What do you like / dislike in modern 40k?

[Griefbringer]

2 hours ago, SpecialIssue said:

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').

 

I was under the impression that "Rhino Rush" term was originally associated with the 3rd edition era tactic of driving a Rhino full chainsword (or chainaxe) swinging marines close to the enemy, at which point the marines would disembark and assault the enemy. 4th edition changes to the vehicle rules meant that units that had disembarked from a vehicle that had moved that turn (unless it was open-topped or Land Raider) could not assault during the same turn. This meant that it could take longer for the close combat troops to get into grips with the enemy.

 

"Fish of Fury" had something to do with Tau Fire Warriors driving around with their Devilfish carriers.

[SpecialIssue]

9 hours ago, Griefbringer said:

 

I was under the impression that "Rhino Rush" term was originally associated with the 3rd edition era tactic of driving a Rhino full chainsword (or chainaxe) swinging marines close to the enemy, at which point the marines would disembark and assault the enemy. 4th edition changes to the vehicle rules meant that units that had disembarked from a vehicle that had moved that turn (unless it was open-topped or Land Raider) could not assault during the same turn. This meant that it could take longer for the close combat troops to get into grips with the enemy.

 

"Fish of Fury" had something to do with Tau Fire Warriors driving around with their Devilfish carriers.

 

Yes and in both 3rd and 4th rapid fire weapons allowed you to move and fire within 12" of enemies; hence the Rhino Rush's continued use with rapid fire weapons even after 4th edition made it so that you needed a special rule like an assault ramp to charge after disembarking.

 

Fish of fury was specifically using Devilfish as transports to then disembark and rapid fire under the hovering model, while using the devilfish's hull itself as a block to any counter charge (have to charge the devil fish itself unless you can get all the way round its hull even though the fire warriors are visible under its hull).

 

Either way, both behaviours and the mechanised-heavy meta lists of the era were incentivised solely through the natural application of core rules; the game playing to our fantasy in the most efficient and incentivising way possible.

 

 

[Griefbringer]

Thanks for the clarification about the Fish of Fury, I was not aware that it involved shooting under the Devilfish. I presume that similar trick could have been done also with the hovering Eldar Falcon or Wave Serpent, though the Eldar shuriken catapults had shorter range than Tau pulse rifles (and were assault rather than rapid fire).

 

Regarding the Rapid Fire weapons themselves, there was actually a deliberate shift in them from 3rd to 4th edition. In 3rd edition, a unit that had moved could only fire once with Rapid Fire weapon, with 12" range. In 4th edition, Rapid Fire weapons could fire twice to 12" range, regardless of whether the unit had moved or not.

 

This probably enforces the point from SpecialIssue: in the transition from 3rd to 4th edition, core rules where changed to incentivise certain behaviours. I have somewhere the WD Designers' Notes for the 4th edition, where they mention that they wanted to see more close range firefights (thus the Rapid Fire on move change) and less assaulting into combat straight from vehicles. I will need to dig it up for more exact wordings.

[Maritn]

On 9/10/2026 at 4:51 PM, 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.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Exactly! I always wonder how some talk about 10th/11th being streamlined, when only very few rules are actually streamlined when you compare them to old editions. At the same time tons of bloat has been added.

[Maritn]

On 9/11/2026 at 4:23 PM, SpecialIssue said:

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.

 

These are great points, and I agree with all of them.

For me GW does not even get one of the five points right, not even close...

[Xenith]

1 hour ago, Maritn said:

 

Exactly! I always wonder how some talk about 10th/11th being streamlined, when only very few rules are actually streamlined when you compare them to old editions. At the same time tons of bloat has been added.

 

When you consider each unit has unique rules, you're maybe tracking 70-80 varying unit states constantly across the game. While maybe ok on paper, it shifts the game from "I lost because my opponent outplayed me" to "I lost because I forgot 2-3 rules" which is incredibly feels bad.