Monthly Archives: February 2025

Uncategorized

On The Table: Tyranids and War

It seems this blog has been overrun by the tendrils of the Great Devourer, but can you blame me? Right now, my time is consumed by Warhammer 40K—reading, painting, playing, and of course, scheming. The Tyranid Hive Mind has sunk its claws into my thoughts, and today I want to share my experiences piloting this ravenous xenos swarm over the past month.

The Growing Hunger: My Tyranid Army

My Tyranid force has been gestating for quite some time, but I’m finally at the point where I consider it battle-ready. With approximately 3,000 points amassed, I have more than enough chitinous horrors to field a devastating army. Of that, I have 1,200 points fully painted—my initial goal, now achieved. Victory, however, is fleeting, and there are always more biomorphs to birth from the spawning vats.

It’s worth noting that I am a casual player—one of the many who enjoy Warhammer 40K outside the cutthroat world of competitive tournaments. My local gaming group shares this philosophy; we play for the spectacle, the narrative, and the thrill of the dice roll rather than a rigorous adherence to the tournament meta. Some of our armies might not even be fully legal by the cold scrutiny of Matched Play, but we don’t care. We field what we think is cool, and we revel in the carnage that follows.

Warhammer 40K tournaments and competitive play are an alien concept to me; I find them as bizarre as competitive D&D or speed reading. I feel like people are missing the point of the activity. Not to disparage those who play competitively—I just don’t get the attraction

That said, there are some things I’ve observed while commanding the Hive Mind that contrast with the prevailing wisdom of the online discourse. Consider this a perspective from the battlefield trenches rather than the sterile halls of theory-crafting.

The Devourer Hungers: Tyranids Are Strong—Perhaps Too Strong

If you look at the cold data, Tyranids boast a modest 51% win rate in tournaments—decent but not overwhelmingly dominant. And yet, in my hands, they feel far more oppressive than those numbers would suggest.

This isn’t just about strong stat lines or army synergies. It’s about the sheer aggressive, suffocating nature of the Tyranid swarm. When I craft my lists with even a modicum of min/max intent, I find myself creating something monstrous—not just in lore but on the tabletop itself. If I truly optimize my lists to prey upon my opponents’ weaknesses, the ensuing games can become one-sided massacres rather than balanced engagements.

Take, for example, the Vanguard Onslaught detachment—an absolute nightmare for any force unprepared for early-game aggression. This build emphasizes hyper-lethal infiltration tactics with units like Genestealers, Von Ryan’s Leapers, Deathleaper, Lictors, and Mawlocs. These creatures are cheap, fast, and capable of flooding my opponent’s deployment zone on turn one. If I seize the initiative, I can eliminate entire units before they even get the chance to act. This level of pressure fundamentally alters the flow of the game, forcing my opponent into damage control rather than strategic play.

The Broodlord on a tactical surfboard is a decent unit, but when paired with the vanguard onslaught detachment and a unit of genestealers, the combination is lethal. Finding such optimized combinations is easy, but resisting the urge to spam them to create killer lists is hard.

Even in the best-case scenario for my opponent, my initial wave is just the beginning. Those early sacrifices are a blip on the Hive Mind’s tactical awareness—mere biomass expended for board control. The true monsters lurk in the shadows of my deployment zone, ready to emerge once the enemy’s cohesion has been shattered. And by that point, I’m often so far ahead in points that the rest of the battle is merely a formality.

I believe most if not all armies in Warhammer 40k have the potential to create that killer list and you have to be careful when exercising this type of optimization.

This leads me to my first major realization:

Lesson One: The Pitfalls of Min-Maxing in Casual Play

One of the most common complaints about Warhammer 40K is how it can feel uncompetitive—where games devolve into brutal, one-sided affairs that aren’t enjoyable for either player.

This is hardly unique to Warhammer. I’ve played many games that, while well-designed, can be easily “broken” by min/max tactics. Dungeons & Dragons, for example, allows for highly optimized characters that can trivialize encounters, just as Magic: The Gathering has decks that can steamroll casual playgroups. Warhammer 40K is no different. Its asymmetrical, complex game design means that if you want to push the mechanics to their limit, you can—and if your opponent isn’t operating on the same level, the game will feel unfair and frustrating.

And so, the simple solution: Don’t do that.

There is a lot of youtube content dedicated to narrative play and lore, in fact, it’s mostly that. I believe the reason for that is that most players are seeking “the story experience” inherent in Warhammer 40k. It’s instinctual for gamers however to want to play to win, driving the game down a road of optimization and the inevitable and often incurable discovery that the game is easily broken.

