New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[Evil Eye]

27 minutes ago, Antarius said:

you could argue Star Wars, I guess, but it seems to just not have as much appeal when it comes to wargaming

Star Wars could have taken off quite well but I think the weird shotgun approach (several different systems each with slightly different scales) combined with Star Wars being absolute commercial poison nowadays for various non-board-appropriate reasons rather threw a spanner in the works there. But yes, 40K's main strength is definitely the setting as a whole; even for all my gripes with the current direction thereof, GW are clearly smart enough not to completely torpedo their golden goose in the way Disney did with Star Wars and with the clear appeal to nostalgia they're going for with 11th I don't think we can expect anything TOO stupid on that front.

 

(On a more positive Star Wars related note, a friend of mine is working on a really cool project, which is painting and converting assorted models to work as minis for "Star Wars if it was a book before it was a movie, and thus had a bunch of different depictions of now-iconic things like stormtroopers before Lucas made the definitive visual representation". Kinda like how LOTR art/minis were before the Peter Jackson movies.)

[Antarius]

I think Star Wars, while it is a great setting in many ways, just doesn't really have the ability to stoke the same "your guys" fire in people. Sure, you can create your own characters in theory, but in practice even the miniatures game seem to be set very much in the shadow of the movies and the usual suspects. It's like they've pretty much started at the point where people fear 40K is headed, where everything important revolves around some characters whose appeal and storytelling potential peaked a long time ago.

But all of this is another story, of course. All you nerds are free to like Star Wars while I'm over here with the actually cool space marines that aren't silly toys at all 

 

(I hope it's obvious that I am just being silly and that I do like Star Wars, but this being the internet I thought I'd better add a little extra disclaimer, just in case)

Edited June 15 by Antarius

[01RTB01]

SW legion is very popular. They had issues when it switched from FFG to AMG but releases are in full swing. It's been better received than shatter point for which they're slowing down releases. 

 

Alt activations in it are good but it still suffers from some stuff being simply too good and difficult to deal with if you turn up with the "wrong stuff". 

 

AMG also don't have the production churn that gw does by comparison. Weekly releases really are crazy. 

 

It wasn't that long ago though that GW was on death's door and managed to revive. Covid then seemed to see the company explode with success and here we are now. 10 or so years ago I'd never have expected a full EC release for 40k but here we are with exodites in the future. Interesting times. 

[Kyari]

On 6/14/2026 at 10:06 AM, irlLordy said:

The uproar was entirely of GW's own making when they made it so that Imperial Agents players couldn't bring any detachments at 1000 points (hardly a knee-jerk complaint in my own opinion). They could have easily resolved it by bumping some of the IA detachments back down to 1 or 2 DP, but instead they chose to throw away their balancing tool and just let people take whatever at 1000 points.

 

As a fan of the 1k point range I'm conflicted. On the one hand I definitely had moments of "Oh I guess I can't run this detachment in 1k games anymore, that's a bummer", but on the other its hard not to see this approach as anything but GW walking back their previous indication that this would help balance smaller sized games.

 

I don't get how you can see GW essentially say "its ok to run a 3DP vs a 2DP" and not just immediately see the cognitive dissonance it brings about from a balance perspective. Saying 3 is better than 2 except when we don't want it to be just makes no sense to me. 

 

I've seen a lot of people argue that non-2k games are more likely to be casual/less likely to be a tournament event so it doesn't really matter but that's also just not a great feeling. 

I wish they'd figured out a better solution than to throw their hands up and basically say DP doesn't matter unless you're doing 2k matched play.

[Lord Marshal]

Update to the 40k app and points will be in '48 Hours'.

 

Quote

One important note for those of you planning to play your last games of the current edition this weekend (maybe at a farewell tournament for 10th, such as the Warhammer Open in Edmonton) – turn your device’s auto updates off! The app will not support older editions of Warhammer 40,000 once it’s been updated.

 

 

Quote

There are a few themes to the points changes you’ll quickly see when they arrive on Wednesday. These are primarily driven by changes in the core rules – some units become more powerful in the new edition, and so have had their points raised accordingly, while others have seen a slight dip in their effectiveness, and so you’ll be able to take more of them.

Here are a few things to look out for:

 

• Vehicles with powerful mid-range firepower benefit from being able to more easily open wide firing lanes by moving partially into terrain, and so many go up in points.

• Large combat-leaning monsters and vehicles generally find it much easier to reach and charge enemy units, and so many go up in points.

• Infantry units that are both fast and powerful in melee tend to have gone up a bit in points.

• Large models that fly now have a much easier time navigating the battlefield – expect many of these to go up.

