I totaly agree on the size of the armies and the re-rolls. We got to get back to previous edition army sizes; 2K is simply too many models/units on the map. The re-rolls make the game slower as well. A game should not take 3+ hours.
3rd edition doesn't have detachment, or stratagems, barely has special rules, 2 melee attacks is a lot for a non-character, most guns shoot once, armour saves are universally better and cover matters beyond line of sight blocking, rerolls are incredibly rare, etc.
In my opinion: predictability is more fun than dice variance. In a scenario with high dice variance you can get negative player experiences where one player is very happy with the outcome and the other player is very much not. When the outcome is more predictable both players kind of know what will happen, so nobody gets deliriously happy about dice spiking but and nobody will be extremely frustrated either. I think the frustration/ saltiness is something you want to avoid causing your players to experience. 40K to me these days is like going to the salt factory and being force fed all the salt, a generally un-fun game and I play non GW games primarily as a result
In an attempt to make the game appealing to the masses, I personally think they've removed to much of the wargame aspect from 40k. Now it just feels like a boardgame.
Personally I kinda hate the detachments. I feel like 40k has become a simple game but has grown complex because they just layer too much on top of it. In addition to knowing what's on a unit's data card you need to know universal special rules (nothing too out of place so far), then the army special rules, then the detachment rules, then what strategems can be used. I find myself spending more time during games double-checking abilities than actually rolling dice or making plays. It doesn't help that it feels, to me at least, that a lot of the strategems and detachments feel very poorly through out and not really thematic, and the need to give every army X detachments and 6 Strategems is probably why we're seeing a lot of crossover (such as the new Wraith Aeldari detachment feeling l like discount Leagues of Votaan, or why Chaos has a psuedo Oath of the Moment style detachment special rule.) Frankly this makes it easy to feel like 40k is mostly popular because, as you said, it's like the D&D of tabletop games. It's accessible and well known but that's the main draw.
I agree with most of what you said in this video. The only thing I really disagree with is detachments. When 10th launched I thought they were really cool. Now most armies have detachments that heavily overlap with other armies. And it becomes more bland. "Oh this is the movement detachment, this is the tank detachment, this is the elite detachment." And when they share a vibe and abilities it feels like the flavor of the army has been stripped for convenience. Which to me just kinda sucks.
i only played really in 5th edition, and i enjoy the large number of dice roll. i think the number of dice roll allow you to build an army and reduce the risk of failing to do something. having a larger dice pool reduce the risk and allow to hit the expectation of that roll. as the game turns progress, the number of dice naturally reduce, i.e. the troops dies. therefore the risk of failure increases as the game progress. the tactic therefore is when the expectation can be reassured, hit the high value targets. it become a early game target prioritisation. i suppose 10th might be a bit difference now. but i remember the 5th edition games with joy.
As a GM myself, I always learn something from these types of videos. You are right about dicerolling. On one hand a d6 makes a game accessible to newcomers, on the other hand it gets really killy, really fast. A d10 system sounds like a lot more sensible if you have units on such a different powercurve. I personally would add the "I get a whole turn and then you get a whole turn" of warhammer as one of my main gripes. Not only is it boring (you can only watch for roughly 30 min in bigger games, till your opponent finally finishes his turn) it can also be way to devestating if there is a lot of shooting involved.
I totally agree whit you that everything just murders everything else way to fast in 40K its rare to see the armies last longer then turn three and you are 100% right the people that really love something are the people who tend to judge it the most becose we want it to be the best it can be
I think my only disagreement is that I personally find stratagems a con for the game. It turns the game more into a "gotcha/ activated my trap card" style of game. My other argument against it is that it is more rules for me to remember, which is also a complaint towards each unit having their own individual rules as well. When I started playing 40k back in 5e, it was a lot easier to remember what my army did because I only had to remember the stats of the unit, the rules for that unit type, what universal rules it had, and the army's special rules. Units that had individual special rules were rare, and were usually named characters. I also wasn't asked to remember these extra special rules that if "Unit X experiences situation Y, then Unit X can perform action Z" A pro in favor of stratagems; however, is that they offer the opponent an opportunity to play during the opponent's turn, rather than sitting there bored. I think Horus Heresy handles that problem better with Reactions in my opinion.
I think it'd be really interesting to see you compare rulesets depicting the same battle with a different focus, eg for Napoleonics you've got Black Powder/Valour and Fortitude which are quick play games vs something with more friction like General d'Armee, or Bolt Action vs Chain of Command for WW2. You could also look at what changes to rulesets when they change the scale of the battle that they're representing, again looking at Black Powder vs Sharp Practice (skirmish game), Bolt Action vs O-Group or Flames of War. I think there's a lot to dig into in terms of what a mechanic should thematically introduce into a game and how much you need to prime a player to understand and interpret rules within the context of the vision of the rules writers. (Great video, keep it up!)
What's MEGA important with this subject is... DO NOT LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY IF YOU'RE MAKING A GAME. You can ask 10 people 1 question and you WILL get 100 different answers. Make whatever you love. I do enjoy hearing you speak about things from a very gentle standpoint as opposed to a jaded one.
Those are valid points. I would add: 1) In the past, game wasn't balanced at all, to the point of some factions being completely unplayable or derpy for years (space marines and chaos space marines without any actual power armor model, only terminators and scouts, pre-Matt Ward phase-out rule necrons, allies rules that make game borderline broken). But now, we have the opposite problem - game never seems to be balanced enough, and you have to really stay up to date if you want to have a winning chance. But the worst thing is that balance updates often feel unwarranted. At the end of both 8th and 9th editions they somehow reached the point of equilibrium, with almost every faction having around 50% winrate. But, instead of just letting the players enjoy the rules for at least a year or two, their business model forces then to release new units and new edition, so the game will never actually stay balanced for long. 2) Game feels extremely pay to win sometimes. If you want to win, the rule of thumb is, that you'll probably need some of the new toys. Even if rules suck on release, that's mostly despite the intention - their intention is clearly to make new models attractive for the buyers. And that is a very frustrating model, especially for space marines players - in order to stay relevant, one probably needs to buy all the new stuff. And it's a lot these days, since edition are changing fast, and space marines get something new twice or even more often per edition.