If you’re playing in a casual environment, recognize the expectations of your gaming group. If people are building for fun rather than optimization, then bringing hyper-efficient, min/maxed lists is going to drain the joy out of the experience. The game isn’t “broken”; it’s just not designed for that kind of play at every level. Adjust accordingly, and Warhammer 40K remains the grimdark battlefield it was meant to be—one where the struggle is thrilling, the battles are memorable, and the dice gods decide the fate of the Imperium.

Tyranids at 2,000 points

Another realization I’ve had—one that was strongly reinforced by my recent battles—is that 2,000 points is simply too much.

For comparison, I recently played a 1,000-point battle against an Aeldari player in my group, and it was an absolute blast. The game took about three to three and a half hours, featuring dramatic momentum shifts, tactical plays, and the thrilling uncertainty of victory until the very end. It felt right—tense, engaging, and well-paced.

Then, I played a 2,000-point game against a combined Adepta Sororitas and Deathwatch army, and it was an entirely different beast. The match dragged on for nearly seven hours—a grueling, exhausting endeavor. While I certainly enjoyed it, there was no additional benefit to the experience—no grander strategic depth or heightened excitement. It was simply the same game, but twice as long.

Lesson Two: 1,000 – 1,200 Is the Sweet Spot

The verdict, at least for me, is crystal clear: Warhammer 40K is not a 2,000-point game. It shines at 1,000 points, perhaps 1,200 if you want a bit more heft. Even for truly epic engagements, 1,500 points should be the absolute cap. I have zero interest in ever playing a 2,000-point match again.

At 1,000 points, list-building is more of a challenge. You can’t just pile in every overpowered unit to create an unbreakable force. You’re forced to make tough choices, include suboptimal units, and rely on actual battlefield tactics rather than just raw power. The result? A game that emphasizes execution over list optimization.

At 1,000 points you are going to fill a table with units, but you are going to have to make a lot of concessions, which is true not just about Tyranids but any army. Baseline units become a lot more relevant and you are going to have to pull from your codex units you might not even consider otherwise.

I won’t go as far as saying Warhammer 40K is better at 1,000 points, but it is certainly more challenging—and in my experience, that makes for a far more rewarding game.

Conclusion

My recent gaming experiences with Warhammer 40K have been enlightening—not because the game itself has changed, but because my perspective on gaming has evolved.

I’ve come to realize that Warhammer 40K, much like Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering, is a far better game than I sometimes give it credit for. My past critiques often stemmed from failing to distinguish between playing for fun and playing purely to win.

Warhammer 40K can be a miserable experience if you exploit its easily abusable mechanics—just as D&D can be ruined by power-gaming and Magic: The Gathering can be broken with over-optimized decks. If you go out of your way to highlight a game’s flaws, you’ll find them. But if you approach it with a more relaxed, narrative-driven mindset, the game truly shines.

This, I believe, is the secret to Warhammer 40K’s enduring success. Many miniature games are designed with a clear win/loss structure in mind—similar to board games. But Warhammer 40K belongs to a different tier of games, where the experience itself is what truly matters. D&D is about storytelling, Magic: The Gathering is about deck-building creativity, and Warhammer 40K is about immersing yourself in an epic, cinematic sci-fi conflict.

Youtube is filled with people making content about how to make the best D&D character builds, building the most killer Magic: The Gathering decks, or creating the perfect X army list in 40k. In my humble opinion, these sorts of approaches to the game are self-defeating because the same people that create this content, also create the “D&D is broken” content.

Yes, it’s a wargame where victory matters, but winning isn’t the point. It’s about the lore, the unpredictable turns of battle, and the sheer spectacle of massive armies clashing on the tabletop. When you embrace that, the game transforms into something far greater than just another competitive wargame—it becomes an experience.

And with that realization, I find myself more enamored with Warhammer 40K than ever before. It’s as if I’ve finally discovered the game for what it was meant to be, and I was simply missing the point before. This revelation has been nothing short of eye-opening.

The Hive Mind is always hungry—but now, so am I… for more battles, more stories, and more unforgettable moments on the battlefield.

Gaming Articles, What Makes It Tick

Rules Lawyer – Warhammer 40k 10th edition: Understanding The Benefits of Cover

One of the most confusing rules in Warhammer 40k, 10th edition, is The Benefits of Cover rule, specifically how you resolve wounds and today we are going to tackle that problem. We are going to use logic, our understanding of the English language, and everything that has ever been said about it officially in the rules to try and get it right…. hopefully…. maybe…

Ok so disclosure time, strictly speaking, while I take a crack at it here from rules as written perspective, the truth is that I’m uncertain that this is the way the rules were intended to work. Intention and rules as written, don’t always align.

Ok… let’s get into it.

Here it is from the horse’s mouth, the rules for the Benefit of Cover.

Visibility and Cover

Ok first thing is first, we need to understand the language difference between the concept of Visibility and Cover.

