the rules have been reimagined from the ground up to completely revolutionise the tabletop skirmish combat experience.
We really mean it when we say Kill Team has been completely rebuilt. Every rule is bespoke, and they are no longer based on the Warhammer 40,000 rule set.
Spoiler:
5 Things You Need to Know About the New, Totally Rebuilt Kill Team
OctariusPreview Jul10 KT Header
Among the many explosive reveals in Saturday’s Warhammer Preview Online, we announced a brand new version of Kill Team. As well as introducing some incredible miniatures for the Death Korps of Krieg and Ork Kommandos to the game, the rules have been reimagined from the ground up to completely revolutionise the tabletop skirmish combat experience.
In fact, so much has changed that we’re dedicating a bumper crop of articles to every aspect of the new Kill Team over the coming weeks. Here are just a few of the things you can look forward to in the latest edition.
We really mean it when we say Kill Team has been completely rebuilt. Every rule is bespoke, and they are no longer based on the Warhammer 40,000 rule set.
These dynamic rules allow players to relive tense and gritty spec ops missions full of heroic moments and nail-biting decisions – like the demolition job seen in the stunning cinematic trailer. The new Kill Team experience simulates close-quarters skirmish combat, where stealth and positioning are every bit as important as shooting, and commanders need to use all their cunning to outfox their opponent.
Your units’ datacards are changing, showing off what your operatives can do in more detail than ever before. Front-line troopers can act with comrades, nimble fighters can dodge incoming fire, and powerful soldiers, like the mighty Space Marines, can even perform more actions in a turn than lesser beings. We’ll be having a close look at the new datacards later this week, so keep your eyes peeled.
Kill Team is set among the growing maelstrom of the Octarius sector, where Imperial forces and xenos hordes collide in apocalyptic battles on a daily basis.
As the next narrative setting for Warhammer 40,000, War Zone Octarius is home to a continually developing story that will have far-reaching consequences for the fate of the galaxy. The saga begins with Kill Team and War Zone Octarius: Book One – Rising Tide, which we also revealed during Saturday’s preview.
The kill teams themselves undertake critical missions in this theatre of war, hoping to break the fragile stalemate. So important are the developments in the embattled sector that even those forces not directly involved* have a stake in this momentous conflict.
While players may be used to fighting amid the ruins on Imperial planets or the dark depths of Necron tomb worlds, the ramshackle Ork settlements of the Octarius sector are rife with new challenges.
Constant back-and-forth action is the cornerstone of the new edition of Kill Team, as commanders take alternating turns to activate each of their operatives. Sudden dashes for objectives can come at any moment, and plans must change on the fly as enemy troops weave in and out of cover. No longer will one player have to withstand the full fury of their foe’s assault before getting to respond.
The kill teams themselves are highly customisable, as you would expect from elite teams of operators, and there are many build options available. Each model can be equipped with weapons to match different specialisations within their roster, and no two kill teams will look exactly alike.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. More news is on the way – including a close look at the datacards tomorrow – as we get closer to pre-orders for Kill Team: Octarius opening in August. Check out all of the factions on the freshly updated Kill Team website, then let us know on Facebook which you’ll be playing as first.
* The Imperium, Orks, and Tyranids may be the major players, but every faction has its own agenda and kill teams at the ready.
One very quottable comment from the new rules :
Constant back-and-forth action is the cornerstone of the new edition of Kill Team, as commanders take alternating turns to activate each of their operatives. Sudden dashes for objectives can come at any moment, and plans must change on the fly as enemy troops weave in and out of cover. No longer will one player have to withstand the full fury of their foe’s assault before getting to respond.
Made me lol since it's one of the biggest complaint about 40K
Anyone got any hope that it will be anything other than 'I activate one model, then you do, then I do again', giving a huge advantage (which will not be accounted for in points values) to smaller, more elite forces (i.e. space marines)?
Perfect Organism wrote: Anyone got any hope that it will be anything other than 'I activate one model, then you do, then I do again', giving a huge advantage (which will not be accounted for in points values) to smaller, more elite forces (i.e. space marines)?
Is that how War Cry works?
When they flirted with alternating activation in Necromunda it worked the other way, favouring larger gangs.
Yeah alternating activation can give advantages to multi activation forces who can essentially stall until the lower activation side is all done then outmanoeuvre them.
One of the new stats is Action Point Limit (APL). So perhaps each side will have a limited number of action points to spend. Spamming cheap bodies is less useful when you can't use them all.
