Which system, as it stands now, has the better rules?
Which system lends itself to high level tournament play?
Which system has the better army composition rules?
Which system, if you play both, do you prefer and why?
Seems to me that the character rule in 40k is just a never ending clusterfuck of clarifications and loopholes.
What do you prefer? Protections for your characters or just relying on careful planning and tactics to keep them safe?
40k has the better rules for list construction; AoS is in between settings and it shows. A lot of armies were arbitrarily split into multiples factions of about 5 entries each (some as few as a single model), some are in the process of being squatted or just receiving no attention at all.
If you had a reasonable skaven collection, for example, clanrats are only "battleline" (troops) for verminus, and only skryre and pestilens have formation support, etc. My 3000 points worth of skaven don't actually collect into a coherent age of sigmar list.
40k stepped back a lot of the formation nonsense that essentially ruined 7th, and streamlined a lot of rules for the better. It still has issues and I don't consider either to be an especially tight ruleset, but I've found 40k to be more fun because the list construction is more forgiving and involves less handholding.
Also, AoS rules are simple until the dozen situational abilities that you need to do bookkeeping for. I miss the universal special rule system, as opposed to the "every unit has a wall of text to explain a rend mechanic" system.
AoS felt like 1 step forward 2 steps back in a lot of respects. It's still a fun game, though.
Overall I like the rules in 40k better because there are a couple crippling rules in AoS, and i find 40k is better supported so that game breaking combos are removed quicker.
Random player turn order every game turn is the worst thing ever as literally every game I have player where the player who goes 2nd turn 1, and then goes first turn 2 has won the game.
The list building in AoS is pretty much a joke and I find that the battle line rules really favor the new armies GW has put out while screwing over legacy armies.
Stormcast Eternal units for example benefit from the current system where you have to have x # of battleline units because they have squad leaders in their units that typically are stronger than the rest of their unit combined.
This means that increasing the squad size and denying a free squad leader is actively hurting yourself plus all the usual benefits to MSU
Meanwhile legacy units typically have garbage battleline units that get a significant bonus after tripling the squad size.
This ends up meaning you are at a minimum buying 3 10 man squads that are way inferior to a single 30 man squad, but the cost of upgrading those 3 squads to a 30 man squad for a total of 90 models is far too costly while these improved units are also significantly weaker than other units they could have been taking instead.
In my area we have house ruled that you have to buy 3 iterations of a battle line so you can either take 3 msu units or 1 big unit as legacy armies tend to be weaker anyway.
At first I hated the fact damage would spill over from a slain model in AoS, but after dealing with the fact that 40k has no damage spilling over I have come to appreciate it more.
I'd personally prefer it if the changed it so that damage spilled over at a 2:1 rate rounded down, but I realize this is too "complex" to really be implemented.
can't forgive 8th for bringing back Move as a characteristic, and a lot of the other RT/2E-era feel to the current rules is... irritating
AP was fine, for example - you knew instantly whether something would likely get through your armor, but now we're back to save mods, and that means, sooner or later, 2D6 saves and 1+s.
feels like it's very much a dynamic, changing background again, where they're not just introducing new toys like 5E-7E, but there's actual background change going on the way it was back in the day before people realized Move is retarded
not sure about Wounds being an all-type characteristic; I liked HP, but I do like the attempt to streamline everything
i just happen to think 4 facings and hard to kill with a bolter but not with massed bolters was the optimum amount of differentiation between light vehicles and heavy infantry
personally i blame the Tau players and their endless fuckin monstrous creatures in 7E
>In my area we have house ruled that you have to buy 3 iterations of a battle line so you can either take 3 msu units or 1 big unit as legacy armies tend to be weaker anyway.
I like this rule. It wouldn't actually help me because I just run multiple giant blocks of my Glade Guard and Eternal Guard and always wanted to do that, but it'd be handy for e.g. my friend's Skinks.
>can't forgive 8th for bringing back Move as a characteristic, and a lot of the other RT/2E-era feel to the current rules is... irritating
Why though? Move characteristics are great, different things should move at different speeds. Wyches should run faster than plaguebearers.