I started in 1987 with Rogue trader and quit after the release of 2nd version. GW had removed some of the best components of the game. divided the rules between multiple products and increased the cost while reducing the quantity/quality of the product. 37 years later, and nothing has changed. while I have my own opinions on what is good/bad about the game - I still collect some of the models. that said, we went to a D10 system that uses a 'considered simultaneous' game play mechanic. it's different than alternating activations. there are plenty of other games with far better rules, high quality miniatures and for far less money. and most importantly, they don't change the rules every 3 months or rewrite the game overall every 3 years.
I like the take here. I only really have a problem right now with 'Fight First' in 10th. Not because I don't understand it, but because teaching it stinks. No one can remember it right. And it always causes a frustration when my Von Ryan's Leapers come into play because I have to explain the mechanic AGAIN. Honestly, here is how I would want to rule spelled out: 1 - Models with Fight First ability fight, lead with defender 2 - Models that charged this turn from Attacker fight 3 - Engaged Defender models fight 4 - Engaged Attacker models fight (non-chargers) Unless someone can provide a better way to explain it. Cause I have to reset people on it EVERY week.
What GW do well is making a game that works across such a broad spectrum of players. You often see games designers trying to make this perfect game they want to play. If you want a mass market game to sell well then compromise is the real art. For example 40K has become more deadly on purpose to reduce the game lenght. That is a compromise made because people have a much short span of time these days. They want a game over in 3.5 hours rather than 5-6 hours. They typically want to play the game like an action movie where things are going off each round rather than chasing each other around the board. GW skill is balancing all the aspects of games designs to make one that as such a broad and lasting appeal. Which I would suggest no other company came close to.
Funny that 10e games drag on a lot longer than 3e. Which contradicts your argument. If your standart force is half as musch as a current bloated armies, and if you don't have much rerolls, attacks multi wound models etc. than you don't waste your time
I agree with all of your points. However, IGOUGO amplifies your CONs. Too many dice, rerolls and IGoUGo result in the killiness. Reducing any of these 3 would reduce killiness, would reduce the need for L-shaped ruins and so on. It would be great if an aggressive detachment would be a more viable strategy. That‘s not punished super hard because the defensive player goes first with their whole army. Nevertheless, I feel like getting the right balance is hard either way. I would love to see an alternate game mode that keeps the unique aspects of every army (maybe pushes them further) and uses things like alternating activations, less dice, more RNG etc. for a more narrative focussed experience. I‘ll probably gonna homebrew that at some point as none of my friends has any motivation to play the game as it‘s intended anymore.
I have hoped that GW would migrate to a D10 dice as it would allow for a wider range of effectiveness between units. I also miss the initiative and weapon skill elements of earlier editions as these made combat matchups more realistic. I also detest the current shooting rules that if a whole squad is behind a building but one guy sticks an elbow out then the whole squad can get mowed down by models that cannot see 99% of them. That and the exhaust of a vehicle sticking out, means it can now shoot a barrage of weapons from out its arse when it is facing the other way. This goes way beyond breaking immersion and is just plain absurd. I agree that in the current edition less points are better than more for a tactical game that can be played in a reasonable timeframe. After hour 3 I don't care anymore who wins.
I definately agree on the visibility and cover part! xD I'm quite new and interested how it worked in earlier editions. D10s would be interesting but even if simple models had only one attack, you would still need to throw 20 dice when playing Tyranids unless rules are changed completely. 20 d10s may be a bit expensive
I think you are wrong about IGYG not being an issue in 40k. Too me it is archaic at this point. As you pointed out things are " too killy" with tons of dice. Alpha Strike is too prevelent in the game. Also,glad to see you finally stand up and say something negative about GW. To me your channel often comes across as too " fan boy" for me.
Thanks Matthew. I agree with some of the comments that IGYG is a core problem, as without it the too killiness would not unbalance the game, and the inordinate amount of dice rolling could be removed. Good movement and strategy would produce a basketball type game - you kill something then I kill something. The game that so got this right was the Richard Borg Memoir 44 and command &colours system, for all its over simplified rules. More engagement and tension, with every decision mattering. Just try it Matt - play a Warhammer game with alternating actions and see the difference it would makemake
I hate templates and how they slow down the game. They’re why I haven’t really gotten into bolt action. The removal of them is one of the only things 40K has gotten right in the last 20 years.
I would recommend adding a section up front on these videos of "what's the game trying to achieve," or "what do I think the game is trying to achieve." As players most of your audience is probably not thinking about it, IF you only break the games review into "skirmish game" and "wargame" I might argue you don't know either. But if you're trying to assess this as a designer, having a reference of "what is it trying to do" matters. "Too many models," and "too many re-roll," can be pros or cons depending on the game's goal. Hope you do X-wing and DnD.
lethal hits bug me a bit. Wish if toughness was twice the strength it wouldn't work. It nags at me that some crappy low power weapon can be used to bring down big models.
Great Video! Personally I find the attached units rules a bit overcomplicated. Aos 4th found a simpler way by just letting you place characters near infantry and then they are protected. Additionally they can have an aura in which they buff certain units. In 40k you have to worry about who can receive damage, which toughness is used, what happens when an attached unit is destroyed, what happens to tokens placed on that unit.
It's really interesting to hear these critiques of 40k I only do AoS and found some these observations can be made for AoS as well. I find AoS to be too killie with too many attacks per model/weapon profile. If you ever need to pull out more than a die brick you've gone too far. I'm just glad rerolls is pretty rare nowadays in AoS. Die rolls should remain sacred.