I believe Infinity works off something similar to AP. I've not played it myself, so I'm sure somebody more educated can correct me, but you only get X amount of AP (or whatever they call it) and can only distribute it so far.
Arbitrator wrote: I believe Infinity works off something similar to AP. I've not played it myself, so I'm sure somebody more educated can correct me, but you only get X amount of AP (or whatever they call it) and can only distribute it so far.
With Infinity you get as many orders as you have units alive and use them to activate your models, also you use multiple orders on one models to activate it more than once in a single turn.
Arbitrator wrote: I believe Infinity works off something similar to AP. I've not played it myself, so I'm sure somebody more educated can correct me, but you only get X amount of AP (or whatever they call it) and can only distribute it so far.
With Infinity you get as many orders as you have units alive and use them to activate your models, also you use multiple orders on one models to activate it more than once in a single turn.
Apparently KT will also be using group activations, which is also borrowed from Infinity's "Fire Teams" (not sure if used in other games). Basically lumping certain units together, activating them all with a single order.
Perfect Organism wrote: Anyone got any hope that it will be anything other than 'I activate one model, then you do, then I do again', giving a huge advantage (which will not be accounted for in points values) to smaller, more elite forces (i.e. space marines)?
I've never played a game with alternating activations where the smaller forces had advantages.
Arbitrator wrote: I believe Infinity works off something similar to AP. I've not played it myself, so I'm sure somebody more educated can correct me, but you only get X amount of AP (or whatever they call it) and can only distribute it so far.
With Infinity you get as many orders as you have units alive and use them to activate your models, also you use multiple orders on one models to activate it more than once in a single turn.
Apparently KT will also be using group activations, which is also borrowed from Infinity's "Fire Teams" (not sure if used in other games). Basically lumping certain units together, activating them all with a single order.
It’s also used in Stargrave and Necromunda. I don’t think it’s necessarily unique to Infinity, although it might have started there.
Perfect Organism wrote: Anyone got any hope that it will be anything other than 'I activate one model, then you do, then I do again', giving a huge advantage (which will not be accounted for in points values) to smaller, more elite forces (i.e. space marines)?
I've never played a game with alternating activations where the smaller forces had advantages.
+1. Alternating activation games very often favor the larger force, as they either have activations they can spend with impunity after the other side has used up all of theirs for a turn, and/or they are able to concentrate multiple activations. Even systems/rules that are designed to compensate for concentrating points often don't very effectively balance numerical advantage.
For anyone who hasn't seen it, "Glass Half Dead" on youtube has picked over the screenshots we have to paint a pretty comprehensive picture of how a lot fo the new rules are likely to function.
I'm honestly, overall pretty pumped. The level of deadliness is pretty solid (mathswise, a guardsman firing a lasgun at another guardsman out of cover deals 2.6/7hp in damage, and a guardsman firing a flamer at another guardsman out of cover deals 6/7hp) and as long as there's no silly thing to ruin it like "shoot is not a unique action, models can shoot as many times as they take action points" the game should be pretty solid.
Also, I'm a huge sucker for D6-based opposed roll damage resolution. all the granularity of hit-wound-save type bucket o dice systems, none of the repetitive rolling or needing to memorize your target's stats.
The 'elites will have more actions' is the only thing that worries me, because unless they split up their statlines carefully that could lead to elites doing some preeeeetty silly gak. Like if marines had an APL of 4, and like Guardsmen a move of 6, that would mean a marine could potentially move 24" in a turn.
Arbitrator wrote: I believe Infinity works off something similar to AP. I've not played it myself, so I'm sure somebody more educated can correct me, but you only get X amount of AP (or whatever they call it) and can only distribute it so far.
With Infinity you get as many orders as you have units alive and use them to activate your models, also you use multiple orders on one models to activate it more than once in a single turn.
Apparently KT will also be using group activations, which is also borrowed from Infinity's "Fire Teams" (not sure if used in other games). Basically lumping certain units together, activating them all with a single order.
I might be reading too much into GW's rather vague hype article but I was getting definite whiff of Infinity from it - it sounds like there are group activations, the ability to spend multiple action points on a single model (but unlike Infinity this has a cap) and that bit about "nimble fighters can dodge incoming fire" could easily be implemented as part of a reaction system - in Infinity models can react to being shot at by trying to dodge or return fire, for example. I could see something allowing you to spend activation points to react like this in response to enemy actions.
While new rules is not bad per se, I really liked having a rules set where I could throw anything in my collection on the table...
