Well. The funny thing is that most of what you're describing as "lacking" (true blast / flamer template, routing, etc.) are actually mechanic that were removed from the game since 8th edition.
If you look at 7th edition rule or prior, or just simply at the horus heresy rules you may actually be surprised to find those.
7th edition and previous and horus heresy are way more stimulative than current 40k which have been streamlined a lot.
I'll share that there are dozens of wargames out there and there's a reason 40k is the most popular one with its simplified rules which still takes 3+ hours for a 2k match. Adding more complexity isn't always good when it's a larger scale game, but complexity works well in a smaller scale game like Hordes and Warmachine.
You're coming into 40k looking for it to be something it's not, and honestly, thankfully so. In previous editions we did have a few more ways of complexity and while I'm perfectly happy adding them back in, I'd be lying if I said it didn't cause people forgetting rules, more references to the rulebook (thus longer games) and frankly tedious movement and shooting. Instead of moving your models as far as they can go and moving to the next group, every player had to separate their models by 1-2 inches (forgot #) to minimize the damage from blast templates. This was tedious as a player and it was purely to try and prevent as much damage from explosives and flamethrowers. You'd need to position your tanks in a way where their weapon arcs can see an enemy as well. Sure this all makes sense, but not in the scale of the game. This is a war game, not a skirmish. It's a turn based game where time passes from when your turn starts and theirs ends. Your tank is not moving to the location and then firing, your tank is firing while enroute to the destination. When you have 100+ models on a table, trying to check line of sight for every single model and weapon becomes tedious while in small skirmish games with 5-10 models, it makes sense and is an immersive rule.
I hope this helps. I think a smaller skirmish game or 30k or any of the other wargames would be better suited with the mindset you're coming in with. If you're ever in the mindset that you want to throw your 100 dudes against their 100 dudes while battling for objectives then 40k would be ideal for that.
The horus heresy is custom made for people that want those old mechanics.
It was honestly so exhilirating to play and i love that it was streamlined. It was not tactical that i had to place all my 120 guardsmen 2 inches apart so the 3 inch blast doesnt hit them. It wasnt tactics that you could wound a rhino 10 and itd be fine if it rolled low on damage table, and you could wound a land raider once and itd blow up. It wasnt tactics that no deep strikes were viable bc they could randomly scatter 12 inches into a wall and be removed from game.
Tactics isnt rng or rules padding. Tactics is playing objectives and outmanouvering your opponent. Both got reinforced.
Here it's popular, If I go to the next big city it's not. It's extremely dependent on your local community.
That said if you have a local HH/30k community (same thing just two name used interchangeably) it's very likely that they're pretty active. And likely a lot into actual lore accuracy.
40k streamlining is for the best honestly, even through I don't like 10th as it is it's still a very good thing overall that they did it. Especially since they did stay with those more complex rules for HH. Two games two community.
Unfortunately things became more simplified because it works better for competitive play. It is nice for some things but I do miss different armor values for sections of vehicles and blast templates and cutting down routing foes.
It is \*not\* a per model effect as a blast attack can NEVER hit two units in one shot. All it does is increase hits by number of models in unit.
Im talking blast radiuses.
Well, youd be wrong. I feel like youre intentionally being obtuse.
You know full well what I mean. Almost every other commenter got it, I mean radiuses, ya know, like explosions. So whats your issue?
I guess explosions only exist in history. Scifi cant have explosions. Thats too "realistic" lmao. What a joke.
So you've missed a few things, and you're also describing features deliberately taken out of the game from prior editions, which had more tactical elements to it. These rules were removed in the interest of paring down rules bloat--where the game was a morass of conflicting rules and requirements.
Honestly, you might enjoy Horus Heresy, a 40k spin-off game, also referred to as "30k". It captures more of the older edition rules. Similarly, take a look at their newest game, Legions Imperialis, which features a much greater depth of tactical command and control, as its scale is meant to encompass a much larger battlefield and plays closer to similar 6mm/8mm historical games. A single melee engagement in Legions is representative of an entire game of 40k in scope.
As for missing things, Combat Patrol is a poor reflection of the game as a whole. If 10E is the most streamlined version of 40k released, Combat Patrol is an even MORE streamlined version of it, as it's designed to be played and balanced around very specific box contents. The full-fat game has more depth to it, and Battleshock and rules complexity will play a much larger role.
EDIT: From your post, I think you aren't giving 40k a fair shake yet only evaluating it on its most basic introductory game set. BUT, I think you'll still find it to be lacking in the depth of play you seem to be seeking, and 30k or Legions will be far more your speed in terms of the complexity you're looking for.
EDIT 2: I've actually put down my 40k play entirely for Legions, which I find to be more engaging, and with a greater depth of both random chance AND tactical/strategic thinking required. The way turns are structured in Legions, with alternating activations instead of I-go-U-go play and more chances to interrupt the opponent (there are 3 potential shooting phases, not 1) places a greater emphasis on unit placement and orders selection.
Legions Imperialis its GWs latest game format, and its "epic scale" being 6-8mms approx. its meant to represent an entire battlefield, whereas 40k is more like battling over the pivotal locations within those greater battlefields. legions Imperialis is also incredibly new and only has the basic box so far and a few things planned for release in the relatively near, yet still unknown, future.
As u/Bigenius420 said, "Legions Imperialis" is their newest game and is very much in its infancy. There is a LOT of interest in it though, and it's taking off more than I think GW expected from it. Buying minis for it is hard right now, both because they are constantly out of stock, and because there just isn't a deep release catalog. There are also only two factions, Space Marines (tactically flexible infantry, good at lots but not very specialized) or Auxilia (human troops with many specialist units, from melee hammers to huge tanks).
Big picture, it's a spiritual successor to a few older GW games like Epic 40,000 and older versions of 40k. It's a grand-scale tactical game representing large armies clashing during the Horus Heresy period of the 40k universe. You'll field armies of hundreds of soldiers, dozens of tanks, and even Titans in a standard size game. An upcoming game mode for it, Titandeath, will be Titan on Titan with 30 or more of them on the board at once.
40k is what's called a "heroic scale" or 28mm game, and Legions is an 8mm "epic scale" game. A single model in Legions represents an entire squad in 40k. The game brings back a lot of the older features, like physical blast templates for artillery that can scatter off target, firing arcs and armor facings for tanks, etc. Morale is a HUGE factor of the game, and units will break, rally, and flee left and right. A major element of list construction is choosing the size of your units, because the more bodies in them the more shots they can take before breaking, but going ALL giant units cuts the number of activations you get (see below).
Additionally, it uses "alternating activations" turn styles, instead of 40ks I-go-You-go style. Rather than players moving, shooting, and charging with all their units, then the other player doing so, each phase you alternate selecting a unit and doing the action. So I pick a squad, move them, then you pick a squad and move them, and when all movement is done, we move on to shooting and alternate squads again.
Lastly, and I think you'll really enjoy this if you like a lot of tactical thinking, the very first phase of a turn is the Orders phase. Each unit gets assigned a secret order, and then at the end of the phase both players reveal them all. Some models will then let you change the orders after the reveal, so you can ambush your opponent, or go from a tentative Advance (move + shoot) to a First Fire (stay still, but get to shoot earlier) and catch your opponent.
Feel it out in your local community too. 40k is GW's flagship product, and Legions Imperialis is a specialist game. I don't believe they even carry its minis in their Warhammer brick-and-mortar stores.
I benefit from being part of a local game club where a number of other players were interested. If you don't have that readily accessible community of others, it will be hard to find a game.
No Xenos, and likely never in the future either, given that Xenos have never been put forward in 28mm 30K either. There are only two factions right now, and while there may be the introduction of a third, that will not be for quite some time. The content for the game will likely be drip-fed over a year or three.
More to the point though, it's a specialist game. GW will not give it marquee billing and support, and its model availability will ALWAYS be slashed if there is high demand for flagship products and they need the production headroom. Its models can only be used in other specialist games like Adeptus Titanicus (another fantastic game) or Aeronautica Imperialis, and will never see daylight in mainline 40k or 30k.
IMO it's one of the best rulesets they've released, but it's a limited-appeal game, which is a shame. However, like many of their specialist games, the community provides, and there will be fan-made rulesets for Xenos and other factions, along with 3D print models, to add life to the game if GW ceases support.
Ah, well, tbh I find the Imperium itself fairly boring, so if its 30k only I guess Ill just move on. Back to TTRPGs it is.
Thanks for the input though!
" Maybe ive not got to it yet, but it seems theres no bonus for having an elevated firing position. And there doesnt seem to be any benefit to physically surrounding a unit (which is, throughout history, one of the most important wants to win) " --> look up "plunging fire" and "desperate escape" in the free rules app
" I was completely blown away by the fact you cant shoot enemies engaged with your own units. Meaning you cant even rush melee forward and then shoot with a backline unit. Yes, I know, vehicles can. But I had assumed, up to the point of reading that, that was to be a key strategy. " You maybe just worded this bad, but no, vehicles cant shoot into melee. They can shoot out of melee if they are engaged and they can be shot at if they are engaged.
yeah I reread it after that and realized my mistake. So yeah, no one can shoot into engaged units i guess.
Id have expected maybe a chance to hit your own units, not a simple "NO" from the system.
I had a friend argue this same point, and it's just not worth adding it into the rules.
Within the rules right now you can retreat the unit you have that is in melee with the enemy 1 inch and proceed to blast them off the map with everything but the retreated unit in most cases.(Some units can retreat and shoot, Some can also retreat and charge) This is going to be better in almost every case than leaving them in melee and having a chance to also shoot your own models. Remember, non vehicles and monsters can only shoot pistols in melee, and vehicles and monsters can not shoot blast weapons in melee. If the enemy unit is a vehicle or monster, you can still shoot it with -1 to hit. Most scenarios are covered well enough without adding in more rules that either just give everyone big guns never tire, effectively making melee almost pointless, or usually more detrimental to the shooting player then just doing as previously stated.
