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.

Some of the start collecting boxes look like they would be a good fit for Kill team forces depending on the vehicle and MC limitations. The Militarum Tempestus box is an obvious one but there are only a few with 2+ saves or heavy tanks in them.

What's the kill team rules again? 0-1 HQ, 0-1 elite 1-2 troops, 0-1 heavy, no 2+ saves, no AV that add together to be over 32? Typically around 250 points?

0-1 Elites
0-2 Troops
0-1 Fast Attack

No models with more than three wounds or HP's, vehicle may not exceed a maximum armour of 33 and the point amount played at is 200 per side.

 BrookM wrote:
0-1 Elites
0-2 Troops
0-1 Fast Attack

No models with more than three wounds or HP's, vehicle may not exceed a maximum armour of 33 and the point amount played at is 200 per side.

That's the old rules. The new ones have dropped the 3 wounds because Ogryns are on the list of stuff you can take, and one of the example armies on the GW site (the Ork one) is two elite choices with dedicated transports.

So that means the Necron Annihilation barge, Triarch stalkers and Doom/Nighr scythes are ok? I know they would take up a big chunk of the points but ouch

Ben2 wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
0-1 Elites
0-2 Troops
0-1 Fast Attack

No models with more than three wounds or HP's, vehicle may not exceed a maximum armour of 33 and the point amount played at is 200 per side.

That's the old rules. The new ones have dropped the 3 wounds because Ogryns are on the list of stuff you can take, and one of the example armies on the GW site (the Ork one) is two elite choices with dedicated transports.

This could be the language barrier, but I typed MORE THAN three wounds, which means three wounds or less is acceptable where I'm from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
So that means the Necron Annihilation barge, Triarch stalkers and Doom/Nighr scythes are ok? I know they would take up a big chunk of the points but ouch

No flyers and unless the rules have been changed, you must field at least four non-vehicle models first.

That necron thing with the shields.. we had quite a few discussions about that one, but decided to not allow it in the end, because AV 13(?) was a bit too much to work with at such a low point amount.

 Robin5t wrote:
I wonder how hard it would be to come up with a ruleset for 'NPC' grunts?

They already have that.

Some kind of strafing fire rule for multiple shot weapons would be welcome... As it is you can only ever kill one model regardless of how many shots you have. So if two models are running towards you you're screwed even if you're standing there aiming a Heavy Bolter right at them.

None of the example armies given by GW have vehicles above 33 total armour, so that's still there.

I did misread the three wounds thing.

I think it's a great opportunity to do some of the less well known chapters. Space Sharks is one I'm looking at, and I'll be going through my bitz box for Mk 4 and 5 marines with no Imperial markings. Just wish they still did the transfers.

Imperial Fists will be popular too.

I like that they are tossing small rulebooks in everything. IMHO shelling out for the massive tome that is the main book was a serious bar to getting into the game. It wasn’t just that you had to buy the expensive minis (which I never minded) but had to drop close to $100 just for the books.

And not just for new players. For lapsed players wanting to come back, the cost of get the most up to date rules is enough for some folks to just pass.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Again, no interest in a new GW release. So many other skirmish games I would play ahead of this [Infinity, Bushido, Marvel, Mordheim...]

Thanks for stopping by to share that.

Sharing thoughts about a gaming release on a gaming forum? Shame on me! Would you prefer "Oh my God this is so awesoooooooome, an expensive rebox with rules inferior to those freely available on the internet, woohoo!"? Better?

 Mymearan wrote:
Some kind of strafing fire rule for multiple shot weapons would be welcome... As it is you can only ever kill one model regardless of how many shots you have. So if two models are running towards you you're screwed even if you're standing there aiming a Heavy Bolter right at them.

Split-fire does this in the previous ruleset. If you have a ranged weapon that fires more than one shot, you may allocate within a certain range.

edit.

A model with the Split Fire special rule can target two different enemy models with its shooting attacks. No Leadership test is required to use this ability. However, the controlling player must clearly state how many shots he intends to fire at each target before rolling To Hit.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Again, no interest in a new GW release. So many other skirmish games I would play ahead of this [Infinity, Bushido, Marvel, Mordheim...]

Thanks for stopping by to share that.

Sharing thoughts about a gaming release on a gaming forum? Shame on me! Would you prefer "Oh my God this is so awesoooooooome, an expensive rebox with rules inferior to those freely available on the internet, woohoo!"? Better?

