Rumors of 40k shake up in next edition! (Sigmarification?)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**warhead01**

I'm not a fan of the Movement Stat returning. Currently there are 9 types of units and occasionally a special rule like Fleet. That's only 7 Movement rates players have to remember and you can tell by just looking at a model how fast it moves.

If the Movement Stat returns then we'll have to learn the movement rates of hundreds of different units. Even if each codex only had 2 different Movement rates (Infantry and Bikes/Cavalry) for each army, that would still be 40+ different movement rates we'd have to memorize.

I don't really think it would be as bad as all that.
It's not like the stats wont be on the unit profiles. Which, if the trend continues will be in the boxed sets along with the building instructions or on the GW site under the pictures of the models, as PDF's, like they are now.(AoS models)
If it even becomes a thing again.

**JohnHwangDD**

Martel732 wrote:
Rather than arguing over semantics, let's just call the concept "sufficient complexity". Which gets a lot easier rolling a D10 instead of D6.

From a game design standpoint, a d10 is effectively functionally identical to a d6. What a d10 does is split each intermediate non-min / non-max result in half: 1, 2a/2b, 3a/3b, 4a/4b, 5a/5b, 6. With a d10, you have the illusion of "more", but the game will still center around the same effective number ranges that you would have had with a d6. If you want meaningful difference (i.e. fine gradation) from a d6, then you need to jump all of the way up to a d20.

And really, it's not like 40k isn't complex enough. Even if GW strips it down to its core.

**leopard**

Always liked the thought of a D12, numbered 0-9 with a 'success' and 'fail' side as well for the last two, no longer have to worry about a '1 is always a fail' stuff, the dice have it on them, can also easily use for percentages - say your rolling ten to hit rolls, at 35% chance, roll ten dice, any that are a 1 or a 2 are obviously successes, and that roll a 4 or more are obviously fails, the only one you roll for the 'units' are ones that come up a three - easy to do and with percentages you can drop re-rolls, just apply a shift, then you have the granularity to do stuff like -1% to hit for every inch of range or whatever

**Just Tony**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Simpler rules also resulted in some really, really boring 3rd (beginning) and 4th (CSM, Eldar) dexs too, so one has to balance out simple with fun too.

So it'd be better with things like 3rd Ed. Craftworld Eldar and Chaos 3.5? I like balance, even if some people think of it as "boring". M:TG is right over there if you need excitement ----------->

JohnHwangDD wrote:I, for one, would be perfectly happy to go back to playing 3E Rulebook lists. Those games were fun, and were more tactical than what we play today.

That's so true. I like some of the codex flavor, but I don't feel I REALLY lose out on anything by using the BGB lists. Same goes for 6th WFB with Ravening Hordes.

**DarkBlack**

I see why D10's or D12's sound like a good idea, but I don't see what they offer that is significantly different to what 2 separate D6's, 2D6 or D66 (one D6 after the other) rolls could do.

On the original topic: I play 40k and AoS with my Tzeentch daemons, AoS is subjectively a more enjoyable experience, so I welcome 40k becoming more (but not entirely) like AoS.

**Elbows**

While I never see a mainstream GW game going to a D8/D10/D12 etc., the idea has a lot of merit from a game design standpoint.

A D10 for instance would make far more sense in a game the size of 40K with the huge differences between a gretchin and a blood thirster, etc. As it stands now, regardless of a unit's BS, you have five different bands of possibility, instead of nine --- assuming we decide that a result of '1' is always a failure. It's not a glorified D6 as the above poster suggests.

You could easily change the stat line in 40K to a simple "X+" for almost every stat.

It's better than 2D6, D66 etc. because you could use a D10/D12 etc. as the primary dice. You sure as hell don't want to roll two dice per single boltgun shot, etc.

**Akiasura**

I think a 2d6 and movement stat would help a lot.

