[RUMOUR] Blood Angels poster faction for 11th

[Kommisar_K]

So, I haven't been able to track rumors well enough lately but well what's all this about tactical intercessors? Is it a planned Tactical-Marines-In-MKX-Armor essentially? And how likely is it? I'm curious because (disregarding points changes) this could affect a lot of my best SM lists. Has GW kinda leaked this, is it just speculation, etc

I know, someone actually fielding Intercessors. Weird, right 

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Kommisar_K said:

So, I haven't been able to track rumors well enough lately but well what's all this about tactical intercessors? Is it a planned Tactical-Marines-In-MKX-Armor essentially? And how likely is it? I'm curious because (disregarding points changes) this could affect a lot of my best SM lists. Has GW kinda leaked this, is it just speculation, etc

I know, someone actually fielding Intercessors. Weird, right 

 

I don't think there's anything in the realm of "Firm" rumors for the Tactical.  It's a lot of wishlisting and "well they started reverting some things to be a mix of Primaris and Firstborn so they should re-do intercessors" combined with "The intercessor sprue is now old enough to be in contention to be replaced as well as needing to have a lot of the finnicky bits that no longer apply to the game removed".

 

No fuzzy pics or anything like that.

 

Intercessors have been pretty good since they got their last buff.  If GW could figure out a way to make battleline important (*Cough* Force Org chart or actually restrictive army building rules *cough*) then they'd probably be seen a lot.  You can see them competitively in the form of 5 mans sometimes just to Ob Sec.

[Wispy]

People are also wondering what the successor of the Tactical Marine kit would be, if there was one at all. The concept of Tactical Intercessors just seems like too good of a "2 birds with 1 stone," consolidation that makes sense.

[Kommisar_K]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

You can see them competitively in the form of 5 mans sometimes just to Ob Sec.

Yeah that's something I do lol. 

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

Force Org chart or actually restrictive army building rules

Idk the freedom is kinda enjoyable :shrug: Would be nice to see more battle line tho. Extra OC is pointless when durability is poor. It doesn't make sense to bring blocks of basic infantry if they'll just get wiped anywhere near the front. 

[DemonGSides]

7 hours ago, Kommisar_K said:

Yeah that's something I do lol. 

Idk the freedom is kinda enjoyable :shrug: Would be nice to see more battle line tho. Extra OC is pointless when durability is poor. It doesn't make sense to bring blocks of basic infantry if they'll just get wiped anywhere near the front. 

 

Yeah I think having a requirement to take some of these 'lighter' infantry would also cut down on how much you'd see those 'insta-gib' type units that make taking Battleline a dubious prospect.  There needs to be some restriction and the current paradigm of both free wargear and also no real battleline incentive is a bad combo, IMO.

 

It doesn't need to be the exact same force org of old, but there does need to be something more than just "1 character and then whatever the hell else you want."  That type of gameplay can just be a form of the game, but give the rest of us something else to chew on.  I yearn for IG companies or something simlar where there's incentive to build appropriately, as opposed to just "oops all the best stuff".

[Rhavien]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Yeah I think having a requirement to take some of these 'lighter' infantry would also cut down on how much you'd see those 'insta-gib' type units that make taking Battleline a dubious prospect.  There needs to be some restriction and the current paradigm of both free wargear and also no real battleline incentive is a bad combo, IMO.

 

It doesn't need to be the exact same force org of old, but there does need to be something more than just "1 character and then whatever the hell else you want."  That type of gameplay can just be a form of the game, but give the rest of us something else to chew on.  I yearn for IG companies or something simlar where there's incentive to build appropriately, as opposed to just "oops all the best stuff".

Please no. I don't miss taking dictated units a bit. 

However I would like so see some restrictions on how many captains for example you can cram into one army. On the other hand If someone wants to play Tyranid attack on captains training day I don't want to ruin their vibe. 

 

[Blindhamster]

I think a requirement for battleline would be a good thing honestly.

 

they could tie it to detachments if they wanted to. 

[Karhedron]

Force Org charts are one thing I don't miss in the slightest from earlier editions. They were fine when the game was an infantry-focussed skirmish game but it has long since outgrown that and what was intended as a balancing tool became a straight-jacket. The minute you try to represent armoured companies, Deathwing, Ravenwing, White Scars, Knight Lances or anything slightly different, you end up having to contort the Force Org chart or bend the army composition rules in weird ways.

