You should be playing 40k at 1,000 Points

[@adrianscott4288]

This is the kind of video that would REALLY benefit from comparing pics of a "typical" army from each edition, right from 2nd edition to 10th.

[@COOPALOOPTROOPA]

+1 Would be cool to see and a decent length video for each army.

[@linkmaxwell]

I saw an Ultramarines 1500 list from 4e - 5x tac squads, 1x Terminator squad, Rhino, Razorback, 2x Land Speeders, Dreadnought, Captain in T armor

[@Sludge_Grinder]

I had a 2000pt Drukhari army in 9th that i shelved when getting into 10th. I recently dusted them off and realized I could barely scrounge together 1400 points!

[@Nook772]

thats crazy cause my tau was actually 2k in 8th and 1k in tenth too

[@jalpat2272]

​@@Nook772is it a blobs of battlesuits?

[@Nook772]

@@jalpat2272 yeah 😭

[@davidruiz9020]

Is that inflation? 😂 Votann became an horde army but when released were elite one. Double inflation

[@davidruiz9020]

Oh, Matthew call it inflation too I am gonna use that term often

[@JDuds1066]

My group almost exclusively plays 1250. Small enough to get done in about 2 hours but big enough to use a diverse amount of models.

[@jesterprince4949]

1000 pts + a 250pt(ish) monster unit but not so much that everyone can take all the scary units.

[@xilch0]

I really like this game size as well. We've been playing a narrative style campaign where every person has a pre submitted "pool" of available units to them that caps at 2k. Then we make our game day 1250 lists out of what's in that 2k pool. It feels like generals being tactically flexible to their situations/encounters. And nobody feels like they had to build to a design and are locked out of being adaptable for matchups or missions.

[@die_flugel_der_freiheit7382]

Same her in Moscow.

[@bowler9785]

We do the same at my LGS. 1250 is the perfect size for our smaller tables too

[@Ghislain82]

Our casual night is played at 1250 points as well.

[@morzorkatvfm]

My 1000 point Kroot army is bigger than my 2000 point Gloomspite Gitz army.

[@dal3553]

Feel like I had a second job last year building my 2k kroot. I feel you. lol

[@GoliathGamesNC]

Impressive

[@Bluecho4]

This illustrates the utterly bonkers scale creep for army sizes in 40K, versus AoS. I remember in AoS 3rd ed, when the Stormcast Eternals half of the Dominion box would come up to something like 800 pts (albeit a bunch of that is the big character model). That's nearly half the army, for theoretically $150 (half the cost of Dominion). (In reality, I've seen the whole Dominion box going for $100 on the secondary market; I had to stop myself from buying them, simply due to my pile of shame). Or look at Greater Daemons. In 40K, they're maybe ~200 pts. In AoS, they're around 500 pts, a quarter of your army. Which is where they're SUPPOSED to be priced at, for a $170+ centerpiece model!

[@carnivalwilson5064]

Oh my God, so much this! I also have a 2k Kroot army and I love it! I love how it looks and I love the horde play style. However, its not just a huge number of models, I've also found it plays best as MSU. I played a 1250pt game with 19 units and 98 models. It took over 4 hours. I would love to bring my Kroot to some of the events at my FLGS but there's just no possible way I'd finish any game.

[@morzorkatvfm]

@@carnivalwilson5064 2000 points of pure Kroot is insane and absurdely expensive. As it stands I have no plans to play 2k so 1k was my goal but even then it's a lot both in models and money.

[@Marxside]

1500 points for 10th I 100% believe is the sweet spot

[@mizzrum7591]

I 100% agree with you, I find by playing at 1,500 points me and my friend can get two games done in about 6 hours. That us playing on a 4 by 3 foot game table. But I'm willing to give 1,000 points a try.

[@fabiusque4266]

I agree. 1500 point is enough to make every faction work, at 1000 points there is too much difference in how good the army work. I like playing both 1k and 1500 points but at 1k points, some of the armies feel like you pretty much shoot yourself in the leg before a race because you have to cut down on so much of the stuff you need to play the game.

[@janehrahan5116]

1500 used to be the standard

[@ThePhildozer89]

I'm newer to 40k and wargaming in general and I agree. 2000 feels like too much, 1000 seems like I have not enough.

[@JS-mu9qd]

Ive seen a lot of people play with 1250 points and i think that is also very nice point size. We also play 1500 points for some games, but we have reduced it to 1250 for most games for now.

[@Susanoo0097]

In my area ive started organising 1000 point tournaments with 250point sideboard (like in card games). When you get to your table and see the faction of your opponent you can swap units between your list and your sideboard and then you play standard 1k point game. And we can play whole 3 round tournament in 7 hours :D

[@Marxside]

Oh! The reason 6x4 ft was the format for a years was because back in the day games workshop used ping pong tables to play games on and they were 6x4

[@DrDahlAX]

Ping pong is 9x5.

[@denijsbeerjos2814]

We still just use the old 6x4 tables from 5th edition at my lgs. Works just fine.

[@7aro7Dragoon]

6x4 is objectively better and more fun. I hate the weird awkward new table size

[@Marxside]

@@DrDahlAX table tennis my apologies

[@FLPRF]

​@@MarxsideStill 9'x5'

[@SkullBusiness]

"You can break the shackles of having to follow the suggestions in the rules and do whatever you want." It's sort of astounding how many people in a creative hobby don't seem to understand this.

[@andrewseaman9913]

Its not a creative hobby for a lot of folks - tons of people pay to have their models assembled, or never paint anything themselves. The balance of 40k from being creative to being just a competitive game continues to shift with each new edition.

[@jackphilly]

The strength of 40k is that there’s a healthy competitive scene that all agrees upon the same rules. The game is balanced currently around 2k and the overwhelming amount of resources, commentary, and strategy guides are written around building for 2k. Therefore people mostly play at 2k. If GW moved tournaments to 1500 most if not all RTT’s etc downstream would change as well.

[@lonecolamarine]

"TEH CODEX OF MY ARMY DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS ACTION"

[@m33ddyhv]

Very true, i dislike the way that the community is heading. Most of my Lgs crowd are just meta chasers that talk about in-game stuff. Its sad.

[@adrianscott4288]

GW has gone to alot of effort to stifle creativity in 40k. Their kits are harder to customise and they come with fewer extra bits. They encourage you to use the "correct" base sizes for units but base sizes have never been in the unit profiles - you need to buy the "official" models to figure out what bases them come on. Rules for points values strongly encourage you to play 1k or 2k, but nothing in between. And the popular army customisation rules of 3rd/4th Ed were pretty much killed in favour of more generic army rules. You can still get creative with how you choose to build your army and play 40k, but GW has done their best to discourage it.

[@benn1181]

1000, 1250, 1500 all great point levels. I'm sick of playing 2k.