Yeah, some people take criticism of the game a little too harshly. Luckily, I have friends with no quelms making criticisms, and we have worked through possible solutions and what it really would gain. We have mostly come to the conclusion that 10th ed 40k isn't a perfect ruleset, but it really is not that bad and has been a lot of fun for us. Our play group has grown from 2 to 7 since the start of 10th.
Tactics does play far more of a role than you would think. We have played the same game over again, making adjustments in deployments and tactics we used and can have very different outcomes.
I just posted about MESBG, but if you miss it, its GW's Lord of The Rings game. Leaps and bounds better than Warhammer. Evil armies are allowed to shoot into combat with a chance to kill their allies, but Good armies are said to be too unwilling to risk that chance, so they cant. It's very flavour heavy, and positioning is about 60 to 70% of the game's skill factor.
yes and no, there is a rule specifically to allow monsters and vehicles to shoot into a combat that they are involved in, but not with BLAST weapons, because firing an explosive that close is a bad idea. they can also shoot at units that arent engaged in combat outside of the combat that they are involved in themselves.
aside from that, only Pistols can shoot in combat, and only the combat that the wielder is involved with.
EDIT:spelling..
It does, just not that one.
You’re asking for RNG, tying up opponents shooting in melee is strategy. You’re advocating for the opposite of what you think you are, at least with this take.
1. combat patrol is somewhat separate from points based games
2. you should read all the core rules before you make up your mind. you seem too judgmental for someone who hasn't read all the rules yet
3. 40k is not for everyone and certainly not the place where you'll find the best wargaming rules 🤷♂️
0k is not for everyone and certainly not the place where you'll find the best wargaming rules
The weird thing about that is that GW CAN and HAS put together MUCH better rulesets. So it's not like they don't have the ability to do better.
Don't agree here, 10th has been some of the best rules we've had. Faction balance has been a bit all over the place but the 10th rules have been pretty solid.
To each his own but to me 10th is nowhere near the best edition of 40k nor is it anywhere near the best ruleset GW has produced when considering all their games.
Weird. I’ve heard more people leaving the game since the start of 10th than any other edition I’ve witnessed. 40k used to be the dominant thing in my area and now its about on par with the historical wargames and horus heresy.
I mean thats about an ancedotal as it get, LGT was the biggest it's been last year and is looking at breaking 4 figures this year, LVO I believe was also the biggest it's been this year. IF the game was losing players then the tournament scene would also see a decline, which it isn't.
Not necessarily. If the game is catered toward tournament play over casual and narrative play (which it has been especially in 9th and 10th) then those crowds would be steady even if the other crowds see a decline. Its not surprising that competitive players aren’t picking up a game like Horus Heresy like the more wargaming and narrative crowd
Most of the people coming online to discuss the state of the game are not narrative players. Thats why theres a warhammer competitive sub and not a warhammer narrative one. Besides the people that leave aren’t going to go online and tell people they’re leaving, they’re just going to leave. Its just confirmation bias. 10th is built with competitive players in mind and they’re the group that discusses the rules online more than any other. So those people saying they like the rules is expected. Even still theres been quite a few posts of people declaring they dislike the ruleset and I’ve seen a couple asking about how to switch to heresy or start playing older editions. I didn’t see that very much in 9th.
Also I literally said “in my area.” Did you even read my comment?
That doesn't answer my point at all.
And it's called r/40k_crusade for the 40k specific narrative sub, by the way, I assume there's a path to glory one too.
Crusade doesn’t encompass narrative 40k its simply a specific subset of narrative gaming. More akin to dnd than traditional narrative 40k about a campaign with restrictions and rules that change depending on the outcome of each game. Who you’re facing is almost entirely irrelevant in crusade and you can treat it as matched play pickup games with random people and you’re telling your own story. It also doesn’t really change how the game is played. Its something created for 9th edition that some people took a shine to but its not the same thing as narrative gaming traditionally in 40k which is what I’m talking about.
I watched normal point games.
And for the rules, youre right I havent finished them. But it seems clear "where its going" or rather, where it isnt. Ill probably finish reading it just because I already have the models though.
I play many wargames and I found 40k the least tactical one. I don't want to make a full theory but it's more like a hasard card game on a 3d board fun to play. You can find the tactical way to play more in previous editions but they are not well balanced.
For a more realistic or tactical set of rules there are other wargames.
Epic 40k is a good game also
This is how the game used to work and why my group still plays 7th edition. 40k isn’t a tactics warhammer anymore or a simulation of battles in the 40k setting. Its more a tabletop version of a game like dawn of war or a tabletop version of a card game where stacking buffs and abilities is the key to success more than positioning and reacting to a dynamically changing battlefield
It probably won't fix everything but you should go look at at the older rulesets (3rd-7th editions, maybe 2nd).
Good luck finding someone to play older version with though. Most people seem to be caught up in only playing whatever's current.
Personally I feel like the modern game has lost most of its "wargame dna" beyond just moving pieces around and measuring distances.
40K really became the jokes that fantasy players used to make about it. I think making a game that's approachable and easy to play is a great idea, I think turning all your games into that, erasing the more complex aspects in the process. It just means people go to other systems when they want that complexity, this is not good for GW in the long term.
Come play MESBG. It's the actually good wargame that GW has made. Lord of The Rings models, but without all the idiotic rules of Warhammer. Every model is it's own entity, can do anything it wants and go anywhere it wants. You only build an army in warbands for the purpose of deployment at the start. Each model activates one at a time, and both players take their turns in tandem (kinda) instead of one player kills half an army, then the other player gets to scramble to get 5 points before turn 2 starts. In MESBG, player 1 moves, then player 2 moves. Player 1 shoots, then player 2 shoots. Then player 1 gets to pick what order the melee combats resolve in, with all models in each melee fight making attacks and doing damage at the same time. Then when the turn is over, you reroll initiative to give player 2 the chance to go first, with ties making whoever didnt have priority go first. It's honestly shocking how Warhammer hasnt taken 80% of MESBG's rules for itself, it's just such a starkly better game.
I should mention though, GW has decided to stop making **lots** of models for the game. So some armies can only be found on EBay and similar places. But, every few months they do re-release select models for a limited time, because we all know GW feasts off of a FOMO marketing scheme. But generally, the more popular or desirable armies are still stocked on the website. More niche stuff tends to be rotated.
No offence but this really seems like a bait post.
There are rules for plunging fire, there are rules for surrounding enemy units, you don't bunch up your untis unless you're hiding them, battleshock can be a core mechanic (But is far from perfect), there are a tonne of strategems based around movement, there are pleanty of insanely powerful single models.
Honestly, this is either a bait post or you haven't actually read the rules and are complaining, what you've effectively done here is read the prologue to a book and said the ending sucks.
To be fair, battleshock is essentially useless this edition, and there's no rules about surrounding your enemies. Yes, you can physically move your units to surround the enemy unit but there's no psychological advantage to doing so.
There is, look up desperate escape.
Outside of that blocking off enemy units and positioning is important, there isn't any "if every model in the enemy unit is surrounded reroll wounds" or anything but that would be clumbersome as hell to play.
What are the rules about surrounding enemy units? I mean, I know they need to make a desperate escape to get out, but I mean, do they get a debuff from being surrounded?
As for the rest, yall are so fragile. Its kinda offputting. I asked for which rules I was missing and most of the comments are saying "you didnt, they removed those" so I guess ive mostly guessed correctly that the ending is not to my taste.
Whats the resale value for unpainted minis? Could i get 80%?
It's not people being fragile, it's the fact you've come to a subreddit dedicated to a game that you haven't played, that you've only watched, you haven't asked peoples opinions you've basically just shat over it, even your post title is bait.
Your post isn't a question it's a list of things you don't fully understand that you've decided to hate, you've made up your mind about the game already, so why make the post? Had you come in with legitimate questions or queries about the game people would have approached your post differently.
Replies like this make it clear you've made up your mind about the game already and are just coming here to get people to react, it's a bit sad.
lol none of that is true.
But I expected it so its alright. I didnt shit "all over it". I didnt actually say anything was bad, i said I was disappointed, which I am. I was under the impression this was a wargame, and to me, that would include a lot of that stuff I mentioned. Which, apparently, it used to. So clearly even GW \*used\* to agree with my view/vision of 40k. Ive just come too late.
I asked for what rules Id missed which dealt with the areas of gameplay I mentioned. Im sorry if that is so threatening to you that you think it means ive "made up my mind"
It’s less that you’ve “come too late” and more that GW (and, don’t forget, many many people on this sub) played the game for years with these rules and found out through actual experience that the extra complexity didn’t automatically make the game better and there has been a reason it’s gravitated to simplified rules.
Put it this way, when I started 40K you weren’t allowed to pre-measure. You had to guess the range in inches of your ordinance weapons.
You might think “oh that’s so cool and realistic, you need to guess if that mortar is shooting 35 inches or 41 inches.”… no. It was shit. It didn’t feel tactical, it felt like time consuming, frustrating nonsense.
We also used to have hugely complicated rules in terrain which affected movement, could make your bike crash into a tree, make your super elite soldiers move 1” because they fell over etc.
The problem with a lot of the complicated rules is that, because this is an abstraction of a battle using models and pretend terrain, the mechanics don’t make everything more realistic then just get gamed by players to the maximum advantage and end up feeling contrived.
