New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[Nephaston]

6 hours ago, Bouargh said:

 

It is exactly what I think when I imagine the nightmare of fielding 2 detachments of the same faction and then getting to track down which unit belongs to which detachment...

Unless benefits stacks, which would in that case lead to: i) questionning the balance achieved and (partly) reconducted by codices (and dataslates?) and ii) questionning the need of adding a detachment layer vs. getting armyrules that worth it. 

This is something i did not catch in the annoucements. In fact this "multiple" detachments thing looks very blurrry for me atm...

In some cases it'll probably be easy, like Deathwing and Ravenwing combos, which makes me think it'll probably be even further tied to archetypes that should be easy(-ish) to keep track on the table.

Just gotta make sure players keep accurate records of, say, Chapter colours, company markings, regiment colours, order of battle and all the fun stuff one gets to do if one actually paints their miniatures.

[redmapa]

It cant be that hard to mix detachments and keep it clear, everything that benefits from detachment A goes there and the rest that benefit from detachment B goes in it which in practice would look fairly similar with 30k and it's million detachments as what detachments you choose would inform your choice of units that are in each detachment.

 

If I mixed Stormlance+Orbital  then the bikes and Jump infantry get Stormlance and everything in a transport gets the buffs from Orbital 

You could do pure infantry in IG, large squads using Recon detachment and Mechanized squads in Grizzled regiment, 

 

Dishonesty is the only way this gets confusing imo

Edited March 27 by redmapa

[Moonstalker]

If it were me, I'd split it up like... if you're running mono-detachment, you get everything we already get in a detachment.  4 relics, 6 stratagems, detachment rule, easy.  If you run dual detachments, that's where things get different.  Half the stratagems, half the relics, those are limited to mono detachment only.  If you run multiple detachments, you get the non-mono stuff from each of them.  The detachment rule may have some additional benefit to being mono-detachment, the most powerful strats or relics limited to mono detachment, stuff like that to keep mono interesting.

 

It could create its own issues (just off the top of my head, poor balancing making mono-detachment never or always the correct choice), but it eliminates needing to decide which unit belongs in which detachment and benefits from which detachment rule and can be targeted by which stratagems.  It also reduces the balancing complexity, as you're effectively halving the amount of stuff you have to worry about showing up in a wombo-combo.  If a problematic combo does occur, you can just swap something in/out of mono-only to stop the combo.

 

Food for thought, though.  Don't have to panic about bloat yet, there's ways this could be done where we don't end up having to keep track of 12+ stratagems just for one army.

[Xenith]

On 3/26/2026 at 10:50 AM, Son of Rawl said:

This feels like 10.5 rather than a full edition. 

That's the idea it seems, but bear in mind 4/5/6/7th editions were refinements of 3rd, 8/9/10 were all resets, and personally I'm sick of resets. I'd argue 10.5 was when they made the massive changes to core rules 3-6 months in, basically changing the game. 

 

From what I read, things seem semi-balanced right now, and everyone has a codex. Let's keep it that way for a while.

[ThePenitentOne]

9th was not a reset; it was 8.5.  Now that it's 100% confirmed that 11 = 10.5, the pattern is set:

 

Post 7th, the pattern has been to start with an Indexed reset (8th), then do a BRB update 3 years later with dexes carrying over until replacement (9th); Index (10th), then BRB update with codex carryover 3 years later (11th).

 

12th will have reset Indexes. 13th won't. 14th will have reset Indexes. 15th won't.

 

Rinse, repeat until enough people loose interest that GW is finally  forced to give us the evergreen living edition that 8th should have been.

[Scribe]

31 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Rinse, repeat until enough people loose interest that GW is finally forced to give us the evergreen living edition that 8th should have been.

 

LOL, no.

 

More like "...finally forced to go back to 5th, or an open rule set based on it as an evergreen edition."