40k is popular because 40k is popular. Bear with me, I’m serious. How many people would keep playing 40k, if no one else in their community played it? So they’d have to buy and paint two armies at minimum, cajole, trick and bribe people to play with them and teach the rules every single time? Do you know anyone who loves 40k so much they play it solo - exclusively? Because that’s reality for most historical players, and they still keep playing the games they love.
A lot of 40k's issues could be solved by moving to a D12 based system that opens up the scaling to better match the lore. Then, you can drop all the reroll mechanics as a device to spread things out statistically. And while the "I go, You go" works ok on smaller scale games like 1k, its problems get amplified the larger the game because someone is stuck sitting doing nothing for an extended period of time, only to get alpha'ed while they wait. It's simply unfun at the current point per model scale.
2k is a lot of points. I've played in a couple tournaments and have never been able to finish a full 5 rounds consistently. Combat Patrol, as maligned as it is, is fun the few times I've played it. I'm very curious about spearhead in AoS.
If interested, here's a 40k project I started. I'm already done with 2 codexes. The goal is to make a more sensible 40k experience ua-cam.com/video/s2ndl06XHug/v-deo.html
I thing lore, miniatures and game mechanics should all be analyzed by their own. I understand people have been conditioned to think they cannot play 40k without GW's miniatures (you can) but still. Talking rules for 10 minutes and then casually throwing minis and setting into the argument unfocus it imo.
While I agree that lore and minis don't influence the gameplay, they are quite a big part of why some people (like me) are interested in playing the game to begin with. F.e. I was curious about infinity, played a few learn-to-play rounds and even though the game is supposed to be very well designed, I never got interested, because the mini and lore aspect just went by me. On the other hand, a few pieces of concept art and the basic lore hooked me on trench crusade and now I want to buy and paint some minis and play. (As soon as I find a printing service😅)
I agree with your sentiment but if you weren’t getting the miniatures why on earth would you choose 40k as your game of choice. I’d put it more like you don’t have to play 40k with your he minis, you can use another ruleset and still enjoy the themes and setting
Im a tabletop wargamer. The worst part is that as a non GW fan, there is no part of my hobby where I am not forced to deal with GW and 40k in particular. No matter what I do, I have to listen to the drama, deal with their practices, and be inundated with GW fans. GW fans never shut up about their GW hobby. I can never talk about my wargaming hobby, without them comparing something i have said too to GW products or 40k. You cant even talk about simple thing like paint, with out GW fans using GW paint names. Of which i don't care. I cant ever paint my army blue, without some jackass saying its ultra marines paint scheme. Or paint primarily red with it being a blood angels. Its so freaking annoying. Every time GW screws its player base over some how, then that is all that anyone at the games store wants to talk about. So now im forced to liaten ro the drama. 40k lore never met a acifi story idea they didnt like and add to some story. So when you talk scifi, then someone says they read about the same thing in 40k. Not all killer robots are necrons. Not all alien bugs are tyranids. Shut up. It so damn annoying. I just want to enjoy my hobby. But i cant. Its forced apon me at every opportunity I take. Rant over.... its been a long week.
What I hate is people that hate 40k , constantly telling other people about it. Endless pointless comments in youtube videos which are about 40k telling us how much you hate it. Why watch the video then ? People telling you how expensive it is like it is my fault they cannot afford it. Or how they are going to 3D print everything again like who cares. Or the constant One Page Rules is better game when nobody plays it, we all know it is a cheap knock off of GW games and is completely unbalanced. The people who have never designed a game before telling how they would make it better. Or the idiots making youtube videos out their parents backroom thinking they know how to run a global business. I just want to enjoy the hobby But i cant. Its forced upon me in every damn video on the subject. Why dont they just watch something else. Rant over ........ Its been a longer week.
@redscope897 So you understand. Why can't people get it through their heads that that not every wants to hear their opinions about 40k and GW. That it would be best for the entire wargaming community if everyone just shut the hell up about GW and 40k. If no one talked about GW or 40k then everyone could enjoy their wrgaming hobbies in peace and quiet. That would be the greatest for everyone. Everyone gets to be happy. And it's so simple... stop talking about GW period. My day is getting better now.
Universal Special Rules point is so farfetched. Most of the unit's rules arent universal, you have to remember how every unit works. USR are a thing in Horus Heresy or Old World, where there is a keyword for almost every special rule, and they are used in many units in many factions, for example Stubborn or Hammer of Wrath in Horus Heresy.
Like your videos, but strongly disagree on easy to learn! I'm 54 and got into Warhammer when I was about 13. Rules are VERY complicated and, when wanting to introduce my friend to wargaming or getting myself into 10th, not at all easy, especially when constantly changing and rules physically ALL OVER THE PLACE! Getting into OPR to get away from GW as I feel it would be much simpler to introduce to my friends :)
Not everything has decreased in points. In 7e a 10 man space marine tactical squad was 140pts; in 10e it is the same 140pts, sure you get free weapon upgrades in 10e, but the Rhino was 35pts in 7e; currently 75pts in 10e. Overall the space marine tactical squad, in a Rhino, is more expensive or about the same (depending upon loadout) in 10e vs 7e.
7e was the moment when the 40k was bloated. If we compare 2000 pts standard force of 10e with the 2000 pts force of 5e than you see the difference. And 5e was played at 1500 pts. Not at 2k
In 3rd edition a 10 man space marine squad was 175-190pts depending on weapon loadout, and a rhino was 85pts, so yeah, there’s been some reductions. And we played at 1000pts, 1500 for a large game
In 5e a 10 man tactical squad was 170pts, and the Rhino was 35pts - total 205pts. In 10e that currently costs 215pts, so yeah 10pts more in 10e compared to 5e, plus you get the weapon upgrades for free in 10e, so another 0-40pts depending upon loadout (missile launcher and flamer were free upgrades in 5e).