[@Nobleshield]

2000 is a terrible value. 1500 was standard for years for a reason

[@joshuajamessmith9030]

For 2hrs stuck on round 2

[@forgedwarrior20]

I play 2,000 points in 3 hours. Its really not that serious. Lol

[@JohnnyTightIips]

A 60 x 44 inch table covered in as many ruins as they expect to be placed is tiny for how many minis you might have in a 2k army. It's nuts

[@GoliathGamesNC]

They need to go back to 6x4 feet

[@razgriz8675]

Everybody still plays on 6x4 for full size games in my area.

[@MissZencefil]

range used to matter, now only 12" weapons matter, all other weapons can hit with a bit of movement turn 1, thus making it a must to have lots of terrain.

[@braders790boop]

@@MissZencefil this. 'long range' artillery guns should be 24. some elite units can be 18". most infantry weapons should be 12. pistols and flamers should be 6.

[@jules9094]

@@braders790boop go back to artillery scattering and also having to guess range. I could take or leave guess range but scattering was awesome

[@GlassHalfDead]

1k points is easily the best form factor I've played it at. It would need a bit of mods to make the higher cost models work, but nothing too crazy, easily manageable. And frankly, the board size just isn't fit for the number of models on the board at 2k. Edit: Which you mention both of, it turns out! I think an addition to why people take the minimum suggested size and similar things from the core rules is because GW is now actively doing their own tournaments again which of course means everyone is following suit. As you know, in the between years when GW completely withdrew from the community, player comp packs were everywhere and tourneys were far more varied. We seem to have lost a lot of that (for obvious reasons)

[@willnox1]

1000% yes. Also a underrated format Boarding Actions. Love hearing your personal opinions and thoughts. I CAN'T STAND HOW GW MADE THE BOARD SMALLER. I only play 6x4 regardless. With smaller boards movement effectively means nothing. GW has been removing the "Tactical" aspect of 40k for editions now Back in 7th 1500pts was perfect. I miss 7th more and more.

[@MWG_Matthew]

It's funny, I never thought 7th was a good edition. But the more we move past it, the more I miss it. It's probably just one of those "you love what you played when you were younger" things

[@BotRetro]

​@@MWG_MatthewIt's not just nostalgia. The 3rd-7th era 40k was an entirely different game - vehicle facing and firing arcs mattered, movement was more strict - it felt more like a lite-simulation. With all that gone, complexity was added through other mechanics instead - like stratagems - that feel much more detached from what's happening on the table. It feels a bit like a TCG thing

[@pbodan6691]

@@MWG_Matthew I think the ruleset with 7th was fine, what killed it (at least in the group of people I was with at the time) was that certain armies were incredibly unbalanced

[@mauricetoirkens6455]

If younlliked 7th, you should give horus heresy a try

[@philedwards7331]

@@MWG_Matthew I only started 40K in 8th, but played a lot of classic BattleTech and have to agree with you. It seems most tabletop games are going the Dopamine Rush route. While I believe some streamlining is good for gameplay, tactics and strategy maketh the war game.

[@die_flugel_der_freiheit7382]

Here in Moscow 1250p format is extremely popular, because 1k feels limited at times, so to have some more elite units or maybe add some extra enhancements or scoring battleline we keep it at 1250 for standard casual games. Our tables are also smaller than in the UK/US and even smaller than we play half a table in the clubs, because full table is used only for 2k games and you pay extra for it. Also there are too many players at once for each to have a full on table. I think 1250p is perfect, it’s fun, not too time consuming and competitive at the same time, although not when you play against a heavy melee army like Orks/World Eaters that can come at you turn one(especially if they go first) all the way to your deployment zone. Been quite a few times my sisters couldn’t do anything and I’d lose by second turn, because my assets would be wiped out. But that’s the thing about playing half a table. But 1250 at full table is really fun!

[@dinoknight6538]

Moscow, Idaho? You with wheatbelt wargamers?

[@dkbeatzofficial2693]

Mf with a German name, living in Russia, commenting in English

[@die_flugel_der_freiheit7382]

@@dinoknight6538 Moscow, Russia. XD

[@die_flugel_der_freiheit7382]

@@dkbeatzofficial2693 it’s good to study languages, although my German is quite poor, to be honest.

[@dkbeatzofficial2693]

@@die_flugel_der_freiheit7382 Dann sind wir doch auf der selben Seite mein Freund.

[@blake923]

As someone who took a couple of editions off and then came back to play in 10th edition, I feel the same way about 1000 points as you do. It's really difficult to find that much time and it's really difficult to deal with that many mechanics not only in your army but in the opponent's army. I'm at ork player and so I always get crapped on for bringing a lot of models even though it's not my fault things are so cheap and my turns aren't even that long it's just everybody having to look up rules and stare at their dice for half the game. Edit: I now prefer to play kill team

[@danielsandoval7193]

I played 1000 points Warhammer for years, tried 3rd edition of Kill Team and never looked back.

[@philedwards7331]

I completely agree. In fact, I've stopped playing full 40K and have moved 100% over to Boarding Actions. Smaller games have advantages for a lot of people and buying a 500 point force multiple times a year seems easier to digest than facing buying a full 2000 (+) points.

[@HoudiniGameArtist]

I 3d printed a set of walls but I can't find anyone in my community that wants to try it out. 😢

[@philedwards7331]

@HoudiniGameArtist Can you put together multiple forces for people to play? Do you play at a store, club, or other venue?

[@Saunders-m6t]

Only thing about boarding actions is the time to set up a board it's crazy doing it solo b4 other player arrives. Last one was 2 hours

[@TheH0ff]

​@@Saunders-m6t just color code or label your walls on the bottoms. It makes things waaay faster to set up. Then you don't need to refer to that page in the back of the book. Masking tape and a sharpie - done.

[@HoudiniGameArtist]

@@philedwards7331 I personally have maybe 8-10 army load outs, if we proxy a thing here or there. And I mostly just play my local leagues and tournaments. So I guess it's more the competitive scene. I guess I should try the casual scene.

[@colbybastian17]

As a melee army player, the idea of having to trudge across an 8' board immediately makes me cry

[@anophelesnow3957]

As an Eldar player, I'd love an 8 foot table entirely covered in terrain!

[@colbybastian17]

@anophelesnow3957 I BET you would :P

[@chrisjones6792]

Thats what the terrain is for. Gives you a way tk survive but makes you actually play the game instead of stepping across the table in one stride.

[@colbybastian17]

@chrisjones6792 it doesn't matter that you're safe if you literally can't reach them. The fastest move you're generally going to find is 12", meaning you're taking 3-4 t7rns JUST to cross no-mans-land. If y9u are a melee army, you likely won't get to hit your enemy before the game ends

[@tireironman]

It was doable back in the day. bring transports, drop pods (or their equivalent), jump packs and use the terrain.

[@bryceneuberger3460]

I can't watch the video just yet, but based on the title: YES! I was just saying this! 1k kitchen table Warhammer is best

[@MWG_Matthew]

^ This guy gets it.

