>Tries to add some homebrew rules. >Adds a whole IMC army codex. Happens with homebrew.

The inevitable fate of homebrew

adding an entire new faction after trying to change the rules around is so real. like why not?

I think the biggest problem with Warhammer is the scope bloat. It started out as a small scale skirmish game, and now it’s got points built towards huge armies, but troops are so bad that armies are just a bunch of big centerpiece units beating each other to death. It’s lame. Armies aren’t armies anymore. Getting rid of the troops tax was the worst decision gw ever made

From the moment I understood the weakness of my rules it disgusted me I craved the strength and security of homebrew….

The small arms problem is a 10th ed thing. Imperial Guard Meltagun vets still give me nightmares, more than a decade later. Oh and Krak grenades deleted any medium tank that waltzed into charge range, since they hit the rear plating

The T'au complaint seems eerily reminiscent of complaints about sniper in tf2. I support your stance of high range motherfuckers being a nuisance in any playground where they are unique in their reach.

Weirdly these problems seem more pronounced in 10th edition than nearly any previous edition. In 3rd-7th you could instakill a vehicle with a well placed lascannon shot, and in 8th-9th the AP values on infantry anti-tank weapons like multi-meltas were adequate to punch through vehicles. In 10th, high toughness models are extremely annoying to deal with.

It's funny how your endless pursuit of putting Titanfall into every game you play made you find Lancer insufficiently competitive and turn it more into a co-op wargame and to find Warhammer too focused on competition and bring it closer to a pvp TTRPG. This isn't a diss I just finsd it fascinatiing

There's another comment here that is a opinion on why infantry being weak against vehicles in 40k is justified, and I wanted to create a comment that supports your point Real life small arms struggle(severe under exaggeration) to take out vehicles but unlike real life infantry guardsman have limited special weapons. In real life a fireteam(4 members, one half of a squad) has a machinegunner, fireteam leader, rifleman, and grenadier. three of these two of them are usually equipped with a weapon with some form of anti armor capability. Starting with the grenadier they have a 40mm grenade launcher which has access to HEDP rounds capable of taking out light armor, and although this capability would struggle(once again a severe under exaggeration) to take out a mbt it still has a change and some equivalent in the guardsman team would give them a dedicated light anti armor weapon capable of taking out various weak scout units. As second note grenadiers have access to smoke munitions that could block line of sight. And the squad is issued two shoulder launcher munitions, these are normally issued to the rifleman. These usually are at4's which once again aren't great against things like MBT's are still better than nothing and have good capability against more lightly armored vehicles like APC's and IFV's. so my conclusion is this: in real life infantry units(even to the smallest grouping of a fireteam) are equipped with multiple special weapons some which have light anti armor capability(SLM's and 40mm HEDP) on top of weapons designed to help deal with enemy infantry(he 40mm and squad automatic weapons). And how rife infantry units are with anti tank weapons(especially when you consider that each platoon has a weapons squad equipped with dedicated anti tank weapons capable of dealing with MBT's such as javelin missiles). demonstrates how heavily underrepresented they are within 40k tabletop. ps: I wanted to note that the source for this was atp 3-21.8 specifically the 2016 edition. Proof of the slm load for a infantry squad is from 1-12 "The combat load for an SLM is two per rifle squad. Either two M72-series light antitank (AT) weapon, M136-series antitank (AT4), M141 bunker defeat munitions (BDMs), or a combination of are normally issued to the rifleman." and my source for the grenadiers having HEDP rounds for use against vehicles is from 1-18 "he grenade launcher allows the grenadier to perform three functions: suppress and destroy enemy Infantry and lightly armored vehicles with HE or high explosive dual purpose (HEDP)."

If I may give some criticism, your testing on Toughness and Armor Saves seems pretty centered on factions that have both in spades. Some units (Such as GSC Aberrants) are reliant on a high Toughness to make up for a poor save, and the changes you’ve made to wounding nerfs them much harder than the other heavy options.

I’m looking forward to the rest of this mini series!

i play guard and it always feels like im only playing to serve as a punching bag for everyone else.

