Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The upgrade thing is interesting. Basically a way to return some limited wargear options, and it'll be fairly useful for the sub-detachments that don't favour characters.

For example if there's an Ork dread-themed detachment you could upgrade any deff dreads as well as having some duplicates.

 xttz wrote:
The upgrade thing is interesting. Basically a way to return some limited wargear options, and it'll be fairly useful for the sub-detachments that don't favour characters.

For example if there's an Ork dread-themed detachment you could upgrade any deff dreads as well as having some duplicates.

Conversely we're straight back into a situation where a 20pt reroll 1s to hit or whatever is great on a 10 man unit of terminators but sucks ass on 5 legionnaires or whatever.

Want to hear more about mission selection. I like the concept of compare with your opponent and get something thematic. But for people with limited models, if might get very same-y. You could always change your detachment for more choices.

Will be interesting to see how it falls out. I’ve got deep enough collections I’m fine with whatever. But for someone who just buys a focused 2k list it could be an issue.

Seems we get more on Missions tomorrow.

Definitely intrigued, but worryingly I think it’s something which could go horribly wrong.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Definitely intrigued, but worryingly I think it’s something which could go horribly wrong.

Same. I can imagine angles like fielding just enough "Recon" to force the mission to be "everyone must dogpile into opposite deployment zone" and then filling the rest of your force with melee hammers.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Seems we get more on Missions tomorrow.

Definitely intrigued, but worryingly I think it’s something which could go horribly wrong.

It’s GW.

They shake up the system every edition. Most of their ideas sound fine on paper, but sometimes the execution has issues.

I like to try to take the whole thing with an attitude of cautious optimism, with a dollop of cynical wariness. When we get snips of info like this it’s easy to see how it could be broken. All we can do is hope the guys writing the rules could also see that, and fixed it in the fine print that WarCom is not privy to, or isn’t going into the weeds of the rules to clarify.

But with GW’s track record, we can’t assume too much. Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment, as they say…

You might be thinking, “Hold on! What if that swanky new Detachment features a unit type that doesn’t have any Characters? Aren’t Enhancements useless?” and that would be a pretty good question. The new edition introduces the Upgrade tag on some Enhancements, which means they can be applied to up to three non-Character units while only counting as a single choice – though you will need to pay their points costs individually.

I must be reading this wrong, don't you need a Character to be your Warlord?

I wonder if that's changing too...

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

You might be thinking, “Hold on! What if that swanky new Detachment features a unit type that doesn’t have any Characters? Aren’t Enhancements useless?” and that would be a pretty good question. The new edition introduces the Upgrade tag on some Enhancements, which means they can be applied to up to three non-Character units while only counting as a single choice – though you will need to pay their points costs individually.

I must be reading this wrong, don't you need a Character to be your Warlord?

I wonder if that's changing too...

If your army is made of multiple detachments, you might still need a character for your warlord, but if that’s the only character in your army, you might not have one for every detachment.

Especially if they have focused little detachments. You might take one that boosts tanks, but no desire to have a character with them. But being able to upgrade one would be a fun little perk.

But this is all guesswork. They might change things. Tune in for more info over the next few months; they might answer it.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Definitely intrigued, but worryingly I think it’s something which could go horribly wrong.

Same. I can imagine angles like fielding just enough "Recon" to force the mission to be "everyone must dogpile into opposite deployment zone" and then filling the rest of your force with melee hammers.

Or, possibly arguably worse? They overly inform army selection, and so reduce variety of the same.

If as Nevelon mentioned your budget only stretches to 2,000 points? There’s the risk the rules could force you to play just two or three missions, time after time after time.

Yes, that’s a sale tool and fair enough to a degree. But it could ruin the experience for those unable to expand their collection to fit different Force Dispositions.

On the equally arguable upside? It may help prevent you taking part in a Mission your army is sorely crap at.

We can only hope that this is another area where regular Errata can help balance out any wonk. Especially as Codexes get updated and inevitably shift things.

If it’s great out the gate? Horray and hurrah! But errata might be the key to patching it up to work.

Also intrigued to see what the organised event community do with it.