Actually I'd prefer you to say "I'm not interested in this. I'll just move on to something I am interested in and let others enjoy it." If you aren't interested, what is the point of even commenting. Oh. Right. You're just trolling. Carry on.

Uninformed at that, expensive rebox my ass..

One thing i never liked about Kill Team is it's basically still squad level, but it's pitched as some kind of special ops level (unless I'm greatly mistaken which is possible, I thought the original "Kill Team" stuff was Schaefer's Last Chancers, where each model was basically unique). What I would have liked would be if you could mix and match, like how (perhaps? In the RPG anyways) Deathwatch is. One marine with jump pack and chainsword/bolt pistol (Assault), one with heavy weapon (Devastator), two with bolter (Tactical), etc. Mix and match, instead of it just being like a 200 point game with restricted access to things. Like, not make it so you still have to buy a minimum squad (typically 5 anyways) because that usually means you end up just having one single squad of guys and maybe some extras. That doesn't seem like enough leeway to really have "special ops mission" type of scenarios, you basically just have squad vs. squad combat which isn't how it's pitched, even if that's still a good thing to have. Like, there should be one level beneath that, almost like Warband style, so it goes:

"Warband" (mix and match/special ops) -> Kill Team (i.e. squad level) -> Company (standard size) -> Apocalypse (3k+ points; highest for normal 40k, superheavies and flyers here) -> Epic (i.e. grand tactical, very abstract)

Ah well. I'm still looking forward to it. Thinking up some ideas for a Kill team narrative campaign to pitch to my GW store once it's officially out.

What you want is the Heralds of Ruin Kill Team rules. They allow for that. You can have Terminators and all kinds of stuff not allowed in GW's ruleset.

http://heralds-of-ruin.blogspot.se/p/kill-team-rules.html

 Oguhmek wrote:
What you want is the Heralds of Ruin Kill Team rules. They allow for that. You can have Terminators and all kinds of stuff not allowed in GW's ruleset.

http://heralds-of-ruin.blogspot.se/p/kill-team-rules.html

I've heard of that, but it'd be nice to see an official set of rules done in that way. Still, that could open interesting potential e.g. HoR KT as the warband style, GW KT as squad, etc.

 Nevelon wrote:
And not just for new players. For lapsed players wanting to come back, the cost of get the most up to date rules is enough for some folks to just pass.

This is the boat I'm in. The main rulebook alone is 65 euros, and frankly, I don't need most of it, since I own every edition from the 2nd onwards, which all had their own fluff and painting bits, for example. There's only so many different ways you can tell the story of the Heresy, and only so many John Blanche paintings to illustrate it in. So for me, the high page count and production values are wasted.

Even minimally, not worrying about objective cards or psychic power decks, I'd be looking at a 173€ expenditure on new rulebooks in order to play the game again with my three armies. And that's not going into formations or army-specific objectives or disciplines at all, which, as far as I can see it, can add up to another 100 sooner than you think. At which point I'd be in the $300 range, at which point, I'd probably be asking if a) I can meaningfully afford this and b) wouldn't I rather have a Playstation 4 instead?

WayneTheGame wrote:
Mix and match, instead of it just being like a 200 point game with restricted access to things. Like, not make it so you still have to buy a minimum squad (typically 5 anyways) because that usually means you end up just having one single squad of guys and maybe some extras. That doesn't seem like enough leeway to really have "special ops mission" type of scenarios, you basically just have squad vs. squad combat which isn't how it's pitched, even if that's still a good thing to have.

I think I'm going to field Inquisitorial Henchmen - that should provide me with enough variety (granted, some of them are useless in a Kill Team but most are not).

 Dryaktylus wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Mix and match, instead of it just being like a 200 point game with restricted access to things. Like, not make it so you still have to buy a minimum squad (typically 5 anyways) because that usually means you end up just having one single squad of guys and maybe some extras. That doesn't seem like enough leeway to really have "special ops mission" type of scenarios, you basically just have squad vs. squad combat which isn't how it's pitched, even if that's still a good thing to have.

I think I'm going to field Inquisitorial Henchmen - that should provide me with enough variety (granted, some of them are useless in a Kill Team but most are not).

If you have an agreeable opponent you can always add in an Inquisitor, with some limitations on his or her equipment choices.

