What do you like / dislike in modern 40k?

[Evil Eye]

On 8/26/2026 at 7:19 AM, N1SB said:

11th ed is LIKE a Mobile Game/Live Service Video Game version of 40k.

THANK YOU. I've been feeling the same way for a while and I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw this!

[N1SB]

After comparing it to Mobile/Live Service games, I've been thinking about what Brother Maritn said, too:

 

On 8/26/2026 at 4:32 PM, Maritn said:

Thinking about it, especially as I have a lot more experience with board games compared to live service games, modern 40k also feels a lot like a modern Eurogame. Not a "classic" one like Tigris & Euphrates or Imperial, but one of those from the past 10 years where it's more about system mastery rather than playing the other players, with tons of rules but little interaction, where your goal is to most efficiently squeeze out points from the system, with the other players mostly being there to set the score you have to beat.

 

I've played other miniatures games, like Kingdom Death and Gloomhaven, that are cooperative; we play against a monster deck.

 

Even then, learning that monster deck is part of the game.  In Kingdom Death, you have a monster, let's say a demonic goat you're playing against, and you draw from (what it calls) its A.I. deck.  1 card would say it rams you with its horns, 1 kicks with a hind leg.  During the fight, you can cut off its horns, cripple its legs...and you would remove THOSE cards from the game, they can't be shuffled back in.

 

That's actually kinda cool!  We're playing against a deck, but it fits the narrative/theme/events of that monster fight.

 

In 40k 11th ed (and 7th ed Maelstrom of War), the deck doesn't match the narrative...the narrative is forced to fit the deck.

 

It's like the cart leading the horse, when you guys said things like taking a unit of Grots or Kroot for the sake of an objective card.  It feels like things are backwards, it's not even the cards' fault, nor other players' who are just playing the game as designed.  Y'know?  Like that's more than I'm iffy about this 1 game mechanic, it's like the system's running backwards.

[Kommisar_K]

11 hours ago, Dr. Clock said:

Likes:

 

DP system is a breath of fresh air. 

Ld and battleshock are suddenly relevant.

Dispositions help for list and planning.

Openness to, and frequency of change.

Putting Legends in the app.

 

Eh wot!? Where? Lead me to them good sah! I beg thee!

[Xenith]

On 8/26/2026 at 3:00 PM, Tawnis said:

You could also just play fixed objectives, then you don't have to warry about the randomness and can plan ahead just fine. 

That was my solution in 10th, but in 11th the only fixed choices are bad and you're actively penalised for choosing fixed with a lower point cap. 

[Xenith]

16 hours ago, Dr. Clock said:

I'm a 'different army each week' gamer, so I like how things feel different enough, but similar enough that I don't need to relearn everything game to game.

 

I'm glad to hear that, I'm also a player that likes to rotate between armies and my experience is the opposite - if I rotate though armies by the time I come back to one the rules have changed or the army has changed. I tried to stick to two armies, nids and Eldar through 10th, but as I didn't have the meta units the game was balanced around I lost pretty much every game, and those games took ages due to rules lookups. 

 

The current system rewards mastery of a single faction much more.

[Xenith]

On 8/26/2026 at 3:28 PM, Tawnis said:

As I'm often talking about, I've done really well with full Kroot in competitive. 

 

I've had a lot of success with other themed armies at more casual LGS levels too. Full Tzaangors, Phobos/Scout Recon, Cultist Uprising, Imperial Agents. I'm currently working on an all Abhuman army for guard that I think will do pretty well, as well as a Recon Tau force.

 

I'm glad you're doing well with those, but I see a large light infantry/scouting/recon theme with redeploy and scout options which is very meta and great for playing the game.

 

If I don't bring infiltrators and my opponent does, I get penned in my deployment from T1 and it's game over. If I don't bring scouts or uppy/downy or keep stuff in reserves I lose 4-12 points on standing in corners or hold table edges. If my berserker army plays thematically and rushes forward leaving my home objective unguarded, I might as well just call it there. If I bring a full terminator army, while maybe killy in these rules, I'm not winning anything.

[DemonGSides]

12 hours ago, Kommisar_K said:

 

Eh wot!? Where? Lead me to them good sah! I beg thee!

