My 40k 10th Edition Problems

[@IDICBeer]

Find my Battle Report Playlist Here ➜ bit.ly/3Dixxyq Watch my Necron Codex Strategy Videos Here ➜ bit.ly/4aQQ8jQ Necrons Codex 10th Edition Playlist ➜ bit.ly/3TqpOaP How to Magnetise Necrons ➜ bit.ly/3lgnDSC Converting Indomitus Necrons ➜ bit.ly/36fIiSH How to Paint Necrons ➜ bit.ly/33lHZ6D Necron Conversion Ideas ➜ bit.ly/3DjNIM5 SUBSCRIBE to Learn about Necrons and More ➜ goo.gl/D5iAU3 SUPPORT ME and Become an IDICBeer Member ➜ bit.ly/3c1G8Xn IDICBeer 40k Merchandice ➜ bit.ly/3G7V0Ca

[@SeyniFauconier]

How long before they bring some new lore. Like I don’t know making the Emperor a chaos god. Bring back the dark King or malice. Or better yet make the Skaven a playable faction. They own the horn rat the other chaos gods exist in this universe they can legally do that I don’t care what kind of Lord they have to use to bring them into the universe but just bring them into the universe. It’s so bland and stale with Reese skins of the same units.

[@kdhlkjhdlk]

I'm not bored, I'm tired. There's too much changes made. They don't even really affect the gameplay - they just invalidate what I've already learned, and the armies I've made.

[@IDICBeer]

I hear ya buddy

[@charleswatson2605]

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment, I mean 4 separate rules sets for movement? Buying the cool data cards so playing the game is a bit easier to manage, and then Errata or flat out re writes make them invalid.

[@ashlevrier]

I don't mind regular fixes. But the constant balancing is dumb. I stick to heresy for a reason

[@System-Update]

Play with rather than play against is a fantastic way of describing narrative vs competitive play.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks, it seems a perfect way to describe it

[@buttemountain]

I watched an OPR game that was basically Imperial Guard vs Godzilla. The Guard was required to hold specific terrain pieces and gained reinforcements each turn. Godzilla had a ridiculous amount of wounds and powerful weapons and was required to destroy the terrain buildings that each had a number of wounds. I had fun watching so I bet it was more fun to play.

[@IDICBeer]

That does sound like fun

[@Venthrac]

It's not just you, Nick. I stopped playing a while ago. The Old World reminded me why I love the way Warhammer used to be. I miss 6th ed 40K, back when there were no command points or stratagems. 10th ed. is HideHammer.

[@IDICBeer]

Hidehammer, that is very fitting ha ha thanks for tuning in and the comment

[@lowscore1972]

Many changes in 10th I love. Many I don't like. To be fair, I felt that way about every single edition in the past. What bothers me with 9th and 10th even more, is that the game feels more and more like a boardgame, and less and less like a wargame.

[@IDICBeer]

Yeah that makes sense, it does doesn't it

[@erikrasmussen7953]

Hey, you're not the first person I've seen make the comment in regards to more boardgame, less wargame. I only started playing 40k at the end of 9th and it's my first wargame, so it's the only experience I have with it. I'm not really a wargamer at all, more of a 40k fan, who really likes the lore and world building and thought I may enjoy the tabletop aspect as well (which I really have). Would you be able to elaborate on that sentiment at all? I'm interested to see why. It may be the most obvious thing in the world, but being my only exposure, I'm sorely lacking in the ability to discern between the two and I'm interested in hearing why. 😀

[@memnarch129]

@@erikrasmussen7953 Well a lot of the stuff from Old Hammer got "simplyfied" which makes it more Boardgame like, IE rules that are now 1 or 2 sentences that used to have depth and nuance. Ill give 2 examples. First Blast. Blast is simply now +1 shot per 5 games up to +4. In 7th and older Blast weapons used a template, either 2.5 inch round template for thinks like Frag Missiles or Plasma Cannons, or the 5 inch "pie plate" for things like Basilisks or Demolisher Cannons. You would place the center of the template over a model in range. Then you would roll 1d6 and a special "Scatter die". The Scatter die would determine if a direct hit was made, dont move the template, or if it rolled a arrow youd move the template that many inches in that direction. This gave Blast weapons nuance as you tried placing it to get the maximum number of models, and with old coherency you could catch 3 or even 4 guys even with the 2.5 inch template, and represented the inherent inaccuracy of what are in essence unguided projectiles, remember 40k tech has regressed so their Missiles and artillery is more akin to WWII. Second Tanks in general. Now you have a Toughness and wounds and can measure from any part of the vehicle and shoot all the guns. 7th and older Tanks where very skill intensive to use well. Tanks had 4 facings, Front, 2 sides, and the Rear. Most vehicles had a different "Armor Rating" on each side, many the front and sides where same Rhino was a 11/11/10. Meaning depending on which facing you shot you might have to get through different armor, Leman Russ was I think a 12/11/10, meaning you really wanted those side or back shots on a Russ. This meant for the vehicle player properly facing the vehicle to not present weak armor sides, and for the attacker to move their guys in such a way that you could get that coveted back shot. Now with AC damaging a vehicle worked different. You would take the Str of the weapon, say a Str 9 Lascannon and roll a d6. If the d6+Str of the weapon matched the armor you got a "Glancing Hit", if it beat you got a "Penetrating Hit". Glances mostly just slowed down or made the vehicle unable to move or shot for a turn, Glancing 6 WOULD destroy the vehicle. Where as a Penatrating hit you would destroy the vehicle on a 4+, it exploded in a 6 inch radius on a Penetrating 6. I kinda skipped somthing in that explanation, Glancing and Penetrating hits had a chart. You again rolled a D6 on the matching chart and thats what the hit did to the vehicle. Now are these rules deep and need some knowledge to use well? Yes. Are they so complex that they are impossible to learn or confusing? No, i grasped these rules within about 2 months of starting in 3rd. Changing these to as they are now is "Simplification". Taking deep rules that made it a Wargame and turning them into rules like youd find in a boardgame, where you have less room to write the rules and people arnt investing HOURS to learn to play. Now "Streamlining" is a good thing. An example of that would be Ballistic skill. 7th and prior it was a chart as well, but it ended up being the same numbers as current, Marines where BS4 chart said you needed a 7 to hit so you needed to roll a 3+. Why have the chart when giving them BS 3+ does the same thing?? Nothing is lost in the change it just makes it easier to understand. Where as Weapon Skill was simplified. While similiar to BS, needing X to hit, in 7th and before you Compared your WS to that of an opponents, so like Grots trying to attack Abbadon would need 6s, they still do but thats a bit different, but Abbadon attacking say Jain Zar or even Guilliman would maybe need a 4 or 5, or a 6 for someone like Lilith Hesperax. The change to Weapon Skill removed that nuance and flavor of the opponents supposed "skill" and made it into simply BS for melee. The common theme for many rules old hammer players dont like is that the depth and nuance has been removed. Did they cause some discussion and sometimes some arguements over which side of your tank my shot is hitting? Yes, but 90% of Hammer players at the time where playing for fun so by the end it was no hard feelings.

[@lowscore1972]

@@erikrasmussen7953 Good question, but hard to answer in just a few sentences. I'm sure you would clearly see the difference in design focus, if you would read a 80's or 90's ruleset for miniature wargaming (be it historical or fantasy). As a tldr; at the moment rules are created and decided upon in function of a game. Whereas before, rules were made to simulate a battle. Please forgive the abstract nature of my answer.

[@DocPhantoms]

@@erikrasmussen7953 Generally boardgame play is you making decisions from limited and pre-selected options. It is very confined. Wargames are more narrative and personal in that you are making decisions before the game is even begun and are forming an expression of yourself through your choices: army, color scheme, model builds, army list composition. Wargames are meant to tell a story of a battle or war, a struggle between two or more sides. Boardgames are much less personal. What we have seen is that player choices have over time become much more controlled and limited, and thus means of expressing and deciding ourselves have suffered. With the much more narrowed scope, it means that army builds are much more streamlined, samey, and impersonal. That has been my experience, at least.