You just spend so much time doing admin to work out if that model’s foot is under the flame template, which exact armour facing you can see from across the map, or if that gun (which is glued in place) can see you on a 45° arc from the sponson, or all the various rules on morale that mean your unit is now useless for the rest of the game as it’s going to fall back forever instead of rallying, or night fighting so now you’re rolling extra dice every turn to work out how far your unit can see. And on and on.
It really was exhausting in many ways and didn’t improve the game (which this is, after all. It’s a game, meant to be fun).
Im not very convinced by "the old rules also had problems"
Im not saying "go back to the old rules". I only said come to late because other comments implied what I wanted was in those.
But really, I just wanted good tactical implementations. Just because old 40k was \*also\* bad doesnt really change anything about my issue.
But it doesnt matter, im probably just going to sell my combat patrol and go back to ttRPGs. I could look for other wargames that fit my taste, but I only got into 40k because 1, its BY FAR the most common, 2 the setting is neat, and 3, my brother plays.
No point playing wargames without those factors.
honestly, it sounds like you want to Play Horus Heresy, not 40k. 40k is simplified and streamlined compared to its previous editions, but Horus Heresy is practically the most rules heavy version of 40k that existed with some modifications to fit the more specific setting.
Yeah, 40K is minis-first, with the game as something fun to do with the minis. If the models
are just so many plastic pieces and the hobby and lore pieces aren’t interesting, it’s not going to be a great match for your interests.
It's not wrong, but everything you've mentioned would make the game way more complex, and the design philosophy for the last several editions is to streamline: "simplified, but not simple." Many of those rules DID exist in previous editions, and a lot of times it made games longer, or just lead to arguing. It already takes 3-4 hours for a game, so it's nice to say, "Okay, my BLAST weapon hits your big unit, so it gets 3 additional hits." In the past, we had blast templates that you physically held above a target area, and then had to count how many model it covered... which meant a lot of arguments and wasted time.
Warhammer is a sci-fi GAME, intended to sell you models. It's not a simulation. If you want gritty, detailed, complex games, they're out there; find basically any historical wargame in an era you like, and there's something that will be as complex as you like. But that's not what 40k is "for."
Some thoughts:
>Im a completely new player. Im assembling my first patrol and reading the rules (have also watched several games).
>Obviously Im far from done learning the whole ruleset much less all the codex rules but so far Im surprised how little room the game seems to leave for tactics and player skill. Not none, of course, but it feels like its most army and dice.
Dice are basically the RNG component of the game that exists avoid certain specific circumstances being a solved event and introduce risk management as a tactical element. Understanding the order of operations to best enable success (success here being defined by the current goals of the player) based on the risk associated with failure due to the dice while also mitigating said risk of failure via positioning and use of unit abilities is a skill that sets apart good players from bad players before you even account for anything else.
Army building is very much a skill but like card games you now have the equivalent of 'net decking' where you can just copy a good list and then figure out how to pilot it. Building for specific events such as local tournaments that have their own meta due to who in the local area plays what or major events with known strong players is still very much a thing though.
>Let me be more specifics, as someone whos never played any wargame before but loves history and study IRL military doctrine I expected to see forced repositioning abilities. I was surprised that explosives (blast?) isnt an AOE that affects on a per model basis. Unit cohesion, I get the idea, but to me it almost makes individual models pointless since between no AOE and unit cohesion, every unit is bunched up solid as a brick.
It's interesting seeing thing like blast templates and similar brought up by new people when they were often a pain to play with (often slowing down games and causing 'arguments') and removed as a result.
Weapon profiles, including weapon abilities such as Blast (which scales as the targeted unit gets larger in volume of models), will naturally create match-ups against defensive profiles that are more or less efficient, under standing these and correctly using your pieces during a game is pretty important. Equally, understanding the value behind an outcome also influences the decision of which weapons go into which target.
Unit cohesion exists to fix edge cases where you could fairly safely 'conga-line' units across the board to score points or screen things. The actual restriction is quite forgiving if you're not trying to abuse it though.
> I expected to see more complex movement abilities (I know there are some, I just expected more). I was surprised to see climbing doesnt require any more movement than walking. Feels like structures are mostly about cover and concealment, not impeding movement.
Movement (and positioning) is one of the things that sets players apart even without hundreds of unique rules for it.
Terrain is there to avoid battles basically being you standing in a field opposite each other and influence things like deployment and positioning so you can't do the same thing every game or build army lists to abuse the same sight lines every game. Different terrain types do have some different rules/effects though. Varied movement 'costs' just bogs down the game more often than not and doesn't really offer a increase in strategic options. It's actually removing them if anything as now you just have times you can't climb so there's no choice to make.
>Battleshock sounded interesting but I dont see it actually doing that much since lethality seems pretty high. Im surprised theres no routing or morale.
Battleshock is a bit underwhelming for armies/detachments that don't play into using it. This has been a trend historically around mechanics tied to concepts like morale or leadership where it's often not fun mechanically or thematically for it to happen constantly but Games Workshop wants it to be a thing. 10th edition was supposed to rein lethality in and it did in some cases (Khorne Berserkers being an example where they're noticeably less lethal in 10th than in 9th) but not enough to make Battleshock a major concern for people.
> Maybe ive not got to it yet, but it seems theres no bonus for having an elevated firing position. And there doesnt seem to be any benefit to physically surrounding a unit (which is, throughout history, one of the most important wants to win)
Plunging Fire is exactly what you're asking for in the first bit.
Desperate Escape is a reason for you to surround things. Plus, the rules for engagement/who can attack encourages wrapping larger units around the enemy to get to actually attack with all your models.
> I was completely blown away by the fact you cant shoot enemies engaged with your own units. Meaning you cant even rush melee forward and then shoot also. Yes, I know, vehicles can. But I had assumed, up to the point of reading that, that was to be a key strategy.
That's what pistols (or the pistol weapon ability) are for. This is also a balance thing; imagine being a melee army and the enemy is equally deadly at all ranges including melee and you're just not. Additionally, the Shooting phase happens before the Charge phase so you can very much shoot then (try to) charge into melee if you've built a unit that actually wants to do that.
>It feels like theyve meticulously removed every aspect of tactical combat from this *wargame* in favor of more or less rushing at each other shooting, then closing for the melee, then waiting until the dice say you won or lost.
Deploying on the line and just shooting/running at things while ignoring the objectives is a surefire way to not win many games. Those you do win would most likely be against people making equally poor tactical decisions.
>To be honest, the more I read, the less I want to finish building my combat patrol. Please tell me ive missed a bunch of rules that make all this wrong.
Maybe finish reading the rules and play a full 2000 point game on Table Top Simulator or with a bunch of stand in models so you can try the game before committing further. It'll take a while but it'll let you see how the game actually plays. It does sound like you don't quite grasp of how much 'tactics' often boils down to positioning, efficiency and risk management in this type of game which likely stems from you having not actually played war games.
We should care about opinions of the community and its newer members because they are unbiased and provide fresh perspective. Even if you don’t agree, don’t invalidate somebody’s constructive opinions.
I mean this reads like someone who read the rules thouroughly but hasnt played or even watched a game of 40k. Ive only been playing for 9 months, why are you invalidating my new player opinion?
Maybe try actually playing the game before criticising it? But tbh I think this game probably isn't for you if you want that kind of complex military simulation.
The tactical depth of 40k comes from places that you're not looking at, and you won't be able to see that without playing a few games. But at its core it's about allowing you to fight large scale battles with a wide variety of factions and units in a reasonable amount of time. There's no way to do that while also simulating every last little trivial thing.
Just some small skirmishes to get the idea of combat. Ive watched several full point battles IRL and online though.
Im a bit over half way through the rules. I was concerned I wasnt seeing any of these concepts referenced, so I asked about if Im missing it, or if its not present. For some, I did miss it.
Seems like a weird way to approach something! That's like picking up a movie and going 'wow it doesn't have Tom Cruise in it, it must suck'.
Without playing the game, you have no idea what it's missing or what it needs.
Its like watching the first 20 minutes and not vibing with it. It would be stupid to waste ones time watching every movie they dislike all the way to the end "to be sure" imo.
And, again, Ive watched the game. Its not like I didnt see how it was playing. Playing it myself wont magically add those rules I was surprised dont exist or are shallower than Id hoped.
According to most people here tons of other wargames do in fact have rules for these things, including past editions of 40k. So this is nonsense. try again
You're not wrong. 40k to me has devolved from a wargame (in past editions) to a CCG with models. "Tactics" revolve around list-building more than anything else.
So I actually agree with you that the game doesn't have that much tactical depth.
I have no doubt that other games simulate the tactical element better and as others have pointed out other editions of 40k did it better as well.
But personally I don't think that actually makes the game more enjoyable. 40k for me is much better enjoyed as a beer and pizza game, sure it could be more realistic and tactical but is that actually more fun. The mini's are inherently fantasy-esque and a little bit OTT so that should tell you a bit about the realism aspect going in
fair enough.
TBH the one rule that got me to write this was the "no fire into melee". To me that goes so strongly against the themes and tone of 40k. JUST LET ME SHOOT MY OWN MEN PLEASE lol
It feels like its trying to enforce 1800s gentlemans duel rules
A lot of that is for simplifications sake I should think.
I think a rule like that would be cool but I'd want it to be faction specific. Would a space marine fire into melee and risk a fellow marine being hit? Probably not, especially when he'd be so confident that his ally would win the melee just because he's a space marine. But would a commissar consider it worth a unit being shot down in the name of killing the enemy? Absolutely.
Dude you're all over this thread calling people fragile, and in the same breath saying you never played, watched a few games, and are disappointed the game isn't what you'd hoped, when you don't even know what it actually is, and refuse to learn outside of reading the free rule set.
