More 11th Edition Boxset Rumours

[Karhedron]

9 minutes ago, irlLordy said:

Will be interesting to see if there is a new app with 11th, hopefully they'll change their ridiculous policies on codexes.

 

I agree. GW are trying to double-dip at the moment and it is annoying me. If I pay for a physical codex, then I should not have to pay for the App that uses the code. Either make the app free or include content with the App. Don't charge for codices AND the App. 

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

I agree. GW are trying to double-dip at the moment and it is annoying me. If I pay for a physical codex, then I should not have to pay for the App that uses the code. Either make the app free or include content with the App. Don't charge for codices AND the App. 

 

Yeah I don't hate the app by itself; with the updates that have come out over 10th I think it's quite usable as long as you can "speak it's language" for rules searches and stuff. And the command bunker is straight up choice (tho I can think of a few things I'd tweak there like making it able to distinguish between units with different loadouts and the like so I could just select individual units instead of just the datasheets).

 

But it's crazy I can't look up my opponents rules. If they wanted to lock army building behind having the codex, let us at least verify the datasheets. A truly asinine decision on their side. 

[LSM]

2 hours ago, irlLordy said:

...and apparently the new AoS battletomes are being shipped out without any shrinkwrap - which means anyone can use the code in the shop beforehand. Maybe a sign that they'll be moving away from them shortly? 

 

I think I saw that they're moving to "scratch off stuff" covering the code.

 

(Someone could still go into a store, open up the book, scratch off the covering, and take the code. But hopefully there'd be a system set up where a store can report a code "stolen" in such a manner, have that code deactivated, and be e-mailed a generated replacement for someone buying that physical book.)

[irlLordy]

That sounds like a lot of hassle for stores and customers to be honest. And it relies on stores being proactive and/or the customer checking before buying. It's going to be a bad experience for newcomers who only realise the code has been scratched off when they get back home.

[CastellanDeMolay]

At this point, digital rules should be 100% free, if not for the fact that data is effectively free to duplicate (bandwidth and electricity costs of doing so being trivial) and if they don't then others will and players will go to someone else's website to check the rules, training them to search for things outside of GW's ecosystem directly, and generating word-of-mouth for those competing sites indirectly. 

I think people would still pay for the books, because they're nice to have and they're a physical thing like the models. 

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

10 hours ago, CastellanDeMolay said:

At this point, digital rules should be 100% free, if not for the fact that data is effectively free to duplicate (bandwidth and electricity costs of doing so being trivial) and if they don't then others will and players will go to someone else's website to check the rules, training them to search for things outside of GW's ecosystem directly, and generating word-of-mouth for those competing sites indirectly. 

I think people would still pay for the books, because they're nice to have and they're a physical thing like the models. 

I'm not sure if it was this thread or somehwhere else that I saw a really good point. GW should have data that shows what happens to model sales when their rules are free. I would expect the sales go up, as there isn't a literal paywall to using them. If GW have come to the same conclusion, then we might actually see free rules. Another minor point to make on the matter is that it seems books are GW biggest headache as they don't produce them themselves. If they took all the rules out of codecies and made them once an edition lore tome that keeps you up to date with what your faction has been doing that edition I think everyone would be happier. 

[Antarius]

18 hours ago, irlLordy said:

That sounds like a lot of hassle for stores and customers to be honest. And it relies on stores being proactive and/or the customer checking before buying. It's going to be a bad experience for newcomers who only realise the code has been scratched off when they get back home.

I don't think it's going to be a widespread problem, to be honest.

Sure, you can do it, but going into a store, opening the book, scratching off the stuff covering the code and copying the code without being noticed isn't a lot easier than just straight up stealing the book. Or, under the current system, removing the foil and copying the code.
Depends on how big the store is, where they keep the codexes and how much staff they have, of course, but in the GWs I have been to, I wouldn't fancy my chances.

Come to think of it, if you really wanted to steal, it'd probably be a lot easier to buy the book and just steal something else of equal or greater value.

Also, and this is speculation, but I think it holds up, most people who wouldn't think twice about downloading a book, wouldn't go into a store, scratch the code and copy it, simply because it is very obviously stealing.

Edited Friday at 10:45 AM by Antarius

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

I personally would hate digital only rules. I like using books. I hate that AoS battletomes don't come with points. 

 

I love Warhammer because it's a (predominantly) physical hobby and it allows me to get away from my device. 

 

 

[jaxom]

31 minutes ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

I personally would hate digital only rules. I like using books. I hate that AoS battletomes don't come with points. 

 

I love Warhammer because it's a (predominantly) physical hobby and it allows me to get away from my device. 

 

What I'd like for physical rules is something like a unit card binder which comes with a page/card for the Faction rules, each unit, and each detachment. One could rearrange them so the rules used most often are in the front, one could slap a sticky note with current point cost on each, etc. Then, if there is a non-points update, GW offers a downloadable print out in the right format to replace the page/card in the binder.

