More 11th Edition Boxset Rumours

[LostTemplar]

Well, for 11th edition, the Tactical Squad seems to be different from the Tacticus, since the new "The Maelstrom: Crucible of Champions", on the warhammer community article, mentions this:

 

https://assets.warhammer-community.com/40k_maelstomcocrules-feb09_datasheet1-to58hhkhtm.jpg

 

Chances are the Tactical will continue to exist, but it won't be Tacticus. So I'm guessing still not having intercessor/primaris guys.

 

 

[jaxom]

12 minutes ago, LostTemplar said:

Well, for 11th edition, the Tactical Squad seems to be different from the Tacticus, since the new "The Maelstrom: Crucible of Champions", on the warhammer community article, mentions this:

 

https://assets.warhammer-community.com/40k_maelstomcocrules-feb09_datasheet1-to58hhkhtm.jpg

 

Chances are the Tactical will continue to exist, but it won't be Tacticus. So I'm guessing still not having intercessor/primaris guys.

 

 

Maybe, though I’m not going to hold my breath. Those are rules for now, in 10th, when Tactical Squads do exist. There’s no guarantee of 100% comparability with a future Marine codex.

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

17 hours ago, LostTemplar said:

Well, for 11th edition, the Tactical Squad seems to be different from the Tacticus, since the new "The Maelstrom: Crucible of Champions", on the warhammer community article, mentions this:

 

https://assets.warhammer-community.com/40k_maelstomcocrules-feb09_datasheet1-to58hhkhtm.jpg

 

Chances are the Tactical will continue to exist, but it won't be Tacticus. So I'm guessing still not having intercessor/primaris guys.

I mean, as much as there's only months of 10th remaining, these books are releasing primarily for use in 10th... I wouldn't read into the tactical squad's inclusion here.

[Dezron]

On 2/9/2026 at 2:52 PM, Orange Knight said:

He also mentioned that the Speeder might be a new "heavy" variant so something bigger than the Stormspeeders?

 

He also called Bolters carried by Gravis "cannons". 

 

So our options are:

- Autocannons - Might have been mistaken with Bolters, especially if they look different or have short barrel. 

- Bolt Cannon - Something like Mauler, but carried by Marines. 

- Frag Cannon - Another option, that could be mistaken for Bolt weapon. 

- Something new that none thought of so far. 

[HeadlessCross]

4 hours ago, Dezron said:

 

He also called Bolters carried by Gravis "cannons". 

 

So our options are:

- Autocannons - Might have been mistaken with Bolters, especially if they look different or have short barrel. 

- Bolt Cannon - Something like Mauler, but carried by Marines. 

- Frag Cannon - Another option, that could be mistaken for Bolt weapon. 

- Something new that none thought of so far. 

I'm a slut for Autocannons and Frag Cannons, so I'm personally rooting for those. 

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

I'm a slut for Autocannons and Frag Cannons, so I'm personally rooting for those. 

So long as they’re 18” range… 24” at most.

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

23 hours ago, Dezron said:

Frag Cannon - Another option, that could be mistaken for Bolt weapon. 

Building on the Frag Cannon that was weilded by a Gravis marine in the new Deathwatch Kill Team

19 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

I'm a slut for Autocannons and Frag Cannons, so I'm personally rooting for those. 

Frag Cannons vs the Green Tide just makes sense. Also, they're historically afiliated with Blood Angels/their successors.

[Dezron]

26 minutes ago, ChapterMasterGodfrey said:

Also, they're historically afiliated with Blood Angels/their successors.

 

Valrak: They are not Blood Angels, they are just generic units painted in Blood Angels colors. 

 

I had to listen to that on his every video covering 11th Edition Starter Box, so now you will too. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

50 minutes ago, Dezron said:

 

Valrak: They are not Blood Angels, they are just generic units painted in Blood Angels colors. 

 

I had to listen to that on his every video covering 11th Edition Starter Box, so now you will too. 