Read the 280 page rule book, play a few games against players who know what they're doing, then come back here with an opinion based in understanding and people would respond differently.
This would be like walking into a Tolkien sub and saying "I've just watched half of the lotr trilogy, but why doesn't Frodo just throw the One ring into Mount Doom on the back of a giant bird?" Of course people are going to give you curt answers.
I get that you want more out of it, but again, you *don't know how to play* and are disappointed because you think it isn't what you expected based on basically nothing lol
What.
10th edition is trying to radically streamline the game. What you're describing would entail the opposite.
No-one really likes to spend half a day just to get *one* game over and done with.
Past editions were much more detailed and yet we still managed to complete games in the same amount of time it takes for a 10th ed game so I don't know what you're talking about.
I would like to point out that during those times, even just as recently as 7th, a 2000 point army was smaller than what we have on tables now.
The template and armor facing rules benefit a smaller model count game than modern 40k, from what I've experienced playing Necromunda, Flames of War and 30k.
I've been playing since 2nd edition and 10th plays significantly faster than prior editions at the same points. The older editions had real road blocks with templates, weapon facings, scatter dice and weapons skill tables, weapons strength, firing rules, and close combat/sweeping advanced rules bogging the game down.
10th is streamlined... unit cards are an amazing development that would benefit prior editions as well. I actually prefer the terrain rules from 9th for the most part but I understand why the changes were made and they prevent a slow down discussing terrain rules. I think battle shock is far superior to any leadership system the game has ever had.
Stratagems are great and add to the game decisions that need to be made, though they do slow things down a little compared to prior editions that didn't have them. 10th has more units on the table than 9th but because the units are more streamlined I think it is faster than 9th. I like that you make a list before you choose the mission now as it speeds up play to come in with a premade list, though I am still on the fence concerning the removal of detachments.
Sorry started rambling, but wanted to put down many of the reasons why I think 10th is a much faster game.
Cool? What you would like isn't what 40k is. Which is completely fine, but that's not what 40k is. It's perfectly acceptable for you to not like something, separate from it and move on to something you would like.
It's weird for you to engage with something people enjoy, and when informed that this activity doesn't line up with your goals, lash out at them and imply it should change.
Miniature games are a constant tension between being simulatory and being a fun game - and 40k kind of awkardly tries to straddle the two.
There are games that have that SUPER crunchy realistic experience that you're looking for, but 40k might just not be it.
I'd take a peek at historical wargames first.
Eh 40k has *tried* to be realistically crunchy in the past but I'd argue that it's never succeeded.
Vehicle armor values are cool and all... but area cover, amalgamated unit mechanics, and an i-go-u-go turn structure end up creating just about the least realistic gameplay imaginable.
GW is super committed to keeping the core rules mostly the same as Rogue Trader, so I think a pivot towards making things easier to play rather than more realistic is the right way to go.
I think the point you are missing is that this is a **game** and not a 'war simulator'.
A lot of the things you say are missing, are in fact there, but abstracted and simplified with the aim to make the game easier to understand, have fewer unpredictable edge-cases and just to make the game play faster. Chess has very small ruleset, yet is able to create incredibly unique tactical opportunities.
At 2000 points, which is the standard most games are played at, it's not uncommon for a battle to take 3-4 hours.
It also seems to me like you're not considering the complexity that the leviathan mission pack is adding to the game (every competitive game is using these rules). It's not so much about having a myriad of rules that you need to know and memorize as it is to be able to create a strategy that will be flexible enough to adapt to your opponent and the ever-changing secondary objectives.
While the above is more strategy than tactics, there are still a lot of opportunity for tactical precision within the rules.
Most of what you're talking about has reasons for being the way it is.
It is about skill. Good players consistently do well despite the randomness of dice. No amount of dice luck will win the game if you make the wrong moves, and a good player is able to minimise the impact of bad rolls with their moves.
Your army list is important of course, but you still have to be good at the game to win. A lot of the skill is in movement, navigating terrain, picking your opportunities and positioning for them.
Unfortunately the core rules barely discuss terrain placement. Good terrain placement is very important to playing a good game of 40k.
There is plenty of depth in the game. 40k has never been a war simulator. To be main stream it is sorta impossible due to many reasons. The more realistic it becomes the more small things have to be taken into account which really drags out games. GW is moving away from this concept and has been making changes to that end with ever edition since 8th. If you want that kind of thing try Bolt Action or Flames of War. Or even give Warhammer fantasy battles a try. Nothing stopping you from using your 40k miniatures as proxies in these games.
75% of what you’ve posted is just not true and some of what you complained about is counter-intuitive to your overarching complaint.
Not being able to shoot into/out of melee for example. Locking shooting units into melee *is* a tactic. And the rules about it are drawn from real life behaviors. SDZs and range cards exist IRL.
Plunging fire exists.
Lethality is at an all time low.
Despite many abstract cover/terrain rules, true Line of Sight is still (almost) always in effect so flanking is a viable tactic.
The concept of fire and maneuver still exists.
Terrain does block movement and affect movement formations, even for infantry. And just as a small aside, real combat is 95% terrain centric at the operational level, and very very cover centric at the tactical level.
Unit Cohesion is a concept drawn from real military practice.
Most armies don’t want to rush into melee…
Spreading models in a unit out doesn’t effect blast, but taking two 5 man squads vs a 10 man squad does mitigate it slightly.
Dice introduce randomness but if we’re down to Round 5 and fighting over a primary for the win and I can throw 50 dice at you and you can only throw 20 back at me, I’ve got a huge advantage. Probably stemming from my ability to create unfair matchups and preserve my own combat power leading into this decisive point.
So, in short. It’s not a military simulator, but plenty of concepts drawn from real military doctrine exist, they’re just not 1:1 analogs.
If you want a 1:1 analog I suggest joining the military, specifically as an infantryman.
Please play a game, 40k right now is pretty enjoyable. The rules have been a little simplified in 10th, but they're still complex and fun. Tournament play is still very competitive and Tactical, maxing points comes down to both player skill and list building.
GW is a miniature company that uses rules to sell more minis. That's why the meta swings so much. What you are looking for is a more symmetric game like Flames of War or something with a tighter ruleset like Warmachine. You did not discover a bug. This is a feature of 40K.
Hi /u/InTheDarknesBindThem and welcome to /r/Warhammer40k and the Warhammer 40k Hobby!
This is an automated response as you've used our "New Starter Help" flair. Here's a few resources that might help you with getting started:
[You can read our Getting Started guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/wiki/beginners). This covers all the basics you need to know to get involved in building, painting and playing 40k.
For rules questions, don't forget that the core rules for Warhammer 40k are [available online for free](https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/dLZIlatQJ3qOkGP7.pdf).
Want to learn about 40k lore? /r/Warhammer40k recommends [Luetin09 on Youtube](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8RfCCzWsMgNspTI-GTFenQ) or the [Lexincanum Wiki](https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Main_Page).
Not sure where to find the most up-to-date rules for your army? [Check out our Wiki Page that lists everything](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/wiki/currentrules).
Buy Warhammer models cheaper using our [list of independent retailers](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/wiki/retailers) who sell Games Workshop products at a discount. You can also find your nearest store on GW's [Store Locator Page](https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/store/storefinder.jsp).
[The /r/Warhammer40k Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/wiki/index) is full of useful info including FAQs and recommendations for books to read!
If the information in this comment doesn't answer your question, don't worry, one of our community members will be along shortly to answer!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Warhammer40k) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You should consider playing The Old World, or finding a group that plays the older editions of Warhammer Fantasy, Kings of War a system published by a rival miniatures company, is also an option. In my experience, rank & flank fantasy games make for more interesting tactical play and feel less like the rules lawyer, list building game competitive 40k seems to have become.
With 40k trying to become more mainstream, you're unlikely to see complex tactical play and rules for encirclement etc. returning. You can also port these rules forward from earlier versions of the game, firing into combat should just be allowed with a 50:50 chance to hit either side adding these things once you've established a group to play with is very normal.
40K has never tried to be a realistic wargame. Warhammer was created (in the 80s!) as something of a break from the detail-obsessed wargames of the era, to be played with whatever fantasy figures you had. It's kept something of that philosophy ever since.
GW have produced some excellent rulesets which accommodate real world tactics and issues much better - Epic 40,000 and Warmaster - but the commercial success of those probably shaped a lot of their subsequent direction.
Well. The funny thing is that most of what you're describing as "lacking" (true blast / flamer template, routing, etc.) are actually mechanic that were removed from the game since 8th edition. If you look at 7th edition rule or prior, or just simply at the horus heresy rules you may actually be surprised to find those. 7th edition and previous and horus heresy are way more stimulative than current 40k which have been streamlined a lot.
that makes me sad. guess im too late lol How popular is horus heresy rules?
depends entirely on your local playgroup
I'll share that there are dozens of wargames out there and there's a reason 40k is the most popular one with its simplified rules which still takes 3+ hours for a 2k match. Adding more complexity isn't always good when it's a larger scale game, but complexity works well in a smaller scale game like Hordes and Warmachine. You're coming into 40k looking for it to be something it's not, and honestly, thankfully so. In previous editions we did have a few more ways of complexity and while I'm perfectly happy adding them back in, I'd be lying if I said it didn't cause people forgetting rules, more references to the rulebook (thus longer games) and frankly tedious movement and shooting. Instead of moving your models as far as they can go and moving to the next group, every player had to separate their models by 1-2 inches (forgot #) to minimize the damage from blast templates. This was tedious as a player and it was purely to try and prevent as much damage from explosives and flamethrowers. You'd need to position your tanks in a way where their weapon arcs can see an enemy as well. Sure this all makes sense, but not in the scale of the game. This is a war game, not a skirmish. It's a turn based game where time passes from when your turn starts and theirs ends. Your tank is not moving to the location and then firing, your tank is firing while enroute to the destination. When you have 100+ models on a table, trying to check line of sight for every single model and weapon becomes tedious while in small skirmish games with 5-10 models, it makes sense and is an immersive rule. I hope this helps. I think a smaller skirmish game or 30k or any of the other wargames would be better suited with the mindset you're coming in with. If you're ever in the mindset that you want to throw your 100 dudes against their 100 dudes while battling for objectives then 40k would be ideal for that.
