New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

It just all feels a bit... bland.

I'm of two minds with Combi-Weapons, because they've always been used in proliferation for alpha strikes and ultimately makes a unit harder to balance. The real bad part of Sternguard is just having no Heavy Weapons outside two. I'd literally trade their only special rule just so I can use Multi-Meltas on them again, but that's a different topic. 

 

On the other hand, it makes range combat for most HQs lame. My "Chapter Master" I made for my homebrew dudes has a Flamer, and because of how rules worked before (whether it be Burning Brand if I use the CSM codex in 6th or the Combi-Flamer relic in the Black Templars supplement in 9th) I always made sure he had a dangerous one. Now he's relegated to always being a Special Character stand-in (not that I FULLY mind since Huron and Vulkan have always had neat rules) but it restricts what army I make since I try and take him. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

Not sure where everyone is getting this Chapters won't sacrifice Veterans fluff from.

There's 30 plus years of lore about it, right back to the RTB, literally tonnes of it. This is not opinion, this is established and repeated lore.

Space Hulk anyone? Basically everyone in HH stories? Even the new WH+ videos repeat the hero's journey trope. It's the core to so many stories it's just what Marines do. Line troops have to earn that honor. 

And when the best of the best do go into these dire situations, they should go armed as best they can. Want them to survive? Make Combis Great Again.

 

Look at elite Deathwatch teams, they've recognized that standard Bolters aren't enough for small units on precarious missions, so they get personalized weapons  and/or ammo upgrades, Combis fit that exact same mindset.

 

The current Combi rules are bland, gutless, and honestly embarrassing for Vets stature. They should punch above their weight, that's how they have a chance at survival. 

[Indy Techwisp]

Current combiweapon rules are quite boring.

So far nothing indicates 11th will change that.

 

So... why are we discussing it here?

[Mogger351]

53 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Look at elite Deathwatch teams, they've recognized that standard Bolters aren't enough for small units on precarious missions, so they get personalized weapons  and/or ammo upgrades, Combis fit that exact same mindset.

 

The current Combi rules are bland, gutless, and honestly embarrassing for Vets stature. They should punch above their weight, that's how they have a chance at survival. 

 

 

How on earth did you manage to spell out a perfectly valid solution and circle right back round to "I want them to shoot melta/plasma" again?

[Mogger351]

57 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

Current combiweapon rules are quite boring.

So far nothing indicates 11th will change that.

 

So... why are we discussing it here?

Again, it's an expression of 10th vs what people want and the design ethics behind 40k.

 

I'm seeing it as a microcosm of the wider topic issue, rather than an explicit "make gun go boom" discussion.

 

If anyone wants to kibosh the topic then I'll rephrase it into:

 

Does anyone think GW will diversify weapon profiles for some units to prevent issue with locked loadouts and proxy stat lines, or is the current method for handling these situations sufficient?

Edited Monday at 04:20 PM by Mogger351

[DuskRaider]

2 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

I'm of two minds with Combi-Weapons, because they've always been used in proliferation for alpha strikes and ultimately makes a unit harder to balance. The real bad part of Sternguard is just having no Heavy Weapons outside two. I'd literally trade their only special rule just so I can use Multi-Meltas on them again, but that's a different topic. 

 

On the other hand, it makes range combat for most HQs lame. My "Chapter Master" I made for my homebrew dudes has a Flamer, and because of how rules worked before (whether it be Burning Brand if I use the CSM codex in 6th or the Combi-Flamer relic in the Black Templars supplement in 9th) I always made sure he had a dangerous one. Now he's relegated to always being a Special Character stand-in (not that I FULLY mind since Huron and Vulkan have always had neat rules) but it restricts what army I make since I try and take him. 

So in other words GW has done away with variety and customization in exchange for balance… therein lies the problem. Holding balance above all else is the biggest issue and I don’t believe it should be the primary concern. Having some imbalance is perfectly fine, the biggest issue with GW has always been how horribly they have allowed it to get at times and their extreme response to correct it. 
 

Some factions should struggle against others, be it lore wise or the specialization of a given army and / or composition. This obsession with balance and constantly changing rules is, again, fallout from their decision to focus on competitive play and the tournament scene. It’s become painfully obvious and it has driven many folks from the hobby. 

[Moonstalker]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

Again, it's an expression of 10th vs what people want and the design ethics behind 40k.

 

I'm seeing it as a microcosm of the wider topic issue, rather than an explicit "make gun go boom" discussion.