He’s not saying they’re blood angels units.

 

just that if they’re being portrayed as blood angels it might have been a consideration that BA have a historical tie to this type of weapon as a nostalgic throw back.

 

we are all well aware it’s just generic marines painted as blood angels

[Jukkiz]

1 hour ago, Dezron said:

 

Valrak: They are not Blood Angels, they are just generic units painted in Blood Angels colors. 

 

I had to listen to that on his every video covering 11th Edition Starter Box, so now you will too. 

That´s every starter box nowdays? Bunch of none distinct marines, so you can paint them as you wish? 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

The 6th and 7th edition boxes weren't, as those marines were all distinctively Dark Angels.  That said, they are pretty much the exception, I think.  So there are examples going each way, though non-distinct is certainly, by far, in the majority.

Edited February 11 by Dr_Ruminahui
Got the editions wrong - corrected.

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

2 hours ago, Dezron said:

Valrak: They are not Blood Angels, they are just generic units painted in Blood Angels colors. 

 

I had to listen to that on his every video covering 11th Edition Starter Box, so now you will too. 

No I know haha and I too have to hear that over and over but frag cannons on red marines is... evocative.

 

1 hour ago, Dr_Ruminahui said:

The 7th and 8th edition boxes weren't, as those marines were all distinctively Dark Angels.  That said, they are pretty much the exception, I think.  So there are examples going each way, though non-distinct is certainly, by far, in the majority.

I think monetarily, that was a low point for 40k. They're the exception because they were failures and not tried again. "failure" being relative - 'not as succesful' maybe more appropriate. 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

If they were "failures", its weird that they released (models wise) the exact same box twice.  I can't say that you are wrong, but the double release would suggest that either at least the first box (6th ed) was successful, and/or GW really didn't have a good idea of what its path forward was in 7th - which could be true, given the huge (for 40K) revamp of the plot line and space marine models that was 8th edition, and the similar (and even bigger) revamp of their fantasy line that was Age of Sigmar that occurred between the two (7th was 2014, AoS 2015 and 8th 2017).

 

That said, I would suggest that any "failure" of the 7th ed box was just as likely to be because it was the exact same miniatures as the last time (rather than, or compounding with, the distinct marine faction in the box) - which also speaks to a failure of direction or vision (at least in terms of 40K) at GW at that time - perhaps it was overly focused on the massive Age of Sigmar revamp.

 

BTW, I incorrectly said 7th and 8th, rather than 6th and 7th - I've corrected that in my earlier post.

Edited February 11 by Dr_Ruminahui

[DemonGSides]

Dark vengeance was huge and people loved it.

 

7ths failure as an edition didn't happen until way later in its existence. It certainly wasn't the relatively awesome starting set.  I sold all the loyalist stuff but the CSM stuff sits proudly on my shelf. 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I agree that the chaos side of dark vengence was fantastic - I managed to get 3 copies of most of the chaos side of it, and asides from autogun cultists getting legended, have absolutely no regrets.  Plus, the Dark Angels bikes were fantastic for my Emperor's Children source.

 

That said, for not chaos players, the box was definitely of less value.  The Dark Angels stuff (asides from the bikes and maybe the librarian) was kind of "meh" and, as noted, non-agnostic in terms of faction.

[Toxichobbit]

On 2/10/2026 at 2:26 PM, Dezron said:

 

He also called Bolters carried by Gravis "cannons". 

 

So our options are:

- Autocannons - Might have been mistaken with Bolters, especially if they look different or have short barrel. 

- Bolt Cannon - Something like Mauler, but carried by Marines. 

- Frag Cannon - Another option, that could be mistaken for Bolt weapon. 

- Something new that none thought of so far. 

 

He said that on his channel (maybe his Discord too) they have started calling them cannon bolters. That is a lot different to the rumours calling them cannon bolter. You're creating a new rumour based on the wording someone made up for something they don't know about yet, not the rumours themselves. 

