New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[Tymell]

Quote

This new system gives you greater flexibility

 

I can't deny, as someone who enjoys force organisation charts and other such restrictions because they force me to think and plan army composition, this is how I feel whenever I read about one of GW's games becoming "more open than ever, letting you build armies however you want!":

 

 

(note: I haven't actually read in detail and don't have real opinions on the new system yet, this is just a joke that comes to mind whenever they shift away from existing restrictions on army building)

Edited Thursday at 03:58 PM by Tymell

[Indy Techwisp]

So we can probably expect a "final errata" for the 10th Ed Detachments when the 11th edition ones drop to give them Detachment point costs and/or throw Upgrade onto some Enhancements (looking squarely at the Assassins, Ctan and Corsairs Detachments here).

 

I think a lot of our current ones will end up being 2 or 3 detachment points with some slightly narrowed scope variants in the 70 new ones for if a popular Archetype got set to 3 Detachment points so it's somewhat usable in 1000pt games.

 

Also Re: Leader/Support characters.

If they give the TSons Regular Sorc Support rather than Leader we can finally have Thrall Wizards back as a mechanic which would be nice.

 

Edit: Also nothing in here deconfirms my suspicion that all 4 Cult Marine factions are probably getting a mini Detachment that pretty much just unlocks Daemon souping.

In fact, a 1 cost Detachment to soup in X many of another Faction seems like something we could see a few factions get. Knights mini-detachment to soup in some Admech, Chaos Knights to soup in some Damned from CSM or Daemons, GSC souping in Guard or Tyranids, Tyranids souping in GSC etc.

Would certainly let GW control the amount of soup nonsense possible while making the souping worth doing mechanically (since the mini-detachment would probably have a little support built in).

Edited Thursday at 04:16 PM by Indy Techwisp

[Lord Marshal]

It certainly sounds interesting, but as always the devil will be in how internally balanced the Detachments end up being.

 

The lack of granularity with Detachment Points also makes me nervous you'll end up with some which are fantastic at 2 points, then get nudged to 3 and become practically worthless; wonder if it wouldn't have been better to actually tie them into army building points like Enhancements and AoS Manifestations do - but I guess it's probably too early to judge that.

 

Edited Thursday at 04:27 PM by Lord Marshal

[Brother Anderson]

1 hour ago, Kaiju Soze said:

 

• Detachments have Force Dispositions.  You compare your Disposition to your opponents to determine your mission.

 

I like this a lot, it's similar to the old flames of war system where your company type decides who's attacker and defender. Makes sense for a guard armoured company to attack whereas an infantry force might more commonly be defending.

[Chapter Master Valrak]

I just want terrain destruction...hide inside that building coward, I will bring it down on you. 

[Indy Techwisp]

4 minutes ago, Chapter Master Valrak said:

I just want terrain destruction...hide inside that building coward, I will bring it down on you. 

 

Probably unlikely since the Building now is also the actual objective.

 

Non-objective terrain destruction would work tho. Probably. 

[Lord Marshal]

9 minutes ago, Chapter Master Valrak said:

I just want terrain destruction...hide inside that building coward, I will bring it down on you. 

 

That's very Iron Warriors of you  

 

;^)

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Kaiju Soze said:

Preview of the Army Building and Detachment rules.

• Players get a number of Detachment Points to buy detachments with.
• Max number of units and enhancements based on game size.
• Some enhancements can be given to units.
• Characters are split into Leader and Support roles.  Leaders can run solo, Supports must be attached to units.
• Detachments have Force Dispositions.  You compare your Disposition to your opponents to determine your mission.

Where are you reading Leaders can be ran solo? 

 

I'm happy about that prospect though. The character rules in 8th/9th buffing multiple units made actual sense. 

[Commander Dawnstar]

It's in the footnote:

 

Leaders can run around on their own if they like, but Support units must be attached to a bodyguard. Important distinction.

[Mogger351]

15 minutes ago, Chapter Master Valrak said:

I just want terrain destruction...hide inside that building coward, I will bring it down on you. 

Sounding a little iron warrior-y there.

[Orange Knight]

What they revealed today sounds really great to me.

 

We need to see more specifics but overall it's a big improvement on the current system.

[DemonGSides]

37 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Where are you reading Leaders can be ran solo? 