This all just seems like - lets make you buy everything new, even if you already have a 10k points WH40K army, because now you need this extra book! And these faction specific cards! And these mandatory tokens! And this brainbug implanted!
Might get it anyway, for the sweet plasticrack...
the_scotsman wrote: For anyone who hasn't seen it, "Glass Half Dead" on youtube has picked over the screenshots we have to paint a pretty comprehensive picture of how a lot fo the new rules are likely to function.
I'm honestly, overall pretty pumped. The level of deadliness is pretty solid (mathswise, a guardsman firing a lasgun at another guardsman out of cover deals 2.6/7hp in damage, and a guardsman firing a flamer at another guardsman out of cover deals 6/7hp) and as long as there's no silly thing to ruin it like "shoot is not a unique action, models can shoot as many times as they take action points" the game should be pretty solid.
Also, I'm a huge sucker for D6-based opposed roll damage resolution. all the granularity of hit-wound-save type bucket o dice systems, none of the repetitive rolling or needing to memorize your target's stats.
The 'elites will have more actions' is the only thing that worries me, because unless they split up their statlines carefully that could lead to elites doing some preeeeetty silly gak. Like if marines had an APL of 4, and like Guardsmen a move of 6, that would mean a marine could potentially move 24" in a turn.
So shooting sounds mostly like X-wing, except you can vary the target number in addition to the number of dice.
Zona Alfa has 3 tiers of fighter with 1, 2, and 3 actions per turn respectively, seems to work fine. As you say, some limit on movement might be prudent.
I'm generally not a big fan of alternating activations because it ends up becoming too big a part of the game. The order in which you activate becomes too important, gaming the activation system by taking more entities to activate, you lose the broad strategy of a "turn" and even if you're thinking multiple activations in advance it becomes more of a reactionary game.
Of course IGOUGO has problems in 40k where turns take an eternity (at least last time I played which was several years ago, don't know if recent 40k editions have significantly sped up turns), but in games where turns don't take forever I tend to prefer IGOUGO.
Kind of tempting but I'm hoping they make the usual pigs ear of carving up the rules into contradictory books and far too many card packs so save me moneys
So I watched the "Glass half dead" video and this does look very interesting.
Obviously it won't be 100% accurate but I think his speculation is sound.
My big take from the video was that you won't really ever need to know your opponent's rules, only your own. This is because your reaction to everything your opponent does is baked into your data sheet.
No longer will one player have to withstand the full fury of their foe’s assault before getting to respond
Also seems to imply that the person who wrote that article never played Kill Team and doesn't know the rules for it.
I doubt anyone at GW plays GW games
I mean, I expect you're just trying to be edgy and/or hyperbolic here, but just for the record I know for a fact this is categorically untrue, both from my time there and the people I know who currently work for them.
No longer will one player have to withstand the full fury of their foe’s assault before getting to respond
Also seems to imply that the person who wrote that article never played Kill Team and doesn't know the rules for it.
I doubt anyone at GW plays GW games
I mean, I expect you're just trying to be edgy and/or hyperbolic here, but just for the record I know for a fact this is categorically untrue, both from my time there and the people I know who currently work for them.
I mean we also know that the 8ed T'au Codex was written by someone that never played T'au in his life.
New article on Warhammer Community with almost no actual details on how anything works, just that it does, apparently. Like, they explain the distances thing. But not why the triangle isn’t 3 or why the six is a pentagon.
And they skip two of the six characteristics completely.
But we have a special skill; spend an AP on one model to give another model an extra AP which kinda implies that AP are per-model which is definitely a decision. Not sure if it’s a good one though.
Turnip Jedi wrote: I think the correct quote would have been "I doubt anyone at GW plays GW games the way anyone with a grasp of secondary school maths/stats does"
More like "haters gonna believe any crap that fits their narrative, no matter if it's true or not".
One of many huge changes coming to the newly reimagined Kill Team (you didn’t miss the reveal, did you?) is a complete rework of operatives’ characteristics. Instead of directly adapting Warhammer 40,000 rules, datacards present a new collection of stats that capture each combatant’s aptitudes and special skills in greater detail. Oh, and there’s a new movement system too! Let’s take a look at this Hardened Veteran of the Death Korps of Krieg to see what it all means.
KTdatacards Jul14 Example991ike
The first thing you’ll notice is the Movement characteristic – what exactly does 3◯ mean? To keep everything quick and easy to measure, Kill Team uses a system of four colours with corresponding shapes to represent common distances.