 

One could probably do this now with a bit of elbow grease, but I'm lazy 

[Silvereyes]

On 3/19/2026 at 1:33 AM, Scribe said:

 

Has there ever been such a thing?

 

On 3/19/2026 at 1:49 AM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I don’t know when each was released, but the 40K app and warhammer tv?

 

On 3/19/2026 at 8:38 AM, ZeroWolf said:

I assumed they meant like Terminators were the draw for Leviathan 

 

On 3/19/2026 at 8:46 AM, SvenIronhand said:

Think it's a turn of phrase, in which case 10th's 'simplified but not simple' comes to mind.

 

I've only been in the hobby for just over 3 years, so only know about the arrival of 10th. So, I don't know how stuff like older editions were marketed at the time. For 10th, part of it was the launch box, new Terminators, new Tyranids, and the story thread of Hive Fleet Leviathan. For the actual rules changes, it was stuff like the reveal of the datacard designs, detachments, and the marketing tag line of "simplified but not simple".

 

So I guess I'm curious what 11th will do exactly. Partly because I've never seen 40K change editions without being a total rule reboot. 10th edition codices are pretty bare bones in terms of rules outside of the Crusade stuff, so I'd rather be hoping we see 11th add some stuff, like actually incorporating the Crucible of Champions stuff and making that a standard feature of 11th edition codices. And I suppose I'm curious what the big narrative thrust of the launch box will be. I know in-universe Orks are considered a true menace and a true threat to the Imperium, but out of universe, I'm not sure if they can the same threat that the Tyranids, Necrons, Chaos etc did.

 

Still, not long to go now until we find out. I just want more army composition options. Either something to replace detachments, or a detachment system that allows some more flexibility. My issue with detachments is that it feels like I'm just being offered a few ways of being pigeon holed in my army. Hopefully the new models with please the Space Marine and Ork players.

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

On 3/19/2026 at 7:00 PM, Karhedron said:

 

I agree. GW are trying to double-dip at the moment and it is annoying me. If I pay for a physical codex, then I should not have to pay for the App that uses the code. Either make the app free or include content with the App. Don't charge for codices AND the App. 

Or better yet, both. You should get the digital content free if you own the codex, and be able to get the digital content for a small sum of money if you don’t want to buy the physical product. As it stands, being able to use the app as intended, it’s behind a double paywall.

 

Edit: also the constant, three monthly rules updates suck, speaking as a casual gamer who only gets to play occasionally.

Edited Monday at 12:41 PM by FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants

[Emperor Ming]

34 minutes ago, FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants said:

Or better yet, both. You should get the digital content free if you own the codex, and be able to get the digital content for a small sum of money if you don’t want to buy the physical product. As it stands, being able to use the app as intended, it’s behind a double paywall.

 

Edit: also the constant, three monthly rules updates suck, speaking as a casual gamer who only gets to play occasionally.

and the 3 month thing doesn't even sort balance out anymore.....they just feel too minimal, none impactful. 

 

Necrons after how many? balance passes still dominate....

 

Maybe, every 6 months, more targeted larger changes would be better

Edited Monday at 01:13 PM by Emperor Ming

[Karhedron]

GW applied big patches earlier in the edition and realised that they were over-correcting, that is why the points changes sometimes seem a tad conservative.

 

Necrons are strong but the killer build at the moment is the Pantheon of Woe which powers up C'tan just a bit too much. The problem then becomes that it is hard to properly balance them since if you increase the price, they will not be viable outside that Detachment.

 

This is not the only detachment GW have produced that exhibits this problem.

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, Emperor Ming said:

and the 3 month thing doesn't even sort balance out anymore.....they just feel too minimal, none impactful. 

 

Necrons after how many? balance passes still dominate....

 

Maybe, every 6 months, more targeted larger changes would be better

Necrons have had 2 passes in a 3 month window. It's end of the edition 'see what sticks' and we're in the final balance state now.

 

People would hate being stuck on 6 monthly big swings. The same way people would hate them releasing all the books at once.

 

It creates bigger uglier messes they're they're then spending 6-12 months minimum to fix.

[Crimson Longinus]

3 hours ago, Karhedron said:

GW applied big patches earlier in the edition and realised that they were over-correcting, that is why the points changes sometimes seem a tad conservative.

 

Necrons are strong but the killer build at the moment is the Pantheon of Woe which powers up C'tan just a bit too much. The problem then becomes that it is hard to properly balance them since if you increase the price, they will not be viable outside that Detachment.

 

This is not the only detachment GW have produced that exhibits this problem.

I mean, this is why all sort of subfaction rules and similar are a bad idea if you want balance. You cannot assign a proper point value to a unit if it performs differently depending on the detachment it is in. 