@@ws1-p9u Transport in 5e was dirt cheap, I can agree. But other than that: - tactical squad was 170+ points vs 140 now - assault squad was 190+ points (in reality about 230-250) vs 160 now - Terminator Squad was 400+ vs 340 now - Las predator was 170+ vs 130 now - Autocanon predator was cheap at 90+ vs 130 - Characters wasn't cheaper than 100 And at the 1500 standart it's adds up fast
Id love to see a better point system built for crusade battle traits and scars.. +1/-1 isn't enough of a range. Wish more we're also once per battle to avoid making them too game changing 😅
Ive been playing this game since the start of 2nd ed (yes im old, i know) and always have, and always will, lament the move away from different dice to a pure D6 system. I understand the commercial motivation, but it's to the detriment of the game.
I can’t stand detachments. An army’s play style should be defined how the player plays them. Detachments just add even more unnecessary rules memorization to a game with already too much rules memorization. How should you represent white scars? Just take lots of bikes. Salamanders? Take lots of flamers and thunder hammers. Bad moons? Lots of mega numbs and ork tech. Let players express themselves instead of forcing them into predefined play styles.
I dislike the fast updates. It makes the game very difficult to keep up with. Also the rerolls, which are basically the amount of rules there are. It is a steep learning curve and that is difficult especially when you don’t do this for a living. That is something I think GW is trying to tackle. They may want to dumb down, or simplify the game so that more people play (and buy) the game. Especially with all the recent attention they are bringing to the franchise with space marine 2 and now Astartes 2 and Cavills upcoming Amazon series too.
Man, stop it. This video is titled as if it's the most controversial subject ever, when in fact it's a lukewarm opinion at worst. You're popular and well known enough to where you don't need to be playing farming simulator on the UA-cam algorithm anymore, Matt. 10th edition 40k is a terrible wargame, the worst I've ever played. It's somehow managed to be the most unnecessarily complicated, yet most bland and boring wargame of all time. I think anyone who doesn't like the direction of modern 40k would agree, turns out that's a lot more people than the ones who unironically like 10th edition.
I think 10e is generally not great. I disagree that it's easy to onboard new players. It may have been back at launch but it's quickly devolved into one of the most convoluted editions. Combat Patrol is a poor substitute for just having a more cohesive smaller game that players can teach each other and learn together. That's a gaming culture thing. I like detachments in theory but despite the massive competition bias in modern 40k they're still unbalanced. There's always obviously stronger detachments and GW doesn't point balance them separately, which is kind of necessary. Also they don't reinforce "simplified not simple" as GW claims to be going for. They have just separated all the rules you need to be aware of not to face a gotcha. In fact there are now MORE stratagems and unique army rules than in 9e. Wild. I could go on but TLDR my enjoyment of 10e is well below 50%. I'm at like 30% enjoy to 70% dislike. It's why my whole group quit playing it and are now doing our own remix of 40k rules.
I really, really, really dislike stratagems. They just feel like a series of "gotchya" moments in game. They're annoying to remember, and therss plenty of flavor in the detachments as is. I also think less added rule modifiers for every unit. Just make it better or worse. A little flavor here ans there is fine but always having to check every units special rules slows everything down.
I disagree. It's hard to call it garbage when what it provides for the hobby as a whole is very important. The game itself is also quite well put together. While I agree that other games should be more popular, I disagree that 40k needs to be insulted to make that happen.
@@brodywood6274 Warhammer it self is terrible in its design when you look at the tabletop the setting is what keeps it alive Fantasy is better then 40K currently but Fantasy could still be a lot better
@@viktorgabriel2554Do you have any examples of things that makes the game awful. It is an enjoyable game, both at a casual and competitive level. I genuinely don't see what could makes this game awful
While I completely agree, the wounding adds a strength to the weapons. Without it EVERY gun can truely destroy EVERY target. Little pistols would be a hard meta, and it would almost invalidate most units. I think it makes sense to have a pistol only wound a big tank target on a 6. Maybe if they got rid of too-hit rolls? Still keep the integrety of the weapon profiles but shortens it a little bit
He talks about it here 5:11 I think he brings up good points about rerolls being the real problem. I think it's a good thing to take out randomness, makes the game more strategic concepts while keeping the slight randomness
@@brodywood6274 no as you can have the save modified by strength and thougnes you also could roll wound rolls after you roll saves the rerolls as well just massively extend the time. A lot of this could also be fixed whit 10 sided dice
Wounding was a good mechanic back in 3e. If you don't have a lot of attack and don't have a lot of rerolls and if squad can only attack one target then it's supper smooth.
I love big battles....amount of attacks make sense to make models feel diffrent. But i agree dropping out d6 dices would make good for warhammer. D12 would be perfect. Also too killy, yeah it is.
Podcast voice, expert level knowledge, heart of gold... I love these videos!
I totaly agree on the size of the armies and the re-rolls. We got to get back to previous edition army sizes; 2K is simply too many models/units on the map. The re-rolls make the game slower as well. A game should not take 3+ hours.
3rd edition doesn't have detachment, or stratagems, barely has special rules, 2 melee attacks is a lot for a non-character, most guns shoot once, armour saves are universally better and cover matters beyond line of sight blocking, rerolls are incredibly rare, etc.
Exactly why 3rd and 4th are the best editions to play
True. 3e-5e is a lot cooler and fun for me. And I don't have a nostalgia for that because I played 5e after the 8e.
I am revisiting 3rd and 5th to rules data-mine currently. Don't own a 4e book so I need to get one
@@LittleIAO do you need any 5e Codices?
