New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[Rusted Boltgun]

I've not had a chance to watch the preview games yet but I'm certainly intrigued by the terrain objectives and 'narrative' missions. I wonder how much they will differ from previous mission packs. 

[Mogger351]

11 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

This bit from today's announcement caught my eye.

 

 

This sound like there are quicker and simpler terrain rules for "casual play" (which is where I think most of us will end up) without having to go to the precision of fully balanced tournament battles. This sounds like the option I will try out first and hopefully will reassure the people who still want beer n' pretzels games.

Having now seen them (albeit in french) they are actually incredibly vague and loose like the 10th ones. The terrain layouts shown on warcom were maybe the comp ones?

 

Edit, adding janky screenshot.

Edited May 28 by Mogger351

[Crimson Longinus]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

This bit from today's announcement caught my eye.

 

 

This sound like there are quicker and simpler terrain rules for "casual play" (which is where I think most of us will end up) without having to go to the precision of fully balanced tournament battles. This sounds like the option I will try out first and hopefully will reassure the people who still want beer n' pretzels games.

 

That is good to know, and I hoped there would be something like this. Casual play do not need exact dimensions of terrain. One of course can always ignore the official guidelines, but it is good that there is actually something in the rules that can work as basis of consensus. 

[Evil Eye]

Yeah, that is nice to see. Good that they seem to have finally grasped the concept of separating competitive and normal play.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 hours ago, Ahzek451 said:

 

 

$280 ouch. If true...yeah I am happy to sit this one out and get a used/discount rulebook and cards. 

 

 

I don’t disagree, but I think when you take model count into consideration it’s not a bad deal compared to things like the eldar corsair battle force which is $255.

 

its just that $300+ after tax is a big investment all at once.

$230 I think this would fly off the shelves. $250+? Not so much.

 

4 hours ago, Karhedron said:

This bit from today's announcement caught my eye.

 

 

This sound like there are quicker and simpler terrain rules for "casual play" (which is where I think most of us will end up) without having to go to the precision of fully balanced tournament battles. This sounds like the option I will try out first and hopefully will reassure the people who still want beer n' pretzels games.

Ironically I have 0 interesting playing competitively but absolutely do not want to use simplified rules for terrain. I hate how basic terrain has been the last two editions 

 

edit

someone make it make sense.

i can’t shoot at a model I can physically see through a window, but i can move my models through a physical solid wall.

 

if we’re arguing there’s some sort of hole in the wall big enough for a soldier to fit through (some of these soldiers being 8+ ft tall and 3ft wide) than these imaginary holes/gaps are plenty big enough to look and shoot through.

Edited May 28 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Antarius]

I think it pays to discern between "abstraction" and "simple" in this case (with the, rather large, caveat that none of us know the actual terrain rules of 11th yet, of course).

I don't think something like the "hidden" targeting rules as they've been described are simple, but I do think they are more abstract. In contrast, I think the TLOS rules they've tried (and, in my opinion, failed) to make work for the last couple of decades are simpler, but lack the elegance of more abstract LOS rules, as well as often causing more complications in practice (not to mention the risk of poking your eyes out when trying to get the famed "model's eye view").

That being said, I would much prefer that models can't pass through walls, at least not without movement penalties. That just seems "simple, not simplified" and unimmersive to me, but we'll see how it shakes out once we have all the rules. If nothing else, it's a prime target for house rules.

[Mogger351]

2 hours ago, Antarius said:

I think it pays to discern between "abstraction" and "simple" in this case (with the, rather large, caveat that none of us know the actual terrain rules of 11th yet, of course).

I don't think something like the "hidden" targeting rules as they've been described are simple, but I do think they are more abstract. In contrast, I think the TLOS rules they've tried (and, in my opinion, failed) to make work for the last couple of decades are simpler, but lack the elegance of more abstract LOS rules, as well as often causing more complications in practice (not to mention the risk of poking your eyes out when trying to get the famed "model's eye view").

That being said, I would much prefer that models can't pass through walls, at least not without movement penalties. That just seems "simple, not simplified" and unimmersive to me, but we'll see how it shakes out once we have all the rules. If nothing else, it's a prime target for house rules.

The actual rules are out there in full if you know French.