 

They said they're doing this during the previews for 11th.

No codex has come out to update into the new Legends system.  They said they will be added with Codex updates.  Some factions will suffer, until complaints get loud enough and they task an intern with making the changes.

[Dr. Clock]

On 8/27/2026 at 10:33 AM, Dr. Clock said:

issues facing long range units

Expounding on this based on a game yesterday:

 

A significant correction would be to let models on higher floors 'shoot through' intervening terrain areas whose features are all 3" or lower in height. It's clearly important for the objectives to block line of sight, but all the low stuff makes shooting between home and expansions basically impossible, even if you climb up into the buildings. It 'feels' correct to garrison your DZ buildings with some elevated shooters, but their sightlines are incredibly constrained by the light obstacle features spread between objectives. I don't think it's a crazy proposition to have 2-5 infantry heavies popping up on to those home objective floors for a modest turn 1 joust. Yet in too many games, there just is no turn 1 shooting, and that feels pretty silly to me. Despite plunging fire being good in principle, the fact that it doesn't extend your vision at all if units just don't touch the terrain that's between you makes no sense. At ground level it's understandable, and I'm all for 'vertical incentives'.

 

The solution to this that we are instituting around here is basically an addition to Plunging Fire: "Models may ignore terrain footprints other than objectives for the purpose of determining visibility when shooting with Plunging Fire. When ignoring one or more terrain footprints in this manner, models do not receive the +1 to hit from Plunging Fire, and their targets receive the benefit of cover." So basically they can see over stuff, but they're not completely ignoring all the cover all the time thanks to the +1. This will help Knights shoot over the small stuff nearby as well, which seems fine. 

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Lathe Biosas]

I miss my favorite part of Warhammer 40k. The scatter die.

 

Oh, you're deepstriking here without a teleport homer?

 

Let's see if you land on target... oh... 11 inches off ... into a Land Raider.... ouch... Shoulda used a Drop Pod.

[Gorgoff]

On 8/25/2026 at 11:00 PM, Tawnis said:

:

- LOS / Vehicle Facing: I don't see this as an issue. If we're looking at the game from a realism standpoint, these vehicles aren't moving while doing nothing, stopping and then shooting. Everything is happening at once in theory. While a vehicles rolls between one building and another, it should be shooting during that movement,

Having seen my fair share of actual combat footage from my save couch I can throw in with at a little bit of certainty that this isn't true. Not completely false as well but most of the time vehicles tend to do just that. Move, stop, shoot and move again not drive byes.

Especially in cityfight or in tight combat terrain they seem to do so. 

 

[LostTemplar]

I dislike the massive charge ranges. I think you should roll 2d6 and charge up to M. 

 

I like overwatch. In fact, I think the shooting phase should be similar to the fight phase, with every unit firing once. You could apply a sort of hitting penalty similar to current overwatch in order to allow the active player some advantage. Other than "shoots first".

 

 

[Stef Coudou]

Hi Fratus, 

 

personnaly, what I don't like, is the lack of spirit. The vanishing of the humour in rules, second degré, templates, arc of vision, possibility to built your own characters. 
Scenarii are... dull. No other words. Mirror tables. 
I can not be keen at all with what became the new rules. Sorry. 
Most of new gamers are playing with the phone on the hand. 

Definatly too much to say. 
I've tryed the 9th, 10th and now 11th edition, and every editions around KT. Every thing became competitive. What the hell ? Isn't real life enough competitive to have fun in the same way ? What's wrong with this ? 
 

But I do love the game. In general.

So, I prefer to play, from far, the very first edition, which is much more funny to me. And interesting to play. 

 

[Xenith]

On 9/6/2026 at 9:42 AM, Stef Coudou said:

Most of new gamers are playing with the phone on the hand. 

 

I think this is the crux of the issue. The rules are so big and complex that you can't play the game without a memory aid, and because codexes are dead on arrival, this is people's phones. You spend so much of the game and your opponents turn looking at your phone remembering rules that you lose out on the fun and chat part of the game.

 

I have long advocated for simple point changes instead of changing a single word on a data slate to keep the codex relevant all edition.

