More 11th Edition Boxset Rumours

[Karhedron]

5 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. 

 

The theory is that a Detachment which optimises certain units should be equal in power to another Detachment that buffs a different selection of units. This is far from the situation at the moment. GW have decent balance across the various factions (after about 3 years of patches) but they still haven't cracked balance of units within factions or of Detachments. Most factions have 1 or maybe 2 Detachments that are good and the rest are left languishing.

[crimsondave]

Would love to see a little more casual friendly rules but I'm not holding my breath.  10th was not for me.  Building and painting is my hobby anyway so if I don't play 11th edition either it's not the end of the world.  I never completed a single game of 10th but I probably spent more money on models during 10th edition than any other.  Go figure.

[Xenith]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

The theory is that a Detachment which optimises certain units should be equal in power to another Detachment that buffs a different selection of units. This is far from the situation at the moment. GW have decent balance across the various factions (after about 3 years of patches) but they still haven't cracked balance of units within factions or of Detachments. Most factions have 1 or maybe 2 Detachments that are good and the rest are left languishing.

 

Basically this - 10th is balanced for 1, maybe 2 detachments per faction, and then only for the optimised units in that detachment. It's pretty bland, and actively punishing if you take units outside the detachment that benefits them. 

1 hour ago, crimsondave said:

Would love to see a little more casual friendly rules but I'm not holding my breath.  10th was not for me.  Building and painting is my hobby anyway so if I don't play 11th edition either it's not the end of the world.  I never completed a single game of 10th but I probably spent more money on models during 10th edition than any other.  Go figure.

 

Loads of really gorgeous models for sure, but the game is horribly balanced for a "bring your favourite models" casual game, both in terms of faction rules and gameplay. A 1000pt game takes as long as a 2000pt due to how missions work.

Edited March 24 by Xenith

[Mogger351]

30 minutes ago, Xenith said:

 

Basically this - 10th is balanced for 1, maybe 2 detachments per faction, and then only for the optimised units in that detachment. It's pretty bland, and actively punishing if you take units outside the detachment that benefits them. 

 

Loads of really gorgeous mod ls for sure, but the game is horribly balanced for a "bring your favourite models" casual game, both in terms of faction rules and gameplay. A 1000pt game takes as long as a 2000pt due to how missions work.

Early on in the edition with the design interviews, they did state they were content with only a couple being used for comp play and that some "weaker" narrative options were welcome.

[Xenith]

Oh really? Must have missed that, but makes sense. I recall them going on about one-in one-out in terms of rules and less complexity, both of which fell by the wayside.

[HeadlessCross]

4 hours ago, Mandragola said:

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.  

They're not a detachment rule though, so it's completely different. You can argue whether the +2S is too much (it's not) but the detachment shouldn't cost them more when there's other units to consider. Are you going to charge more for the other models when they get the +2S bonus? 

[Rhavien]

10 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

Basically this - 10th is balanced for 1, maybe 2 detachments per faction, and then only for the optimised units in that detachment. It's pretty bland, and actively punishing if you take units outside the detachment that benefits them. 

 

Loads of really gorgeous models for sure, but the game is horribly balanced for a "bring your favourite models" casual game, both in terms of faction rules and gameplay. A 1000pt game takes as long as a 2000pt due to how missions work.

I pushed the disagree button, because it's still the best state the game ever has been balance wise. If GW has to put out 6 and more detachments for every faction to get the balance somewhat right it's still far better then what we got in the past. I was too often at the receiving end with my armies and codexes against my regular play buddies to have rose tinted glasses. 80% of your collection was banned to the closet for a whole codex cycle and we are not even playing uber competitive.

[Mandragola]

9 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

They're not a detachment rule though, so it's completely different. You can argue whether the +2S is too much (it's not) but the detachment shouldn't cost them more when there's other units to consider. Are you going to charge more for the other models when they get the +2S bonus? 

Yes. The point would be, if your unit gets a bonus that makes it better, it should pay an appropriate cost to reflect that. Better units would be more expensive, which is the point of points. 

[Karhedron]

23 minutes ago, Mandragola said:

Yes. The point would be, if your unit gets a bonus that makes it better, it should pay an appropriate cost to reflect that. Better units would be more expensive, which is the point of points. 

 

I disagree here. GW have opted for a "carrot" approach where you get bonuses for playing to the theme. This is fine as long as all Detachments get an equal overall boost.

