What AoS can learn from the new 40k

[TheOtherJosh]

...AoS to me currently is very much 2 demensional, ye shoot, ye hit hard.

What I find interesting in regards to the comments about shooting is that shooting only happens in your turn of a Battleround.

On the other hand, you attack in melee twice in every Battleround. And there are Abilities that allow another melee combat in the Hero phase.

So:
Shooting - Once per Battleround in your turn
Combat (Melee) - twice per Battleround (your turn and your opponents turn)

Shooting is only one third of the potential in a round. Sure some get lots of shooting, but if all you can really do is shoot ... melee is a pretty brutal counter.

Khorne Bloodreavers + Portal of Skulls + Totem bonus (within 12") ... happening twice a Battleround is pretty brutal.

I've heard it said before "he who rolls the most dice wins" and you if you get more chances to hit and wound you're more likely to do so.

[Mikosan]

4 hours ago, Jamopower said:

Edit #2: I don't actually think that the "op shooting" is so much a problem of the basic rules either (though I would like to have some sort of possibility of counterplay to that in addition to just killing the shooters), but more of a mistake in the design of some individual units. The shooting on grand alliance book level is pretty tame and especially short ranged, which means that the shooters end up easily taking fist in their face. Few longer range options like warmachines are on the other hand quite easy to kill. Then for some reason they decided to add up stuff like kurnoths, savage orks and skyfires that have long effective range, are hard to kill and do lots of damage (in the case of arrerboyz due to volume of fire) reducing the downsides. 

This. I know a lot of folks here don't agree, but if skyfires did single damage and d3 damage on a 6 instead of mortal wounds, kurnoths did single damage, d3 etc.., and the Rukk was changed to once a game I'm not sure we would be having this conversation, they are really the only 3 examples I have seen given out of all the ranged units to support the argument that shooting is OP.  As I have advocated before you could just change a few scrolls, or change the core rules which would affect every shooting in the game.... I know which one is simpler with fewer unintended consequences. They have already changed scrolls like the khorgorath, vexillor, azyros, and vortex beast, maybe a few others, so I don't see any reason they couldn't do it again.  Changing core rules to nerf 3 examples of op shooting is just the kind of mess they are trying to get away from with wfb-AoS and 40K-new 40K in my opinion

[pseudonyme]

I don't think you should take that too litteraly. I am quite sure they have a basic spreadsheet calculating a value from the stats and weapons. Then they must apply some coefficient dépending on the size, type and abilities of the unit.

and in the end, I don't think they can skip manual adjustmentd from playtests and known synergies .

long story short: I don't think they are using a basic Excel sheet

[Jamopower]

10 minutes ago, Mikosan said:

This. I know a lot of folks here don't agree, but if skyfires did single damage and d3 damage on a 6 instead of mortal wounds, kurnoths did single damage, d3 etc.., and the Rukk was changed to once a game I'm not sure we would be having this conversation, they are really the only 3 examples I have seen given out of all the ranged units to support the argument that shooting is OP.  As I have advocated before you could just change a few scrolls, or change the core rules which would affect every shooting in the game.... I know which one is simpler with fewer unintended consequences. They have already changed scrolls like the khorgorath, vexillor, azyros, and vortex beast, maybe a few others, so I don't see any reason they couldn't do it again.  Changing core rules to nerf 3 examples of op shooting is just the kind of mess they are trying to get away from with wfb-AoS and 40K-new 40K in my opinion

One the other hand, one could say that there could be a possible flaw in the core rules, if they require all of the shooting in the game to be quite mild to prevent the breaking of the game...  

[Killax]

39 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

 

What I find interesting in regards to the comments about shooting is that shooting only happens in your turn of a Battleround.

On the other hand, you attack in melee twice in every Battleround. And there are Abilities that allow another melee combat in the Hero phase.