 

I'm happy about that prospect though. The character rules in 8th/9th buffing multiple units made actual sense. 

 

Well they aren't gonna be doing that. They'll just be allowed to not attach.  Buffing characters will be relegated to the support role, is my assumption. 

 

I just want terrain rules. Idc about much of any of this stuff, I just want to know how much complaining we can expect about line of sight and the new lone op for everyone type stuff. 

[Mogger351]

23 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

What they revealed today sounds really great to me.

 

We need to see more specifics but overall it's a big improvement on the current system.

I remain fence sitting as it opens a lot of space for things to go awry.

[Indy Techwisp]

44 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Where are you reading Leaders can be ran solo? 

 

I'm happy about that prospect though. The character rules in 8th/9th buffing multiple units made actual sense. 

 

From what we know so far:

There are 2 kinds of characters that lead units: Leaders and Supports. A unit can have one of each attached.

 

Leader Characters can be deployed alone to run around as a single mini but Support characters cannot (think how the Admech Datasmith dies instantly if he starts the game not leading his Robots).

 

Characters that are Leading units and then get kicked out of the squad (by it dying presumably) retain any effects they got because they were leading a unit.

 

So no, a Space Marine Captain who is deployed alone doesn't suddenly have an "Aura of Leading units" like 8th/9th (or AoS), but they are able to *be* deployed alone to roam around and merk stuff Smash Captain style.

[Osteoclast]

1 hour ago, Chapter Master Valrak said:

I just want terrain destruction...hide inside that building coward, I will bring it down on you. 

Would be a a fun special rule for Deathstrike missile or sabotage type missions; “replace this terrain feature with ruins or a crater, no longer LOS blocking, etc.” Certainly would add some fun narrative and strategy to those burn the objective missions. 

[Marshal Loss]

Feels like it's going to be tricky for them to balance so many detachments effectively when there are only 3 points total to balance with, but we'll see what things look like at release. 

 

Hopefully there's a Noise Marine detachment for EC this time around...

[SalamandersBro]

This new way of building armies actually intrigues me. Ilove the army building in Heresy 3.0 and this brings me those vibes. I currently don't like the 10th edition army building. 

[Lathe Biosas]

I wonder if this will allow for Allied Detachments. Detachments that reward your for taking that Imperial Knight or Assassin. 

[andes]

I imagine I'll get curbstomped for saying this, but I'll gladly trade away some balance for flavor and variety. Not in the face! Not in the face!

[Rogue]

This feels very similar to the custom Cults (or whatever it was called elsewhere) in 9th (probably) - where you could opt out of the existing sets of faction bonuses and build your own from a list. You could go wide with four cheap options, or lean into a couple of stronger ones. I really liked it - it was the point in the last three editions when my army felt most like 'my guys'. So I'm hopeful that this might be similar.

[Crimson Longinus]

I hoped that proper allies would be back, but apparently not... 

[Nephaston]

I like what I see; this also enables me to expand into Chaos Cult to run a dependable core of Damned Units without them just being fodder in other detachments.

[Lathe Biosas]

As long as the new edition allows me to field 32 loyal guardsmen in my army. 

[ursvamp]

13 hours ago, andes said:

but I'll gladly trade away some balance for flavor and variety.

not sure why you would put flavor and variety in opposition to balance, here?

 

the new detachment system shows pretty well how good internal balance allows for more variety, and in this case is being used to allow more flavorful lists.

 

for instance; when making an Ork-list the ”War Horde” detachment gives your whole army a good buff, and some strong stratagems to boot. While ”Kult of Speed” only gives a buff to some specific units. So unless you go all out on Speed Freak-units you won’t get as much out of it (and for most armies you’ll want/need some units outside of that narrow focus, in order to have a working list). And sometimes you could even be better off going for ”War Horde”, even with a Speed Freak-focused list, since WH is just so strong.

 

now there’ll be more incentive to use the more flavorful detachments, and more options to experiment around with different units and detachment combos. Which could see an increase in variety in list-building.

but all that is relyant on the internal balance being good, of course.

[ThaneOfTas]

11 minutes ago, ursvamp said:

not sure why you would put flavor and variety in opposition to balance, here?

Because the units and weapons have been made less flavourful and more homogeneous in the name of balance.