More 11th Edition Boxset Rumours

[phandaal]

19 hours ago, Laurence said:

Sure you can.  Give each detachment its own points value listings.

 

This is theoretically the way to solve it, although then the problem is that points listings would be crazy long. Then we have strategems, which are temporary buffs/debuffs handed out without regard to points, and items, which have a flat cost as opposed to a cost depending on which unit holds them.

 

The system could definitely be reworked to account for these things with points, but it would require a deep redo of how points are calculated. GW probably does not have the will to do that.

[HeadlessCross]

19 hours ago, Laurence said:

Sure you can.  Give each detachment its own points value listings.

Which is already a bad idea considering it affects when you take a supposed inefficient unit, like wanting a Predator in a melee detachment. 

 

You just don't make super wild detachment rules (should Pantheon have made it through the idea board to begin with as is?) or write a unit so bad that it needs a detachment to function (here's looking at you, Wraithblades and Wraithguard!)

[Moonstalker]

Detachments could have a point cost themselves, scaling based on battle size.  I'm not certain that it's the way I would solve the deeper issues with the game, but it is a much simpler way to approach things than trying to have different units cost different points in each detachment.  Is a detachment strong?  It costs more.  Is it weak?  Well, maybe it's free.  It effectively taxes the buffed units without having to adjust things unit by unit.

[Mogger351]

17 minutes ago, Moonstalker said:

Detachments could have a point cost themselves, scaling based on battle size.  I'm not certain that it's the way I would solve the deeper issues with the game, but it is a much simpler way to approach things than trying to have different units cost different points in each detachment.  Is a detachment strong?  It costs more.  Is it weak?  Well, maybe it's free.  It effectively taxes the buffed units without having to adjust things unit by unit.

Honestly that's on shaky foundations. A detachment that enhances say daemon engines can't be pointed to have the same impact on a list that say sounds 500pts on them vs 1500pts of them.

[Mandragola]

The system is a bit of a mess. Detachments increase the power of some units, and therefore their value, but not their points. 
 

With digital rules it would be entirely possible for Gw to just upload variable points values. Units wouldn’t need costs for every detachment, just a base value and a buffed value. 
 

In effect this is what the C’tan detachment tries to do. You’re paying to upgrade your shards. You just ought to be paying more in this case.  

Edited Tuesday at 07:30 PM by Mandragola

[Crimson Longinus]

I wish detachments would not exist and units were just costed on their own merits. I dislike how certain units are just viable in their bespoke detachments, and in those you need to spam them and field little else. I like having balanced combined arms forces that have a little bit of everything. Like I want to have some repentias in a sisters army or some wraiths in an eldar army alongside with other units. 

[Orange Knight]

Detachments are ok, but they need to be a lot more limited and army construction needs to be applied to them as well. This is something Horus Heresy did well in 1.0 and 2.0

[Madao]

To be honest - I would love they get rid of detachments AND faction rules. Just keep datasheets interesting. In 10th most of the units have some special rules. Do we need any more special rules on top of the special rules? Then each datasheet could be priced individually, by the benefits it solely brings to the table

[Northern Walker]

Cards on the table, I have not really enjoyed the 10th ed rules. I have enjoyed playing games, because I exclusively play beerhammer with my friends so it's always a good time. But - I much preferred 8th edition of the "modern" iterations of the game, and also enjoyed 3rd/4th edition back in the day.

 

There's just something about the way they write rules at the moment that just doesn't tickle me the right way. CAAC-itis on my part maybe, but still.

 

At least the painting and modelling elements have been superb recently.

[SvenIronhand]

48 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

I wish detachments would not exist and units were just costed on their own merits. I dislike how certain units are just viable in their bespoke detachments, and in those you need to spam them and field little else. I like having balanced combined arms forces that have a little bit of everything. Like I want to have some repentias in a sisters army or some wraiths in an eldar army alongside with other units. 

Ok, but consider if somebody else wanted to play a Tank Company for their Imperial Guard, or a Iyanden Wraithhost for their Eldar, or a Siege Assault Vanguard for their SM. Are you just saying for them to get bent?