So:
Shooting - Once per Battleround in your turn
Combat (Melee) - twice per Battleround (your turn and your opponents turn)

Shooting is only one third of the potential in a round. Sure some get lots of shooting, but if all you can really do is shoot ... melee is a pretty brutal counter.

Khorne Bloodreavers + Portal of Skulls + Totem bonus (within 12") ... happening twice a Battleround is pretty brutal.

I've heard it said before "he who rolls the most dice wins" and you if you get more chances to hit and wound you're more likely to do so.
 

 

What I find interesting is how you have constructed this post. Your line of thought does not seem to include what is actually going on:

Turn 1: Combat phase is not used, Shooting phase is used by some units. These units have an additional attack (roll more dice turn 1).
Turn 2: Combat phase can be used, Shooting phase can still be used. The units with the missle attacks can still shoot in the Shooting phase, again it's 100% additional attack with often having a massive threat range advantage and able to bypass any board control situations. No check is ever required to make to ensure you can make your Missle attack other than having something in LoS and range.
Turn 3-5: Proceed 

Shooting is an additional phase of attacking not all units have acces to. Having an additional Combat attack does not even remotely come close to this attack, though a possible solution could be to have charging units obtain this, to that I can agree.
The fact that combat occurs twice still applies to models with Missle attacks aswell. As before a Missle attack is a full bonus that currently had competitive AoS in it's grip for a while now.

Ive  hear it said before, he who has the most threat range and has the most dice wins. If you get more chances to hit and wound you're more likely to do so.

 

[Mikosan]

22 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

One the other hand, one could say that there could be a possible flaw in the core rules, if they require all of the shooting in the game to be quite mild to prevent the breaking of the game...  

I'd love to see the design mechanism that allows for the over the top shooting of skyfires, kurnoths, and rukks to NOT break the game .  Lets be honest, it's the players that break the game. Sure GW gave them the blueprint, but it's the players that buy and build the 27 skyfire lists and 18 kurnoths and rukks or whatever.  Thats not to say they should be given a pass, they should definitely address the imbalance, but no matter what the core rules are, players will spam whatever units are deemed most efficient within said rules and around and around we go

[Killax]

Not only that, you can't blame players for the way rules are created by GW. The cost attachment of units comes from them, not the community. The moment you get very cheap pieces with amazing rules as @Auticus said you cant blame the community from using them.

In many cases AoS' cost are allright, note that I think 40K's arn't perfect either, specifically because what was mentioned, if the wounds of models have no effect on the Weapon Cost the preformace of it in a game differs per model. This doesn't have to be a problem but the difference in wounds can cause a particular meta skew. 

In all games Ive had so far in AoS the community is also largely cool with the approach. Locally I have not faced 15+ Skyfires, if I would however I am also 100% certain that I cannot win with the current BoK force Im running  
This is largely being honest with yourself, game and community. If certain pieces are thaking over the fun of the game it would be a smart idea to adress them. As before we now have a year orso with Sayls, several strange Battalions and recently Skyfires took over but if GW doesn't want to repeat WFB 7th/40K 7ths mistake in having very specific pieces thake over the meta it would be wonderful if they would adress them.

To me 8th 40K is trying to solve some of the issues AoS has, by large because 8th solved 7th 'shooting problem', 6th 'flyer problem' or 5th 'melee only problem'. I simply said hope to see them fix AoS' 'top is shooting heavy only' meta trend. By large because AoS offers very intresting melee combat.

Earlier editions of WFB where also known as Hero-Hammer, to me AoS 1st edition could now also be known as anti-Hero-Hammer. Heroes matter a lot but if you can snipe them down quickly most armies fall apart once melee combat is in effect. This doesn't exclude any faction but very good shooting (Battalions) is excluded to some.

[Mikosan]

3 minutes ago, Killax said:

Not only that, you can't blame players for the way rules are created by GW. The cost attachment of units comes from them, not the community. The moment you get very cheap pieces with amazing rules as @Auticus said you cant blame the community from using them.