[@MWG_Matthew]

Wait, that looks like I'm pointing at me. @bryceneuberger3460

[@mattl_]

⬆️ these guys both get it ⬆️

[@misomiso8228]

Continued! There is a also a theory in game design about 'Mental Load'. Gamers can only take a set amount of complexity in any given time frame, so if you have bigger armies games are more stressful to play. You really want to design games around a set mental load in relation to the number of models! So it would be fine if GW had bigger model games SO LONG AS THE MENTAL LOAD IS NOT INCREASED. That would make playing the game a lot less taxing. At the moment we have the worst of all worlds. The game is over complex, and too big, so people don't like playing it.

[@blake923]

I 100% agree. My new friends that started with this Edition don't understand why I'm so stressed playing for three freaking hours

[@Eugromlol]

I disagree that the game is to big, that's a minority problem. However the rules being over complex and the way the game is being played right now is definitely bad.

[@EverydayEldrad]

Play knights, lower mental load

[@stevenschnepp576]

Mental load is why I tell my wife to use multiple copies of the same unit rather than a half-dozen different units when making her Space Wolf list. I use Guard, so I already do that.

[@misomiso8228]

@@stevenschnepp576 You either do that, or you take the same list all the time. That way you get used to it and all it's idiosyncrasies.

[@Zenhammerhogan]

Im so glad someone has said this. Ive played maybe 4 games in my life, and one of the reasons its been so difficult is because of the sheer logistics of getting so many models safely to a tabeltop room booked in the next town, and then taking 4-5 hours on a weekday evening to complete the whole thing and get back. Maybe it wouldn't help a lot, but itd feel a lot more attractive if 1000 points was more acceptable, and not like you're asking someone to babysit when suggesting it. And personally i prefer the idea of smaller table sizes, as these huge tables quoted dont really seem to exist unless at a specialised club. Id love to organise smaller games at home or other people's houses.

[@weirdhammer]

After about 3 hours of doing ANYTHING I'm ready to do something else. Right now I'm really enjoying spearhead!

[@o0krazyboris0o]

Good vid, one small issue. Wargames typically require at least one other player, and finding like minded individuals within small communities is not easy. In our area, we still have players who wouldn't even consider trying One Page Rules for example.

[@LRSD.Drakon]

This is my issue. But still rather play OPR (which covers all the mentioned facts btw) then 40k - I've been playing GW since 2nd edition, and loving OPR way better especially with direction GW is taking 40k.

[@fateweaver9844]

OPR is lame AF

[@Sqweegi]

OPR is cool AF

[@TacticalMetalhead]

@@fateweaver9844 I felt the same way until I played a 4,000pts game. Its great for new players getting into wargaming

[@fateweaver9844]

@@TacticalMetalhead To each their own I guess

[@baloonfart8082]

Preach. For Point #2 - My Orkz are so voluminous they take the entire deployment zone at 2000.

[@biornr.4031]

I have never played above 1,5k and I don't intend to. Already at that size, the game game starts hitting a sort of roof, where you risk kinda just standing around while the other guy's rolling dice at you (unless of course there's good banter, banter makes everything better, which is part of why I also love crusade). I have tried talking people further down to 1k, but many players are sadly stuck on2k being almost dogma. Playing at lower pts is also more satisfying, because the individual units matter a bit more, which makes choices more interesting and impactful, which in turn makes the game more fun (at least for me) I also share your gripes about small tables. I want to be able to maneuver a bit without worrying about charges next time my opponent has a turn

[@Russlem]

It's because the game isn't balanced below 2000 points and doesn't really work below 2000 points for the vast majority of armies in the game. The video covers a lot of generalities, but no specifics. Pariah Nexus missions typically run 5 objective markers and 18 mission cards. You have your home objective, midfield objective, expansion objective, opponent's expansion objective, and opponent's homefield objective. Competitive play usually runs the random Tactical Mission card set. There's also an entire sub-game that occurs before the first turn called the shadow war that occurs between infiltrators and scouting units to move block armies and screen the midfield. So, generally, your list construction will need a minimum of 4-5 objective monkeys/scouts/infiltrators including a unit to hold your backfield objective before you even start investing in workhorse units. Remember, these units generally really can't fight at all, their unit costs are embedded in their rules to play the mission efficiently. You can make this work at 1000 points for Aeldari, T'au, Drukhari, and Astra Militarum to some extent, but for Space Marines, Grey Knights, Custodes, Necrons, etc., this is an unworkable system. A single C'tan is 300 points. Silent King is over 400. Tesseract Vault is over 400. 5 Wardens with a Blade Champion is 360 points before enhancements. Dante and 6 Sanguinary Guard are 390 points. Guilliman is 360 points. Calgar and 6 Aggressors are 420 points or 6 eradicators are 360 points. I could go on. 1-7 models end up being fully 1/3rd of your force. Tack on 4 objectives monkeys so you can reliably cleanse, containment, deploy locus, ritual, terraform, recover assets, sabotage, etc., and most elite armies are rounding 600 points and you haven't even bought a second unit of infantry yet or a single tank. You can no longer threaten firing lanes, full stop, and have to start be battle surrendering entire mission lanes. That's to say nothing of how abusable skew lists are at 1000 points. It's true rock, paper, scissors because you don't have the points to run a balanced list in almost any army. If your opponent runs horde skew, vehicle skew, or elite skew, and your piddly 1000 points couldn't afford a single counter unit, your game is bricked before deployment. The reality is if you've "never played 2000 points and don't intend to" you aren't playing 40k. This is booting up a game, turning it to the lowest difficulty setting and then adding in cheat mods saying you're the only one playing the game correctly. The developers are balancing this system around 2000 and that's the only points it currently functions at with any semblance of fairness or balance.

[@cedonuli]

My playing group didn’t move on past 6th edition until 10th came out. We didn’t notice the change in board size for awhile and decided to stick to 6x4 for the same reason you mentioned - it was too cramped! I also miss the FoC restricting army composition to limit spamming of what would’ve been elite and heavy choices

[@Archelond]

In my group we usually play at 1000 points, and what we do to balance the game is to establish certain army composition restrictions. For example, we set the following: - No named characters - Max. 2 characters - Min. 3 infantry units - Min. 2 Battleline units - Max. 10 Toughness - Units must be selected as his minimum size - No more than 2 units of the same type

[@GeneralJerrard101]

I would love to play casually and do 1000 points, but every time I find a club or local game store, they're all full of competitive people. Played my 1st trench crusade yesterday and the other two tables were all space marines practicing for tournaments.

[@LA-hx8gj]

How was trench crusade? Looks cool.