[@SamuraiMujuru]

10th is the first edition I've played since 3rd, and so far my biggest complaint is the locked unit sizes. With the recent Necrons point changes I had to change a large chunk of my army rather than just drop a couple bases here and there. That said, my list is pretty much "what young Phil wishes he could've bought back in 3E", and despite paying next to no attention to the meta Ive kinda blundered into a surprisingly effective build.

[@IDICBeer]

Well that's a nice end result ha ha

[@es83stevenson88]

Yeah I had similar issues. I dislike the unit restrictions but it hasn't actually been an issue for me

[@Ahriman_362]

As a thousand sons playery no psychic phase is like no reanimation protocol for necrons. It's their identity. Not having that is just a feelsbad. ''It's the shooting phase, i cast having a better gun'' is just not it. I don't care how competitive we are but i want to cast stuff. Also the minigame between grey Knights and thousand sons in the psychic phase was funny.

[@IDICBeer]

I hear ya

[@mogwaiman6048]

psychic disciplines need to come back, this is the worst edition for psykers ever.

[@IDICBeer]

I hear you, but as I said as a Necron player I'm loving it, nothing worse than your opponent having two phases to blast you off the table lol.

[@mogwaiman6048]

@@IDICBeer oh i don't think there needs to be a psyker phase. Phase specific disciplines are fine. But the gutting of what psykers do is what I don't like.

[@IDICBeer]

@@mogwaiman6048 Ahh fair play 👍

[@philgagnon275]

More like in 5th where different powers happen in different phases?

[@mogwaiman6048]

@@philgagnon275 yup, bring back the psychic discipline tables (one table of six spells per faction) and keep the phase specific casting. Bring back Psychic Tests, Deny the Witch, and Perils of the Warp.

[@DZSabre]

I am completely amazed because I thought I was the only one who felt this way. Every point you made matches my experience and my biggest complaint is the fact that the fluff/lore based rules/abilities that made factions unique are gone. The only other point that did not seem to be brought up was how older models have been completely removed (moved to Legends) and that one thing fully invalidated both of their entire armies (Ravenwing Bike based armies). I also play Warlords of Erehwon (Fantasy) and Bolt Action (Historical) which lend themselves very well to casual, narrative and competitive play.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks mate, yes you are correct, I should have talked about that, just too much in my head lol

[@kingsting12]

I agree with this. It doesn't feel special to face different factions anymore. There's just so much stuff now that does the same thing in different armies, and the game is balanced (or perhaps streamlined is a better word) to a fault. Gets boring.

[@pedrojustice]

a homogenous blob of generic stuff i wont call it flavourless, but it IS bland

[@colinmack8655]

Have you tried Mantic Games I love kings of war and firefight and Deadzone such good fun rules.

[@charleswatson2605]

agree 100%, I got super excited to read the data sheet for Pedro Kantor, and then to see that many many other models had the same rules as he did was a big let down. And how everything is how to get sustained/ lethal/ dev wounds is just too samey for me.

[@mattgroditski3547]

This is the perfect explanation of what I find frustrating about 10th. As someone who also started in 3, I kinda miss the old days. Keep up the good work.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks Matt, it is a little sad, but I think I can solve my issue by throwing in a few more fun games here and there

[@mattgroditski3547]

@@IDICBeer I hope you do. I am lucky that I have AOS, which continues to be fun and engaging. I often look at my 40k collection and just shake my head. Being of a similar age, I worry that my hobby is going to fall by the wayside. Thanks for the response . Cheers

[@Jewus19]

My personal biggest negative is the required battlefield terrain. Huge ugly chunks of styrofoam, forming the several L shaped terrain pieces required for your army not getting blown off the table turn 1 by the totally out of control powercrept to sheit weapon profiles of 10th edition.

[@IDICBeer]

Yep, totally agree with that

[@drugmate9710]

Warcry got it right when it comes to non-competitive play with "twists". If you want, during the setup of the match, after you've drawn your battleplan, deployment and victory condition cards, you can draw a "twist" which presents a few interesting obstacles like "after every round, roll off and whoever wins can set a fighter or a terrain piece on fire which will damage anyone within 1'' of it by the end of every subsequent round" or "if units touch battlefield floor, they get damage" or "at the end of the battle round, roll for every unit that's near the edge of the battle mat, on a roll of 1, kill that unit". It keeps things fresh and fluffy. Technically, you're supposed to use them in a narrative mode that's similar to 40k's Crusade, but... you can't stop me.

[@IDICBeer]

Yeah fun elements like that would be awesome

[@mumblez7712]

To be fair, that just sounds like the 'mission rules' cards from the deck minus any attempts to make them balanced or not kinda silly. On that score, the Pariah mission rules sound better overall than the Leviathan ones

[@Dram1984]

I feel the same way. Every game is the same, nothing ever really exciting happens. The rules are built to be like chess without the depth instead of built to create fun situations.

[@IDICBeer]

Yeah it's a different game these days for sure

[@dmcdraws]

Yeah, near the tail end of 9th I'd given up keeping up with the constant rules changes - I only played every other month or so. But 10th was too soon for me, so I gave up on 40k. Been playing Horus Heresy (30k) of late and really like it, but sadly you can't really play Necrons there. :(

[@IDICBeer]

Yeah I wish Crons were in 30k, always looks like a fun game

[@dmcdraws]

@@IDICBeer It's a lot of fun. Based on 7th edition 40k more or less, I'm told, although I started in 40k with 8th (and Necrons). But for Heresy I play Space Wolves, also influenced by you, so... thanks :)

[@IDICBeer]

@@dmcdraws I did play two games of it during 7th with my Wolves, was defo enjoyable

[@LittleIAO]

This will be a bit of a long comment. Nick you're one of the real OG 40k KZbinrs and I have followed for many years and 40k editions. You strike a good balance in your interest for the game between casual and more serious. Of course you should make this video and your misgivings are natural, glad you're sharing. All your points here are pretty valid even if I have a somewhat different view on certain specifics. For anyone not wanting to read the rest of my opinions that follow, TLDR; 10e is a very mediocre installment of 40k up to this point and while it has a strong enough base of supporters it's also a highly controversial for good reasons as well. If you are reading this and you are new to 40k with 10e you have no real frame of reference to how other versions have played. You might find it plenty of fun but you wouldn't have any idea if in fact you would have had even more fun in any of the previous versions. 40k is and always will be a massively complex game and if that ever changes, well it won't be 40k anymore. It will be a different game. If some people want that change I would submit that they should be happy to let the rest of us keep 40k as we know it and ask for a separate thing or make it themselves. Come to think of it One Page Rules is a much better "Simplified" 40k IMO. No edition of the game has been free of large problems for various reasons. In fact I'm 100% sure that without the success of the IP the game system itself would be unsuccessful in the extreme, even right now with 10e. 10th is not the worst edition overall but it's very low on my list. I think 9e has a better Core Rules system and list building by far. I would have rather GW made something much closer to a 9.5 edition than what we got with 10e. What I like about 10e are the basic terrain rules, the missions, and some returns to things like USR's, even if they're only half-measures. There is codex creep in 10e but the graph is a big up and down rather than a consistent upward curve. Sisters of Battle are about to come out looking pretty broken on launch. This leads to what's probably the real issue... GW has decided that they need to release a whole new edition roughly every three years or so. There is now a formulaic model that has been happening for several editions but the problems related to it are gradually compounding. I assume it goes something like this: They release an edition that is a large enough departure from the last that you either buy in or get left behind. The rules are "good enough" but really they're unfinished and not properly stress tested, like modern triple A video game titles for instance, so that the game requires constant patches on a schedule. They drip feed codex supplements that are done exactly the same way. By the way they also keep expanding into more factions so that writing unique rules is actually more and more difficult. We're stuck in a higher prices and lower supply problem as well as usually getting unfinished products that need the patches and balancing. But this is fine for GW because the whole cycle will start over soon enough and they don't need to answer for the issues of a specific edition long-term. I can probably say it better and I probably will at some point on my channel but GW don't make the best game system they can because they're truly just focused on this cycle model. So a LOT of us are unhappy at least and looking for off-ramps from it. My group has abandoned 10e recently and are looking to create a new "best of" rules set. Lastly I would just say that we all love 40k and we're not negative on it, just very invested in wanting it to be the best it can be for everyone that loves it like we do. Criticisms of things that feel off are as valid and necessary as praise of what's feeling good.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks so much for an awesome comment, I hope everyone does indeed read it. You have some great points and they are well said. Also, just subbed your Channel and I look forward to checking out your videos :D

[@LittleIAO]

@@IDICBeer Thanks so much! I am really wanting to make content again and so hopefully you can look forward to some.