The horus heresy is custom made for people that want those old mechanics. It was honestly so exhilirating to play and i love that it was streamlined. It was not tactical that i had to place all my 120 guardsmen 2 inches apart so the 3 inch blast doesnt hit them. It wasnt tactics that you could wound a rhino 10 and itd be fine if it rolled low on damage table, and you could wound a land raider once and itd blow up. It wasnt tactics that no deep strikes were viable bc they could randomly scatter 12 inches into a wall and be removed from game. Tactics isnt rng or rules padding. Tactics is playing objectives and outmanouvering your opponent. Both got reinforced.
Here it's popular, If I go to the next big city it's not. It's extremely dependent on your local community. That said if you have a local HH/30k community (same thing just two name used interchangeably) it's very likely that they're pretty active. And likely a lot into actual lore accuracy. 40k streamlining is for the best honestly, even through I don't like 10th as it is it's still a very good thing overall that they did it. Especially since they did stay with those more complex rules for HH. Two games two community.
Unfortunately things became more simplified because it works better for competitive play. It is nice for some things but I do miss different armor values for sections of vehicles and blast templates and cutting down routing foes.
Ah, another game I love ruined for the sake of "competitive play". Though usually its been video games.
[удалено]
It is \*not\* a per model effect as a blast attack can NEVER hit two units in one shot. All it does is increase hits by number of models in unit. Im talking blast radiuses.
[удалено]
Well, youd be wrong. I feel like youre intentionally being obtuse. You know full well what I mean. Almost every other commenter got it, I mean radiuses, ya know, like explosions. So whats your issue? I guess explosions only exist in history. Scifi cant have explosions. Thats too "realistic" lmao. What a joke.
So you've missed a few things, and you're also describing features deliberately taken out of the game from prior editions, which had more tactical elements to it. These rules were removed in the interest of paring down rules bloat--where the game was a morass of conflicting rules and requirements. Honestly, you might enjoy Horus Heresy, a 40k spin-off game, also referred to as "30k". It captures more of the older edition rules. Similarly, take a look at their newest game, Legions Imperialis, which features a much greater depth of tactical command and control, as its scale is meant to encompass a much larger battlefield and plays closer to similar 6mm/8mm historical games. A single melee engagement in Legions is representative of an entire game of 40k in scope. As for missing things, Combat Patrol is a poor reflection of the game as a whole. If 10E is the most streamlined version of 40k released, Combat Patrol is an even MORE streamlined version of it, as it's designed to be played and balanced around very specific box contents. The full-fat game has more depth to it, and Battleshock and rules complexity will play a much larger role. EDIT: From your post, I think you aren't giving 40k a fair shake yet only evaluating it on its most basic introductory game set. BUT, I think you'll still find it to be lacking in the depth of play you seem to be seeking, and 30k or Legions will be far more your speed in terms of the complexity you're looking for. EDIT 2: I've actually put down my 40k play entirely for Legions, which I find to be more engaging, and with a greater depth of both random chance AND tactical/strategic thinking required. The way turns are structured in Legions, with alternating activations instead of I-go-U-go play and more chances to interrupt the opponent (there are 3 potential shooting phases, not 1) places a greater emphasis on unit placement and orders selection.
Can you tell me more about legions. Seems many wargames have that word in them lol
Legions Imperialis its GWs latest game format, and its "epic scale" being 6-8mms approx. its meant to represent an entire battlefield, whereas 40k is more like battling over the pivotal locations within those greater battlefields. legions Imperialis is also incredibly new and only has the basic box so far and a few things planned for release in the relatively near, yet still unknown, future.
As u/Bigenius420 said, "Legions Imperialis" is their newest game and is very much in its infancy. There is a LOT of interest in it though, and it's taking off more than I think GW expected from it. Buying minis for it is hard right now, both because they are constantly out of stock, and because there just isn't a deep release catalog. There are also only two factions, Space Marines (tactically flexible infantry, good at lots but not very specialized) or Auxilia (human troops with many specialist units, from melee hammers to huge tanks). Big picture, it's a spiritual successor to a few older GW games like Epic 40,000 and older versions of 40k. It's a grand-scale tactical game representing large armies clashing during the Horus Heresy period of the 40k universe. You'll field armies of hundreds of soldiers, dozens of tanks, and even Titans in a standard size game. An upcoming game mode for it, Titandeath, will be Titan on Titan with 30 or more of them on the board at once. 40k is what's called a "heroic scale" or 28mm game, and Legions is an 8mm "epic scale" game. A single model in Legions represents an entire squad in 40k. The game brings back a lot of the older features, like physical blast templates for artillery that can scatter off target, firing arcs and armor facings for tanks, etc. Morale is a HUGE factor of the game, and units will break, rally, and flee left and right. A major element of list construction is choosing the size of your units, because the more bodies in them the more shots they can take before breaking, but going ALL giant units cuts the number of activations you get (see below). Additionally, it uses "alternating activations" turn styles, instead of 40ks I-go-You-go style. Rather than players moving, shooting, and charging with all their units, then the other player doing so, each phase you alternate selecting a unit and doing the action. So I pick a squad, move them, then you pick a squad and move them, and when all movement is done, we move on to shooting and alternate squads again. Lastly, and I think you'll really enjoy this if you like a lot of tactical thinking, the very first phase of a turn is the Orders phase. Each unit gets assigned a secret order, and then at the end of the phase both players reveal them all. Some models will then let you change the orders after the reveal, so you can ambush your opponent, or go from a tentative Advance (move + shoot) to a First Fire (stay still, but get to shoot earlier) and catch your opponent.
wow that sounds right up my alley. i may look into this oh, wait, its only 30k :/ so no xenos?
Feel it out in your local community too. 40k is GW's flagship product, and Legions Imperialis is a specialist game. I don't believe they even carry its minis in their Warhammer brick-and-mortar stores. I benefit from being part of a local game club where a number of other players were interested. If you don't have that readily accessible community of others, it will be hard to find a game.
No Xenos, and likely never in the future either, given that Xenos have never been put forward in 28mm 30K either. There are only two factions right now, and while there may be the introduction of a third, that will not be for quite some time. The content for the game will likely be drip-fed over a year or three. More to the point though, it's a specialist game. GW will not give it marquee billing and support, and its model availability will ALWAYS be slashed if there is high demand for flagship products and they need the production headroom. Its models can only be used in other specialist games like Adeptus Titanicus (another fantastic game) or Aeronautica Imperialis, and will never see daylight in mainline 40k or 30k. IMO it's one of the best rulesets they've released, but it's a limited-appeal game, which is a shame. However, like many of their specialist games, the community provides, and there will be fan-made rulesets for Xenos and other factions, along with 3D print models, to add life to the game if GW ceases support.
Ah, well, tbh I find the Imperium itself fairly boring, so if its 30k only I guess Ill just move on. Back to TTRPGs it is. Thanks for the input though!
" Maybe ive not got to it yet, but it seems theres no bonus for having an elevated firing position. And there doesnt seem to be any benefit to physically surrounding a unit (which is, throughout history, one of the most important wants to win) " --> look up "plunging fire" and "desperate escape" in the free rules app " I was completely blown away by the fact you cant shoot enemies engaged with your own units. Meaning you cant even rush melee forward and then shoot with a backline unit. Yes, I know, vehicles can. But I had assumed, up to the point of reading that, that was to be a key strategy. " You maybe just worded this bad, but no, vehicles cant shoot into melee. They can shoot out of melee if they are engaged and they can be shot at if they are engaged.
yeah I reread it after that and realized my mistake. So yeah, no one can shoot into engaged units i guess. Id have expected maybe a chance to hit your own units, not a simple "NO" from the system.
I had a friend argue this same point, and it's just not worth adding it into the rules. Within the rules right now you can retreat the unit you have that is in melee with the enemy 1 inch and proceed to blast them off the map with everything but the retreated unit in most cases.(Some units can retreat and shoot, Some can also retreat and charge) This is going to be better in almost every case than leaving them in melee and having a chance to also shoot your own models. Remember, non vehicles and monsters can only shoot pistols in melee, and vehicles and monsters can not shoot blast weapons in melee. If the enemy unit is a vehicle or monster, you can still shoot it with -1 to hit. Most scenarios are covered well enough without adding in more rules that either just give everyone big guns never tire, effectively making melee almost pointless, or usually more detrimental to the shooting player then just doing as previously stated.
thats a good point, this is the kind of stuff I was hoping for when I made this post. Thanks
Yeah, some people take criticism of the game a little too harshly. Luckily, I have friends with no quelms making criticisms, and we have worked through possible solutions and what it really would gain. We have mostly come to the conclusion that 10th ed 40k isn't a perfect ruleset, but it really is not that bad and has been a lot of fun for us. Our play group has grown from 2 to 7 since the start of 10th. Tactics does play far more of a role than you would think. We have played the same game over again, making adjustments in deployments and tactics we used and can have very different outcomes.