One of the biggest problems in 40k is representing speed. Humans, eldar, and whatever creepy looking nid creature move at roughly the same speed and it breaks the narrative a bit. It'd be nice if humans moved 4", eldar/marines moved 5", and some daemons/nids moved 6".
This would also give Necrons a weakness in that they are slow, moving 3", but can run and shoot. So effectively they move 6" but that is their top speed regardless. It would make for more interesting games. I'm a huge fan of the movement speed stat in WMH, and it adds a nice tactical complexity to the game. They'd have to reduce weapon ranges.

A 2d6 provides a nice bell curve. This would make things like terminators a lot better, since you could give them a low armor stat and have it up how many shots they take. You can also expand stats from 1-10 to 1-20, like in WMH.

I would play the heck out of a 40k setting but closer to WMH rules style game. Just take all my money.

**ZebioLizard2**

Just Tony wrote:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Simpler rules also resulted in some really, really boring 3rd (beginning) and 4th (CSM, Eldar) dexs too, so one has to balance out simple with fun too.

So it'd be better with things like 3rd Ed. Craftworld Eldar and Chaos 3.5? I like balance, even if some people think of it as "boring". M:TG is right over there if you need excitement ----------->

What a strange non-argument, considering this is about mechanics rather then balance, which even in the most perfect ruleset can be a problem if something is horrifically balanced, I mean a book can be as simple as move and shoot but if it contains 3 point S7 AP3 48' gun models its going to break the game regardless of how simple it is.

**Elbows**

Akiasura wrote:
I think a 2d6 and movement stat would help a lot.

One of the biggest problems in 40k is representing speed. Humans, eldar, and whatever creepy looking nid creature move at roughly the same speed and it breaks the narrative a bit. It'd be nice if humans moved 4", eldar/marines moved 5", and some daemons/nids moved 6".
This would also give Necrons a weakness in that they are slow, moving 3", but can run and shoot. So effectively they move 6" but that is their top speed regardless. It would make for more interesting games. I'm a huge fan of the movement speed stat in WMH, and it adds a nice tactical complexity to the game. They'd have to reduce weapon ranges.

A 2d6 provides a nice bell curve. This would make things like terminators a lot better, since you could give them a low armor stat and have it up how many shots they take. You can also expand stats from 1-10 to 1-20, like in WMH.

I would play the heck out of a 40k setting but closer to WMH rules style game. Just take all my money.

You should buy up some old 2nd ed. rulebooks/codices and have a blast - it's what I've done.

My friend and I are simply adapting the psychic phase and close combat to be more simple/streamlined.

**Mr. CyberPunk**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Rather than arguing over semantics, let's just call the concept "sufficient complexity". Which gets a lot easier rolling a D10 instead of D6.

From a game design standpoint, a d10 is effectively functionally identical to a d6. What a d10 does is split each intermediate non-min / non-max result in half: 1, 2a/2b, 3a/3b, 4a/4b, 5a/5b, 6. With a d10, you have the illusion of "more", but the game will still center around the same effective number ranges that you would have had with a d6. If you want meaningful difference (i.e. fine gradation) from a d6, then you need to jump all of the way up to a d20.

And really, it's not like 40k isn't complex enough. Even if GW strips it down to its core.

This make no sense at all

**DeffDred**

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Rather than arguing over semantics, let's just call the concept "sufficient complexity". Which gets a lot easier rolling a D10 instead of D6.

From a game design standpoint, a d10 is effectively functionally identical to a d6. What a d10 does is split each intermediate non-min / non-max result in half: 1, 2a/2b, 3a/3b, 4a/4b, 5a/5b, 6. With a d10, you have the illusion of "more", but the game will still center around the same effective number ranges that you would have had with a d6. If you want meaningful difference (i.e. fine gradation) from a d6, then you need to jump all of the way up to a d20.

And really, it's not like 40k isn't complex enough. Even if GW strips it down to its core.