[Mogger351]

I'm seeing a lot of talk about how botched the coherency rules are. After having a look in other books I think 10th has the best version of the rule, with 11th the worst. Not really sure how they managed to make it so much worse.

[Crimson Longinus]

5 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

I'm seeing a lot of talk about how botched the coherency rules are. After having a look in other books I think 10th has the best version of the rule, with 11th the worst. Not really sure how they managed to make it so much worse.

 

What's the issue?

[Mogger351]

19 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

 

What's the issue?

The rule simply states a model must be within 2" of another model and no 2 models can be more than 9" apart.

 

So in say a unit of 5, you can have 3 in base to base, a 7"ish gap then the other 2 in base to base.

 

What's fun is the wording on coherency across all GWs games historically is very vague, we've all sort of relied on the images rather than RAW.

 

 

[Captain Idaho]

Having to remain within 9" of every model means moving anything other than a straight line, especially around terrain, is going to a tiresome very quickly and a hindrance just as easily. This is especially true if you have a unit larger than 10 strong and to be honest, even a 10 strong unit will find itself "shuffling" often.

 

Then there's the time wasting of measuring everything over and over.

 

The rules look awful. Just, amateur intrinsically.

Edited Friday at 02:53 PM by Captain Idaho

[Lord Marshal]

PDF of the Core Rules dropping 'early next week' according to the last Faction Focus, so less need to squint at French translations, mon amis.

 

Edited Friday at 03:07 PM by Lord Marshal

[Antarius]

50 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

The rule simply states a model must be within 2" of another model and no 2 models can be more than 9" apart.

 

So in say a unit of 5, you can have 3 in base to base, a 7"ish gap then the other 2 in base to base.

 

What's fun is the wording on coherency across all GWs games historically is very vague, we've all sort of relied on the images rather than RAW.

 

 

Ha! Seems likes something that will be FAQed day one or very soon thereafter. It's so obviously not RAI that I'm almost surprised anyone thought of it.

[Mogger351]

29 minutes ago, Antarius said:

Ha! Seems likes something that will be FAQed day one or very soon thereafter. It's so obviously not RAI that I'm almost surprised anyone thought of it.

The fun thing is that beyond older/other rules having an image suggesting the conventional coherence, the only other hint is mention of the unit moving as a "single group" often, which is in turn not defined.

 

So this has possibly been the case RAW for years.

[Dried]

God I hate rule lawyering and honest sometimes I feel this kind of exploits are the reason why we can't have nice simple written rules.

[jaxom]

4 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

The rule simply states a model must be within 2" of another model and no 2 models can be more than 9" apart.

The practical aspects remind me of 1st edition Star Wars Legion. There is now a 9+(2*base size)” maximum linear footprint. Hmm, I kind of want to math out possible volumes…. 
 

Edit: The picture also kind of reminds me of a dry manual description of two infantry sticks.

Edited Friday at 07:37 PM by jaxom

[Xenith]

On 5/28/2026 at 11:15 PM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

someone make it make sense.

i can’t shoot at a model I can physically see through a window, but i can move my models through a physical solid wall.

It's a game, not a simulation, and terrain rules are abstract to represent models moving around. That model wouldn't stand like an idiot in the window, but would duck and get out of line of sight, just like real life. Similarly, walking tanks don't really care for doors, and previous rulebooks have said they just smash through or are assumed to carry breaching charges. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, Xenith said:

It's a game, not a simulation, and terrain rules are abstract to represent models moving around. That model wouldn't stand like an idiot in the window, but would duck and get out of line of sight, just like real life. Similarly, walking tanks don't really care for doors, and previous rulebooks have said they just smash through or are assumed to carry breaching charges. 

lol and yet in real life people are shot through windows, doors, holes in the wall all the time.

it doesn’t need to be a simulation but the logic behind the abstractions should be logical.

 

also breaching charges don’t generally blow holes I person can walk through in the sort of materials used to construct hive cities or even regular concrete walls…breaching charges are meant for blasting doors open, not making doors in very solid walls.

Edited Saturday at 03:33 AM by Dr_Ruminahui

[Osteoclast]

 

3 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

lol and yet in real life people are shot through windows, doors, holes in the wall all the time.

it doesn’t need to be a simulation but the logic behind the abstractions should be logical.