In many cases AoS' cost are allright, note that I think 40K's arn't perfect either, specifically because what was mentioned, if the wounds of models have no effect on the Weapon Cost the preformace of it in a game differs per model. This doesn't have to be a problem but the difference in wounds can cause a particular meta skew. 

In all games Ive had so far in AoS the community is also largely cool with the approach. Locally I have not faced 15+ Skyfires, if I would however I am also 100% certain that I cannot win with the current BoK force Im running  
This is largely being honest with yourself, game and community. If certain pieces are thaking over the fun of the game it would be a smart idea to adress them. As before we now have a year orso with Sayls, several strange Battalions and recently Skyfires took over but if GW doesn't want to repeat WFB 7th/40K 7ths mistake in having very specific pieces thake over the meta it would be wonderful if they would adress them.

To me 8th 40K is trying to solve some of the issues AoS has, by large because 8th solved 7th 'shooting problem', 6th 'flyer problem' or 5th 'melee only problem'. I simply said hope to see them fix AoS' 'top is shooting heavy only' meta trend. By large because AoS offers very intresting melee combat.

 

Pretty sure I agree with this, outside of the player bears no responsibility.  Thats just ridiculous.  GW should and I hope, will fix the issue. 

[Mikosan]

Which is why i also say GW can and should fix the problem, but this isn't a RTS computer game where you just click the icon of the unit you want and poof it magically comes out.  To build game breaking lists takes a lot of time, effort and money.  When a player chooses that it IS entirely his/her choice and he/she knows exactly what they are doing.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

The thing is when we try to say players bear responsibility ... people have tried to say that for several decades.  It never has worked.  

True. That's because of the same thing that ruins traffic merges. Everyone sees the arrow saying "get over" and 99 of 100 ppl get over early ... but one guy, that guy, sneers and says "losers, thanks for being squares who play nice ... lets me blow past you all and jump ahead in line. "

Just as bad, some fool lets him merge at the front!

If we drivers would all just stick together and keep him from merging, he would be screwed and learn to behave. We don't though, because we are individuals. 

There is no such entity as "drivers" just like there is not one "the fans" (ticket prices) or one "gamers."

One person abuses the system and others then go "oh well, if h he's gonna be a tool, I need to be a tool too to fight it."

This is why we need absolute rules, not gentlemanly agreements. One bad apple.

[Killax]

1 hour ago, Mikosan said:

Which is why i also say GW can and should fix the problem, but this isn't a RTS computer game where you just click the icon of the unit you want and poof it magically comes out.  To build game breaking lists takes a lot of time, effort and money.  When a player chooses that it IS entirely his/her choice and he/she knows exactly what they are doing.

Certainly agree with that.

The beauty of the app is however that to some extend GW can influence the game like a RTS computer game where you just click on the latest Warscroll you want and poof it magically comes out. Building and breaking lists costs much more time, this is very true and the option to create whatever you want should be possible without becomming a black sheep.

In order to make everything semi-good the Rock, Paper, Scissors format offers such an solution. If Magic "beats" Ranged, Ranged "beats" Combat and Combat "beats" Magic I believe this game would become "better". 

The upside of AoS remains it Warscroll simplicity. This is a great tool, Keywords are a great tool. The fact that no Warscroll contains costs can also be used as a tool because if you want to change costs you can do so in a whole other space and room which doesn't disqualify the hardprinted Warscroll.

I guess what I basically wish for is some info on GH2 and an insider what the plans are for AoS. I think GW has opend tons of doors for new minis and content. I love how 40K has given us a peek in the minds of game designers. I hope AoS is next for an exact treatment and open filosophy. 

[Iradekhorne]

9 hours ago, Killax said:

I can't really agree with you in the depth of combo's. What appears to me is that a lot of the 40K online community has to process all these differences first. Let me say it first and out loud, the newest edition of 40K actually looks a lot like WarmaHordes Mk2 in a way. Yes you technically have easy to understand combots but it sure doesn't stop at the fewer spells you have available in forms of Aura's, Psychic Powers, Orders and many other effects.

