Price increase news

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

In fairness, both WE and the lion were tied to the end of edition narrative books. It doesn't excuse the shelf life, but it explains why they were so late.

 

That said, 11th is supposedly a "roll over" edition where the codex is valid until superceded. Historically these tend to result in the new books simply having more of the better, correct stuff.

 

The only hope is GW learned something and will not radically alter core rules and army building, to keep the books on an even keel.

 

I hope they do radically overhaul army building, it's quite literally the worst part of 10th.  Lack of wargear or per model costs has made that facet of the game extremely boring and from an interesting question to rote determination.

 

I think the rest of the core rules are mostly okay.  There's some other issues, but lack of wargear costs and fixed squad sizes (Even if you can technically under power a squad, why would you when it costs the same as a full powered squad?) removes a lot of nuance for little benefit.

[01RTB01]

1 minute ago, DemonGSides said:

 

I hope they do radically overhaul army building, it's quite literally the worst part of 10th.  Lack of wargear or per model costs has made that facet of the game extremely boring and from an interesting question to rote determination.

 

I think the rest of the core rules are mostly okay.  There's some other issues, but lack of wargear costs and fixed squad sizes (Even if you can technically under power a squad, why would you when it costs the same as a full powered squad?) removes a lot of nuance for little benefit.

 

I also think that with army building, a lot of armies are horribly top heavy. Armies with multiple warbosses or captains aren't representative of what armies should be.

 

Linked to that, you see lots of wonky armies that are skewed to one thing or another, again, missing what the heart of the armies should be.

 

Outside of green tide, I've zero reason or inclination to take ork Boyz, marine armies don't contain tactical squads, etc, etc.

 

Flexibility is all well and good, but it comes with a price.

[Karhedron]

27 minutes ago, 01RTB01 said:

Flexibility is all well and good, but it comes with a price.

 

I have mixed feelings on this. I actually prefer 10th edition in some regards because of the freedom of army building. I hated the "troop tax" in previous editions where you were forced to take inefficient, deadweight units. It does not matter how fluffy they are, Tactical squads have not been good since 4th edition. We all remember Marines armies with the obligatory 3 Scout squads which was also not very fluffy but was the cheapest way to pay the tax.

 

The old Force Org charts started with good intentions in 3rd edition but became increasingly contorted as armies became more diverse. Some people may not like all-Knight armies existing in what started out as a skirmish game but that genie is well and truly out of the bottle now. Also builds like Deathwing or armoured companies are hard to do with force org charts without either adding lots of contortions or giving some armies charts that feel just plain better than other armies.

 

What I would like to see GW do is make Battleline units more appealing in themselves. OC2+ is a step in the right direction but not good enough when 10th is sufficiently lethal that most infantry squads can be hosed off an Objective if the opponent cares to do so. GW is heading in the right direction with some units as most armies have access to a Battleline unit with Objective Secured and these are actually quite often take for that ability. Marines are better than most other armies in this regard with all 3 flavours of Intercessor actually being worth taking and turning up in competitive lists despite being technically optional.

 

I think this is the right approach and GW needs to be a bit bolder in giving Battleline units more abilities. I would like to see all Battleline units get the ability to perform Actions while still moving/shooting/charging normally. That would give a proper incentive to take them.

[ZeroWolf]

24 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

I have mixed feelings on this. I actually prefer 10th edition in some regards because of the freedom of army building. I hated the "troop tax" in previous editions where you were forced to take inefficient, deadweight units. It does not matter how fluffy they are, Tactical squads have not been good since 4th edition. We all remember Marines armies with the obligatory 3 Scout squads which was also not very fluffy but was the cheapest way to pay the tax.

 

The old Force Org charts started with good intentions in 3rd edition but became increasingly contorted as armies became more diverse. Some people may not like all-Knight armies existing in what started out as a skirmish game but that genie is well and truly out of the bottle now. Also builds like Deathwing or armoured companies are hard to do with force org charts without either adding lots of contortions or giving some armies charts that feel just plain better than other armies.

 

What I would like to see GW do is make Battleline units more appealing in themselves. OC2+ is a step in the right direction but not good enough when 10th is sufficiently lethal that most infantry squads can be hosed off an Objective if the opponent cares to do so. GW is heading in the right direction with some units as most armies have access to a Battleline unit with Objective Secured and these are actually quite often take for that ability. Marines are better than most other armies in this regard with all 3 flavours of Intercessor actually being worth taking and turning up in competitive lists despite being technically optional.