This make no sense at all

Yes it does. I've been trying to explain it to my friend for months. He thinks a d10 would add this incredible amount of depth... how many units would really have a value of 1 in there stat line? How many would actually have a 10? Bloodthirster? Avatar of Khaine? It's pointless. Anything other than a d6 needs to be a d20 but in a game of random stuff I'd rather have 6 results or a d66 result over 20 results.
Imagine the annoyance of 20 possessed abilities or scattering d20 +/- or whatever.

**Mr. CyberPunk**

DeffDred wrote:
Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Rather than arguing over semantics, let's just call the concept "sufficient complexity". Which gets a lot easier rolling a D10 instead of D6.

From a game design standpoint, a d10 is effectively functionally identical to a d6. What a d10 does is split each intermediate non-min / non-max result in half: 1, 2a/2b, 3a/3b, 4a/4b, 5a/5b, 6. With a d10, you have the illusion of "more", but the game will still center around the same effective number ranges that you would have had with a d6. If you want meaningful difference (i.e. fine gradation) from a d6, then you need to jump all of the way up to a d20.

And really, it's not like 40k isn't complex enough. Even if GW strips it down to its core.

This make no sense at all

Yes it does. I've been trying to explain it to my friend for months. He thinks a d10 would add this incredible amount of depth... how many units would really have a value of 1 in there stat line? How many would actually have a 10? Bloodthirster? Avatar of Khaine? It's pointless. Anything other than a d6 needs to be a d20 but in a game of random stuff I'd rather have 6 results or a d66 result over 20 results.
Imagine the annoyance of 20 possessed abilities or scattering d20 +/- or whatever.

How many units have a value of 1 (apart of attack and wound) right now ??? How many got a 10 ??? Basically none. Using d10 add 67% of range value compared to a d6, I just don't see how you can claim it's pointless.

**Peregrine**

DeffDred wrote:
how many units would really have a value of 1 in there stat line?

How many units have a 1 now? Aside from the fact that you aren't required to avoid using 1s no matter what dice you use it's still a significant increase in the range of numbers available. Under the current D6 system 1s and 6s are very rare, and virtually all units have stats in the 2-5 range (and even 2s are fairly rare). So that's four numbers available. If you move to a D10 system and keep the "no using the highest or lowest number" rule you now have 2-9 available, which is eight numbers. That's double the number of values.

Also, remember that most of 40k's problems with the D6 system aren't that hard to resolve. The most common issue is the "elite, but not that elite" units, where you want to give them a bit better stats than the basic unit but not quite as much as the best stuff. For example, normal IG troops are BS 3, and veterans/stormtroopers/etc should have improved BS. But you have to add a full point of BS, bringing them all the way up to space marine level. Now, I'm quite happy with this, because

those special snowflakes, but some people don't like "normal" humans having the same stats as marines. Then you have the same problem with marines, a sternguard squad would really like improved BS over a tactical squad but if you add a full point of BS you bring them up to heroic HQ level and that's too far. And you can't solve the problem within the D6 system by re-scaling everything downwards to free up numbers, because you still have to leave room for orks/conscripts/etc at BS 2 and snap shots at BS 1.

A D10 system solves this rather neatly. Let's say we keep the same roll to hit system and just change the numbers (making the to-hit number = 11 - BS). "Normal" humans can be BS 5, keeping the same 50% hit rate. Veterans get BS 6. Tactical marines get BS 7. Sternguard get BS 8. HQs get BS 9. God-like characters get BS 10. That covers all of the relevant categories already, the extra numbers added by moving all the way to a D20 would be redundant. And of course if you change the core mechanic instead of keeping the same to-hit system you can free up all of those lower numbers and get even more possible values in case you come up with something that needs them.

**DeffDred**

Peregrine wrote:
DeffDred wrote:
how many units would really have a value of 1 in there stat line?

How many units have a 1 now? Aside from the fact that you aren't required to avoid using 1s no matter what dice you use it's still a significant increase in the range of numbers available. Under the current D6 system 1s and 6s are very rare, and virtually all units have stats in the 2-5 range (and even 2s are fairly rare). So that's four numbers available. If you move to a D10 system and keep the "no using the highest or lowest number" rule you now have 2-9 available, which is eight numbers. That's double the number of values.