 BrookM wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Mix and match, instead of it just being like a 200 point game with restricted access to things. Like, not make it so you still have to buy a minimum squad (typically 5 anyways) because that usually means you end up just having one single squad of guys and maybe some extras. That doesn't seem like enough leeway to really have "special ops mission" type of scenarios, you basically just have squad vs. squad combat which isn't how it's pitched, even if that's still a good thing to have.

I think I'm going to field Inquisitorial Henchmen - that should provide me with enough variety (granted, some of them are useless in a Kill Team but most are not).

If you have an agreeable opponent you can always add in an Inquisitor, with some limitations on his or her equipment choices.

Nah, it has more charm to see them without the boss and to imagine how they start quarrelling when something is going wrong.

 EnTyme wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Again, no interest in a new GW release. So many other skirmish games I would play ahead of this [Infinity, Bushido, Marvel, Mordheim...]

Thanks for stopping by to share that.

Sharing thoughts about a gaming release on a gaming forum? Shame on me! Would you prefer "Oh my God this is so awesoooooooome, an expensive rebox with rules inferior to those freely available on the internet, woohoo!"? Better?

Actually I'd prefer you to say "I'm not interested in this. I'll just move on to something I am interested in and let others enjoy it." If you aren't interested, what is the point of even commenting. Oh. Right. You're just trolling. Carry on.

Isn't that what I did say? Too many tinpot admins.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Mix and match, instead of it just being like a 200 point game with restricted access to things. Like, not make it so you still have to buy a minimum squad (typically 5 anyways) because that usually means you end up just having one single squad of guys and maybe some extras. That doesn't seem like enough leeway to really have "special ops mission" type of scenarios, you basically just have squad vs. squad combat which isn't how it's pitched, even if that's still a good thing to have.

Each model acts as its own unit. Also, up to three guys can be upgraded to specialists, which gives them a special rule and lowers the "all my guys are exactly the same" factor.
I agree that lowering the restriction on the number of models would have been good (especially in the non troop choices), but it's not always as bad as it looks like.

If you take a unit of scouts for instance, you can mix and match close combat weapon, boltguns, shotgun etc. With the use of specialists, it's easy to have 10 guys with no more than two that are the same. And since they act as different unit, mix and matching works well.
Obviously, a tactical squad has way fewer options, which in my opinion makes it much less interesting than scouts for a vanilla space marine KT.

I also think that seeing a tactical squad in this box shows GW's obsession with having regular marines in their starting boxes. Maybe they included a datasheet for a special SM KT that circumvent the codex limitations, otherwise most of the guys will be identical. On the other side, the FW have three weapon options for normal guys, the team leader can get a markerlight, 2 drones, and the turret. That's a lot more variety.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 BrookM wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Mix and match, instead of it just being like a 200 point game with restricted access to things. Like, not make it so you still have to buy a minimum squad (typically 5 anyways) because that usually means you end up just having one single squad of guys and maybe some extras. That doesn't seem like enough leeway to really have "special ops mission" type of scenarios, you basically just have squad vs. squad combat which isn't how it's pitched, even if that's still a good thing to have.

I think I'm going to field Inquisitorial Henchmen - that should provide me with enough variety (granted, some of them are useless in a Kill Team but most are not).

If you have an agreeable opponent you can always add in an Inquisitor, with some limitations on his or her equipment choices.

Nah, it has more charm to see them without the boss and to imagine how they start quarrelling when something is going wrong.

Blame the monkey.

OOK!

 EnTyme wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Again, no interest in a new GW release. So many other skirmish games I would play ahead of this [Infinity, Bushido, Marvel, Mordheim...]

Thanks for stopping by to share that.

Sharing thoughts about a gaming release on a gaming forum? Shame on me! Would you prefer "Oh my God this is so awesoooooooome, an expensive rebox with rules inferior to those freely available on the internet, woohoo!"? Better?

Actually I'd prefer you to say "I'm not interested in this. I'll just move on to something I am interested in and let others enjoy it." If you aren't interested, what is the point of even commenting. Oh. Right. You're just trolling. Carry on.

You mean exactly what he did say before MGS decided to take a gak down his neck? And if you' aren't interested in reading opinions you disagree with, what is the point of even frequenting a discussion forum? Oh. Right. You're just doing exactly what you're accusing someone else of doing, except you actually are doing it.