Edited yesterday at 02:35 PM by Xenith

[Adeptekon]

6 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

I think this is the crux of the issue. The rules are so big and complex that you can't play the game without a memory aid, and because codexes are dead on arrival, this is people's phones. 

 

I have long advocated for simple point changes instead of changing a single word on a data slate to keep the codex relevant all edition.

Back in the '80s and '90s the amount of print content would have been eaten alive. Today it definitely is a different world. I've tried handing a book to people who say they're interested, and that's about the end of it. If everything was on mobile app and updated without the need to buy more books I think the game would be more widely accepted, because there's still the hump to getting an army on top of all the books.

[Valkyrion]

If I was new to a game and someone handed me a link to the app store to learn about it, and that was the only way, I'd not play that game.

If GW implemented that as a system then I'd stop playing at the edition prior to that decision. 

[Gorgoff]

On 9/6/2026 at 8:42 AM, Stef Coudou said:

Hi Fratus, 

 

personnaly, what I don't like, is the lack of spirit. The vanishing of the humour in rules, second degré, templates, arc of vision, possibility to built your own characters. 
Scenarii are... dull. No other words. Mirror tables. 
I can not be keen at all with what became the new rules. Sorry. 
Most of new gamers are playing with the phone on the hand. 

Definatly too much to say. 
I've tryed the 9th, 10th and now 11th edition, and every editions around KT. Every thing became competitive. What the hell ? Isn't real life enough competitive to have fun in the same way ? What's wrong with this ? 
 

But I do love the game. In general.

So, I prefer to play, from far, the very first edition, which is much more funny to me. And interesting to play. 

 

To me the second edition is the best but I get you!

[Stef Coudou]

23 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

I think this is the crux of the issue. The rules are so big and complex that you can't play the game without a memory aid, and because codexes are dead on arrival, this is people's phones. 

 

I have long advocated for simple point changes instead of changing a single word on a data slate to keep the codex relevant all edition.

That is interesting.

But I don't agree. I can't.

Actually, rules are 30 pages.

Rules in a codex for a specific unit is perhaps 2 or 5 pages. Ok to say it's 20 pages.

v1 core rules were more than 160 pages, plus few pages of compendium, or Waaargh the orks if you played orks. 

There was no memory aid, and everything was fine ! I was 14, translating the rules from English to French, because English was not my native language, and we played well. 
Today, that won't be acceptable. 
The main problem is not rules, or game. It is just education. GW is well adapted to the market. I am not. Definatly too old ...

[Gorgoff]

16 hours ago, Stef Coudou said:

That is interesting.

But I don't agree. I can't.

Actually, rules are 30 pages.

Rules in a codex for a specific unit is perhaps 2 or 5 pages. Ok to say it's 20 pages.

v1 core rules were more than 160 pages, plus few pages of compendium, or Waaargh the orks if you played orks. 

There was no memory aid, and everything was fine ! I was 14, translating the rules from English to French, because English was not my native language, and we played well. 
Today, that won't be acceptable. 
The main problem is not rules, or game. It is just education. GW is well adapted to the market. I am not. Definatly too old ...

Have you tried learning a new game with 160 pages now in your age? 

Getting harder and harder, innit?

I don't disagree I knew and still know most eules from 2ed by heart and I knew most rules in 1ed HH as well or all the ither editions between 3rd till 7th but we always had a majority of players who couldn't hardly remember the rules of their own codex not to mention other armies. 

frustrating but true. 

[Xenith]

22 hours ago, Stef Coudou said:

That is interesting.

But I don't agree. I can't.

There's a reason professional tournament players talk about doing 10, 15, 20 'reps' with an army before taking it to a major tournament - so they can remember how it plays, and remember the rules involved.

 

Speaking of 3rd ed, my blood angels had two rules: regroup below half strength (ATSKNF) and +1S on the charge. Some units had one additional rule from a small core bank of rules that were easy to remember and applied across all units in all factions in all armies. I don't need to remember to turn them on, gave up points etc, they're always on.

 

In 11th ed, assuming a modest 2 detachments stormlance and librarius, I have oaths, advance and charge, fall back and charge, 1of 4 selectable bonuses on units with librarians, then each unit with character has 2 or more bespoke special rules to keep track of, before enhancements. 

