Why don't AoS and 40k have the same rules?

[Valkyrion]

I don't know why it's just occurred to me after all these years, but when fantasy was rank and file and more of a mass battle system then it needed its own rules, but now AoS and 40k seem to me, on face value at least, very similar in terms of model quantity, army types and terrain layouts.

 

I might be miles out, but looking at a few warscrolls, the weapon rules could easily work in 40k, and all the models have W, LD, M and Saves etc, army building (points etc) looks very similar.

I'm not trying to argue the case for one or the other, just a passing curiosity.

[sarabando]

because now they can sell you two rule books every 3 years not just 1. 

[apologist]

In terms of the history, Rogue Trader was explicitly a modification of the Warhammer Fantasy Battles (WFB) rules to allow for greater nuance at range, and to dispense with the complexity in melee and formations. That was carried through into 40k 2nd edition, which was still compatible enough to allow for things like the  Games Day game that pitched Terminators suffering a teleport mishap into a battlefield of WFB!

 

When 3rd edition 40k rolled round, the rules were redrafted from scratch as an attempt to dispense with a number of oddities that the legacy WFB rules had on the game as it grew in size. The 40k close combat system which grew from WFB's roots, for example, was great for a handful of models, but scaled poorly and was excessively detailed for a game supposedly about sci-fi ranged combat.

 

From that point onwards, WFB and 40k diverged, becoming more refined towards their particular niche –rank and flank mass battles and platoon- (later Company-) level ranged skirmish.

 

When WFB met the End Times, Age of Sigmar was the equivalent of the 3rd edition 40k reset, and the two systems had a number of things in common – most obviously the skirmish/open formations, round bases, and general consolidation/simplification of a number of stats. 

 

8th edition 40k inherited a lot of the more novel mechanics and approaches pioneered in AoS, but was considerably more conservative in their application. In any case, 40k was inherently more similar to the changed mechanics from AoS than WFB ever was, so the change was less marked.

 

***

That's the history, but in terms of why they've remained distinct, I'd suggest it's down to a combination of factors:

• The commercial cycle means that there's incentive for change and variety, rather than the old aim of aiming for an increasingly refined 'perfect' version of a game.
• Diversity in products helps to offset any unfortunate problems with particular lines, and keeps the product lines distinct for marketing and sales.
• The mechanics serve the setting – 40k is still ultimately more about ranged combat, while AoS focusses on melee. The similar-but-different core games give the designers put a bit more emphasis on particular areas of the design space,
• As the two main systems follow one another in release order, each can benefit from any ideas or novel mechanics used in – and avoid any problems by learning the lessons from – the other.
• Novelty and innovation make solid commercial sense by keeping old players invested, and providing a new jump-in point. Supposedly the average hobbyist has a 'lifetime' of just eighteen months: having two systems that each update every three years means there's twice the chance of catching a new person.

Edited February 15 by apologist

[terminator ultra]

2 hours ago, apologist said:

Terminators suffering a teleport mishap into a battlefield of WFB!

it's still possible with a few rules changes imagine aelderi vs lumieth, necrons vs bonereapers, demons vs I guess demons, space marines vs stormcast, ogres vs ogryns, orks vs cruelboys etc

[Noserenda]

Because they have to be super careful around 40k as some fans are super delicate and it supports all the other things GW do, AoS they can afford to be a bit more inventive/experimental with and bring the best bits back to 40k. Why would they synchronise the systems and lose that flexibility? 

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

Not always the best bits... *looking at you fate dice* 

Edited February 15 by Mechanicus Tech-Support

[Scribe]

Noooooope.

 

The day will come GW reboots 5th, and I will be there. 

[MARK0SIAN]

At the heart of it is the vision the design teams have for their game. It’s already been said that AoS is primarily a melee combat game whilst 40K is primarily ranged combat. Obviously there are some ranged units in AoS and plenty of melee units in 40k but the overarching theme of each game is different.

 

If you tried to create a ruleset that was the same for both games you’d likely end up with one of 3 outcomes.

 

1) A set of rules that didn’t do justice to the theme of either setting and left all players unhappy.

 

2) A set of rules that still favoured either melee or ranged combat leaving either AoS or 40K players feeling underwhelmed:

 

3) A set of rules that gave the appropriate depth to both ranged and melee but this would mean the AoS players had to deal with (from their point of view) needlessly complex ranged rules when most of their units can’t shoot or vice versa, although this would probably be less of an issue for 40k players as they’re more used to melee being a part of their game.

 

I think the separate rules allow for game systems that feel different whilst still utilising a lot of the same mechanics. 
 

I also agree with the points others have made about it being better for business to have 2 different games.

[Valkyrion]

Thanks all.