Seriously people, if your definition of trolling is "not gushing uncritically in agreement with my own personal taste", then just walk away from the internet now and save both yourselves and those of us capable of tolerating interaction with differing views a lot of annoyance.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Spoiler:

 EnTyme wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Again, no interest in a new GW release. So many other skirmish games I would play ahead of this [Infinity, Bushido, Marvel, Mordheim...]

Thanks for stopping by to share that.

Sharing thoughts about a gaming release on a gaming forum? Shame on me! Would you prefer "Oh my God this is so awesoooooooome, an expensive rebox with rules inferior to those freely available on the internet, woohoo!"? Better?

Actually I'd prefer you to say "I'm not interested in this. I'll just move on to something I am interested in and let others enjoy it." If you aren't interested, what is the point of even commenting. Oh. Right. You're just trolling. Carry on.

You mean exactly what he did say before MGS decided to take a gak down his neck? And if you' aren't interested in reading opinions you disagree with, what is the point of even frequenting a discussion forum? Oh. Right. You're just doing exactly what you're accusing someone else of doing, except you actually are doing it.

Seriously people, if your definition of trolling is "not gushing uncritically in agreement with my own personal taste", then just walk away from the internet now and save both yourselves and those of us capable of tolerating interaction with differing views a lot of annoyance.

It's one thing to contribute a critical opinion to a discussion; indeed it's not much of a discussion if everyone agrees. It's quite another to speak without actually entering into a discussion. "I will not buy a vanilla cake as I prefer chocolate" is perfectly fine as an opinion, but it doesn't really allow for anything beyond telling people your preference. There's no discussion to be had as all you have stated is your opinion. Is chocolate a more complex flavor? Is it more readily acceptable in your social circles? Do you have an allergy to vanilla? These are all points of a potential conversation. In this context "I prefer Infinity because the more tailored ruleset for skirmish warfare seems more likely to be enjoyable than trying to scale-down a game like 40k" would be a discussion, and likely a fair critical point.

If just posting your basic opinion is all the energy you can muster for the topic, then why bother entering into it to begin with? It took more energy to click the reply button, type in those sentences and click post than just not doing any of those things which would also convey your disinterest in the topic. At that point, you've simply posted to read your own opinion which...seems somewhat pointless, in my opinion anyway. However, expanding that discussion is somewhat off-topic.

Back on-topic, as I might have use for both the forces contained in the box, I might pick it up. Not entirely sure though as I have tons of Space Marines really, though it'd help bullk out a Deathwatch force with more "normal" marines than the Kill Team boxes.

 BrookM wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 BrookM wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Mix and match, instead of it just being like a 200 point game with restricted access to things. Like, not make it so you still have to buy a minimum squad (typically 5 anyways) because that usually means you end up just having one single squad of guys and maybe some extras. That doesn't seem like enough leeway to really have "special ops mission" type of scenarios, you basically just have squad vs. squad combat which isn't how it's pitched, even if that's still a good thing to have.

I think I'm going to field Inquisitorial Henchmen - that should provide me with enough variety (granted, some of them are useless in a Kill Team but most are not).

If you have an agreeable opponent you can always add in an Inquisitor, with some limitations on his or her equipment choices.

Nah, it has more charm to see them without the boss and to imagine how they start quarrelling when something is going wrong.

Blame the monkey.

OOK!

The one with the las-cannon ring? Mmh... The floating freak with otherworldly powers, the drugged killing machine and the 'armed to the teeth' (literally) murder cultist aren't better, though. Maybe the dumb machine man - without the boss around there's a 50% chance he doesn't react to any insult.

On Topic Here: Kill Team Boxed Game

Not On Topic Here: Opinions about other user's opinions

And please try to get the Swoop-n-Poops to a minimum. Preferably at zero.

Was looking closer at the pics of contents. Does anyone know if this includes a decal sheet (one is shown but it's not listed in contents)? Also, wondering if that sheet has the Ravens' icons included.

Was also reading the Harlequin example and it seems to have 4 of the 6 models as characters while only two are listed as 'players', which I'm assuming in Harlequin-speak means grunt/trooper. Would each model of the 6 constitute its own unit or do you actually band models together in tactical squads, ork mobs, etc.?

Thanks.

Glad they're pushing Killteam more, I'd really like to see Combat Patrol popping up as well in the future!

(Something about those 400pt games appeals to me a bit more).