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.

As you all know, GW did a hard reset on Warhammer Fantasy and literally rewrote the rules for Age of Sigmar.

They had the luxury of starting from a blank slate, no baggage of lore or past editions. Rules were made simpler and more intuitive. Barrier to entry for beginners are also easier. Even at Skirmish level, GW somewhat made Kill Team the 'experimentation prototype' and WarCry the more polished product with new models and less clunky rules.

What are some great AOS game mechanism you think can be adopted into 40k?

One thing I think is cool in age of sigmar is they've been able to introduce this new innovative army in the Stormcast Eternals, 40k really needs an elite, transhuman faction of heavily armored warriors that work as kind of a lightning shock-troop.

This could make a really great addition to 40k's lore and world IMO.

40k could definitely use the double turn! *ducks*

Actually, I haven’t had the double turn ruin any games. And in 40k, it might actually help against the first turn gunlines murdering a lot of crap.

I like the concept of getting X CP per turn instead of all of them at the start

 timetowaste85 wrote:
40k could definitely use the double turn! *ducks*

Actually, I haven’t had the double turn ruin any games. And in 40k, it might actually help against the first turn gunlines murdering a lot of crap.

How would the double turn thing work. Lets say my opponent lets me move first, I don't have stuff starting 9" away or deep striking turn 1, so I move on to objectives and try to tap stuff with storm bolters. Then my opponent goes down with his army on my units twice? There is a chance I wouldn't have anything to work with, on my turn 2. specially if they used drop pods or something that can get in to charge range or short range in one turn.

two executioners with some, support would be deleting 3-4 units while themselfs starting out of LoS.

 fraser1191 wrote:
I like the concept of getting X CP per turn instead of all of them at the start

This is about the only thing from Sigmar I actually like better than what they did with 40k. Also possibly tying 'stratagems' to what units you take in your army ('command abilities' on the datasheet for the unit) so you don't have to dig through the stratagem appendix to find the one you're looking for.

Well, inherently AoS is more CC oriented with a few exceptions in units/army builds that are range-focused. By virtue of this, there's more interaction between players in the game vs 40K given from the baseline fact that you have to take turns in combat rather than just completely blowing the enemy off the table with shooting. They've moved away from a lot of artillery pieces in old Fantasy too, meaning you can't spam them effectively as well either.

One other thing that I think should apply to 40k as a whole that they have done well in AoS is limit the availability of high AP weaponry in an army. Things already die too fast in 40K, and AP ironically undercuts the value of marines, which is GW flagship faction for 40K. Make it so AP-1 is the most prevalent and make AP-2 and AP-3 actually rare to obtain, only for elite units and not in line units. They'd have to revamp the entire design paradigm though, since doctrines just give out additional AP to weapons like candy and plasma is everywhere.

Karol wrote:

How would the double turn thing work.

It involves you having to roll for turn priority every turn, and there are some penalties for taking a double turn(notably with Endless Spells).

AoS is one of the worst games ever made and is worse than fantasy in almost every conceivable way.

They already took too much of AoS with 8th ed. 40k and we have a new terrible game because of it.

What 40K needs is alternating activations of either units or sub phases.

Double turn might be the worst mechanic in gaming history. Anyone wanna play against a gunline for two turns in a row?

 Grimskul wrote:


One other thing that I think should apply to 40k as a whole that they have done well in AoS is limit the availability of high AP weaponry in an army. Things already die too fast in 40K, and AP ironically undercuts the value of marines, which is GW flagship faction for 40K. Make it so AP-1 is the most prevalent and make AP-2 and AP-3 actually rare to obtain, only for elite units and not in line units. They'd have to revamp the entire design paradigm though, since doctrines just give out additional AP to weapons like candy and plasma is everywhere.

On the one hand you are right using AP more cautiously would make the game a lot less lethal even though currently high AP is often wasted due to the prevalence of invulnerable saves. On the other hand AOS hands out mortal wounds like there is no tomorrow which makes restricting high AP a bit pointless.

Couple things I like about AOS vs 40k

Limits to range: As another poster said, ranged weapons are unusual, and longer ranged weapons rarer still. This inherently increases the value of maneuver, and makes potentially game-ruining concepts like the double turn just..a thing that occasionally causes issues? In 40k, as Karol and others pointed out, a guard army could easily just table an opponent.

