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.