New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[Mogger351]

16 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

So how did everyone set up terrain before? We just used to throw some terrain down to get something fun with a vague notion that too much terrain favoured assault and too little favoured shooting.

 

And you know what? That is still a perfectly valid way to play. These layouts just show what GW consider the optimum terrain for a perfectly balanced game. 

 

But outside tournament play, I can't remember the last time it was an issue. Player skill and army composition has a much bigger effect on outcomes. I usually try to play in a way that is fun for both me and my opponent. Yes I like to win but not at the expense of having fun.

 

I don't see the terrain maps as overly prescriptive ir controlling. They are simply guides where none existed previously. 

Yeah sure, I won't dragged it up again, it's just very possible the further you stray from the prescribed the less well the game works and some abilities/points/rules will not work as intended.

 

Brief example, if your objective is now a building rather than a ruin and as a result, vehicles can't contest them as they can't drive onto a ceiling. Wasn't a problem before, is now, source of the problem: not using the advised layout/terrain.

 

It's worth remembering the terrain maps are also now the objective layouts for the missions, so depending how far you deviate from the terrain maps it gets odd.

 

If you're with like minded people who will basically play house rule 40k great, if not be ready to play on the same "advised" layouts with the same "advised" terrain pieces every game.

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

So how did everyone set up terrain before? We just used to throw some terrain down to get something fun with a vague notion that too much terrain favoured assault and too little favoured shooting.

We did each player alternates putting terrain down, no doubling up or more in one quarter until all four quarters have a piece of terrain. Then roll scatter die and d6 for each terrain piece. Then roll to pick a deployment zone.

[phandaal]

3 hours ago, Karhedron said:

So how did everyone set up terrain before? We just used to throw some terrain down to get something fun with a vague notion that too much terrain favoured assault and too little favoured shooting.

 

Pretty much. Mainly, it should look cool when fully set up. 

[Lexington]

6 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

Brief example, if your objective is now a building rather than a ruin and as a result, vehicles can't contest them as they can't drive onto a ceiling. Wasn't a problem before, is now, source of the problem: not using the advised layout/terrain.

 

It's worth remembering the terrain maps are also now the objective layouts for the missions, so depending how far you deviate from the terrain maps it gets odd.

 

I mean, yeah, if you're not familiar with the game you're playing before setting up your table, it's probably not going to work out like you want, but this seems like less of a recommendation for pre-made terrain layouts than it does for...reading the rulebook?

[Karhedron]

6 hours ago, jaxom said:

We did each player alternates putting terrain down, no doubling up or more in one quarter until all four quarters have a piece of terrain. Then roll scatter die and d6 for each terrain piece. Then roll to pick a deployment zone.

 

That's cool. I hadn't heard that method before but I am tempted to try it. 

[Karhedron]

7 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

Yeah sure, I won't dragged it up again, it's just very possible the further you stray from the prescribed the less well the game works and some abilities/points/rules will not work as intended.

 

I agree but that was always the case. The problem before was that we didn't know what the correct/intended level of terrain was. Now at least we know what level of terrain GW balances units around. 

Edited Sunday at 06:00 AM by Karhedron

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

I agree but that was always the case. The problem before was that we didn't know what the correct/intended level of terrain was. Now at least we know what level of terrain GW balances units around. 

 

They've often said "roughly 25%" in previous editions and they've had event terrain layouts for 9th/10th. 8th was the wild west a bit, but there's been a loose guideline for a while. That said GWs main objective was narrative/fun for most of it.

 

2 hours ago, Lexington said:

 

I mean, yeah, if you're not familiar with the game you're playing before setting up your table, it's probably not going to work out like you want, but this seems like less of a recommendation for pre-made terrain layouts than it does for...reading the rulebook?

 

I don't think the rulebook says "don't use the fronteris terrain we sell", or is that not what you mean?

[conscriptboris]

Im not sure why, but this will be the1st edition I dont buy since 2nd edition.

 

Ive always been a lore based player (thematic campaigns, converted armies, themed missions and terrain). This could just be a continuation of my disdain for Primaris and the Lazy advancing Lore arc. Which deletes 35 plus years of established lore on the tabletop.

 

But, the boxset looks good. 

[The Yncarne]

I don't think this edition will draw me back; I like playing 40k with different rules. But I am hopeful that new players and those moving to 11th will have more fun. Edition launches always seem to have the most parity and optimistic excitement.

[Nephaston]

I dunno, repetitively standardized building layouts across a large amount of imperial holds, almost following a pattern, or constructed after a standard template of sorts seems very on brand for the imperium and AdMech.

 

Of course committing a bit of heresy and deviating from the prescribed layouts whenever it suits ones needs is also very on brand for the imperium and admech, contradictive and hypocritical as they are.

