After several games of the 11th edition, I'm starting to get a better idea of what I think of it.
The first thing I'd say is that I don't find the 11th edition any easier than the 10th. On the contrary, it requires more learning at the beginning. This isn't because there are a lot more rules, but because there are many small changes and interactions to remember. You often go from a stratagem to a general rule, then to another section of the rules to fully understand how everything works. The first few games therefore require a lot of consulting the rulebook or the app.
That said, once you've played a few games, several new mechanics become very natural. The Benefit of Cover, which now modifies the Ballistic Skill rather than the save, makes sense and accurately represents the fact that a target in cover is harder to hit. The Hidden rule is also an excellent addition: it prevents certain units from being eliminated at the very beginning of the game by fire from across the table, while remaining easy to apply.
The biggest change, in my opinion, is how missions influence list building. In 10th Edition, a versatile list could generally play just about any mission. In 11th Edition, missions require more specialization. A mission like Purge the Foe favors an army capable of killing and holding objectives. An action-oriented mission rewards fast and inexpensive units more. A mission like Take and Hold highlights sturdy units capable of controlling the center of the table.
I find this approach interesting because it gives missions a real identity and can help certain factions perform better depending on their play style. An army that is slightly weaker overall can still find its place if it excels in a particular type of mission.
Regarding terrain, I really like the direction they've taken. The new terrain is beautiful, and the rules allow for the use of virtually any terrain for narrative games. However, when applying the competitive rules to terrain different from that used in tournaments, it's sometimes necessary to discuss height, lines of sight, or certain interactions before the game. It's not a major issue, but it does require a bit more planning.
I also appreciate the small changes made to movement and melee. The free pivot, new movements like Overrun, and the 2-inch engagement radius offer more tactical possibilities. Ranged combat remains effective, but melee also seems very good to me. I find that the two play styles are better balanced.
At this stage, I would say that the missions seem well-balanced. I haven't played them all, but they give the impression of highlighting the strengths of each army rather than pushing everyone toward the same type of army list.
If there's one area where I remain cautious, it's the strategic depth. For now, I get the impression that the 11th edition requires me to memorize more rules than it introduces significant new decisions during gameplay. However, it's still too early to draw a definitive conclusion: several mechanics become more intuitive with experience, and it will likely take more games to fully appreciate the depth of this edition.
In short, I consider the 11th edition a positive evolution of the 10th. It's not simpler, but it brings coherent changes, more distinct missions, and a stronger identity to the different play styles. There's a steeper learning curve, especially for new players, but once the new mechanics are mastered, the game is enjoyable, fluid, and encourages further exploration of the various missions and ways to play.
Raphaël Boucher