Visibility is about ranged shooting for the most part, though other rules also use visibility in different ways. The rule is quite simple, if you can draw a line of sight from one unit to another unit, you have visibility. Now there are categories of visibility.

There is Model Visibility and there is Unit Visibility. It’s mostly a distinction without much of a difference to a shooting unit, if you can see any model in a unit, you have unit visibility. It’s that simple and I don’t think anyone has any confusion about that.

Here is the BIG catch. When shooting we talk about Unit Visibility to determine the target, which as already pointed out is what you have if you’re shooting a unit you can see any model or part of a model in a unit, at which point you have unit visibility aka, a target.

Cover does not ever use the word unit at any point. It always references the Model. This is important to establish in order to understand the rest of the logic and language of the benefit of cover rules. The concept of the unit has nothing to do with the benefits of cover, only models matter to the benefit of cover rules!

Gaining The Benefits of Cover

The when of it is pretty self-explanatory with one key caveat that I will repeat many times. You gain the benefits of cover for a MODEL by being obscured in different ways by terrain. Crates and Rubble, Barricades and Fuel Pipes, Battlefield Debris, and so on, all have their own rules for WHEN you gain the benefit of cover, but again, the rules are quite specific that benefits of cover are allocated to models, never units. This is the key to the execution of the rule.

Making Wound Saves and Benefits of Cover

Each time a ranged attack is allocated to a model that has the Benefit of Cover, add 1 to the saving throw made for that attack (excluding invulnerable saving throws). Models with a Save characteristic of 3+ or better cannot have the Benefit of Cover against attacks with an Armour Penetration characteristic of 0.

Pretty straightforward, but again, the key here is the model. So let’s talk about Allocating Attacks.

Ok so this happens before the opponent makes a wound save for a model in the targeted unit (an important distinction) they must CHOOSE at this point, which model will take the wound (s).

At this stage, you select which MODEL will be removed as a result of a failed wound save.

Now remember that while we often roll buckets of dice representing multiple shots and multiple attacks etc… when rolling for wounds, a distinction between models must be made. In the same way, you have units with leaders and characters who might have different statistics, you need to decipher who is taking which wounds and that may change what sort of dice results you need for success or failure.

Benefits of Cover fall into this same category and function under the same rules, its model specific. More important is the saving throw rules here, which again, are on a per-model basis are super clear.

Here you can see that the allocation was already completed, so we know which model will be affected by a wound and now the player rolls the save and if the save fails, that model is removed. You can’t pick other models, it’s not a choice, you must remove the model that was allocated for the attack.

Examples and Putting It All Together

let’s do a full example to illustrate how wounds are allocated, how we roll wounds, and how we divide them when some models in a unit have the benefits of cover and some don’t.

Image 1

In Image 1 Unit A has rolled 7 wounds on Unit B. In Unit B, three models have the benefit of cover and two models do not. How do you resolve the wounds in this situation?

To begin with, the defender gets to allocate the wounds. The defender can put the wounds all on the models that have the benefit of cover. However, since there is only 3 of them, you cannot just roll 7 dice (7 saves). The reason is that once three models have been killed, the rest of the models in the unit no longer have the benefit of cover.

So you would have to first roll 3 saves and see how many survive. Let’s imagine, 2 of them failed and 1 of them succeeded on the save. Two models must be removed and since the defender chose the models in cover to take the wounds, they MUST remove from those models first.

Why? Because the allocation and wound roll is done on a model basis, one model at a time and benefits of cover is also per model. We are taking a shortcut by rolling 3 wounds at a time because the models that have been allocated to take the wounds share the same statistic and have the benefit of cover. The player could not now, change their mind and remove a different set of models (those not gaining the benefit of cover). The player must remove those that do have the benefit of cover because that was the allocation.

This is the common mistake players make and get wrong with this rule. It’s the same as having a special character in a unit. You can’t have the special character with a better save take all the wounds, but then remove other models of the unit with worse saves as sacrificial lambs. A wound is allocated to a specific model in a unit, you roll the die for that model, and if that model fails its save, that model is removed.

Image 2

In image 2 we continue with resolving the same scenario. Originally there were 7 wounds, but 3 have been allocated and resolved, resulting in 2 models being removed from unit B, but we have 4 wounds left to resolve.

The player of Unit B again gets to do the allocation, so naturally, they choose the model in cover to get the benefit of a cover bonus to their save. This time, they must roll 1 die at a time, until either they make 4 saves, or they fail one. Let’s imagine that they save 2, but fail the 3rd roll. Again, now the model that was allocated to the wound must be removed.

Image 3

Finishing off the example, we have resolved 6 of the 7 wounds. We have one left to allocate and now we must allocate it to models in unit B that do not have the benefits of cover, as there are no more models left in unit B to which a wound could be allocated that have the benefit of cover. They will have a worse save.

