New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[Crimson Longinus]

27 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

OK, so let me get this straight:

 

GW reveal the Detachment Points and multiple popular Detachments are 3dp (regardless of the reason why) and not usable in a 1k points game.

 

This reaches critical mass with IA who were straight up unusable in a 1k points game with all their Detachments being 3dp.

 

People complained about this to GW who "clarified" (changed the rules so) that at under 2k points you always have the option of choosing only 1 Detachment regardless of its dp cost.

 

People are now mad that GW actually listened to the community and made the change they were directly asking them for.

 

It is a crap fix. Now this means that for 1000 points, in any sort of even vaguely competitive setting, detachments that are not three point detachments are dead, and the whole detachment combining with them. If three point detachment is fine for 1000 point game, then surely 2+1 would be as well? Either have the game size to limit the detachment power or not. This middle ground option is just terrible.

 

27 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

Did we want it to be legal to use IA and  thematic Detachments in 1k points games or not?

 

Yes, we did. Which would have been easily achieved by GW giving them one and two point detachments. Hell, it would've been fine if that was all they had, as long as you could make some functional combos for 2000 points. And they should have had plenty of one point detachments, that they could have brought alongside the units when used as allies. 

[phandaal]

4 hours ago, ChapterMasterGodfrey said:

 

Red Thirsty 1000 point Blood Angels players:

 

Happy to see that you and others got what you wanted!

[Focslain]

5 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

That would be a frankly terrifying situation, but the codex (if there is one) is likely already drafted to some degree.

Might not, IA might get the same treatment as Chaos Daemons did in 10th. Daemons might not even get a codex in this edition either. 

[Ammonius]

8 minutes ago, Focslain said:

They might legit not know what to do with IA as a full army.  

I'm sure the devil is in the details (and probably math), but it seems like having a "soup" rule to put some agents into another army, along with datasheets for a barebones AM platoon, a barebones Chimera, and a barebones Leman Russ tank to represent the unlucky "Commandeered PDF" that would bulk out an IA force if no one else was around would be a good plan. Maybe four pages in a printed book. Make sure the PDF points costs allow for "extra bodies" to be added to fill out odd points costs. 

[HeadlessCross]

5 minutes ago, Ammonius said:

I'm sure the devil is in the details (and probably math), but it seems like having a "soup" rule to put some agents into another army, along with datasheets for a barebones AM platoon, a barebones Chimera, and a barebones Leman Russ tank to represent the unlucky "Commandeered PDF" that would bulk out an IA force if no one else was around would be a good plan. Maybe four pages in a printed book. Make sure the PDF points costs allow for "extra bodies" to be added to fill out odd points costs. 

They already have the Allies rules done for them via their army rule. 

 

GW just needs to stop being cowards and bring back the ally system. 

[Evil Eye]

30 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Nah, because the old system is Planet Of Hats. It assumes White Scars are incapable of being stealthy and can never use rules befitting a Vanguard Spearhead.

I mean, not really? Certainly in days gone by, the Codex-compliant Chapters would be more specialized to a particular role but it was never a case that, for example, White Scars were at a core rules level locked out from using things other than bikes. In the fluff they had a preference for bikes but there was nothing forcing you to only use those with them or their successors.

 

In the case of the non-compliant/more bespoke Chapters (Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Black Templars etc etc) they were definitely more focused towards their particular style of warfare, and had more restrictions than their Codex-following counterparts (BT don't use Librarians for example) but they did get access to their own unique bonuses (Blood Angels getting Assault Squads as troops etc) and it wasn't that they were completely incapable of being flexible; they were just designed around a particular style of gameplay that made them distinct from Codex-compliant Marines.

 

Honestly I don't much like army specialism being completely down to Detachments or Stratagems or whatever, and definitely prefer representing faction quirks through just choosing and equipping units that fit the army theme (which also makes supplement rules to represent subfactions easier to write). I'd rather just be able to give my Tyranids toxin sacs rather than having a Detachment that gives the same effect army-wide. But seeing as GW seems to have forgotten the ancient techniques of points for wargear or per individual model...yeah.