This allows you to easily check your ranges using the combat gauges included in the Kill Team: Octarius box. As operatives are injured or affected by special conditions, their movement values will increase or decrease – this new system makes modifying their characteristics a snap.
To the right of the Movement characteristic, the Action Point Limit (or APL for short) determines how many actions an operative can attempt in a single activation. While most humans and xenos have a score of two, particularly powerful models like Space Marines can do even more with their turn. We’ll be covering exactly what actions your soldiers can perform in a later article, as there’s far too much to show off here.
Given the tense, close-quarters nature of a Kill Team mission, it’s only a matter of time before bullets start flying. Luckily, your operatives have the Defence characteristic to help keep them alive. This represents how good they are at diving to the ground or otherwise getting out of the way of enemy fire.
The model’s Save value is the only thing that made it across from the old Kill Team datacards, though you may be surprised to know that now it only protects you from ranged attacks. An entirely new system turns your melee fights into the desperate back-and-forth duels you’d expect to see in action movies, which we’ll be exploring in more detail later this week.
See that? Even a humble Guardsman has seven Wounds now. In fact, all operatives now have a much higher Wounds characteristic than before. This goes hand in hand with changes to weapon damage, creating for more cinematic moments as injured soldiers limp towards their objectives, while fewer operatives are cruelly cut down before getting their chance to act.
An operative’s abilities and unique actions are what truly set them apart from their comrades. Each model’s specialist skills are represented either as an effect that lasts all game, or as actions they can take in the heat of battle. The Hardened Veteran can shrug off even the most grievous wounds, for example, while the Comms Veteran can use their vox-casters to relay spur-of-the-moment orders to distant comrades.
Lastly, there’s a keyword section at the bottom of the card – familiar to players of Warhammer 40,000 – that lets you quickly see if an operative is affected by rules that target a specific keyword. Next to that is an array of four symbols representing the specialisms your operatives can adopt during a narrative play campaign as you build a kill team of storied heroes. We’ll be taking a much closer look at narrative play in a future article too.
Join us again tomorrow for more Kill Team rules talk as we dive into the deadly realm of ranged combat. We’re aiming to cover every major change coming to the all-new Kill Team over the next week or so to get you ready to deploy when Kill Team: Octarius pre-orders arrive next month. In the meantime, be sure to check out the new Kill Team website and the awesome, blood-soaked Kill Team cinematic trailer.
So, it's not Warcry but there are some things similar (number of wounds, simplified profile and you can see the weapons have a number of attacks and damage stats that is close).
Not sold about the "color / symbol based movement", but well...it's more targeted towards total newcomers here. I guess it can be more practical to use those if you indeed have less movement when wounded.
Having the number of actions depending of the troop is nice. Helps making things different on long term profiles (when they will make supplements adding elite / HQ units and such, no doubt).
Save only works against ranged attacks. Interesting. Means only Defense will help you. GA is not revealed so far.
However, since there are WS/BS in the weapon profile, wonder if Defense is not working like Endurance, and GA would be opposed to it.
This is the single most un-intuitive way they could've done something so simple. A shape with three sides is "1". A shape with one side is "2". A shape with four sides is "3", and a shape with five sides is "6". Why? WHAT? Why in the world would you do this? What is wrong with you?
I'm really excited for this new version of Kill Team. Wasn't really invested in it before, when it was similar to the rules for 40k, I like that it'll be it's own game. This also can help them not have to deal with folks always asking why Kill Team datasheets are not always updated with 40k datasheet changes.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: This is the single most un-intuitive way they could've done something so simple. A shape with three sides is "1". A shape with one side is "2". A shape with four sides is "3", and a shape with five sides is "6". Why? WHAT? Why in the world would you do this? What is wrong with you?
The shapes are just keywords to go with the distance. The shape is also printed on the templates. Doesn't matter what symbol is used, they just use symbols. Things like this help with making the game easy for translation into other languages. especially for the templates.
The shapes are just keywords to go with the distance. The shape is also printed on the templates. Doesn't matter what symbol is used, they just use symbols. Things like this help with making the game easy for translation into other languages. especially for the templates.
I don't think it's really a question of translation, here. Movement can be just a number and say in the rules "each point is equivalent to x inches / cm".
However, it's a good way to avoid that old debate about imperial measures vs metric system. Here, it doesn't matter : you just use the corresponding template. Convenient.
By and large I'm liking what I see so far, but the range stuff feels far more convoluted than just saying inches.