We have tried out multiple different house rules covering a bunch of stuff and that one is by far the one people like the most.
Well the one that people like the most after not rolling for random turn order which just about everyone does.
>Which system, as it stands now, has the better rules?
You are going to get opinions on this, but for me it's AoS honestly. And this is from a guy who got started in wargaming in 4e. AoS is just simple and elegant. Even all the things people mostly get riled up about, like random turn order, no SvT, range attacks in combat, I feel work as a whole in the system. I got excited when 40k went to a simpler system in 8e, but it just felt like a game where the designers of AoS lost sight of what make AoS good.
>Which system lends itself to high level tournament play?
Honestly, AoS again. There is imbalance issues in it, but nowhere near as large as the gap between certain types of armies in 40k. I think 8e is the best rendition of 40k rules so far, but the balance is still as terrible as ever. I have had very few completely one-sided battles in AoS, and still have them friequently in 40k.
>Which system has the better army composition rules?
40k does have this because of individual costs of models and units and their options. So there is more granularity here which listbuilders like most of all. AoS list building is very simple, which isn't a bad thing, but often it leaves people wanting.
>Which system, if you play both, do you prefer and why?
AoS, for the above reasons.
>Seems to me that the character rule in 40k is just a never ending clusterfuck of clarifications and loopholes.
That's the problem.
>What do you prefer? Protections for your characters or just relying on careful planning and tactics to keep them safe?
The latter. AoS does it better.
AoS just feels pointless to me. I don't like how it flows and I don't like the big combats that form in the middle. I hate that you wound on a flat value. A goblin wounding both a greater daemon and a human on a 5+ is stupid and I don't like it.
40k still has more variation
I disagree. I am a pretty big fan of it and find myself playing it more than 40k lately. Also the big combats in the middle is really not as much of an issue as people say it is. Unique scenarios, even open war cards, really give variation to games. Sometimes the pile-ups happen in the middle, but it's few and far between. Besides, I will take a middle table pile-up over 40k's turn 1 shooting alpha strike any day.
Sure 40k has more variation, but more variation doesn't necessarily = better. And 40k variation just still seems too much. The variety of dataslates and their unique interactions creates enough variation, but on top of that we also have so many rules with so many exceptions and a constant FAQ to fix shit competitive players keep finding and breaking, expanding the rules even further. AoS doesn't have that problem as much.
But again, this is just opinions here. I myself am preferring AoS games over 40k games lately. Theyre just more fun and exciting to me, even when played competitively.
All in all the most important factor in any game is the hobby aspect: which model ranges interest you for collecting painting and converting, also the community: which community around you is full of cunts, and which one seems like it has more cool dudes.
After those 2 factors then you look at the game's rules.
40k is better, but there are some gaping flaws with it that didn't exist in 7th edition.
Not that 7th was better, (it nearly killed 40k) but the amount of laziness they had when converting things to 8th breaks the game.
>remove templates
>now the only way to kill hordes is with hordes of your own
>basilisk is now an indirect fire anti tank gun instead of being usable as artillery
>if your opponent spams enough cheap models it can become mathematically impossible to win if you have an elite army
>lmao pretty much all stats and points values are copy/pasted despite changing core mechanics of the game
>replace ap with save mods
>bolters are now utterly ineffective at penetrating flak armor
>something that does penetrate flak armor, also reduces the save chance of a fucking imperial knight by 50%
>vehicles now have toughness
>have to be beefier or else lasguns would potentially 4 shot a land raider (they still rape all vehicles if you spam enough infantry)
>heavy anti tank weapons are now all over the place in terms of effectiveness
>tau railgun spends like 4 turns to kill a single fucking rhino
There's tons more, but everyone already knows this stuff.
I'm a big AoS fan, but right now, 40k is the better version. I like them both and I love how they're transferring rules between one another.
For me, it's 8th 40k > AoS > 7th ed 40k >>>>>>> whfb
AoS is beta testing for 40k.