Also, remember that most of 40k's problems with the D6 system aren't that hard to resolve. The most common issue is the "elite, but not that elite" units, where you want to give them a bit better stats than the basic unit but not quite as much as the best stuff. For example, normal IG troops are BS 3, and veterans/stormtroopers/etc should have improved BS. But you have to add a full point of BS, bringing them all the way up to space marine level. Now, I'm quite happy with this, because those special snowflakes, but some people don't like "normal" humans having the same stats as marines. Then you have the same problem with marines, a sternguard squad would really like improved BS over a tactical squad but if you add a full point of BS you bring them up to heroic HQ level and that's too far. And you can't solve the problem within the D6 system by re-scaling everything downwards to free up numbers, because you still have to leave room for orks/conscripts/etc at BS 2 and snap shots at BS 1.

A D10 system solves this rather neatly. Let's say we keep the same roll to hit system and just change the numbers (making the to-hit number = 11 - BS). "Normal" humans can be BS 5, keeping the same 50% hit rate. Veterans get BS 6. Tactical marines get BS 7. Sternguard get BS 8. HQs get BS 9. God-like characters get BS 10. That covers all of the relevant categories already, the extra numbers added by moving all the way to a D20 would be redundant. And of course if you change the core mechanic instead of keeping the same to-hit system you can free up all of those lower numbers and get even more possible values in case you come up with something that needs them.

All of those examples seem like a drastic case of imbalance. BS is fine and all but applying that to WS or S and T would just ruin the game. Certain units would become completely obsolete if their stats were based off fluff. Grots, conscripts, nurglings would all be shockingly pathetic.

Now if this were a complete overhaul of the game it could make more sense but its pointless debating on it until everyone can agree on the basic rules changes before making suggestions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Sternguard hitting 80% of the time? That's just stupid. Eldar would have to have a "faster than human" save to compensate for that.

A character hitting 90% of the time?! Isn't that just currently BS 10?

**Peregrine**

DeffDred wrote:
All of those examples seem like a drastic case of imbalance. BS is fine and all but applying that to WS or S and T would just ruin the game.

Why? Anything you can do in a D6 system can be done in a D10 system, you just pick the appropriate numbers that give you roughly the same probability as you'd have under the D6 system. I can't see any way that this would ruin the game unless it's a badly executed D10 system.

Certain units would become completely obsolete if their stats were based off fluff. Grots, conscripts, nurglings would all be shockingly pathetic.

Yes, of course they'd be pathetic. They should be pathetic. But fortunately in a points-based game like 40k having pathetic units is not a problem. Grots/nurglings/etc would be extremely cheap per model to reflect their pathetic stat line, while conscripts would fall somewhere in the middle between the truly pathetic units and the "trained troops" level of normal guardsmen/fire warriors/etc.

And Sternguard hitting 80% of the time? That's just stupid. Eldar would have to have a "faster than human" save to compensate for that.

Why is that so bad? Sternguard are already hitting 66% of the time, so it's a ~21% increase in firepower. That is comparable to the firepower levels you can already get (for example, it's considerably less than giving them a re-roll to hit) and easily compensated for by increasing their point cost if necessary. And remember that this was just a bare minimum "keep the same mechanics with a D10" change, it wouldn't necessarily be 80% if you're allowed to change the whole hit-wound-save process in addition to changing what dice are used.

A character hitting 90% of the time?! Isn't that just currently BS 10?

No, that would be BS 5 like many characters have already. At BS 5 you're hitting 83% of the time already, bumping it up to 90% is not a big difference. And remember that characters rarely have the biggest guns in the army, going up to 90% hit rate on a single plasma pistol or combi-melta or whatever is not going to make a meaningful difference in balance across an entire army.