 

Another problem with Force Org charts is that they give unexpected buffs to armies that have either cheap or effective Battleline units as they are OK but armies without are left paying the dreaded "Troop Tax".

 

I would far rather see a situation where Battleline units were desirable in themselves rather than being made mandatory. The current tournament pack take a tentative step in this direction as Battleline units can Shoot and still perform Actions in Incursion sized games. I say go the whole hog and let Battleline units perform Actions without affecting their performance at all in any size of game. Now you have a real positive incentive at least a couple of squads of Battleline units. Sure you can take the killiest units you can find but every time one of those units needs to perform an Action, it twiddles its thumbs for a turn whereas a Battleline unit would be unaffected.

[Mogger351]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Force Org charts are one thing I don't miss in the slightest from earlier editions. They were fine when the game was an infantry-focussed skirmish game but it has long since outgrown that and what was intended as a balancing tool became a straight-jacket. The minute you try to represent armoured companies, Deathwing, Ravenwing, White Scars, Knight Lances or anything slightly different, you end up having to contort the Force Org chart or bend the army composition rules in weird ways.

 

Another problem with Force Org charts is that they give unexpected buffs to armies that have either cheap or effective Battleline units as they are OK but armies without are left paying the dreaded "Troop Tax".

 

I would far rather see a situation where Battleline units were desirable in themselves rather than being made mandatory. The current tournament pack take a tentative step in this direction as Battleline units can Shoot and still perform Actions in Incursion sized games. I say go the whole hog and let Battleline units perform Actions without affecting their performance at all in any size of game. Now you have a real positive incentive at least a couple of squads of Battleline units. Sure you can take the killiest units you can find but every time one of those units needs to perform an Action, it twiddles its thumbs for a turn whereas a Battleline unit would be unaffected.

I'd rather the game returns back to it's roots in that case. 

[DemonGSides]

6 hours ago, Rhavien said:

Please no. I don't miss taking dictated units a bit. 

However I would like so see some restrictions on how many captains for example you can cram into one army. On the other hand If someone wants to play Tyranid attack on captains training day I don't want to ruin their vibe. 

 

 

That's the thing. You and your opponent can always make a game and say "let's go wild". Doesn't require any real rules changes or anything beyond "we ignore army construction for this game."

 

Meanwhile the rest of us who like a little bit complexity to army construction just sit here like "ok my thematic army is always at a disadvantage, cool."

 

It sucks and is the biggest culprit to the constant 'the soul has been sucked out of 40k' that likes to get bandied around here. Every army is just elites v elites and it's boring. 

3 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Force Org charts are one thing I don't miss in the slightest from earlier editions. They were fine when the game was an infantry-focussed skirmish game but it has long since outgrown that and what was intended as a balancing tool became a straight-jacket. The minute you try to represent armoured companies, Deathwing, Ravenwing, White Scars, Knight Lances or anything slightly different, you end up having to contort the Force Org chart or bend the army composition rules in weird ways.

 

 

Then those factions should be changed to better fit the game instead.

Edited Saturday at 01:05 PM by DemonGSides

[Indy Techwisp]

4 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

Meanwhile the rest of us who like a little bit complexity to army construction just sit here like "ok my thematic army is always at a disadvantage, cool."

From what I can gather, those in favour of Force Orgs or Mandatory Troops returning are the minority in this case.

[Rhavien]

15 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

That's the thing. You and your opponent can always make a game and say "let's go wild". Doesn't require any real rules changes or anything beyond "we ignore army construction for this game."

 

Meanwhile the rest of us who like a little bit complexity to army construction just sit here like "ok my thematic army is always at a disadvantage, cool."

 

It sucks and is the biggest culprit to the constant 'the soul has been sucked out of 40k' that likes to get bandied around here. Every army is just elites v elites and it's boring. 

 

Then those factions should be changed to better fit the game instead.

Nothing stops you from talking to your opponent beforehand to take "thematic" armies either. If you want to run two battle line troops beside your three elites and three heavies to mimic FOC then by my guest. You also had those special detachments where you could take lots of one type (elite, fast attack, heavy) but limited your other choices which felt exactly like todays armies. 

I also don't see where army construction was more complex because you had to fit two mandatory troops. Like karhedron said, some armies were at a disadvantage because their troops were lackluster. 

