More 11th Edition Boxset Rumours

[Karhedron]

I guess the main thing for me is I prefer the carrot to the stick. I would rather have a system that rewards playing to a theme rather than a system that enforces one person's view of what constitutes a representative force for a particular faction.

[Scribe]

31 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

I guess the main thing for me is I prefer the carrot to the stick. I would rather have a system that rewards playing to a theme rather than a system that enforces one person's view of what constitutes a representative force for a particular faction.

 

Restrictions are not a stick. Restriction breeds creativity.

 

Change Detachments to FoC, drop Strats, and give us back points, the game is instantly improved.

 

They wont, I get that, and 40K the game is dead to me at this point, but thats how they would start to make the game worth investing in again instead of a live beta that they can never actually balance.

[Dark Shepherd]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

Hmm, maybe a soft replacement for Suppressors?

Suppressees?

[phandaal]

2 hours ago, jaxom said:

Hmm, maybe a soft replacement for Suppressors?

 

Suppressors need a hard replacement. As in, fire them into the sun.

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

 

Restrictions are not a stick. Restriction breeds creativity.

Yeah nothing saya creative like every list taking the same units because apparently you can't have TOO many Assault Marines and Bikers in the same army!

[Scribe]

26 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Yeah nothing saya creative like every list taking the same units because apparently you can't have TOO many Assault Marines and Bikers in the same army!

 

Sorry, those are all FA, you get 3 as God intended.

[Rhavien]

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

 

Restrictions are not a stick. Restriction breeds creativity.

 

Change Detachments to FoC, drop Strats, and give us back points, the game is instantly improved.

 

They wont, I get that, and 40K the game is dead to me at this point, but thats how they would start to make the game worth investing in again instead of a live beta that they can never actually balance.

Well, that's totally your opinion and that's okay, but please don't say it like that's an inevitable truth like the fifth fundamental force. 

You know people take scouts, not because they are the cheapest mandatory troop choice, but because they are actually useful nowadays. But please feel free to play an earlier edition where you pay 5 points for a flame pistol or a plasma pistol. Because that's totally balanced.

[ThaneOfTas]

35 minutes ago, Rhavien said:

But please feel free to play an earlier edition where you pay 5 points for a flame pistol or a plasma pistol. Because that's totally balanced.

As opposed to now, where you pay no points for either and pretend that they're worth the same as a Bolt Pistol?

[Scribe]

56 minutes ago, Rhavien said:

But please feel free to play an earlier edition where you pay 5 points for a flame pistol or a plasma pistol. Because that's totally balanced.

 

Yeah totally, compared to literally free upgrades across the board...because THAT makes sense??

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

On 3/26/2026 at 3:32 AM, Lord Nord in Gravis Armour said:

I have to admit, there's a small, nihilistic corner of my soul that actually hopes GW will release the new vehicle under the name "Storm Speeder Land."

 

All seriousness aside...

 

Given that the existing variants are the Hailstrike, Hammerstrike, and Thunderstrike, and that this one is presumably speedier...

 

(Speeder - ier?)

 

... it's arguable that the more obvious name would be "Storm Speeder Lightningstrike."

 

Unless they leave it up to the folks who re-branded Citadel Colour, in which case it will probably be something like "Mobile Intercession Platform."

[ThaneOfTas]

4 minutes ago, Lord Nord in Gravis Armour said:

Mobile Intercession Platform

Completely off topic, but now I want to kitbash the new AoS Cogfort into a Mobile Oppression Palace, so my wallet thanks you for that

[jaxom]

8 hours ago, Karhedron said:

I guess the main thing for me is I prefer the carrot to the stick. I would rather have a system that rewards playing to a theme rather than a system that enforces one person's view of what constitutes a representative force for a particular faction.

In the context of theme, the carrot needs to be sufficient to counter-balance willingly taking the flaws of the theme. For example, an all bike army now would have a lot of trouble with tanks and big monsters. The carrot would have to compensate.

 

8 hours ago, Scribe said:

Restrictions are not a stick. Restriction breeds creativity.

In the right environment, yes; in the wrong environment it just makes things difficult. 

 

Overall, I feel like thematic restrictions make sense; players seem to want ways to do so and seem amenable to appropriate trade-offs if the thematic units feel good to use. For me, I love Intercessors, but it wasn't until recently that the carrot existed to make using them in numbers feel good. 

[Antarius]

5 hours ago, ThaneOfTas said:

Completely off topic, but now I want to kitbash the new AoS Cogfort into a Mobile Oppression Palace, so my wallet thanks you for that

Ha! So that's what it reminded me of 

[Antarius]

re: the carrot and stick thing, tastes obviously differ, but I think it's fair to say that neither the old system or the new one is perfect (neither will any system we might cook up to replace it be). However, I absolutely think restrictions have their place in army building, partly for reasons of "balance", partly because it's more fun that way.