[@GeneralJerrard101]

@LA-hx8gj very simple, but not tactically so. Everything you do is an action, so you roll dice, and you take the highest or lowest depending on buffs or debuffs, and if it's high enough you do the thing, be that shooting, dashing, dropping a bomb on people, becoming invisible, and determining how severe the injuries are. Alternating activations are just better, and the game is way faster, although there is a lack of reactive input. You can make the models customized to do certain tasks and in theory, very custom models too, so to be truly wisywig is a nightmare as you upgrade and make ticky tack changes throughout the campaign, not that I've gotten that far. Overall, it's super easy to pick up and you can proxy 8 or 10 Warhammer minis for a game, so you can just try it out.

[@nukeybrown5732]

Another format that leads to super interesting and different games is "Highlander" typically played at 1750 and you can only take each datasheet once, then it's up to the TO if they allow up to x3 battleline or not, x2 seems to be the sweet spot. X3 was more there historically to fill a minimum 3 detachment rules.

[@LordSirUnicorn]

So we just banning Votann huh? lol

[@juanl3297]

Oh man, admech would just be unable to play at all if it doesn't have access to at least 30 skitarii

[@omnivision616]

My group solved all this by playing 4th edition with our own in house erratas and updates for the past five years. Best way to go.

[@jagwhier]

I stopped playing just about a year into 5th, and hopped back in at the end of 9th. I totally agree with you. 4th was the most fun. Good balance and not over complicated. I do like a lot of things in 10th, but it's so bloated with rules. Can't imagine someone brand new trying to get to grips with a 2000pt game.....

[@DthShdw]

Another factor that has changed is that older editions had units that actually did run away and try to leave the board. Working with a larger minimum suggested board size would increase the opportunities to get those units back under control, or destroyed by the opponent. More recent editions just have those units count as destroyed (or otherwise removed from play). With less of that macro movement needing to be factored in, smaller table space does make a certain degree of sense as well.

[@Lord_Aussem]

Just tried my first game of 10th. I hadn’t played since 8th. (I’m a Horus heresy player since 7th ed) 1000 points was a surprisingly large amount of units. Even playing as space marines. It felt pretty good. I personally would prefer 40K to go back to what Horus Heresy basically is now, but with a lot of the bloated extra rules stripped out. An improved 7th edition. Don’t need an inexorable AND a stubborn rule when they’re both nearly identical.

[@commodorepuma966]

A someone who's group started in this edition, we found 1k games to be ideal for regular units, and 1.5k games ideal for bringing a centrepiece model like a knight or C'tan. In my experience I always find it fun to build lists to 1k points but just hit a roadblock when building to 2k because I run out of units I want to use and have to rely on repeats, which is much less fun. With 1k lists I find myself able to build a more diverse and variable army rather than a monotone one.

[@slurmsmckenzie1390]

As someone just getting into 40k in 10th edition, I can agree that playing a game with a minimum play time of 4 hours is definitely preventing me from playing more often. By the 4th round I'm usually fried and have lost my momentum to keep playing

[@nativeExarch]

You should do like I intend to do, I'm also a tournament player, anyone who plays me I tell them ahead of time, we're playing on a three hour clock, that way I'm able to keep my speed of play up, being at a tournament won't be so offputting, and I know how long the game is going to be, and things actually go by pretty quickly.

[@jarrettdiperna8370]

Honestly, I knew there was something wonky with the board size when the mat that I have had for years was no longer "properly" sized for the game. It might not seem like that much, but it does actually make a huge difference. I agree with you on the idea that the game devs probably weren't measuring out exactly how much board control an army would have for deep strike and such, and I would actually even argue that Deep Strike is so much more of a gamey rule than it used to be. For me as a Nid player, Deep Strike was all about getting my Lictors in deep into enemy territory and doing some assassination shenanigans, and now it's more about an entire mountain of gargoyles just denying my opponent's Deep Strike units board position. I feel like, had they predicted where this rule would go, they would've adapted it to the board size instead of making it a nice pretty number. (In fact, iirc, Deep Strike used to be 8" and now it is 9"? So literally the opposite of changing deep strike to match the board size) Finally, my wife plays KSons, and their army basically doesn't even have an army rule at 1k points sadly. I've played Nids at every point level and they can still be super fun, but when we go to an event that's 1k or 1250 points, and her space wizards can't even cast spells, it's just been a bad feels for both of us. I fully understand that this issue is that KSons are an inherantly broken design in 10th ED, but my point is that they're not the *only* army whose rule breaks down at lower point values. Overall incredible video. I love how concise it is, and it put into words things I've really only *felt* about 10th ed so far.

[@andresmoonero5634]

1000% agreed. I like 1500 on the new table size and even that feels small, just two battle lines come close instead of feeling like there’s room to maneuver and actually have strategy instead of finding advantages in rules I remember showing up for a 1k game and saying, “hey let’s play on 4x4” The player said “uhhh let’s just do what the book says” We’ll… books says optional? “Let’s just do what it says” Game was over by turn 2 since I could shoot most of his army on turn 1 Lol lame

[@eyulfruneguard5813]

I miss old wargear costs and force org charts, aswell as the 6x4 matt. I do not mind playing at 2k, but there are currently no restrictions of what you can bring, and I feel 2k could be helped by that. But question: If you want to play narrative missions, where do you find the narrative missions that I can convince other players to agree to play with?

[@darkbasilix2019]

There are the crusade books of leviathan and pariah nexus that have stuff.

[@donnylurch4207]

I started painting Warhammer in 2023 and I still don't have 2000 points! 1000 is a good milestone for the multiple armies I keep dipping in and out of painting.

[@cjgibbsey]

My only issue with 1000 points is blowouts are far more common, you dont have enough of a buffer to deal with major loses. 2k you can get annihilated and still have enough to take out a chunk of your oponents army keeping it close

[@flak1939]

This is the primary reason I don't play 40k anymore - everything is 2K pts and all players expect this even casual pick up games. Another thing you didn't really touch on but is huge, is that the more points, the less punishment there is for overspecialization because you can take everything. At 1K, you have lists that CAN focus on AT/assault/bikes/whatever, and they come with actual downsides. At 2K+ you basically have a second army you can tailor to shore up the weaknesses of your first. What this means in practice is that games are not only less fun for the reasons you mentioned, but also one dimensional because you're often facing a kitchen sink list. There's less feels-bad that someone's army is out of meta when they can win matches occasionally because they are a hard counter to a specialized list someone else brings.

[@carljette3089]

I played a game with my friends yesterday, it was a 1000 points, 3 way free for all. In addition we did a faction/detachment rules only, no stratagems except the one in the rulebook. The last restrictions we had was a 0-1 limit on all units that weren’t battleline (traditionally troops selection). We had such fun, it reminded me of 3rd-5th edition. None of us had more than 30-40 models, the flow of the game was better and it even felt more balanced. Each unit felt important and each decision impactful, not like a small table filled with models were range and movement doesn’t matter because everything is pressed.

[@careyblindenhofer738]

If 40k players had the ability to regulate their armies to play fun games with their opponents, it wouldn't be the mess it becomes every edition.