 

If anyone wants to kibosh the topic then I'll rephrase it into:

 

Does anyone think GW will diversify weapon profiles for some units to prevent issue with locked loadouts and proxy stat lines, or is the current method for handling these situations sufficient?

 

My personal feelings is that a lot of these discussions belong in Amicus or something; this is the news and rumors board.  We could make a new thread here for each new WarCom article as they drip-feed stuff to us for the next month, but I think keeping it all to one thread is ideal, and this thread seemed to be it (at least until someone made a new thread with the Vanguard Vet - which is going oh-so-well already).  One stop shopping for the latest, particularly if anyone is able to score some leaked photos of the new models or rules before GW puts them out.

 

There's already topics elsewhere on the B&C for talking about what we want to see for 11th, or the current problems with 10th.  Hashing it out here just makes the signal-to-noise ratio of the thread worse.  I can't speak for everyone, but I'm here for news about 11th, not arguments over what they did to combiweapons, slanted ears on helmets, rims on kneepads, the imminent-for-the-last-10-years squatting of firstborn, or just how many pieces of flair this veteran has to have on his armor for him to look like a veteran.

[Mogger351]

33 minutes ago, Moonstalker said:

 

My personal feelings is that a lot of these discussions belong in Amicus or something; this is the news and rumors board.  We could make a new thread here for each new WarCom article as they drip-feed stuff to us for the next month, but I think keeping it all to one thread is ideal, and this thread seemed to be it (at least until someone made a new thread with the Vanguard Vet - which is going oh-so-well already).  One stop shopping for the latest, particularly if anyone is able to score some leaked photos of the new models or rules before GW puts them out.

 

There's already topics elsewhere on the B&C for talking about what we want to see for 11th, or the current problems with 10th.  Hashing it out here just makes the signal-to-noise ratio of the thread worse.  I can't speak for everyone, but I'm here for news about 11th, not arguments over what they did to combiweapons, slanted ears on helmets, rims on kneepads, the imminent-for-the-last-10-years squatting of firstborn, or just how many pieces of flair this veteran has to have on his armor for him to look like a veteran.

So unless there's specifically a leak somewhere you might as well simply stick to WarCom in that case?

[Moonstalker]

8 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

So unless there's specifically a leak somewhere you might as well simply stick to WarCom in that case?

 

Discussion about the news is good.  People can see things in the article that I missed, they may have context I don't, etc.  They could have insights about GW's very vague meanderings, bringing experience I don't have to why a change may be good or bad.  But at some point it all gets way too off in the weeds and starts to retread the same death spiral of new vs old.

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Has there been any rumours or indication as to the amount of miniatures that will be in the box? 

 

I'm just wondering if - even before certain geopolitical events happened - GW will hit us with more shrinkflation?

Edited Monday at 07:13 PM by The Praetorian of Inwit

[Moonstalker]

10 minutes ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

Has there been any rumours or indication as to the amount of miniatures that will be in the box? 

 

I'm just wondering if - even before certain geopolitical events happened - GW will hit us with more shrinkflation?

 

Auspex Tactics put out a video yesterday that summarized most of what we know/is rumored for the box contents, along with speculation of box price.  The TLDR (he really does talk a whole lot, I usually just pause the video and read the slides) on that is:
 

Marine Half:

Captain with Sword + Board

Jump Chaplain

Ancient

Librarian with Staff

10 Intercessors

5 Vanguard Vets

Land Speeder (multimelta + assault cannon + underwing missiles?)

3 man Gravis Heavy Weapon Squad with Heavy-er Bolters

 

Ork Half:

Warboss

Painboy

Weirdboy

Waaagh Banner

20(?) Boyz

20(?) Grotz

Mek Gun Walker

Wartrakk

 

Plus rulebook, cards, etc.  If priced around $275, it would be close to the 70% discount other launch boxes have had.

Edited Monday at 07:24 PM by Moonstalker

[Mogger351]

1 minute ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

Has there been any rumours or indication as to the amount of miniatures that will be in the box? 

 

I'm just wondering if - even before certain geopolitical events happened - GW will hit us with more shrinkflation?