• Titanic units (with the Towering keyword and the Plunging Fire bonus to shooting) become particularly lethal at short range. Expect several to go up in points.

• Units that can manipulate battle-shock become more powerful – several will see their points increase.

• Models with Psychic weapons now ignore many negative modifiers to their attacks when fighting, so many also see a point increase.

• The ability to re-roll charges has become very useful with the added flexibility of picking targets after you roll – expect some units with this ability to cost more points.

• Surge Moves are now more likely to catch enemy units with the changes to engagement range (now a flat 2”) – these units will likely cost more points.

• Fights First, while still a useful ability, is less dominating than in the last edition, so many of these units will cost fewer points.

• Large units of 20 or more models, which were previously used to fill up large parts of the battlefield, can no longer spread out as much, due to the 9” coherency rule. Many of their points go down.

• Units with both Infiltrate and Scout now need to choose which rule to use each game – they can’t do both, so have seen a points reduction.

• Stealth is now a more situational rule, as it doesn’t stack with Cover, and so many units with Stealth are set to go down in points

• Indirect fire is now weaker against distant targets that no model in your army can see, and so many artillery units have gone down in points when taken individually.
   

There are two other changes that are worth noting.

 

Some units now cost more when included in your army more than once. These tend to be very powerful units with the potential to dominate in competitive games when used in multiples (we’re looking at you, Defilers). This change helps limit their impact when taken en masse, but doesn’t overly punish players who want to bring a balanced list or just include one of all the coolest models in their army. (And in fairness, Defilers are really cool.)
 

Secondly, some weapon upgrades now cost points if they are significantly more powerful or effective than the other available options. For example, the macro plasma incinerator on a Redemptor Dreadnought now costs 10 points to equip (though the basic cost of the Dreadnought drops by 10, so it nets out the same – or 10 points less if you choose the heavy onslaught gatling cannon).

 

 

Edited June 15 by Lord Marshal

[Mogger351]

If anyone wants to stick to 10th, get downloading I guess!

[Karhedron]

The first problem is that DPs should not scale with the size of the game. Gladius is not somehow stronger at 1K than at 2K. I actually really like the idea of different Detachments having different costs and being able to bolt 2 or even 3 together. The problem is that excluding many "signature" Detachments from smaller games was unnecessary and avoidable.

 

The second problem is that GW then bolted on the notion of Dispositions. Again I love the concept that the combination of Dispositions selected determines the mission. The problem is that locking Dispositions to Detachments robs players of agency during army building. Some Detachments have Dispositions that are in conflict with the rules of the Detachment. Plus there are early indications that the Dispositions are not equally balanced against each other.

 

Each of these ideas is good in isolation but GW have chosen to tie them all together.

[irlLordy]

Interesting that they call out units with indirect fire going down in points when taken individually. I guess its probably safe to assume that they as a class will get points hikes when taken in multiples to discourage spamming for that playstyle.  

[TheArtilleryman]

You know, we never used to have detachments. We used to pick an army and play. Those were the days…

 

Seriously though, detachment rules are unnecessary. They are just another cheeky thing baked into the rules to make you “need” to buy the new ruleset each time. All this aggro over 1/2/3DP wouldn’t exist if they didn’t. Not to mention leader rules, where your commander can join this unit and not that one, so you “have to” buy something else to make it work best, or you get FOMO… I miss just making an army out of whatever you want to and going with it.

[Lord Marshal]

2 minutes ago, TheArtilleryman said:

You know, we never used to have detachments. We used to pick an army and play. Those were the days…

 

Seriously though, detachment rules are unnecessary. They are just another cheeky thing baked into the rules to make you “need” to buy the new ruleset each time. All this aggro over 1/2/3DP wouldn’t exist if they didn’t. Not to mention leader rules, where your commander can join this unit and not that one, so you “have to” buy something else to make it work best, or you get FOMO… I miss just making an army out of whatever you want to and going with it.

 

To be fair, Detachments are just sub-faction rule by another name. If it wasn't this it'd be Ultramarine Chapter Tactics instead of Gladius, or Cult of the Four-Armed Emperor instead of Host of Ascension. The 11th edition way of going about it is slightly more complex in allowing you to be buy multiples, but if we didn't have these we'd definitely have some other form them (if only by a different name) - the sheer demand for representing the various Space Marine Chapters alone would ensure that.

[Crimson Longinus]

18 minutes ago, Lord Marshal said:

 

To be fair, Detachments are just sub-faction rule by another name. If it wasn't this it'd be Ultramarine Chapter Tactics instead of Gladius, or Cult of the Four-Armed Emperor instead of Host of Ascension. The 11th edition way of going about it is slightly more complex in allowing you to be buy multiples, but if we didn't have these we'd definitely have some other form them (if only by a different name) - the sheer demand for representing the various Space Marine Chapters alone would ensure that.