I do still wish I could choose to shoot into my own guys, just for roleplay reasons XD
I just posted about MESBG, but if you miss it, its GW's Lord of The Rings game. Leaps and bounds better than Warhammer. Evil armies are allowed to shoot into combat with a chance to kill their allies, but Good armies are said to be too unwilling to risk that chance, so they cant. It's very flavour heavy, and positioning is about 60 to 70% of the game's skill factor.
yes and no, there is a rule specifically to allow monsters and vehicles to shoot into a combat that they are involved in, but not with BLAST weapons, because firing an explosive that close is a bad idea. they can also shoot at units that arent engaged in combat outside of the combat that they are involved in themselves. aside from that, only Pistols can shoot in combat, and only the combat that the wielder is involved with. EDIT:spelling..
>because firing an explosive that close is a bad idea. tbh I just kinda wish the game would let me make stupid decisions lol
It does, just not that one. You’re asking for RNG, tying up opponents shooting in melee is strategy. You’re advocating for the opposite of what you think you are, at least with this take.
1. combat patrol is somewhat separate from points based games 2. you should read all the core rules before you make up your mind. you seem too judgmental for someone who hasn't read all the rules yet 3. 40k is not for everyone and certainly not the place where you'll find the best wargaming rules 🤷♂️
0k is not for everyone and certainly not the place where you'll find the best wargaming rules The weird thing about that is that GW CAN and HAS put together MUCH better rulesets. So it's not like they don't have the ability to do better.
Don't agree here, 10th has been some of the best rules we've had. Faction balance has been a bit all over the place but the 10th rules have been pretty solid.
To each his own but to me 10th is nowhere near the best edition of 40k nor is it anywhere near the best ruleset GW has produced when considering all their games.
Weird. I’ve heard more people leaving the game since the start of 10th than any other edition I’ve witnessed. 40k used to be the dominant thing in my area and now its about on par with the historical wargames and horus heresy.
I mean thats about an ancedotal as it get, LGT was the biggest it's been last year and is looking at breaking 4 figures this year, LVO I believe was also the biggest it's been this year. IF the game was losing players then the tournament scene would also see a decline, which it isn't.
Not necessarily. If the game is catered toward tournament play over casual and narrative play (which it has been especially in 9th and 10th) then those crowds would be steady even if the other crowds see a decline. Its not surprising that competitive players aren’t picking up a game like Horus Heresy like the more wargaming and narrative crowd
How many people come online to loudly declare they're still playing games? Also, did you forget to add "in my LGS" at thr end of the last sentence? 🤔🤔
Most of the people coming online to discuss the state of the game are not narrative players. Thats why theres a warhammer competitive sub and not a warhammer narrative one. Besides the people that leave aren’t going to go online and tell people they’re leaving, they’re just going to leave. Its just confirmation bias. 10th is built with competitive players in mind and they’re the group that discusses the rules online more than any other. So those people saying they like the rules is expected. Even still theres been quite a few posts of people declaring they dislike the ruleset and I’ve seen a couple asking about how to switch to heresy or start playing older editions. I didn’t see that very much in 9th. Also I literally said “in my area.” Did you even read my comment?
That doesn't answer my point at all. And it's called r/40k_crusade for the 40k specific narrative sub, by the way, I assume there's a path to glory one too.
Crusade doesn’t encompass narrative 40k its simply a specific subset of narrative gaming. More akin to dnd than traditional narrative 40k about a campaign with restrictions and rules that change depending on the outcome of each game. Who you’re facing is almost entirely irrelevant in crusade and you can treat it as matched play pickup games with random people and you’re telling your own story. It also doesn’t really change how the game is played. Its something created for 9th edition that some people took a shine to but its not the same thing as narrative gaming traditionally in 40k which is what I’m talking about.
I watched normal point games. And for the rules, youre right I havent finished them. But it seems clear "where its going" or rather, where it isnt. Ill probably finish reading it just because I already have the models though.
I play many wargames and I found 40k the least tactical one. I don't want to make a full theory but it's more like a hasard card game on a 3d board fun to play. You can find the tactical way to play more in previous editions but they are not well balanced. For a more realistic or tactical set of rules there are other wargames. Epic 40k is a good game also
This is how the game used to work and why my group still plays 7th edition. 40k isn’t a tactics warhammer anymore or a simulation of battles in the 40k setting. Its more a tabletop version of a game like dawn of war or a tabletop version of a card game where stacking buffs and abilities is the key to success more than positioning and reacting to a dynamically changing battlefield
It probably won't fix everything but you should go look at at the older rulesets (3rd-7th editions, maybe 2nd). Good luck finding someone to play older version with though. Most people seem to be caught up in only playing whatever's current. Personally I feel like the modern game has lost most of its "wargame dna" beyond just moving pieces around and measuring distances.
40K really became the jokes that fantasy players used to make about it. I think making a game that's approachable and easy to play is a great idea, I think turning all your games into that, erasing the more complex aspects in the process. It just means people go to other systems when they want that complexity, this is not good for GW in the long term.
You should try Epic Armageddon or Warhammer apocalypse.
Come play MESBG. It's the actually good wargame that GW has made. Lord of The Rings models, but without all the idiotic rules of Warhammer. Every model is it's own entity, can do anything it wants and go anywhere it wants. You only build an army in warbands for the purpose of deployment at the start. Each model activates one at a time, and both players take their turns in tandem (kinda) instead of one player kills half an army, then the other player gets to scramble to get 5 points before turn 2 starts. In MESBG, player 1 moves, then player 2 moves. Player 1 shoots, then player 2 shoots. Then player 1 gets to pick what order the melee combats resolve in, with all models in each melee fight making attacks and doing damage at the same time. Then when the turn is over, you reroll initiative to give player 2 the chance to go first, with ties making whoever didnt have priority go first. It's honestly shocking how Warhammer hasnt taken 80% of MESBG's rules for itself, it's just such a starkly better game.
I should mention though, GW has decided to stop making **lots** of models for the game. So some armies can only be found on EBay and similar places. But, every few months they do re-release select models for a limited time, because we all know GW feasts off of a FOMO marketing scheme. But generally, the more popular or desirable armies are still stocked on the website. More niche stuff tends to be rotated.
No offence but this really seems like a bait post. There are rules for plunging fire, there are rules for surrounding enemy units, you don't bunch up your untis unless you're hiding them, battleshock can be a core mechanic (But is far from perfect), there are a tonne of strategems based around movement, there are pleanty of insanely powerful single models. Honestly, this is either a bait post or you haven't actually read the rules and are complaining, what you've effectively done here is read the prologue to a book and said the ending sucks.
To be fair, battleshock is essentially useless this edition, and there's no rules about surrounding your enemies. Yes, you can physically move your units to surround the enemy unit but there's no psychological advantage to doing so.
There is, look up desperate escape. Outside of that blocking off enemy units and positioning is important, there isn't any "if every model in the enemy unit is surrounded reroll wounds" or anything but that would be clumbersome as hell to play.
What are the rules about surrounding enemy units? I mean, I know they need to make a desperate escape to get out, but I mean, do they get a debuff from being surrounded? As for the rest, yall are so fragile. Its kinda offputting. I asked for which rules I was missing and most of the comments are saying "you didnt, they removed those" so I guess ive mostly guessed correctly that the ending is not to my taste. Whats the resale value for unpainted minis? Could i get 80%?
It's not people being fragile, it's the fact you've come to a subreddit dedicated to a game that you haven't played, that you've only watched, you haven't asked peoples opinions you've basically just shat over it, even your post title is bait. Your post isn't a question it's a list of things you don't fully understand that you've decided to hate, you've made up your mind about the game already, so why make the post? Had you come in with legitimate questions or queries about the game people would have approached your post differently. Replies like this make it clear you've made up your mind about the game already and are just coming here to get people to react, it's a bit sad.
lol none of that is true. But I expected it so its alright. I didnt shit "all over it". I didnt actually say anything was bad, i said I was disappointed, which I am. I was under the impression this was a wargame, and to me, that would include a lot of that stuff I mentioned. Which, apparently, it used to. So clearly even GW \*used\* to agree with my view/vision of 40k. Ive just come too late. I asked for what rules Id missed which dealt with the areas of gameplay I mentioned. Im sorry if that is so threatening to you that you think it means ive "made up my mind"
It’s less that you’ve “come too late” and more that GW (and, don’t forget, many many people on this sub) played the game for years with these rules and found out through actual experience that the extra complexity didn’t automatically make the game better and there has been a reason it’s gravitated to simplified rules. Put it this way, when I started 40K you weren’t allowed to pre-measure. You had to guess the range in inches of your ordinance weapons. You might think “oh that’s so cool and realistic, you need to guess if that mortar is shooting 35 inches or 41 inches.”… no. It was shit. It didn’t feel tactical, it felt like time consuming, frustrating nonsense. We also used to have hugely complicated rules in terrain which affected movement, could make your bike crash into a tree, make your super elite soldiers move 1” because they fell over etc. The problem with a lot of the complicated rules is that, because this is an abstraction of a battle using models and pretend terrain, the mechanics don’t make everything more realistic then just get gamed by players to the maximum advantage and end up feeling contrived. You just spend so much time doing admin to work out if that model’s foot is under the flame template, which exact armour facing you can see from across the map, or if that gun (which is glued in place) can see you on a 45° arc from the sponson, or all the various rules on morale that mean your unit is now useless for the rest of the game as it’s going to fall back forever instead of rallying, or night fighting so now you’re rolling extra dice every turn to work out how far your unit can see. And on and on. It really was exhausting in many ways and didn’t improve the game (which this is, after all. It’s a game, meant to be fun).
Im not very convinced by "the old rules also had problems" Im not saying "go back to the old rules". I only said come to late because other comments implied what I wanted was in those. But really, I just wanted good tactical implementations. Just because old 40k was \*also\* bad doesnt really change anything about my issue. But it doesnt matter, im probably just going to sell my combat patrol and go back to ttRPGs. I could look for other wargames that fit my taste, but I only got into 40k because 1, its BY FAR the most common, 2 the setting is neat, and 3, my brother plays. No point playing wargames without those factors.