[Laurence]

1 hour ago, Crimson Longinus said:

I mean, this is why all sort of subfaction rules and similar are a bad idea if you want balance. You cannot assign a proper point value to a unit if it performs differently depending on the detachment it is in. 

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

Edited Monday at 06:34 PM by Laurence

[Mogger351]

3 hours ago, Laurence said:

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

How many detachments are there now?

[Laurence]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

How many detachments are there now?

Too many.  Some exist solely to buff small subsections of a faction - see the GSC one dedicated to Aberrants, for example - and I find it hard to justify making so many rather than just make the individual units worth including without those buffs.

[Silvereyes]

My big prediction for 11th is them either overhauling the detachment system, or just binning it entirely. Partly because there are already so many, and that would mean 11th adding a ton more, which I don't think is a great selling point for the 11th edition codecies when you can only ever use 1 at a time. Either that or when an 11th edition codex arrives, all 10th detachments are deleted for new ones, which seems a bit sore. Easier to justify that if you're using a new system rather than just the same system.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 3/21/2026 at 4:09 PM, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

I personally would hate digital only rules. I like using books. I hate that AoS battletomes don't come with points. 

 

I love Warhammer because it's a (predominantly) physical hobby and it allows me to get away from my device. 

 

 

It can be a hybrid system.

[Mogger351]

6 hours ago, Silvereyes said:

My big prediction for 11th is them either overhauling the detachment system, or just binning it entirely. Partly because there are already so many, and that would mean 11th adding a ton more, which I don't think is a great selling point for the 11th edition codecies when you can only ever use 1 at a time. Either that or when an 11th edition codex arrives, all 10th detachments are deleted for new ones, which seems a bit sore. Easier to justify that if you're using a new system rather than just the same system.

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).

[Mandragola]

The pattern for 10th has to be to have X+1 detachments for every faction, of which one or two are actually used because they’re the good ones. The problem for cutting that down is that GW doesn’t know which ones are good so it doesn’t know what to cut. 
 

11th may not require new codexes for everything anyway. It might be a tidy up edition like 9th. 
 

For me personally the thing I’d like to de changed is terrain and the board, especially for events. Compared to other games, I think 40K just looks kind of bad. Big armies crammed onto a small board covered in massive Ls, which are very often unpainted or some kind of collapsible pre-printed thing.

 

i was at a tournament a few weeks ago playing kill team. For that, players had brought painted terrain - which is feasible when you have a small board. That looked pretty good. There were people near us playing TOW and the ranked up armies (plus multiple hot air balloons for some reason) looked great, even though the models in many of them were old.
 

40K just looked a bit of a mess to be honest. the requirement for massive amounts of terrain is a big problem for organisers. It would be insanely expensive to use GWs stuff. It would take ages to build and paint and you’d need a warehouse to store it all. So instead organisers cut corners and you get terrain reduced to elements.
 

I think it takes away from the hobby side to spend all that time getting your army ready only to have it battle over a pile of flat pack cardboard or MDF. Luckily there are loads of other games where that’s not the case. 

[ZeroWolf]

1 hour 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).

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...

[redmapa]

13 minutes 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...

 

Not necessarily, it'd be simple to address detachments with an errata that replaces every detachment for every army with whatever new system they come up with. Now I doubt detachments are going away in 11th.

[Mogger351]

30 minutes ago, Mandragola said:

The pattern for 10th has to be to have X+1 detachments for every faction, of which one or two are actually used because they’re the good ones. The problem for cutting that down is that GW doesn’t know which ones are good so it doesn’t know what to cut. 
 

11th may not require new codexes for everything anyway. It might be a tidy up edition like 9th. 
 

For me personally the thing I’d like to de changed is terrain and the board, especially for events. Compared to other games, I think 40K just looks kind of bad. Big armies crammed onto a small board covered in massive Ls, which are very often unpainted or some kind of collapsible pre-printed thing.

 

i was at a tournament a few weeks ago playing kill team. For that, players had brought painted terrain - which is feasible when you have a small board. That looked pretty good. There were people near us playing TOW and the ranked up armies (plus multiple hot air balloons for some reason) looked great, even though the models in many of them were old.
 

40K just looked a bit of a mess to be honest. the requirement for massive amounts of terrain is a big problem for organisers. It would be insanely expensive to use GWs stuff. It would take ages to build and paint and you’d need a warehouse to store it all. So instead organisers cut corners and you get terrain reduced to elements.
 

I think it takes away from the hobby side to spend all that time getting your army ready only to have it battle over a pile of flat pack cardboard or MDF. Luckily there are loads of other games where that’s not the case. 

Big agree, even from a casual perspective the over value of ruins in obvious shapes and the cramming of too much onto the board feels bad.