Improve those troops to make them worthwhile and don't force me to take them. Actually I'm running some assault and regular intercessors quite often in my lists even without a FOC because they are useful.

[Orange Knight]

On the topic of the Force Org chart, it could be re-introduced but with a lot less restrictions.

 

So it could be a minimum of 1 HQ and 3 troops, and then everything beyond that is up to the player, with the rule of 3 still being in effect.

[TheMawr]

5 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

I think a requirement for battleline would be a good thing honestly.

 

they could tie it to detachments if they wanted to. 

 

The funniest thing is, with eldar at least ( it might be Im mostly exposed to an exception to the rest ) I see much more lists with guardians now as when there was a FOC, because in the FOC era listbuilding actively tried to avoid them, and there where many tools to do so, but somehow now they succeeded in giving them value.

 

Reason I quoted you specifically though is because of the second sentence.. a similar idea crossed my mind previously, though not necessarily related to the troop tax issue. ( and influenced by eldar being a hodgepodge codex currently ) that there might be value in removing battleline from the datasheets altogether and instead have the detachment define what are battleline units and maybe even what are rare units. Though those things ( as well as flexibility vs FOC ) make more sense from a racial/hodgepodge codex pov than from a focused "military" codex povs ( Spacemarines and most imperium factions.)

 

 

 

-------

 

 

 

Back on topic.

 

With the painting video looking at retro bloodangels, the past weeks having rule articles ( although updated reposts from WD ) and the weekly art of 40k article feeling like a countdown to something. I half wonder if this retro blood angels vs orks boxset isnt more imminent and also something else than what we expect it to be.

 

When valrak first had the rumor that 11th edition was coming much sooner than anticipated ( then referencing to this year.) I proposed the theory that.. if GW would move to a 4 year cycle ( to accomodate for 4 mainline games), they'd surely start with 40k, its the flagship for one, and it would mean 11th edition proper would fall on the 40 years anniversary in 2027.

 

Ofcourse that rumor was retracted, and, despite of the lack of an announcement of an end of edition campaign ( arks of omen was announced early october ) having all codexes done seems to indicate we are at the end. Yet, with these new rumors and warhammer community things happening that idea starts to tingle again.

 

So an early 2026 Blood angels vs Orks box, a clean-up ruleset thats even less 11th edition than expected ( and wont be called that either.) a spacemarine 2.0 codex accompanying that as well as the usual releasewaves, but maybe smaller modelcounts in all of it ( basically.. shadowspear style.) followed by a 12 - 18 months leftover period covering new supplements and more spread out narrative books ( like the last year of 7th edition basically ) in a now 4 year long 10th edition. Would that be completely out of the question ? I could see some logic in that myself.

Though the only true new edition for next year would then be TOW, I dont follow that one so I dont know if that makes sense in TOW.

 

( just some wild theorising, not something I'd want to bet on )

[HeadlessCross]

13 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Yeah I think having a requirement to take some of these 'lighter' infantry would also cut down on how much you'd see those 'insta-gib' type units that make taking Battleline a dubious prospect.  There needs to be some restriction and the current paradigm of both free wargear and also no real battleline incentive is a bad combo, IMO.

 

It doesn't need to be the exact same force org of old, but there does need to be something more than just "1 character and then whatever the hell else you want."  That type of gameplay can just be a form of the game, but give the rest of us something else to chew on.  I yearn for IG companies or something simlar where there's incentive to build appropriately, as opposed to just "oops all the best stuff".

The game has ALWAYS been that, or do you think Marine players would magically bring more than two minimum Scout squads again for some reason? 

[Orange Knight]

There are ways it could be done. Different factions can have different Force Orgs. That could be another layer of balance towards factions.

 

Obviously 2 Battle Line squads mean very little to Eldar or Guard, but it's a hefty point commitment for Custodes.

It doesn't have to be complicated - It can just be another line of text in the faction rules. The types of battleline units can be specified as well.

Edited Saturday at 07:11 PM by Orange Knight

[Evil Eye]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

The game has ALWAYS been that, or do you think Marine players would magically bring more than two minimum Scout squads again for some reason? 

The game has not, in fact, always been like that. Not everyone cares about hyper-optimized WAAC play.

[Orange Knight]

Edit: Ignore 

Edited Saturday at 07:08 PM by Orange Knight

[Orange Knight]

4 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

The game has not, in fact, always been like that. Not everyone cares about hyper-optimized WAAC play.