3rd edition was slow but the fun of dice rolls without re rolls and stratergems made it better in some ways
In my opinion: predictability is more fun than dice variance. In a scenario with high dice variance you can get negative player experiences where one player is very happy with the outcome and the other player is very much not. When the outcome is more predictable both players kind of know what will happen, so nobody gets deliriously happy about dice spiking but and nobody will be extremely frustrated either. I think the frustration/ saltiness is something you want to avoid causing your players to experience. 40K to me these days is like going to the salt factory and being force fed all the salt, a generally un-fun game and I play non GW games primarily as a result
10th edition is great, I think its possibly the best edition of 40k.
I would love to see OPR Critiques. I love that game and I love the constructive criticism of the things I love
It would be really cool. I think that OPR does a lot better than 40k but I do think that 40k does "big moments" better than OPR does.
Opr is basically “I’m nostalgic for 5th and 4th edition but will implement some new things”
In an attempt to make the game appealing to the masses, I personally think they've removed to much of the wargame aspect from 40k. Now it just feels like a boardgame.
Personally I kinda hate the detachments. I feel like 40k has become a simple game but has grown complex because they just layer too much on top of it. In addition to knowing what's on a unit's data card you need to know universal special rules (nothing too out of place so far), then the army special rules, then the detachment rules, then what strategems can be used. I find myself spending more time during games double-checking abilities than actually rolling dice or making plays. It doesn't help that it feels, to me at least, that a lot of the strategems and detachments feel very poorly through out and not really thematic, and the need to give every army X detachments and 6 Strategems is probably why we're seeing a lot of crossover (such as the new Wraith Aeldari detachment feeling l like discount Leagues of Votaan, or why Chaos has a psuedo Oath of the Moment style detachment special rule.)
Frankly this makes it easy to feel like 40k is mostly popular because, as you said, it's like the D&D of tabletop games. It's accessible and well known but that's the main draw.
Love the new series idea !
I love this series!! Good video Matt!
I love your channel Matthew! Keep up the good work
I agree with most of what you said in this video. The only thing I really disagree with is detachments. When 10th launched I thought they were really cool. Now most armies have detachments that heavily overlap with other armies. And it becomes more bland. "Oh this is the movement detachment, this is the tank detachment, this is the elite detachment." And when they share a vibe and abilities it feels like the flavor of the army has been stripped for convenience. Which to me just kinda sucks.
i only played really in 5th edition, and i enjoy the large number of dice roll. i think the number of dice roll allow you to build an army and reduce the risk of failing to do something. having a larger dice pool reduce the risk and allow to hit the expectation of that roll. as the game turns progress, the number of dice naturally reduce, i.e. the troops dies. therefore the risk of failure increases as the game progress. the tactic therefore is when the expectation can be reassured, hit the high value targets. it become a early game target prioritisation.
i suppose 10th might be a bit difference now. but i remember the 5th edition games with joy.
As a GM myself, I always learn something from these types of videos. You are right about dicerolling. On one hand a d6 makes a game accessible to newcomers, on the other hand it gets really killy, really fast. A d10 system sounds like a lot more sensible if you have units on such a different powercurve.
I personally would add the "I get a whole turn and then you get a whole turn" of warhammer as one of my main gripes. Not only is it boring (you can only watch for roughly 30 min in bigger games, till your opponent finally finishes his turn) it can also be way to devestating if there is a lot of shooting involved.
If 40k was to come out today, nobody would play it. Its too expensive and the rules are shit.
I totally agree whit you that everything just murders everything else way to fast in 40K its rare to see the armies last longer then turn three and you are 100% right the people that really love something are the people who tend to judge it the most becose we want it to be the best it can be
I think my only disagreement is that I personally find stratagems a con for the game. It turns the game more into a "gotcha/ activated my trap card" style of game.
My other argument against it is that it is more rules for me to remember, which is also a complaint towards each unit having their own individual rules as well. When I started playing 40k back in 5e, it was a lot easier to remember what my army did because I only had to remember the stats of the unit, the rules for that unit type, what universal rules it had, and the army's special rules. Units that had individual special rules were rare, and were usually named characters. I also wasn't asked to remember these extra special rules that if "Unit X experiences situation Y, then Unit X can perform action Z"
A pro in favor of stratagems; however, is that they offer the opponent an opportunity to play during the opponent's turn, rather than sitting there bored. I think Horus Heresy handles that problem better with Reactions in my opinion.
I think it'd be really interesting to see you compare rulesets depicting the same battle with a different focus, eg for Napoleonics you've got Black Powder/Valour and Fortitude which are quick play games vs something with more friction like General d'Armee, or Bolt Action vs Chain of Command for WW2. You could also look at what changes to rulesets when they change the scale of the battle that they're representing, again looking at Black Powder vs Sharp Practice (skirmish game), Bolt Action vs O-Group or Flames of War. I think there's a lot to dig into in terms of what a mechanic should thematically introduce into a game and how much you need to prime a player to understand and interpret rules within the context of the vision of the rules writers.
(Great video, keep it up!)
What's MEGA important with this subject is... DO NOT LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY IF YOU'RE MAKING A GAME. You can ask 10 people 1 question and you WILL get 100 different answers.
Make whatever you love.
I do enjoy hearing you speak about things from a very gentle standpoint as opposed to a jaded one.
Awesome content dude!
Those are valid points. I would add:
1) In the past, game wasn't balanced at all, to the point of some factions being completely unplayable or derpy for years (space marines and chaos space marines without any actual power armor model, only terminators and scouts, pre-Matt Ward phase-out rule necrons, allies rules that make game borderline broken). But now, we have the opposite problem - game never seems to be balanced enough, and you have to really stay up to date if you want to have a winning chance. But the worst thing is that balance updates often feel unwarranted. At the end of both 8th and 9th editions they somehow reached the point of equilibrium, with almost every faction having around 50% winrate. But, instead of just letting the players enjoy the rules for at least a year or two, their business model forces then to release new units and new edition, so the game will never actually stay balanced for long.