I experienced WFB from 5th till 7th ed, and 40k from 3rd to end of 4th. After over a decade of not touching GW, AoS managed to bring me back, while I still have no desire to touch 40k ever again. So yeah, AoS for me.
It's 40k for all. But AoS has the better model range. 40k for the gameplay, AoS for the hobby.
40k got much better now. I'm still not considering going back to it because I'm sick of marines. It's like if in AoS instead of just the annoying Stormcast Eternals we also had Chaoscast Eternals, Deathcast Eternals and Destrucast Eternals.
I think 40k has that issue because people are more involved in it and therefore will find the exploits. Where I am everyone started AoS but have dropped it after building an army because it's not as interesting to the group.
I may be tempted to play a new elf army if it's ever released but currently I'm over stormcast and there is no point in playing my old 8th armies as AoS
>the only way to kill hordes is with hordes of your own
Not really, there's plenty of ways to deal with them. Usually with Morale
>Bolters suck at penetrating flak armour
And yet they still gun Guard down pretty easily
>Vehicles get killed by lasguns
Lasguns wound most vehicles on 6's. Antitank guns are now more about high strength and consistent damage, rather than one shot wonders.
It makes playing with and against vehicles more fun.
>40k has the better rules for list construction
Wrong.
AoS list building places limitations on armies. You must include Battleline units (Troops in 40K) and you have restricted numbers of big things, leaders and artillery. Whilst this doesn't stop all the bullshit, it does help to curtail it, and also pushes players towards more diverse army lists. Restrictions on allies encourages players to think carefully about what allied forces to include, especially as they lose their faction specific special rules if they have a mix of units from different armies.
40K allows you to build whatever the hell you want. There's almost no restrictions whatsoever; there is absolutely no reason not to just pick the best unit in your army and spam it. Again, AoS can fall victim to this too; I'm not saying it's perfect. But it's a hell of a lot better than 40K's approach. Nothing exemplifies that more than allies: 40K virtually encourages players to use Soup lists, which are derived in much of the community, by placing no restrictions on players just picking the best available units from a mixture of armies. Again, you can do this in AoS, but the game will penalise you, both in the amount of points that can be spent on those forces, and by taking away your faction special rules in favour of the generic Allegiance rules.
Both are shit, so the question is irrelevant.
One thing I'd like to point out as well.
Multi-wounds can carry over to other models in the unit in AoS.
This means giant monsters or elite infantry can still take hordes down due to this.
>rhino is not open topped and being to fire from shot
8th is shit
>Not really, there's plenty of ways to deal with them. Usually with Morale
...that most horde armies are immune to. See leadership 30 Ork mobs and Tyranid synapse.
>And yet they still gun Guard down pretty easily
No? Guard are one of the most complained about factions because the changes to toughnessVwounding, ap and the removal of templates makes their infantry just too hard to fight through when there’s 100 of them in your way. At least they lost commissars though.
>can't forgive 8th for bringing back Move as a characteristic, and a lot of the other RT/2E-era feel to the current rules is... irritating
idiot
Aaaah, AoS - the Last Jedi of wargames.
so you mean to ask which sucks less? Not an easy choice
What's wrong with movement?
If 40k just went back to the force organization chart from 5th I think the game would be in a much healthier place than it stands today.
Detachments are a joke and allies make soups really more potent than they ought to be.
GW needs to man up and draw the line in the sand so allies don't become the issue they are now in matched play.
>There's almost no restrictions whatsoever; there is absolutely no reason not to just pick the best unit in your army and spam it.
except CP (incidently the detachments including the most troops get the most CP) and HQ tax (in case people try and circumvent this limitation). There's also a limit in the number of detachments, in a similar fashion to AoS (the spreadsheet looks exactly like what you posted exactly).
I'm not saying there aren't problems with list building - but there are due to a mismanagement of keywords imo ('soup armies' use specific combos by allying different armies with good synergies).