**Mr. CyberPunk**

Watching a video battle report got me thinking I'd really like them to remove look out sir. It takes a lot of time and makes IC far too hard to kill. Doing so would also help put the emphasis back on the small guy's

**DeffDred**

Peregrine wrote:
or whatever is not going to make a meaningful difference in balance across an entire army.

Then what would be the point of the changes in the first place?

**Kaiyanwang**

Akiasura wrote:
I think a 2d6 and movement stat would help a lot.

One of the biggest problems in 40k is representing speed. Humans, eldar, and whatever creepy looking nid creature move at roughly the same speed and it breaks the narrative a bit. It'd be nice if humans moved 4", eldar/marines moved 5", and some daemons/nids moved 6".
This would also give Necrons a weakness in that they are slow, moving 3", but can run and shoot. So effectively they move 6" but that is their top speed regardless. It would make for more interesting games. I'm a huge fan of the movement speed stat in WMH, and it adds a nice tactical complexity to the game. They'd have to reduce weapon ranges.

A 2d6 provides a nice bell curve. This would make things like terminators a lot better, since you could give them a low armor stat and have it up how many shots they take. You can also expand stats from 1-10 to 1-20, like in WMH.

I would play the heck out of a 40k setting but closer to WMH rules style game. Just take all my money.

Not going to happen. The squads are huge in 40k compared to WMH (at least, they can be). How are you supposed to roll a bucket of dice, AND roll them in couples? Is not the level of resolution GW wants to sell you SpamHammer.

**Mr. CyberPunk**

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Akiasura wrote:
I think a 2d6 and movement stat would help a lot.

One of the biggest problems in 40k is representing speed. Humans, eldar, and whatever creepy looking nid creature move at roughly the same speed and it breaks the narrative a bit. It'd be nice if humans moved 4", eldar/marines moved 5", and some daemons/nids moved 6".
This would also give Necrons a weakness in that they are slow, moving 3", but can run and shoot. So effectively they move 6" but that is their top speed regardless. It would make for more interesting games. I'm a huge fan of the movement speed stat in WMH, and it adds a nice tactical complexity to the game. They'd have to reduce weapon ranges.

A 2d6 provides a nice bell curve. This would make things like terminators a lot better, since you could give them a low armor stat and have it up how many shots they take. You can also expand stats from 1-10 to 1-20, like in WMH.

I would play the heck out of a 40k setting but closer to WMH rules style game. Just take all my money.

Not going to happen. The squads are huge in 40k compared to WMH (at least, they can be). How are you supposed to roll a bucket of dice, AND roll them in couples? Is not the level of resolution GW wants to sell you SpamHammer.

Indeed, 2d6 would be the best, but no way is it implementable in the current scale of 40k

**Elbows**

Deff, you seem to be missing the point.

It's simple mathematics. A D10 applied to a game system allows more variation in stats than a D6. You seem to be implying that it does not. This is incorrect.

The inclusion of a D10 or any other type of dice would obviously require a complete change to the way the game is handled, but that's not what we're discussing. You seem to be implying that mathematically a D10 and D6 are the same...which is patently false. If not, you're coming across that way and may wish to restructure your statement.

**_ghost_**

Well but a D6 has advantages you can nevverever get by a d6

the biggest is that you eyes are able to recognise any given number on a d6 much much faster han on a d10.

so game would become a lot slower just because you need more time to flick through a bunch of dice.... and 40k uses a lot of dice.

In addition it would be much more streng consumuing. you have to conentrate more to read a bunch of d10.

**TheCustomLime**

bob82ca wrote:
I just finished reading a rumor from a source on BOLS...

Well. there's your problem. BOLS is not a particularly reliable source of rumors. You are better off throwing a bunch of random ideas written on scraps of paper into a hat, pulling one out at random and posting about it.

**alex0911**

Lord Kragan wrote:
bob82ca wrote:
I just finished reading a rumor from a source on BOLS that the next edition of 40k is going to have some major changes. They say that it's NOT going to be made like AOS but they are going to do away with Strength and Toughness. And there is some talk about warscrolls. Well that sounds like AOS to me...

