New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[Lexington]

Being a GW event organizer must be pretty miserable anymore, seems like it’s increasingly just an exercise in implementing heavy-handed GW policy for the purposes of helping them direct the even more invasive policies of the future.

[Lord Marshal]

35 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

It looks like crusade may not survive 11th, the terrain layouts for 10th are in tournament packs, not the standard missions or deployments.

 

You are right people can do what they like, but GW will be updating and designing the game around the assumption these maps will be used by the sound sounds of it.

 

The vast majority of people already take the latest Chapter Approved tournament rules to be the gospel baseline of how you play 40k, so I don't think much will change in that respect.

 

The biggest impact I reckon will be if GW start selling their own terrain packs directly, which will hopefully be more visually appealing than flat, windowless unpainted MDF or plasticard that a lot of stores and events have fallen back onto. The obvious downside is if (when) it ends up being overly expensive, but that'll be where third parties can swoop in.

 

Speculation time; after their fling with 'coloured' MDF terrain in the Kill Team starter, that might be the route they're going down with 11th. A lot of people can grin and bear £80 for a KT Kill Zone, but less so for a full £250+ 40k board.

 

Edited April 7 by Lord Marshal

[Orange Knight]

2 hours ago, Lord Marshal said:

 

Tbf pre-set terrain is nothing new; they've been in the 10th Mission Packs from Day 1. 

 

Yes, I'm aware. And it's one of the worst things about competitive warhammer at events.

When you know in advance how you can hide units, and the distances between LOS blocking and terrain, it impacts how competitive certain units are or aren't, and it introduces an element of predictability into the game.

 

And now this will be a core rule.

 

Edit addition:

Maybe I'm in the minority, and maybe my way of looking at the game is no longer in vogue. I think the table layout is part of the narrative of any game, and it should affect your chances of success or failure. Playing identical missions on identical tables doesn't excite me.

Edited April 7 by Orange Knight

[DemonGSides]

3 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

Yes, I'm aware. And it's one of the worst things about competitive warhammer at events.

When you know in advance how you can hide units, and the distances between LOS blocking and terrain, it impacts how competitive certain units are or aren't, and it introduces an element of predictability into the game.

 

And now this will be a core rule.

 

How do we know it's a core rule?  The video you're freaking out about said it was literally aimed at the tournament crowd.  You can always play on whatever terrain you want. GW isn't coming to your house or LGS to tell you how to play. 

[Orange Knight]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

How do we know it's a core rule?  The video you're freaking out about said it was literally aimed at the tournament crowd.  You can always play on whatever terrain you want. GW isn't coming to your house or LGS to tell you how to play. 

 

I'm not freaking out. I just see the direction of travel for GW rules.

I am allowed to not be enthused about everything.

Edited April 7 by Orange Knight

[Mogger351]

10 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

How do we know it's a core rule?  The video you're freaking out about said it was literally aimed at the tournament crowd.  You can always play on whatever terrain you want. GW isn't coming to your house or LGS to tell you how to play. 

Auspex said that the terrain layout is on the deployment cards for the standard missions, so that would make it a core rule, albeit with a "but you can use what you like"

[Xenith]

On 4/6/2026 at 4:21 PM, Interrogator Stobz said:

Not sure where everyone is getting this Chapters won't sacrifice Veterans fluff from.

There's 30 plus years of lore about it, right back to the RTB, literally tonnes of it. This is not opinion, this is established and repeated lore.

Space Hulk anyone?

 

Space Hulk Mission 1 is literally called "Suicide Mission".

[Mogger351]

1 minute ago, Xenith said:

 

Space Hulk Mission 1 is literally called "Suicide Mission".

And in a wonderful full circle, Terminators are typically armed with a form of bolter with standard bolter ammo, not a squad of plasma/melta.

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

Auspex said that the terrain layout is on the deployment cards for the standard missions, so that would make it a core rule, albeit with a "but you can use what you like"

 

 

The terrain layout cards in 10th were a competitive focussed portion of the game.  None of the card decks were required to enjoy the game, and you could use what parts of them you wanted to. 

 

Once again, I entreat you all to just relax a little bit and wait for actual information to come out.

 

 

 

Separately, also more than a little funny that the people who are complaining about tournaments being the death knell for 40k are leaning on one of the most competitively focussed YouTube channels for their information.  Just a very funny moment to me. 

Edited April 7 by DemonGSides

[Rusted Boltgun]

From the WarCom article with my emphasis

 

Deployment cards will be familiar to existing players, featuring classic set-ups such as Dawn of War, Hammer and Anvil, and Tipping Point. Each mission pairing also has three recommended terrain layouts using specific deployments designed to give both players a balanced battlefield to fight through, though you’re always free to come up with your own too, to match your own terrain collection.

 

I appreciate the earlier comment regarding concerns about choosing an army to fit the terrain ahead of time, maybe the three options will be different enough to allay those fears (assuming you don't know which of the three you will be faced with). 

 

If enough terrain is available, layout could be selected via D6 roll before a game starts. Or you could just make up your own.