[@wimcloots673]

Hi Nick, I have a similar feeling. It’s not “10th” as such. It’s the focus on competitive play, needing more balancing, standardization, never-ending “tweaking” which, in the end, leads to more of the same… Perhaps I should give Horus Heresy a try, with Necrons included based on 7th ed codex… Glad to see that I’m not the only one feeling the same, Tx!

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks buddy, sadly I don't see it changing either.

[@minoruiruma414]

Honestly I just feel that it is too 'simple'. It is focused on competitive. I miss the narrative spectacle of the game. Maybe because I enjoyed 7th but Melee being based off WS, Initiative, and units being less 'Combos' and more a 'Squad' is what I miss. Instead of "Erm I will attach this Chaplain to THIS squad so their base buff will work with theirs along with THIS balanced enhancement due to squad limitations for this combo" it used to be "My Chaplain will lead THIS squad because he does some stuff with them with minor abilities but also is MY hero champion who will challenge people in glorious melee!" It seemed less 'Plug in Character A to Squad B so Combo C happens and more . . . narrative. And that is what I miss. The spectacle While a GOOD game by itself it feels hollow now..

[@IDICBeer]

Yeah the character limitations has defo made things less interesting

[@Errtuabyss]

The main problem of this edition is that they went to far with "simplification" and standardisation. Both helps balance and being more beginner friendly. But only if done correctly. Which they didn't. Maybe the best example for long time hobbists are psychic powers. They simplified them so much that the only difference between a normal shooting attack and a psychic attack is the keyword added to the profile. Which is btw purely negativ since it only triggers defensiv abilities some units might have and have no benefit outside their profile itself. Which is toned down too, since without the risk of failing your casting and perils being reduced to some profiles having Hazardous, the "high risk - high rewards" reason for having a better profile is also gone. This takes out all flavour and uniqueness of the psychic powers and made them just generic abilities, of which most are just giving an Universal special rule. So the only flavour an Aeldari gets compared to a Space Marine or Necron is the fluff behind the leader that is giving the unit the Lethal Hits.. It's just not very interesting to get the exact same rule, in the exact same way everyone else does with a small addendum tagged on in the fluff text. What makes it even worse is that you can't even choose what ability your Psycher has, everything is predefined. The whole aspect of making meaningful choices that influence your playstyle and the effectiveness of your army in a given moment is completely gone. But the worst thing about this is that it doesn't actually change anything about the complexity of the game itselfs overall. The goal they had in changed it so drastically is completely missed since the complexity just shifted from choosing your powers and having to roll whether they work to choosing to attach a character to a unit to give them either a special rule or a mediocre shooting attack. You still have to choose your ability, but you do it via the character instead of a list of powers different psychers have access to. The realistic impact is minimal. So all the interesting and fun stuff is taken away for no real benefit. I not only get but even agree that having a Psychic Phase was dumb for all the armies and lists without (anti-)psychers. It's never fun to just sit there with no interaction and look at how your opponent triggers a bunch of abilities and things are happening without you being able to do anything about it. Which was btw a problem with 9th, as you had to sit there and listen to how a bunch of abilities, stratagems and whatnot combine to you losing an unit without being able to do anything about it.. Making them abilities that trigger like every other ability of the type is not the problem. Removing the whole dynamic and functionality is. It's like reducing the Necrons faction ability to be FnP again. It's blant, boring and just symptomatic of the bad mindset that goes through everything in the ruleset. "Points" are the other obvious case in which the "simplification" doesn't archive what it was made to. Mainly because this was never points but Power Level renamed and forced on the players, after they rejected it the previous editions.. Not being able to control your unit size is making it "simpler" because you don't have to do elementary school level math to find out what your unit costs. Just to put you into the position that you can't spend the last 20 points on anything since enhancements are the only thing that are in a price range where you might be able to spend it on but you always take them in a specific combination or not at all (mainly because the restrictions prevent you from doing anything useful with it anyways). And that is besides all the problems of having vastly different equipment that is impossible to make worth the same create. A flamer made to kill cheap units can't possible compare with a Las cannon that is suppose to kill big, expensive models. The "simplification" ended up causing more problems than is solves. If you are not able to do simple math or use something like excel to do it for you.. what are you doing in a TT game? And why wasn't the solution making the App free for all? I could get into how the missions are also not well designed since, despite drawing cards with random missions, every game is functionally the same: if you have Scouts/Infiltrators (sometimes just crazy fast units) and your opponent doesn't you just take the mid-field and camp on the objectives with as little as possible without giving your opponent a chance to take them over while the rest is killing a unit here and there or blocking space to prevent possible missions. If both have Scouts/Infiltrators you have to struggle a bit until one side can decide on who is taking over the middle before we have the same outcome. If you have neither.. you better have one of those ridicuous damage outputs to get back into the game in turn 3 or you will lose. TL;DR: Yes the edition is blant and boring. We basically have a selection of the same (relevant) rules and profiles and every faction get's a random distribution of them. Some get access to a lot of cheap 12" deepstrike denial, Scouts/Infiltrators, substained/lethal/devastating or modifiers and good enough profiles to utilize them, some get a bit more of one but less of the other, some get left out.. In the end the stuff that matters is very similar in every faction and everything feels like a slightly different flavour of the same thing.

[@IDICBeer]

I'll admit, no one really says they are using a psychic power, its just part of the shooting phase it seems. Thanks for sharing all your thoughts, very interesting

[@nathanreynolds4378]

I've played every edition since 1989. I'm mostly playing 8th ed currently as I find it most enjoyable.

[@IDICBeer]

8th was very refreshing after 7th for sure

[@Adamantos-Elean]

I feel like 8th with the blast special rule would be almost perfect.

[@Lord_Aussem]

I liked the beginning of 8th. Before all the stratagems got out of hand, and the supplements. I still prefer vehicles with armour values and facings however.

[@nathanreynolds4378]

@@Lord_Aussem I know alot of players didn't like the admin associated with the extra supplements but they added a huge wealth of extra lore and charracter to the tabletop. For me, 9th ed was a bridge too far for the strats and Admin for admin's sake.

[@johnadam4117]

Have you thought about doing a campaign? Naritive? Or some sort of crusade type game play? Use the missions not the other rules. So go though and pull out old missions out of them just with none of the rules that get tracked

[@IDICBeer]

Yeah I'm hoping to encourage Richard to do one or two games like that 👍

[@dandegr]

Great Video, I agree with 90% of your points. I'd like to see 3 main things change for GW. 1.Universal special rules, 2. No more mandatory codex to buy, but digital options, 3. Points per models not per unit.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks, yeah those three would be good

[@dougmcswaine4796]

First time with 40k has been 10th edition. Is it normal for this many changes/erratas with rule updates. Just seems like every other week is a new change to points. Trying to learn everything has been confusing.

[@IDICBeer]

Sadly it has become the norm over the last few editions as they attempt to keep things balanced.

[@Hellvine]

I was going to play my first game of 40K in tenth and then every time I made an army either the rules would change or the points would change and then I stopped caring

[@bluewizard311]

Totally agree with a lot of this. Most of my group is comprised of new players, so 10th is all we really know. Most of us started collecting during 10th and it has been a real pain sometimes as the rules change and we were suddenly stuck with models that no longer worked as they did or points changed and adjustments had to be made. We've gotten really good at house rules or just straight up ignoring changes so that we don't have to spend money on more models at that time or take out things that we want to use. It's taken the better part of the year since 10th came out to get all of our stuff and we are finally starting to play full 2000pt battles....then Pariah Nexus got announced haha. Needless to say, we'll probably be sticking to Leviathan for a while. TLDR; getting started in 10th has been rough and it feels like we are constantly playing just behind the live game, but it's been a lot of fun learning. I'm the only Necrons player in our group and your channel has been invaluable to me. Excellent info and I love the battle reports. Many thanks! NECRONS!!!