Dudeface wrote:

Conversely we're straight back into a situation where a 20pt reroll 1s to hit or whatever is great on a 10 man unit of terminators but sucks ass on 5 legionnaires or whatever.

I suspect it'll be more common to see this used for slightly upgraded weapons/wargear. An obvious example is giving rando marine sergeant #3 his own master-crafted whatchamacallit, because you wanted to convert the model or he has some narrative backstory where he rolled enough sixes in a previous game.

My fingers are crossed for seeing the return of some old tyranid biomorphs on regular units...

I wonder if there will be Allied Detachments. Where you can get bonuses for taking Imperial Agents or Knights.

Oh…oh no.

If they add Detachments via Codex, I’m getting a Formations Fear.

Granted a big part of the flaw of Formations was them not all being equal (Marines and Ad Mech, you get loads of free stuff! Dark Eldar? You get an asthmatic paraplegic chimp called Colin!).

But even so….I hope it’s not the same road renamed.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

If as Nevelon mentioned your budget only stretches to 2,000 points? There’s the risk the rules could force you to play just two or three missions, time after time after time.

Yes, that’s a sale tool and fair enough to a degree. But it could ruin the experience for those unable to expand their collection to fit different Force Dispositions.

On the equally arguable upside? It may help prevent you taking part in a Mission your army is sorely crap at.

Good points. With missions being so integrated with army construction, I also wonder if anything beyond the Five Matched Play Missions will even exist or is this just straight up the death of narrative play? 5 tournament missions and that's it forever (until they make a season book with a grid of 5 New Matched Play Missions)?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I wonder if there will be Allied Detachments. Where you can get bonuses for taking Imperial Agents or Knights.

With army structure being multiple detachments, it would be very simple to include ally rules again. Want a knight? Take the “lone knight” detachment in your imperial force and have fun!

I would hope GW uses the changes in the core system to make this sort of thing much simpler. It’s seems real easy, and a shame if they don’t. I’d bet they do, but who knows.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh…oh no.

If they add Detachments via Codex, I’m getting a Formations Fear.

Granted a big part of the flaw of Formations was them not all being equal (Marines and Ad Mech, you get loads of free stuff! Dark Eldar? You get an asthmatic paraplegic chimp called Colin!).

But even so….I hope it’s not the same road renamed.

A legitimate fear. We could also see a return of having identical units with different rules determined simply by how they were added to your army list.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

If as Nevelon mentioned your budget only stretches to 2,000 points? There’s the risk the rules could force you to play just two or three missions, time after time after time.

Yes, that’s a sale tool and fair enough to a degree. But it could ruin the experience for those unable to expand their collection to fit different Force Dispositions.

On the equally arguable upside? It may help prevent you taking part in a Mission your army is sorely crap at.

Good points. With missions being so integrated with army construction, I also wonder if anything beyond the Five Matched Play Missions will even exist or is this just straight up the death of narrative play? 5 tournament missions and that's it forever (until they make a season book with a grid of 5 New Matched Play Missions)?

Sorry, not sure if your 5 mission thing is an assumption or based on confirmed info.

But if the former, with 5 Dispositions and their comparison determining Mission, seems we could be on for…erm…maths is not my strong suit…25 missions? I think? 5 Dispositions multiplied by 5 potential disposition matches = 25?

If each match is a unique mission, so max 25?

Wait. Pretty sure I’m wrong. I think.

I did used to be good at maths, genuinely.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

If as Nevelon mentioned your budget only stretches to 2,000 points? There’s the risk the rules could force you to play just two or three missions, time after time after time.

Yes, that’s a sale tool and fair enough to a degree. But it could ruin the experience for those unable to expand their collection to fit different Force Dispositions.

On the equally arguable upside? It may help prevent you taking part in a Mission your army is sorely crap at.

Good points. With missions being so integrated with army construction, I also wonder if anything beyond the Five Matched Play Missions will even exist or is this just straight up the death of narrative play? 5 tournament missions and that's it forever (until they make a season book with a grid of 5 New Matched Play Missions)?

Narrative players will continue to invent their own missions regardless, as they have continually since the late 1980's.