Conclusion

Is this a good rule? I think it’s a bit finicky but honestly, I have no idea. What I’m certain about is that I have executed this example exactly how the rules instruct you to resolve the benefits of cover. It’s a bit slow, as you have to divide up and make separate rolls for models that have the benefit of cover vs. those that don’t, but it is what it is.

And yes there can be situations where you might have to roll a single die over and over again until you fail for example when 19 of the 20 models in a unit don’t have benefits of cover, but one does and you have 10 wounds to allocate. Naturally, you want to try to make as many of those rolls with the benefits of cover as you can, to leverage that quirky little advantage, but eventually… probably that model will die and then you can chuck the rest of the dice for models without the benefit of cover.

Very often cover doesn’t matter in the event you have units with a 2+ or +3 save, but if you want to play by the rules as written, I believe that this is it.

I hope that alleviates some confusion among players out there, it sure as shit, confused the hell out of me.

Gaming Articles, On The Table

In Theory: Making Warhammer 40k Better

When I sat down to write my last article—an update on my renewed relationship with Warhammer 40K since it came back into my gaming rotation last year—I found myself reflecting on the challenges I’ve had with the game. I started wondering: Could I fix some of these issues myself? Maybe through house rules, borrowed mechanics from other systems, or even a fresh approach to gameplay?

That question led me down a rabbit hole of research, where I started noticing patterns between my own table habits and the frustrations they created. But what really surprised me was the solution. It didn’t require complex rule tweaks, homebrew mechanics, or drastic changes. With just a few small shifts—nothing outside the official rules—I suddenly found myself realizing that having a much smoother, more enjoyable Warhammer 40K experience was a matter of setup rather than rules changes.

It was a lightbulb moment, and naturally, it led to another 40K article. So today, let’s dig into the question: How can we make our 40K experience better?

The Issues With Warhammer 40k

Now, let me be clear—I’m not claiming these are the issues with Warhammer 40K, just my issues with the game. That’s an important distinction. I can only speak from my own experience, though I suspect plenty of players might relate.

For me, the challenges boil down to three key areas—each interconnected and deeply tied to the game’s history and Games Workshop’s business practices. These are: Battle Size, Gotcha Rules, and Terrain Count.

Let’s break them down.

The Battle Size Problem

My first major issue with Warhammer 40K today is the battlefield itself—specifically, how claustrophobic battles feel and how terrain and distances lack real strategic impact.

Marketing shots like this are great because they show off the amazing miniatures from the Warhammer 40k universe, we love it, but if your actual games looks like this, it’s going to be a very boring “shoot out” with no strategy, tactics or relevant gameplay. It just becomes a dice-chucking roll-off where the best dice odds are most likely to win. That’s not a miniature game, that’s Yahtzee!

There are three key reasons for this, and to understand why it feels so different to me compared to how it’s supposed to, you have to consider how much the game has changed since the last time I played seriously (back in 6th Edition) compared to today (10th Edition).

The Battlefield Has Shrunk

First, the battlefield has physically gotten smaller. The standard play area used to be 6×4 feet. Today, the recommended size is 44” x 60”—a reduction of 4 inches on the short side and a full foot on the long side.

The adoption of a 44×60 table has become this presumption about what is standard going so far as people creating guides on how to convert your 6×4 table into a 44×66 table. The obvious decision to shrink the minimum table size is a marketing ploy so that GW can tell you “hey – you can play 40k on a kitchen table”, but the reality is that this is the absolute most minimum space you can play on and a minimum sized table create a minimum sized experience. 6×4 is still the standard table size for 40k, don’t let anyone tell you differently!

Now, here’s something I didn’t even realize until I saw it in a YouTube video pointing it out: 44” x 60” is not the standard table size—it’s the minimum table size. There’s no official rule stating that this is the “proper” or “official” battlefield size, only that it’s the absolute smallest table you’re allowed to play on. You can, and arguably should, play on a larger surface.

But the battlefield itself isn’t the only reason for the cramped feeling.

Army Sizes Have Increased

The second issue is army size. Over the years, the cost of fielding a Warhammer 40K army (in terms of points, not money) has steadily decreased. The changes from edition to edition may have been subtle, but when you compare 6th Edition to 10th Edition, the difference is staggering.

Take Hormagaunts, a staple of any Tyranid army. Back in 6th Edition, each model cost 10 points, meaning a unit of 10 was 100 points, and 20 would set you back 200 points. Today? A unit of 10 Hormagaunts costs just 65 points—nearly a 35% reduction.

And it’s not just direct cost but indirect cost as well. Consider Zoanthropes—back in the day, a single Zoanthrope cost 34 points, so a squad of three was 102 points. That might sound close to today’s cost (100 points for three), but in 6th Edition, you also had to pay an additional 25 points per model if you wanted to equip them with Warp Blast, effectively doubling their cost. Now? That ability is free.