Fixed output from weaponry: By doing away with a stat interaction in weapon wounding, the damage dealt by a unit in AOS is mathematically predictable, and there are no meta-game related arbitrary strong values. An example is going from T7 to T8 in 40k vs going from T5 to T6. The former, despite being the same gain, is far more valuable than the latter, because so many vehicles are T7 and most antitank weapons are S8. That's a factor outside of the numerical balance of the game that creates an imbalance.

Quasi-alternating activations: In sigmar, unlike 40k, models that charge do not automatically strike first. And since most units are melee units in AOS, this means the combat/casualty causing section of the turn is much more of an alternating affair. It is far harder to pull of a one turn mega-wombo unless your army is specifically structured around having a rule like that, such as certain alphastrike Idoneth Deepkin lists where they get "Strike first on the charge" as a special rule on one particular turn.

Simplified melee vs shooting mechanics: Simply put, there is no overwatch, and there is no being locked in combat. Units with ranged weapons may still fire while in melee. The situation in 40k with the range vs melee imbalance seems to be in part caused by the THEORETICAL power of locking a huge unit down with a tiny one leading to GW feeling the need to bake a million exceptions and bonuses to overwatch.

From AoS?
+Command Point Generation
+List construction (battletome, battalions costing points for a benefit)
+Random turn order
+Increased impact for terrain
+Less punishment for cool models
+Psychic powers / Prayers you can cast

From Apoc:
+D12s
+Wound mechanics
+Turn mechanics

 ClockworkZion wrote:
From AoS?
+Command Point Generation
+List construction (battletome, battalions costing points for a benefit)
+Random turn order
+Increased impact for terrain
+Less punishment for cool models
+Psychic powers / Prayers you can cast

From Apoc:
+D12s
+Wound mechanics
+Turn mechanics

Especially turn mechanics. IGOUGO is terrible for the health of the game.
Terrain works a bit better if you implement the Cities of Death stuff, which should've arguably been in the core rules to begin with.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
AoS is one of the worst games ever made and is worse than fantasy in almost every conceivable way.

They already took too much of AoS with 8th ed. 40k and we have a new terrible game because of it.

What 40K needs is alternating activations of either units or sub phases.

Double turn might be the worst mechanic in gaming history. Anyone wanna play against a gunline for two turns in a row?

Fantasy was trash and the world is better off without it, and AoS functions better than just about any other game GW's ever made.

The double turn wouldn't work in a shooty game like 40k, sure, but for AoS it works and works well, especially with endless spell now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jorim wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:


One other thing that I think should apply to 40k as a whole that they have done well in AoS is limit the availability of high AP weaponry in an army. Things already die too fast in 40K, and AP ironically undercuts the value of marines, which is GW flagship faction for 40K. Make it so AP-1 is the most prevalent and make AP-2 and AP-3 actually rare to obtain, only for elite units and not in line units. They'd have to revamp the entire design paradigm though, since doctrines just give out additional AP to weapons like candy and plasma is everywhere.

On the one hand you are right using AP more cautiously would make the game a lot less lethal even though currently high AP is often wasted due to the prevalence of invulnerable saves. On the other hand AOS hands out mortal wounds like there is no tomorrow which makes restricting high AP a bit pointless.

This is a fair criticism. You can make an army that can do a couple dozen mortals per turn fairly easily.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
From AoS?
+Command Point Generation
+List construction (battletome, battalions costing points for a benefit)
+Random turn order
+Increased impact for terrain
+Less punishment for cool models
+Psychic powers / Prayers you can cast

From Apoc:
+D12s
+Wound mechanics
+Turn mechanics

Especially turn mechanics. IGOUGO is terrible for the health of the game.
Terrain works a bit better if you implement the Cities of Death stuff, which should've arguably been in the core rules to begin with.

I am in favor of making detachments a bit more restrictive slots-wise and moving the game to a detachment activation system. Then, rather than having detachments give you command points, just create a universal system that looks at the percentage of your army is Troops, the amount of allies you bring and maybe some other units like superheavies determine your CP income per-turn.

ERJAK wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
AoS is one of the worst games ever made and is worse than fantasy in almost every conceivable way.