40K is build like a rock, paper, scissors system and you have to realize, as both players advance through the game, which is best suited for which task at the given time. There is no "immunity" there only is a wrong or good choice made. For example:
- If you play Imperial Guard, you'll likely want Chimera's and have them as dedicated transports for units, be it Veterans or otherwise. In the cases where opponents brought high numbers of attacks at S4, your MUCH better off rolling your Chimera in there and 'flee' next turn so the Veterans can continue shooting. At the same time the moment your opponent brings a smaller squad of say Terminators, your MUCH better off even charging your own IG in there. They will most certainly die but this allows you to proceed with your own tatcial strenght applied at the right scenario.
This depth is wonderful and does not apply to AoS at all. 
- In AoS you ideally apply as much shooting as you can with Rend or Mortal wounds, if this is unavailable you want to chuck out loads and loads of attack. Not only is there no tactical variance in AoS we unfortunatly even live with such a predictable top 3 that the moment you do not see Hunters, Judicators, Skyfires or Kunning Rukk your 'suprised'.

As for wound tables. Where I agree is that the issue I do forsee with 40K is that equipment is priced as a vacume. This simply results in certain Weapons being better throughout the game on certain set ups (note not turn, game). As an example the fact that a Heavy Bolter costs the same on a 1 wound model as it does on a 16 wound model is a reason of concern for me. One will last you throughout the game while the other doesn't.
Ignoring this seems like a strange choice to me. By large because it wasn't the case in the previous editions and there vechicles had often 3-ish wounds (HP) where they now have 10+ wounds.
Long story short, cheap vechicles are extremely good. Obviously it depends on the load out they have but cheap Flamer vechicles (especially flying) seem to be well set up to be the upcomming king of the game. Because you have auto-hits, resilence and the size to preform a ton of board control with. *Now this is true in real life aswell so I applaud them for that but typically speaking weapon integrations in vechicles are more expensive as a seperate weapon.

Last but not least, what do you find complex about AoS? I mean it with all respect to you.
- Is thaking 30 Bloodletters with Sayl complex?
- Is thaking 15+ Skyfires to thake out your opponents key pieces complex?
- Is Kunning Rukk complex?

The fact that 40K has been so well set up in hard counter vs hard counter (R/P/S) makes it 3 demensional to me, where AoS to me currently is very much 2 demensional, ye shoot, ye hit hard.


 

Control the possibilityes of double turn is hard, but if you do well you can control the gams aswell very well.

You can give double buffs and rules to the units than in 40k. With heroes command habilities, command traits, warscroll batallions, some unit skills, and a lot of diferent spells (every spellcaster have his own spell).

For example, if a Flesh eather courts player play a deathwatch batallion, you need know what do this batallion because they can attack you in your hero phase and ypu need know too the vargulf resurrect rules, and the mortal wounds of the vargeist, qnd this is only 1 batillion. 

A lot of stuff to know... Much morre than 40k right now (is normal).

A lot of units in AOS do thinks vs MONSTERS, or Saves againsy mortal wouns, or in combat phase and a tons of thinks.

I see much more deep AOS than 40k, and more easy to start to play too. I read the 5 index and I undestanded in 8 days all armies and how they work. But I need a year in aos to know 50% of combos.

Thats because the buffs of heroes in 40k are so similar, the 50% of buffs are repeat 1 to hit haha.

The judicators isnt a problem for me (I usually play khorne bloodbound) Cause I try "pull" him putting an important heroe at range and a simple 10 bloodreavers kill him easy. The kurnoths hunters is only undercosted.

Vs Death i focus a unit with all I can one by one, and usually it work, in case of flesh eaters I focus on vargulfs and when I try kill the ghoul king on terrprgeisy I use 2 points of bloodpool to neutralize his spell and focus it. Anyway I añways fight controlling points.