 

also breaching charges don’t generally blow holes I person can walk through in the sort of materials used to construct hive cities or even regular concrete walls…breaching charges are meant for blasting doors open, not making doors in very solid walls.

 

 

Mouse holing is incredibly easy and common and part of normal urban warfare tactics (as its a wee bit safer than down the street or through a door). Starting on page B-4, you can see what it takes for even small arms fire to breach walls including concrete. And objections of "But space walls!" must contend with "Space guns used by power armored superhumans" for 90% of the use cases. 

Edited Saturday at 04:19 AM by Dr_Ruminahui

[Evil Eye]

Personally I don't like the idea of being able to just walk straight through a wall, and I feel the solution is slightly more detailed terrain rules that can differentiate between barriers that can be navigated with difficulty and impassable solid walls. Some degree of abstraction is expected, and 5E style TLOS was a mistake, but intangible walls are too far the other way. Something as simple as "Walls can only be moved through if there is a gap the unit could feasibly fit through" would do the trick- sure, there would need to be some room for interpretation (we can assume guys like Guilliman can fit through smaller doors than his model physically can due to the in-universe Guilliman being mobile and not permanently affixed to a mound of rubble), but for the pre-made terrain layouts I'd rather GW provided a guide document showing what models can fit through what gaps using their terrain as examples, rather than just saying walls don't actually impede movement.

[Xenith]

On 5/30/2026 at 1:37 AM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

in real life people are shot through windows, doors, holes in the wall all the time.

Again, it's a game, not a simulation. Certain abstractions are made for gameplay experience.

Edited Sunday at 10:17 AM by Xenith

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

 

Again, it's a game, not a simulation. Certain abstractions are made for gameplay experience.

And those abstractions are logically inconsistent.

if I can fit through a gap, I can shoot through a gap.

 

it’s an abstraction, that also severely skews the game towards melee for no real reason.

[Vassakov]

I'd prefer that there was some penalty to infantry, even if it was just -1 or -2" to movement/charges, as it is it feels a bit too "free" - and I say this as someone who has played melee armies for basically all of 10th.

 

However, as a lot of people have said - gameplay is an abstraction to play a wargame. I get the impression that there are a lot of people who'd rather 40k was closer to a roleplaying game and whilst I have a bit of sympathy of that position, that isn't what it has been for about 30 years now and there's absolutely no indication that is likely to change. 

[jaxom]

44 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

it’s an abstraction, that also severely skews the game towards melee for no real reason.

Unknown people decided shooting was too deadly without that specific abstraction. There's a reason, just one where the solution was... not very elegant.

[SkimaskMohawk]

On 5/27/2026 at 3:06 AM, Petitioner's City said:

There's a really interesting discussion around this topic of playing a certain authorized way happening in old world - as you may be aware there are several fan comps, with one of the more well known the Renegades/SquareBased approach from Val Heffelfinger (formerly an official organiser for 40k tournaments for GW in north america) and Rob the Honest Wargamer. 

 

A really intriguing analysis of this is by political historian Dr Luke Blaxill:

 

 

 

And more recently Blaxill interviewed Val too, in which Val's history with 40k comes up later in the video:

 

 

Blaxill looks at this and discusses a lot about power, authority, fragmentation and rebellion - quite a fun set of lenses with which to look at how players choose or choose not to respond to a gaming format. He also is a bit of a character! 

 

You also have Germancomp, Aussiecomp (actually scottish) and more - all these "rebellions" (in Blaxill's parlance).

 

But it's so interesting there isn't really this for 40k - whereas Heresy somewhat and old world massively so. 

 

Tables are interesting too - old world and fantasy require less terrain, but it certainly is a visually focused game, and has a need often for hills - where have hills gone from wargaming in general?  (Intriguingly Squarebased did release early in modern TOW table terrain maps). 

 

 

ToW is definitely highly fragmented in terms of what tournaments and regional list building looks like. 

 

But it still has an apex event in the WTC, which tends to have the same trickle down effect to the IRL events of the national team members. It also highly influences the online community. The only real difference is that it's not GW in the driver seat.

 

Also, the square based terrain layouts suck (as do the WTC ones) and highly contribute to green knight problems.