40K Chapter Approved vs AoS General's Handbook 2025-2026

[Silvereyes]

In the last few months, I've been introduced to Age of Sigmar, playing a Skaven army. I've been really enjoying it actually, even though I have no real interest in fantasy settings, or the world of AoS itself. I do find it has a bit of a better flow than 40K in certain respects, albeit for some obvious reasons like far less focus on terrain and shooting. I still prefer 40K altogether, but one aspect I vastly prefer over 40K currently is this year's mission pack.

 

(Before I start, I should say, I only got into 40K just under 3 years ago, at the tail end of 9th, and really only know 10th. I've literally just got into AoS like 4 months ago, so only know 4th edition, and have only played this year's General's Handbook. So, you know, don't be surprised if I say something that was in a previous 40K edition, or something along those lines. That, and in the grand scheme of things, I am still a noob. Not a tournament player, or aspire to be one.)

 

You probably know what the Chapter Approved mission deck is. A deck of cards, which allows a selection of Primary Missions and Deployment Zones, either for a symmetrical game, or an asymmetrical game. Twist cards, which tend to range from being minor to outright game breaking. Challenger cards, a catch up mechanic, and are now no longer used in the tournament scene. And finally, a deck of secondary missions for each player, which can be used as tactical or fixed. The cards come in a pretty nifty cardboard container, with a nice little booklet, and 6 cardboard 40mm deployment markers.

 

The General's Handbook package is a bit clunkier. Rather than just a small leaflet, you get an actual book. 10th edition of 40K has been accused of having such big changes in online updates, you could call it edition 10.1, 10.2 etc. AoS's General's Handbook seems to take this concept a bit further, with the book seeming to replace certain parts of the AoS core rules. Especially noticable when you use the app, and have to select whether you're using the core rules, General's Handbook 2024-2025, or General's Handbook 2025-2026. Battleplans, secondaries, and a rules reminder are printed on A5 (I think) sized cards. Finally, you get 6 full size objectives, rather than just the 40mm objective markers. These objectives are usable, but they're not ideal. They're made of some kind of plastic, rather than the neoprene ones you can buy elsewhere, or indeed, not the same quality as the optional 40K objective markers GW themselves sell. A bit of an odd design difference, I'm surprised GW doesn't sell nice AoS objective markers as an optional extra, although as I'll get too, this season's objectives are arguably only good for this season.

 

Really, the biggest different here is about randomness. In Chapter Approved, you can select a Primary Mission and a Deployment Zone to go with it. In theory, this could mean lots of combinations? In practice, well, are the symmetrical deployment zones that different? They all 5 objectives markers, and a no man's land seperating the player deployment zones. 3 of them have the deployment zones on the short ends of the board, 2 on the long ends, and finally one that has the players in opposite corners. I feel like there is a bit of an illusion of choice. Even more so if you decide to use the official 40K Tournament Companion, which just outright lists what missions should go with what deployment zones. Tactical Secondaries allow a degree of randomness, but there aren't a huge number, and a smart player can play the odds game when drawing them. Frankly, I think my issue with the mission deck structure is that it seems to promise variety, but can't deliver to being restricted.

 

The AoS General's Handbook, has a very different approach. Instead of Primary Missions and Deployment Zones that can be mixed and matched, the General's Handbook gives you 12 Battleplans to choose from. Each Battleplan having a primary mission, a deployment zone map (complete with also showing you where terrain should be placed), and also an underdog ability for whichever player is losing at the start of battle rounds 2 through 5. There is no real randomness, as secondaries are chosen by the players as a step in the list building process. This does mean that if you replay a battleplan, there is no real variance, besides the armies and strategies you and your opponent bring. However, since each battleplan is bespoke, it means that you get a lot more interesting design. Battleplans can range from 3-6 objectives, rather than just the usual 5 in 40K. Deployment zones can also be a bit wackier as well, one battleplan having each player having just half the length wise deployment zone on one side of the board, touching each other, while the other side of the board is just no man's land. Hilarious. 