What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design? Some of the best games thrive on their complexity (Dungeons and Dragons). Every time you play 40k you learn something new, it's a robust game. IMO the only thing that is over-complicated are rules that make the game sluggish. Soulblaze and random objectives...things like that. Overwatch, going to ground, random charge distance are all fantastic. All of the crazy rules (zealot, rage etc.) are fantastic! And why would you want to get rid of one of the best parts about 40k, list building!

There is some thought going around that 40k is too complicated and that's why GW has declined over the years. The reality is that GW will never be like they were in the 90's, it was a different time. There's nothing wrong with 40k, it's just that your target market has been reduced to ONLY the hardcore nerds. Back in the 90's video games were less of a distraction and so you could sell the idea of a miniature war game to the mainstream. But now the complexity and scale of todays video games compete for the interest of the teenage demographic. So now you're only really selling Warhammer to the O.G.'s that have been playing since they were kids and the new generation of nerds.

This year I took part in the AOS campaign to give it a fair shake. And I have to say the game was just atrocious. Each guy has one or two deathstars that play cat and mouse, while everything else in there army pretends to be significant. Everything I charged with Manfred got deleted, and everything my opponent charged with his dragon thing got deleted... You got archers being attacked in close combat that are still shooting their bows in the shooting phase and attacking in the combat phase...it's a total mess. I'm a little sick and tired of the AOS fanboys being so vocal about how great the game is.

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it. I will switch my main game to Hobbit probably. The AOS players will love it and they can have it.

We AoS "fanboys" are tired of 40k fanboys being snide snobs thinking that a "standard" game lasting 4 hours and ending with a royal head-ache is cool and hammering how cool it is. We are also tired of people not knowing how to play (because I've seen little to no deathstars in this game, so please explain me in what they consisted) and whinning about it (but you're right that archers shooting in meele is a mess, my only complain). And don't get me started on the self-projection of yours with the "deathstars" part as there are a LOT of lists in 40k being basically deathstars (superfriends anyone?).

Open your eyes... AOS is a mess

**Elbows**

_ghost_ wrote:
Well but a D6 has advantages you can nevverever get by a d6

the biggest is that you eyes are able to recognise any given number on a d6 much much faster han on a d10.

so game would become a lot slower just because you need more time to flick through a bunch of dice.... and 40k uses a lot of dice.

In addition it would be much more streng consumuing. you have to conentrate more to read a bunch of d10.

Yes, and no. I play numerous games which use a lot of D10s and I don't find it any slower than a D6. 40K uses far too many D6's as it is now...so that's a problem in and of itself. The number of attacks/shots/etc. is one of the things which turns me off hugely from current 40K.

**JohnHwangDD**

Elbows wrote:
It's simple mathematics. A D10 applied to a game system allows more variation in stats than a D6. You seem to be implying that it does not. This is incorrect.

The inclusion of a D10 or any other type of dice would obviously require a complete change to the way the game is handled, but that's not what we're discussing. You seem to be implying that mathematically a D10 and D6 are the same...which is patently false. If not, you're coming across that way and may wish to restructure your statement.

What most of you are choosing not to comprehend is how marginal the difference is between a d10 and a d6. Yes, 10 it is more than 6, but not the point that it would actually change anything in terms of how the game works. If the point is to have an incremental change for appearances, then by all means, shift a d6 game over to a d10. Just don't expect it to be meaningfully different from the d6 version.

**Kaiyanwang**

I recognise the changes from a d6 to a d10. And I do not think it would slow down the game.
My fear is, following iterations of the game would still shift the values toward the middle or high-middle.

Look at how many units were BS3 and went gradually to BS4 edition after edition. In 3rd, only Ulthwé Black Guardians were BS4. Guardians now..
Space Marines Scouts. IG got BS4 veterans.
Or designers got way around it with mechanics like twin-linked everywhere, heavy 20, relentless salvos, marketlights....