This a modern Tyranid at roughly 1,000 points. It’s a pretty big army and is going to take several hours to resolve a battle with this many units.

This kind of points compression is consistent across every faction and every unit. If you add it all up, a typical 2,000-point army from 6th Edition is roughly equivalent to a 1,000-point army in today’s game. In other words, players are fielding twice as many models as they used to—and on a smaller battlefield to boot, adding to the claustrophobic feeling of the battlefield.

And here’s another thing: Back in 6th Edition, 2,000 points wasn’t even the standard game size, there was no standard size or even recommendation—point size was presumed to be between 500-2,000 points, and 2,000 points was considered a large, long game. In fact most missions published were well below the 2,000-point mark. Looking at tournaments and other events from the era as well, most games were played at between 1,000-1,500 points, with 2,000 points being seen as “a major event”. If you adjust for today’s point scaling, that would mean a 750-850-point game would provide a similar amount of miniatures on the table.

Army Construction Rules Are Looser

The final factor is the way armies are built. In older editions, list-building was more restrictive—you had to follow a structure with minimums and maximums for different unit types:

  • HQ (Leaders)
  • Troops (Core units)
  • Elites (Special forces)
  • Fast Attack (Speedy units)
  • Heavy Support (Big guns)

You couldn’t just spam your strongest units or cheese the system with hyper-optimized lists. You had to build a more balanced force. Today, those restrictions have been loosened significantly, allowing for much more extreme list-building strategies.

So why did all of this happen?

Spoiler alert: It’s because Games Workshop wants to sell more models. I get it—it’s a business. But when you look at how these changes impact the game, and more importantly, if you simply acknowledge that this is happening, the solution is surprisingly simple.

I get it, Games Workshop is in the business of selling miniatures, but the thing is that even if you can afford a huge army, most of us are looking for a game that can be played in a reasonable amount of time. More models, mean longer games. With the constant increase in model count and army size, Warhammer 40k is quickly reaching the 5-6 hour mark to complete a game that is about 2-3 hours too long and there is a marked reduction in the quality of the games rather than an improvement.

How to Fix It

Fixing this issue—and getting a much better gaming experience—is surprisingly simple. After making a few adjustments, I was shocked at how much more enjoyable my Warhammer 40K games became. Here’s what worked for me:

Play on a 6×4 table (or larger).
A bigger battlefield changes everything. With more room to maneuver, units are spread out properly, and movement becomes a real tactical factor rather than an afterthought. It makes the game feel more strategic and immersive—as it should be!

Play at 1,000-1,200 points.
Lowering the point cap drastically improves the game in three key ways:

  1. Less to track – With fewer models and abilities in play, it’s easier for both you and your opponent to understand what each army can do. No more “gotcha” moments because you forgot a rule buried in a sea of datasheets.
  2. Faster games – Cutting back on unit bloat speeds up turns, making for a smoother and more dynamic experience.
  3. Better use of terrain and maneuvering – With fewer models and a larger table, movement actually matters. Cover becomes important, flanking is viable, and armies don’t feel crammed together from turn one.

Limit non-Battleline units to one copy max.
This was the hardest change to implement—but also one of the most effective. Limiting non-Battleline units (i.e., elites, vehicles, monsters, and specialist units) to one per army prevents spamming, one of the most common balance-breaking issues in the game.

  • Want a Rhino? You get one.
  • A unit of Zoanthropes? Just one squad.
  • No doubling (or tripling) up on power units for maximum efficiency.

This forces players to diversify their lists, leading to more balanced, engaging, and fair battles. It also eliminates “cheese lists” that rely on stacking the same overpowered unit, making games more tactical and less about who can break the system better.

Making these small adjustments completely changed my 40K experience—for the better. If you’re feeling the same frustration I was, give them a shot. You might be surprised at just how much of a difference they make.

The “Gotcha!” Problem – A Paywall on Knowledge

One of the most frustrating aspects of Warhammer 40K today isn’t the game itself—it’s Games Workshop’s business model. Specifically, the way they lock critical game knowledge behind an expensive paywall.

If you want to fully understand how the game works, you need to know what every army can do. But legally, the only way to access that information is by buying every single codex—a ridiculous and financially unrealistic expectation for most players.

Sure, buying the codex for your own army makes sense. But unless you’re willing to spend a small fortune on all the other codexes, you’ll always be flying blind against other factions. And that lack of information leads to one of Warhammer 40K’s biggest gameplay issues:

The “Gotcha!” Problem

Picture this: You make a strategic move, thinking you’re about to pull off a clever play—only for your opponent to drop a totally unexpected army rule, stratagem, or unit ability that completely shuts you down.