 

Perhaps my favourite aspect of the AoS pack if that the 6 objective markers are different colours, 2 red, 2 green, 1 blue, and 1 purple. This means that battleplans can use the different colours in different ways, such as giving points if you control a pair of red objectives. It's a way of giving different objective markers different worth. My favourite battleplan is Lifecycle, in that one, you have 4 objectives, each different colours. They are arranged in a rough rectangle shape around the center of the board. From round 2, a player chooses a colour to be the primary objective, and then the primary objective moves clockwise each battleround, scoring whoever holds the primary in their turn more points. It's such a fun and dynamic missions, with players having to choose whether to plan ahead, and what objectives to prioritise. Or seize the entire center of the map, in an attempt to try and hold all objectives. It reminds me of my favourite 40K mission, being the one with the alpha and omega objectives.

 

Having pre-designed battleplans cuts down on understanding time and complexity. I also enjoy how most primary missions, you just score points on objectives at the end of your turn, including in the first battle round. Compared to General's Handbook of usually having no primary scoring in the first battle round, scoring objectives in the remaining battle rounds at the end of your Command Phase, except if it is the last turn, at which case it is at the end of the turn. Like a lot of things in 40K, I understand why it is done this way, scoring happens after battleshock, first round objectives could mean freebie points for players etc. But it feels like there has to be a solution to this that is just less clunky in design. Sortof thing I hope 11th edition is a lot better at, if it's true 11th is basically just a refined version of 10th.

 

AoS isn't perfect. I actually really dislike the secondaries. Everyone can pick 2 of a list of 6 secondaries to choose from. Secondaries contain 3 parts, each part having to be completed in order. You can only score 1 part of each secondary during a turn. And if you do something like take a double turn, a downside of that is that you can't score a secondary, even if you achieve the requirements. It just feels very cumbersome, especially for secondaries that have some pretty specific conditions to achieve, like actually being the underdog, and therefore losing the match, to score it. Compared to that, 40K secondaries are usually worded pretty well, and are designed for players to do stuff on the fly, and you can easily discard or ignore them.

 

I will admit, I am in a bit of a honeymoon phase with AoS. I think it is very fun, and I do think it lacks a lot of the cumbersome elements 40K has. Skaven is such a fun army to play as, and I unironically would love Space Skaven to be a thing. But I know AoS has a very different meta, it has far less shooting, and terrain is far less of a concern. 40K can feel more cumbersome because it uses systems like strength/toughness, which I do think are neccesary. But, I'm really not a fan of how much current 40K is so focused on the competitive tournament angle. I am biased, I am not very good at 40K, and I doubt I would ever enter an official tournament. AoS seemingly feeling a bit more relaxed does intice me more.

 

It does feel strange how 40K has the mission packs, designed to be very competitive, and rewarding players for learning how to maximise primaries, secondaries, and variables. Then we have Crusade, which is all very narrative focused, but requires a lot of time and dedication to it due to it being a campaign system, and arguably more like a side mode to 40K. It seems like, at least to me, there should be something in the middle here? Pre-made battleplans, perhaps recreating 40K iconic battles, or just simple scenarios, that can be played like a normal 40K game, but allows for more fun. Scenarios where there is an attacker and defender, with different missions? Asymetric missions and deployments, as well as twists. It certainly feels like adding content to appease players like myself. (Helps that the stuff like primaries and secondaries this year seem to add little, and were more like refinements.) But I don't think the asymetric missions work gel that well with tactical secondaries. And asymetric deployment zones can either be fun, or very one sided depending on what mission you go with. It's a fun idea, but unless you do a mountain of play testing, I'm just not convinced you can really make the asymetric stuff gel with a competitive focused mission pack. Twists are fun, but seem to jump from being pretty dull, to being utterly game breaking. It's like GW sanctioned home brewing. Guess it's there if you and your opponent are a bit bored and want a shake up? Or are doing something silly like both playing World Eaters and using the 3D6 charge for utter chaos.

 

I am aware that this current status quo only started with 10th. Mission packs and mission/campaign books were in 9th and before, with them designed to be just for 6 months rather than a year? Certainly seems a bit more flavourful, even if I imagine having a constant release schedule could feel like another GW tax on 40K players. Perhaps there are stuff from there that could come back?

 

Those are some of my thoughts anyway. I'm actually really looking forward to GW hopefully announced the end of 10th edition campaign books. If they just let you play some pre-made battleplans, with less focus on trying to be super competitive, I would be very interested. I certainly hope there is more of status quo change for these missions packs going into 11th.

 

Any thoughts are welcome. Happy to be corrected, or be told that X thing existed in X edition.