The dice is not the problem. The lack restraint and possibly fanboyism from the designer's part should be limited.

Overall, is the continuous rolling and rerolling that slows the game and removes player's agency.

**Lord Kragan**

alex0911 wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
bob82ca wrote:
I just finished reading a rumor from a source on BOLS that the next edition of 40k is going to have some major changes. They say that it's NOT going to be made like AOS but they are going to do away with Strength and Toughness. And there is some talk about warscrolls. Well that sounds like AOS to me...

What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design? Some of the best games thrive on their complexity (Dungeons and Dragons). Every time you play 40k you learn something new, it's a robust game. IMO the only thing that is over-complicated are rules that make the game sluggish. Soulblaze and random objectives...things like that. Overwatch, going to ground, random charge distance are all fantastic. All of the crazy rules (zealot, rage etc.) are fantastic! And why would you want to get rid of one of the best parts about 40k, list building!

There is some thought going around that 40k is too complicated and that's why GW has declined over the years. The reality is that GW will never be like they were in the 90's, it was a different time. There's nothing wrong with 40k, it's just that your target market has been reduced to ONLY the hardcore nerds. Back in the 90's video games were less of a distraction and so you could sell the idea of a miniature war game to the mainstream. But now the complexity and scale of todays video games compete for the interest of the teenage demographic. So now you're only really selling Warhammer to the O.G.'s that have been playing since they were kids and the new generation of nerds.

This year I took part in the AOS campaign to give it a fair shake. And I have to say the game was just atrocious. Each guy has one or two deathstars that play cat and mouse, while everything else in there army pretends to be significant. Everything I charged with Manfred got deleted, and everything my opponent charged with his dragon thing got deleted... You got archers being attacked in close combat that are still shooting their bows in the shooting phase and attacking in the combat phase...it's a total mess. I'm a little sick and tired of the AOS fanboys being so vocal about how great the game is.

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it. I will switch my main game to Hobbit probably. The AOS players will love it and they can have it.

We AoS "fanboys" are tired of 40k fanboys being snide snobs thinking that a "standard" game lasting 4 hours and ending with a royal head-ache is cool and hammering how cool it is. We are also tired of people not knowing how to play (because I've seen little to no deathstars in this game, so please explain me in what they consisted) and whinning about it (but you're right that archers shooting in meele is a mess, my only complain). And don't get me started on the self-projection of yours with the "deathstars" part as there are a LOT of lists in 40k being basically deathstars (superfriends anyone?).

Open your eyes... AOS is a mess

No it isnt: barring the fact that you can shoot while in combat the game has no glaring issues so to speak off. But you know what, do tell me what exactly is the mess in this game, c'mon do tell me? In so far the only thing most people have said is: it's bad, it's a mess. C'mon, what the hell is bad?
And don't come me with the OP's post because if it's what I think what happened then It shouldn't surprise no one that Vlad deleted everything in combat. Do you expect that, to make an example, 200pts last you too long against a 400-500 points worth of enemies??

EDIT: Now I actually remember the OP, 'kay nothing lost then, guy's an inflammatory moron.

**Future War Cultist**

AoS is not a mess. It's got a couple of issues sure but they're minor. And right now honestly I find it's a lot more fun to play than 40k is. Definitely easier to get into too.

**Lord Kragan**

Future War Cultist wrote:
AoS is not a mess. It's got a couple of issues sure but they're minor. And right now honestly I find it's a lot more fun to play than 40k is. Definitely easier to get into too.

I know. Those people that seem to call AoS a mess seem to forget about things like the super-friends lists, the scat-bike spam with dual wraithknight, the riptide-wing with the kevin (fond of leet speak with their KV128 bull-craup) twins, and screamerstars, just to name a few un-fun combos that can run a game into the ground.

**Colehkxix**

Changing from d6s to d10s would be a pretty good improvement. I've always been disturbed by the extreme difference between say, a 2+ and a 3+.

Any argument about how d6s are easier to read or whatever and that's why they're better. They're just... wrong.