Aos have a lot of strategy and I dont see the ranged armys OP because they usually are useles on combat.

The only ranged OP unit is the imperial handgunners with an imperial general and the dwarfs hangunners with runelord. Im fine with all other units. I crushed players with 15 tzaangors skyfires, with 9 kurnoth hunters, with 2 ghoul kings on terrorgeists only knowing his combos and cutting it.

I cant do this in 40k cause the combos are so soft compared to aos. You can win a game just building well you army woithouth lnow your enemy. Thath isnt usual in AOS.

[rokapoke]

2 hours ago, Killax said:

In order to make everything semi-good the Rock, Paper, Scissors format offers such an solution. If Magic "beats" Ranged, Ranged "beats" Combat and Combat "beats" Magic I believe this game would become "better". 

This would only work if every faction had equal access to rocks, paper, and scissors. Khorne has no access to magic or (essentially) ranged units... so loses to ranged and magic armies? For a game like Starcraft, this works 100% -- each faction has some form of access to each option, and every unit has a hard counter within each faction. To have the sheer variety of armies that exist in AoS, where there are distinctly different flavors (e.g., Khorne vs Tzeentch), that will never work.

[Killax]

25 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

This would only work if every faction had equal access to rocks, paper, and scissors. Khorne has no access to magic or (essentially) ranged units... so loses to ranged and magic armies? For a game like Starcraft, this works 100% -- each faction has some form of access to each option, and every unit has a hard counter within each faction. To have the sheer variety of armies that exist in AoS, where there are distinctly different flavors (e.g., Khorne vs Tzeentch), that will never work.

It can work for sure because we are still talking Chaos, Order, Death and Destruction. Like 40k some have more options in rock, paper, scissors as others. Like Starcraft this can work if you attempt it.

[rokapoke]

9 minutes ago, Killax said:

It can work for sure because we are still talking Chaos, Order, Death and Destruction. 

We're not talking about that when there are battle traits and whatnot that are only available in faction-specific books -- such as all the most recent battletomes (since Sylvaneth). GW is clearly not moving toward a full-on rock-paper-scissors style of balance, so there's no point in wishing they would. Embrace what they've given you in the Grand Alliances, and hope that the players you face across the table aren't the kind of dudes that spam 27 Skyfires.

[Killax]

1 minute ago, rokapoke said:

We're not talking about that when there are battle traits and whatnot that are only available in faction-specific books -- such as all the most recent battletomes (since Sylvaneth). GW is clearly not moving toward a full-on rock-paper-scissors style of balance, so there's no point in wishing they would. Embrace what they've given you in the Grand Alliances, and hope that the players you face across the table aren't the kind of dudes that spam 27 Skyfires.

The point remains it can work and the fact that Warscrolls are digitalized means change can much easier be applied as you suggest.
In addition if you do not believe that GW is not devoid of larger changes just look at 8th or AoS even. 

Wether people like it or not they changed two Battalions last week for example.

[AverageBoss]

6 Skyfires w/ Shaman (440 points) and 6 Hunters w/ Hurricanum (680 points) average about 8 and 12 wounds a turn respectively, ignoring that armor exists at all.

The problems for these units manifest in ways than just their base damage output imo. With Skyfires, their crazy mobility, combined with solid range makes them almost impossible to catch for a dedicated melee army. They do die pretty fast if you have the means to attack them, but catching them in the first place can be rough.

For Kurnoth Hunters, between their high defenses and regrowth, they are almost completely unkillable. Add to that how bonkers Sylvaneth Woods are, and the fact they can teleport between them and the problem just multiplies.

Then both units damage goes up by degrees for your points investment if you go beyond the 6 models. Skyfires get much stronger if you run them as generic Chaos (the unit above goes up to 6 average mortal wounds + 2 regular hits) rather than Disciples of Tzeentch.