[Doghouse]

I think it would be more interesting if there were alternative shaped objectives that allow you to place forests or other features on them.

 

This feels like it is too compartmentalized and pushing further into the branded you will play this way and buy these products to play. This is one of the biggest turn offs to me with corporate 40k, I fully expect them to say you need to be wearing your trademarked faction T-shirt/Hoodie/Baseball cap to make it so it's clear what army you are using. 

 

 

Note for GW: That was humour not a suggestion for 12th... 

[Lexington]

19 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

I don't think the rulebook says "don't use the fronteris terrain we sell", or is that not what you mean?

It's more that if you read and understand the rules, you'll likely know that using a building as the entire objective area will mean vehicles can't contest/score it, and will create your tables accordingly. I think this is kind of a bad effect of the whole Objective Terrain thing, but it's very manageable overall. At the end of the day, it's probably best to  just throw it out, along with GW' fairly boring modern mission design as long as you're at it. That's a whole different conversation, tho.

[Mogger351]

4 hours ago, Lexington said:

It's more that if you read and understand the rules, you'll likely know that using a building as the entire objective area will mean vehicles can't contest/score it, and will create your tables accordingly. I think this is kind of a bad effect of the whole Objective Terrain thing, but it's very manageable overall. At the end of the day, it's probably best to  just throw it out, along with GW' fairly boring modern mission design as long as you're at it. That's a whole different conversation, tho.

I mean this is the crux of it, I'm not going to not use my painted terrain and a STC hab unit covers almost all of the recommended large rectangle.

 

So again it's necessary to simply avoid/ignore the layouts and invite "imbalance".

[Galron]

Oh well, they arent squatting grey knights for another edition. I hope one edition they will follow the fluff and make them 0-1 squad choice allies for Imperial detachments again since there is general zero reason for grey knights to even be present on a normal battlefield. They go in, kill some daemons and leave when the daemons themselves are banished, not really caring about the daemon's allies. Or they are temporary henchmen for inquisitors from time to time again, rarely more than a squad. This is a grumble I have had for going on 4 or 5 editions so is nothing new. Then again, I still go with the Jaq Draco(original) version of the Ordo Malleus so maybe I am the heretic at this point.

 

I wonder if for yet another edition my airborne infantry army will sit on the shelf. It doesnt sound from the brief mention whether airborne transports will be able to hang out and provide fire support. 

 

Yay for combi-weapons making a return. Boo for me having most of my units that carry them having very mixed weapon loadouts now. 

 

Terrain... ok. Im mixed use on standardized terrain anyway. Better than stupid circles on the ground. I just hope they include rules for rivers, fortified walls and such or will we have to home rule them... again. 

[Crimson Longinus]

9 minutes ago, Galron said:

Oh well, they arent squatting grey knights for another edition. I hope one edition they will follow the fluff and make them 0-1 squad choice allies for Imperial detachments again since there is general zero reason for grey knights to even be present on a normal battlefield. They go in, kill some daemons and leave when the daemons themselves are banished, not really caring about the daemon's allies. Or they are temporary henchmen for inquisitors from time to time again, rarely more than a squad. This is a grumble I have had for going on 4 or 5 editions so is nothing new. Then again, I still go with the Jaq Draco(original) version of the Ordo Malleus so maybe I am the heretic at this point.

 

I totally agree, but these days we also have Custodes showing up as a whole army and marines being led by Primarcs in every random skirmish...

[Lord Marshal]

Seems they're doing a livestream thingy next week with influencers, using the new edition.

 

 

 

Quote

The first game will showcase the contents of the Warhammer 40,000: Armageddon boxed set, with two forces built out to Strike Force-sized armies to fight out the conflict on the infamous planet. We’ll get to see the new units in action, and get a feel for how they fit into a larger force. In fact, we can give you a little tease of that right now, as we share the army lists of the forces that you’ll be able to watch next Monday when the Blood Angels take on the Orks.

 

Our second game is a Community Clash between two guest players from our friends at Play On Tabletop. Can Nick (in the guise of Commander Shadowsun) lead the T’au Empire to victory against Tak, commanding Typhus and the Death Guard? Find out in a highly narrative game.

 

Finally, game three is a rematch of the 2026 Warhammer 40,000 World Championship final! Richard Siegler’s defiant Adeptus Mechanicus is led by the biomechanical genius Belisarius Cawl, and they face Liam VSL and a defiant Aeldari force featuring three legendary Phoenix Lords. With two armies tailored slightly for the new edition, who will come out on top this time? This is an amazing opportunity to see how the game plays in the hands of two of the world’s best Warhammer 40,000 players.  

 

 

Different armies than just Marines and Orks at least.

Edited 11 hours ago by Lord Marshal

[Tastyfish]

I'd quite like to see Custodes/SoS and IG Scions get the Agent's requisitioned unit option too. Wouldn't complain if power armoured GK turned up as an alternative option there as well.