I actually really like the idea of detachments introducing these restrictions along with some benefits (or you might call it a framework, if that sounds more appealing to you), but I tend to think the problems of balancing so many detachments are obvious (not to mention how much balance depends on context) so I'm not super optimistic that it's possible to create an enormous number of viable detachments.

 

Most of the time, I actually think these systems (whether FOC, detachments or something else) fall flat because the way they are build means restrictions becomes meaningless. All armies need to have advantages and drawbacks, but usually the drawbacks tend to become meaningless when it comes to constructing "special" armies, because the writers end up overcompensating in order to make the army viable.An example would be "sacrifice one (or even two) FOC slots of x kind to gain one of Y kind", because the sacrifice part meant nothing; you weren't going to take those units anyway so you effectively just got one more slot of the kind you wanted. It was the same with "turn this unit type into troops".
Detachments have had different incarnations but I think they have had the same basic problem; they reward you for making a "sacrifice" that's not a sacrifice at all.
Now, once again, tastes differ and you might think "well all armies should be awesome so that's not a problem" and I kinda-sorta agree. But the thing is, if your army doesn't have flaws it actually becomes a lot less interesting to play, whether you're playing with it or against it.

This is kinda abstract of course, but another example would be the old codices (I think it was even more pronounced in WFB but that's another story). There was a point in time, around 5th-7th, where I noticed that the codex writers just had fundamentally different philosophies, where some seemed to think armies were defined by what they were good at, whereas others thought they were defined by what they weren't good at as well as what they were good at, which led to some very weird experiences on the gaming table.
The problem wasn't so much individual codex writers (for example, Ward wasn't a bad rules writer, because most of his rules were actually both functional and fun - the problems arose when his army rules had to exist alongside armies that were written with a fundamentally different idea of an army in mind), but the disparity in design philosophies.
It's just a personal theory of course, but I really think that was the reason for the crazier balance issues at the time and I think they've actually gotten a lot better in that regard. Moving towards a more unified design philosophy has made the game better in many ways, but I still wish they'd go back to flaws being a defining trait of an army's playstyle.

Edited Sunday at 05:52 AM by Antarius

[HeadlessCross]

9 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

Sorry, those are all FA, you get 3 as God intended.

Yeah, so that's not breeding creativity. Restrictions have never bred creativity, they've been detrimental. Sorry, every Marine list taking two squads of Scouts isn't creative as much as you like to believe it is. 

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Antarius said:

re: the carrot and stick thing, tastes obviously differ, but I think it's fair to say that neither the old system or the new one is perfect (neither will any system we might cook up to replace it be). However, I absolutely think restrictions have their place in army building, partly for reasons of "balance", partly because it's more fun that way.

I actually really like the idea of detachments introducing these restrictions along with some benefits (or you might call it a framework, if that sounds more appealing to you), but I tend to think the problems of balancing so many detachments are obvious (not to mention how much balance depends on context) so I'm not super optimistic that it's possible to create an enormous number of viable detachments.

 

Most of the time, I actually think these systems (whether FOC, detachments or something else) fall flat because the way they are build means restrictions becomes meaningless. All armies need to have advantages and drawbacks, but usually the drawbacks tend to become meaningless when it comes to constructing "special" armies, because the writers end up overcompensating in order to make the army viable.An example would be "sacrifice one (or even two) FOC slots of x kind to gain one of Y kind", because the sacrifice part meant nothing; you weren't going to take those units anyway so you effectively just got one more slot of the kind you wanted. It was the same with "turn this unit type into troops".
Detachments have had different incarnations but I think they have had the same basic problem; they reward you for making a "sacrifice" that's not a sacrifice at all.
Now, once again, tastes differ and you might think "well all armies should be awesome so that's not a problem" and I kinda-sorta agree. But the thing is, if your army doesn't have flaws it actually becomes a lot less interesting to play, whether you're playing with it or against it.

This is kinda abstract of course, but another example would be the old codices (I think it was even more pronounced in WFB but that's another story). There was a point in time, around 5th-7th, where I noticed that the codex writers just had fundamentally different philosophies, where some seemed to think armies were defined by what they were good at, whereas others thought they were defined by what they weren't good at as well as what they were good at, which led to some very weird experiences on the gaming table.
The problem wasn't so much individual codex writers (for example, Ward wasn't a bad rules writer, because most of his rules were actually both functional and fun - the problems arose when his army rules had to exist alongside armies that were written with a fundamentally different idea of an army in mind), but the disparity in design philosophies.
It's just a personal theory of course, but I really think that was the reason for the crazier balance issues at the time and I think they've actually gotten a lot better in that regard. Moving towards a more unified design philosophy has made the game better in many ways, but I still wish they'd go back to flaws being a defining trait of an army's playstyle.

Except not all restrictions are actually restrictions. 

