New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[DuskRaider]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

10th edition has literally the loosest army creation rules ever! You need 1 Character to be your Warlord and that is it. Then pick 0-3 of as many units as you like and 0-6 Battleline. The Force Org charts of previous editions were far more restrictive.

Last I knew, we were limited to multiples of 5 (5, 10, 15, etc) for units. I may be wrong, I fully admit I checked out after 8 and what I saw from 10 didn’t fill me with hope or excitement. 

Edited March 26 by DuskRaider

[ZeroWolf]

39 minutes ago, DuskRaider said:

Last I knew, we were limited to multiples of 5 (5, 10, 15, etc) for units. I may be wrong, I fully admit I checked out after 8 and what I saw from 10 didn’t fill me with hope or excitement. 

Ah you mean miniatures in the units, and yeah they're often locked to multiples of whar you get in the box versus paying per model as pre-10th. 

[Mysterion]

I'm just pleased that I don't have to buy yet another Codex (yet) - As someone who doesn't have a huge amount of time to play, seeing this as a 10.5 kinda edition is good for me. I like the sound of the objective changes and really like that we can lean into army theme a bit more and tie that in with some more narrative. 

[Scribe]

More detachments, and you can combine or mix and match?

 

Exactly the wrong design GW, impressive.

[DuskRaider]

1 hour ago, ZeroWolf said:

Ah you mean miniatures in the units, and yeah they're often locked to multiples of whar you get in the box versus paying per model as pre-10th. 

Yep, that’s what I meant. Thank you for clarifying that, I was having a hard time articulating the idea. 
 

Unfortunately, GW has kind of just… abandoned conversion opportunities and varied options / unit sizes. The models themselves may look a bit better nowadays, but it’s a hassle trying to give them any variation and it’s kind of turned me off from it as someone who prioritizes the hobby and personalization aspect of the game. 

[ZeroWolf]

33 minutes ago, DuskRaider said:

Yep, that’s what I meant. Thank you for clarifying that, I was having a hard time articulating the idea. 
 

Unfortunately, GW has kind of just… abandoned conversion opportunities and varied options / unit sizes. The models themselves may look a bit better nowadays, but it’s a hassle trying to give them any variation and it’s kind of turned me off from it as someone who prioritizes the hobby and personalization aspect of the game. 

No problem, and I completely understand, it's something that's caused me a few issues from time to time when list building.

[Laurence]

4 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

This is not sounding good for guard

 

From initial info, hitting on 5s before orders, even 4s with orders vs cover isn't great

 

Then, cant shoot units in cover, unless you get really close or said unit has shot

 

Infact sounds like your being punished for shooting

 

 

Or encouraging the use of scouts/spotters - you can shoot is you have a unit close enough, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that unit?  That's the impression I got from the admittedly imprecise blurb.

[Emperor Ming]

3 hours ago, Scribe said:

More detachments, and you can combine or mix and match?

 

Exactly the wrong design GW, impressive.

Yeah, im super deflated by this, by the time they do all the faqs to make this work, its going to be Frankenstein's monster

 

The rulebook faq is already 40ish pages

 

and then we are gonna get the crazy broken interactions between being allowed to take more than one detachment

 

It will be more faqs than rules eventually

 

[ZeroWolf]

From the sounds of it the build a detachments will be one sentence at most, then you'll add a couple together to make one as big as current detachments. Also that 70 number will be split across everyone, and that's everyone who currently gets access to them. So it may not be that bad but, we'll see when GW drop a more dedicated look around it.

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, Emperor Ming said:

Yeah, im super deflated by this, by the time they do all the faqs to make this work, its going to be Frankenstein's monster

 

The rulebook faq is already 40ish pages

 

and then we are gonna get the crazy broken interactions between being allowed to take more than one detachment

 

It will be more faqs than rules eventually

 

 

Yeah, 10th was a public beta test, 11th (10.5?) is just going to be 1.5 years of regression testing.

 

Seems the Rules department is learning from their IT department.

[HeadlessCross]

5 hours ago, Scribe said:

More detachments, and you can combine or mix and match?

 

Exactly the wrong design GW, impressive.