For those who play both systems - could you combine the rules to make a 'perfect' ruleset - e.g, melee from AoS, shooting from 40k, morale from Aos, scoring from 40k or something, or are they both very much their own game from start to finish?

 

e.g, I like the idea of the rolling for who goes first each turn rule, but I've never played it and it might be a terrible rule that is universally abhorred and ignored by tournaments - but it might be the rule that defines AoS for all I know. 

[Emperor Ming]

Keep aos away from 40k!

 

Suffer not the Alien, the Mutant, the Heretic, the terrible aos rules. 

 

People think 40k is broken, units wound on a fixed value in aos

 

I tried it once and I was like, what?

 

Models do look ace thou

[phandaal]

On 2/15/2024 at 2:27 PM, Emperor Ming said:

Keep aos away from 40k!

 

Suffer not the Alien, the Mutant, the Heretic, the terrible aos rules. 

 

People think 40k is broken, units wound on a fixed value in aos

 

I tried it once and I was like, what?

 

Models do look ace thou

 

We are heading that way with the inception of "Points but actually Power Level." Just you wait - the double turn is upon us. You think one alpha strike is bad. Wait til you get TWO alpha strikes back to back!

 

@Cenobite Terminator As mentioned before, I have told you not to interact with me or my posts. This is when I point out that you are Black Blow Fly posting on an alt account to circumvent your multiple bans from this website.

 

Edited February 19 by phandaal

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Good answers abound in this thread.

 

Personally I wish 40k used the rules for HH 2.0. I find that out of AoS, 40K and HH 2.0. that 40k has the worst rules by far. The rules for AoS are brilliant but I don't think would translate well to the 41st/42nd millenium. 

[Focslain]

1 hour ago, Valkyrion said:

Thanks all.

For those who play both systems - could you combine the rules to make a 'perfect' ruleset - e.g, melee from AoS, shooting from 40k, morale from Aos, scoring from 40k or something, or are they both very much their own game from start to finish?

 

e.g, I like the idea of the rolling for who goes first each turn rule, but I've never played it and it might be a terrible rule that is universally abhorred and ignored by tournaments - but it might be the rule that defines AoS for all I know. 

 

Your welcome to try it, though the hardest part would be the wounding system as 40K and AoS are totally different in this aspect and I hate the AoS version. Same for how damage to dealt, that is a coin flip.

 

The alternating first turn is also a coin toss as you can get what is know as a double turn. IE the one that went last in the prior turn goes first in the next round and therefor goes twice. Most tournaments drop that cause it's way too swingy. 

 

Also like the morale system for 40k better now as it doesn't just delete units like it used to do in 40k and still does in AoS.

[TrawlingCleaner]

41 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

Thanks all.

For those who play both systems - could you combine the rules to make a 'perfect' ruleset - e.g, melee from AoS, shooting from 40k, morale from Aos, scoring from 40k or something, or are they both very much their own game from start to finish?

 

e.g, I like the idea of the rolling for who goes first each turn rule, but I've never played it and it might be a terrible rule that is universally abhorred and ignored by tournaments - but it might be the rule that defines AoS for all I know. 

 

I play both regularly and whilst they're both fantastic games throughout their cycles, they're ultimately very different games. There's elements that both systems could use from the other for sure, for example I think AoS 4th edition is likely to pick up characters being embedded in units and 40k could pick up battle tactics and seasonal bonus rules for specific units.

Melee in AoS gives units larger "Control Zones" of 3" so you can still fail charges on a Double 1, obviously the entire game is stacked towards melee and the system wouldn't really work in 40k. Shooting in 40k is largely the same as AoS, there's not really a big difference generally other than most AoS ranged weapons are DMG 1 with little to no AP. 

 

 

I don't mean to be snobby about AoS, if you play the game regularly the double turns really aren't swingy. Once you know how to account for them, they're not often pivotal. Alpha strike also tends to not be as much of an issue (unless you're running 10 Steam Tanks).

 

Picking up AoS is very quick and easy, everything is on the battle scroll  which is something I really like from this edition of 40k.

 

Ultimately, I think a lot of rules don't translate well to either system in their current formats. Could they change either to fit more to the other? For sure.

Also different strokes for different folks, AoS is ace but it's not for everyone. 40k is great but also not for everyone

[gideon stargreave]

17 hours ago, apologist said:

When 3rd edition 40k rolled round, the rules were redrafted from scratch as an attempt to dispense with a number of oddities that the legacy WFB rules had on the game as it grew in size. The 40k close combat system which grew from WFB's roots, for example, was great for a handful of models, but scaled poorly and was excessively detailed for a game supposedly about sci-fi ranged combat.