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks for sharing that, as a long time player I sometimes overlook how a new gaming group like yours can be effected by this stuff, but yeah I can image how annoying the changes must be with a limited amount of models, as people build up their forces. I am lucky I can pull amost anything from my collection as the rules change. Glad the videos have helped :D NECRONS!!

[@LittleIAO]

I'm an older player almost as long as Nick. Join us in knowing what some of the older versions were like because IMO while no 40k edition has been perfect many of them have been all around better than 10th.

[@joegroves2517]

No solution here, but I struggled with the competitive versus thematic lists playing Star Trek Attack Wing. It was the time I got really competitive myself because the prizes for their various events were exclusive ships (and that was horrible for the game and took some of the friendliness out of it tbh). But people did so much faction mixing and it felt more like playing a card game than a ship game, but I always tried to make fleets that made sense, no Picard on a Vorcha with a Romulan Helmsman and Borg weapon or something, and it really felt like I was at a big disadvantage, but when I won it felt like a big achievement. Wizkids has been a mess and so it really did need more rules revamps than it got tbh, but if you're building thematic things with your friends then the game is great! I wish I had locals I could get to play all those packed in mission cards with, but OPs were all I could get, and now those have dried up. You might not like it because it's a campaign, but the Dominion War sets they made are great and you're playing cooperatively with your friends so it's not like you're getting a huge disadvantage so much as getting to upgrade your ships. I'd really highly recommend it and have enjoyed playing it solo!

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks, yeah I always play with the correct people on the correct ships, defo can be a disadvantage as my buddy, who is not a trekkie, just plays whatever, which doesn't seem right to me ha ha

[@jittersgeyser620]

9th to 10th was not an innovative or major change. Just a screw over for late 9th codex buyers for a very similar format that is squeezing more money. Ruined my excitement and interest for 40k tabletop.

[@IDICBeer]

It's a big shame :(

[@patarfuifui]

Rules constantly changing is definitely my big issue with Warhammer generally. I only get to play once every couple of months and the game is so varied I feel obligated to cram information to understand why my previous list is or isn't viable anymore.

[@IDICBeer]

Yeah the game is set for more regular players for sure

[@DIMOHA25]

Do try playing an older edition, like with the star trek game. I don't see how the channel is going to be a problem if you frame it right. You can make it into an entire retrospective series, going back in time through the editions, and then playing some more of your own favourite and the audience favourite.

[@IDICBeer]

Finding willing opponents is the main issue, but I did manage to get Richard to play a few 3rd edition themed games so you never know 😁

[@onionhat745]

Every wargamer needs to try the Tyranid Attack scenario from 2nd Ed. Basically, it's a six turn game in which respawning Tyranids must destroy every single enemy unit on the table, or lose. It's so tense for both players, for different reasons.

[@YouWinAFREEiPOD]

The Poorhammer guys made a Co-Op mode game mode that might be a lot of fun to check out if you're into asymmetric games. 🦟

[@azarththekobold]

I'm only up to the part where you're talking about rules, and it reminded me of a made up mission I've always wanted to play involving my Drukhari, that mission being planetary abduction. The idea being that my Drukhari are trying to abduct as many citizens as possible to take them back to Cammoragh, while the opponent's mission is to kill as many Drukhari as they can. There would be miniatures representing the citizens that are controlled by the defender and those citizens would start scattered around the middle of the board, and those citizens can move around the board and try to hide as the Drukhari hunt them down and fight the defenders. I've always wanted to play this mission, as it sounds so fun and fluffy but I never been able to since the majority of people I know who play 40k like to play competitively and the only ones who doesn't are not playing anymore (because 40k is just too expensive, they don't have the time or space, and they just don't like the recent editions). I also had a few other fun fluffy missions for my Necrons too

[@IDICBeer]

That does sound like a fun game. A local gaming group, or lack of it, really impacts everyone in different ways

[@Corellian]

Thank you for your comment, I understand how the leaning towards competitiveness can make the game boring. I am lucky to get one game in a month and I have to say it's easier to make your own scenarios with your own tweaked rules with a competitively "meta" balanced game, than trying to play a competitively balanced game with rules designed for uneven "fun" scenarios. I personally like to design a list and play (usually my brother), lose, and know that I can go home, do my homework and come back with a "better" list and maybe win.

[@IDICBeer]

Yeah that's a good point my friend

[@DrErikNefarious]

Apparently 10th ed necrons have a lot of builds involving wraiths. I've been playing since 5th and never really got the new wraiths and my old ones are technically ophydian destroyers now, so, I was kind of SoL for the current meta unless I built and painted a bunch of new wraiths.

[@IDICBeer]

Keeping up with the meta can be hard and yes, Wraiths are great, but they might change with the new mission pack

[@whotookmydice]

Great insights Nick! I’m in the same boat on a lot of things. It’s very competitive heavy at the moment and while very freeing on terms of list building also very restrictive.

[@IDICBeer]

It's like anything I suppose, there is good and bad, it will never be perfect

[@whotookmydice]

@@IDICBeer that’s true. GW will always follow the money, so what sells will get the attention.

[@CJayUA]

Thanks for sharing Nick, I really thought I was going crazy with my feeling about playing 10th. All your points are so valid and for me the biggest problem is how they tackled Codexes and detachments. In codexes, they removed the crux of units and dropped their points - awful game design imo. For detachments, they locked up which units / mechanics are affected and thus limited creativity and exploration. It gets stale very quickly. Thus, I’m switching to KT for the foreseeable future.

[@IDICBeer]

Never actually played Kill Team, but it looks like a fun option

[@CharleyPedals]

You've inspired me to try a new format... we're gonna make up some crazy missions and try those. Thanks for the nudge 👍

[@IDICBeer]

Sounds like so much fun

[@thepharos]

I completely agree with the position! but GW have produced some "in the middle" stuff. Have you seen the scenarios of the month from White Dwarf? and or the exemplary battles which are in the downloads section? I am really looking forward to playing some of those with my friends!

[@IDICBeer]

Hi buddy, no I haven't so I will defo check them out and see if I can persuade Richard to try them now and again

[@NathanielPayne-g7h]

With ya here - stopped playing 40k and been playing bolt action way more - I just can't put up with the constant rules changes its ridiculous - whereas bolt action has been unchanged for around 8 years and is only now going to 3rd edition, which will only make a few changes

[@IDICBeer]

Oh that sounds like heaven lol

[@NathanielPayne-g7h]

@@IDICBeer Sure is bliss - love coming back after a 3 month break to find nothing has changed and I don't need to relearn anything. 40k was comparatively so exhausting even bothering to keep up to date with the rules I just could not find the time for it

[@cmclachlan]

good video Nick. Thank you for your honest thoughts

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks fella

[@michaelpatton4012]

Thank you, I really enjoyed this video. I appreciate you sharing your views on the game. I do miss the flexibility of having odd numbered squads as well.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks buddy, glad you enjoyed it

[@kylewells6871]

I play 40k, used to play magic, I play the drums, I love fishing, recently getting into firearms, I have a model railroad, my point is they're all competing for my free time and I can just walk from 40k and it wouldn't phase me. I've been playing since the start of 9th and have loved it, almost to a point of obsession. Right now, as a pure chaos player, im bored AF too. I play DG, CK, and daemons and that last roadmap really kinda put me over the line, that and good luck getting the new mission pack. GW can kiss my whole ass.

[@IDICBeer]

😢

[@Kenneth-k3b]

For me personally there's a few major things I really dislike about 10th, some of which you've touched on. - The first being the catering to the competitive side of things. It strips the fun out of it, unless you're a massive competitive player. For everyone else all we see online is about what's meta, what's viable, half to most of the lists I see, both in person, and online in say battle reports, have tons of epic heroes and nothing else. It really feels like the days of being able to create your own army that's truly yours is gone in favor of cookie cutter armies with a color swap. - The second is the narrative/fluff side just being almost entirely absent. Not that every game has to be part of a wider narrative campaign or a scenario to put the Black Library to shame, but half of the games just bleed into each other, it's the same things over and over again with minor alterations. The missions are boring and the secondaries are just meh half the time. They're just "kill ex unit, get a unit here, hold an objective you can immediately forget about, etc". - Every release comes with it more units that get shoved off into the void that is Legends than are removed. RIP Librarian-nought.