Allies have hardly been a problem outside when certain units themselves were too good to begin with, and it's been rare for the "Build-A-Bear" army rules (like the vehicle wound count + Reroll a hit/wound) were better than the pre-set ones. 

 

You're overreacting. 

[Irate Khornate]

.....I have a strange feeling this is either going to wash out more flavor, or bring back 7th edition style shenanigans like dog-star.

[Karhedron]

10 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

Last I knew, we were limited to multiples of 5 (5, 10, 15, etc) for units. I may be wrong, I fully admit I checked out after 8 and what I saw from 10 didn’t fill me with hope or excitement. 

 

Yes, that is a good point. Locked unit sizes was annoying when introduced although I have largely gotten used to it. 

[Bouargh]

14 hours ago, Scribe said:

More detachments, and you can combine or mix and match?

 

Exactly the wrong design GW, impressive.

 

It is exactly what I think when I imagine the nightmare of fielding 2 detachments of the same faction and then getting to track down which unit belongs to which detachment...

Unless benefits stacks, which would in that case lead to: i) questionning the balance achieved and (partly) reconducted by codices (and dataslates?) and ii) questionning the need of adding a detachment layer vs. getting armyrules that worth it. 

This is something i did not catch in the annoucements. In fact this "multiple" detachments thing looks very blurrry for me atm...

[Frogian]

19 hours ago, Northern Walker said:

Merging of the game modes probably sounds the death knell

 

Why would that matter? Crusade is really something that happens off the table. Moving to one unified way to play the game in terms of objectives and rules doesn't really affect the army building aspect of crusade, and doesn't mean you can't have a series of scenarios aimed at having a campaign around. 

[ZeroWolf]

58 minutes ago, Bouargh said:

 

It is exactly what I think when I imagine the nightmare of fielding 2 detachments of the same faction and then getting to track down which unit belongs to which detachment...

Unless benefits stacks, which would in that case lead to: i) questionning the balance achieved and (partly) reconducted by codices (and dataslates?) and ii) questionning the need of adding a detachment layer vs. getting armyrules that worth it. 

This is something i did not catch in the annoucements. In fact this "multiple" detachments thing looks very blurrry for me atm...

Could be wrong but it sounds like the you can't mix and match current detachments, and the choose your own system will be based of a list where you just pick a few to apply to all models in your army. However, all we can do is speculate till either GW explain it better, or the rules leak.

[Jalleo]

My guess is the specific mix and match detachments have half the amount of the rules for the ones that can be mixed. Those ones are specifically designed to be combined together like the crucible character rules but hopefully more balanced unlike some of the edgecases you can do it in. e.g. deathguard 3rd option and tau battlesuit option.

 

Aka you can get battleline of multiple types of units (terminators and bikers were their example detachments mentioned) due to it but you get less good strategems. Considering the popularity of one space marine detachment this is probably their way to nerf that base one and make all the others better overall.

[Jings]

In regards to the Ork, are we sure that's not a new Nob? Would make more sense for the Nobz to have Shoota + Choppa loadout would it not? Not to mention they're looking pretty big and were part of the line up for the Ork side of the starter box. 

[Jalleo]

Yes its their new Boyz

Quote

Ork Boyz now have the best of both worlds, with every boy carrying a choppa, slugga, AND shoota into battle – all they need to rake Space Marine lines with a hail of bullets before charging in for a proper scrap.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/ctdexme4/warhammer-40000-the-new-edition-is-revealed-at-adepticon-preview-2026/

[01RTB01]

12 minutes ago, Jings said:

In regards to the Ork, are we sure that's not a new Nob? Would make more sense for the Nobz to have Shoota + Choppa loadout would it not? Not to mention they're looking pretty big and were part of the line up for the Ork side of the starter box. 

10000000% because they said on warcom and the live stream 

[Tawnis]

2 hours ago, Bouargh said:

 

It is exactly what I think when I imagine the nightmare of fielding 2 detachments of the same faction and then getting to track down which unit belongs to which detachment...