Both these units are odd in that they increase exponentially rather than gradually as you take more, and they are further boosted by so many other outside factors (both in the battletome and grand alliance). They are honestly going to be a nightmare to balance without a complete rules rewrite of their warscrolls (not just tweaking damage or points cost).

[RuneBrush]

16 hours ago, Killax said:

What I find interesting is how you have constructed this post. Your line of thought does not seem to include what is actually going on:

Turn 1: Combat phase is not used, Shooting phase is used by some units. These units have an additional attack (roll more dice turn 1).
Turn 2: Combat phase can be used, Shooting phase can still be used. The units with the missle attacks can still shoot in the Shooting phase, again it's 100% additional attack with often having a massive threat range advantage and able to bypass any board control situations. No check is ever required to make to ensure you can make your Missle attack other than having something in LoS and range.
Turn 3-5: Proceed 

Shooting is an additional phase of attacking not all units have acces to. Having an additional Combat attack does not even remotely come close to this attack, though a possible solution could be to have charging units obtain this, to that I can agree.
The fact that combat occurs twice still applies to models with Missle attacks aswell. As before a Missle attack is a full bonus that currently had competitive AoS in it's grip for a while now.

Ive  hear it said before, he who has the most threat range and has the most dice wins. If you get more chances to hit and wound you're more likely to do so.

Additionally, it's not guaranteed to get all of your models into melee range, so your unit of 10 may only get 6 or 7 models in.  Ranged attacks can also target any unit - there's no way to protect a hero to deliver them into combat.

However we're all starting to go off track about what we can learn from the new 40k

[Killax]

@AverageBoss I couldn't agree more.
@RuneBrush certainly to to some extend that it is going off track but on the other hand it still is talking about possible designs for the Shooting phase and Core rule changes to Age of Sigmar. Because interestingly enough 40K has most armies with a good and decent ranged offensive option and because of that the game operates in a system where shooting could always be a problem but so far isn't. 

As before there are also things I don't think Age of Sigmar needs and 40K has, for example the way Ranged weapons and Melee weapon typology works. It's nice to have choices, but having 8+ per Warscroll unit isn't totally required either.

"Battleline design"
What I do like on the other hand in 40K and hope to see in AoS is that Troop choices in 40K arn't as clearly indentified as Core choices or what we have become to know as Battleline choices. The fact that 40K can approach army design in many more flexible ways could actually be a good process for AoS aswell. As it could (not saying it will) also indirectly influence the promotion of play what you like again.

To me it's one of the minor things, but I also happen to play an army with strong Battleline choices and great support for Battleline troops in particular (Khorne army). However for the sake of designing armies as you like I do not forsee a massive problem if someone would go heavier on the Juggernauts and make up the core of his army with that. It's technically allready possible, you just have to not mix in Bloodbound units but it's not like the many non-Bloodbound units support it "better".

"This will always work" 
Designs that always work are a hazard to the fun or flexability of the game. Unfortunatly I still think 40K has some of these designs aswell but luckily they do operate within such a objective driven design (which can be everywhere) that the "this will always work" designs on paper might not work for those scenario driven designs.

Currently the three theoretical issues I do have with 40K is:
- I feel certain cheap vechicles are too cheap by in-faction wound-comparison, especially if they have acces to auto-hitting Flamers. *Yes we have multi-wound weapons that adress them though these are always the minority as they are also Special and Heavy weapons.
- I feel the way certain units can break away from combat without penalty rewards layered play too much. This includes the many things with Flying but also includes large units (tarpits) designed to catch the initial wave and just be gone after that. 
- Weapons are costed the same regardless of context, which means weapon A will last longer on body X, making it much better throughout the game.

Then when these two abilities meet I think a piece is created in the this will always work design. Most of these are relatively expensive but not all of them. Most notebly the Astra Militarum designs bring large board influencing pieces that have the right tools for any scenario and can go for this "catch wave and run" design that doesn't punish them.