You wouldn’t have made that move if you had all the information. But because key mechanics are locked behind expensive rulebooks, you’re left playing a guessing game—one that your opponent already knows the answers to.

Now, some might argue, “Well, you should know the rules to the game.” And they’d be right—if the rules were actually available. But Games Workshop intentionally hides them behind a massive paywall, forcing players to buy their way into understanding the game.

The Impact on Gameplay and Community

This leads to a terrible gameplay experience and fosters a toxic play environment where veteran players can easily take advantage of newer or casual players. The result?

  • Unfair, one-sided games
  • Frustration for new or casual players
  • A shrinking player base as people give up on the game

In fact, I know plenty of people who refuse to play Warhammer 40K solely because of this issue. And the worst part? The game itself isn’t the problem—it’s Games Workshop’s sketchy business practice that creates this artificial barrier to entry.

The sad thing about 40k 10th edition is that it was a considerably better game before the Codexes dropped because at the start you had much better visibility of the rules of the game thanks to the release of digital indexes for all the armies. As codexes were released, the indexes were removed, slowly resulting in more and more hidden information. Today, players are flying blind!

The reality of Games Workshop rules for Warhammer 40k is that to get a complete set of rules today for competitive play it will cost you around 600 dollars and that covers you for approximately 3 years. That is neither a reasonable nor honest service level.

How to Fix It

The options here are quite limited and I’m just going to answer this question with a simple quote and leave it at that.

Piracy is the act of honest people solving a problem in response to dishonest people. Provide a reasonably priced service and you will discover that most people are honest, fail to do so and you will discover that there is no such thing as an honest person.

Do with that what you will.

The final issue—and one of the easiest to fix—is terrain count.

Warhammer 40K doesn’t provide particularly strong guidance on how much terrain a battlefield should have, nor does it offer clear recommendations for placement. The game defines different terrain types, and there’s an example battlefield in the rulebook, but when it comes time to set up for an actual game, most players are left guessing.

The Problem: Too Little, Too Symmetrical

In my experience, the most common issue is not enough terrain. And even when terrain is placed, players tend to mirror the layout in an attempt to be fair. While this seems reasonable, the result is often a static, predictable battlefield where terrain has limited impact on gameplay.

Terrain is a big barrier to entry, another major paywall to miniature games and Games Workshop makes the most expensive terrain by a margin so big you can expect to pay 3-4 times as much for official terrain. Thanks to 3d printing however and plenty of companies out their making quality pre-painted terrain, it’s getting cheaper every day to field sufficient terrain for Warhammer 40k.

The worst-case scenario? A game that feels like a shooting gallery, where units just line up and fire at each other with nothing breaking sightlines or forcing tactical movement. This kills the strategic depth that terrain is supposed to bring to the game.

How to Fix

After experimenting with different setups, I’ve learned a few simple terrain fixes that dramatically improve gameplay. The key is making sure you have enough terrain and placing it properly.

Use More Terrain – A well-designed battlefield should be at least 25-30% covered in terrain, meaning that you roughly need 20-25 pieces. This ensures that movement, positioning, and cover actually matter.

Ditch Symmetry – Real battlefields aren’t symmetrical. Instead of mirroring terrain, create natural-looking battlefields with varied sightlines and areas of strategic importance.

Mix Terrain Types – Include a variety of line-of-sight blocking structures, dense cover, and elevated positions to make movement and positioning just as important as firepower. Be sure to use all the different types of terrain, there should be a strong mixture and it’s often better to have more pieces rather than large blockers. You need some of those two, but you want to make sure that the benefits of cover shots are far more common than clear shots. In fact I would argue unless 80%-90% of shots are with the benefit of cover, you don’t have enough terrain.

Invest in Terrain – If you don’t have enough terrain, it’s worth investing in some—or better yet, making your own. Terrain can be kitbashed from other games or built cheaply using household materials. More is always better.

Conclusion

Let’s be clear—miniature wargames are inherently imperfect. No amount of tweaking will guarantee a perfect experience every time. There will always be anticlimactic moments, disappointing dice rolls, and the occasional frustrating matchup. But at its core, Warhammer 40K is a fun, cinematic, and immersive game, and with the right approach, you can make sure the good games far outweigh the bad.

One of the biggest keys to improving your experience in my opinion is separating game design from business decisions. Warhammer 40K isn’t just a game—it’s a product, and Games Workshop makes choices that prioritize sales over gameplay, for which I do not fault them. Still, many of the issues that make the game feel frustrating—cramped battlefields, bloated army sizes, and gotcha mechanics—aren’t necessarily the result of bad game design, but rather business-driven design. Recognizing this distinction empowers you to take control of your own gaming experience and fix the experience. You don’t have to go down the shallow road of listening to Games Workshop advertisement-based decisions about how the game should be played. They want to sell you as much crap as possible, but you don’t have to be a fool and buy into it. Beneath the exterior is a very good game and simply taking the reigns of control is sufficient to have a vastly improved gaming experience.