Unless benefits stacks, which would in that case lead to: i) questionning the balance achieved and (partly) reconducted by codices (and dataslates?) and ii) questionning the need of adding a detachment layer vs. getting armyrules that worth it. 

This is something i did not catch in the annoucements. In fact this "multiple" detachments thing looks very blurrry for me atm...

I didn't get to catch the whole steam either, but my first thoughts when I heard this was the old customizable "Detachments" that we used to have. For example, you could play White Scars and get their buff, or Blood Angels, ect, OR completely separate from those, you could pick two from a list to create your own custom one. I've really missed that as I loved mix and matching and messing around with different strategies. If I had to guess, I'd say that each will come with an army buff that is about half a strong as a current detachment's and 3 Stratagems so you can pair it with another. 

Some may even be similar to existing ones, like getting advance (but not fall back) and charge as one, like a weaker Stormlance, and +2 S on the charge (but not +1 A) like a weaker version on Angelic Inheritors and combine them together. That kind of thing. 

 

I don't think that it's been so long since the end of the issues in early 9th when people were souping so much together that it was hard to track it all that they've forgotten how much of a headache that was. 

Edited March 27 by Tawnis

[phandaal]

12 minutes ago, Tawnis said:

I didn't get to catch the whole steam either, but my first thoughts when I heard this was the old customizable "Detachments" that we used to have.

 

That is my first impression as well. Of course there will be some that everyone picks when they want to be a Munchkin, like how somehow the Iron Hands had 20,000 successors for a while. 

 

But overall those were pretty cool. It felt like it gave people the tools to build a lot of narrative creativity into their gameplay.

[Dark Shepherd]

Hopefully the new mini detachments will be not overpowered, vibe I got from FAQ articles was you cant combine mini detachments with big/existing detachments

 

My one regret with codexes carrying over is that means no purge of reroll abilities

[crimsondave]

Looking forward to the models, especially the Land Speeder.  The Orks look like I won't be able to resist them either.  Yet another army to add to the pile.  LOL.

 

I was hoping (knowing it was unrealistic) for eventually getting two completely different games for competitive and casual.  Now we don't even have different game modes.  Looks like another 3 years of collecting and painting is on my horizon.  Not trying to be a downer.  I've never been more into the hobby itself.  I just want the 2nd edition game back and it's just not something enough other people would support.  Oh well.  I have enough models to assemble and paint now to last most of 11th edition.  And that's before I mortgage the house on new Ravenwing.

[ThePenitentOne]

2 hours ago, Frogian said:

 

Why would that matter? Crusade is really something that happens off the table. Moving to one unified way to play the game in terms of objectives and rules doesn't really affect the army building aspect of crusade, and doesn't mean you can't have a series of scenarios aimed at having a campaign around. 

You might be right, and I hope you are. At this point, I'm not assuming Crusade's demise is a sure thing- I'm just trying to prepare myself for the possibility. BUT, Crusade actually DOES at least partially happen on the table.

 

Agendas are the first way Crusade affects game play- and to me, it's the thing that drives narrative in Crusade, because Agendas sometimes conflict with victory points/ conditions. This dynamic tension creates great storytelling opportunities- "We could have won the battle, but the Farseer said killing the enemy commander was more important to the survival of our Craftworld than territorial control... So we lost a battle to win a war." And you can see how an overhaul of mission structures might impact that dynamic tension, right?

 

The second way that Crusade impacts game play is the effect of experience on units. A Legendary unit is more powerful than a straight out of the dex unit, and that power can be manifested in several different ways- Two Legendary Terminator Librarians can be very different from each other (except where their psychic powers are concerned, because 10th ed psychic rules are dumb and all terminator Librarians MUST have the exact same psychic powers- a failure of design that is likely to be carried into 11th).

 

And to address comments made earlier, yes... It is confusing that GW has used the terms "Narrative play" and "Crusade" interchangeably for two editions, but to the best of my knowledge, the terms continue to be interchangeable. I didn't buy the launch box, the BRB or any campaign books besides Tyrannic War this edition, so I could be wrong... But in 9th for sure Narrative Play = Crusade.

 

None of which means you can't be right, and again, I really hope you are.

Edited March 27 by ThePenitentOne