 

I haven't the experience to theorise whether this will be good or bad but I like the idea of terrain elements as objectives.

[Orange Knight]

13 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

 

The terrain layout cards in 10th were a competitive focussed portion of the game.  None of the card decks were required to enjoy the game, and you could use what parts of them you wanted to. 

 

Once again, I entreat you all to just relax a little bit and wait for actual information to come out.

 

 

 

Separately, also more than a little funny that the people who are complaining about tournaments being the death knell for 40k are leaning on one of the most competitively focussed YouTube channels for their information.  Just a very funny moment to me. 

 

No one has said that tournament focus is a death knell for 40k.

 

However, I did say that the rules have been homogenised and become less thematic as a result of that focus.

Edited April 8 by Orange Knight

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

 

The terrain layout cards in 10th were a competitive focussed portion of the game.  None of the card decks were required to enjoy the game, and you could use what parts of them you wanted to. 

 

Once again, I entreat you all to just relax a little bit and wait for actual information to come out.

 

 

 

Separately, also more than a little funny that the people who are complaining about tournaments being the death knell for 40k are leaning on one of the most competitively focussed YouTube channels for their information.  Just a very funny moment to me. 

I take it you play a great many games of open war in 10th then?

 

I wouldn't brand Auspex Tactics as competitively focused either, he's just a news/engagement channel who talks about the game as a whole generally.

 

Everyone could always use all of whatever parts they want to at any point. That doesn't alter the fact that people's defacto understanding of what's normal and expected will change it also doesn't account for some units becoming wonky/after unexpectedly due to not being "on the correct terrain layouts" or whatever.

[jaxom]

11 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

That doesn't alter the fact that people's defacto understanding of what's normal and expected will change it also doesn't account for some units becoming wonky/after unexpectedly due to not being "on the correct terrain layouts" or whatever.

Oh hi, Baneblade 

[Interrogator Stobz]

2 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

And in a wonderful full circle, Terminators are typically armed with a form of bolter with standard bolter ammo, not a squad of plasma/melta.

Speaking of circles, that's why it's suicide. They're not armed well enough. 

[CastellanDeMolay]

On 4/6/2026 at 4:21 PM, Interrogator Stobz said:

Not sure where everyone is getting this Chapters won't sacrifice Veterans fluff from.  

I don't believe anyone actually said that. I'm sure we're all well aware of the sacrifices made by the Lamenters in their humanitarian missions, or the Astral Knights being wiped out in their efforts to destroy the Necron World Engine. The thing is, the former are on a permanent penitent crusade intended to destroy their chapter and the latter were the only ones in a position to neutralize a threat to the Imperium entire. 

What we are saying is that 5-10 of the chapter's finest for one or two Ork Battlewagons, or whatever puff pastry things the Necrons brought, is such a waste of resources outside of the singular game being played that it's comical that the game encourages that kind of trade. 

[Xenith]

8 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

And in a wonderful full circle, Terminators are typically armed with a form of bolter with standard bolter ammo, not a squad of plasma/melta.

The argument was that veterans wouldn't be wasted on suicide missions, not that they wouldn't be armed with melta and plasma. 

 

The problem is that arming them with melta, in-game, tends to give them a fire and forget role, though by it's nature, the game can't and shouldn't be a 1:1 representation of the fluff as marines would never die - in the background losing 20-30 marines in a single action is catastrophic bordering on incompetence, and would likely result in censure for a captain. In the game we lose that number in a couple of hours.

 

Yes, in the fluff trading 5 veterans for a battlewagon is a bad trade, but in the game, trading 100pts worth of melta veteran for 250pts worth of vehicle is a good trade. We have to dissociate the two. 

Edited April 8 by Xenith

[Nephaston]

Also, especially for marines, not all casualties equal a guy being dead, as they might just be hurt enough to not participate in combat any longer or do their little healing coma thing until an apothecary can wake them up later.

 

Those 5 veterans entering melee to take down a battlewagon might just be busy collecting lost arms/legs, stuffing guts back, pulling out metal shards from each other after the wagon blew up in their face and start dragging off brother archibald after he took the brunt of it and sleeps it off.

[Northern Walker]

12 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

 

No one has said that tournament focus is a death knell for 40k.

 

However, I did say that the rules have been homogenised and become less thematic as a result of that focus.

Tournament focus is a death knell for good 40k though.

[01RTB01]

6 minutes ago, Northern Walker said:

Tournament focus is a death knell for good 40k though.

I've bleated this a lot but I said when itc got involved c. 8th ed it'd be horrific and I was correct.

[Mogger351]

5 hours ago, Xenith said:

The argument was that veterans wouldn't be wasted on suicide missions, not that they wouldn't be armed with melta and plasma. 

 

The problem is that arming them with melta, in-game, tends to give them a fire and forget role, though by it's nature, the game can't and shouldn't be a 1:1 representation of the fluff as marines would never die - in the background losing 20-30 marines in a single action is catastrophic bordering on incompetence, and would likely result in censure for a captain. In the game we lose that number in a couple of hours.

