More 11th Edition Boxset Rumours

[Antarius]

5 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I actually can't agree. It's functionally shifted from "here's a circle to stand on" to "here's a rectangle to stand on".

 

If they stated the current objectives must be placed inside a terrain feature then its the same net outcome.

 

To add to this, if it is just a card shape as shown, then they'll be one of 3 outcomes:

 

1. "stand in the L shaped ruin" 

2. Here's a random ass bespoke terrain piece we made for the objective, btw sorry your 40mm base minis dont fit inside

3. Prescribed terrain profiles sold by GW at £80 a box

 

None of those fill me with much joy

Well, the rules will of course matter, once we see them. I would also say that any objective/piece of terrain having a shape is sort of unavoidable, so that's a given. I am also certain that GW will continue to sell terrain and I always advise a healthy dose of cynicism when dealing with companies who want your money, but I think the above is perhaps slightly too pessimistic at this point in time.

For example, having a bridge be the objective instantly transforms the game into a battle for the bridge, rather than a battle for circular objective #3 that is placed whereever and thus makes it not just easier to tell a story, but more difficult not to think of it as a story.

"But you could always put the objective on the bridge", you might say and that's not wrong but there is still a shift on the game design level going on here.

[Rhavien]

Is it just me, or does the marine side just feel a little boring compared to previous boxes? Didn't we have a sword n board captain for indomitus? Another ancient, really? Can't think of anyone who doesn't have enough intercessors... Gravis with heavy bolters are something new, but frankly not that exciting to me. Leaves the vanguard and jumpy chaplain. Problem with the chaplain, at least for me as an BA player is, that he won't be cooler than the BA jumpy chappy.

[Mogger351]

2 hours ago, Antarius said:

Well, the rules will of course matter, once we see them. I would also say that any objective/piece of terrain having a shape is sort of unavoidable, so that's a given. I am also certain that GW will continue to sell terrain and I always advise a healthy dose of cynicism when dealing with companies who want your money, but I think the above is perhaps slightly too pessimistic at this point in time.

For example, having a bridge be the objective instantly transforms the game into a battle for the bridge, rather than a battle for circular objective #3 that is placed whereever and thus makes it not just easier to tell a story, but more difficult not to think of it as a story.

"But you could always put the objective on the bridge", you might say and that's not wrong but there is still a shift on the game design level going on here.

I don't fundamentally disagree, bu GW showed us that they have defined "objective footprints" so it might be that a 2"x3" strip of the bridge is the objective. 

 

If they are rigidly defined footprints then it has almost exactly shifted from "round circle you can put terrain on" to "4 sided shape you must put terrain on" which would almost certainly be a numbered objective so rather than the fight for the bridge, it's fight for objective 3 that happens to be on a bridge.

 

It's splitting hairs, but a lot of people seem to be clinging on to the idea that any piece of terrain of whatever shape and size can be an objective, which isn't quite what we've been shown.

[Evil Eye]

2 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I don't fundamentally disagree, bu GW showed us that they have defined "objective footprints" so it might be that a 2"x3" strip of the bridge is the objective. 

 

To be fair, you can absolutely just ignore GW's recommendations (because ultimately that's all they are, same as with board size suggestions) and use whatever sized terrain you want. To give GW credit where due, they've actually never been particularly aggressive with pushing "The game MUST be played this way", hardly like they'd be sending the GWstapo to intimidate wargamers into using the official board/objective sizes.

[Crimson Longinus]

I hope the objective area just is the whole terrain footprint, whatever size that it might be. 

 

I have a bunch of terrain I need to base, but I will definitely be waiting till I see this objective rule in full. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I’m just over here hoping 11th removes advancing from the game now that it will be nearly impossible to shoot anything outside of 15” and you roll first before declaring a charge, this makes it way to easy to get into combat completely unmolested, so ranged armies are going to be completely :cuss:ed unless the recommended terrain set up is significantly less dense than it currently is.

[Northern Walker]

14 hours ago, Xenith said:

Because it was designed as a loose ruleset to use your tiny dudesmen in tabletop battles, and allowed them to do cool stuff. As the game has become more and more competitively focussed, the overton window of socially acceptable gameplay has shifted from someone abusing rules interactions being shunned by their local community, to it being par for the course until it gets FAQ'd.

 

It was standard practice to bring friendly lists, and ask opponents permission/consent if you wanted to use a tough 'tournament list', but now they're all tournament lists otherwise you just lose the game.

This experience even gets into friendly games - you can absolutely tell who's been playing games at either tournaments or more focused LGS's versus kitchen table/study/garage beerhammer folk.

 

Force organisation charts would help this sort of thing I think.