[Nephaston]

To me this whole thing reads more like a go-ahead from GW to handwave the rules on a case by case basis, since this is still a game to be played for fun. Additionally, we are in a flux period where a lot of things change all at once while most of the faction specific rules (read: Codex rules) are still old with merely a bandaid fix to slot them into the new systems.

I presume that once we get the actual codex releases we'll start to see more distinction between a 3DP and a 2DP detachment, as right now they are the same 4 enhancement 6 stratagem, while the 1DP ones are all whacky.

[Tastyfish]

Do bare in mind that a 1K, you're definitely not bringing the full range of units that you would at 2K - so the relative power of a 3DP detachment compared to a 2DP won't necessarily hold. A bunch of the 2DP and 1+1DP armies are going to be more specialised with specific buffs for most of the army whilst a 3DP force might look more like a small 2K one and only really have a unit or so taking advantage of the primary buffs.

[Xenith]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

Yes.  For some, they think this is a good thing, as it forces diversity and keeps powerful detatchments out of a low powered version of the game.

 

GW have just said they'll be writing a way for small armies to take 3dp detachments, so admitting a mistake and shotgunning that diversity with a day -8 errata...

Edited June 12 by Xenith

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

 

GW have just said they'll be writing a way for small armies to take 3dp detachments, so admitting a mistake and shotgunning that diversity with a day -8 errata...

 

That's not the way Community presents the change;

 

 

"Our intent is to let you do so and will be making an update to clarify that..."

 

We will literally never know what the original intent may or may not have been because people got real loud real quick. The other possibility was smothered before it got a chance to be a problem, if it was ever really going to be one.  It doesn't affect me either way because I can't remember the last time I played at 1k and if I was going to do so in the future, I'd probably be okay with house rules to the tune of "Play whatever detachment you want, I'll beat you on gameplay not list building."

 

It's another nothing burger in a long line of pre edition nothing burgers. It would be funny if it wasn't so rote. 

 

[Mogger351]

4 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

That's not the way Community presents the change;

 

 

"Our intent is to let you do so and will be making an update to clarify that..."

 

We will literally never know what the original intent may or may not have been because people got real loud real quick. The other possibility was smothered before it got a chance to be a problem, if it was ever really going to be one.  It doesn't affect me either way because I can't remember the last time I played at 1k and if I was going to do so in the future, I'd probably be okay with house rules to the tune of "Play whatever detachment you want, I'll beat you on gameplay not list building."

 

It's another nothing burger in a long line of pre edition nothing burgers. It would be funny if it wasn't so rote. 

 

 

We know exactly what the original intent was:

 

[Nephaston]

"The intent is to have a 2DP limit for Incursion games. However, if you and your opponent agree to play Incursion games with a 3DP limit or no limit at all, you may do so. For Tournament play ask your event organiser"

 

-what I presume the ruling will end up being

[Karhedron]

5 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Honestly, I'd rather they stuck to their guns with 3DP detachments being unplayable in smaller games. 

 

I am glad they didn't. For people who regularly play smaller games, it would have sucked to find that their signature Detachment was unplayable after having used it happily for years in 10th edition.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 6/11/2026 at 1:29 PM, Crimson Longinus said:

 

Yeah, it is disappointing. They should have made most stuff to be one or two points so that people actually could mix and match. 

I haven’t looked at every faction, but for marines there’s plenty of options to mix and match.

[Mogger351]

8 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

I am glad they didn't. For people who regularly play smaller games, it would have sucked to find that their signature Detachment was unplayable after having used it happily for years in 10th edition.

Conversely if it had been any form of an index edition it still wouldn't have been there to use. Same way if points adjust and their 1k list is over 1k now, there's a need to adapt and move on.

[Blindhamster]

Apparently not. 

[HeadlessCross]

18 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

I am glad they didn't. For people who regularly play smaller games, it would have sucked to find that their signature Detachment was unplayable after having used it happily for years in 10th edition.

Except I don't care if it's your "signature" detachment and the way you always play. It's obvious that not all detachments are equal, and they should not be treated as such. 

 

Or do you want to say that Angelic Host is equal to Liberator Assault Group in 1000 point games? 