 

Yes, in the fluff trading 5 veterans for a battlewagon is a bad trade, but in the game, trading 100pts worth of melta veteran for 250pts worth of vehicle is a good trade. We have to dissociate the two. 

No it was about special weapons etc because of sternguard not being able to suicide in with melta. People consider this a fluffy use of the unit, because "veterans should have the best guns". But either way peoples mileage may vary seemingly.

[Mogger351]

6 minutes ago, 01RTB01 said:

I've bleated this a lot but I said when itc got involved c. 8th ed it'd be horrific and I was correct.

 

It's actually a tough one, because they clearly served a vocal subsection of the hobby. It's just unfortunate thst it became the defacto version of the hobby as a result.

[DemonGSides]

6 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

 

It's actually a tough one, because they clearly served a vocal subsection of the hobby. It's just unfortunate thst it became the defacto version of the hobby as a result.

 

I think the de facto form of the hobby is actual hobbying; or the building and painting of models. Most people don't even play games.

 

18 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

I take it you play a great many games of open war in 10th then?

 

No, but I also didn't play on prescribed terrain more than a handful of times. You all are the ones without imagination, not me.

 

18 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

I wouldn't brand Auspex Tactics as competitively focused either, he's just a news/engagement channel who talks about the game as a whole generally.

 

This is an insane take. They literally have meta breakdown videos. If auspex tactics isn't competitive focussed, almost no one is.

 

18 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

 

Everyone could always use all of whatever parts they want to at any point. That doesn't alter the fact that people's defacto understanding of what's normal and expected will change it also doesn't account for some units becoming wonky/after unexpectedly due to not being "on the correct terrain layouts" or whatever.

 

This is a non existent problem and a Boogeyman that people who don't actually go out and play games come up with as an excuse to not put effort into playing the game. Just use an excuse like you don't like the flavor of the game currently rather than making up that NO ONE plays anything besides competitive tournament style games when it comes to pick up games; it just isn't true.

[Karhedron]

27 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

I think the de facto form of the hobby is actual hobbying; or the building and painting of models. Most people don't even play games.

 

I don't think there is any standard. Some people mostly enjoy the modelling. Some people enjoy the gaming. Some people enjoy reading the lore. Most people have a blend of the three but I wouldn't even try to guess what that Venn diagram would look like.

Edited April 8 by Karhedron

[Mogger351]

23 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

I think the de facto form of the hobby is actual hobbying; or the building and painting of models. Most people don't even play games.

 

And yet those who game will to a degree build and paint towards post-itc competitive style play as a result.

 

Quote

No, but I also didn't play on prescribed terrain more than a handful of times. You all are the ones without imagination, not me.

 

No, but you claimed you didn't need the mission packs, which you clearly did, but in 11th those mission decks will be telling you where to put at least 6 pieces of terrain as they're now the objectives. Or do you plan on completely using your imagination to play in a way GW don't accommodate any more.

 

Quote

This is an insane take. They literally have meta breakdown videos. If auspex tactics isn't competitive focussed, almost no one is.

 

The BBC has financial news, it doesn't make them financially focused or a stockbroker.

 

Quote

This is a non existent problem and a Boogeyman that people who don't actually go out and play games come up with as an excuse to not put effort into playing the game. Just use an excuse like you don't like the flavor of the game currently rather than making up that NO ONE plays anything besides competitive tournament style games when it comes to pick up games; it just isn't true.

 

I'm playing a game tonight, it won't be a tournament game. But I'm not naive enough to think that units priced on behaving in certain ways for certain missions on specific layouts won't have ramifications for someone who doesn't use those expected resources.

[DemonGSides]

14 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

And yet those who game will to a degree build and paint towards post-itc competitive style play as a result.

 

A lot of assumption there. 

 

14 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

No, but you claimed you didn't need the mission packs, which you clearly did, but in 11th those mission decks will be telling you where to put at least 6 pieces of terrain as they're now the objectives. Or do you plan on completely using your imagination to play in a way GW don't accommodate any more.

 

You don't need mission packs for 10th. Jesus you're just making stuff up at this point. You can use whichever parts of the mission pack cards you want; quite often we didn't choose deployment zones randomly, we chose the one we wanted to. If you only choose to use the predefined set ups... then yes you will use predefined set ups.

 

What's different about this process in 11th?  Nothing that we know of, just that they now also have a card for terrain deployments if you want to use them.  Seems like a whole lot of anger over nothing to me. 

 

14 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

The BBC has financial news, it doesn't make them financially focused or a stockbroker.

 

Keep digging the hole, I'm sure you'll hit air eventually.  This comparison doesn't pass the smallest sniff test. 

 

14 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

I'm playing a game tonight, it won't be a tournament game. But I'm not naive enough to think that units priced on behaving in certain ways for certain missions on specific layouts won't have ramifications for someone who doesn't use those expected resources.

 

Congrats?

Edited April 8 by DemonGSides