2) Game feels extremely pay to win sometimes. If you want to win, the rule of thumb is, that you'll probably need some of the new toys. Even if rules suck on release, that's mostly despite the intention - their intention is clearly to make new models attractive for the buyers. And that is a very frustrating model, especially for space marines players - in order to stay relevant, one probably needs to buy all the new stuff. And it's a lot these days, since edition are changing fast, and space marines get something new twice or even more often per edition.
I started in 1987 with Rogue trader and quit after the release of 2nd version. GW had removed some of the best components of the game. divided the rules between multiple products and increased the cost while reducing the quantity/quality of the product.
37 years later, and nothing has changed.
while I have my own opinions on what is good/bad about the game - I still collect some of the models.
that said, we went to a D10 system that uses a 'considered simultaneous' game play mechanic. it's different than alternating activations.
there are plenty of other games with far better rules, high quality miniatures and for far less money. and most importantly, they don't change the rules every 3 months or rewrite the game overall every 3 years.
6:45 This. This is the death of fun for me
I like the take here. I only really have a problem right now with 'Fight First' in 10th. Not because I don't understand it, but because teaching it stinks. No one can remember it right. And it always causes a frustration when my Von Ryan's Leapers come into play because I have to explain the mechanic AGAIN.
Honestly, here is how I would want to rule spelled out:
1 - Models with Fight First ability fight, lead with defender
2 - Models that charged this turn from Attacker fight
3 - Engaged Defender models fight
4 - Engaged Attacker models fight (non-chargers)
Unless someone can provide a better way to explain it. Cause I have to reset people on it EVERY week.
What GW do well is making a game that works across such a broad spectrum of players. You often see games designers trying to make this perfect game they want to play. If you want a mass market game to sell well then compromise is the real art. For example 40K has become more deadly on purpose to reduce the game lenght. That is a compromise made because people have a much short span of time these days. They want a game over in 3.5 hours rather than 5-6 hours. They typically want to play the game like an action movie where things are going off each round rather than chasing each other around the board. GW skill is balancing all the aspects of games designs to make one that as such a broad and lasting appeal. Which I would suggest no other company came close to.
Funny that 10e games drag on a lot longer than 3e. Which contradicts your argument. If your standart force is half as musch as a current bloated armies, and if you don't have much rerolls, attacks multi wound models etc. than you don't waste your time
It's funny because do you have more units on the table now and then you did in 9th Edition all it does is make the game longer
I agree with all of your points. However, IGOUGO amplifies your CONs. Too many dice, rerolls and IGoUGo result in the killiness. Reducing any of these 3 would reduce killiness, would reduce the need for L-shaped ruins and so on. It would be great if an aggressive detachment would be a more viable strategy. That‘s not punished super hard because the defensive player goes first with their whole army.
Nevertheless, I feel like getting the right balance is hard either way. I would love to see an alternate game mode that keeps the unique aspects of every army (maybe pushes them further) and uses things like alternating activations, less dice, more RNG etc. for a more narrative focussed experience.
I‘ll probably gonna homebrew that at some point as none of my friends has any motivation to play the game as it‘s intended anymore.
I have hoped that GW would migrate to a D10 dice as it would allow for a wider range of effectiveness between units. I also miss the initiative and weapon skill elements of earlier editions as these made combat matchups more realistic.
I also detest the current shooting rules that if a whole squad is behind a building but one guy sticks an elbow out then the whole squad can get mowed down by models that cannot see 99% of them. That and the exhaust of a vehicle sticking out, means it can now shoot a barrage of weapons from out its arse when it is facing the other way. This goes way beyond breaking immersion and is just plain absurd.
I agree that in the current edition less points are better than more for a tactical game that can be played in a reasonable timeframe. After hour 3 I don't care anymore who wins.
I definately agree on the visibility and cover part! xD
I'm quite new and interested how it worked in earlier editions.
D10s would be interesting but even if simple models had only one attack, you would still need to throw 20 dice when playing Tyranids unless rules are changed completely. 20 d10s may be a bit expensive
I think you are wrong about IGYG not being an issue in 40k. Too me it is archaic at this point. As you pointed out things are " too killy" with tons of dice. Alpha Strike is too prevelent in the game. Also,glad to see you finally stand up and say something negative about GW. To me your channel often comes across as too " fan boy" for me.
Thanks Matthew. I agree with some of the comments that IGYG is a core problem, as without it the too killiness would not unbalance the game, and the inordinate amount of dice rolling could be removed. Good movement and strategy would produce a basketball type game - you kill something then I kill something. The game that so got this right was the Richard Borg Memoir 44 and command &colours system, for all its over simplified rules. More engagement and tension, with every decision mattering. Just try it Matt - play a Warhammer game with alternating actions and see the difference it would makemake
I hate templates and how they slow down the game. They’re why I haven’t really gotten into bolt action. The removal of them is one of the only things 40K has gotten right in the last 20 years.
I would recommend adding a section up front on these videos of "what's the game trying to achieve," or "what do I think the game is trying to achieve." As players most of your audience is probably not thinking about it, IF you only break the games review into "skirmish game" and "wargame" I might argue you don't know either. But if you're trying to assess this as a designer, having a reference of "what is it trying to do" matters. "Too many models," and "too many re-roll," can be pros or cons depending on the game's goal.
Hope you do X-wing and DnD.
I don't like ANY reroll mechanics tbh. The die roll should be sacred.
lethal hits bug me a bit. Wish if toughness was twice the strength it wouldn't work. It nags at me that some crappy low power weapon can be used to bring down big models.
So you just want the inability to punch up? Thats a bad game design
Great Video!
Personally I find the attached units rules a bit overcomplicated.
Aos 4th found a simpler way by just letting you place characters near infantry and then they are protected. Additionally they can have an aura in which they buff certain units. In 40k you have to worry about who can receive damage, which toughness is used, what happens when an attached unit is destroyed, what happens to tokens placed on that unit.
