New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[DemonGSides]

41 minutes ago, Lord Marshal said:

It's a Terrain Objectives preview today.

 

 

 

Mostly nothing new but good to have a specific shout out of how it works.

 

39 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

That’s all well and good to say, but again a not insignificant portion if the player base wants to be able to tell a story with their games, and some times that story is their army is doctrinally more shooting based.

 

how do you balance guard or tau? Idk much about tau units, but the guard has basically 1 1/2-2 decent melee options. If you cannot effectively soften up an intercessor squad even a Kasrkin or scion squad is probably going to get stomped in melee without serious and unfluffy buffs over what they have now.

 

What's your concern?  That every infantry/beast sized model is going to always be hidden and unable to be targeted?  So if the opponent wants to sit on one objective and never move, hey that's a win. We can slow walk it up taking the board and then hold them in place.  Stay 16" away from their maximum movement range and then if they want to take a point, they gotta come to us and we will be within range on our turn after a short move.  And if they aren't shooting, they aren't killing our guys either.

 

You must not be playing with Kasrkin very much if you're worried about not being within 15 inches of their target; they are a shotgun aimed at whatever nastiness needs to be removed. Two melta guns are at 12" range anyways.  And you've got your own Ogryn to be beasts in melee if you're worried about going toe to toe.

 

And frankly; baseline humans should be dying pretty quickly in the melee that is standard in 40k war.  That's not a failure of the guard; that's who we are. Humanity's waves.

[Mogger351]

I'm struggling with the terrain expectations even more now. They seem to be expecting, as per the cards, each terrain and/or objective will have a representative number of features a vehicle for exmaple can traverse, and green items that cannot be traversed.

 

Yes of course you can decide every objective is a patch of trees, it can also be a map consisting entirely of impassible rock spires.

 

But how often will a game be mapped out with the exact combination of green/yellow items and when they review data for balance changes, what impact will that have?

[Karhedron]

It is hard to tell exactly from the Warcomm article but the impression I get is that vehicles can traverse walls that are up to 1 storey high or equivalent obstacles.

[Mogger351]

1 minute ago, Karhedron said:

It is hard to tell exactly from the Warcomm article but the impression I get is that vehicles can traverse walls that are up to 1 storey high or equivalent obstacles.

Yes but this is the issue, the mission is telling you that a 10x2" stretch of wall is able to be crossed with no penalty by vehicles.

 

If you only have shipping containers to place on that area piece, thats incredibly jarring. Or you play them as shipping containers and break the balance of the mission layout.

[Karhedron]

GW's shipping containers are more than 2" wide (at least 2.5 IIRC) so arguably would not be suitable for the 2x10" stretch.

[Mogger351]

4 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

GW's shipping containers are more than 2" wide (at least 2.5 IIRC) so arguably would not be suitable for the 2x10" stretch.

I feel that sort of proves the point reslly that there's more restrictions on terrain ever vs design integrity. Someone on Reddit called it a solution looking for a problem, which seems true.

[Antarius]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

That’s all well and good to say, but again a not insignificant portion if the player base wants to be able to tell a story with their games, and some times that story is their army is doctrinally more shooting based.

Certainly. But, not to sound flippant, maybe the other player wants to tell the story that his unit has sought cover to actually make it more difficult to shoot.

It's not like all units are going to be in cover all the time and it's not like all units/armies should be able to do everything equally well in all situations. I don't really think that's a problem that needs solving. Cover is supposed to be a hindrance to the shooter, after all.

Edited April 10 by Antarius

[Indy Techwisp]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

Yes but this is the issue, the mission is telling you that a 10x2" stretch of wall is able to be crossed with no penalty by vehicles.

 

If you only have shipping containers to place on that area piece, thats incredibly jarring. Or you play them as shipping containers and break the balance of the mission layout.

 

It feels thematically appropriate that the relatively oversized vehicles in 40k could plow through a stack of cargo containers.

