[Review] Warhammer 40,000

[Battle Brush Sigur]

Since GW made all the new 40k rules available online for free I thought it would be fun to review the 10th edition rules. Which also means test game of course. You can find my review and test game battle report of Warhammer 40,000 (10th edition) here:

https://tabletopstories.net/language/en/2023/08/warhammer-40000-review-and-test-game/



I'm sure I made many rules mistakes in there, but I did try.

[Tactalvanic]

Ty - interesting read.

I might need to take a closer look

[fred]

Great painting, and a good review and battle report.

My gaming mates who are long time 40K players, though I think got fed-up with 9th edition, seem to like this new edition. Vehicles are very different, and seem to require specific anti-armour weapons to be effective against them, which seems no bad thing.

[Ragsta]

Thank you for the review, I enjoyed it.

Played a few small games of 10th now and I’m to agree with your points- it’s nice to play an easier version of ye olde 40K with the right people. It’s not what I’m really looking for (and I def want to try Grim Dark Future soon) but for getting my o out and having some fun? Yes alright

[Battle Brush Sigur]

@Tactalvanic: Thanks very much! In the end if there is any conclusion that can be drawn from the whole affair it's this: It's still the same old 40k, with a bit more off-table "special powers" due to the command points. Which I was not a fan of in Saga, which I'm not a fan of in Warhammer 40,000. Anything that takes my attention off the figures on the table is something I don't care all that much for. But if you enjoy 40k, you will enjoy 10th edition. Not the least because there's barely any other choice. I mean what are people going to do? Just play a version of 40k they prefer over the currently GW-mandated one? How absurd.

@fred: Thank you! That's good to hear. I think I'm a bit further removed from the whole thing than your friends are (due to the looong hiatus I took). However, it feels like vehicles are handled pretty sensibly. It's always tough to integrate vehicles in a game which is mostly about infantry (and about a billion different kinds, in the case of warhammer 40,000). Using the same rules and statlines for vehicles as they do for infantry was a very bold step, but it makes the core rules lighter (which is a thing GW seem to be keen on. Just to weigh it down with special rules again ). But the anti-vehicle and especially anti-aircraft rules do work from what I can tell.

@Ragsta: Thanks for reading! I'm very much in two minds about the whole thing: I'm incredibly tired of the GW marketing model and the whole "rules and figures from the same company" approach. However, I like my 40k figures. And it was really fun browsing the old collections again, tidying them up, painting up some more figures. So I think I'm more okay with actually playing 40k (but mostly due to the figures and the people I'd potentially play with) than everything else about it (the company, the business, the "online community", etc).

Thanks for the replies! I got Xenos Rampant on order (which I'm a bit more positive towards than One Page Rules), so maybe trying that is in order as well at some point. I'm also a bit interested in playing 2nd edition 40k again, just to see if it's any fun at all or just a chore.
So curious was I that I even watched 2nd edition battle reports on youtube! (shock horror)
 And for many, many years a friend and I have been planning to do the Battle at the Farm from Rogue Trader of course.

[Tactalvanic]

Well.. I can go download 10th and compare it to rogue trader on the shelf maybe.

Just got to find the time.

Like anything else though as you say find what's fun, enjoyable for you and not to distracting from the action on the table and get on with playing.

 

[Belligerentparrot]

Nice review, thanks. Can I ask your opinion on the following point please?

Recently 40K looked like it had undergone a significant shift in a more Magic-the-Gathering-direction (for want of a better phrase, it is the only analogy I can think of). What I mean is that your army's path to victory, compared to old versions of 40K, had less to do with the scenario and the table tactics, and much more to do with how you'd put together the right combination of strategems and special rules.

I found that really off-putting. Is there much of this in the new edition, do you think? Some of the promotional guff suggested they'd streamlined, but not lessened, this aspect.

(I mean, in the right game it is a wonderful thing, but a table top battle isn't the right game for me. If I want that kind of game play, I'll build a combo deck for MtG).

[jon_1066]

Nice review, thanks. Can I ask your opinion on the following point please?

Recently 40K looked like it had undergone a significant shift in a more Magic-the-Gathering-direction (for want of a better phrase, it is the only analogy I can think of). What I mean is that your army's path to victory, compared to old versions of 40K, had less to do with the scenario and the table tactics, and much more to do with how you'd put together the right combination of strategems and special rules.

I found that really off-putting. Is there much of this in the new edition, do you think? Some of the promotional guff suggested they'd streamlined, but not lessened, this aspect.

(I mean, in the right game it is a wonderful thing, but a table top battle isn't the right game for me. If I want that kind of game play, I'll build a combo deck for MtG).

Has it not nearly always been about the list building?  Ie the bulk of the decisions you make are before the game starts in terms of how you spend your points.

[Belligerentparrot]

You're absolutely right it has been about list building for a very long time. I was trying (probably not very well) to say I'd thought the focus of list-building had changed for the worse. In earlier versions, it seemed more about finding the units that performed their battlefield role best/most efficiently for their points cost. More recently it seems to be more about choosing a list that will allow you to exploit some massively powerful effect that comes from the combination of two or more special rules/strategems.

Anyway, apologies if I've hijacked the thread!

[Battle Brush Sigur]

That's a very good question. I think we see a shift in the more recent, broad miniature games, towards the sort of "special rules combos".