I am hoping official Crusade support continues though, since it makes onboarding new players much easier.

TBH this suggests the 11th ed ruleset is going in literally the exact opposite direction that I'd want it to, and back down the same gakker as 9th.

Oversimplistic core rules that are for everyone, plus a billion special rule combinations that are written down on someone's army list and not present on the table, so you've got to remember hundreds of unit special rules to play the game and can't just look at your opponent's models and see what they do.

Let's hope 12th is a huge reset, because all this cruft needs to go in the bin to make the game actually fun again.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Sorry, not sure if your 5 mission thing is an assumption or based on confirmed info.

Word on the street is 5 missions, each with 3 deployment shapes, but who knows.

This is a fan STL but I think it belongs here for everyone who saw the April Fools Orkimedes.

https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/game/orkimedes

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
This is a fan STL but I think it belongs here for everyone who saw the April Fools Orkimedes.

https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/game/orkimedes

Wait! The Orkimedes teaser was a fake???? Damnit, I was looking forward to that.

only one thumb means I'm going to have to pass on that one. not faithful at all. So much for "fan" work.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh…oh no.

If they add Detachments via Codex, I’m getting a Formations Fear.

Granted a big part of the flaw of Formations was them not all being equal (Marines and Ad Mech, you get loads of free stuff! Dark Eldar? You get an asthmatic paraplegic chimp called Colin!).

But even so….I hope it’s not the same road renamed.

Saw someone saying that there's basically three kinds of detachment:

1 point - buffs a single unit. so a terminator detachment would literally only buff them.

3 point - full army buff, like gladius.

They didn't specify what 2 point detachments are, but I got the implication they were "wider but not full army" buffs. Like the warcom article mentioned a detachment that specifically effects infantry, that kinda thing.

Pretty sure GW themselves said soup is definitely not back on the menu as you still choose which army your force belongs to, but maybe we'll at least see Knights and Agents (and Daemons for the spiky bois) able to be taken alongside other forces like they are now.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Pretty sure GW themselves said soup is definitely not back on the menu as you still choose which army your force belongs to, but maybe we'll at least see Knights and Agents (and Daemons for the spiky bois) able to be taken alongside other forces like they are now.

I presume the special rules of Agents and Daemon detachments will include somthing similar to what IA currently have, allowing them to be taken in specific armies regardless of belonging to a different faction.

The fact WBs get a head fills me with lots of hope

I assume those are from the Defiler kit?

Yep. Only IW and WBs get legion specific heads (outside the four god specific legions)

Alpha Legion robbed again.

Granted, a Defiler is not a very Alpha Legion thing to take but still.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Pretty sure GW themselves said soup is definitely not back on the menu as you still choose which army your force belongs to, but maybe we'll at least see Knights and Agents (and Daemons for the spiky bois) able to be taken alongside other forces like they are now.

There are still a lot of unknowns on how the whole system is going to function. Will the “Imperial” or “Chaos” keyword be enough to define an army in 11th?

One of the issues with old soup lists was the super friends deathstars. Take characters from assorted armies, layer their special rules into one indestructible unit, profit.

One thing we do know about 11th is that characters attach to units at list building, not deployment. I assume (and we knows how that goes) that they will limit the units leaders can lead to ones in their detachments. This stops cross-detachment unseen synergies, where a rule/enhancement is fine in one det but would be broken when applied to another. The fact that the number of detachments you can take is capped will also keep a lid on things. 2 for 1k lists and 3 for 2k.

Right now the Imperial Agents list includes the SoB/GK/DW. The craftworld eldar codex includes harils/corsairs/DE. Soup is here. But it’s not universal. From what I’ve seen the framework of 11th will allow mixed armies without being broken. Admittedly, we’ve just a snapshot glance. Even if it’s not official GW, narrative players should be able to use it with just mild tweaks to get allied forces fighting alongside each other again. Hopefully GW will bake that into the core rules.

The costing of detachments should help (if they get costed correctly, of course).

Also, I think the keyword system is stronger than when we had soup before? Which hopefully prevents the worst of weird combinations.