AoS having random turn order means sometimes someone will win by virtue of playing a shooting army that gets 2 consecutive turns of uninterrupted shooting. I’m not a fan of that.
I think AoS is an improvement from WHFB in terms of rules, but I think the ridiculously overblown-to-the-point-of-being-cartoonish fluff is the worst thing about it. I loved the WHFB setting, and am pretty upset it got replaced with ‘He-Man and the Masters of the Universe’.
Also AoS was possibly the worst balanced tabletop game ever until the General’s Handbook was released-
I miss square bases
Keep on the course Brother
Neither. Both feel like rip-offs of themselves. Age of Sigmar reads like someone stole Tuomas Pirrinen's old skirmish notes, stuck some of them together, improvised the rest, and called it a rulebook. 40k reads like someone read an archived Veeky Forums thread on how to "fix" Warhammer, copy/pasted the army construction rules we've been discussing since 2008, and then let the AoS guys fill in the pieces. Something is missing. Like a soul. Or good rules I didn't read here first. GW treats their games as an afterthought to their miniatures, and I've never seen any reason to reward that. Beautiful miniatures though.
To be honest, I've never seen any plausible or good looking ways to "fix" 40k prior to 8th.
>AP was fine
no, it was not. modifier system is way better
>personally i blame the Tau players and their endless fuckin monstrous creatures in 7E
even when Eldar and Marines were guiltier with overpowered stuff?
OP here: I do think AOS does list building better because you can’t just spam elites or fast attack. True, you get more CP with brigades or battalions but you don’t have to use them.
Just about everything you say is in direct opposite of what most things I hear. AP was never a good system, at least not to me and my friends. It was lazy in a "all or nothing" way. Same goes for the move characteristics, it brings life to each and every unit. Terminators are now slower, because they are refereed to as tactical dreadnought armor! They move around wearing a small tank as armor, no matter the power house you have in that suit, you will be bogged down! And now GW can show it by reducing their movement.
This element is not only useful for the aesthetics, but also brings in another tactical element, where fast units can be more beneficial than slow units.
And they do try to streamline everything, because
1. Vehicles where shit!
2. Vehicles where shit!
3. Vehicles where shit!
Apart form these three reasons, they have also made a clusterfuck of a rules system (7th) able to play for just about anyone, new as old player. With enough tactical flexibility for them both to enjoy the game.
>Personally I blame the Tau players and their endless fucking monstrous creatures in 7th
Now this, we all do friend, we all do!
We are still here. Come one in, 6th Edition is great, there's fluffy and fun variant lists for everyone!
40k for the gamer. Better rules.
AoS for the hobbyist. Generally better models and more mono cat army viability.
Nahh I fucked over friends with cav and magic for 5 years and it was fun but I love a reason for infantry to excist.
Had tons of lulz with my 6th Khorne and 10+ dispel dice though.
Lastly the fun fact is that 40k is great and leveled if you dont sperge and "must play one codex".
Do well and play Imperium, Chaos or rogue with Xenos. This was the plan from the start.
Battalions are better than formations and strategems, and AoS has a more interesting magic system, compare an AoS Tzeentch army to a 40k one for instance. Wound rollover is also a better mechanic than 40k has. Double turns add a little more strategic depth.
If I could take something it would be character shooting rules, and the elimination of weapon ranges.
Shooting armies aren't the best in game. You'll also lose if 30 liberators get you in melee with a double turn.
This. Shooting armies dominating AoS is just a meme. A fast melee list will wreck any shooting list easily.
Opinions safely discarded.
I genuinely prefer Stormcasts over Space Marines, say what you will about them but AT LEAST it's just one army in AoS and not 6 fucking different flavors of the same thing.
by far
Same here, but for different reasons. I actually find the story and concept of SCE more interesting than space marines. The fact that they were once all heroes in previous lives before their transformation, and each death they lose a part of that. It's all pretty cool to me.
I tend to find there's a lot less overdesigning in the Stormcast than SM these days. Plus the female Stormcast are quite nice.
They are also a unified cohesive theme and all infantry are on 40 mm bases.