4 ork characters

20 boyz

10 grots

Wartrakk

Gun walker

 

4 marine characters

10 intercessors

5 van vets

3 bolt-eradicators

Landspeeder

[Mr. Oddity]

I'm going to take the chance to circle back the the allies discussion from a few pages back. Setting aside the WarCom article stating that armies will be mono-faction, the detachment point system feels like it would be the perfect basis for a limited amount of mixing. If not at launch, I could see it rolled out as a mid-edition "Incoming Reinforcements" update.

 

1 detachment point could get you a specific reinforcement force with a limited version of their army rule and restrictions on unit types to avoid too much cheese. Call it 1 leader, 1-3 battleline, 0-1 vehicle/monster/everything else depending on the available roster per army. Keep it capped at 25% of the point cost for the whole army and I could see it being a thematic, non-broken way to have some Marines fight alongside your Guard, let Knights have Ad Mech support, have a chaos warband summon daemons, or have Deimurg/Votann fight alongside a T'au Hunter cadre. Keep it limited to super faction keywords to avoid earlier edition jank and I think it could be kept under control. Just my thoughts on it though, we'll have to see what happens

[Tastyfish]

Far as Detachment points go, I really don't see them breaking that far from the "one page of rules" mindset, and that all the current detachments are 3 DP as a blanket effect.

1 DP gets you rules, 1 enhancement and 2 strats, 2DP gets you 2 enhancements and 4 strats, 3DP gets the current 4 relics and 6 strats.

A 3x1DP force returning us to the world of 18 strats spread across the army doesnt feel right.

 

70 Detachments over 24 factions is about three each, which would probably be two 1DP and one 2DP faction. So one incursion level one with two 'sideboard' level add ons (which could also be combined for and incursion game).

 

Strictly speaking that would be 72 detachments, but I think we'll see daemons take four of the combined fourteen (2x7) 1DP chaos slots to replace the current ally rules and perhaps Knights to do the same as that would reintroduce the concept of Freeblades back into those armies. I think the maths works out with the cult armies other 1 DP force also being the allying kind (and just buffing plague/noise/rubric marines or berserkers).

 

Edited Monday at 11:53 PM by Tastyfish

[Interrogator Stobz]

12 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

 

 

How on earth did you manage to spell out a perfectly valid solution and circle right back round to "I want them to shoot melta/plasma" again?

Um, maybe because special ammo is the Deathwatch thing, for decades. What a strange angle to take from my comment.

Feel free to ask Games Workshop to add it to Standard Chapter Veterans and Sergeants instead of Combis. Good luck with that, but I'd love it, I have plenty of Bolters in my bits box to replace my Combis.

 

But without that nonsense, Veterans currently do have Combis, not special ammo, and they're rubbish.

And from a modeling pov they're even worse, a Combi-Flamer works the same as a Combi-Plasma, which works like a Combi-Melta. It's a jarring stupidity. The lack of variety for them on datasheets is awful decision from Games Workshop.

 

Now, will upcoming 11th Codexes fix them? Or will they replace them with just Bolters with better ammo as you seem to think could be a solution. 

Now, they could solve it with a Strat or something in a Detachment, but that is the lazy card game option many of us don't like. No thanks. 

 

 

[Cryptix]

52 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Um, maybe because special ammo is the Deathwatch thing, for decades. What a strange angle to take from my comment.

Feel free to ask Games Workshop to add it to Standard Chapter Veterans and Sergeants instead of Combis.

...while true the deathwatch had it first, sternguard veterans have had access to special issue ammo every edition since the veteran squad was split in 5th edition . Even post 8th when they removed the variable ammo types from sternguard, it's been represented as a more lethal boltgun. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

That's fair for recent codexes as you say. But the special bolters/ammo aren’t nor weren't anywhere near as good as Combis were, or should be. Not even close. We always chose Combis over special issue bolters.

Losing the flexibility of proper old school Combis is a huge nerf to the Literal Elite of the Elite.

 

Edit, but hey, all this is just our opinions, and im sure we can agree do disagree on what Vets should have and whethor not they could be fixed.