[@IDICBeer]

Yeah 100% my friend

[@758richy]

Another option to spice up your 10th edition experience is to check out the Horde Mode that Poorhammer made. I think it is getting an update within the next few weeks, so probably best to wait for that update. But it is a great way to play the game as more of a fun co-op type experience!

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look into that 👍

[@CarlosPadillaKloz]

Why don't you play Conquest(from Parabellum) Nick? XD I know is difficult to enter in a new game but I think you maybe need a break for 40k I started last year and since I've been switching between the two games and to be fair is quite nice to have options

[@IDICBeer]

Maybe, I don't think it's 40k itself, I always enjoying playing my Necrons and after playing Stevo with a custom mission, that is something which makes a big difference

[@HermieMunster]

I haven’t even got round to opening my Leviathan set yet, the rate of rules updates has put me off. I’ll continue to paint my armies and do small scale 9th. I also play Middle Earth SBG from GW, in contrast to 40k the rules rarely change apart from the odd FAQ it’s nice to go a year without playing and find no rules have changed.

[@IDICBeer]

I hear you buddy

[@rickbardock6581]

I admit that some armies are pretty powerful with stacking Buffs and all of that. Those super specialised armies were given a very good codex with very good rules and data sheets compared to other armies. It's my belief though that the armies with lesser options need comparable options in order to compete on the level and skill of the armies that got the love and attention they have received. But of course when I think about removing options and removing the complicated rules in this game we all love, Warhammer 40k would make it lesser of a game. They keep on bringing myself to want to switch do another system like one page rules, but every time I do, I missed the complexity that my army of choice has in the system as a whole. One of the things though that Games Workshop definitely need to fix, is include all of the FAQs in one place edit edit edit the Core Rulebook and keep on editing Nearly Everything into just one book, instead of having all these rules everywhere, confusing everyone and especially the newcomers to the game, creating a learning curve that is darn near unbearable. One thing that you guys should probably definitely take advantage of though however is how Games Workshop used to manage the rule set. They're used to say that you should use the rules as a guideline on how to play, add house rules that your community can agree on, going forward the game is meant to be fun through and through. But however if tournament play really means that much to you, you can complain all you want, but until you either make your own game or use the rules as just a baseline, I personally would suggest these other outlooks. I myself play tyranid only, most games are very hard and the opposing armies are quite strong, the Mechanics of battle shock being horrible are all just things that I just have to deal with in tournament play if I continue to choose to play that way. Eventually here I will be starting my own game store, I plan on having house rules that my community can agree on and even switching it up, suggesting that our players go back to ninth edition when much of the game was substantially more balanced. Of course integrating somehow the new units from 10th edition, as well as one page rule's unit turn allocation. Naturally this is just my take on the whole rules debacle, as I love the game in the complexity of each of the armies. No other game comes close to offering the complexity that I so cherish about Warhammer 40k, yet being unhappy with the system is not going to upset me too much. All is fair in love and war, but life itself is unfair. Thank you for reading my rant.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks very much for the great comment, defo food for thought

[@contrajey]

Have you looked into Horus Heresy? Barely any rules changes so i can still rock the same army i rolled with from the start or experiment with new things. Definitely give it a look over to try. The new campaigns comming out have fun new narrative missions. Definitely Worth it.

[@IDICBeer]

I did play it a couple of times with my Space Wolves a long time ago, but no Necrons :(

[@LordofInfect]

Hey Nick, I largely agree with the changes being a headache. I played regularly at the beginning of the edition and had to take a hiatus. When I came back this month, the list that I built when I played before wasn't even a legal list, many of the rules were VERY different, and I felt like I was learning a whole new edition. I don't see myself as a competitive player but I do plan on attending a GT this month. I have been a diehard Necron player since the 7th edition, so I know how they tend to play which helped a lot, and the GK player who was my opponent was very experienced and helped me through the changes, but for many players that haven't played since the codex released or play off and on like I do, it can be a very hard change. That coupled with the data cards largely being useless due to the adjustments that they changed and the cards not being able to be updated, forces me to use digital mediums instead of the 55-dollar data cards that I bought and the 50 dollar codex to use as a guide.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks mate, yeah it's like this edition has totally ignored the casual gamers, it is hard to keep up if your games are match play based for sure

[@40kpunk45]

I’m enjoying 10th edition. For me it’s still easier to keep track of everything in game than 9th was, and I feel like there’s less ‘gotcha’ in it, which I like. I like the detachment system and having all the strats on one page. I agree a more casual format that’s not crusade would be great though. I’m also disappointed they haven’t properly supported Boarding Actions, which I really enjoy as a format and has so much more potential.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks buddy, I have totally forgotten about boarding actions lol

[@RSBurgener]

I wish your characters were a bit more customizable. I get the rules bloat problem, 4 enhancements and 6 strategems does make it easier. I just enjoyed imagining a warlord and being able to give him abilities and relics I liked. That's been abbreviated A LOT.

[@IDICBeer]

Yeah and a limited amounts of units they can join

[@crazyyelir4127]

Have you checked out the missions from the Crusade rules? The ones for Tyranic War and Pariah Nexus are interesting and fun to play

[@IDICBeer]

No, but people have suggested them, so am going to check them out thanks

[@crazyyelir4127]

​@IDICBeer they need some adapting as there are no secondary missions, just agendas. And normally they give XP, but you could adjust them to give VP.

[@davidbrechin1559]

I took a break fro 40k around the end of 8th edition because Psychic Awakening was scammy greedy garbage, attempted to come back to the game around the end of 9th only to discover that my half-dozen armies need completely restructured to fit the new codexes/indexes and the rules have become impossible to remember & too expensive to collect. It's just too much work to rebuild 6 armies every 3 years practically from scratch so sadly i've resorted to selling my collection, I just can't keep up anymore financially or otherwise

[@IDICBeer]

I hear you buddy, I gradually stopped buying the rules and playing games with my other armies, just too expensive and I couldn't keep up. I remember playing a different army and different list each week back in 5th without all these issues.

[@6Stevo]

Fantastic vid Nick. Really well thought out discussion points. As usual, your thoughts are fair and concise. I share alot of your thoughts on this current edition.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks mate, much appreciated. It was a hard video to format, it's not like I hate the game or anything, but I had things to say and this seemed like a good way to it.

[@DrunkenDeer]

Can i recommend and please try Ospreys Xenos rampant. The rules are fun but also can be made competitive. Ignore one page rules. Its like the cheap Wish/Temu free version. I cannot stress enough to just take the plunge with buying the book and you can use All your current GW miniatures as its mini agnostic. Alternatively can i suggest going back in time to 2nd edition and do a lil campaign or something and see the difference of what's been lost in tenth.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks buddy, I'll look into that

[@jayhazlegreaves447]

Have you thought about crusade without all the book keeping……just scrap experience, requisition points etc etc and just play through a “campaign” where you both start with “fresh” units each game?

[@IDICBeer]

Hi Jay, honestly I didn't realise that was a thing, but others have commented the same as you, so thanks for that. I'm defo going to give this a go

[@jayhazlegreaves447]

@@IDICBeer I didn’t know it was a thing myself to be honest, I thought I was being clever and just came up with the idea of it off the top of my head 😂😂😂 guess now 😂

[@GrimrDirge]

It's good to be honest about your feelings. Maybe lean more into adjacent rulesets, like onepage rules, kill team, etc? Obviously Necrons are your jam, but maybe you could press them into service in novel ways?

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks pal, yes a change up like that sounds good

[@Resistantkillers]

Just friendly games where your not trying complete random missions to accumulate VP points through the game just one set win/lose conditions for attackers/defenders would be great . maybe doing random side missions awards a bonus like infantry inspired they get +1 to hit or auto pass morale for a turn or award extra CP like you held/broke the line gain 1cp or killed enemy warlord/character nets you 2CP .

[@IDICBeer]

Something like that sounds like fun to me

[@Wonsoky]

I am new coming to warhammer in 10th edition and personally I've been having a blast with it. but I do also tend to enjoy more competitive environments

[@IDICBeer]

Well that is awesome and great to hear. i have also had a lot of fun and I do love the game and hobby, i'm just a little torn with this edition with it not really supporting casual gaming. Defo the best edition for competitive play though for sure, seems pretty balanced as it goes along

[@pyrothem]

Right their with you. Might be trying out Horus Heresy.