Man of the hour almost seems like it should be split up into a handful of universal stratagems that target your warlord, especially with how generous 10 is with command points

I agree especially with your point about the issues of ranged combat focusing on the Tau. Its a shame their core identity is effectively always going to make them a nightmare to balance. I need to see Age of Sigmars new rules fully but it looks like something that might be worth trying. Has much more of a melee focus and I *think* the vehicle problem is less so (with AOS' equivilent of vehicles being monsters)

As a guard player who loves infantry, I've been relying on reinforcements to keep me simply in the game and the one time I played against knights it was horrible, but my infantry waves actually killed one of the small ones Now that reinforcements is limited to one unit I either can travel an hour and just lose in the only game I get to play that month or I can take tanks

I will now use this video as an excuse to find indie wargames to annoy people about

BUMP FOR THE ALGORYTHM! THIS IS AWESOME!

This is really cool and admirable but my friend as someone who plays a hoard army (tyranids) and regularly kills vehicles using only my basic infantry(termaguants and hormaguants) bumping them up to wounding on 5's (4's when i inevitably give them +1 to wound) would be insanity. they would be unstoppable 10" movement advance and charging vehicle blenders and would easily outpace other tyranid anti tank when rn theyre about even.

havent gotten through the whole video yet, but i wanted to say THANK YOU, specifically for the part where you talk about infantry carried anti-tank, i dont play warhammer but i have some experience with other wargames, primarily Star Wars: legion and it has the same issue. You need at least a full game's worth of turns to even fathom taking out any armored vehicle with infantry and it's really upsetting cause i mainly run infantry based lists.

3:20 SEAL team, and Spetznatz (and also automatic grenade launchers) do not have AT, but that is irrelevant

What a cool idea. And I totally agree on epic heroes: they steal the spotlight from my own characters. Been getting excited to play 10th edition and I really want to start a Crusade campaign with friends. Looking forward to seeing if this would help add some drama to that.

Did I see some space marines with the symbol of Sicario Mercenary Companie's Monarch?

Great video! Thoroughly enjoyed and clearly thought out on your part. I never really enjoyed the competitive side of Warhammer and unfortunately that's what most of the community content focuses on, so this really is a breath of fresh air. I was wondering what your thoughts were on One Page Rules' games like Age of Fantasy or Grimdark Future? They have more impactful rolls and only 2 checks for an attack, alternating activation instead of full turns, and a great points formula for ensuring balance between units.

Okay but what if instead of doing something boring like giving appropriately named characters and unit champions an extra wound, how about giving them/their unit each a crusade battle trait instead? That would be a lot more interesting and gives the army a lot more flair.

My mind is immediately turned to a project an friend of mine made initially based on WH40K rules. It is an X-COM wargame, originally project "X-COM 40000", but now moved to not just be XCOM (copyright) and distanced from Warhammer (mechanically). Unfortunately, I cannot really share the ruleset since it's entirely in Russian, and translating this massive thing is too time-consuming. AI won't help: specific words are important in rules, as always. From my experience with the system, its current form works well with the PvE structure of an XCOM campaign and, unlike last year, quite well in the rare PvP battles. Though that remains to be seen on higher tiers of gear and enemies.

Idea for a unit, the Samson or Gremlin(very similar ideas in design) a transport with light armor and anti tank capabilities. The Goblin as an fast air transport, the drop pod similar to the space marine drop pod. IMC-grunts because you don't have them there, a sub-faction of the Apex Predators.

I liked your ideas, especially the Battleshock one. If you're looking for ideas, Star Wars Legions seems to have addressed a lot of the same points as you. For a start there is no wound roll, hitting is a wound, but things like cover or dodge reduce the number of non-critical hits by one. It also has alternative turns, your commander matters for giving orders to nearby troops (a game mechanic) and you're required to bring a minimum of 3 units of basic troops in some variety, which while not an ideal solution does minimize the odds of armies heavily stocking vehicles. Did you address the first turn advantage? I'd be curious to see your solution, and look forward to the next video.

As much as I'm all for narrative games, changing how wound rolls work simply doesn't make sense, I agree that missile launchers using krak missiles should have a better strength stat, maybe a 10 or 12, but making it so that a Guardsman's punch has a 33% chance to pierce the armour of Titans simply because at worse you have a 5+ to wound roll? 16,5% is already unrealistic but hey, it's only on the best result possible on a d6, the only other thing they could do to make it better was what The Old World did and you need a minimum strength to even be able to wound some targets

long live the frontier

ok youtube is getting ridiculous with teh notification delay, its 4 hours after the video was uploaded and I only now get the notification(I wanna be early).

nice.