They already took too much of AoS with 8th ed. 40k and we have a new terrible game because of it.

What 40K needs is alternating activations of either units or sub phases.

Double turn might be the worst mechanic in gaming history. Anyone wanna play against a gunline for two turns in a row?

Fantasy was trash and the world is better off without it, and AoS functions better than just about any other game GW's ever made.

The double turn wouldn't work in a shooty game like 40k, sure, but for AoS it works and works well, especially with endless spell now.

One thing I'll never understand is this revisionism so popular in today panorama were old things that back in the day were labelled as pretty good are now utter trash to put in some kind of pedestal something new thats "competing" with the perception of unfair nostalgia.
For example: Old Star Wars movies were trash! The new trilogy is just as good!

And I'm sorry but both Warmaster and the LOTR Miniature games are much better games than AoS. I mean, I like AoS. I play AoS. But as a game is pretty mediocre. I love how they have much more freedom to add new mechancis with their battletomes, 40k codex in the other hand feel much samey. But that variety adds his own bag of problems.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
40k could definitely use the double turn! *ducks*

Actually, I haven’t had the double turn ruin any games. And in 40k, it might actually help against the first turn gunlines murdering a lot of crap.

Nah no way - in AOS you take turns fighting with units every turn right and it's mostly a melle game. 40k double turn would literally kill half an army.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
40k could definitely use the double turn! *ducks*

Actually, I haven’t had the double turn ruin any games. And in 40k, it might actually help against the first turn gunlines murdering a lot of crap.

Nah no way - in AOS you take turns fighting with units every turn right and it's mostly a melle game. 40k double turn would literally kill half an army.

Unless we pulled casualties at the end of the game turn like Apoc. That way even if you killed someones whole army turn 1 they could try and take you with them.

[ both Warmaster and the LOTR Miniature games are much better games than AoS. I mean, I like AoS. I play AoS. But as a game is pretty mediocre..

My suggestions?

Blanket Reduction of Ranged Weapon AP by 1 or 2. Armor is currently nearly meaningless unless you have an invuln save to back it up. There are too many non-anti-tank weapons that have exceptional AP.

Reduce Range on majority of weapons that are not designed artillery pieces or long ranged fire support by nearly 1/3 (24 Inches goes to 16 inches). Bringing a semblance of balance back between melee and ranged combat.

Increase points costs appropriately so a 2000 point game is closer to an 1850 point game now. Make people make choices in their list design.

CP Generation per turn.

Alternating phases (move/move, then psychic/psychic, shoot/shoot, charge/charge, fight/fight)

Make morale more of an impact and consideration for the game in general.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Karol wrote:

How would the double turn thing work.

It involves you having to roll for turn priority every turn, and there are some penalties for taking a double turn(notably with Endless Spells).

okey, but w40k doesn't have endless spells. all stop working after a turn. Plus the chance of it happening at all would end to super skew games. Because armies that can't survive an opponents double turn, would become practicaly unplayable, unless someone likes to play a game that is lost on a you losing the double turn roll. At the same time armies that have a ton of chaff, or are super resilient, or in worse case are numerous and have a good alfa strike ability would be running rampant. I don't think that adding a mechanic that would make some armies lose games on a single roll, is a very fun addition to them game. The game is already unfun enough.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
AoS is one of the worst games ever made and is worse than fantasy in almost every conceivable way.

They already took too much of AoS with 8th ed. 40k and we have a new terrible game because of it.

What 40K needs is alternating activations of either units or sub phases.

Double turn might be the worst mechanic in gaming history. Anyone wanna play against a gunline for two turns in a row?

Found the salt mines.

---

On to OPs points. Stuff I like about AoS.

- I like the CP generation as it means you have to plan things out more than just focus on batteries.
- Battalions can unlock extra artifacts and CP along with a small benefit only to the battalion. Battalions have so far been more successful than 40k formations were.
- Allies can only compromise 20% of your total forces.
- AoS tries to keep low point saves relatively rare.
- No explicit invuln saves system.
- Hero Abilities need CP and have to be activated which means people have to plan their strategy accordingly.
- To get any kind of hero bonuses the unit must be wholly within. This tends to eliminate the old conga line gameplay.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
AoS is one of the worst games ever made and is worse than fantasy in almost every conceivable way.