[DemonGSides]

10th was a much better version of 9th even if they try to claim it was a big rules change edition. It wasn't, most things worked similarly with a few changes on the organization level and not much else besides a few odds and ends things.

 

If 11th is more of the same but with a return to a more interesting force organization and ideally pointed wargear, we would be cooking. Not interested in going back to 9 million strategems that 9th had. Definitely not interested in the "We win with a death star" games of Warhammer prior to that. And REALLY don't want to go back to decurion "You get everything for free!" Style.  Don't want armor facings, I don't want templates, and I'd like them to figure out how to make battle shock/leadership be meaningful; I think 10ths has been the best iteration in the past decade, but it still feels mostly meh and framing entire armies around it's use while it still being kinda meh is not good.

Edited Tuesday at 05:05 PM by DemonGSides

[Mogger351]

9 minutes ago, SvenIronhand said:

Ok, but consider if somebody else wanted to play a Tank Company for their Imperial Guard, or a Iyanden Wraithhost for their Eldar, or a Siege Assault Vanguard for their SM. Are you just saying for them to get bent?

Back in my day you themed your army by selecting the units of the theme. You didn't need a power boost to confirm an identity.

 

The game clearly can work like that, even if it doesn't now.

[Crimson Longinus]

14 minutes ago, SvenIronhand said:

Ok, but consider if somebody else wanted to play a Tank Company for their Imperial Guard, or a Iyanden Wraithhost for their Eldar, or a Siege Assault Vanguard for their SM. Are you just saying for them to get bent?

No. I say they can do that by just selecting the appropriate units. 

[ZeroWolf]

Honestly, I think they'll return to army composition rules in 12th. I think what we have now is a good start but things can be tightened up. Honestly I take more troops now than I would have done before because they're better (or at least seem to me). Also whoever mentioned about battleshock being more important, I agree. It feels very lacking in teeth, and having the Tyranid army rule revolve around it is a feel-bad situation. With Phil Kelly back in 40k, maybe the nids can get some love rules wise.

[SvenIronhand]

42 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Back in my day you themed your army by selecting the units of the theme. You didn't need a power boost to confirm an identity.

 

The game clearly can work like that, even if it doesn't now.

 

36 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

No. I say they can do that by just selecting the appropriate units. 

Fair enough IG.

[Silvereyes]

10 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

I don't see any issue with them simply sunsetting some detachments as they please, rewriting some or adding new ones.

 

It's easy enough for them to do in the app and keeps things on a level between fections whilst they get a book (again).

 

9 hours ago, ZeroWolf said:

To add this, this edition is heavily rumoured to be a extension type edition, so they need to ensure backwards compatibility with the already released books. Getting rid of detachments would require another index edition.

 

12th edition is where we see if the even = rules reboot pattern holds true...

 

I should say, I am biased. I'm not a fan of the detachment system, and I want army building options that gives the player more choice. 11th edition codecies arrive, and all they do is just add more detachments, I just don't really see how that's much of a feature. It's one thing to go from a single index detachment to having the choice of a few codex detachments. Going from, what, usually a minimum of something like 6 detachments to say 10 just doesn't seem much when you can only use 1 at a time. And it seems a bit underwelming if they do remove old detachments in a codex I have to pay more for. Not to mention I don't see how it really helps game balance if you have over 100 detachments you need to constantly balance around.

 

I have no issue with it being backwards compatible. For example, one idea I personally had would be for 11th edition detachments to only have 1 detachment rule, 3 enhancements, and 3 stratagems. You get 3 stratagems from your chosen detachment, and another 3 from a list of them in your codex. Same with enhancements, a limit of 3, either use the detachment ones and/or ones from a more generic list of them. When you build your army, either use the 11th detachment, or you can just revert to using a 10th detachment instead, with the limitations. That's just my own idea, obviously probably has its own problems.

 

Well, we're only 31 hours away from the livestream now, hopefully they'll maybe talk about it. I know it probably will be 10.5, but I do hope there are some significant changes in rules and army composition.