[@Nobleshield]

If GW wouldn't be adamant in removing restrictions and went back to the days of only certain numbers of things, including 0 to 1 of really rare things, as well as keeping things like flyers and super heavies at really high points only. It wouldn't be a problem at all

[@careyblindenhofer738]

@Nobleshield I have a really great idea for what a standard "competitive" army should be, but I don't bother telling anyone about it, because I don't think it would do any good. Then, they could leave all the old models in play and still get their way. It would require the old classification system of unit types to be brought back, though.

[@ZoneWarden]

Absolutely agree. I feel like my Space Marines are approaching a "horde" army in size where the same points would have been a strike team several editions ago and having recently come back to the hobby since leaving at the advent of 7th, the table sizes were a massive shock. Went from a the narrative of a "pitched battle" to a Chuck-E-Cheese ball pit brawl real quick.

[@Gwyndon]

1000 pts is the sweet spot

[@wargamesontoast]

Just to chime in on the complexity aspect - this is the reason I love Warcry. It’s all one roll. Hit, wound, and waves are all smooshed into one roll of the dice and rerolls are staggeringly rare. Combat is wonderfully quick and you aren’t bogged down with rolling, rerolling, rolling, rerolling, saving, rerolling, extra save, etc. it’s exhausting

[@smash_hamster]

As a former 2nd ed player, I agree that the points costs have led to escalating unit counts, and that's bad. Also the model size inflation is ridiculous. However I don't think we can just switch to 1k, because the rules aren't balanced for that. For example, Necrons don't work at 1k because RP is hobbled, and we rely on ~300pt models to be competitive which makes it very hard to build a 1k list that can both survive and score missions. Whilst SM oath of moment is unplayably oppressive at 1k.

[@Backstabmacro]

I find the most fun I have list building these days is for 750 and 1500 size games - 750 is MSU only and 1500 is max 2 unit count for duplicate units. Really adds restrictions and forces more diversity of choice while still allowing me to build around an idea or theme.

[@swaglerock9696]

As a custodes player, 1000 points is still tough for me in some ways. But I understand and appreciate your arguments here. My group gets all sorts of different game sizes in

[@paulsr.1090]

One thing I don't think you touch on is that when they do a full reset edition points tend to be high as it makes new player entry easier as the armies are a bit smaller to build and get on the table. Then as the edition progresses and the new people aren't as new, they ease down the points through a few updates to get the armies to the intended sizes they had in mind originally.

[@paulshealy1863]

Remember when war gear would cost points. It would really cut down on the number of models if that came back.

[@terranaxiomuk]

It wouldn't. The wargear is baked in the points at max. It would allow armies like guard to forgo wargear for more bodies.

[@carnivalwilson5064]

I once listened to a podcast about Magic the Gathering game design by Mark Rosewater and he had a warning for game designers that I think applies here. To paraphrase, he said that when you design a game most players will try to play exactly by the rules you have written. They will do this even if doing so ruins their enjoyment and even if your "rule" was merely a suggestion. Only a small fraction of the players (usually veteran players) will have the wherewithal to change a game for their enjoyment. The point being, as you said, if GW suggests the game be played at 2000pts on a 60"x44" mat, then the community will cling to that "rule" as though it is gospel and they will ruin their own enjoyment in spite of it. They will also blame GW for "ruining their game" and to be fair they are partly to blame for not following Rosewater's advice but then so are the players for not taking ownership of their hobby and how they choose to enjoy it.

[@bryanvestal3923]

This!

[@Fezzik312]

The thing with suggestions is that while it’s perfectly fine to tweak them for at home games (where really nothing is stopping you from homebrewing as much as you want), they effectively are set rules for matched play. Imagine a TO would send out an email to everyone playing in a tournament in advance asking whether there should be any tweaks to the terrain layout suggested by the rules to increase fun. What is going to be the answer from a T'au player, what will the World Eater player suggest? Whose suggestion should the TO go with?

[@jasonfarmer4625]

My 40k group plays 600, 1,200, or 1,800 Point games. This allows for greater flexibility at lower points flexibility than 500pts or 1000 pts, but discourages spamming when compared to 2kpts games. --- our house rules --- - no single MODEL can be more than 33% of your army (except for 600 point game bracket w/knights, chaos knights, or custodes) - no single UNIT may be more than 50% of your army - unpainted units can not be led by a character, and unpainted characters can not lead a unit.

[@RMCbreezy]

Lol so on the painting/unpainted characters and units, what constitutes unpainted

[@stevenschnepp576]

​@@RMCbreezy Most of your models in the gray tide.

[@RMCbreezy]

@@stevenschnepp576 can primed characters lead finished units?

[@jasonfarmer4625]

@@RMCbreezy 3+ color /battle ready

[@davidkelly1756]

This also makes the game so much more accessible. You can pay up to $1000 for a 2000pt army so you might not get to play in a tournament until your 3rd year of collecting.

[@TacticalMetalhead]

Dude, I just realized who you are. I haven't watched MiniWarGaming for years, matter of fact, I've forgotten the name. I am 23 years old, a Dark Angels player. I remember watching a late 5th or early 6th edition tutorial of "how to play 40k" and you were the guy recording the video. I was 13. What the f*ck. That was 10 years ago. My brain feels weird

[@MWG_Matthew]

Yup, we are all getting old. :)

[@Jacklost00]

axiom 01: people just want to have fun with their hobby axiom 02: people like to be part of a community: if there are certain rules it's likely that they want to follow and playing like in battle reports (and especially a big % of them like to play like in competitive, comment and try lists, feel like if they could play at high level, etc.) axiom 03: normal people have limited time and space with a little less units you can play a little bit faster (people at home are slower that people that play competitive because they know less rules, they chat etc.) with a little less units the board (it's ok if it's smaller cause you can play at home) and movement has more importance Maybe the solution is simply to increase unit points (like 133%) to match what is now playing at 1500 points (ex because your intercessor unit cost 100/110 instead of 80) and let people play with a little less units. Corollary: if you include in rulebook a 1000k format but nobody plays it (or it isn't played in competitive) it's like it does not exist.

[@Kaihlik]

I play on 44x60 but that is just because it’s what I can fit at home, I’d happily play on 6x4 if I had a the space to accommodate. I actually do use 4 of the kill team boards to extend my table a bit but then put a mat on top of them.

[@kylewells6871]

44×60 is the current board size. 6x4 is too big imo. That extra foot makes a huge difference. I believe 6x4 was past editions, we switched to 44x60 in 9th.

[@MonoZeus]

@@kylewells6871 A 60 x 44 inch table covered in as many ruins as they expect, is tiny for how many minis you might have in a 2k army!