They already took too much of AoS with 8th ed. 40k and we have a new terrible game because of it.

What 40K needs is alternating activations of either units or sub phases.

Double turn might be the worst mechanic in gaming history. Anyone wanna play against a gunline for two turns in a row?

This.

Let's be honest - AoS is not a good ruleset. It reads like the first edition of a wargame made by people with no prior knowledge of game design. And if that's enough for AoS players then fair enough. However, I'd really prefer that GW didn't rehash rules for one sloppily-designed game for use in a different sloppily-designed game.

Frankly, this sort of mentality is why GW's rules have spent the last decade or so circling a drain.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
AoS is one of the worst games ever made and is worse than fantasy in almost every conceivable way.

They already took too much of AoS with 8th ed. 40k and we have a new terrible game because of it.

What 40K needs is alternating activations of either units or sub phases.

Double turn might be the worst mechanic in gaming history. Anyone wanna play against a gunline for two turns in a row?

Found the salt mines.

"u mad bro" is not a counter argument.

I don't mind AoS being a dumping ground for testing 40k rules because that seems to be what it is (aside from also being a reason to provide "alt sculpts" and conversion fodder for 40k), it means the rules are somewhat refined when they head over to 40k.

Well it is a different game too. I don't think there is as much shoting in AoS as there is in w40k, and we for sure do not have free summoning of a 1000pts of models.

If w40k had armies that could get double turn, and summon units for free and had the shoting and alfa strike ability good armies seem to have in w40k. You could end your turn 1, and then face 2700-3000pts of opposing army with 600pts of your dudes at the start of turn 2, if they got double turn. I really doubt anyone wants the game to be like that, unless they are 100% sure their army is going to be able to pull it off.


AoS CP generation is also hard to transfer to w40k. Some armies in w40k had their basic rules and gear turned in to stratagems, often high 2-3CP costing ones. Which they kind of a have to use every turn, to be efficient.
If everyone wwas starting with 1 or 0CP, then we would have a problem with relics, at least for some armies, my GK wouldn't care. Then all those abilities that cost 2-3 CP would be unusable till turn 2-3. Which would greatly promote armies with 1CP stuff, or those that kept their rules on units and not stratagems. Special characters would become more powerful, because they would come with "free" relics.

models like Gulliman that come with 3CP would be extremly powerful, because they would bump the CP production by 3 turns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarsif wrote:

- To get any kind of hero bonuses the unit must be wholly within. This tends to eliminate the old conga line gameplay.

It also tends to turn fights in to gignatic mosh pits in the middle. And punish models that are build in GW in a such a way that you just can clump them up, like gene stealers for example. It also makes people angry, well those with painted armies, when you jam your models as close as you can in to btb with their models, as it does tend to micro damage their models. And there is already enough problems with the painter crew, we don't really need game mechanics that can end up with people coming to blows, sometimes quite litteraly.

Just use Apoc rules no? they are supposed to be very solid.

AoS has some nice rules, but most of them do not translate well to 40K.

One i would like to see though, is the way AoS handles degrading profiles. Instead of having a fixed degradation at half and at a quarter wounds left, it goes by small steps, so it is never wasted to remove some wounds here and there.

CP amount not being completely frontloaded is also something i would like to see.

Alternate activations in the fight phase.

40K puts too much emphasis on going first.

In AoS if you charge, you get the first activation, then it alternates. This makes the Slanesh or Banshee ability "fight first" actually good, since other than the first charge, you actually get to fight first like the description!

Regarding the critique about CP generation being turn based: the game doesn't have to copy the CP generation exactly and only dole out 1 a turn. It could easilly be set to 2 a turn (3 with a warlord on the table) and be just as effective at balancing the game's CP problem. The point is that spreading CP out makes players make meaningful choices in it's use, instead of spamming certain combos for as many turns as they can.

 Gareth_Evans wrote:
Alternate activations in the fight phase.

40K puts too much emphasis on going first.

In AoS if you charge, you get the first activation, then it alternates. This makes the Slanesh or Banshee ability "fight first" actually good, since other than the first charge, you actually get to fight first like the description!

You still need a bonus for charging. Charging then getting killed before getting to hit is the worst thing ever.