At the end of the day, Warhammer 40K is your game, your table, and your experience. Fewer units on the battlefield, a larger play area, smarter terrain placement, and limiting army spam may not align with Games Workshop’s profit goals, but they absolutely make the game better. The goal isn’t to feed a corporation’s bottom line—it’s to create fun, balanced, and rewarding battles for you and your friends.

I hope you found this guide helpful – Happy wargaming!

Gaming Articles

In Theory: Warhammer 40k – A Year Later

It has been about 11 months since my return to Warhammer 40k with the rise of 10th edition. I wrote THIS article about it and I thought it was about time to do an update!

First, let me just get the basics out of the way here. I have spent a lot more time building and painting my army over the last year than I have spent playing the game. This is not unusual for me, miniature games, especially big army games that take several hours to play like Warhammer 40k are not going to be a regular mainstay of my gaming life. In short, as I think Warhammer 40k is intended to be enjoyed, its a hobby first, game second kind of a game and I’m fine with that.

With that, let’s have a look at what I have painted and why I painted it! I’m a proud papa!

The Screamer-Killer was one of the early additions to my army because it was an awesome big monster model that was super fun to paint, its rules were simple to understand and it is a terrifying unit feared by my opponents. Its death scream ability triggers Battle-Shock tests and while Battle-Shock itself is not a super reliable weapon in 40k, it can be super clutch when you are rushing an opponent protecting an objective.

I’m proud of the paint job but it was very early in my efforts and I was still learning the nuances of the paint scheme I was trying to create, so it has some issues, but I think he still came out looking great on the table.
Von Ryan’s Leapers, while inevitably doomed in pretty much every match, have become a mainstay of every list I run because they are fast-moving and fairly deadly, thanks to Fight First. They are also a Vanguard unit with Infiltrators and Stealth, which combines amazingly with my favorite Detachment, Vanguard Onslaught. For a 70-point investment (based on current cost), I think they are a great value and I find they always earn their keep on the battlefield.
Deathleaper is unquestionably one of my favorite models in my collection, and I love how he turned out. As I use Vanguard Onslaught as my detachment most of the time, I choose Deathleaper as my Warlord almost every time. Not for strategic reasons, but because it feels bad-ass! This unit has so much juice for the bargain price of 80 points. Fight-first, infiltrators, lone operative, and stealth alone make him nearly impossible to take down until I choose to put him in harm’s way. His Fear of the Unsean ability comes in handy but it’s really this unit’s base stats and the fact that he is a vanguard unit that makes this an auto-add in every list. The fact that he looks amazing on the table is just a sugar-coated bonus.
Mawloc is the pride and joy of my collection, I love the model, I love his abilities and recently as if GamesWorkshop read my mind, this unit also became a Vanguard unit fitting in perfectly with my preferred detachment. It is a unit tailor-made for my playstyle as I love making my opponent sweat, knowing there is a huge monster in reserve just waiting for the most opportune to simply appear on the battlefield. I love the way he turned out and its size and scale make’s him stand out in my collection.

There are plenty of other models in my collection, my army has become quite robust, but it suffices to say that the Tyranids have turned out to be as much fun to paint and play with as I had hoped they would be when I first bought into the army last year.

The Gaming Experience (10th Edition Rules)

There’s something uniquely enigmatic about Warhammer 40K when it comes to the gaming experience—particularly in how its philosophy and rule structure shape the way it plays. Compared to other modern miniature games, many of its mechanics feel almost archaic, relics of an older design philosophy that Games Workshop stubbornly clings to.

Take the initiative system, for example—an eternal point of debate among players. The traditional “I take my whole turn, then you take yours” approach feels static, lacking the dynamism of modern games that utilize alternating activations or more fluid initiative sequences. In this era of game design, Warhammer 40K stands almost alone in preserving this rigid format, and it’s hard to argue that it’s for the better.

Another oddity is Games Workshop’s resistance to digital support. If you want access to army lists, you have to purchase a physical codex and then register it with the digital app before you can even view the content. This means that unless you’re willing to spend a small fortune, much of the game remains locked behind paywalls. You can’t even research potential armies properly without financial commitment—an absurd barrier, considering codex purchases are something players typically make after deciding on an army, not before.

This lack of accessibility doesn’t just hinder the gameplay experience; it stifles exploration. Do I want to play Space Marines? Who knows? There’s no easy way to find out without buying a book I may not even need. It’s an arbitrary system that makes no sense—until you realize the goal isn’t player convenience but driving sales through forced investment.