 

That said, 40K players are weird. Yearning to pay through the nose for subpar rules with resets every 3 years, and willing to pay outrages rates for plastic. GW has it real good.

[Emperor Ming]

39 minutes ago, ThePenitentOne said:

9th was not a reset; it was 8.5.  Now that it's 100% confirmed that 11 = 10.5, the pattern is set:

 

Post 7th, the pattern has been to start with an Indexed reset (8th), then do a BRB update 3 years later with dexes carrying over until replacement (9th); Index (10th), then BRB update with codex carryover 3 years later (11th).

 

12th will have reset Indexes. 13th won't. 14th will have reset Indexes. 15th won't.

 

Rinse, repeat until enough people loose interest that GW is finally  forced to give us the evergreen living edition that 8th should have been.

Yep I think this is how they will do things from now on

 

But to be fair, after another 3 years of 'take whatever you want' and multiple detachments, most might be begging for a index reset

 

Imagine the faq size by then

[Tastyfish]

3 hours ago, Moonstalker said:

If it were me, I'd split it up like... if you're running mono-detachment, you get everything we already get in a detachment.  4 relics, 6 stratagems, detachment rule, easy.  If you run dual detachments, that's where things get different.  Half the stratagems, half the relics, those are limited to mono detachment only.  If you run multiple detachments, you get the non-mono stuff from each of them.  The detachment rule may have some additional benefit to being mono-detachment, the most powerful strats or relics limited to mono detachment, stuff like that to keep mono interesting.

 

It could create its own issues (just off the top of my head, poor balancing making mono-detachment never or always the correct choice), but it eliminates needing to decide which unit belongs in which detachment and benefits from which detachment rule and can be targeted by which stratagems.  It also reduces the balancing complexity, as you're effectively halving the amount of stuff you have to worry about showing up in a wombo-combo.  If a problematic combo does occur, you can just swap something in/out of mono-only to stop the combo.

 

Food for thought, though.  Don't have to panic about bloat yet, there's ways this could be done where we don't end up having to keep track of 12+ stratagems just for one army.

 

This is definitely the way I see it, half a detachment with three strats etc a restricted army rule and a relic or two. That'd make perfect sense for the Terminator + Bikes combo detachment being equal to the old style more generalist ones, or things being really specific like they mentioned like the Emperor's Champion.

 

The biggest factions I think that will be impacted off that bat will be Chaos, as I imagine the Daemonic legion mini-factions will unlock those units for your army. Generally those detachments are considered a little subpar across the board.

 

Interesting to see if generic CSM and Daemons themselves get to take the same ones or not.

 

I can see something that allows God keyworded legions and specifically buffs them alongside similar ones that focus on interactions between cult units and their respective gods.

Edited March 28 by Tastyfish

[Antarius]

4 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Post 7th, the pattern has been to start with an Indexed reset (8th), then do a BRB update 3 years later with dexes carrying over until replacement (9th); Index (10th), then BRB update with codex carryover 3 years later (11th).

 

12th will have reset Indexes. 13th won't. 14th will have reset Indexes. 15th won't.

 

Rinse, repeat until enough people loose interest that GW is finally  forced to give us the evergreen living edition that 8th should have been.

I also think the 3-year edition cycle is annoying, but I don't think we can necessarily say that this is how things will be or that this particular pattern of reset-not reset will carry on. 15th edition is 12 years away if they keep to the 3-year cycle and a lot can happen in 12 years.

[Prot]

Some good rules coming out in previews.... I really do like getting rid of circles, but I think this is something we have to see around more context. Also does this mean terrain becomes standarized? IE: I want to pick a huge gothic ruin as an objective, that leaves you with a set of crates as an objetive? I'm not sure the whole implication of this. I'm okay if they standarized.... 2 pieces of terrain per table for this reason? Hard to say.

 

The one rule I've heard that has me really uncertain (could go either way) is win conditions/missions based on your detachment. This might be one of the biggest changes. And I suppose this means our "Maelstrom" style games are gone? Or perhaps relegated to an alternative way to play?