 

Besides, vehicles having a set amount of terrain they can ignore by just flavouring it as them running it over is something other more "historically accurate" wargames do, so it fits 40k.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Mostly nothing new but good to have a specific shout out of how it works.

 

 

What's your concern?  That every infantry/beast sized model is going to always be hidden and unable to be targeted?  So if the opponent wants to sit on one objective and never move, hey that's a win. We can slow walk it up taking the board and then hold them in place.  Stay 16" away from their maximum movement range and then if they want to take a point, they gotta come to us and we will be within range on our turn after a short move.  And if they aren't shooting, they aren't killing our guys either.

 

You must not be playing with Kasrkin very much if you're worried about not being within 15 inches of their target; they are a shotgun aimed at whatever nastiness needs to be removed. Two melta guns are at 12" range anyways.  And you've got your own Ogryn to be beasts in melee if you're worried about going toe to toe.

 

And frankly; baseline humans should be dying pretty quickly in the melee that is standard in 40k war.  That's not a failure of the guard; that's who we are. Humanity's waves.

My concern is my guard will be unable to kill enough world eaters or demons to stand a chance before it comes to melee. 
is that really so hard to understand?

 

plasma has range beyond 12” and unless they changed something you can’t have 2 meltas in a kasrkin squad.

 

great I can have 9 bullgryn and 9 ogryn…slow, and ogryn are just barely able to stand up to intercessors. Bullgryns can’t stand up to elite chaos units or (chaos) marine units.

 

6 hours ago, Antarius said:

Certainly. But, not to sound flippant, maybe the other player wants to tell the story that his unit has sought cover to actually make it more difficult to shoot.

It's not like all units are going to be in cover all the time and it's not like all units/armies should be able to do everything equally well in all situations. I don't really think that's a problem that needs solving. Cover is supposed to be a hindrance to the shooter, after all.

And the worsening of AP represented that just fine, while still giving ranged units an opportunity to be useful

Edited April 10 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Antarius]

11 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

And the worsening of AP represented that just fine, while still giving ranged units an opportunity to be useful

Let's just say I am very sanguine about ranged units still having a future in 40K and leave it at that.

[Mogger351]

41 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

It feels thematically appropriate that the relatively oversized vehicles in 40k could plow through a stack of cargo containers.

 

Besides, vehicles having a set amount of terrain they can ignore by just flavouring it as them running it over is something other more "historically accurate" wargames do, so it fits 40k.

At which point it's all very arbitrary is it not? You may as well use the area markers on their own.

[HeadlessCross]

15 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

My concern is my guard will be unable to kill enough world eaters or demons to stand a chance before it comes to melee. 
is that really so hard to understand?

Then it sounds like you should've been spending points on counter charge units. This is like complaining your opponent has an army that is 50% tanks because you forgot to take some Melta or Lascannons. 

[Indy Techwisp]

2 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

At which point it's all very arbitrary is it not? You may as well use the area markers on their own.

 

No?

The actual terrain itself is still useful for Infantry to get cover, you just ignore it for vehicle movement.

[Mogger351]

4 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

No?

The actual terrain itself is still useful for Infantry to get cover, you just ignore it for vehicle movement.

Bu why? You know that on the long thin yellow strip, infantry get cover. For the green Ls on those, you can mark the walls down and see line of slight blocking clearly.

 

It's honestly confusing. People seem to be adjusting to only using the terrain layouts and using the interpretations on the card irrespective of their real life appearance and dimensions. But simultaneously I keep being told "you can do what you like with the terrain". 

 

The two do not pair up in my head. Are people genuinely going to use big solid objects that are "low walls" and then have complete structures on other causes that have imaginary gaps to match the layout cards?

 

Will everyone just have cardboard footprints with L shapes on?

Edited April 10 by Mogger351

[Firedrake Cordova]

24 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Bu why?

Visual immersion? 

 

24 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Are people genuinely going to use big solid objects that are "low walls" and then have complete structures on other causes that have imaginary gaps to match the layout cards?

