u/Bowoodstock

I'm creating this post as a repository for all things to do with the army in 11e, whether it be the state of the meta, important rule questions and/or rulings, Q&A, and general discussion about what the kin are doing in the new edition. This is a combination of conversations I've had in real life as well as observations, many of which are opinion based, so respectful discussion and discourse is encouraged as new information comes to light.

State of the meta (As of 07/05/26)

Votann seem to be doing very well. We're not as busted as T'au, but we've seen some early tournament wins, and it's clear that the good outweighs the bad.

The good

Votann have several very strong 2+1 detachment combinations, primarily Needgard and Mercenary Oathband, though I've had discussions with people that indicate brandfast and delve are having some luck. All of our +1 detachments seem to be solid, so as of right now it's a question of playstyle on which one players are choosing. Hearthband is also still strong, though people seem to be favoring the "hearthband-lite" detachment as a +1 rather than the full fledged 3 dwarf point hearthband.

Most of our units are solid. Even if it's harder for us to hit, we benefit significantly from the fact that cover no longer makes AP-1 weapons hit like a wet noodle. Thunderkyn and hekatons continue to be a terror, hearthguard are just as deadly as they were before if not more so. We've even seen some use of kapricus defenders and grimnyrs, which were previously poor choices, as their abilities have been buffed by the edition change.

Changes to hazardous have also worked in our favor: The evaluator can now overload his gun and not die after shooting twice, since failed hazard tests only inflict 1 wound on character models now. The grimnyr is also free to overcharge ancestral wrath and not worry about blowing up, because hazard wounds do not have to be taken on the model with the hazardouse weapon; You're now allowed to soak them on the CORVs, or the poor warrior retinue following them!

The bad

There are some casualties of course. Although they still have value as anti-T3 MSU artillery pieces, earthshakers have a hard time hitting the wall of a cave, even with spotters. While it only takes one hit to cause a battleshock test, hitting on 5s at best is rough if you fluff your number of attacks roll.

Additionally, hearthfyre is still our worst detachment by far, and persecution prospect, while getting some new life in changes to cover, seems to be falling behind its farseekers sibling in popularity.

The ugly

We have some ambiguous rules that, until clarified by GW, are subject to the whims of rules-as-intended rather than rules as written.

Chief among these is the issue with combat disembark on sagitaurs: RAW a unit disembarking from a transport that has advanced (even if it has special rules such as the sagitaur) must take hazard checks. This is clearly a problem until it's clarified.

There is also a question of how precision on steeljacks works; As written, it seems as though the stage where critical wounds are scored is AFTER allocation, meaning they're unable to fulfill their character sniping capabilities. Most gracious opponents are following the intent, but it's never good to have rules up in the air like this.

So, we know that at 2k, we have some very strong options. Hearthband still lives on in all its glory, and we have several very competent 2+1 options as well.

1k games however present a question. To be clear, while games workshop has implied that we're allowed to take hearthband at 1k, the app and several community events have restricted 1k games to 2 dwarf point detachments. What are everyone's thoughts, then, on the best options there? Needgard clearly stands on its own as the most index-like and murderhobo PTF is simple. Mercenary oathband is also quite likely if we want to play cagey take and hold, we're good at being stubborn at low points values.

But what about, say, a combination of a really annoying 10-man hearthguard brick in the center, coupled with either sagitaur or pioneer support, running hearthguard covenant + something else for priority assets? Has anyone tried this, and does it work? Curious to know what the community has experienced.

The chicken nugget she had been choking on flew out of her mouth onto the plate, and he comforted her, rubbing her back as she cried, her airway finally clear.

A phenomenon I've noticed in online games is just how much x-1 trade has become a button to push on a black box, and when people don't just go with it, it's like the ixian device just went off.

I've had people lose it, claim "no one will ever want to deal with you again" when I refuse to pay 1TG on a delayed non- binding x-1 as they're invading one of my systems.

I've had the second place try to offer to x-1 me as I'm making a push to hit the homeworld of the leader to stop them from scoring their final point, while I'm no where near winning, and they're wondering why I refused?

I've had people call me "playing favorites" because I gave a neighbor x-0(for various reasons) while offering x-1 to everyone else.

I get the utility of x-1, use it plenty myself, but has anyone else run into this, where trade seems to have lost some of its strategic nuance because others just expect the table to go with the convention?

Per the official rules, there are two kinds of deals. Binding and non-binding. We know what binding deals are, and we know that non-binding can be reinforced with promissory notes. But of course, this is space opera, and it wouldn't be opera without a dagger in the back, or, more appropriately, a fleet suddenly appearing on a trusted border with weapons locked.

With that being said, this is also a game with a lot of time investmen. We play it with the intention of fun, and with the intention that people will want to be back at the table again. Being a duplicitous backstabber consistently goes against this; even traitors have standards!

So in everyone's opinion, where is the line? Does game round factor into it? Does an immediate deal break (next turn) constitute an "I don't ever want to play with you again?" Or is all fair in love, war, and dice rolling?

My personal thoughts: Generally, my policy is that a deal is a deal unless one of two things are true.

1. There is immediate cause to renege on the deal. I don't think player A should be surprised if player B refuses to pay for a previous deal, if player B just took over one of player A's systems in the process of "There, now we can trade"
2. End game. Expecting a deal to be honored if doing so would allow another player to end the game.

Again, non-binding is non-binding, RAW there's no requirement if it's not an instantaneous effect. These are just how I tend to play to keep people returning to the table.