[jaxom]

Reading the last bit of this conversation made me think of something. People used to (maybe still do?) make custom objective markers matching their army to bring to events/tournaments rather than use chits or poker chips. If I remember correctly, the "objective circles" were introduced so players weren't near constantly measuring the objective-grab distance around whatever was used an a marker. Then markers just seemed to fade from the game when people used the circles.

[Karhedron]

18 minutes ago, Northern Walker said:

Force organisation charts would help this sort of thing I think.

 

Please no! The death of the Force Org Chart was one of the best things about 10th. The Force org chart first appeared nearly 30 years ago when the game was much smaller and a combined arms design for all factions made sense.

 

As the game has gotten larger and more diverse, the Force org chart strained to cope. Deathwing, armoured companies and finally Knights made it increasingly difficult to sustain and unit types were contorted into ever increasing gymnastics to try and fit.

 

The other problem with the Force org chart is that it creates a real hierarchy of winners and lovers. Armies with multiple good Troop options hardly find it a constraint at all while armies with poor Troop selections are forced to field multiple deadweight units.

 

The idea of balanced armies is fine but 20th century concepts of combined arms forces seems an odd concept in a galaxy full of genetically engineered super-soldiers, angry mushroom warriors and Egyptian space robots. If we want certain units to represent the default baseline for an army then it should be done by making them useful in their own right. It doesn't mean they need to be the most killy but they should be good value for the points and bring capabilities that are inherently useful to the army. Intercessors are a good example. They are relatively cheap, have moderate shooting and can sticky objectives.

 

Rather than try to force a restrictive force org chart on players, give Battleline units some inbuilt bonuses. Then for each Detachment, list which units count as Battleline. Now it is easy to make a Deathwing list simply by saying that Terminator units gain Battleline in a Deathwing Detachment. 

[jaxom]

[Rusted Boltgun]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

I don't fundamentally disagree, bu GW showed us that they have defined "objective footprints" so it might be that a 2"x3" strip of the bridge is the objective. 

 

If they are rigidly defined footprints then it has almost exactly shifted from "round circle you can put terrain on" to "4 sided shape you must put terrain on" which would almost certainly be a numbered objective so rather than the fight for the bridge, it's fight for objective 3 that happens to be on a bridge.

 

It's splitting hairs, but a lot of people seem to be clinging on to the idea that any piece of terrain of whatever shape and size can be an objective, which isn't quite what we've been shown.

 

You're absolutely right, three images showing footprints were presented the video 

 

 

 

 

There were also words about linking how an army scores to their make-up - for example ground control (holding objectives?) vs killing enemies.

 

However, the accompanying text states

 

The era of circular objective markers is over! Instead, your forces will battle over critical pieces of terrain, such as bunkers, ruins, and relics, instantly making for a more narrative and immersive game. Every battlefield looks immediately better.

 

So I think there will be more detail to come. I'm guessing there isn't terrain in the box so these templates are there so you can have a game using the new rules and replace with your own 3D terrain in the future.

Edited 19 hours ago by Rusted Boltgun
Formatting

[FarFromSam]

Bolt variant eradicators?  These armor variants are not good.  We have terminators.  A bolt variant eradicators is an aggressor.   And if the phobos is just as durable as intercessor, but has benefits of stealth and maneuverability, then why aren't they all in phobos?   Then,  we wonder about bloat.    Surely we aren't getting yet another cawl abomination, and these are in fact more dumpy aggressors

... Right? 

 

The rest of the marine side looks great.  I'm excited about new Vanguard Vets! 

[DeadFingers]

53 minutes ago, jaxom said:

Quote

Big Boss

Kept you waiting, huh?

 

[Karhedron]

Yes, Bolter Eradicators seem like a poor choice. They overlap with Agressors (but without the melee), with Heavy Intercessors (but without the OC or Battleline) and with Bolter Inceptors (but without the maneuverability).

 

I agree about the Van Vets though. As a Blood Angels player, I am particularly looking forward to seeing the models. 

[Crimson Longinus]

8 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

Yes, Bolter Eradicators seem like a poor choice. They overlap with Agressors (but without the melee), with Heavy Intercessors (but without the OC or Battleline) and with Bolter Inceptors (but without the maneuverability).

 

I hope the weapon is something else than just a normal heavy bolter. Valrak speculated it could be a more powerful single shot weapon. 

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, Northern Walker said:

 

Force organisation charts would help this sort of thing I think.

 

Yep, going back to a system with restrictions that just make sense for the game.

 

Strats, Detachments, no Force Org, no Points System.

 

"Gosh I wonder why its hard to balance....."