[@colbygonzalez6546]

Not only do units generally cost less, but not having upgrades makes a huge different on overall points. I remember when I first started at the end of 5th edition, my Chaos Lord often had 4-6 different upgrades, my Chaos Space Marines had a variety of weapon upgrades + a sergeant (having an Aspiring Champion to lead the squad also cost additional points) + I had to spend points to get a Mark of Chaos. Vehicles had a page of upgrades in the codex too, which added to their overall cost.

[@dxundownload8635]

I enjoy your thoughts, but ya, I disagree in the end. If im playing 40k im ready to spend 5 plus hours. I love long game nights with stories and laughing and more opportunities for amazing moments. But im also more into crusade and narritive so those 2k and up fights are always the linch pin to the narrotice or the big final fight. Still enjoy a quick combat patrol or 1k though

[@MWG_Matthew]

Hey in the end play how you want. I think I’m more against the general mentality that I see everywhere of you “must” play 2000 point games for it to work.

[@dxundownload8635]

@MWG_Matthew now that I can completely agree with. It blows my mind as a newer player just how rigid so many act with rules. The best games I've played are 40k only in the core Skelton of rules.

[@AaronCox-qq5iz]

1000pt is perfect, you really have to think about tactical aspects of the game.

[@EverydayEldrad]

@@MWG_Matthew Certainly not. I'm with you, everyone play what they like. Each to their own

[@asxurian7028]

Love the vid, I agree with many of the points you've stated. The only thing I think I would be worried about is the heavy feeling of skew in lower points list with the current state of the game as I understand it. My experiences are probably biased rn, but in the friendly crusade games my friends and I are trying out, there's two players that made kinda heavily skewed 1,000 point lists towards maulerfiends or skorpekh's and it creates some unfun scenarios. I understand though this might bring more of an 'honor' or 'fun agreement' discussion forward over whether or not games should be played at 1k points. Love the videos, the content you and Miniwargaming put out and I wish you luck!

[@johnnypop-tart335]

My only problem with this is using my elite units. A 6 man squad of sanguinary guard with a captain (with speed of the Primarch) is 370 points. That's a huge problem because I need troops on objectives. I also really like tanks. I feel like i can't fill out my power fantasy at 1k

[@daspiringartist3128]

that's exactly how I feel

[@ryansmith2045]

Yes, as a Blood Angels player, I can't really field my vehicles and elite units at 1k. Conversely, my friend that plays Tyranids has access to a swarm of infantry and a handful of elite monsters.

[@huwtindall7096]

That's the point though. Unit choice should be tough with tradeoffs to consider

[@lolzzx1]

Or.. hear me Out..in a 1k Game a 3 man Squad ist often enough to kill Most stuff the enemy has at 1k Points

[@johnnypop-tart335]

​@huwtindall7096 making some units unviable isn't a trade off. It's a nurf. How am I supposed to live my power fantasy if I can't have my powerful units or tanks win a game?

[@TheProphetLastLies]

This was a great video! I love that you made a channel like this. No filter and can just talk about whatever you want. Cant wait for more like this!

[@jeffcallahan5467]

Just started playing at the end of last year and my friends and I have been 1500 points but doing 2v2s It’s a lot of fun figuring out how our different factions mesh as allies and enemy combinations.

[@AlexanderEliesen]

Agree! Maybe 40k should adopt a army "sideboard" rule like Kill Team does, where a part of setup is reacting to the opponents choices and selecting what exactly to field based on that.

[@ursoanonimo8398]

One of my gripes against playing with 1K points is that stratagems that bring back units seem more valuable in lower point games since you’re bringing back more of your army back, proportionally. And also Necrons. The entirety of Necrons.

[@TableTopLive]

Really enjoyed this video and looking forward to more in this series! I also am used to "back in the days" of 1500-1750pt games

1000 points still take more then 3-4 hours for me 😮‍💨

[@chompette_]

After a haitus I began watching batreps, and the first thing that shocked me was how the pre game army breakdown was just a constant slew of units, never seeming to end, and when the game was setup it was like the entire deployment zone was filled. Kinda cool but so so much stuff.

[@true-bluepraetorian9069]

Yes, completely agreed. Most players fall victim to 'sunk cost fallacy', however, which means they subconsciously reject the notion of smaller games with less models. Its hard to convince them that LESS IS MORE.

[@donstaunch7895]

Hi Matt, just wanted to say I've been watching your videos from years back and with move away from wh40k have not seen you in ages. Just want to say you are looking good mate. like a professor! Glad to see you still doing your thing!!

[@boondockfiction82]

Crazy to think that moving in a direction that brings the scale of the game more in-line to where it was back in 2nd edition is the sweet spot… it’s like the designers from the 90s were on to something.

[@po5425]

As an oldie, I feel strong "back to the roots" vibe of describing genZs of army FoC organization rules 😅

[@ethanr9080]

I believe the 44" × 60" was agreed based on the average size of household tables in the UK. I remember an interview with an ex GW employee. Makes sense since it means more people can play at home.

[@Hairy_Phils_Lament]

Im in manufacturing and my theory is that the 60x44 playmat is based off the size of the GW box. Your average Killteam mat folds up perfectly into quarters in a Leman Russ battle tank sized box.

[@ismaelaraya4854]

I would love to hear your opinion on the combat patrol format.

[@TheBerchie]

I do like the idea of 1,000 points, however you would have to have restrictions in the list building. When I was at a local RTT that was running 750 point games, players were bringing units that weren't balanced for the smaller point games. For example, an Ork player had Ghazghkull in his 750 point list. Perhaps a good restriction for a 1,000 point game would be, not having a unit that has 10 toughness or higher, but I'm just brainstorming.

[@michaelsantangelo1875]

I feel the only down side to this is not all factions in the game have equal power levels here cuz a death guard player can bring like 6 t9 units at 90 points each and still have room for infantry and a few leaders. Those 6 can be in units of 2 and get rerole wounds on vehicle units and have melta that wound on 4 plus against all these other vehicles or monsters that don't always get support to take these units on. Marines have those land speeder replacements and the.... invader atv, tactical war suit, all those speeders including the one that gives pulse one to wound in range at 160 points not a bad pic. And like outriders and terminators (that look pretty good at 1k points with how many shots they get and deep strike being amazing at these larger scale tables) no predator tanks no whirlwinds no lancer or gladiator variants (thank god.) but you'd have a reason to bring those indirect fire Marines and devastator squads (older marine models but still useful at 120 for lascanon or missiles or multi melts that you could put in drop pods to really unload some hell somewhere) Long story short not all factions have the same access to needed units to help against heavy tougher units or elite infantry.

[@Nobleshield]

That's the only problem is gets really unbalanced unless you add restrictions. A super heavy is going to completely dominate for example. But if you restrict it then you basically tell knight players to get lost. Which while I personally feel that's a good thing as knights don't belong in 40K at all, that's not really a good answer overall

[@TheBerchie]

@@Nobleshield At 1,000 points, knight armies shouldn't be allowed. I have Chaos Knights, but they do not belong in 1,000 point games.

