just as many strats, but GW chooses which strats get grouped into collections.

 

NOBODY in 9th used all 36 strats, but we did get to choose for ourselves which 6 strats we were going to lean on.

 

It's like a pizzeria offering 40 toppings and saying "Build what you want." vs. "we sell these six premade pies- buy one of those or eat elsewhere."

 

This is the sort of thing I do wonder how many people ACTUALLY catch on to. This is one of the numerous ways GW pretends to listen but not really. 

-start of 10th -"yeah we hear you, there is too much bloat and too many stratagems, so we reduced them!"

-Codex books start to come out, "OH! and now you are not locked into one detachment based on army scheme, feel free to use any one of them!" 

So....basically nothing has changed. The amount of bloat is the same if not more, you just changed how you select it. GW has been doing stuff like this for some time, and it usually only ever LOOKS like things are getting better but not really. 

Reminiscing a bit here: I think back on the feeling of only having a single edition under my belt. The prospect of a NEW edition coming naturally caused my friends and I to be hopeful and excited about what was to come and daydream what the improvements might be. After a couple more editions went by, the level of joy at the potential of positive change still lingered but it was diminished. I realize this might have a level of cynicism, but after seeing 7 new editions come and go.....IMHO its all really just been the same thing to me. A blob of ideas that changes ever 3-4 years that pretends to be different but not really. But the structure holding edition up (i.e. the same tired old codex release schedule, lack of playtesting, and edition cycle) is arguably the rotten core that needs the change. Otherwise, sure, each edition has little improvements here and there, new ideas, old returning ideas but its not the improvements this game needs and deserves. The change is just masquerading as positive improvements in attempt to keep things "fresh and exciting". That's all well and good, but its not tackling the meat of the problems. 

Edited January 21 by Ahzek451

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Dark Shepherd said:

From a GW Business POV is summer actually the best time for an edition launch? Parents pushing kids outside, grownups going on holidays or to festivals, stadium gigs etc

 

Whereas October or late Jan/Feb people are indoors more often, extra spike of vouchers or models as Christmas presents

 

I know a big draw for summer is starting the financial year with a bang but if the overall financial year improves then who cares

 

This isn’t the 80s or 90s.

most parents aren’t ’pushing their kids to go outside’ particularly because most parents these days understand the risks of unsupervised children out and about, getting themselves in trouble, or meeting the John Wayne gayces of the world.

at home playing with dolls and being quiet is all most parents can hope for these days if they’re not sending their kids to some sort of camp.

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, ZeroWolf said:

GW apparently care as they've done it how many times in a row now?

 

The HH box, it should be noted, is a new 'edition' of the game. I've put edition in quotes as it's unknown currently as how much (if anything) is changing, other than the poster boys becoming Iron Warriors vs Salamanders (I believe it was anyway). People seem to be hoping for a rules clean up rather than full refresh, which i think the former is what we'll get.

 

Coincidentally I think that's what 11th will be as well, a tidy up of 10th instead of anything drastically new.

Again, for a summer release this year, they would have had to have planned it, three years ago. However, I do think you may be correct as far as new editions are concerned. If there is to be a new edition this year, it'll be autumn time, sort of the same slot as Lord of the Rings was, a game which I bet didn't go as smoothly as GW wanted.

 

They bet big on the War of the Rohirrim being a good movie and they got shafted by :cuss:ty IP law turning it into a boring movie. 

[ZeroWolf]

Just now, DemonGSides said:

 

They bet big on the War of the Rohirrim being a good movie and they got shafted by :cuss:ty IP law turning it into a boring movie. 

An IP law? I'm intrigued by what you mean. I thought that Embracer and Warner Bros had the right "rights" since that's why Amazon had to make Rings of Power the way they did.