Without having seen any of the new codices (I think two are out now, Tyranids and Space Marines) it's hard to say, but to me the introduction of the whole Stratagem aspect to the game (I think they made their debut in 6th or 7th edition? And before that for a bit in .....Codex city fights in 4the edition?) probably adds to this sort of gameplay. Judging from the free pdf army lists (or data cards) online with each unit having a specific special rule, all of which seem weirdly generic and in some cases just self-serving, certainly will lead to having these two layers - stratagems and unit special rules - of special rules hovering over every situation.

In that regard, looking for synergies to maximize the bonus is something payers will look for.


Sure, the list building has always been a big thing, but I think that the combo-aspect to special rules/stratagems/weapon special rules feels a bit stronger now. It's not huge, and it's not complex, but it's complicated to new-comers I'm sure. And it surely won't get any simpler either, if the past 30  years of experience with GW's game design are any indicator. With each edition they supposedly tone down the complicated heaps of special rules and stream-line the rules, only to pile on special rules for the following 3-6 years.

 I'm not sure if these combo effects are game-breaking, but they sure add to the things you have to learn and consider all the time whilst playing. I know several people who greatly enjoy finding synergies and combos and so on, and all of them are great fans of M:tG as well. So I find your analogy very fitting. I've also been known to enjoy the occasional game of Magic myself, but it's not the way I like to play my tabletop wargames. The approach of "dead simple core rules, and then you add LOADS of special rules" is pretty much the exact opposite of what I look for in a rules set. But that's just me. And as mentioned above, I don't think that Warhammer 40,000 is extreme in the combo approach or complicated compared to games which do similar things.

[jon_1066]

There is one aspect to that type of game in terms of fog of war.  You can't possibly keep abreast of every special rules for every possible unit so it is possible to be taken by surprise by the abilities of the enemy.  This is actually probably not a bad thing since there were very few commanders in real life who could accurately predict what their own troops could or would do, let alone the opposition.

[eilif]

Since GW made all the new 40k rules available online for free I thought it would be fun to review the 10th edition rules. Which also means test game of course. You can find my review and test game battle report of Warhammer 40,000 (10th edition) here:

https://tabletopstories.net/language/en/2023/08/warhammer-40000-review-and-test-game/



I'm sure I made many rules mistakes in there, but I did try.

Great review.  I have not played it but have read bright through the rules I share many of your opinions on the set, especially that in it's first form (light rules and simple free lists) it is quite appealing .  Like you, the last time I played the current 40k was probably 5th or 6th editition.

If I didn't have Grimdark Future, I'd strongly consider this early version of 40k as my choice for getting my  beloved 40k figures on the tabletop. However, I have no doubt that just as with 8th edition, this streamlined first draft will suffer unbearable layers of complication and rules bloat via codices and supplements.

 Fortunately I have Grimdark Future and a club that enjoys it so I can easily throw my 40k arms on the tabletop at will and avoid completely this tempting first step back onto the GW book-buying carousel.

[Battle Brush Sigur]

@jon_1066: That is the most intriguing take on GW's rules writing that I've ever read. Not sure it's intended by the rules authors, but the result could be called an effective representation of Fog of War.

@eilif: Thank you! Yes, I think that 40k can be rather enriching, but you gotta be careful about who you play with (ie a group of like-minded individuals), and which rules you use. It's kinda like with the 40k background - at some point everybody just takes the bits they like and ignore the bits which they find a bit daft. So going with Grimdark Future rules makes sense.

After this review game I was intrigued by sticking to the setting and for the first time since the very first pre-alpha rules were released decided to look into Mantic's Warpath again. But somehow that doesn't exist any more, at least not as its own thing? Something like that? Anyway, Mantic asked me to sign up for their website to get free downloads, so I postponed that.

Instead I got Xenos Rampant last weekend. Wrote army lists the other night, hope to get a test game done soon. I'm not sure how I feel about the rules, but a test run should clarify that.

[eilif]

@jon_1066: That is the most intriguing take on GW's rules writing that I've ever read. Not sure it's intended by the rules authors, but the result could be called an effective representation of Fog of War.

@eilif: Thank you! Yes, I think that 40k can be rather enriching, but you gotta be careful about who you play with (ie a group of like-minded individuals), and which rules you use. It's kinda like with the 40k background - at some point everybody just takes the bits they like and ignore the bits which they find a bit daft. So going with Grimdark Future rules makes sense.

After this review game I was intrigued by sticking to the setting and for the first time since the very first pre-alpha rules were released decided to look into Mantic's Warpath again. But somehow that doesn't exist any more, at least not as its own thing? Something like that? Anyway, Mantic asked me to sign up for their website to get free downloads, so I postponed that.

Instead I got Xenos Rampant last weekend. Wrote army lists the other night, hope to get a test game done soon. I'm not sure how I feel about the rules, but a test run should clarify that.

I've heard good things about Xenos Rampant and I enjoyed Dragon Rampant quite a bit.  I'm sure they will give a good game, but for me XR Seems to be aimed at platoon level combat and if it's based on LR/DR mechanics it's not going to "feel" like 40k.

For me, one of the great things about 40k is bigger battles, so Grimdark future is great for me.  It feels like 40k (if that makes sense) in terms of the basic rules and mechanics but it's light enough to be able to resolve a big battle in a couple hours.   It's also nice that the army lists and options line up almost exactly with 40k, so I can dream up an army flipping through an old 40k Codex and stat it up straight away on OPR's extremely well-done free "Army Forge" list-building program.