 

If you wanted to build your army a particular way and the only caveat was "You're not allowed Sorcerers/Librarians" when you weren't planning on taking them anyway due to psykers being unreliable, was it actually a restriction to begin with?

[Rhavien]

7 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

Yeah totally, compared to literally free upgrades across the board...because THAT makes sense??

But that's exactly my point. It doesn't really change much and GW never got the points for upgrades right anyway. There was always a best option to pick. However, in my opinion it's more fun to have kitted out sergeants and tanks across the board instead of frantically min/maxing the last 5 points. 

Sure, for people with models which were built for older editions it can be a downer as your devastator sergeant doesn't have a power weapon and all your hunter killers are still on the frame. However I am enjoying building a new squad much more since the design philosophy has shifted towards free upgrades. Nowadays I build all the extra gubbins that come with a squad. 

[Xenith]

The models/WYSIWYG don't even matter anymore: as there is one specific "best build" for each unit, one has to assume that the best build is being taken unless your opponent says otherwise. When stormbolters and HKMs are free and there are no penalties for taking them, One can say that they are effectively standard war gear and will always be taken. Same as not every miniature has a pistol modelled, yet their datasheet might give them a pistol attack.

[SvenIronhand]

I would like pointed wargear back.

I would also like to see more of the new Marines. I'm most excited by the Land Speeder and the Chaplain (which is really more of a nice-to-have for me, seeing as I only have one JP unit), but if the inevitable accompanying multipart kits are interesting, that would be exciting too. 

[Antarius]

4 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Except not all restrictions are actually restrictions. 

 

If you wanted to build your army a particular way and the only caveat was "You're not allowed Sorcerers/Librarians" when you weren't planning on taking them anyway due to psykers being unreliable, was it actually a restriction to begin with?

Yeah, that was one of my specific points.

[Antarius]

3 hours ago, Rhavien said:

But that's exactly my point. It doesn't really change much and GW never got the points for upgrades right anyway. There was always a best option to pick. However, in my opinion it's more fun to have kitted out sergeants and tanks across the board instead of frantically min/maxing the last 5 points. 

Sure, for people with models which were built for older editions it can be a downer as your devastator sergeant doesn't have a power weapon and all your hunter killers are still on the frame. However I am enjoying building a new squad much more since the design philosophy has shifted towards free upgrades. Nowadays I build all the extra gubbins that come with a squad. 

I sort of agree with this (it is also, incidentally a fine example of the competitive mentality/balancing philosophy being at odds with more narrative game design; see the way everyone assumes that a) there is a "best" weapon and b) the "best" weapon will always be taken on all your units. Even people who are in favor of the free upgrade system often bring this up).

I think the old system had the right idea but the execution was massively flawed and I think its effects were often to the detriment to the look and feel of armies (basically, most people made everything "bare bones" unless upgrades were seen as overpowered, in which case they were taken). I really think it's a nice touch that e.g. the devastator sergeant has a power weapon if it should come to close combat, so in that sense I really like the new system. I just wish they were a little better at making no obviously superior upgrades.

[Crimson Longinus]

3 hours ago, Xenith said:

The models/WYSIWYG don't even matter anymore: as there is one specific "best build" for each unit, one has to assume that the best build is being taken unless your opponent says otherwise. When stormbolters and HKMs are free and there are no penalties for taking them, One can say that they are effectively standard war gear and will always be taken. Same as not every miniature has a pistol modelled, yet their datasheet might give them a pistol attack.

 

Yeah I can't do that. I always make sure the secondary equipment such as pistols is modelled, and even in a competitive league I have ran tanks without hunter killers because I don't have them modelled.

 

I think the models and what they have should matter. The game is about representing the fiction with models. They should not just be interchangeable tokens. I'm glad that the designers seem to be thinking this sort of immersion again, with making the objectives to be something concrete. 

[Dark Shepherd]

Can we have flexible unit sizes back too please?

Its just more fun while list building

 

[Mogger351]

4 minutes ago, Dark Shepherd said:

Can we have flexible unit sizes back too please?

Its just more fun while list building

 

Was it? It's basically a way to sit closer to the limit exactly first and foremost. It's not something that really mattered massively and I'd argue list sacrifices as they are now are tougher decisions. 

 

You also avoid weirdness like 19 man gaunt units to work round blast and so on.

[Scribe]

8 hours ago, Rhavien said:

But that's exactly my point. It doesn't really change much and GW never got the points for upgrades right anyway. There was always a best option to pick. However, in my opinion it's more fun to have kitted out sergeants and tanks across the board instead of frantically min/maxing the last 5 points. 

Sure, for people with models which were built for older editions it can be a downer as your devastator sergeant doesn't have a power weapon and all your hunter killers are still on the frame. However I am enjoying building a new squad much more since the design philosophy has shifted towards free upgrades. Nowadays I build all the extra gubbins that come with a squad. 

 

"I enjoy not having to think about it." is not great design. Thats honestly pretty sad.