[Karhedron]

Even with Maelstrom games you have the option to select fixed secondary Objectives so maybe these will function in the same way. 

[Jscarlos18]

I was looking at the schedule of 10th edition to refresh my memory on how they did the articles for Leviathan.

 

Like it, they first revealed the basic infantry for the two faction the same day as the edition being announced. Another day was an article dedicated to the lore and one was an interview with the designers. They also alternated between the two factions by showing some of the units but not the full range. They released a novel that tied into the campaign. Beside these, there was articles for faction focuses and downloadable index for all armies.

 

The full roster of the boxset was for Warhammer Fest, don't know if this will happen again or the schedule is different.

Edited March 28 by Jscarlos18

[DuskRaider]

20 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

LOL, no.

 

More like "...finally forced to go back to 5th, or an open rule set based on it as an evergreen edition."

 

That said, 40K players are weird. Yearning to pay through the nose for subpar rules with resets every 3 years, and willing to pay outrages rates for plastic. GW has it real good.

If we’re talking about going back to the rules of 5th, sign me up. The codices from my experience were either bland but serviceable (Chaos) or a lot of fun (Orks) and the basic rules were vastly superior compared to 8th up to current. 

[Blindhamster]

See, I was done with 40K till 8th, and like most of you had played since 2nd. So clearly it’s different strokes for different folks. I enjoyed 8th a lot, didn’t hate 9th and have enjoyed 10th, though I only really play with my main friend group or son these days.

[Interrogator Stobz]

I played a fair bit of 1st, a bit less of 2nd due to army life, heaps of 3rd through 5th, kids slowed 6th and 7th, 8th was the whole Primaris replacement and losing templates and facings etc isn't fun for me, so I only played a few games, played 9th 3 times, by 10th 80% of my units were Legends so I walked away from the main game, KT, AT, and LI are my main hobbies now, and paint. 

Now, 11th won't bring me back with any vengeance, the core rules just won't please me, so that's a shame. But it is great to see GW trying little changes like cover rules affecting to hit, and tiny Intersessor nods to past armour marks,  and it will be interesting to see what that Landspeeder in the video actually means to the game.

 

Great thing about playing a near fully Legends Force, is that my unofficial Codex gets upgraded for free every Edition. It's often more up to date than many paper books. Winning.

Maybe I'll squeeze in a game or two this Edition, real life is looking clearer and my pile of shame is shrinking. Obviously, no tournaments etc, but that's ok too.

Edited March 29 by Interrogator Stobz

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Still most concerned this edition will absolutely destroy shooting armies if shooting and arty doesn’t get a big buff compared to this edition 

[DuskRaider]

3 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

I played a fair bit of 1st, a bit less of 2nd due to army life, heaps of 3rd through 5th, kids slowed 6th and 7th, 8th was the whole Primaris replacement and losing templates and facings etc isn't fun for me, so I only played a few games, played 9th 3 times, by 10th 80% of my units were Legends so I walked away from the main game, KT, AT, and LI are my main hobbies now, and paint. 

Now, 11th won't bring me back with any vengeance, the core rules just won't please me, so that's a shame. But it is great to see GW trying little changes like cover rules affecting to hit, and tiny Intersessor nods to past armour marks,  and it will be interesting to see what that Landspeeder in the video actually means to the game.

 

Great thing about playing a near fully Legends Force, is that my unofficial Codex gets upgraded for free every Edition. It's often more up to date than many paper books. Winning.

Maybe I'll squeeze in a game or two this Edition, real life is looking clearer and my pile of shame is shrinking. Obviously, no tournaments etc, but that's ok too.

I would love to see GW give 40K the Old World treatment with a separate game for oldheads. Something along the lines of third edition revamped or whatever. 