[@IDICBeer]

👍

[@paulmurphy5376]

Why not try some non GW games? Horus Heresy is just 40K 3rd edition or something like that.

[@Lord_Aussem]

Heresy is great. I miss xenos factions still but it’s a pretty fantastic game.

[@pyrothem]

@paulmurphy5376 The setting is good with lots of lore missions to recreate. The model support is fantastic as you can find STLs of everything you need and the players are all for the most part playing for good games with fully painted armies. The community has found that Dreadnoughts are too powerful so apparently they have all issued a 1 per 1000 points rule on themselves and no one is mad about it. The rules and points have not changed bedsides fixing errors and FAQ's so your books are still usable. Those are the things I have found looking into it.

[@Matt-FRESHMINTY]

I really enjoyed 8th but I may be biased as that is when I joined the hobby. I still miss warlord traits, point upgrades, relics and a datasheet for my beloved Hector Rex. That said my view on the whole Warhammer experience is still largely positive - Crusade mode is great fun for people like me who aren't WAAC, Black Library is bigger than ever and plastic kits are more detailed now than ever. 10th is a mixed bag for me overall but largely positive and I'm optimistic for what the future holds.

[@IDICBeer]

I bet the edition a player started on is going to be one of their favourites ha ha

[@philgagnon275]

Scarabs are OC 0, unless you have... Is it a character or is it cryptek within a certain distance

[@IDICBeer]

Yes, but I'm talking about units of three in the corners of my deployment zone for investigate signals, larger units with Crypteks still work, send them up with some Wraiths and Technomancer to the midfield :D

[@crazyyelir4127]

​@IDICBeer the corner invistigar signals is gone in the next pack. It's replaced by being near table edges outside of your deployment zone. So a strat you could do is run your scarabs up the side with a cryptek unit, and when that tactical mission comes up, you can use the scarabs to do the action since they will have 1OC from being close to the crytpek.

[@758richy]

I think the biggest miss for 10th edition is that they made some prettt major changes but didn't go as far as trying to flesh out alternaring activations. I've taught a few people 40K and there is alwaya kind of a bit of a surprise and confusion when i explain that each player essentially plays their entire turn while the other player does nothing but roll saves. Sure, there are some strats and such that allow a little interaction, but this is the number one thing thar puts newer players off in my opionion. You can play for hours and make zero choices for half of that time. I've heard many times from experienced players that 40K is just too big of a game for alternating activations to work, but I don't think thats the case. There are "activation points" and things alomg those lines which could be brought into the game so that units can do x number of things per battle round, and would allow for more reactionary play and more complex strategy, and would meam that both players are engaged for the entire game instead of spending half their time bored. Ironically, the same people who don't think 40k would work woth alternating activations also praise changes like Heroic Intervention becoming 1CP because it means it's much more useful now... And like, that's just alternating activaitions lite imo. I'm not saying it would be easy to do, but i really hope they try it for 11th edition because I think a much broader audience would enjoy the game if it were more consistently interactive throughout the whole thing.

[@IDICBeer]

It would be interesting to see if they ever do it, maybe one day

[@nickberry7437]

Happened to come across your video and really enjoyed it. I get how your feeling about the game. It feels like they've killed off the soul of the game and blended everything into a simple match play. That's what chess is for. Everyone does the same thing with no gear customisation to maximise your bang for buck on points or flavour with better gear. GW need to stop changing rules and editions so much and let people collect and play with their armies. It takes a long time to save up, buy, build, paint and now the game is a different game.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks Nick, I appreciate the comment and it's good to know I'm not alone.

[@AnzumanaTaal]

There should be a real narrative focused 40k mode. With rules reflecting that. I play middle earth for narrative and 40k for competitive but would love the option to have a narrative 40k experience like mesbg

[@IDICBeer]

More ways to play would be good

[@jarettduker1507]

Maybe the KZbin hive mind can help me understand this. I have only been in the hobby for a few years but sadly I have a bad opinion of “competitive play,” just because I never have fun. Whenever I play a “competitive” player, the game is about measuring mm angles, positioning models so that no part of a sword tip is appearing over a wall, and using calipers to measure move distances. In my experience the fudge factor of moving models over an uneven and obstacle strewn table pretty much negates tabletop as a competitive environment. Unless you’re the kind of person who really enjoys the act of precise measuring and placing each model “just so,” what is the appeal of competitive play?

[@IDICBeer]

In my experience its the excitment of testing your tactical skills against each other and improving your game

[@MoadikumMoodocks]

Thanks Nick, I appreciate the ticks and crosses approach. It seems like these are the comments a lot of people are making. The narrative lack hit me with AdMech during the short index period, such that I haven't played since and didn't buy the codex because all the reviews showed that the army hadn't really gotten more fun to play. Plus, all the point drops just make it worse. My suspicion though in why people are feeling bored is actually that GW has exceeded content capacity, and so people are just feeling overloaded. Instead of trimming down the range like they said they were doing a few years ago they increased it and adding more games, and significant variations of existing games. It's too unsettled, and there's too much. And then we get new editions, new rules, and rules updates. At a certain point people just stop caring and go somewhere more restful. It's supposed to be game to get away from the stress, struggles and pace of regular life, but GW, like most commercial companies, are now using that psychology against us to get us to buy. And the hobby because a chore. And yet another stress in life. I am currently only painting, and at my own pace. And I am enjoying that a lot more. (Actually, I just started playing a long game of Skyrim at my own pace. Very fun, enjoyable and a nice escape from the stresses of life)

[@IDICBeer]

Thank for the comment, I'll admit, sometimes I just paint too and forget all the rules updates. You are 100% correct, life has enough stress, you don't want it in what you do to relax as well

[@Notachupacabra]

My man and I are finding that One page rules is better for us. the Robot legions are more necrons for me then the Necrons in 10th and the Blood Brothers are more blood Angels for him then the blood angels are in 10th.

[@IDICBeer]

I defo need to try them out, now to persuade Richard lol

[@SavageBruski]

Yanno, this may be the first video I do a "reply" or "response video" to, because you have a lot of good points, but for me they raise questions in the direction of solving the problems you run into. I've also brought up some of these myself. I'm not even thinking of a collab farm sort of thing, but I actually think I can solve what you're experiencing here. Lemme stew on this, if I do make a response, I'll tag you.

[@IDICBeer]

Awesome stuff, that would be fantastic to see, I just subbed you :D

[@SavageBruski]

@@IDICBeer well that's very nice of ya! I didn't expect you to, but thanks. Yeah, I've been running into similar issues and sort of had to reset a bit so, I think I can share some stuff that will help. I'll tag you in the video, gimme a day or two.

[@paulmurphy5376]

I would try out some non GW games. I think you'll really enjoy them. Especially alternating activation games. You can try One Page Rules: Grim Dark Future which you can use your existing 40K models with, or you could try a totally different game like Star Wars Legion. 40K is has a lot of rules bloat (rules that do the same thing in diff factions with different names for example), its a slow game, too much dice rolling, and the "I go, you go" big fat turns are something I don't like that much. I do play it myself despite all that, but mostly this is due to the game being so ubiquitous rather than it being a very good game.

[@IDICBeer]

One page rules is defo on my list to try for sure

[@WillieandLisa2]

I know you love 40K, but have you given any thought to One Page Rules? I only have a few games under my belt, but it’s good fun.

[@IDICBeer]

I've defo considered it, need more willing opponents really ha ha

[@WillieandLisa2]

⁠@@IDICBeer I play my Necron army as Robot Legions, it gives me something different and I find it to be fun. I love, and have bought, the Necron proxies that you have shown us, and I use them in One Page Rules.

[@veryblocky]

You should try playing the Crusade missions, without actually doing Crusade. I’ve done it a few times, and quite a fun way of having a more casual games

[@IDICBeer]

Interesting, i'll look ito that thanks for the suggestion

[@sarahdisco-dolly1150]

At my local store even if you say you want to play a non competitive game those bloody cards are out, an app to keep score is tired up.......My janky mission from a crusade book is put away. I have decided to play something else.