 

I think this is the right approach and GW needs to be a bit bolder in giving Battleline units more abilities. I would like to see all Battleline units get the ability to perform Actions while still moving/shooting/charging normally. That would give a proper incentive to take them.

I think given the current paradigm, this is the best approach. We shouldn't be forced to take troops, we should want to take troops. Making them worth while is the first step (of course, this is a balancing act as you go overboard then people will stop taking the other units.)

 

To keep this on topic though, the spectre of how much they'll charge for the launch box has to be raised (like GW prices and stocks).

 

Leviathan was £150 while Indomitus was £125-9? If I remember. Does that mean we could be staring down the barrel of a £170 product?

[Larkhainan]

In Canada, Leviathan cost me through third party retailers $255 and Skaventide - which I think is pretty close to a like for like product - raised that to $272

 

So yeah, I'm guessing next year's launch box is $290. Skaventide is £160 before discount, right? £170 sounds like a lock.

[INKS]

4 hours ago, Larkhainan said:

In Canada, Leviathan cost me through third party retailers $255 and Skaventide - which I think is pretty close to a like for like product - raised that to $272

 

So yeah, I'm guessing next year's launch box is $290. Skaventide is £160 before discount, right? £170 sounds like a lock.

For Canada 290 sounds right, maybe 320 as the Tomb raid box that just released was 290.

[Larkhainan]

290 after discount I mean. So about 340 before.

 

Tomb World is an even 300 before discount.

[Mogger351]

10 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

I hope they do radically overhaul army building, it's quite literally the worst part of 10th.  Lack of wargear or per model costs has made that facet of the game extremely boring and from an interesting question to rote determination.

 

I think the rest of the core rules are mostly okay.  There's some other issues, but lack of wargear costs and fixed squad sizes (Even if you can technically under power a squad, why would you when it costs the same as a full powered squad?) removes a lot of nuance for little benefit.

That wouldn't necessitate much change however, you can literally just add the points to the current dex and get that outcome.

 

I more meant the change to detachments and CP between 8 and 9th as an example. They radically altered how you selected the units and how it impacted the game.

 

That said, if anyone wanted a complete edition to avoid the churn and price rises, books existing beyond the end of the edition allows people further chances to get all the books they need to lock in at 10th if nothing else.

[Rhavien]

On 9/7/2025 at 9:50 PM, 01RTB01 said:

 

I also think that with army building, a lot of armies are horribly top heavy. Armies with multiple warbosses or captains aren't representative of what armies should be.

 

Linked to that, you see lots of wonky armies that are skewed to one thing or another, again, missing what the heart of the armies should be.

 

Outside of green tide, I've zero reason or inclination to take ork Boyz, marine armies don't contain tactical squads, etc, etc.

 

Flexibility is all well and good, but it comes with a price.

I have to disagree here for several reasons.

Tournament folk never cared and will never care about how an army is supposed to look. If you don't dictate them a 2k army they will take whatever is the most efficient. Narrative and casual players usually forge their own narrative™ and don't run three captains or all tanks or whatever the current meta boogeyman is. On the flip side, noone is stopping you from fielding an army, that you think represents an actual army.

Also, there have been in universe occasions, where top heavy armies indeed have been fielded. Why shouldn't I run an outlier army myself if I want to? Not everyone has a huge collection of models of a single army to rotate units and I don't want to tell anyone what they are supposed to buy or field. We have unique models and the rule of three to set a rough frame to stop the worst army list abominations, but I don't want to be forced to play 5 games with a codex compliant Demi company to be allowed to field a 1st company strike force once in a while.

 

Another thought: While I was typing this, I asked myself if there is indeed enough demand within the community to do something like spearhead, but on a 1k, 1,5k and 2k points level? I would surely give it a try if someone would come up with a nice framework. Would also be a good indication for new players how to expand their collections.

[Indy Techwisp]

Why are we talking about this in the Price Increase thread?
 

I thought the current price increase was due to international shipping being more expensive now due to the Tarrifs and all that.

[Antarius]

I'll go one further and aks why we are even talking about price increases at this point? I mean, they can't really come as a surprise to anyone, anymore and obviously, everyone dislikes them, so what is there really to discuss?

[Firedrake Cordova]

=][= Please try to stay on-topic (the most recent price increase announcement) =][=