If they had renamed inches "marks" or something for the purposes of translation and just had a template that had one/two/six marks on it that would be fine, but having several different units of measurement, and then those being multiplied sometimes, just feels like a bunch of cognitive load while playing for very little benefit.
To the extent I feel like I'll just write "6" in pen in the rulebook instead of "3O".
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: This is the single most un-intuitive way they could've done something so simple. A shape with three sides is "1". A shape with one side is "2". A shape with four sides is "3", and a shape with five sides is "6". Why? WHAT? Why in the world would you do this? What is wrong with you?
i'll be honest, I never actually thought of the number of sides of the shape when I looked at it. It was just a symbol to associate with a particular length, and they're gonna put that symbol on the measuring tool that ships in the box.
Ranged weapons only have a "short" range, none of them have a maximum range because it's assumed the battlefield is too small.
Pretty sure "GA" will be Group Activation.
Group Allowance (I think it's the exact same system in Warcry)
Basically how many of the model you're allowed to have in your team. Maybe it's 'group activation' though, since it would be odd if you could only have 2 basic trooper guardsmen.
I'm thinking there might be some sort of logic to the movement units we haven't been shown yet. Like suspected in that Glass Half Dead video, perhaps each gauge distance is a point where reaction can happen? So a movement of 3 x 2 equals the same distance as covered by 1 x 6, but one is much easier to react against than the other (like against genestealers for example)?
I'm not sure I like the new wounds system. If someone has 7 wounds and a lasgun has a max potential of 8 wounds without crits, its going to be statistically pretty hard to headshot frag an "operative" (nuKT term for model) in a single turn. But then again, that wasn't easy in KT1 either..
The dicewars of Attacks against DF will be interesting.. I just hope it'll work out in practice. Some signs point towards models being hella resistant to damage, I hope they have got the probability balances right.
GWs lazy copy paste of game mechanics from this last decade's other tabletop skirmish games is looking to be the best rules set they've released since um, 40k apocalypse?
Yeah, those symbols are just awkward. If they really want to push their gauges, they could have modelled the numbers onto them too, instead of these symbols.
But lets not judge the game before release, based on a few silly decisions.
tauist wrote: I'm thinking there might be some sort of logic to the movement units we haven't been shown yet. Like suspected in that Glass Half Dead video, perhaps each gauge distance is a point where reaction can happen? So a movement of 3 x 2 equals the same distance as covered by 1 x 6, but one is much easier to react against than the other (like against genestealers for example)?
I'm not sure I like the new wounds system. If someone has 7 wounds and a lasgun has a max potential of 8 wounds without crits, its going to be statistically pretty hard to headshot frag an "operative" (nuKT term for model) in a single turn. But then again, that wasn't easy in KT1 either..
The dicewars of Attacks against DF will be interesting.. I just hope it'll work out in practice. Some signs point towards models being hella resistant to damage, I hope they have got the probability balances right.
Seems like they will be able to lose action points and movement as they get wounded.
So the breaking up of 6 inches into 3x2 inches might have that use if nothing else.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: This is the single most un-intuitive way they could've done something so simple. A shape with three sides is "1". A shape with one side is "2". A shape with four sides is "3", and a shape with five sides is "6". Why? WHAT? Why in the world would you do this? What is wrong with you?
It's utterly criminal that they didn't choose shapes that escalate in a logical order relative to the distances. I can think of zero reason not to use triangle for 1", square for 2", pentagon for 3", and octagon for 6". Then everything makes sense, and is easily remembered even by a newcomer who is told "number of sides minus 2". Even without the mathematical equivalence overtly called out, it's easy to see that more sides are bigger.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: This is the single most un-intuitive way they could've done something so simple. A shape with three sides is "1". A shape with one side is "2". A shape with four sides is "3", and a shape with five sides is "6". Why? WHAT? Why in the world would you do this? What is wrong with you?
This ^
Also, from the article:
The first thing you’ll notice is the Movement characteristic – what exactly does 3◯ mean?
This isn't actually addressed. Apparently ◯ means 2", so does 3◯ mean 6"? So why not use the Pentagon symbol since that means 6"?
TalonZahn wrote: Good thing they are making all these changes and putting them in the Limited Edition Launch Box and not a properly produced Starter Set.....
Aww man, did I miss something? This is another limited edition starter?
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: This is the single most un-intuitive way they could've done something so simple. A shape with three sides is "1". A shape with one side is "2". A shape with four sides is "3", and a shape with five sides is "6". Why? WHAT? Why in the world would you do this? What is wrong with you?