When 3rd came out, the melee rules became more like WHFB 5th edition, rather than less like it. But otherwise I see your point

[Xenith]

11 hours ago, TrawlingCleaner said:

seasonal bonus rules for specific units.

 

Please Tzeentch no. 

 

OP, The old statlines used to be the same, so you could theoretically drop a 40k unit into WFB without much hassle. You probably still could as the models would use their own rules, so a marine would hit a stormcast on a 3+ etc. Lack of toughness might be an issue, but solveable with an open mind. 

[Captain Idaho]

I see a lot of similarities in AoS and 40K and that's part of the reason I don't play 40K anymore. (Balance is another big reason)

 

I just don't care for the "every unit has it's own special rules to keep track of, it's fun trust me bro" method. I don't like the reduction in stat lines and each edition after 7th seems to erode the differences between 40K and AoS more and more - and AoS ain't becoming like 40K I can say!

 

I don't like AoS. The rules, the theme, the background material. 40K is becoming AoS in space and meh... I don't want to waste money on it either.

 

Now I'm focused on Necromunda, Legions Imperialis and The Old World because their rules are more to my theme. You could say GW still has me but those products are suffering from GW's unrelated issues on supply, so I give even less money to the company than ever before.

 

My friend's 3D printer is super busy though.

[TheMawr]

3 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

I just don't care for the "every unit has it's own special rules to keep track of, it's fun trust me bro" method.

 

Im of an opposite mind, and actually have similar issues.. unless we are maybe saying the same/a similar thing.

 

I do like special rules for units, however half of the special unit rules arent... they are the exact same copy paste rule you see dozens of times on similar units, but every time it has a different name.. and that I do dislike. ( and ontopic.. I had seen this in AoS first, but maybe I just didnt notice it before.)

 

There is no reason imho to give 1 rule 50 different names, or at least most of the times there isnt. I didnt exactly make a list of it, but when reading the indexes I see a lot of them.. sometimes within a faction, sometimes across different factions. And if they gave those just the same names, then people would realise there is far less special rules than it seems. ( while probably still too many for some people.)

[ZeroWolf]

I don't mind the special rules myself, they just need more refinement. As for the different named for the same ability (off the top of my head I know the Genestealers have one that's shared with a space marine unit) I think they wanted the rule name to be fluffy to the unit/army...but I can certainly see its creating the illusion of more special rules than it is.

 

On topic though, I think it's better that 40k and AoS are separate but I wonder sometimes if there wasn't a way where we could have two rulesets (of a sorts) in the same rule book, allowing for greater depth for those that want it (return of cross-referencing weapon skill, initiative etc etc.) The last bit probably wouldn't be legal in tournaments but I get the feeling those that want that aren't necessarily bothered by the tourny scene.

[Halandaar]

Different design teams with different design philosophies, basically. The games having different rulesets allows them to push the focus onto different things; naturally AoS is a more melee-focused game than 40K and the game rules allow for that. Something as minor as melee weapons having different ranges (spears reach farther than swords, after all) is a good example of how they can differ to highlight their themes whilst still ostensibly being based on the same underlying rules logic.

 

One thing I will say is that the AoS community at large seems to be significantly more satisfied with their game than the 40K community is, and as a result significantly more positive. Balance seems to be better, campaign supplements are better, content cadence is better (or at least better received), I personally would say even the model range is more inventive and interesting. It might be that the 40K team is chasing that a little bit with these shifts towards the AoS ruleset (that's not to say it doesn't work the other way, weren't Command Points a 40K thing first that was then imported to AoS?)

 

Edited February 18 by Halandaar

[Captain Idaho]

21 hours ago, TheMawr said:

 

Im of an opposite mind, and actually have similar issues.. unless we are maybe saying the same/a similar thing.

 

I do like special rules for units, however half of the special unit rules arent... they are the exact same copy paste rule you see dozens of times on similar units, but every time it has a different name.. and that I do dislike. ( and ontopic.. I had seen this in AoS first, but maybe I just didnt notice it before.)

 

There is no reason imho to give 1 rule 50 different names, or at least most of the times there isnt. I didnt exactly make a list of it, but when reading the indexes I see a lot of them.. sometimes within a faction, sometimes across different factions. And if they gave those just the same names, then people would realise there is far less special rules than it seems. ( while probably still too many for some people.)

 

Oh I agree with you that having special rules unnecessarily or duplicating others (sometimes subtly) is bloat and more to keep track of, but I'm also referring to the sheer need for special rules vs an established baseline core mechanic.

 

As an example, different statlines exist to provide water between units, races and even characters and models - so why does every unit have special rules on top of that?

 

If you've got the statlines, which I include weapons within, sorted and a done deal, having special rules can work as a rarity rather than the rule.

 

40K has focus on both, which seems redundant and just adding to bloat.