 

We've got a video of a Custodes Captain leading Arbites and some SoS in tithes, and it'd be nice to have the return of Inquisitorial Stormtroopers.

[Silvereyes]

I don't want to be that guy, but it's hard not to find some of these answers rather frustrating. Yes, I know, these guys are essentially PR for the company, who won't have any say on the decisions GW makes. But I do find the whole attempt to be chummy, down to earth approach, complete with occasional comedic answers falls really flat when you're having to announce stuff that hurts some and all players. I feel sorry for Deathwatch, Imperial Agents, and Daemons players. Acknowledgements that that they're in weird states right now, but no actual sign that they'll get better support in the future. Frankly, the fact that Imperial Agents isn't getting new detachments and just the atrocious state the faction is in right now makes me wonder if it'll see another big restructuring for 11th.

 

On 5/16/2026 at 2:31 AM, HeadlessCross said:

Q - What's the deal with Crusade in the new edition?
A - First of all, if you've got a 10th edition codex, your Crusade rules still work. You can play Crusade games to your heart's content and have a great time with it. Crusade-like content going forward you won't find that in your codexes, it will be in narrative packages. Maelstrom would be a good example, that's where you can expect to find that sort of thing. There's a really cool little set of rules in the Maelstrom book which was Crucible of champions which basically allows you to kind of create custom heroes and give them cool wargear and people have been having loads of fun either painting up cool stuff or even converting models to do it with and that's the sort of way that content that's like crusade will release in the future. So we we know loads of people love to do crusade-like things but the codexes going forwards won't have crusade content. The things that would been like crusade will release in things that look a bit like the maelstrom book.

 

OK, so if you're removing content from the Codecies, what do we get in return? A ton of detachments (for everyone who aren't Space Marines?) Far more fleshed our Crucible of Champions content? Stuff to tie-in with the new Indomitus deck? Or does my codex get a price reduction to reflect the cut content?

 

On 5/16/2026 at 2:31 AM, HeadlessCross said:

Q - When playing a 1500 point game, which rules would be recommended to be used; strike force or incursions?
A - You effectively count as playing strike force, so a, 1000 points up to 1,999 until you hit the 2,000 point mark and then you tick over into the next size of game effectively. That's how that would work.

 

More minor point, but it is annoying how much GW seems to refuse to acknowledge that 1500 point games absolutely happen, often for players with time or army restraints. Even more so because in the AoS app, that app's list building actually lets you choose between 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, and 3000 point lists, compared to the 40K app which only lets you go from 1000 to 2000 to 3000. 

 

I'll almost be certainly ignoring this and let my opponent ignore this when I play casual games at my club to use the full 3DP when at 1500 points. Good chance I may ignore the force dispositions too depending on if that's badly implimented.

[Heraclite]

On 5/17/2026 at 2:19 PM, Doghouse said:

I think it would be more interesting if there were alternative shaped objectives that allow you to place forests or other features on them.

I think I read in the original article that described the terrain areas that you could put whatever terrain you want on the templates.

 

Your large square bloc is not automatically a building. You can put trees in there instead and the whole "shape" is now a forest.

 

The templates they sell sure show an urban theme, but nothing prevents anyone from cutting the prescribed shapes in some transparent material and put any terrain you want on it

[Crimson Longinus]

36 minutes ago, Heraclite said:

I think I read in the original article that described the terrain areas that you could put whatever terrain you want on the templates.

 

Your large square bloc is not automatically a building. You can put trees in there instead and the whole "shape" is now a forest.

 

The templates they sell sure show an urban theme, but nothing prevents anyone from cutting the prescribed shapes in some transparent material and put any terrain you want on it

 

But a square forest looks unnatural. (And transparent templates look bad.)

[Heraclite]

Only the shape needs to be square, you could build a nice terrain piece without resorting to transparent templates just put trees in a nice forestry shape on your square base. That way you have a nice forest, and any mini on the base of the terrain piece, whether there are trees everywhere or randomly scattered in a pleasing arrangement, is in cover

[Mogger351]

34 minutes ago, Heraclite said:

Only the shape needs to be square, you could build a nice terrain piece without resorting to transparent templates just put trees in a nice forestry shape on your square base. That way you have a nice forest, and any mini on the base of the terrain piece, whether there are trees everywhere or randomly scattered in a pleasing arrangement, is in cover

I mean you're conforming to the GW area dimensions still and you're having to work out what is/isn't able to be traversed by bigger models. But arguably no, it doesn't have to be square unless you stick to the mission packs and layouts.

 

I actually can't remember, do you need to be wholly within an objective to score now? If so that might be. A problem, or it might be possible to stand in the middle and say be impossible to be charged by a dread.

Edited 6 hours ago by Mogger351