You should add dance emotes, obviously >:) Commenting for the algorithm!

Will you be posting these rules ?

*praying for code 3 ability*

I think competitive play is antithetical to the hobby if your competitive game has to punish people for not painting models some thing along the way has gone wrong

8:34 Eek!

I remember the old rules for tanks, they where fun. The differently armour sides where fun

Dont just call the funny religious cyborgs unsalvagable like that >:(

I find myself both strong agreeing and disagreeing with this assessment. On the main, I agree: Warhammer 40k hasn't felt like a true "war game" since I started playing in 9e. I can really only say this with respect to 30k, which emphatically does feel like a war game. I also agree that the way list building generally works for people in 40k encourages non-lore friendly lists. But I think you're overplaying the situation between vehicles and infantry a bit. Because vehicles cannot breach ruins, Infantry can often hide completely from them and make it very difficult for the player with vehicles to find angles. Obscuring terrain makes this situation pretty common, especially on standard layouts. I think you're spot on with the pretty ridiculous situation between basic infantry and vehicles [or even how bad a Tactical Marine or even an Intercessor are relative to other choices] however. In my opinion, you're chaffing against the most recent few balance passes of the game. I think much of the problem with 40k right now stems from the self-conscious attempts by GW to cater towards competitive play. This has been an ongoing feature of the game since 8e. I think if you really want the feel of a narrative game and a wargame, you should 100% try out Horus Heresy [not Legions Imperalis]. It addresses many issues you raised here in a variety of ways.

9:55 hear me out though... have the rule for epic heroes too... if you rename them to be "custom leaders"

yeah, I am familiar with a trying to fix some minor stuff in a game system and spiriling out of control into massive projects... like be trying to make fighter feel a bit nicer to play in dnd ... and it ballooned into reworking every martial class, how weapons function, a a rework of armor and damage/ health which requires a rework of everything... and I am cursed to finish it

Really like this vid, but my brother you need to watch mordian glory if you feel like infantry are nerf'd

I think your overly large focus weak infantry like the gaurdsman could wreck stuff for more elite infantry like say the custodes. Like they will probably be either pretty meh or custodes player could break everything with ease. Already 1 issue I see is now the worse custodes will wound on is a 4 outside very specific situations. Another thing is would 6K vs 3K with gaurd i challenge you to do it again but use custodes if you want I could do the list or that. Also the warlord trait and mam of the hour would make them stupid OP against melee armies

Normal Infantery with Anti Tank weapons? You mean the Tactical Scuad? Sorry I forgot this is 40k and not OPR, in that case you are right the posters boys dont have anti tank weapons in ther batleline.

Normally I agree with your takes, but complaining about infantry not being good at fighting vehicles is a bit silly to me. You’re saying that something designed to murder infantry shouldn’t be able to complete its role on the battlefield. In real life, when infantry sees a vehicle, they bug out of there because they are dead if they don’t. Trying to get an average infantryman’s small arm to overcome vehicle armor is nearly impossible, even back when AFVs were first introduced, so it’s perfectly consistent with real life and how the vehicles are described in the lore for it to not go well for them. Another thing relating to the first point you made regarding infantry vs vehicles, how there is only 1-2 special weapons per 10 infantry on average. That’s also perfectly realistic and sensible; in real life infantry squads of 10 also tend to have only 2 special weapons which might be good against vehicles. However there are dedicated teams with special weapons in the game (and as usual irl) which *do* have special weapons which are useful against a multitude of enemies, especially vehicles. You’re effectively complaining that the screening and objective holding unit (which is what infantry are and always have been, in the lore, the game, and real life) don’t shoot or survive as well as the giant machine that lumbers along behind them that has a gyroscopically stabilized artillery gun mounted in an armored box. Your point about how this is a combined arms game is valid, but it also works against your argument in regards to boosting infantry. Infantry aren’t meant to fight vehicles, so you need to stick a vehicle in there with them to fight vehicles. And a vehicle is designed to kill the vehicle directly beneath it, so sending an IFV at an MBT probably won’t work out in your favor. I’m not saying it’s a skill issue, but whether you win is down to how you choose to compose and deploy your army

From the moment I understood the weakness of my rules it disgusted me I craved the strength and security of homebrew……