It's really interesting to hear these critiques of 40k I only do AoS and found some these observations can be made for AoS as well. I find AoS to be too killie with too many attacks per model/weapon profile. If you ever need to pull out more than a die brick you've gone too far. I'm just glad rerolls is pretty rare nowadays in AoS. Die rolls should remain sacred.
Your thumbnail shows the correct answer.
@1:55 because the setting is the best
Yes. The setting, the aesthetic, the breadth of characters and stories and such in there is such a huge draw.
40k is popular because 40k is popular.
Bear with me, I’m serious.
How many people would keep playing 40k, if no one else in their community played it?
So they’d have to buy and paint two armies at minimum, cajole, trick and bribe people to play with them and teach the rules every single time?
Do you know anyone who loves 40k so much they play it solo - exclusively?
Because that’s reality for most historical players, and they still keep playing the games they love.
A lot of 40k's issues could be solved by moving to a D12 based system that opens up the scaling to better match the lore. Then, you can drop all the reroll mechanics as a device to spread things out statistically. And while the "I go, You go" works ok on smaller scale games like 1k, its problems get amplified the larger the game because someone is stuck sitting doing nothing for an extended period of time, only to get alpha'ed while they wait. It's simply unfun at the current point per model scale.
I agree sooo strong with it although i think 10th is by far the best edition.
CRITIQUE ME MATTHEW! 😤😂
2k is a lot of points. I've played in a couple tournaments and have never been able to finish a full 5 rounds consistently.
Combat Patrol, as maligned as it is, is fun the few times I've played it. I'm very curious about spearhead in AoS.
If interested, here's a 40k project I started. I'm already done with 2 codexes. The goal is to make a more sensible 40k experience ua-cam.com/video/s2ndl06XHug/v-deo.html
I thing lore, miniatures and game mechanics should all be analyzed by their own. I understand people have been conditioned to think they cannot play 40k without GW's miniatures (you can) but still.
Talking rules for 10 minutes and then casually throwing minis and setting into the argument unfocus it imo.
While I agree that lore and minis don't influence the gameplay, they are quite a big part of why some people (like me) are interested in playing the game to begin with.
F.e. I was curious about infinity, played a few learn-to-play rounds and even though the game is supposed to be very well designed, I never got interested, because the mini and lore aspect just went by me. On the other hand, a few pieces of concept art and the basic lore hooked me on trench crusade and now I want to buy and paint some minis and play. (As soon as I find a printing service😅)
I agree with your sentiment but if you weren’t getting the miniatures why on earth would you choose 40k as your game of choice. I’d put it more like you don’t have to play 40k with your he minis, you can use another ruleset and still enjoy the themes and setting
You should do one for Aos as well. I have become fed up with the game and their rules choices. Old world is so much better
Im a tabletop wargamer. The worst part is that as a non GW fan, there is no part of my hobby where I am not forced to deal with GW and 40k in particular. No matter what I do, I have to listen to the drama, deal with their practices, and be inundated with GW fans.
GW fans never shut up about their GW hobby. I can never talk about my wargaming hobby, without them comparing something i have said too to GW products or 40k.
You cant even talk about simple thing like paint, with out GW fans using GW paint names. Of which i don't care.
I cant ever paint my army blue, without some jackass saying its ultra marines paint scheme. Or paint primarily red with it being a blood angels. Its so freaking annoying.
Every time GW screws its player base over some how, then that is all that anyone at the games store wants to talk about. So now im forced to liaten ro the drama.
40k lore never met a acifi story idea they didnt like and add to some story. So when you talk scifi, then someone says they read about the same thing in 40k. Not all killer robots are necrons. Not all alien bugs are tyranids. Shut up. It so damn annoying.
I just want to enjoy my hobby. But i cant. Its forced apon me at every opportunity I take.
Rant over.... its been a long week.
Call the nids zerglings for a chuckle all the time.
Ok so what do you play?
What I hate is people that hate 40k , constantly telling other people about it. Endless pointless comments in youtube videos which are about 40k telling us how much you hate it. Why watch the video then ? People telling you how expensive it is like it is my fault they cannot afford it. Or how they are going to 3D print everything again like who cares. Or the constant One Page Rules is better game when nobody plays it, we all know it is a cheap knock off of GW games and is completely unbalanced. The people who have never designed a game before telling how they would make it better. Or the idiots making youtube videos out their parents backroom thinking they know how to run a global business.
I just want to enjoy the hobby But i cant. Its forced upon me in every damn video on the subject. Why dont they just watch something else.
Rant over ........ Its been a longer week.
@redscope897 what I hate is that I didn't think of this sooner.
My weeks was normal length
@redscope897 So you understand. Why can't people get it through their heads that that not every wants to hear their opinions about 40k and GW. That it would be best for the entire wargaming community if everyone just shut the hell up about GW and 40k. If no one talked about GW or 40k then everyone could enjoy their wrgaming hobbies in peace and quiet.
That would be the greatest for everyone. Everyone gets to be happy. And it's so simple... stop talking about GW period.
My day is getting better now.
Universal Special Rules point is so farfetched. Most of the unit's rules arent universal, you have to remember how every unit works. USR are a thing in Horus Heresy or Old World, where there is a keyword for almost every special rule, and they are used in many units in many factions, for example Stubborn or Hammer of Wrath in Horus Heresy.
Like your videos, but strongly disagree on easy to learn! I'm 54 and got into Warhammer when I was about 13. Rules are VERY complicated and, when wanting to introduce my friend to wargaming or getting myself into 10th, not at all easy, especially when constantly changing and rules physically ALL OVER THE PLACE! Getting into OPR to get away from GW as I feel it would be much simpler to introduce to my friends :)
I miss pie templates
Not everything has decreased in points. In 7e a 10 man space marine tactical squad was 140pts; in 10e it is the same 140pts, sure you get free weapon upgrades in 10e, but the Rhino was 35pts in 7e; currently 75pts in 10e.