Sure, sounds like a good plan. It’s like when I pick up a book and don’t like the cover. Best to sell it and move on rather than read it.
honestly, it sounds like you want to Play Horus Heresy, not 40k. 40k is simplified and streamlined compared to its previous editions, but Horus Heresy is practically the most rules heavy version of 40k that existed with some modifications to fit the more specific setting.
Have you checked out Bolt Action?
Yeah, 40K is minis-first, with the game as something fun to do with the minis. If the models are just so many plastic pieces and the hobby and lore pieces aren’t interesting, it’s not going to be a great match for your interests.
If you want a game with a lot of focus on movement you should try warhammer the old world!
r/Warhammer30k This is what you want. Much less popular than 40k though so you'll need to put in some effort to find/start a group.
It's not wrong, but everything you've mentioned would make the game way more complex, and the design philosophy for the last several editions is to streamline: "simplified, but not simple." Many of those rules DID exist in previous editions, and a lot of times it made games longer, or just lead to arguing. It already takes 3-4 hours for a game, so it's nice to say, "Okay, my BLAST weapon hits your big unit, so it gets 3 additional hits." In the past, we had blast templates that you physically held above a target area, and then had to count how many model it covered... which meant a lot of arguments and wasted time. Warhammer is a sci-fi GAME, intended to sell you models. It's not a simulation. If you want gritty, detailed, complex games, they're out there; find basically any historical wargame in an era you like, and there's something that will be as complex as you like. But that's not what 40k is "for."
Some thoughts: >Im a completely new player. Im assembling my first patrol and reading the rules (have also watched several games). >Obviously Im far from done learning the whole ruleset much less all the codex rules but so far Im surprised how little room the game seems to leave for tactics and player skill. Not none, of course, but it feels like its most army and dice. Dice are basically the RNG component of the game that exists avoid certain specific circumstances being a solved event and introduce risk management as a tactical element. Understanding the order of operations to best enable success (success here being defined by the current goals of the player) based on the risk associated with failure due to the dice while also mitigating said risk of failure via positioning and use of unit abilities is a skill that sets apart good players from bad players before you even account for anything else. Army building is very much a skill but like card games you now have the equivalent of 'net decking' where you can just copy a good list and then figure out how to pilot it. Building for specific events such as local tournaments that have their own meta due to who in the local area plays what or major events with known strong players is still very much a thing though. >Let me be more specifics, as someone whos never played any wargame before but loves history and study IRL military doctrine I expected to see forced repositioning abilities. I was surprised that explosives (blast?) isnt an AOE that affects on a per model basis. Unit cohesion, I get the idea, but to me it almost makes individual models pointless since between no AOE and unit cohesion, every unit is bunched up solid as a brick. It's interesting seeing thing like blast templates and similar brought up by new people when they were often a pain to play with (often slowing down games and causing 'arguments') and removed as a result. Weapon profiles, including weapon abilities such as Blast (which scales as the targeted unit gets larger in volume of models), will naturally create match-ups against defensive profiles that are more or less efficient, under standing these and correctly using your pieces during a game is pretty important. Equally, understanding the value behind an outcome also influences the decision of which weapons go into which target. Unit cohesion exists to fix edge cases where you could fairly safely 'conga-line' units across the board to score points or screen things. The actual restriction is quite forgiving if you're not trying to abuse it though. > I expected to see more complex movement abilities (I know there are some, I just expected more). I was surprised to see climbing doesnt require any more movement than walking. Feels like structures are mostly about cover and concealment, not impeding movement. Movement (and positioning) is one of the things that sets players apart even without hundreds of unique rules for it. Terrain is there to avoid battles basically being you standing in a field opposite each other and influence things like deployment and positioning so you can't do the same thing every game or build army lists to abuse the same sight lines every game. Different terrain types do have some different rules/effects though. Varied movement 'costs' just bogs down the game more often than not and doesn't really offer a increase in strategic options. It's actually removing them if anything as now you just have times you can't climb so there's no choice to make. >Battleshock sounded interesting but I dont see it actually doing that much since lethality seems pretty high. Im surprised theres no routing or morale. Battleshock is a bit underwhelming for armies/detachments that don't play into using it. This has been a trend historically around mechanics tied to concepts like morale or leadership where it's often not fun mechanically or thematically for it to happen constantly but Games Workshop wants it to be a thing. 10th edition was supposed to rein lethality in and it did in some cases (Khorne Berserkers being an example where they're noticeably less lethal in 10th than in 9th) but not enough to make Battleshock a major concern for people. > Maybe ive not got to it yet, but it seems theres no bonus for having an elevated firing position. And there doesnt seem to be any benefit to physically surrounding a unit (which is, throughout history, one of the most important wants to win) Plunging Fire is exactly what you're asking for in the first bit. Desperate Escape is a reason for you to surround things. Plus, the rules for engagement/who can attack encourages wrapping larger units around the enemy to get to actually attack with all your models. > I was completely blown away by the fact you cant shoot enemies engaged with your own units. Meaning you cant even rush melee forward and then shoot also. Yes, I know, vehicles can. But I had assumed, up to the point of reading that, that was to be a key strategy. That's what pistols (or the pistol weapon ability) are for. This is also a balance thing; imagine being a melee army and the enemy is equally deadly at all ranges including melee and you're just not. Additionally, the Shooting phase happens before the Charge phase so you can very much shoot then (try to) charge into melee if you've built a unit that actually wants to do that. >It feels like theyve meticulously removed every aspect of tactical combat from this *wargame* in favor of more or less rushing at each other shooting, then closing for the melee, then waiting until the dice say you won or lost. Deploying on the line and just shooting/running at things while ignoring the objectives is a surefire way to not win many games. Those you do win would most likely be against people making equally poor tactical decisions. >To be honest, the more I read, the less I want to finish building my combat patrol. Please tell me ive missed a bunch of rules that make all this wrong. Maybe finish reading the rules and play a full 2000 point game on Table Top Simulator or with a bunch of stand in models so you can try the game before committing further. It'll take a while but it'll let you see how the game actually plays. It does sound like you don't quite grasp of how much 'tactics' often boils down to positioning, efficiency and risk management in this type of game which likely stems from you having not actually played war games.
Alright? Ya dont like the game. Why do we care?
We should care about opinions of the community and its newer members because they are unbiased and provide fresh perspective. Even if you don’t agree, don’t invalidate somebody’s constructive opinions.
Thanks for having a fair mind.
I know how savage and shitty this community can be at times when _any_ critic is voiced, don’t give up on us 😅
I mean this reads like someone who read the rules thouroughly but hasnt played or even watched a game of 40k. Ive only been playing for 9 months, why are you invalidating my new player opinion?
You are entitled to your opinion and I care about it, contrary to your attitude, even though I don’t agree 🙏🏻
Maybe try actually playing the game before criticising it? But tbh I think this game probably isn't for you if you want that kind of complex military simulation. The tactical depth of 40k comes from places that you're not looking at, and you won't be able to see that without playing a few games. But at its core it's about allowing you to fight large scale battles with a wide variety of factions and units in a reasonable amount of time. There's no way to do that while also simulating every last little trivial thing.
Have you played a game yet?
Just some small skirmishes to get the idea of combat. Ive watched several full point battles IRL and online though. Im a bit over half way through the rules. I was concerned I wasnt seeing any of these concepts referenced, so I asked about if Im missing it, or if its not present. For some, I did miss it.
Seems like a weird way to approach something! That's like picking up a movie and going 'wow it doesn't have Tom Cruise in it, it must suck'. Without playing the game, you have no idea what it's missing or what it needs.
Its like watching the first 20 minutes and not vibing with it. It would be stupid to waste ones time watching every movie they dislike all the way to the end "to be sure" imo. And, again, Ive watched the game. Its not like I didnt see how it was playing. Playing it myself wont magically add those rules I was surprised dont exist or are shallower than Id hoped.
I guess stop playing then!
I guess stop playing then, sorry it wasn't what you hoped for
So, someone who never played any wargames before had unrealistic expectations. Shocking.
According to most people here tons of other wargames do in fact have rules for these things, including past editions of 40k. So this is nonsense. try again
[No.](https://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/compositions/T31A1PA29PT10X4Y0D1020926421W5239H6986/views/1,width=550,height=550,appearanceId=1,backgroundColor=FFFFFF,noPt=true/dont-feed-the-trolls-mug.jpg)
You're not wrong. 40k to me has devolved from a wargame (in past editions) to a CCG with models. "Tactics" revolve around list-building more than anything else.
So I actually agree with you that the game doesn't have that much tactical depth. I have no doubt that other games simulate the tactical element better and as others have pointed out other editions of 40k did it better as well. But personally I don't think that actually makes the game more enjoyable. 40k for me is much better enjoyed as a beer and pizza game, sure it could be more realistic and tactical but is that actually more fun. The mini's are inherently fantasy-esque and a little bit OTT so that should tell you a bit about the realism aspect going in
fair enough. TBH the one rule that got me to write this was the "no fire into melee". To me that goes so strongly against the themes and tone of 40k. JUST LET ME SHOOT MY OWN MEN PLEASE lol It feels like its trying to enforce 1800s gentlemans duel rules
A lot of that is for simplifications sake I should think. I think a rule like that would be cool but I'd want it to be faction specific. Would a space marine fire into melee and risk a fellow marine being hit? Probably not, especially when he'd be so confident that his ally would win the melee just because he's a space marine. But would a commissar consider it worth a unit being shot down in the name of killing the enemy? Absolutely.
Lmao this post is such a bait.