[@icklemoo]

see we just play casually games of a very simple . throw 5 objectives down , and add in 1 or 2 extra bonus points with kill the warlord or warlord survives and crack on ... sometimes we bring in old mission ideas like the Relic from 8th ... lately been writing up some new simple missions taken from the old days of 2nd edition my biggest issue with saying to someone lets play a non competitive game with dumbing down the secondaries etc is people will still often just min max their lists ... my view of non competitive is more fluffy lists not here is 3 x units of insert most powerful elites . minimal trade units if any ....

[@IDICBeer]

😪🙄

[@IDICBeer]

What gaming circle you have to play in has a massive impact on things for sure

[@theprojectside6812]

To be fair, if you don’t have the right group you won’t have fun with Crusade. I love narrative play and I run the 40k narrative campaigns for my club, every time it becomes an absolute breeding ground for people writing narrative (both serious and not so serious, albeit well written) and plenty of in character trash talk, and I love it. But if that’s not something you like you won’t get the most out of crusade.

[@IDICBeer]

Yeah it seems that way

[@timkapernick7317]

Great video! I feel just the same. I have been playing 3d to 5th edition and now came back for 10th. Universal Special Rules are in a way a positive change for newer players but for me it’s plain boring. I played csm in all those editions and giving them the two most used special rules as a defining feature is really a disgrace especially for a faction that always had o lot of random fun rules. Also i feel the same about mission based play. At first I found it a really nice feature to give us more options win games but then I realized that there are only a couple of valid builds per faction.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks Tim, yeah nail on the head there pal

[@Future-Corpse]

Nothing was worse as a new player in 9th than having the nerds at the shop go, "erm actually!" Every time i went to do something. FAQs were so frustrating, and every time they changed, i wanted to flip the table. Add onto that when my 9th codex came out (guard), they removed a ton of units and squadrons that i used very regularly. Nothing is worse than building and painting 90 conscripts (thanks wargames atlantic), and then literally 2 weeks later, I "can't use them" my 3 printed basilisks that still cost me an arm and a leg couldnt be run as a trio anymore and my ministorum retinue didnt have crusaders anymore. I finally got around to trying and finding niche ways to use my units until they announced 10th. Then i realized that by the time i got comfortable with my army again it would all change a second time. Anymore i only play 9th. My friends after some time playing 10th finally came around and only play 9th as well. Rules as written. No FAQs and if we feel like we need to change something, we homebrew it.

[@IDICBeer]

That's a great idea my friend, if you are all down for it then why not

[@Joushi40k]

Hey I'm definitely much more focused on the tournament matched play and even I feel this way quite a bit. I've only played 5e (casually) and started playing again at the tail end of 9th with Arks of Omen 10th edition has felt more like chess than the rest of my games. Most armies feel very... similar. Terminators, Bullgryn, Wraiths, Meganobz to control the center of the board. Scarabs, Nurglings, Cyclops, Spore Mines to score Secondaries Feeling like chess could be great, but I already play a lot of chess. I'm pretty decent at it. 40k appealed to me because it felt somewhere between dnd and chess, and there's almost no dnd feel to it at all. It doesn't need much to scratch the itch, it just doesn't scratch it at all Cheers

[@IDICBeer]

That's a reat observation, thanks for sharing, you are defo correct, there is more of a board game feel to 10th

[@ishitrealbad3039]

as someone who was eyeballling 40K for a long time, I decided to buy an army about half a year ago and finally got it complete (3000pts) but i have yet to start playing a game, and all the recent changes really has me confused. so much so that i don't even know if my army is even legal anymore and i don't know where and how to check this..... i think 40K is probably the least new player friendly tabletop game ever, due to all the rules changes constantly as you said. Atleast Magic the Gathering kept things consistent ( it also makes it easier that rules are displayed on the cards).

[@IDICBeer]

It's certainly tough for dure. You can find all the rules updates on the Warhammer Community website under downloads

[@ishitrealbad3039]

@@IDICBeer oh thanks, didn't even realise it was there!

[@jacobcarlson8576]

Brother I feel exactly the same way you feel on this. I'm working on my Necrons as I'm listening to this. I've definitely had these thoughts too. All the lists seem the same and all the games are kinda eh, fun, but eh. It seems like there's something missing. I'm also not a super competitive player either.

[@IDICBeer]

I'm glad I'm not alone, I still love the hobby and playing, but it seems very different to the good old days ha ha

[@jacobcarlson8576]

@@IDICBeer you're definitely not alone on this. I also love the hobby, but I agree. I think (I don't want to speak for you) it feels always like a money grab. Selling points not so much selling a fun game.

[@IDICBeer]

@@jacobcarlson8576 👍🙄

[@rustyspoonss]

Ive come from 5th to 10th and i remember doing quite well in 5th i was by no means a pro but i won probably as much as i lost with an army of units i thought were cool, no i feel i have to build an army to fit the meta or i just get stomped.

[@IDICBeer]

Yeah things have changed a lot

[@TheSkinBlog5270]

The most frustrating part of 10th edition is the 3 stratagems that only 50% of factions have access too or viable use for; smoke screen, tank shock (which should be for monsters aswell) and grenades.

[@IDICBeer]

Yeah I can't argue with that

[@demonprinceofkhorne]

I get rather frustrated with both points changes and campaign modes. If your army kind of sucks the ‘solution’ is to reduce the points which just means you need more models from the range that doesn’t do that well. So all that happens is your opponent kills more models just as fast. For me a points reduction is often a feel bad period of time. What id love is for actual datasheets and abilities to be updated. 40 models that can’t score a wound isn’t better than 20 models that can’t score a wound. But 10 models with a better gun that lets me score a few wounds is infinitely better. Crusade/campaigns have a snowball problem. If you lose you get nerfs which make it harder to win, and if you win you get buffs which make it easier to win. Lose 3 games in a row in crusade and you may as well drop out. They should make the campaign stuff more balanced so that if you lose you could come back with vengeance and if you win you can still be buffed. The whole game is too snowbally with not enough catch up mechanics. I think GW are aware of this with the introduction of underdog mechanics and desperate ploy objectives but I don’t think it addresses the issue as much as it needs to be addressed

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks for your thoughts, much appreciated. That's interesting about Crusade

[@DreadWaaaghGaming]

Really good video Nick, your feelings are completely understandable and shared by many. So many of us love this universe but feel uncomfortable with the way the game is heading and the practises the company use. You usually find people at each extreme; loving everything and defending GW to the hilt or sour as hell hating everything new, but there is a massive rise in people sat in the middle I feel, loving the hobby but fed up with it too

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks mate, not an easy video to make as it's not that bad for me and an easy solve really, just throw in a few more fun games. I wanted to make a video showing both sides and I hope I pulled it off well

[@twiggy09100]

Personally I've only played since 9th but alot of what you said makes sence talking to other, but I'd say just play what makes you happy, units you wanna use old missions you wanna play, get two groups maybe one for fun and one for matched, never done match played yet but mr and my friend make home brew rules for fun to keep it interesting, gotta look after that mental health there bud, take it easy

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks buddy

[@joekrampus1154]

When you say you don’t like narrative because Crusade doesn’t do it for you, I think you mean you don’t like campaign mode. If the base game was narrative missions, and then you could move on to crusade for a campaign feel, or tournament mode, where things were modified and standardized for a better competitive experience, that would be the best balance for everyone.

[@IDICBeer]

Yeah that's exactly what I mean Joe, also great idea

[@OldGuyRetros]

When I was about SM against Hive fleet leviathan it was fun just boring when the others got codex's and the crusade started same old crazy lists with over powered weapons

[@IDICBeer]

🙄

[@xandermacleod]

We all defo get a bit of burnout. I feel like the problem with Crusade is that it's trying to toe the line between narrative and competitive. Narrative games, before crusade tried to codify it, were the funnest.

[@IDICBeer]

People have suggested just playing a crusade mission as a stand alone game, which sounds like a good idea

[@ltGargoyle]

4th edition was the best in my opinion. I still have all the rogue trader missions for that edition. tenth has a lot of 4th elements. my group had one person set the terrain and the opponent got to choose his deployment first.