Overall the space marine tactical squad, in a Rhino, is more expensive or about the same (depending upon loadout) in 10e vs 7e.
7e was the moment when the 40k was bloated. If we compare 2000 pts standard force of 10e with the 2000 pts force of 5e than you see the difference. And 5e was played at 1500 pts. Not at 2k
In 3rd edition a 10 man space marine squad was 175-190pts depending on weapon loadout, and a rhino was 85pts, so yeah, there’s been some reductions. And we played at 1000pts, 1500 for a large game
In 5e a 10 man tactical squad was 170pts, and the Rhino was 35pts - total 205pts.
In 10e that currently costs 215pts, so yeah 10pts more in 10e compared to 5e, plus you get the weapon upgrades for free in 10e, so another 0-40pts depending upon loadout (missile launcher and flamer were free upgrades in 5e).
@@ws1-p9u Transport in 5e was dirt cheap, I can agree. But other than that:
- tactical squad was 170+ points vs 140 now
- assault squad was 190+ points (in reality about 230-250) vs 160 now
- Terminator Squad was 400+ vs 340 now
- Las predator was 170+ vs 130 now
- Autocanon predator was cheap at 90+ vs 130
- Characters wasn't cheaper than 100
And at the 1500 standart it's adds up fast
Id love to see a better point system built for crusade battle traits and scars.. +1/-1 isn't enough of a range. Wish more we're also once per battle to avoid making them too game changing 😅
Ive been playing this game since the start of 2nd ed (yes im old, i know) and always have, and always will, lament the move away from different dice to a pure D6 system. I understand the commercial motivation, but it's to the detriment of the game.
I can’t stand detachments. An army’s play style should be defined how the player plays them. Detachments just add even more unnecessary rules memorization to a game with already too much rules memorization.
How should you represent white scars? Just take lots of bikes. Salamanders? Take lots of flamers and thunder hammers. Bad moons? Lots of mega numbs and ork tech.
Let players express themselves instead of forcing them into predefined play styles.
I dislike the fast updates. It makes the game very difficult to keep up with. Also the rerolls, which are basically the amount of rules there are. It is a steep learning curve and that is difficult especially when you don’t do this for a living. That is something I think GW is trying to tackle. They may want to dumb down, or simplify the game so that more people play (and buy) the game. Especially with all the recent attention they are bringing to the franchise with space marine 2 and now Astartes 2 and Cavills upcoming Amazon series too.
Man, stop it. This video is titled as if it's the most controversial subject ever, when in fact it's a lukewarm opinion at worst. You're popular and well known enough to where you don't need to be playing farming simulator on the UA-cam algorithm anymore, Matt. 10th edition 40k is a terrible wargame, the worst I've ever played. It's somehow managed to be the most unnecessarily complicated, yet most bland and boring wargame of all time. I think anyone who doesn't like the direction of modern 40k would agree, turns out that's a lot more people than the ones who unironically like 10th edition.
I think 10e is generally not great. I disagree that it's easy to onboard new players. It may have been back at launch but it's quickly devolved into one of the most convoluted editions. Combat Patrol is a poor substitute for just having a more cohesive smaller game that players can teach each other and learn together. That's a gaming culture thing. I like detachments in theory but despite the massive competition bias in modern 40k they're still unbalanced. There's always obviously stronger detachments and GW doesn't point balance them separately, which is kind of necessary. Also they don't reinforce "simplified not simple" as GW claims to be going for. They have just separated all the rules you need to be aware of not to face a gotcha. In fact there are now MORE stratagems and unique army rules than in 9e. Wild.
I could go on but TLDR my enjoyment of 10e is well below 50%. I'm at like 30% enjoy to 70% dislike. It's why my whole group quit playing it and are now doing our own remix of 40k rules.
I really, really, really dislike stratagems. They just feel like a series of "gotchya" moments in game. They're annoying to remember, and therss plenty of flavor in the detachments as is. I also think less added rule modifiers for every unit. Just make it better or worse. A little flavor here ans there is fine but always having to check every units special rules slows everything down.
Obligatory but necessary
40K is garbage.
Other games should be more popular.
I disagree. It's hard to call it garbage when what it provides for the hobby as a whole is very important. The game itself is also quite well put together.
While I agree that other games should be more popular, I disagree that 40k needs to be insulted to make that happen.
@@brodywood6274 Warhammer it self is terrible in its design when you look at the tabletop the setting is what keeps it alive Fantasy is better then 40K currently but Fantasy could still be a lot better
@@viktorgabriel2554Do you have any examples of things that makes the game awful. It is an enjoyable game, both at a casual and competitive level. I genuinely don't see what could makes this game awful
The wounding is what really drags it out, if you eliminate it the sequence goes a lot smoother.
While I completely agree, the wounding adds a strength to the weapons. Without it EVERY gun can truely destroy EVERY target. Little pistols would be a hard meta, and it would almost invalidate most units. I think it makes sense to have a pistol only wound a big tank target on a 6.
Maybe if they got rid of too-hit rolls? Still keep the integrety of the weapon profiles but shortens it a little bit
He talks about it here 5:11 I think he brings up good points about rerolls being the real problem.
I think it's a good thing to take out randomness, makes the game more strategic concepts while keeping the slight randomness
@@brodywood6274 no as you can have the save modified by strength and thougnes you also could roll wound rolls after you roll saves the rerolls as well just massively extend the time.
A lot of this could also be fixed whit 10 sided dice
Extra true for AOS
Wounding was a good mechanic back in 3e. If you don't have a lot of attack and don't have a lot of rerolls and if squad can only attack one target then it's supper smooth.
I love big battles....amount of attacks make sense to make models feel diffrent. But i agree dropping out d6 dices would make good for warhammer. D12 would be perfect.
Also too killy, yeah it is.