This ^
Also, from the article:
The first thing you’ll notice is the Movement characteristic – what exactly does 3◯ mean?
This isn't actually addressed. Apparently ◯ means 2", so does 3◯ mean 6"? So why not use the Pentagon symbol since that means 6"?
Or am I missing something?
As mentioned above, you appear to be able to lose part of your movement as you are wounded. So 3◯ to 2◯ etc.
Then perhaps you can get interrupted by overwatch at increments too, though that's complete guesswork at the moment I think.
This isn't actually addressed. Apparently ◯ means 2", so does 3◯ mean 6"? So why not use the Pentagon symbol since that means 6"?
Or am I missing something?
Reading the rest below the pictures, I guess :
"This allows you to easily check your ranges using the combat gauges included in the Kill Team: Octarius box. As operatives are injured or affected by special conditions, their movement values will increase or decrease – this new system makes modifying their characteristics a snap."
More complicated to modify if you have just 1x6'' (means you have to specify which other symbol you use, and I doubt the core rules would be that specific).
Bet all move characteristic are multiples. Unless the unit is somewhat relentless and never slow down even if wounded (sounds like a cool rule for Deathguard /Nurgle, doesn't it ?).
And indeed, we don't have the rules about how move actions are actually played. Can also help a lot to clarify when to use overwatch as well, too.
TalonZahn wrote: Good thing they are making all these changes and putting them in the Limited Edition Launch Box and not a properly produced Starter Set.....
Aww man, did I miss something? This is another limited edition starter?
Stream said; "While supplies last" and "Launch Box"
TalonZahn wrote: Good thing they are making all these changes and putting them in the Limited Edition Launch Box and not a properly produced Starter Set.....
Aww man, did I miss something? This is another limited edition starter?
Stream said; "While supplies last" and "Launch Box"
So, draw your own conclusions from that.
But they've said everything is available separately, so it's not like the new rules will be unavailable.
the_scotsman wrote: i'll be honest, I never actually thought of the number of sides of the shape when I looked at it. It was just a symbol to associate with a particular length, and they're gonna put that symbol on the measuring tool that ships in the box.
TalonZahn wrote: Good thing they are making all these changes and putting them in the Limited Edition Launch Box and not a properly produced Starter Set.....
Aww man, did I miss something? This is another limited edition starter?
Stream said; "While supplies last" and "Launch Box"
So, draw your own conclusions from that.
Oh, I thought you meant marketed as LE so should expect LE pricing. Yeah, that's still weak, and I don't really understand their move away from what I was used to growing up where those starter sets stayed around for the life of the game, but here's hoping that the numbers are within the realm of reason. Either way, thanks!
the rules have been reimagined from the ground up to completely revolutionise the tabletop skirmish combat experience.
We really mean it when we say Kill Team has been completely rebuilt. Every rule is bespoke, and they are no longer based on the Warhammer 40,000 rule set.
Spoiler:
5 Things You Need to Know About the New, Totally Rebuilt Kill Team
OctariusPreview Jul10 KT Header
Among the many explosive reveals in Saturday’s Warhammer Preview Online, we announced a brand new version of Kill Team. As well as introducing some incredible miniatures for the Death Korps of Krieg and Ork Kommandos to the game, the rules have been reimagined from the ground up to completely revolutionise the tabletop skirmish combat experience.
In fact, so much has changed that we’re dedicating a bumper crop of articles to every aspect of the new Kill Team over the coming weeks. Here are just a few of the things you can look forward to in the latest edition.
We really mean it when we say Kill Team has been completely rebuilt. Every rule is bespoke, and they are no longer based on the Warhammer 40,000 rule set.
These dynamic rules allow players to relive tense and gritty spec ops missions full of heroic moments and nail-biting decisions – like the demolition job seen in the stunning cinematic trailer. The new Kill Team experience simulates close-quarters skirmish combat, where stealth and positioning are every bit as important as shooting, and commanders need to use all their cunning to outfox their opponent.
Your units’ datacards are changing, showing off what your operatives can do in more detail than ever before. Front-line troopers can act with comrades, nimble fighters can dodge incoming fire, and powerful soldiers, like the mighty Space Marines, can even perform more actions in a turn than lesser beings. We’ll be having a close look at the new datacards later this week, so keep your eyes peeled.
Kill Team is set among the growing maelstrom of the Octarius sector, where Imperial forces and xenos hordes collide in apocalyptic battles on a daily basis.