 

So, I'll bow out to no longer drag this topic along this tangent. Others may need to have their last word, that's cool, their opinions matter too.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 06:37 AM by Interrogator Stobz

[Mogger351]

Auspex did a video detailing a "event orgnaiser" conference GW hosted detailing the terrain. I'll ahort form summary as best I can:

 

- 16 footprints (I assume 2x8) will be used in all deployment cards

- They want all events using their footprints and layouts

- Any events using other layouts or terrain rules may not be included for balance data

- One footprints was noted as a 10"x2" strip and LoS blocking

- Details to be shared this week

- GW will (of course) be selling footprints packs, but expect 3rd party equivalents to pop up

- In terms of objectives it is the same, toe in/on the footprints for control

 

Other interesting tidbits:

- List sharing doesn't need a subscription in the app

- All armies will have access to all dispositions in some format

- Small detachments are just a rules bundle and do not restrict army building

[Orange Knight]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

Auspex did a video detailing a "event orgnaiser" conference GW hosted detailing the terrain. I'll ahort form summary as best I can:

 

- 16 footprints (I assume 2x8) will be used in all deployment cards

- They want all events using their footprints and layouts

- Any events using other layouts or terrain rules may not be included for balance data

- One footprints was noted as a 10"x2" strip and LoS blocking

- Details to be shared this week

- GW will (of course) be selling footprints packs, but expect 3rd party equivalents to pop up

- In terms of objectives it is the same, toe in/on the footprints for control

 

Other interesting tidbits:

- List sharing doesn't need a subscription in the app

- All armies will have access to all dispositions in some format

- Small detachments are just a rules bundle and do not restrict army building

 

All that sounds awful to me. Just making it more and more into a video game.

Regular terrain, pre-measured games, everything known in advance. This is the death of actual narrative and chance.

[Crimson Longinus]

 

For several editions the bases of the terrain have been really important, and they are now even more so. Yet the terrain does not come with bases. This is annoying. They'll now probably sell the terrain base cards they showed, but I really would want the terrain to have textured plastic bases that match their style. 

 

And GW promoting the use of their terrain layouts is probably good. I hated the WTC ones in which every bloody building was in slightly different angle like the city planner had been seriously drunk. 

[Lord Marshal]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

 

All that sounds awful to me. Just making it more and more into a video game.

Regular terrain, pre-measured games, everything known in advance. This is the death of actual narrative and chance.

 

Tbf pre-set terrain is nothing new; they've been in the 10th Mission Packs from Day 1. 

[Mogger351]

7 minutes ago, Lord Marshal said:

 

Tbf pre-set terrain is nothing new; they've been in the 10th Mission Packs from Day 1. 

They haven't been a facet of the core rules and an expectation for most games however.

[Subtleknife]

21 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

We wouldn’t be strapping combi weapons onto every rifleman. As pointed out we have underbarrel weapons, and they’re not remotely given to every rifleman.

we give one grenadier a UGL, and even then the UGL is largely being abandoned in many militaries in favor of stand alone grenade launchers again.

If I recall correctly, my statement didn't say you would give them to everyone. I think you may have misquoted me there. 

 

 

What I did say I believe is you would aim to arm as many  members with combi weapons as you could. Why? Because it would significantly increase the firepower of a squad. There are IRL reasons why you don't give every rifleman a UGL.

 

Also, I am not aware of the UGL being phased out in most western militaries. There are programmes underway to evolve the grenade launcher role with dedicated platforms with programmable munitions etc but as far as I am aware most were looking at retaining the UGL. Ive been out a while now so I am not current anymore though.

 

But this feels like it is getting a tad off topic, so I won't respond further. 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 11:39 AM by Subtleknife

[Vassakov]

2 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

 

All that sounds awful to me. Just making it more and more into a video game.

Regular terrain, pre-measured games, everything known in advance. This is the death of actual narrative and chance.

 

This is described as a conference call for tournament and event organisers planning to run events using Games Workshop's event pack. This has also been (broadly speaking) SOP for organised plan since at least mid 9th after the scene exploded post Covid.

 

None of that is to stop you and your buddies from playing how you see fit, on boards you sort out that day. There's a thriving Crusade going on at my LGS and they don't use any of the standard mission packs designed for tournament play... because they're not at a tournament. 

[Mogger351]

25 minutes ago, Vassakov said:

 

This is described as a conference call for tournament and event organisers planning to run events using Games Workshop's event pack. This has also been (broadly speaking) SOP for organised plan since at least mid 9th after the scene exploded post Covid.

 

None of that is to stop you and your buddies from playing how you see fit, on boards you sort out that day. There's a thriving Crusade going on at my LGS and they don't use any of the standard mission packs designed for tournament play... because they're not at a tournament. 

It looks like crusade may not survive 11th, the terrain layouts for 10th are in tournament packs, not the standard missions or deployments.

 

You are right people can do what they like, but GW will be updating and designing the game around the assumption these maps will be used by the sound sounds of it.