Personally, I intend to use the GW layouts as advisory rather than prescriptive, and use whatever the scenery that gets placed actually looks like to inform the actual in-game effects. I am a big fan of scenery-heavy tables anyway, though (think 2nd Ed WD battle report style - a good amount of scenery and smaller models on the board). Obviously, this is personal preference and to each their own, etc.

 

Edited April 10 by Firedrake Cordova

[Tawnis]

1 hour ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

It feels thematically appropriate that the relatively oversized vehicles in 40k could plow through a stack of cargo containers.

 

Besides, vehicles having a set amount of terrain they can ignore by just flavouring it as them running it over is something other more "historically accurate" wargames do, so it fits 40k.

Totally agree. Honestly, I'd be happy if there was a way to remove terrain by a vehicle crushing it into rubble, but I know that a rule like that would probably be too finicky to implement into general rules. 

56 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

My concern is my guard will be unable to kill enough world eaters or demons to stand a chance before it comes to melee. 
is that really so hard to understand?

That is certainly looking to be the case. I would not be surprised to see guard armies running lots of Cavalry and Ogryns and Tau armies running a lot more Kroot at the start of 11th. 

[Rusted Boltgun]

With regard to destructible terrain, could you just replace the 3D scenery piece with the cardboard template once your Rhino (for example) has reduced it to rubble?

 

Off to watch the WH+ retelling of The Battle At The Farm shortly at Jr Boltgun's request.

[Bonzi]

What is certain is that the value of weapons or rules that ignore cover have gone up with these changes.  Units like Sisters Immolators or Votann Thunderkin which turn off cover for their target vs all subsequent shooting will go up considerably.

 

For all the doomsayers I would also note a thing....every time GW creates a nerf rule...they instantly creat a thing that ignores that rule.  They do this every time.  I guarantee you with Orks and Marines both first out the door....ignores cover mechanics will be baked into a unit or weapon that didn't have it before.

[Nephaston]

Lets also not forget that all those ruin walls should feasibly be surrounded by the rubble of other, collapsed, walls that permit vehicle to ramp above a low wall, while maintaining it's height to provide cover.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

10 hours ago, ChapterMasterGodfrey said:

I just hope with the recent attention they've actually given to 1000 point games, they release terrain layouts for games at that size.

 

I'm assuming that they'll be the same as 2000-point games unless they've decided to have a different size for them now. I'm expecting a 40k version of spearhead though it seems to be pretty popular with AoS crowd.   

 

5 hours ago, 01RTB01 said:

 

Having played orks in every edition I'll respectfully disagree. It really didn't slow things down any more than marine players with their gazillion re rolls from characters or oath of moment. 

 

I can honestly say it made a difference as an ork player and was more impactful than you're suggesting. Never tell dice the odds as that's rarely seen as playing out on the table 

 

I agree with Ork the volume of dice never really slowed it down that much (it didn't hurt that the Ork players I've played against bring a ton). Honestly the only time I had super long phases against Orks was when blast weapons were still templates, and it took forever to space them out. 

 

3 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

I feel that sort of proves the point reslly that there's more restrictions on terrain ever vs design integrity. Someone on Reddit called it a solution looking for a problem, which seems true.

 

In fairness I think GW is using Balance as a more marketable reason to justify the actual problem their trying to solve. It wasn't worth buying trees, defense lines or really any terrain besides a ruin (well maybe the cargo containers) with the current rule set. This update is aiming to fix that problem for them, so they can sell us more stuff.   

[MARK0SIAN]

@Bonzi is absolutely right about GW. If you’re worried about how the cover changes affect your army you probably shouldn’t be overly concerned. GW have a track record or creating a rule then handing out so many exceptions to that rule that it largely renders the rule meaningless. It’s why they’ve often struggled with balance for factions like Eldar where they’re meant to be a glass cannon but gw give them so many ways to offset their fragility that they essentially become Adamantium Cannons. It’s also why things like ‘fights first’ became such a convoluted mess in 8th and 9th editions. 

[jaxom]

Right off the bat we have torrent weapons,  plunging fire, and Towering units within 12”.