 

In 3rd ed, my librarian with assault squad has +1S on the charge and ATSKNF. Now they have 

Oaths

Advance and charge

Fall back and charge

Bonus librarius rule

4++

4+++ against mortals

Mortals on impact. 

 

That's *seven* special rules to keep track of any apply, 8 if I give it gleaming pinions or something, and this is before any bonuses like stratagems, and in a sub-200point unit. 

 

Multiply that across a whole army and we see how it's hard to track.

 

 

 

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

There's a reason professional tournament players talk about doing 10, 15, 20 'reps' with an army before taking it to a major tournament - so they can remember how it plays, and remember the rules involved.

 

This hasn't changed since tournaments become common. This has nothing to do with the modern game; every game that has a competitive scene will suggest putting practice in. If you don't want to engage that way, you don't have to.

 

 

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

 

Speaking of 3rd ed, my blood angels had two rules: regroup below half strength (ATSKNF) and +1S on the charge. Some units had one additional rule from a small core bank of rules that were easy to remember and applied across all units in all factions in all armies. I don't need to remember to turn them on, gave up points etc, they're always on.

 

In 11th ed, assuming a modest 2 detachments stormlance and librarius, I have oaths, advance and charge, fall back and charge, 1of 4 selectable bonuses on units with librarians, then each unit with character has 2 or more bespoke special rules to keep track of, before enhancements. 

 

In 3rd ed, my librarian with assault squad has +1S on the charge and ATSKNF. Now they have 

Oaths

Advance and charge

Fall back and charge

Bonus librarius rule

4++

4+++ against mortals

Mortals on impact. 

 

That's *seven* special rules to keep track of any apply, 8 if I give it gleaming pinions or something, and this is before any bonuses like stratagems, and in a sub-200point unit. 

 

Multiply that across a whole army and we see how it's hard to track.

 

That's why I have physical data sheets in front of me. I wouldn't expect anyone to remember 100% of their rules, that's for psychos.

 

If you like 3rd, go play 3rd?  What's stopping you?  I don't particularly want each edition to just be the same carbon copy of the one before it, used as an excuse to sell us the same rules again. Not sure why ANYONE would want that. 

Edited 23 hours ago by DemonGSides

[Stef Coudou]

8 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

Have you tried learning a new game with 160 pages now in your age? 

Getting harder and harder, innit?

I don't disagree I knew and still know most eules from 2ed by heart and I knew most rules in 1ed HH as well or all the ither editions between 3rd till 7th but we always had a majority of players who couldn't hardly remember the rules of their own codex not to mention other armies. 

frustrating but true. 

I have to admit it's harder than it was. So of course I could use my phone. 
But I am also too old to see the screen !

 

More seriously, I can learn new rulebooks. I have learned plenty of new games, and some big ones. So okay it's longer. But I don't see the point to use my phone. I am definatly a grumpy old owl...

Edited 22 hours ago by Stef Coudou

[Xenith]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

This hasn't changed since tournaments become common. This has nothing to do with the modern game; every game that has a competitive scene will suggest putting practice in. If you don't want to engage that way, you don't have to.

 

That's why I have physical data sheets in front of me. I wouldn't expect anyone to remember 100% of their rules, that's for psychos.

 

If you like 3rd, go play 3rd?  What's stopping you?  I don't particularly want each edition to just be the same carbon copy of the one before it, used as an excuse to sell us the same rules again. Not sure why ANYONE would want that. 

 

Whoa there. Did you realise this is a topic to discuss things you don't like about the current edition?

 

You're also mistaken, the rules bloat was specifically from 10th ed where they said people love special rules, so they added special rules to each datasheet. In 8/9th my blood angels/successors also got to pick from two specific rules (e.g. exploding 6's, +1" charge) and that was their lot, other than unique unit rules. 

 

There's also practice, and what the pros do. Do you seriously expect an average player to get 10-20 games in with the same list to be semi competent at it? Because that's what the words you're saying imply. 

 

Some practice to be good, yes, but that's mad.

 

I'd also play 3rd/5th of there was a scene for it. Or even 8th Maelstrom or early 9th ed. Much more fun game, each broken in it's own way. 