[@IDICBeer]

I had a lot of fun with 4th

[@paulburt1254]

Finally found a group to play warhammer40k with. . .and they're running 9th! Excited!

[@IDICBeer]

Nice

[@Nagashworshiper]

I really miss 3rd edition type rules. Armour on tanks. Things normaly had 1 wound. Less dice Rolling. More Tactics. Was just a more fun game

[@IDICBeer]

Defo a different time for gaming, I have so many great memories from 3rd

[@SumsieBun]

Im sorry you feel that way. Ive gotta say im getting kind of tired joining a new hobby and all the veterans and people I want to learn from and hear about the game and everyone just complains about how miserable the game is and how everything sucks and “oh third or eights or whatever edition was better.“ it just makes me feel like i missed the party and im wasting my time having fun in the corner or something. This exact same things happened to me when I started playing WOW back in January. Idk dude, take a break or something.

[@IDICBeer]

Well, there is a lot of things I like about it and I do enjoy the game a lot, if I can play a few more fun games as well as match play here and there I think my issue will be solved. You'll see that in Monday's batrep against 6+Stevo :D

[@male1ism]

If you don't know the history you have no right to be nasty to a grognard. You might find down the line that you also prefer the more narrative, less balanced wargaming. Guys like Nick should speak up so that GW can find a way to cater to them as well, instead of just leaving them in the dust.

[@dannyslag]

Part of what bored me out of playing 40k is the turn structure not having alternative activations and more interesting interactions. You usually spend an hour just waiting for your opponent to finish killing you with nothing to do. You go I go game design is so outdated. And because of their game design there's only a tiny set of things special rules can do, reroll a die or reroll all dice, that's it. Compare that to MCP where you can react with various abilities, there are multiple status effects and triggers other than just "reroll a die".

[@IDICBeer]

Its not like GW haven't had games with alternating turns, they had it with the old Man O War game

[@Night_Geist]

I’m a player who’s followed 40K since 2000 but never had the funds to play. Started kill team 2021 and loved it. Built up to a full 2k pt aeldari list and 10th is my first edition. My only gripe is harlequin treatment but other than that, 10th has been a blast. I’ve won local tournaments and played many casual games on tts. I have to be honest, most of your complaints are confusing to me but perhaps it’s due to my experience and lack thereof of previous editions. The balance is great, army building is great, I’m not sure what you mean about bland lists. Yes every race has cool units that have lethal or sustained hits. Everyone wants some cool units. Why can’t you play the more interesting games? I built a pure phoenix lord list with small units to go with them and it’s some of the most fun games I’ve had, even in competitive settings. Trying to figure out how to make it work with “suboptimal” list is so much fun. No one is stopping you from recreating 4th edition style games. Only perhaps those you’re playing with. Even when playing suboptimal lists, most people have a close game with me, only the most competitive players would wipe me. And against those particular few, I’ll play a more competitive list. Also, playing with suboptimal lists has helped me create my own surprise units that people don’t expect to be so effective. All in all, it just feels like the things you’re complaining about are under your control.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks buddy, lots if great points. tbf I usually do take more themed lists and enjoy the challenge, but over the last few years I play against someone who plays the nastiest lists they can, and as I make my games into battle reports and I get slammed there's not much fun in that so I've been on a train of playing the bests lists I can for a while. Regarding bland lists, it's more about everyone list building for the missions which are so predictable that army elements all seem the same

[@Night_Geist]

@@IDICBeer I guess my question along those lines is that a GW thing or an opponent thing. Wouldn’t the same thing happen regardless of the edition if you took a themed list versus a lean competitive list? Im not trying to attack you, hope it doesn’t come across that way, I’ve heard some local guys have say some of the same things. Part of it is me trying to understand what you’re really asking for GW to do. Aren’t people always going to list build to the missions? Even if they made more fun one off game modes/missions, wouldn’t it still be a problem if your opponent was super competitive and you’re just trying to have a fun game? I agree with you that the game feels pretty balanced and as Eldar it’s pretty fun trying to survive, lol. If it wasn’t balanced, I know people would complain about that. I’m glad you did talk about some of the positives. Hope you have more fun games in the future!

[@IDICBeer]

@@Night_Geist Yeah it's not GWs fault as such, just current circumstances, but GW have defo geared it more towards match play, so it's nor surprising I suppose 👍

[@jakovskaro8224]

Nooo! Why did you remove fist up Necron mainstay icon?! 😂

[@IDICBeer]

She'll be back :D

[@jakovskaro8224]

@@IDICBeer she better be! 🤣 She’s half of the video 4 me. Reminds me of my son. He has same energy when he talks about his army. Got him Necromunda. All of his own. 🤦🏻‍♂️ It’s a mess … but loads of fun

[@Rd0Lg]

Regarding more narrative, fluffy games, you can just play Crusade missions and not play it as if it's a Crusade. Homebrew some stuff if things are boring. It's your hobby, GW can't cater to everyone, so use 10th as a skeleton to build something you enjoy playing.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks, that sounds good, but I do have a very limited amount of players to play, which in itself is an issue. I enjoy a good match play game, just not all the time

[@mykyzer23]

You put across your feelings well and they were all fair as I dont play 10th I have stuck to a home brew of 8th/9th. Time is a big issue for people. I think the game needs to take under 2hrs for myself to not be burnt out buy rules brain drain. Would like to see what you do regarding a tomb sentinal when your in a building mood. NECRONS!

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks buddy, I do still love the hobby and have decided the tomb setinal is the way I will go with the Wraiths, I've wanted to do it for a while now and it looks like a fun project :D NECRONS!!

[@Badbufon]

there are channels doing content about second edition and space crusade, poorhammer's horde mode has some traction as well, in the realm of yugioh cimooo decided that he didn't wanted to play rank ladder and made a masochist mode that also kickstarted another fanmade mode that got a lot of viewers and other youtubers jumping in. so i think you will be fine if you make content about how you enjoy playing the game rather than keeping track of the meta if you are not into it

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks buddy, that's a good point

[@TheTobaccoman]

Oh and as an aside , I loved your Star Trek attack wing videos. Dry under rated game and has a lot of fun with it. Just as an aside.

[@IDICBeer]

Thanks buddy :D

[@ZombieMonkey7]

Well at least AOS 4th edition is looking pretty promising :P

[@IDICBeer]

Ha ha

[@UnkaStunka]

It is if you prefer boardgames to wargames.

[@40KWill]

Can't really tell. Only rules drip so far. It might end up over balanced and feel like a board game over a war game.

[@TheTobaccoman]

Who is to imagine no real choices to make and locked unit sizes and basically 0 decisions made in army construction would leave someone feeling bored ? That’s what I’ve hated about this edition. Removal of choice is the death of fun for me personally.

[@IDICBeer]

Yeah, easier is good, but less choice is bad

[@TheTobaccoman]

Yeah they could have streamlined but kept on choice. That was half the fun , deciding on unit upgrades , unit sizes , finding those sweet spots , etc. It’s like they just jump way too far one way or the other and can’t find that happy middle ground.

[@Nozomivamp]

I came into the hobby at the tail end of 9th and really started playing at the start of 10th. I've been having a lot of fun, GW is pissing me off cause I can't buy models but that's besides the point. My local shop owner says he believes rules-wise 10th is one of the best editions, balance has been pretty bad overall and a lot of people have dropped off cause it just isn't that much fun. Even I'm starting to get a bit bored, I've got all 3 armies I want, been starting to play more necromunda too, hopefully we can get some more peeps playing necromunda when the new set comes out

[@IDICBeer]

It must be a hard juggle for GW and whatever they do they won't please everyone

[@2112pjm]

I was an X wing player until the new rules that came on meant that the board was full of up to 16 ships . I felt the same as you do about 40K. Not fun too try hard competitive, 40K heading the same way

[@IDICBeer]

I sort of feel GW need to cater for both match and casual play a lot more

[@UnkaStunka]

Yes as I said in your little survey, 10th is boring plain and simple. However since I started Warmachine MK4 Im not bored anymore 😊 By the way Warmachine was made for competitive gamers and it is really balanced but more important with a creative game play.

[@IDICBeer]

I nearly started warmachine many many years ago, but it never quite happened