[Tawnis]

51 minutes ago, jaxom said:

Right off the bat we have torrent weapons,  plunging fire, and Towering units within 12”.

Yeah, that is a good point. So long as there is a good amount of elevation to the terrain, this might finally incentivize players to actually climb buildings and get some vertical positioning going. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

Agree!

10th was awfully 2 dimensional, hopefully this will make terrain important again.

[Silvereyes]

"The number of objectives varies by mission too, between 5 and 6. That's worth factoring in when you build your army list – will you aim to contest the whole battlefield, or concentrate your forces to secure a handful of critical points?"

 

 

God, do I not care. Got to love a new Chapter Approved deck, but the absolute fixation on objective markers. God forbid you have any less than 5, or even worse: arranged in any sortof interesting way. Love that bit I quoted, as if the presence or lack of presence of a sixth object marker will be such a huge game changer. I'm sure all players will nervously fixate on phone's list builder app, their fingers shaking, going "oh god, what if there is a 6th objective in the battle tomorrow!?"

 

It really sours me on this new mission system. I know we've only seen 3 or 4 of the 25 primary missions, but considering they have said that this: "Almost all will still score some measure of points for holding objectives on the battlefield, so you can’t completely abandon board control for carnage, but the exact split will vary." So basically, I always have to worry about objectives. And even if I do somehow get one of the few missions that doesn't score anything on objectives, I bet my opponent will, so I'll still need to try and stop them taking objectives anyway. It just seems like the illusion of choice. The problem with a system like this is with so many variables with hundreds of outcomes, they essentially have to limit the scope of possibility so it can be balanced.

 

I think what gets me is the comparison to Age of Sigmar's General's Handbook. General's Handbook 2025-2026 comes with 12 pre-made scenarios, each with a primary objective and a set symmetrical deployment zone using the same deployment markers as 40K. But since the designers have less variables to worry about (players can only choose 2 of 6 set secondaries), it means they can dictate more flavourable scenarios. The 12 missions can have between 3-6 objectives, and can be placed in a variety of positions. Furthermore, one very clever gimmick they have is that the objectives are colour coded: 2 blue, 2 green, 1 red, and 1 purple. This means that objectives can be worth different amounts of points. Some scenarios use the paired colours for different effects. My favourite is that several scenarios will also have points values on objectives change each round. My favourite being a scenario which uses one of each colour, each set up roughly 12" away from the center of the board, like points on a square. The primary objective marker goes clockwise each round, meaning that players have to constantly move and plan ahead, chasing the objective worth alot of points. It's dynamic and fun. 

 

I should stress, as much as I like both games, I don't want 40K to be more like AoS. They both have different metas and different styles. Certainly AoS ain't perfect, I actually really hate the current secondaries in that game. But even if you look at stuff like the missions provided in the last Crusade book, or the 500 Worlds campaign, or the Raid and Ruin campaign, I just think they provide far more interesting missions to play. Rather than a mission deck that, yes, can have different stuff everytime. But does it matter when the different stuff that happens is only a few degrees different than before? I don't get it.

 

To end of a positive note, I do like the new objective markers. Certainly from a casual perspective, setting up a building terrain, and just saying the terrain is the objective, rather than awkwardly placing a circle within the building, is a step up. Means in the future the missions designers could make some more colourful objectives, like say try and defend a whole town square for instance. The new Hidden rule seems fine to me, I'm a T'au player and I can understand how sometimes frustrating it can be to be against a shooting army. Especially if I have a great first turn shooting phase. Yeah, the meta will change because of it, but it seems like something that certains army should benefit from. I'm sure when the 11th codecies start to arrive, shooting armies will get other stuff to compensate. And so far, I like the new detachment system. 

 

Hope Crusade survives into 11th. Honestly, seems like it would be more work to delete Crusade I would of thought, if GW wanted to be lazy they could just update codecies with the relevant changes for Crusade. But then, GW can be GW. Slightly hopeful that this second other deck of cards GW is teasing will actually be interesting in some way.