 

The problem is that a lot of Detachments don't have a buff bonus like you describe. How would you price the buffs that a Gladius Task Force brings and which units would pay it? It does not apply a flat bonus to any particular unit but lots of units CAN benefit from its rules over the course of the battle. It is obviously a good detachment as it remains one of the most consistently used by Marine players. Your proposal would put certain detachments at a big disadvantage. We already have too many trash detachments as it is.

[Mogger351]

7 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

We already have too many trash detachments as it is.

Balance aside, fun needs to be a considered metric again.

 

I'd rather fight uphill with a fun rule than only care about using the best rules.

[Karhedron]

28 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Balance aside, fun needs to be a considered metric again.

 

I'd rather fight uphill with a fun rule than only care about using the best rules.

 

I agree that fun is probably the most important metric. But most people don't find it fun to get curb-stomped by an army with a built-in advantage.

 

This is why I would argue that getting balance right is crucial. Balance alone does not make a game fun but you will struggle to make a game fun without it. Balance is the foundation on which fun games can be built.

[Mandragola]

59 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

The problem is that a lot of Detachments don't have a buff bonus like you describe. How would you price the buffs that a Gladius Task Force brings and which units would pay it? It does not apply a flat bonus to any particular unit but lots of units CAN benefit from its rules over the course of the battle. It is obviously a good detachment as it remains one of the most consistently used by Marine players. Your proposal would put certain detachments at a big disadvantage. We already have too many trash detachments as it is.

That’s a fair point and I’m not sure what the answer is. Perhaps to balance points around the Gladius, as seems to be the case?

 

To be honest it kind of doesn’t matter what system is used. You might get  balance with any approach, or not, depending on the rules writers. Even if GW did adopt my proposal I don’t have much faith that they’d get the prices right. There’s nothing stopping them achieving balance across the current detachments, except perhaps having too many of them.   

[01RTB01]

5 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

I agree that fun is probably the most important metric. But most people don't find it fun to get curb-stomped by an army with a built-in advantage.

 

This is why I would argue that getting balance right is crucial. Balance alone does not make a game fun but you will struggle to make a game fun without it. Balance is the foundation on which fun games can be built.

 

I do think that 10th has (generally) been reasonably balanced which is why I've played more of 10th than other "recent" editions. 

 

They do need to figure how to put the soul back into the game though. Tables and force selection really need something doing with.

 

The lethality of the modern game is why the pre done table set ups work yet at the same time, are terribly dull to look at.

 

At the same time seeing armies with multiple captains, Warbosses, top level characters just makes no sense - when everyone's super, nobody is. I don't know if something like the AoS system of character plus some units to accompany them would be a better system of something to work on?

 

The character customization rules from the Maelstrom book I also hope is something we see developed for 11th. Being able to create custom characters would help with force personalisation and help bring back something.

 

I don't think it's rose tinted looking back but 2nd wasn't balanced, but it really was fun to play. As I said when it happened (the large US based tournament crew who's name I can't remember) got their claws into the rules team that things would shift not for the better, tragically was correct. I don't know how you fix it but I hope they figure something.

Edited March 25 by 01RTB01

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, 01RTB01 said:

I don't think it's rose tinted looking back but 2nd was balanced, but it really was fun to play.

It was fun, I’m opinion, if one accepted the jankiness and emergent storytelling that come from the very powerful effects yet random in how they played out which came with some of the extremely powerful abilities. Or played in an environment that didn’t use those abilities.

 

My issue with 10th composition is that it opened up army composition while only rewarding (carrot) specific archetypes; either because no appropriate detachment or because bad detachment, or because unit rules don’t work with the archetype. 
 

My issue with 10th rules is the slapdash terrain rules.

[Northern Walker]

Totally agree that the tournament crowd getting involved has been a negative. Personally, I reckon they ought to have a wee subset of rules where they can go fight over L shaped MDF blocks and bring back casual fun for everyone else.

 

Not hopeful though that GW will do that, will need to be a community based endeavour methinks.

[Orange Knight]

The tournament focus has largely made the rules more homogenous and less interesting.

On top of this, it has certainly made the tables and terrain less interesting, and a lot of people copy the symmetrial, L-Shaped LOS blocking ruin spam that we see on tables at events, and this does actually impact the game significantly by affecting the viability of certain units - either improving their performance or being a detriment.  What people don't consider is that knowing the exact terrain and distance between ruins in advance means that you can better predict the performance of various units on the tabletop, hence making something more or less viable.