>Leadership 30 Orks
Kill 20 of them and they go to Ld10 the rest die to morale.
At T4 and either a 6+ or 5++ you can kill 20 very easily.
Unless theyre right next to another ld30 mob
I play Orks and people are starting to figure out that the way you bring down Boyz is to divide your firepower. You dakka down both mobs until they're at morale critical points. I can counter that to a certain extent with Warbosses but it's a tough one to deal with. Too many players keep on focus-firing one Boyz mob and ignoring other ones.
Pretty much. I've found killing 15-20 boyz from two mobs is pretty easy, and then both units lose a bunch more from morale.
Even if you don't wipe out the units, the dozen or so orks left isn't that scary.
I havent been in the hobby very long and I only play Age of Sigmar but I can try and give an unbiased opinion.
As a noob I think "which one is better" comes down to which setting is more appealing to you. Thats why I picked AoS, I liked the fantasy setting better. I definately think that 40k has more polished rules and more support from GW though. Not only that i believe its the more popular game. You'll probably find more 40k players than AoS.
But like I said, I prefer fantasy so I went with AoS even though 40k will always be GWs favorite.
One thing i hate about AOS is that pretty much all characters are just mobile buff machines that exist to buff your giant units into ridiculous deathstars, it also limits list building a lot because taking a character or unit and not the other one is just waste of points as everything is balanced as if they got buffs/are buffing units
this creates annoying spam armies(along with the fact that they decided to divide old armies into mini factions of like 5 units including characters) that are just boring to fight against
because the standard move with buffs/debuffs is a lot less stupid
it might seem smart to you now, but wait until you've had an entire edition of grots moving at the same speed as guard and ratlings - which are the same size as grots - being 25% slower
admittedly you're never going to have the full Squats experience, but in time when 5" is "standard" and 4" is "slow",
you'll be with me
succinct
moronic, but succinct
trust me, when you're looking at Hell's Snowball and it saves everything on 1+ on 2D6, you'll be yearning for AP
much faster, less abusive in the wrong hands
>tau player
i'm so very sorry
>now GW can show it by reducing their movement.
but you could always do that by taking away their run and sweeping advance
the whole point of Move is that it was suited to the skirmish game 40k started out as, but by the time you had vehicles in late RT (and don't even get me started on how over-thought their move speeds were back then) you'd be talking about games where you could see 200 models on the board, especially with Orks factored in
short of movement trays and rank-and-file systems, standard move distances - with infantry's basic speed keeping pace with tanks - makes more sense and is easier to keep track of
ultimately the problem with Move is that it's another column of stats to keep track of - not just your own, but any units you face
nobody wants to get to the end of a big game and find that no, Harlequins don't actually move that fast and no, a lot of those charges and so on shouldn't have been possible
ultimately it's just open to abuse unless you really want to memorize yet another stat - easier to have shorties go Slow & Purposeful, longshanks go Fleet, etc, and from the fluff perspective - how long are we seriously saying the slowpokes stayed alive for if they constantly need protection from faster allies? it's a kill or be killed galaxy out there
Literal pleb tier opinion. You can't just read a philosophy 101 book and apply it to everything.
No offence bro.
I dont think I can be offended by a retard, but thanks for your input.
Alex Jones was right all along.
Not him, but I also think your opinion is plebby. Get yer knees brown.
UFOs molested my cattle because I saw two guys making out in a unisex toilet.
>Replace move stat with USR
Fuck special rules, a stat is a lot easier.
Hell, they removed Initiative, so you don't even have to remember any extra stats, just a different one.
>Standard Move is easier
Except it was hardly standard - bikes, vehicles, etc could all move different amounts, tied to some arbitrary keyword. I'd much rather just have a move stat on their profile.
If nothing else, it opens up design space, and makes it easier on new players who don't have to remember what all the different "standard" move values are.
Honestly love 8th 40k so much more than AoS, if the Free peoples were more like the Empire and unit pricing was better like 40k's I'd pick it up.