From a narrative standpoint it also feels a bit odd, Morale tests are taken, everybody can flee, but when they actually in-game "flee" nobody "dissapears".

To date AoS does not have this type of design and I hope that it will not come either.

[chord]

12 hours ago, Killax said:

The point remains it can work and the fact that Warscrolls are digitalized means change can much easier be applied as you suggest.
In addition if you do not believe that GW is not devoid of larger changes just look at 8th or AoS even. 

Wether people like it or not they changed two Battalions last week for example.

The warscrolls are not digital,  they are digital and paper. 

[Killax]

37 minutes ago, chord said:

The warscrolls are not digital,  they are digital and paper. 

And so change is easy to apply. Or are you unaware of how many Warscrolls are allready changing on a monthly basis?

[chord]

9 minutes ago, Killax said:

And so change is easy to apply. Or are you unaware of how many Warscrolls are allready changing on a monthly basis?

No, because their app runs on none of my devices, thus I use paper.

 

[Jamopower]

1 hour ago, Killax said:

From a narrative standpoint it also feels a bit odd, Morale tests are taken, everybody can flee, but when they actually in-game "flee" nobody "dissapears".

To date AoS does not have this type of design and I hope that it will not come either.

Isn't the rule exactly the same as in AoS, with the difference that flyers can shoot afterwards? I guess that the real difference, is that there are limits on unit sizes and notably there aren't as easy ways to make units immune to battleshock. There is inspiring presence, but using it leaves you without other command abilities and it is just for one unit. Especially the tyranid synapse rule is quite bad for the game.

The dynamic is also bit different as you can shoot the units without needing to retreat your own models out from the combat.

[Sleboda]

24 minutes ago, chord said:

No, because their app runs on none of my devices, thus I use paper.

 

I think this is worth highlighting.

The existence of a digital resource should be taken as a perk, or a bonus, not as a cover-all solution.

Despite the global increase in access to the internet, people should not be expected to use it in order to be on the same page as other gamers.

Unlike video games, our hobby itself does not exist as a digitally connected experience. It is a physical thing with an option to engage with it in ancillary ways via the internet.

[Killax]

30 minutes ago, chord said:

No, because their app runs on none of my devices, thus I use paper.

Because you use paper only it does not make the Warscrolls very much the subject of change. You can choose to follow the books and exclude yourself from the digital updates but in this day and age I wouldn't advice you to do just that.

Although your comment has very little to nothing to do with possible implications of 40K to AoS...

20 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

Isn't the rule exactly the same as in AoS, with the difference that flyers can shoot afterwards? I guess that the real difference, is that there are limits on unit sizes and notably there aren't as easy ways to make units immune to battleshock. There is inspiring presence, but using it leaves you without other command abilities and it is just for one unit. Especially the tyranid synapse rule is quite bad for the game.

The dynamic is also bit different as you can shoot the units without needing to retreat your own models out from the combat.

Well the difference is not in the rules so much as it is in the experience. 40K is full of models, Vechicles and Monsters, that are, like AoS, difficult to destroy and really don't mind to be in combat for a turn (as it's likely they'll survive it) and bail out. Then because Rapid Fire is a common weapon trait in 40K you certainly end up within half ranges of weapons, thaking the full effect while the same models will also back out a little so that next turn the player willing to charge still likely has to roll beyond 8" in terms of charging. Next turn the opponent can run back and the Vechicle gets in there again.

As I see it 40Ks Synapse rule is actually very easy to apply... As there is no way to snipe out the characters who have it and happen to have less than 6 wounds. This certainly means that you'll need one dedicated character for this but frankly speaking it isn't hard...
Though generally I dont feel there are morale issues with 40K, the issue to me really is that unlike AoS 40K actively rewards you by breaking away from combat because of the many auto-hit weapons and Rapid Fire weapons. 

The latter dynamic applies to AoS but not so much to 40K. Could you explain what you exactly mend with the last sentence?