Then there’s the game itself, which can be wildly anticlimactic. The initiative system plays a role in this, but so does the sheer unpredictability of the game. Sometimes, half the battle is out of your control. Whole units can get wiped off the board before you even activate them. Reserves may never arrive. Secondary objectives can be physically impossible to achieve depending on mission pairings. The combination of randomness, rigid mechanics, and sometimes downright unfair scenarios can lead to frustratingly unsatisfying matches.

And yet, these complaints are nothing new. Players have been airing these same grievances for decades. Warhammer 40K has evolved in many ways, but its core issues remain unchanged. You’d think that, at some point, someone at Games Workshop would acknowledge these longstanding problems and address them. But here we are, 30 years later, with the same debates raging on.

Despite all of this, Warhammer 40K remains an undeniably fun experience. The setting is rich, immersive, and perfectly aligned with the game’s themes and aesthetics. The models, painstakingly painted over weeks, months, or even years, take center stage in battles that feel larger than life. The thrill of rolling dice, the chaos of unexpected twists, the sheer spectacle of it all—it’s a wargame that creates lasting memories.

At its core, Warhammer 40K is about the joy of pushing models around a table and chucking dice, and it does this with remarkable attention to detail. Units are distinct and flavorful, each with its own personality. Everyone knows the difference between a Tyranid Screamer-Killer and a Mawloc—not just visually but mechanically as well.

This is where the magic lies. So much of the hobby is about the preparation—assembling, painting, theorycrafting—that by the time the game actually begins, the frustrations fade into the background. For a few hours, you forget all the reasons you’re annoyed with Games Workshop and Warhammer 40K, lost in the simple joy of waging war with miniatures.

I could list endless complaints about Games Workshop, but for all its flaws, the truth remains: my Tyranid army is the crown jewel of my collection. And no matter how many times I grumble about the game, nothing quite matches the excitement of preparing for a 40K battle. I can’t fully explain it, but there’s a kind of magic in this game that makes up for its many… imperfections.

The Excitement and Disappointment of Updates

I’ve grumbled about Games Workshop before, but I have to give credit where it’s due—they’re doing a fantastic job maintaining the game. Constant tweaks and balance adjustments keep it fresh, exciting, and as fair as possible.

I’m not saying they’re nailing it every time, but know this, Games Workshop: I see what you’re doing, and it’s appreciated.

That said, it can be a real pain in the neck. The updates come thick and fast, and keeping up is no small feat—especially if, like me, you like to keep your books meticulously updated. I’ve scribbled and glued so many notes into my codex that it now resembles a 30-year-old high school textbook.

Despite this nuisance, it’s thrilling to watch the game evolve. Each adjustment opens up new list-building opportunities. Sometimes a unit you once dismissed as too expensive or too weak gets a buff, and suddenly it becomes a game-changer. Warhammer 40K is a living, breathing game that’s constantly reinventing itself, so every match brings fresh considerations and new strategies.

I absolutely love this aspect of 40K, even if I do grumble about the upkeep. Sure, sometimes I just want to play without all the legwork of updating my game, but when you love something, watching it be nurtured beats the alternative of neglect—a fate too many miniature games suffer from.

Conclusion After A Year of 10th Edition

What can I say? It’s the same old Warhammer 40K—both timeless and, at times, infuriating, yet as fun as ever.

I’m not ashamed to admit it: I love Warhammer 40K because it’s fun. I know that as a game reviewer with my own blog, I should be critical, objective, and candid. But the truth is, 40K is a hobby and a game I genuinely enjoy. Whether it meets modern mechanical standards or if GW’s practices seem a bit shady, these issues pale in comparison to the sheer joy I experience. In the end, I love playing 40K, and that’s the only opinion that truly matters.

The question is why? Why and how does Warhammer 40k have this unique quality to both kind of suck and also be the game I’m always the most excited to play. That is the million-dollar question, quite literally because it is the most popular miniature game out there, yet ask any player and they will complain about it endlessly.

I think the answer is that it has an ineffable quality. There is no way to reason or logic your way into an explanation that wouldn’t fall apart on even the tiniest amount of scrutiny, but I think many games are like this. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and Magic: The Gathering comes to mind immediately and at least for me, fall into the same category.

It just is, how or why, I honestly can’t explain but if you ask me today, right now, what game I want to play, it would be 40k over any other miniature game. In fact, it would be AD&D over any role-playing game and to an extent, Magic: The Gathering over any other collectible card game (although here I might make a case for Star Wars Unlimited because it too has a kind of ineffable quality to it).

Suffice it to say, I have no answers, I can only tell you that Warhammer 40k is awesome while it sucks, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I think at some point in the future I will need to do an article on this ineffable quality of some of these classic franchises where we might try to identify how or why this happens, but, for now, Warhammer 40k continues to be a thing in my gaming sphere.