 

Sure, but ultimately sub-faction rules or detachment rules or whatever way to bolt a layer of extra rules on your models should not exist. Just give the units the rules they need to function, and then the army's flavour can be varied by varying the units it is composed of. 

[Redcomet]

4 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

 

Sure, but ultimately sub-faction rules or detachment rules or whatever way to bolt a layer of extra rules on your models should not exist. Just give the units the rules they need to function, and then the army's flavour can be varied by varying the units it is composed of. 

Unless GW would then release full codexes for every chapter, ork clan, tombworld, craftworld etc, then everything would be the same

[Crimson Longinus]

1 minute ago, Redcomet said:

Unless GW would then release full codexes for every chapter, ork clan, tombworld, craftworld etc, then everything would be the same

 

So what? You don't need unbalancing fiddly rules to play a subfaction, just paint and a thematic selection of units. 

[Karhedron]

9 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

Sure, but ultimately sub-faction rules or detachment rules or whatever way to bolt a layer of extra rules on your models should not exist. Just give the units the rules they need to function, and then the army's flavour can be varied by varying the units it is composed of. 

 

That has never been a thing though. Even as far back as 2nd edition, Space Wolves had special rules like "True Grit" and "Keen senses" to represent how they differed from more conventional Space Marines. Rules for representing different Chapters with otherwise identical units have always existed.

[Crimson Longinus]

1 minute ago, Karhedron said:

 

That has never been a thing though. Even as far back as 2nd edition, Space Wolves had special rules like "True Grit" and "Keen senses" to represent how they differed from more conventional Space Marines. Rules for representing different Chapters with otherwise identical units have always existed.

 

But usually only for space marines. Other factions historically did just fine without them. And marines could too. It is not something that needs to exist, nor I think such rules are actually good for the game. 

[Dudley Nightshade]

The conversation is moving on, so just one quick addition to the challenge of producing a Star Wars game to compete with 40K. Everyone who is not Lucasfilm/Disney has to pay to use the Star Wars IP. GW does not. I don't know what the licensing fees are as a percentage of sales, but anything that takes margin away is an burden on the company. There is also the possibility that Disney could pull the rug at the next renewal for reasons that have nothing to do with the products. It would be a hard position to be in as a game producer. 

[Emperor Ming]

"Updates will continue to be quarterly, but early on it will be monthly"

 

Roulette changes

 

I guess more balance changes is good

Edited June 15 by Emperor Ming

[Mogger351]

3 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

"Updates will continue to be quarterly, but early on it will be monthly"

 

Roulette changes

 

I guess more balance changes is good

It's good and bad purely on preference and perspective 

[01RTB01]

54 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

 

Sure, but ultimately sub-faction rules or detachment rules or whatever way to bolt a layer of extra rules on your models should not exist. Just give the units the rules they need to function, and then the army's flavour can be varied by varying the units it is composed of. 

"Should not exist" in your opinion.

 

A different perspective is that I can play different styles of ork archetypes depending on what I fancy. 

 

Not only this, but with the switch to detachments over clans, I can paint my minis however I like and run whatever detachment. Before I felt as though they had to be painted a specific way to run that clan. 

 

Detachments arguably add flavour to armies that we didn't have back in 4th-6th and I genuinely don't see the issue with it. You just seem to be arguing about it for the sake of it. 

[nodnol88]

Glad to see they’ve said they’ll have monthly updates for the first three months. I

mean they would have anyway with whatever dumpster fire occurs with some interaction people have or haven’t noticed, but at least they’re managing expectations.

 

There’s been a few things in the build up that show a shift from GW’s marketing and communication and it’s a step in the right direction IMO. 

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, 01RTB01 said:

"Should not exist" in your opinion.

 

A different perspective is that I can play different styles of ork archetypes depending on what I fancy. 

 

Not only this, but with the switch to detachments over clans, I can paint my minis however I like and run whatever detachment. Before I felt as though they had to be painted a specific way to run that clan. 

 

Detachments arguably add flavour to armies that we didn't have back in 4th-6th and I genuinely don't see the issue with it. You just seem to be arguing about it for the sake of it. 

I think to some degree you're arguing the same side of the same coin.

 

To give a poor example, if kommandos have more blood axe themed rules, and you want a blood axe army, they could become battleline with snikrot. You could then maybe buy some enhancements to give infantry units stealth, or bake it into snikrot again.