As the next narrative setting for Warhammer 40,000, War Zone Octarius is home to a continually developing story that will have far-reaching consequences for the fate of the galaxy. The saga begins with Kill Team and War Zone Octarius: Book One – Rising Tide, which we also revealed during Saturday’s preview.
The kill teams themselves undertake critical missions in this theatre of war, hoping to break the fragile stalemate. So important are the developments in the embattled sector that even those forces not directly involved* have a stake in this momentous conflict.
While players may be used to fighting amid the ruins on Imperial planets or the dark depths of Necron tomb worlds, the ramshackle Ork settlements of the Octarius sector are rife with new challenges.
Constant back-and-forth action is the cornerstone of the new edition of Kill Team, as commanders take alternating turns to activate each of their operatives. Sudden dashes for objectives can come at any moment, and plans must change on the fly as enemy troops weave in and out of cover. No longer will one player have to withstand the full fury of their foe’s assault before getting to respond.
The kill teams themselves are highly customisable, as you would expect from elite teams of operators, and there are many build options available. Each model can be equipped with weapons to match different specialisations within their roster, and no two kill teams will look exactly alike.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. More news is on the way – including a close look at the datacards tomorrow – as we get closer to pre-orders for Kill Team: Octarius opening in August. Check out all of the factions on the freshly updated Kill Team website, then let us know on Facebook which you’ll be playing as first.
* The Imperium, Orks, and Tyranids may be the major players, but every faction has its own agenda and kill teams at the ready.
One very quottable comment from the new rules :
Constant back-and-forth action is the cornerstone of the new edition of Kill Team, as commanders take alternating turns to activate each of their operatives. Sudden dashes for objectives can come at any moment, and plans must change on the fly as enemy troops weave in and out of cover. No longer will one player have to withstand the full fury of their foe’s assault before getting to respond.
Made me lol since it's one of the biggest complaint about 40K
GW make plastic miniatures and still outsource dice, therefore covering weird measuring things with silly symbols is cheaper than proprietary dice? That'd be my guess.
I dunno. This kind of thing seems to go against KISS.
jaredb wrote: Things like this help with making the game easy for translation into other languages. especially for the templates.
Ah. I hadn't considered that... but at the same time it's still using numbers, so why not just use numbers rather than symbols and numbers?
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: This is the single most un-intuitive way they could've done something so simple. A shape with three sides is "1". A shape with one side is "2". A shape with four sides is "3", and a shape with five sides is "6". Why? WHAT? Why in the world would you do this? What is wrong with you?
Gregor Samsa wrote: GWs lazy copy paste of game mechanics from this last decade's other tabletop skirmish games is looking to be the best rules set they've released since um, 40k apocalypse?
That's not quite true. Every rule set that GW puts out is the best ruleset they've ever made since the last one. They tell us that themselves.
I hated the symbols in Blackstone Fortress and Cursed City even if they were somewhat logical as they almost matched dice shapes. I fail to see the logic in these. At least the miniatures are nice.
Soo.. Imperial Guard Veteran profile has a lasgun and bayonet, huh? That'll teach me to model my IG veteran models with a mixture of shotguns, autoguns and lasguns..
Love the argument that 3◯ is easier to translate into other languages than 6 tho, that's the sort of quality water carrying I read Dakka for.
It makes sense that 3◯ becomes 4◯ when given a sprint* order from the sgt or 2◯ when under half wounds because you can then write that "sprint order adds 1 to your Mv" when your base may be 2, 3 or 5 (triangle, circle, square, whatever).
Especially in a warband where the Mv is not the same for all the different unit entries.
*something I've made up as an example and nothing we've heard about
The issue is not how the symbols are used but that the symbols itself do not make much sense. How come a square means 3" and a pentagon 6"? One will probably get used to them quite soon but they they feel rather gimmicky at the moment. And we know that GW will use them at every possible instance. All enemy models within SQUARE, watch out.
Yes, the gauges are awful. They don't even need numbers to be better, GW could have done Short, Medium, and Long sticks. GW excels at botching the execution of their ideas.
Blastaar wrote: Yes, the gauges are awful. They don't even need numbers to be better, GW could have done Short, Medium, and Long sticks. GW excels at botching the execution of their ideas.
On the bright side, I want to turn those measuring thingies into some sort of fortress gate.
I had the same initial reaction when I saw the symbols.