[@JS-mu9qd]

@@michaelsantangelo1875 As a Death Guard Player i can agree. There is quiet some strong stuff that you can bring for 1000 pts. In DG you can also bring Mortarion and Typhus, Poxwalker and some vehicles and infantry. However i ask my opponent if he has sth that can deal with Mortarion before i would bring him.

[@Tiger-xd6nj]

I'm not sure I agree as 1000 points is easier to power game. What is really needed is a return to force org charts from say 3rd. 1 or 2 Hqs, 2 to 6 troops, 0 to 3 elites, 0 to 3 fast attack, 0 to 3 heavy support. It forces you to build a troop, aka battle line-based unit, instead of the named character, and elite spam is so common now. As I recall though points for a marine was about 15 ppm back then and a guardsman was 4 or 5 points. That makes them roughly the same as today. I still have all the codexs ive used since 2nd till now and the points being pretty consistent is a feature that surprises me.

[@Winter-Nine]

1k is like chess… every move and unit has a purpose. 2k is like throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks

[@mwgjosh5161]

Lotta monkeys out there though

[@HoudiniGameArtist]

Especially with 3 hour limits at tourneys. I just stopped doing about 25% of my attacks because the time savings is worth more than the odd kill.

[@EverydayEldrad]

I disagree, movement is incredibly important in competitive 40k. Sure, some armies have lots of redundancy. But in my eldar and marine armies I don't have a lot to spare

[@cruelmole]

Wat

[@CynicalOptimist99]

Huh? If playing competitively every unit at 2k is also very important. If you’re just throwing stuff at your opponent, I don’t mean to say you’re playing wrong, but you’re certainly not being fair to 2k as a format, if that make sense

[@fabiusque4266]

I personally think 1500 points is the sweet spot. Its enough so that you can fit in most of the cool stuff, its enough to create armies that have fallback options and its enough as well that the board doesnt feel empty. At 1000 points, some armies simply dont work very well, especially if you are playing in your local flgs, where (at least where I live) people tend to pack an army, go there and see who wants to play. Some of the armies would be super hit or miss at 1000 points in that situation, because you have to be so selective in what you bring.

[@NathanLazyBear]

Scale creep is a problem, there's no room on tournament legal tables. There is only one or two different formations you can put your stuff, at 2000 points you are shoulder to shoulder on the line or at the back of the table. There's no table, and everything isn't fast enough they are trudging through the terrain, and ranges of weapons don't matter, everything is out of sight/in cover.

[@chetmanly8831]

I liked the camera framing for this presentation style video. I agree that the game has rules that seem to benefit from an adaptive approach and my crusade games tend to be at under 1500pts as it makes units feel more like individuals. Thanks for a discussion video

[@BrianHersh-v6c]

For competitive play, I think they have it perfect tbh. For casual play, 1K is still a fun game and lower barrier of entry

[@ravenRedwake]

4:18 I thought and kinda hoped that base size correlated to toughness, t3 would be on 28s, t4 on 32s

[@blazingbuddy4228]

That would be awesome for new players to learn, having some form of model to rules consistency would be great for teaching players the rules or just knowing your opponents army

[@MajorSquiggles]

One thing I appreciated when trying out One Page Rules was just how much the bigger board improved gameplay. Transports play a bigger role since you can't expect models to move across the board on their own. With a greater restriction on weapon range it means outranging your opponent is a perfectly viable alternative to relying on line of sight blockers. Your board doesn't have to be city ruins just to be competitive. I do prefer the amount of models I get to play with in games of 40k, but OPR plays so much smoother. It's almost shocking the first time we played how quick and simple a round of shooting was. We had to stop and question did we miss something? No way it's that easy.

[@DunedainDadGaming]

I have a huge collection of Drukhari and huge collection of tau, I’m very blessed to have as much as I do, and I have a really hard time actually building 2k point lists and not feeling like I need to buy a third of a bunch of random stuff to get a list that works. I’d be thrilled to play smaller games and see that more encouraged

[@wurutana]

As a Thousand Sons player, I would rather have 3k points than 1k points. Almost impossible to field a viable TSons army at 1k points.

[@kenupton4084]

3rd edition: 1250-1850 on a 4×8 was the norm. Remained that way for a while. Eventually it became 6×4 because the extra two feet were rarely used. There was always a unit of Scouts or something that never got involved in the game. I still play on 4×6.

[@Nobleshield]

I personally blame Frontline gaming and the ITC for this new size crap. GW came out with it and said this is a minimum frontline immediately said well all ITC events are going to only use this size. And what do you know? We're already manufacturing mats in this size. And as we know everything that's tournament standard consumes everything else like a parasite.

[@Helluminatus]

Sounds more like you want a fundamentally different game rather than thinking 1k points is ideal for this one

[@afroraykun]

I feel like Age of Sigmar has really cracked this (speaking as a new AoS player considering getting into 40k). It's taken me just over a year to build and paint my first ever full 2k point army, and it comprises: 2x heroes 2x big monsters 4 lots of 10x infantry 5x cavalry That feels *really* nice for a full army size, and it's absolutely forcing me to make those hard tactical choices you talked about in terms of what to bring. I'm already thinking about other units I could get for different configurations, but the tight points limit really makes you think. On the other hand, I'm looking at 40k lists and honestly considering changing my faction choice to Custodes just so I don't have to field hordes and hordes of models just to make 2k points. The amount of Tau I would need to build and paint to play a 2k game just feels insane.

[@Fezzik312]

I own around 6.000 points of Ogors. If I were to fill the same cabinet with my 40K models (Orks) I assume I could fit around 2000-2500 points into the same footprint. I just did a quick count on the combat patrol chaos daemons since all of the models exist in both games. The box gives you 535 points in 40K while the same models are 950 points in AoS

[@clownfish441]

I have a vague memory that the 6×4 board ported in to Rogue Trader from Warhammer Fantasy Battles back in the late eighties as that was the standard managable size for a sheet of chipboard (particle board) that you could fit in your car 😂 could've been a dream, though

[@jakerickard3073]

When I last played around 5th/6th 1500 points was the limit and felt fine. Now 2000 points and units costing less. Even elite armies like SM feel like horde armies.

[@wtrrobson738]

I agree Matt, even at 1000 points the game can take like 4-5 hours because of the overall complexity. Rules presentation of 10th is simplified for the most part, but there are still so many dice to roll and so many permutations for scoring and terrain that it just takes longer to calculate. There's also a lot of unit spam, limiting to 3 of each datasheet was a good change for the health of the game, but now it feels like every unit thats an auto include you HAVE to take 3 or you're doing it wrong. I'm starting to think that at 1000-1500 points they might be better off reducing that to 2, and then scale up to 3 at 2000. Just my two cents.