 

You get a clear themed force, but without a rules layer.

[jaxom]

11 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I think to some degree you're arguing the same side of the same coin.

 

To give a poor example, if kommandos have more blood axe themed rules, and you want a blood axe army, they could become battleline with snikrot. You could then maybe buy some enhancements to give infantry units stealth, or bake it into snikrot again.

 

You get a clear themed force, but without a rules layer.

This seems to me like replacing detachments or subfactions with special characters.

 

I guess I’m just failing to see how the location of additional rules is a significant change compared to removing the rules.

[Lexington]

34 minutes ago, 01RTB01 said:

A different perspective is that I can play different styles of ork archetypes depending on what I fancy. 

 

Not only this, but with the switch to detachments over clans, I can paint my minis however I like and run whatever detachment. Before I felt as though they had to be painted a specific way to run that clan. 

 

I dunno, this seems to me to be relying on Detachment/Special Rules to do things that you, as a player, can do by just building an army and playing them properly. Evil Sunz run fast things, Goffs have Boyz hordes, Bad Moons get all the good gear, etc. I've been playing Orks since 2nd Edition, and at no time has it been difficult to represent the Clans with the basic army list. There's Clans where that isn't so straightforward to build a whole army around - Deathskulls have Lootas, Snakebites have...uh...Runtherds? - but they're well represented by basic units anyhow. That's just how Orks have always been portrayed.

 

This is something that applies pretty broadly to the other 40K factions/sub-factions. Like someone alluded to above, Space Marines remain the problem child here, given that several Chapters have ended up with a laundry list of unique units and traits, but even those can be represented by unit choice and play style. I get that people want their chosen force to be better at their individual gimmicks, but I think that's letting the rules do the work for you.

[Antarius]

We've had the "take character X to unlock Chapter/Clan/etc. Y" model before and I don't think it was particularly good. First off, why is Lysander in every Imperial Fists army? Secondly, it came with all the same basic problems (if you're think they're problems) that just giving Imperial Fists a special chapter tactic (as I think they were called back then). It's still a rules layer, it's just bound to a character who then has to be in your army if you're playing that subfaction.

As for subfactions having special rules, I think it can be argued either way. One problem with it is that if say, DA or WS are better at bikes than other marines, then suddenly other marine armies just don't bother with bikes anymore because their bikes are deemed inferior (yeah, it's silly, but it tends to kinda work that way when wargamers are involved). In a sense, I really liked the idea of detachments that represented a certain style of warfare and if it matched your idea of Blood Angels, you could just use that every time.
But on the other hand, there's also something to be said for distinct subfactions having themed rules to represent them in a more thematically evocative fashion.

At the end of the day, I think for me it comes down to how much abstraction and granularity there is to the game overall. If it's one of the more highly abstract and simplified editions, I don't mind BA "just" being red space marines, but if there's a lot of granularity and special rules for everything else, I'm gonna miss Blood Angels having a rule to represent the red thirst.

[01RTB01]

11 minutes ago, Lexington said:

 

I dunno, this seems to me to be relying on Detachment/Special Rules to do things that you, as a player, can do by just building an army and playing them properly. Evil Sunz run fast things, Goffs have Boyz hordes, Bad Moons get all the good gear, etc. I've been playing Orks since 2nd Edition, and at no time has it been difficult to represent the Clans with the basic army list. There's Clans where that isn't so straightforward to build a whole army around - Deathskulls have Lootas, Snakebites have...uh...Runtherds? - but they're well represented by basic units anyhow. That's just how Orks have always been portrayed.

 

This is something that applies pretty broadly to the other 40K factions/sub-factions. Like someone alluded to above, Space Marines remain the problem child here, given that several Chapters have ended up with a laundry list of unique units and traits, but even those can be represented by unit choice and play style. I get that people want their chosen force to be better at their individual gimmicks, but I think that's letting the rules do the work for you.

 

Representation and feel are very different things. I've also played orks since 2nd Ed and I'd argue that there's more thematic flavour than there has been previously. However, I do miss clan specific strats whereby you could loot enemy vehicles mid game and bolt armour onto units.

 

"Playing them properly" "let the rules do the work for you" feel like quite loaded and accusatory terms. Stratagems, objectives and detachment rules can feed the flavour and narrative of a force. 

 

It may never have been difficult to represent the different clans, but various iterations of rules have given different or better feel for the army. Taking 2nd Ed as an example, all Boyz were basically the same. The only real difference for the clans really was loadouts. Is that what it boils down to? I'd argue not and clearly with how the rules have changed over the years, there were other ways that clan flavour could be developed. It's nothing to do with "the rules doing the work for me".