[Bonzi]

I'm glad we aren't doing an index reset.  By the end of 9th the game was a dumpster fire and even then I didn't want a reset because I get so sick of the codex crawl.  Most of the things they mention seem like real quality of life improvements so I'm happy.  I won't be concerned about the multiple detatchments thing until they explain it more, as of now I just don't understand how it will work and guessing is a waste of time.  For me a mostly positive impression with a couple things that concern.  Hopefully we are coming up on the time where we can expect the drip feed of information and explanations.

 

I've been riding this train since 3rd or 4th edition....my biggest advice to those who are newer to this rodeo is don't read the forums and naysayers too much and let them ruin and edition for you before you even play it.   Take a step back from these threads if it starts costing you the enjoyment you find in your hobby.  Every edition change produces its own new batch of "I'm quitting and I'm never coming back", many of whom seem to stick around for several more editions just to complain.  Every edition has its good points, every edition has been a dumpster fire.

Edited March 29 by Bonzi

[Interrogator Stobz]

9 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

I would love to see GW give 40K the Old World treatment with a separate game for oldheads. Something along the lines of third edition revamped or whatever. 

Super unlikely due to HH.

But if they made rules for Legend units and Xenos/Chaos to use the HH rules up to the 40,000 of old time line, just wowzer.

Edited March 29 by Interrogator Stobz

[MoriyaSchism]

6 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

I would love to see GW give 40K the Old World treatment with a separate game for oldheads. Something along the lines of third edition revamped or whatever. 

I would be right behind this but only if the new models are in the same scale as the current crop of Chaos Marines/Raiders. The Heresy 2.0 marine infantry scale just doesn't work for me. 

[Rowland]

Guys, I’m just starting out with this.  I’ve invested heavily.  I’m making two armies for me and a mate to use (Tyranids v Exorcists).  I don’t think GW have limited my imgination/creativity, if anything I find with all the YT vids I’m now more “creative” than ever.  Although terrain (for example) in tournaments seems to be wooden L shapes, I had already found a cardboard packing piece in a stereo box that, turned upside down makes for a great concrete bunker.  I thought that the human inhabitants had retreated to that and the Space Marines are rescuing them so a narrative objective marker if you will.

Anyway…I’ve been using the app for army building (just points for points really) and I’m wondering if when changes are made will the numbers change significantly or will you be able to use your old lists that you had on your app?

[Laurence]

20 minutes ago, Rowland said:

Guys, I’m just starting out with this.  I’ve invested heavily.  I’m making two armies for me and a mate to use (Tyranids v Exorcists).  I don’t think GW have limited my imgination/creativity, if anything I find with all the YT vids I’m now more “creative” than ever.  Although terrain (for example) in tournaments seems to be wooden L shapes, I had already found a cardboard packing piece in a stereo box that, turned upside down makes for a great concrete bunker.  I thought that the human inhabitants had retreated to that and the Space Marines are rescuing them so a narrative objective marker if you will.

Anyway…I’ve been using the app for army building (just points for points really) and I’m wondering if when changes are made will the numbers change significantly or will you be able to use your old lists that you had on your app?

They'll probably remain the same until the inevitable re-do of codexes over the next few years.

[DuskRaider]

16 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Super unlikely due to HH.

But if they made rules for Legend units and Xenos/Chaos to use the HH rules up to the 40,000 of old time line, just wowzer.

I would love to see them do Orks and Eldar in AT as well while we’re at it. The fan made codices show it’s absolutely doable and they can have their own unique playstyle. 

[Kaiju Soze]

Preview of the Army Building and Detachment rules.

• Players get a number of Detachment Points to buy detachments with.
• Max number of units and enhancements based on game size.
• Some enhancements can be given to units.
• Characters are split into Leader and Support roles.  Leaders can run solo, Supports must be attached to units.
• Detachments have Force Dispositions.  You compare your Disposition to your opponents to determine your mission.

[Kommisar_K]

The article says we'll get some info on missions tomorrow. Definitely looking forward to that.