[@JS-mu9qd]

1000 to 1250 is where my group mostly plays. 1500 if we make a 2vs1 where the other only have 750 and the other player has 1500. Absoutely agree that it takes very long for more points game. The last one i had was 1250pts and because of rules question it took 6h which is really long. yeah the autoinclude one sucks. I dont really like to play to many same units, but you are basically forced.

[@TheEmpiricalGuy]

I'm glad someone is saying this. I've played 40k for 30 years and pretty much always done 1000 pt games - regardless of edition it's always seemed like a good sweet spot for me. Playing a 2000 pt game now just seems like an exercise in misery. A big part of what I like about it is it forces more interesting choices. At 2000 pts you came pretty much take whatever you want, with redundancies. At 1000 pts every thing you include has to matter, and you very often don't get a 'backup' of a unit. The one point I disagree on here is board size. I think making the minimum size for 1000 pts 44"x30" was one of the best things they ever did for the game, and I hate that they made it bigger for 10th. I don't understand their reasoning when at the launch of 9th the explicitly said the smaller size was so you could play 1000 pts on a standard dining table, meaning easier access to more games for most people. During 9th, I played more games against more opponents than any other time in my life as it was so easy to do so anywhere. I never encountered a problem with the board being crowded. But now, at 10th's increased size for 1000 pts, I'm playing less games. I have a pretty standard size house, and I just CAN'T comfortably fit in a 44"x60" board plus all the terrain to cover that. I'm sure many people are the same, especially people living in apartments and cities, and there's also less games happening at FLGS and local clubs because you fit even less tables, even for small games. When I have played 1000 pts on a 44"x60" or bigger, it typically ends up being unfun as the first couple of turns are just moving close enough to each other to actually play, and you either spread out your forces so much they can't support each other or entire sections of the board go untouched by either army. When I play at home I still play 1000 pts on a 44"x30" not just out of necessity but because I find it gives a quicker, more action packed game. What really boggles the mind is that they recognise that a 3000 pt game requires a bigger board than 2000, but not that 1000 can be smaller than 2000. Add in the fact AoS kept the 3 board sizes for the 3 sizes of game and it really makes me think whoever is writing 10th is just cooked.

[@phanron8382]

Another aspect is damage. In 1000 points games you might not have the redundant damage to finish off a unit and actually get to play with wittled down units to the end of the game, wheras the game often feels decided after round 2 in 2000 points games. Multiple reasons really: less vehicles means less deadly shooting. More available space to hide units. And you will more likely bring foot soldiers, which will naturally decrease in strenght as more soldiers die. In general I find the games more fun, when there are more actual boots on the ground than tanks and monsters.

[@cosmereinminiature]

I was at the game store this past weekend and I say a 2v2 40k game getting set up. I could hardly see the terrain because there were SO many models and massive tanks...I was overwhelmed just walking by the table!

[@su016327]

I remember when I first started, 750pts was a common in store game size. When starting, 500pts was the recommended goal. 1250 pts was considered a big game with 1500pts being the starting point for seeing special characters. Now someone starts and they're told (online) they NEED 2000pts to play and only given meta recommendations. You can't find a game under 2000pts. I'd rather play several small games than 1 large game.

[@MTGPhlogisten]

I completely agree. I started playing 40K at the end of 9th and I play Tau. It always felt like my opponent was up in my face turn 1 and I never had the chance to shoot anything before I died. The game was way too complicated and for a new player I couldn’t track what was going on. I recently started playing 1000 point games instead and it is much more enjoyable. Especially as a father with a young family I know my wife enjoys me taking less time to finish a game and be able to help with the kids sooner.

[@MrLigonater]

13:50 I think it would be cool of games (in general, not just 40K) had a span of control mechanic for headquarters. Basically an assessment of how many units a commander unit can actually control. If your commander has a 6 for span of control, then you have to figure out how to best reach your desired point value in less than 6 units; or else suffer some sort handicap because your army is too unwieldy for its general.

[@jallennn8756]

My group typically play 1k points when we play due to a number of factors. Time being one of them, but we typically play half/three-quarter size tables too. As a Sisters player, I definitely used to get an awful lot more models on the table for 1k points, so the balance argument kinda goes out the window on that front as it's not a unilateral thing, again amongst my armies as you did mention Votann falling through the floor points wise. One factor that I'd also consider against 2k points is model range and variety. Seems like there's an awful lot less variety amongst a lot of difference factions that make 2k quite a boring and homogenous list build. When you look at the number of factions who don't have a wide variety of units (any of the recent releases - World Eaters, Votann, KSons; or any with a generally small range - Grey Knights, Drukhari etc.) building a fun, varied 2k point list becomes increasingly more difficult while trying to avoid spam. I think somewhere between 1k-1.5k points is probably the sweet spot.

[@jonmattison3939]

While I've known all this subconsciously it looms large bringing all these data points together: less points per model, more models per list, larger bases, smaller play area... Despite everything printed that Kill Team is 22x30 and therefore everything else are multiples of this... it is frustrating to find that all my KT boards are actually 22.5x30.

[@jonmattison3939]

These days, getting back into 10th edition after being away since 5th, I'm happy with Combat Patrol and DiY 500 point games. Looking forward to dabbling in 750, 1000, 1250 point lists.

[@jonmattison3939]

Now I'm off and motivated to start writing up 1000-1250 point lists for the rest of the evening...

[@Aspha88]

Hi Matt, Thank you for a very interesting video (as usual ;) ). I actually don't play 40k but AoS and The Old World and it is funny how they approached the design differently between the 2 core games, in AoS on the contrary, the new edition brought down the number of models... Anyway, I wanted to react on the fact than most players (and I see it oversees in France as well) take the suggestions of the rules as written in stone. This is something that really bothers me as it seems than a lot of people actually approach these 2 miniatures game as video games. The devs do something and you cannot do anything about it. This is also seen by the fact that most people will just play the same old boring matched play games over and over again even if the never go to a tournament. It is a miniature game, you can do pretty much whatever you want and for me that makes these games far superior to video games and boardgames as well. Anyway, thank you because MWG is one of the rare high production channels were you see narrative games and approches to the games that are not always the "standard" way to play.

[@ILostMyIcecream]

Honestly, 1500 is the sweet spot. 500 points to something chonky and 1000 for building an army. 2000 is just too unwieldy.

[@kiwisteve4049]

Yes! I've been struggling to enjoy the last couple of editions, but did a small introductory game with a friend (around 500 points), and found the game just worked better. I'm glad it's not just me. I would love to hear you give some ideas of how to do narrative play rather than match play, and ideas of how to do it well.

[@lukebeauregard6580]

As someone who only got into 40k about 6 months ago, I LOVE 1k games. They are simpler, more tactical, and you dont need to memorize an entire book to know what your opponent can do.

[@andrewbakescakes9684]

Found it and subbed! Looking forward to your content, Matt. And agree. Started 2nd with 1000, and that was a good number. I'd rather play two 1.5-hour games than one 3-hour game.