 

I agree. Without any force org, every competitive list is potentially just a min-max hodgepodge and theme is lost.

[Marshal Reinhard]

The idealist in me wants to say that it should be possible to price every unit competitively...

 

...

 

...

 

... yeah...

 

[Blindhamster]

So that 11th Ed launch box..

 

if true im sure it’ll be interesting to see a cinematic at least with the sons of sanguinius. As others have said, I’ve no doubt all the models will be generic but there’s still scope for them to be very cool.

 

and if blood angels are poster boys for an edition, I’d like to think GW might make up for the failings of the update this edition.

 

starter set is assumed to be a speeder, vanguard, new captain, perhaps tacticals in some form? All sounds good.

 

for a bit of wishlisting for 11th Ed blood angels, I’d like to see:

- sanguinary ancient (blood angels chapter banner is conspicuously gone now with the loss of BA assault terminator kit and classic sanguinary guard)

- a blood angels infantry kit, could be a dual kit for death company and intercessors, I don’t mind. But I’d like to not need to do quite so much green stuff work lol. 

- return of corbulo, his absence sucks, perhaps rethink his gear a bit to make him more interesting/distinct from the on foot priest

- return of Seth, I don’t play flesh testers so I’d HATE for the “blood angels” update to be a character “blood angels” can’t use. But I do hope he returns.

- true wishlisting: erelim, a chance to make up for the failings of the sanguinary guard with astoraths equivalent 

 

[Mogger351]

7 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

So that 11th Ed launch box..

 

if true im sure it’ll be interesting to see a cinematic at least with the sons of sanguinius. As others have said, I’ve no doubt all the models will be generic but there’s still scope for them to be very cool.

 

and if blood angels are poster boys for an edition, I’d like to think GW might make up for the failings of the update this edition.

 

starter set is assumed to be a speeder, vanguard, new captain, perhaps tacticals in some form? All sounds good.

 

for a bit of wishlisting for 11th Ed blood angels, I’d like to see:

- sanguinary ancient (blood angels chapter banner is conspicuously gone now with the loss of BA assault terminator kit and classic sanguinary guard)

- a blood angels infantry kit, could be a dual kit for death company and intercessors, I don’t mind. But I’d like to not need to do quite so much green stuff work lol. 

- return of corbulo, his absence sucks, perhaps rethink his gear a bit to make him more interesting/distinct from the on foot priest

- return of Seth, I don’t play flesh testers so I’d HATE for the “blood angels” update to be a character “blood angels” can’t use. But I do hope he returns.

- true wishlisting: erelim, a chance to make up for the failings of the sanguinary guard with astoraths equivalent 

 

For 11th ed chaos knights if we're in wishlist land, give me some supporting infantry, or even just codify cultists etc so they're included naturally. I'd like a new in-between knight that's a tripod and armed with chaos shenanigans.

[Orange Knight]

Speaking of the 11th edition box, if GW had ANY sense, they would market the box with Blood Ravens.

 

Dawn of War 4 is out next year. They could even drop a few Blood Raven heroes near the start of 11th edition.

 

A box that ties in to a big game release could be massive for them.

"As seen in Dawn of War 4" can be a marketing tool for units from all the factions in the game.

[SvenIronhand]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

 

I agree. Without any force org, every competitive list is potentially just a min-max hodgepodge and theme is lost.

The incentive structures don’t change just because there’s a force org chart or not. The people who minmax would do so if there was a troops tax or not.

[Orange Knight]

22 minutes ago, SvenIronhand said:

The incentive structures don’t change just because there’s a force org chart or not. The people who minmax would do so if there was a troops tax or not.

 

Yes, but they'll min max under additional restrictions and limitations. That alone will have an impact on how the army looks as a whole.

 

Imagine how thematic it would be if different infantry units were battle-line choices in different armies.

 

The generic option could be Intercessors and Heavy Intercessors. 

Blood Angels would lose access to Heavy Intercessors but could take Assault Intercessors as a BL option instead

Raven Guard would lose Heavy Intercessors but have Infiltrators, etc etc etc

 

And these units would have to be taken. It would even play into the balance between Chapters.

 

It's funny how people seem to be against a more structured list building ideology now. I remember back in 7th edition, the lists were pre-written by the Formation rules and people were all over them.

Edited Saturday at 08:50 PM by Orange Knight