 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by Xenith

[Lathe Biosas]

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

There's also practice, and what the pros do. Do you seriously expect an average player to get 10-20 games in with the same list to be semi competent at it? Because that's what the words you're saying imply.

 

 

I'm lucky if I get 10-20 games per edition of 40k. 

[Adeptekon]

I'll be lucky if I get a game. But hmu in TW40k when it's out!

[SpecialIssue]

I think a good war game should have these cardinal principles:

 

1. Play to our fantasy and immersion. 40k is nothing without the 'fluff' and fiction; the game should be a simulacrum/reflection of that fiction. If competition and 'skill' () are your main concerns why are you even here? You could port 40k models over to chess to get the best of both worlds! That would be the ultimate 'competitive' 40k scene.

 

There is a personal taste here in prioritising between the simulation or the cinematic - the mechanics of the world, or the imagery of the world. Would you mind having counters on the board next to models if it meant accurately tracking their wound / morale status; or is that cluttering the board, slowing down and getting in the way of seeing the battle unfold with nothing but the models and terrain.

 

2. Maximise the opportunity for impactful decisions. Also known as player agency. Without point #1, this principle results in the game of chess. But ideally, a turn should only be a series of decisions by players, and every decision should be a dilemma. A dilemma is a hard choice between two or more options that are equally bad or involve a big opportunity cost. This is the stakes, stimulation, engagement, and drama for the players. Might as well just set up your armies opposite each other, roll a whole bucket of weighted dice against your opponent and call the winner with the higher score if you want no decisions that challenge you in a game.

 

3. Minimise the time it takes to resolve those decisions. Once the decision is made, doing the calculations to get to the result is the boring part, we just want to see the result! If I asked you to roll a dice twice or roll it once where both had the same percentage outcomes, which one would you choose? These small things add up massively over a game. It impacts both points 1 and 2 as it takes us out of the flow of the immersion, and slows down / crowds out player agency in the game.

 

4. Minimise mental load. Decisions are not mental load. Mental load is rulekeeping, stat tracking, going against intuitive ideas; the effort of remembering the details that govern your decisions,, i.e. the complexity of rules. Complexity does not necessarily equal more opportunity for decisions. 40k has some of the most complex layers of rules (core rules, unit rules, army rules, stratagems, etc), but the number of hard decisions to be made by each player per turn is pretty low. Not a lot of juice for the squeeze. This often feeds directly into blowing out the time it takes to resolve decisions (tracking / forgetting / looking up / explaining / resolving layers of rules for a single action or decision). It also just makes games tiring to play.

 

5. Standardise rules / concepts. The core rules should cover 90% of a games' mechanics and scenarios. If you are relying on special rules or bespoke abilities for every single unit to portray their flavour, then what are your core rules doing? Why are these things not able to be portrayed within the unit's stats or set of universal special rules? Even if there are a whole bunch of universal special rules, at least they are universal - there is much more chance your opponent is familiar with them since their units might have those rules and they are accessible in the core rather than a codex they don't own. An increase in complexity in the core rules (e.g. add another characteristic to unit stats, core rules for flanking fire by units, etc.) might be worth the increase in individual mental load, because the wider familiarity of the rule means that disruption to the game is still low. Prevents disputes and feelings of unfairness through asymmetry of information.

 

Look to some older GW games (during the 'golden age' of 3rd-4th edition 40k) for a good balance and execution of these concepts. BFG, the Lotr game (which has barely changed for over 20 years) are in particular IMO the best game systems the company produced. There are strong and consequential elements of resource management and player decisions in both (Orders in BFG, Might/Fate/Will points in LotR) that make a clearer impact on a turn-to-turn basis than the bloat and glut of stratagems and bespoke special rule in 40k.

 

Even 40k from that era is an interesting comparison. One of the most meta things at the time for most factions was simply to take Rapid Fire infantry weapons in a transport to rush them close, unload, and dump their shooting within 12" of the enemy ('Rhino Rush', 'Fish of Fury'). None of this incredibly fluffy and satisfying meta behaviour had to be induced through any bespoke rules, but was inherent in the core rules. This is effective and efficient game design, not whatever 40k is now.