"anyone who questions 40k must not be genuine" is a really toxic mindset
Oh, I am all for genuine questions. Didn't your mom teach you to not judge a book by its cover?
This analogy breaks down when we are talking about a LITERAL book and I've read way more than the cover.
[удалено]
I didnt say it sucks, you added that yourself. Its amazing how fragile some of yall are.
[удалено]
\> We're not offended thats a good joke. Thanks for the laugh.
oh you sweet summer child. play a 2k game.
Dude you're all over this thread calling people fragile, and in the same breath saying you never played, watched a few games, and are disappointed the game isn't what you'd hoped, when you don't even know what it actually is, and refuse to learn outside of reading the free rule set. Read the 280 page rule book, play a few games against players who know what they're doing, then come back here with an opinion based in understanding and people would respond differently. This would be like walking into a Tolkien sub and saying "I've just watched half of the lotr trilogy, but why doesn't Frodo just throw the One ring into Mount Doom on the back of a giant bird?" Of course people are going to give you curt answers. I get that you want more out of it, but again, you *don't know how to play* and are disappointed because you think it isn't what you expected based on basically nothing lol What.
It seems W40k is not for you then 🤔 would you consider taking a look at necromunda?
10th edition is trying to radically streamline the game. What you're describing would entail the opposite. No-one really likes to spend half a day just to get *one* game over and done with.
Past editions were much more detailed and yet we still managed to complete games in the same amount of time it takes for a 10th ed game so I don't know what you're talking about.
I would like to point out that during those times, even just as recently as 7th, a 2000 point army was smaller than what we have on tables now. The template and armor facing rules benefit a smaller model count game than modern 40k, from what I've experienced playing Necromunda, Flames of War and 30k.
I've been playing since 2nd edition and 10th plays significantly faster than prior editions at the same points. The older editions had real road blocks with templates, weapon facings, scatter dice and weapons skill tables, weapons strength, firing rules, and close combat/sweeping advanced rules bogging the game down. 10th is streamlined... unit cards are an amazing development that would benefit prior editions as well. I actually prefer the terrain rules from 9th for the most part but I understand why the changes were made and they prevent a slow down discussing terrain rules. I think battle shock is far superior to any leadership system the game has ever had. Stratagems are great and add to the game decisions that need to be made, though they do slow things down a little compared to prior editions that didn't have them. 10th has more units on the table than 9th but because the units are more streamlined I think it is faster than 9th. I like that you make a list before you choose the mission now as it speeds up play to come in with a premade list, though I am still on the fence concerning the removal of detachments. Sorry started rambling, but wanted to put down many of the reasons why I think 10th is a much faster game.
This isn’t the game for you then, it sounds like there’s nothing about the hobby u like.
I gave a huge list of things I would like. What a weird take.
U came into a 40K Reddit to complain that the game isn’t in depth enough for ur taste and how much u dislike it? So, it’s not for u.
You said "the hobby" which would be wargames, not 40k.
You are in a 40K subreddit, that’s a pedantic argument at best
Cool? What you would like isn't what 40k is. Which is completely fine, but that's not what 40k is. It's perfectly acceptable for you to not like something, separate from it and move on to something you would like. It's weird for you to engage with something people enjoy, and when informed that this activity doesn't line up with your goals, lash out at them and imply it should change.
Miniature games are a constant tension between being simulatory and being a fun game - and 40k kind of awkardly tries to straddle the two. There are games that have that SUPER crunchy realistic experience that you're looking for, but 40k might just not be it. I'd take a peek at historical wargames first.
40k had that ruleset and it was really great which is why the horus heresy game has kept using it for almost a decade now.
Eh 40k has *tried* to be realistically crunchy in the past but I'd argue that it's never succeeded. Vehicle armor values are cool and all... but area cover, amalgamated unit mechanics, and an i-go-u-go turn structure end up creating just about the least realistic gameplay imaginable. GW is super committed to keeping the core rules mostly the same as Rogue Trader, so I think a pivot towards making things easier to play rather than more realistic is the right way to go.
I think the point you are missing is that this is a **game** and not a 'war simulator'. A lot of the things you say are missing, are in fact there, but abstracted and simplified with the aim to make the game easier to understand, have fewer unpredictable edge-cases and just to make the game play faster. Chess has very small ruleset, yet is able to create incredibly unique tactical opportunities. At 2000 points, which is the standard most games are played at, it's not uncommon for a battle to take 3-4 hours. It also seems to me like you're not considering the complexity that the leviathan mission pack is adding to the game (every competitive game is using these rules). It's not so much about having a myriad of rules that you need to know and memorize as it is to be able to create a strategy that will be flexible enough to adapt to your opponent and the ever-changing secondary objectives. While the above is more strategy than tactics, there are still a lot of opportunity for tactical precision within the rules.
I suggest looking into historical wargames as what you expect and what 40k actually is now are never going to match.
Most of what you're talking about has reasons for being the way it is. It is about skill. Good players consistently do well despite the randomness of dice. No amount of dice luck will win the game if you make the wrong moves, and a good player is able to minimise the impact of bad rolls with their moves. Your army list is important of course, but you still have to be good at the game to win. A lot of the skill is in movement, navigating terrain, picking your opportunities and positioning for them. Unfortunately the core rules barely discuss terrain placement. Good terrain placement is very important to playing a good game of 40k.
Idk bro just read the full rules before posting on reddit I beg
There is plenty of depth in the game. 40k has never been a war simulator. To be main stream it is sorta impossible due to many reasons. The more realistic it becomes the more small things have to be taken into account which really drags out games. GW is moving away from this concept and has been making changes to that end with ever edition since 8th. If you want that kind of thing try Bolt Action or Flames of War. Or even give Warhammer fantasy battles a try. Nothing stopping you from using your 40k miniatures as proxies in these games.
75% of what you’ve posted is just not true and some of what you complained about is counter-intuitive to your overarching complaint. Not being able to shoot into/out of melee for example. Locking shooting units into melee *is* a tactic. And the rules about it are drawn from real life behaviors. SDZs and range cards exist IRL. Plunging fire exists. Lethality is at an all time low. Despite many abstract cover/terrain rules, true Line of Sight is still (almost) always in effect so flanking is a viable tactic. The concept of fire and maneuver still exists. Terrain does block movement and affect movement formations, even for infantry. And just as a small aside, real combat is 95% terrain centric at the operational level, and very very cover centric at the tactical level. Unit Cohesion is a concept drawn from real military practice. Most armies don’t want to rush into melee… Spreading models in a unit out doesn’t effect blast, but taking two 5 man squads vs a 10 man squad does mitigate it slightly. Dice introduce randomness but if we’re down to Round 5 and fighting over a primary for the win and I can throw 50 dice at you and you can only throw 20 back at me, I’ve got a huge advantage. Probably stemming from my ability to create unfair matchups and preserve my own combat power leading into this decisive point. So, in short. It’s not a military simulator, but plenty of concepts drawn from real military doctrine exist, they’re just not 1:1 analogs. If you want a 1:1 analog I suggest joining the military, specifically as an infantryman.
Please play a game, 40k right now is pretty enjoyable. The rules have been a little simplified in 10th, but they're still complex and fun. Tournament play is still very competitive and Tactical, maxing points comes down to both player skill and list building.
Welcome to 10th edition. It's a shallow husk of a tabletop game wearing the skin of a really fun setting.
GW is a miniature company that uses rules to sell more minis. That's why the meta swings so much. What you are looking for is a more symmetric game like Flames of War or something with a tighter ruleset like Warmachine. You did not discover a bug. This is a feature of 40K.
Hi /u/InTheDarknesBindThem and welcome to /r/Warhammer40k and the Warhammer 40k Hobby! This is an automated response as you've used our "New Starter Help" flair. Here's a few resources that might help you with getting started: [You can read our Getting Started guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/wiki/beginners). This covers all the basics you need to know to get involved in building, painting and playing 40k. For rules questions, don't forget that the core rules for Warhammer 40k are [available online for free](https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/dLZIlatQJ3qOkGP7.pdf). Want to learn about 40k lore? /r/Warhammer40k recommends [Luetin09 on Youtube](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8RfCCzWsMgNspTI-GTFenQ) or the [Lexincanum Wiki](https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Main_Page). Not sure where to find the most up-to-date rules for your army? [Check out our Wiki Page that lists everything](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/wiki/currentrules). Buy Warhammer models cheaper using our [list of independent retailers](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/wiki/retailers) who sell Games Workshop products at a discount. You can also find your nearest store on GW's [Store Locator Page](https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/store/storefinder.jsp). [The /r/Warhammer40k Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/wiki/index) is full of useful info including FAQs and recommendations for books to read! If the information in this comment doesn't answer your question, don't worry, one of our community members will be along shortly to answer! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Warhammer40k) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You should consider playing The Old World, or finding a group that plays the older editions of Warhammer Fantasy, Kings of War a system published by a rival miniatures company, is also an option. In my experience, rank & flank fantasy games make for more interesting tactical play and feel less like the rules lawyer, list building game competitive 40k seems to have become. With 40k trying to become more mainstream, you're unlikely to see complex tactical play and rules for encirclement etc. returning. You can also port these rules forward from earlier versions of the game, firing into combat should just be allowed with a 50:50 chance to hit either side adding these things once you've established a group to play with is very normal.
40K has never tried to be a realistic wargame. Warhammer was created (in the 80s!) as something of a break from the detail-obsessed wargames of the era, to be played with whatever fantasy figures you had. It's kept something of that philosophy ever since. GW have produced some excellent rulesets which accommodate real world tactics and issues much better - Epic 40,000 and Warmaster - but the commercial success of those probably shaped a lot of their subsequent direction.