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

42 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

Honestly, I think they'll return to army composition rules in 12th. I think what we have now is a good start but things can be tightened up. Honestly I take more troops now than I would have done before because they're better (or at least seem to me). Also whoever mentioned about battleshock being more important, I agree. It feels very lacking in teeth, and having the Tyranid army rule revolve around it is a feel-bad situation. With Phil Kelly back in 40k, maybe the nids can get some love rules wise.

 

Phill Kelly is baclk on the 40k side? I personally have always enjoyed a lot of what he puts out as both a designer and lore writer (I loved Dreadfleet personally). Super glad if true. 

 

 

I miss the FOC. I liked it and I personally enjoyed 3rd-7th far more than 9th/10th. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:24 PM by The Praetorian of Inwit

[Marshal Rohr]

I hope you guys like Eldar and Tau because it’s gonna be nuts with Phil in charge. 

[ZeroWolf]

30 minutes ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

 

Phill Kelly is baclk on the 40k side? I personally have always enjoyed a lot of what he puts out as both a designer and lore writer (I loved Dreadfleet personally). Super glad if true. 

 

 

I miss the FOC. I liked it and I personally enjoyed 3rd-7th far more than 9th/10th. 

Its the one good point to have come out from the whole AoS debacle  Yeah apparently Mr Kelly switched back to 40k from AoS as he's now senior designer or something to that effect. I still remember him from when he first appeared in White Dwarf all those years ago...

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, Crimson Longinus said:

I wish detachments would not exist and units were just costed on their own merits. I dislike how certain units are just viable in their bespoke detachments, and in those you need to spam them and field little else. I like having balanced combined arms forces that have a little bit of everything. Like I want to have some repentias in a sisters army or some wraiths in an eldar army alongside with other units. 

Since the game's very inception, certain units were never viable. The new detachment system didn't make this magically happen. 

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, Mandragola said:

The system is a bit of a mess. Detachments increase the power of some units, and therefore their value, but not their points. 
 

With digital rules it would be entirely possible for Gw to just upload variable points values. Units wouldn’t need costs for every detachment, just a base value and a buffed value. 
 

In effect this is what the C’tan detachment tries to do. You’re paying. To upgrade your shards. You just ought to be paying more in this case.  

You're paying in the sense that they're taking relics that enhance them even more outside the detachment rule. It really isn't the same thing. 

48 minutes ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

 

Phill Kelly is baclk on the 40k side? I personally have always enjoyed a lot of what he puts out as both a designer and lore writer (I loved Dreadfleet personally). Super glad if true. 

 

 

I miss the FOC. I liked it and I personally enjoyed 3rd-7th far more than 9th/10th. 

Phill Kelly is just as bad as Ward, if not worse, when it comes to rules and there is NO reason he deserves the pass he gets. 

[ZeroWolf]

18 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

I hope you guys like Eldar and Tau because it’s gonna be nuts with Phil in charge. 

*remembers Eldar at the start of 10th*

No change there then 

[Mandragola]

18 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

You're paying in the sense that they're taking relics that enhance them even more outside the detachment rule. It really isn't the same thing. 

You have a point, but these relics aren’t optional upgrades. They’re built into the cost of the unit if you buy it in this detachment.
 

This is a model that could be applied to other stuff. Destroyers in their detachment could have to buy their +2S at 5 (or whatever) points per model, for example.  

[01RTB01]

2 hours ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

 

Phill Kelly is baclk on the 40k side? I personally have always enjoyed a lot of what he puts out as both a designer and lore writer (I loved Dreadfleet personally). Super glad if true. 

 

 

I miss the FOC. I liked it and I personally enjoyed 3rd-7th far more than 9th/10th. 

 

In fairness, his main thing for years has been narrative development, not rules.

[Marshal Rohr]

1 hour ago, ZeroWolf said:

*remembers Eldar at the start of 10th*

No change there then 

I’ve still got Entry of the Gladiators on my phone ready for the next time I see a Phil special on the table.