Edited February 11 by Toxichobbit

[BitsHammer]

Clearly they are canon cannon bolters. 

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Toxichobbit said:

cannon bolter

Hmm. With some localization that could be"bolter cannon" or "bolt cannon."

 

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

16 hours ago, Dr_Ruminahui said:

If they were "failures", its weird that they released (models wise) the exact same box twice.  I can't say that you are wrong, but the double release would suggest that either at least the first box (6th ed) was successful, and/or GW really didn't have a good idea of what its path forward was in 7th - which could be true, given the huge (for 40K) revamp of the plot line and space marine models that was 8th edition, and the similar (and even bigger) revamp of their fantasy line that was Age of Sigmar that occurred between the two (7th was 2014, AoS 2015 and 8th 2017).

You see, releasing the same bow twice, to me, is a sign of cost cutting - because you're not making enough money. Releasing the same box again is the cheapest option. An option you take because you're not confident in the sales.

 

Sure, at the time, I'm sure hardcore hobbyists loved Dark Vengeance, but it's well documentd the "boom" into major success GW saw after 8th and Dark Imperium.

[Orange Knight]

16 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

Dark vengeance was huge and people loved it.

 

7ths failure as an edition didn't happen until way later in its existence. It certainly wasn't the relatively awesome starting set.  I sold all the loyalist stuff but the CSM stuff sits proudly on my shelf. 

 

7th edition was extremely fun if you didn't run the formations or Eldar with D weapons lol

[Karhedron]

23 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

7th edition was extremely fun if you didn't run the formations or Eldar with D weapons lol

 

Or Invisible Deathstars.

 

The core mechanics of 7th may have been fine but there was so much broken stuff bolted on the top it stopped being fun to play. I dropped out of 40K for a couple of years and switched to X-wing until the start of 8th brought me back. 9th had a similar problem with wombo-combo stratagems. Fortunately 10th seems to have brought things back into line. The current detachment system with a limit of 6 strats and 4 enhancements seems to keep things in line.

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

This is basically what I'm talking about:

 

It's pretty clear where 8th edition comes in and 7th even dips below 6th.

[Lexington]

I’m not sure that’s a distinct record of Dark Vengeance being particularly less successful than what came before. GW was having other issues internally, and I think the choice to not release a distinct 7th Ed starter may have been related to that. There were also some pretty strong indicators that 7th wasn’t really planned as an edition shift the same way others were - it came only a little over two years after 6th, was mostly just 6th Ed with new Psyker and Flyer rules bolted on, and didn’t even launch with a box - Dark Vengeance was retroactively declared the 7th Ed starter some months later, I believe. Again, I think that was related to internal financial/organizational issues with the company, and not a direct reflection on the sales of 40K from edition to edition.

Edited February 12 by Lexington

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

26 minutes ago, Lexington said:

Again, I think that was related to internal financial/organizational issues with the company

This is the only point I'm trying to make and not that Dark Vengeance stayed two editions because it was so good

[HeadlessCross]

6 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

Or Invisible Deathstars.

 

The core mechanics of 7th may have been fine but there was so much broken stuff bolted on the top it stopped being fun to play. I dropped out of 40K for a couple of years and switched to X-wing until the start of 8th brought me back. 9th had a similar problem with wombo-combo stratagems. Fortunately 10th seems to have brought things back into line. The current detachment system with a limit of 6 strats and 4 enhancements seems to keep things in line.

SOME core mechanics worked. I think Formations could've worked in a limited sense, but the freedom they gave in list building even when not the best (near the end of 7th I ran an army based around the Chaos Terminator formation where you picked a specific target to shoot for free after Deep Striking and the Raptor one with Deep Strike + Charge and the reviving Cultist one) made for some crazy games you would be caught off guard sometimes even in a competitive setting. Outside Eldar crap and Battle Demi-Company I'd argue Formations weren't a problem.