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.

I been watching the YT channel Modeling For Idiots play 40K Recruit Edition's tutorial found in the set's manual. I already been playing AoS a crap on after buying the Starter Kit and prior to that been playing some solo games using Fantasy Battle Manuals and drawing unit blocks on sheets of Paper because I didn't own a single model or even cheap other toys like Masters of the Universe figures prior.



From their Youtube playthrough of the Tutorial scenario not only does the basic commands for the 40K appear as the same as AoS and FB's functions but at least a few of the tutorial scenario is almost exactly the same as the Tutorial lessons found in the AoS Starter Set's Manual.



The only significant difference I seen so far is a hell lot more shooting. So much that it feels like 40K revolves completely around firepower and the one with the more Dakka of gun power and range wins. That Dakka decides everythng through sheer shooting.



So is 40k Basically Fantasy Battle and AoS with Guns?



Or are there far more significant differences not covered in Recruit Edition's manual (well the missions Modeling For Idiot's played out anyay)?

You are right and wrong. There are more differences than shooting, but shooting is a big component of 40k.

The terrain rules are very different - but is that because of shooting?

Also, FB/AoS regularly suffer/suffered from "shooting metas", which in some ways are/were worse than 40k because of the lack of terrain. I can remember a period in FB where Big Monsters were rarely seen as they died too easily to cannons, etc. And in AoS, Disciples of Tzeentch (shooting/magic bullets) have been a perennial top dog faction while Blades of Khorne (hit stuff only) have regularly struggled.

Tabletop 40k is similar to Star Wars in that it isn't really pure Sci Fi, but instead Fantasy in Space, way too many swords and shields. The literature is more Sci Fi in nature. But, that is why AoS/40k are very similar. AoS is clearly an attempt to make the second GW game more like 40k. While FB was different.

I mean, it's by and large the same people writing both. Jumping back and forth to churn out weekly books for one system or the other. Ideas get recycled, adapted, re-used, tested and copied between both games a lot. And the underlying "game-DNA" is by the same group of guys.

Not to mention the "company-history" of the games where 40K essentially started out as "Fantasy Battle in Space" back in the early, early days and Age of Sigmar later tried to incorporate my elements from the more successful 40K (with its own spin) in the re-imagining of the Fantasy "half".

I have been playing a bit of AoS, and from my perspective AoS armies run a ton of shoting, if they have access to it. There is melee stuff run too. Ton of monsters, which we see in w40k too.

Originally, way back when, pretty much. But it’s evolved to have it own flavour. The core of both games is super similar though, still.

8th AOSified 40k but AoS was 40kification on fantasy really anyway.

Fantasy was a whole different game.