 

Another massive downside is the vile legalese style we have for the wording of all rules. It literally feels like I'm reading the terms and conditions on an insurance document. Wording in rules used to be a lot more fun and snappy, and yes, it might occasionally cause confusion - but that's exactly what an errata or FAQ is for. Put all the legalese in the erratas that they throw at us every few months.

I could rant more, but I'll stop myself here. Let's be optimistic and hopeful for what we might soon see....

[DemonGSides]

4 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

I could rant more, but I'll stop myself here. Let's be optimistic and hopeful for what we might soon see....

 

Yeah right. This forum is for complaints only. 

[01RTB01]

10 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

Another massive downside is the vile legalese style we have for the wording of all rules. It literally feels like I'm reading the terms and conditions on an insurance document. Wording in rules used to be a lot more fun and snappy, and yes, it might occasionally cause confusion - but that's exactly what an errata or FAQ is for. Put all the legalese in the erratas that they throw at us every few months.
 

 

I genuinely despise modern rules wording. I started reading the 3rd Ed heresy rules and stopped for this reasoning. I'm neither moron nor genius but when you have to keep re reading stuff to discern meaning it becomes a chore. If it's becoming a chore then I cba to be honest. 

 

Again this stems from tournament driven because they're trying to close loopholes. 

 

It's a shame that model quality is inversely proportionate to rules quality.

 

4th to 6th was genuinely so much better. Armies more interesting, tables more interesting and games. If we could have that era of philosophy married with the modern routine updates to deal with atrocities that appear, I'd be quite happy.

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, 01RTB01 said:

Again this stems from tournament driven because they're trying to close loopholes. 

 

100% this is the reason. And yet, people still find loopholes, because people will always disagree over what a set of rules actually means. If not, we wouldn't need multiple levels of courts and councils in every human civilization throughout history to argue over what every single law ever written actually means. 

 

This is why I am a fan of more "breakable" game systems where players are encouraged to have a Golden Rule of working things out themselves if it is unclear. Because it is always unclear eventually, and people should remember that they are just playing a game for entertainment at the end of the day.

[Karhedron]

4 hours ago, 01RTB01 said:

I don't think it's rose tinted looking back but 2nd was balanced, but it really was fun to play.

 

2nd was good fun but I don't think it was particularly balanced. I almost never lost with my Eldar in 2nd edition as I had super tooled up Exarchs running around everywhere. It was definitely the HeroHammer edition.

[01RTB01]

23 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

2nd was good fun but I don't think it was particularly balanced. I almost never lost with my Eldar in 2nd edition as I had super tooled up Exarchs running around everywhere. It was definitely the HeroHammer edition.

 

Sorry, that's what I get for being awake most of the night. I was supposed to type "wasn't". 2nd most certainly wasn't balanced. It was fun though.

[Grand Master Laertes]

3 hours ago, 01RTB01 said:

Again this stems from tournament driven because they're trying to close loopholes. 

 

It wasn't just the competitive player. Even on this same forum, non-competitive players have debated about RAW vs. RAI for years, hoping for a day when such discussions would cease to exist because rulesets are tight and clear.

[01RTB01]

10 minutes ago, Grand Master Laertes said:

 

It wasn't just the competitive player. Even on this same forum, non-competitive players have debated about RAW vs. RAI for years, hoping for a day when such discussions would cease to exist because rulesets are tight and clear.

The problem is, as another frater has said, is that someone will always find a way to break the rules. Even chess can be 'broken' by those with superior knowledge and chess is very tight and clear. 

[DemonGSides]

6 minutes ago, 01RTB01 said:

The problem is, as another frater has said, is that someone will always find a way to break the rules. Even chess can be 'broken' by those with superior knowledge and chess is very tight and clear. 

 

Right, so blaming tournament players for GW's attempts to make a tighter rule set make no sense. 

[01RTB01]

5 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Right, so blaming tournament players for GW's attempts to make a tighter rule set make no sense. 

I'm not blaming the players. I'm blaming the organisers and designers. They're catering more for tournament as it brings them cash and that's well evidenced. 

 

However, in their attempts to make a tighter ruleset, they've sapped the soul out of the game. That does make sense and I think that many would agree too.