20 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

I mean, not really? Certainly in days gone by, the Codex-compliant Chapters would be more specialized to a particular role but it was never a case that, for example, White Scars were at a core rules level locked out from using things other than bikes. In the fluff they had a preference for bikes but there was nothing forcing you to only use those with them or their successors.

 

In the case of the non-compliant/more bespoke Chapters (Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Black Templars etc etc) they were definitely more focused towards their particular style of warfare, and had more restrictions than their Codex-following counterparts (BT don't use Librarians for example) but they did get access to their own unique bonuses (Blood Angels getting Assault Squads as troops etc) and it wasn't that they were completely incapable of being flexible; they were just designed around a particular style of gameplay that made them distinct from Codex-compliant Marines.

 

Honestly I don't much like army specialism being completely down to Detachments or Stratagems or whatever, and definitely prefer representing faction quirks through just choosing and equipping units that fit the army theme (which also makes supplement rules to represent subfactions easier to write). I'd rather just be able to give my Tyranids toxin sacs rather than having a Detachment that gives the same effect army-wide. But seeing as GW seems to have forgotten the ancient techniques of points for wargear or per individual model...yeah.

Sooooooooo Dark Angels don't do stealth missions?

[Karhedron]

1 minute ago, HeadlessCross said:

Except I don't care if it's your "signature" detachment and the way you always play. It's obvious that not all detachments are equal, and they should not be treated as such. 

 

You may not care but a lot of people do, particularly Blood Angels players. The issue is the same for Ultras losing access to Gladius or White Scars losing access to Stormlance.

[Evil Eye]

29 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Sooooooooo Dark Angels don't do stealth missions?

What are you talking about? Historically Dark Angels have never been restricted from using stealth units like Scouts, and I'm 99.9% certain they have full access to Phobos-armoured units? It might not be their speciality and they might not do it as well as, say, the Raven Guard. You could have singled out the Black Templars as not doing stealth missions (which would run somewhat counter to their specialism at close-range full frontal warfare, with shock and awe assaults being their forte) but Dark Angels? I dunno, sounds like you just want every faction to essentially play the same with no fundamental difference in playstyle.

[Crimson Longinus]

5 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

What are you talking about? Historically Dark Angels have never been restricted from using stealth units like Scouts, and I'm 99.9% certain they have full access to Phobos-armoured units? It might not be their speciality and they might not do it as well as, say, the Raven Guard. You could have singled out the Black Templars as not doing stealth missions (which would run somewhat counter to their specialism at close-range full frontal warfare, with shock and awe assaults being their forte) but Dark Angels? I dunno, sounds like you just want every faction to essentially play the same with no fundamental difference in playstyle.

 

Because if there are chapter rules then what happens in reality, is that chapter being run as units that benefit from those rules and little else. Like if Raven Guard has rules that benefit scouts and phobos units and Dark Angels have rules that benefit bikers and terminators, then yes, in theory you could still run a Dark Angel army mostly composed of phobos and scout units, but it would be just straight up worse than the same army ran as Raven Guard, so no one actually does this. These types of rules lead to flanderisation, where Blood Angles armies are just all melee units, White Scars all biker units etc, and that is actually not lore accurate. 

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

You may not care but a lot of people do, particularly Blood Angels players. The issue is the same for Ultras losing access to Gladius or White Scars losing access to Stormlance.

White Scars technically still have Stormlance, just under a different name. You can make an argument it's not fair for them to have it, either. 

[Scribe]

Wait, so 11th is changing within a week?

 

You guys still pay GW for this privilege of their tight and coherent rules systems?

[Karhedron]

18 minutes ago, Scribe said:

You guys still pay GW for this privilege of their tight and coherent rules systems?

 

Nah, I pay for the for the models. When it comes to the rules, I am just along for the ride.

[ThaneOfTas]

3 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

I dunno, sounds like you just want every faction to essentially play the same with no fundamental difference in playstyle

HeadlessCross is on record wanting exactly that, at least for marines. Wanting nothing except named characters to ever be chapter specific and to be able to be mixed and matched at will.

 

I fundamentally disagree.

[Valkyrion]

2 hours ago, Scribe said:

Wait, so 11th is changing within a week?

 

You guys still pay GW for this privilege of their tight and coherent rules systems?

 

40 years of cynicism right there!