 

Bloat vs depth is confusing to many but it has to be thematic and intuitive to be depth, rather than feel like another barrier to playing the game. Necromunda and Adeptus Titanicus are great examples where there's depth in rules, statlines are definitive so everything else is just sprinkled around those.

 

Both those examples are skirmish level or below in terms of how many models are on the table to keep track of, thus more intense with their depth. 40K has a lot more models so by logical definition should have far fewer special rules, relying on the aforementioned statlines to differentiate between units.

 

Oh, here's an anecdote that'll emphasise the theme of my posts here today whilst give you a chuckle... 40K 2nd edition has less special rules than 10th edition 40K. Sure, many of the rules of 2nd slowed the game down, but check out the difference between Tactical Marines, Veterans (Tacticals basically), Devastators etc and you'll see a lack of special rules.

[apologist]

Absolutely agree, @Captain Idaho – using the underlying statline mechanics is an excellent way of presenting the qualities of a unit. Is it notably resilient? That can be represented through a combination of playing with the Toughness, Wounds and/or Save characteristics, with the specifics helping to give the particular unit its character. 

 

Layering additional special rules on that complicates things. That's not inherently a bad thing (they can provide a distinctive or unique angle, for example), but at a certain point, you start to lose the baseline, and the whole game becomes much more abstract and the parts difficult to relate to one another.

 

3rd edition gives a perfect example of how the rules writers ended up tying themselves in knots.

 

The Movement stat was removed, which made things very easy to remember – infantry always moved 6in.

...until we came to the Eldar, which had a new special rule to reflect their greater-than-human speed – fleet of foot meant they (mostly) moved 6+D6.

Which was fine, until the Imperial Guard Rough Riders were released; which also moved faster than an unmounted human. But they couldn't use fleet of foot, as horses have hooves; so a new special rule – identical in mechanics – called fleet of hoof was created. Likewise for termagants, which became fleet of claw...

 

In subsequent editions, this was glossed to just 'fleet' – but it was always an awkward, clunky and imprecise solution to the problem of different units moving at different speeds; a problem that would have been irrelevant if the M stat had simply remained in place.

 

+++

The current edition suffers from a lack of coherency between the background and the statlines, and an unwillingness to de-escalate 'stat inflation'. Things have been tweaked and adjusted seemingly in isolation, so we end up with Termagants' weapons being the same Strength as Tau pulse rifles, or ork boyz that have to be T5. Those just 'feel' wrong.

Edited February 19 by apologist

[MegaVolt87]

It's just better there is seperate rules in place a common rule set is not great. Flames of War unified to a common base for team yankee and the WW2 game and is poorer for it. 

[jaxom]

 

Re: wounding and stat blocks

 

Spoiler

sdvsdv

s

sdcv

 

 

On 2/15/2024 at 3:27 PM, Emperor Ming said:

units wound on a fixed value in aos

 

On 2/15/2024 at 4:16 PM, Focslain said:

though the hardest part would be the wounding system as 40K and AoS are totally different in this aspect 

 

On 2/18/2024 at 3:14 PM, Halandaar said:

Different design teams with different design philosophies, basically. The games having different rulesets allows them to push the focus onto different things; naturally AoS is a more melee-focused game than 40K and the game rules allow for that. Something as minor as melee weapons having different ranges (spears reach farther than swords, after all) is a good example of how they can differ to highlight their themes whilst still ostensibly being based on the same underlying rules logic

 

 

 

I think one of the big differences between the two design teams is that the AoS team seems to consider "interaction" as a physical aspect of the game while the 40k team seems to consider it a rules portion of the game. Maybe it comes from the traditional idea of fantasy being more melee-based, but regardless, it's much less about how the rules between units interact and much more about how their board presence interacts. 40k, having more of an emphasis on ranged weapons, then promotes designing around rule interactions because units don't interact through proximity as much.  

 

On 2/19/2024 at 11:04 AM, Captain Idaho said:

As an example, different statlines exist to provide water between units, races and even characters and models - so why does every unit have special rules on top of that?

 

*SNIP*

 

Oh, here's an anecdote that'll emphasise the theme of my posts here today whilst give you a chuckle... 40K 2nd edition has less special rules than 10th edition 40K. Sure, many of the rules of 2nd slowed the game down, but check out the difference between Tactical Marines, Veterans (Tacticals basically), Devastators etc and you'll see a lack of special rules.

I think you hit it on the head: more rules leads to more units and more units means more things to sell. There's a big difference in game design when one knows that the game must allow for a theoretically infinite design space versus a constrained design space.

Edited February 23 by jaxom

[Moonreaper666]

Being stabbed by a spear is quite different from being hit by a Lasgun