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

That all still feels very anti-climatic. It's basically 2 combat patrol boxes +3 characters per side. Unless the shrinkflation is hitting the combat patrols big time.

[Marshal Reinhard]

2 hours ago, Rhavien said:

Is it just me, or does the marine side just feel a little boring compared to previous boxes? Didn't we have a sword n board captain for indomitus? Another ancient, really? Can't think of anyone who doesn't have enough intercessors... Gravis with heavy bolters are something new, but frankly not that exciting to me. Leaves the vanguard and jumpy chaplain. Problem with the chaplain, at least for me as an BA player is, that he won't be cooler than the BA jumpy chappy.

I do feel a bit the same way. Vanguard and jumpy chappy is the most interesting.

After that the bolter eradicators (but are they really just normal HB gravis guys? Would like for there to be something more to them)

then perhaps the speeder. Still haven't gotten any of the other ones.

Captain sounds the least inspired.

Another ancient? Fine, but make the banner a little different and interesting than the usual skull&laurel or big eagle icon please.

I'm willing to bet the intercessors were designed before/in tandem with the the more classical looking wolves of the recent SW refresh, and probably would have felt more interesting if the latter hadn't stolen all the thunder by being revealed first

[Cleon]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

Please no! The death of the Force Org Chart was one of the best things about 10th. The Force org chart first appeared nearly 30 years ago when the game was much smaller and a combined arms design for all factions made sense.

 

 

I totally get where you are coming from, but the free for all system isn't working either, at least not if part of the enjoyment is seeing armies look and behave like the faction  in the background.

 

For me the issue is GW have never committed to giving each faction the care and attention to give them their OWN force org charts that make sense with their own background. - The traditional force org chart works for a default Imperial Space Marine army, but (for example) a Tyranids should have org charts for a swarm with mandatory 'horde' & 'synapse' slots with optional limited 'Beast' & 'Independent' slots and an org chart for a 'stampede' where the swarm and beast are reversed. Similarly a 'Craftworld defence force' Org chart should have mandatory 'Citizen' slots (guardians, rangers, jetbikes), with then limited 'Aspect' slots.

 

Restrictions make the game work, but only if the game designers put in the effort.

[Karhedron]

33 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Restrictions make the game work, but only if the game designers put in the effort.

 

Yes, but then you would need a FOC for each variation within a faction at which point you are overlapping with the rules in Detachments.

 

I prefer Detachments providing bonuses to follow a theme rather than introducing restrictions to try and enforce it. I think that in many ways, the current Detachments do that quite well. If certain key units are under-represented in builds, then the correct solution is to make them better so that they are worth taking not simply forcing players to take a mandatory number of undesirable units.

[Orange Knight]

A new weapon options for an existing unit is a good way of doing it, imo. 

So we have Heavy Bolter Eradicators. More range than the Melta, less punch.

I would have preferred Eradicators with under-slung Las Cannons

 

Hopefully this is an indication that they might consolidate some units by having additional weapon/wargear choices.

[Antarius]

I don't know if I can face yet another iteration of the "FOC yay/nay"-debate.

But I'll just say that I actually think restrictions are what makes army building fun and I know I'm not alone in that. Which is not to say that people who disagree are wrong; it's a matter of taste more than anything else.

I really don't think army building is fun anymore and maybe that's for the best. My games have been more enjoyable when I've just taken whatever random painted units I had, but I can't say that it reflects particularly well on the system.

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, Crimson Longinus said:

 

I hope the weapon is something else than just a normal heavy bolter. Valrak speculated it could be a more powerful single shot weapon. 

Hmm, maybe a soft replacement for Suppressors?

[Nephaston]

4 hours ago, Rhavien said:

Is it just me, or does the marine side just feel a little boring compared to previous boxes? Didn't we have a sword n board captain for indomitus? Another ancient, really?

Yes please, give me more banners; chapter banners, company banners, squad banners, campaign banners, crusade banners, parade banners. just all the banners. 

 

In regards to at least Intercessors, it has been 9 years, and when thinking back, people also hoovered up every tactical marine refresh.

[Jings]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

Yes, but then you would need a FOC for each variation within a faction at which point you are overlapping with the rules in Detachments.

 

 

Why wouldn't the Detachments then just "allow" or "restrict" at that point? They're doing that overlapping Detachment thing now. Dark Angels, for example, could have a detachment that gives Termies and Outriders Battleline or whatever is used for scoring now alongside its regular bonuses, and then a second specific Deathwing/Ravenwing that removes that bonus in exchange for skewing them further towards the sub-faction of choice. Seems baked in to me. 

 

Not to say that I can see 40K eschewing the current "bring whatever who even cares anymore" philosophy but hey it could be workable in the framework that already exists.