More 11th Edition Boxset Rumours

[phandaal]

19 hours ago, Laurence said:

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

 

This is theoretically the way to solve it, although then the problem is that points listings would be crazy long. Then we have strategems, which are temporary buffs/debuffs handed out without regard to points, and items, which have a flat cost as opposed to a cost depending on which unit holds them.

 

The system could definitely be reworked to account for these things with points, but it would require a deep redo of how points are calculated. GW probably does not have the will to do that.

[HeadlessCross]

19 hours ago, Laurence said:

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

Which is already a bad idea considering it affects when you take a supposed inefficient unit, like wanting a Predator in a melee detachment. 

 

You just don't make super wild detachment rules (should Pantheon have made it through the idea board to begin with as is?) or write a unit so bad that it needs a detachment to function (here's looking at you, Wraithblades and Wraithguard!)

[Moonstalker]

Detachments could have a point cost themselves, scaling based on battle size.  I'm not certain that it's the way I would solve the deeper issues with the game, but it is a much simpler way to approach things than trying to have different units cost different points in each detachment.  Is a detachment strong?  It costs more.  Is it weak?  Well, maybe it's free.  It effectively taxes the buffed units without having to adjust things unit by unit.

[Mogger351]

17 minutes ago, Moonstalker said:

Detachments could have a point cost themselves, scaling based on battle size.  I'm not certain that it's the way I would solve the deeper issues with the game, but it is a much simpler way to approach things than trying to have different units cost different points in each detachment.  Is a detachment strong?  It costs more.  Is it weak?  Well, maybe it's free.  It effectively taxes the buffed units without having to adjust things unit by unit.

Honestly that's on shaky foundations. A detachment that enhances say daemon engines can't be pointed to have the same impact on a list that say sounds 500pts on them vs 1500pts of them.

[Mandragola]

The system is a bit of a mess. Detachments increase the power of some units, and therefore their value, but not their points. 
 

With digital rules it would be entirely possible for Gw to just upload variable points values. Units wouldn’t need costs for every detachment, just a base value and a buffed value. 
 

In effect this is what the C’tan detachment tries to do. You’re paying. To upgrade your shards. You just ought to be paying more in this case.  

[Crimson Longinus]

I wish detachments would not exist and units were just costed on their own merits. I dislike how certain units are just viable in their bespoke detachments, and in those you need to spam them and field little else. I like having balanced combined arms forces that have a little bit of everything. Like I want to have some repentias in a sisters army or some wraiths in an eldar army alongside with other units. 

[Orange Knight]

Detachments are ok, but they need to be a lot more limited and army construction needs to be applied to them as well. This is something Horus Heresy did well in 1.0 and 2.0

[Madao]

To be honest - I would love they get rid of detachments AND faction rules. Just keep datasheets interesting. In 10th most of the units have some special rules. Do we need any more special rules on top of the special rules? Then each datasheet could be priced individually, by the benefits it solely brings to the table

[Northern Walker]

Cards on the table, I have not really enjoyed the 10th ed rules. I have enjoyed playing games, because I exclusively play beerhammer with my friends so it's always a good time. But - I much preferred 8th edition of the "modern" iterations of the game, and also enjoyed 3rd/4th edition back in the day.

 

There's just something about the way they write rules at the moment that just doesn't tickle me the right way. CAAC-itis on my part maybe, but still.

 

At least the painting and modelling elements have been superb recently.

[SvenIronhand]

48 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

I wish detachments would not exist and units were just costed on their own merits. I dislike how certain units are just viable in their bespoke detachments, and in those you need to spam them and field little else. I like having balanced combined arms forces that have a little bit of everything. Like I want to have some repentias in a sisters army or some wraiths in an eldar army alongside with other units. 

Ok, but consider if somebody else wanted to play a Tank Company for their Imperial Guard, or a Iyanden Wraithhost for their Eldar, or a Siege Assault Vanguard for their SM. Are you just saying for them to get bent?

[DemonGSides]

10th was a much better version of 9th even if they try to claim it was a big rules change edition. It wasn't, most things worked similarly with a few changes on the organization level and not much else besides a few odds and ends things.

 

If 11th is more of the same but with a return to a more interesting force organization and ideally pointed wargear, we would be cooking. Not interested in going back to 9 million strategems that 9th had. Definitely not interested in the "We win with a death star" games of Warhammer prior to that. And REALLY don't want to go back to decurion "You get everything for free!" Style.  Don't want armor facings, I don't want templates, and I'd like them to figure out how to make battle shock/leadership be meaningful; I think 10ths has been the best iteration in the past decade, but it still feels mostly meh and framing entire armies around it's use while it still being kinda meh is not good.

Edited 1 minute ago by DemonGSides