It uses the same logic from the Warhammer Quest games with the circle wedged between poor and mediocre: Triangle D4 = poor, Square D6 = mediocre, D12 pentagon = excellent. But since there are only D6s included in the KT box, it is unlikely that KT uses a similar mechanic. Simply having a consistent "design language" across games seems be a very weak reason for the symbols. So i am still baffled by the choice.
However it is a good decision to use a combination of number and symbol for the movement instead of two numbers. It is way easier, more intuitive and unambiguous when a rule refers to the first part or the latter. It is the same reason why cells in Microsoft Excel or chess are labeled A1 or B7 instead of 1:1 and 2:7. It is easier to distinguish what is what. And there are several exciting gameplay possibilities why 3x2" might not be the same as 2x3" movement.
Contrary to what some seem to believe, translation issues wouldn't be a factor. Warcry uses symbols for special abilities because then the fighter cards do not contain words and do not need to be translated, only the ability cards. So instead of "(number of fighter + 1) times number of languages", you only need "number of languages + number of fighter" cards. But this isn't the case with KT. Since the fighter cards use numbers anyway, there wouldn't be any savings. Language might only be a factor in regard of not using A,B,C and D as the symbol.
tl;dr Use of symbols = great, choice of symbols = highly questionable
Siygess wrote: Soo.. Imperial Guard Veteran profile has a lasgun and bayonet, huh? That'll teach me to model my IG veteran models with a mixture of shotguns, autoguns and lasguns..
from the images, we know that at least lasguns and shotguns are on the sprues (most likely more than one, unless 'guy loading shotgun' is the only sculpt on the sprue). Given that autoguns and lasguns are usually statistically identical, I think you'll be forgiven for using an autogun vet as a lasgun vet.
Vovin wrote: I had the same initial reaction when I saw the symbols.
It uses the same logic from the Warhammer Quest games with the circle wedged between poor and mediocre: Triangle D4 = poor, Square D6 = mediocre, D12 pentagon = excellent. But since there are only D6s included in the KT box, it is unlikely that KT uses a similar mechanic. Simply having a consistent "design language" across games seems be a very weak reason for the symbols. So i am still baffled by the choice.
However it is a good decision to use a combination of number and symbol for the movement instead of two numbers. It is way easier, more intuitive and unambiguous when a rule refers to the first part or the latter. It is the same reason why cells in Microsoft Excel or chess are labeled A1 or B7 instead of 1:1 and 2:7. It is easier to distinguish what is what. And there are several exciting gameplay possibilities why 3x2" might not be the same as 2x3" movement.
Contrary to what some seem to believe, translation issues wouldn't be a factor. Warcry uses symbols for special abilities because then the fighter cards do not contain words and do not need to be translated, only the ability cards. So instead of "(number of fighter + 1) times number of languages", you only need "number of languages + number of fighter" cards. But this isn't the case with KT. Since the fighter cards use numbers anyway, there wouldn't be any savings. Language might only be a factor in regard of not using A,B,C and D as the symbol.
tl;dr Use of symbols = great, choice of symbols = highly questionable
The new Kill Team rules seem neat and I'm looking forward to trying them out. Is the Attack / Defense mechanic straight out of Warcry? I'm really interested to see how they are going to do melee with back and forth and apparently no Saving Throws. I wonder if there will be something akin to the old WS chart to allow for 'elite' units to have better melee defense.
Blastaar wrote: Yes, the gauges are awful. They don't even need numbers to be better, GW could have done Short, Medium, and Long sticks. GW excels at botching the execution of their ideas.
On the bright side, I want to turn those measuring thingies into some sort of fortress gate.
I had the same thought, those measuring rulers look like an awesome gate when stood up.
No saving throw in melee is bizarre. Armour suddenly stop to work when you get hit by a knife??? I guess we'll have to see the full rule before judging but....
Optimists assume GW will use the two stat movement approach to make models lose/gain movement at different rates.
So you could have a 6xTriangle guy and a 3xCircle guy and they both move 6 base, but if they get a +1 move buff the first guy will move 7 and the second guy will move 8.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: This is the single most un-intuitive way they could've done something so simple. A shape with three sides is "1". A shape with one side is "2". A shape with four sides is "3", and a shape with five sides is "6". Why? WHAT? Why in the world would you do this? What is wrong with you?
My satire sense was tingling but this is too mad to be satire. They've made it "quick and easy" by using unintuitive symbols instead of numbers, great. I can only assume it's a cynical way to make people buy the gauges
Vovin wrote: I had the same initial reaction when I saw the symbols.
It uses the same logic from the Warhammer Quest games with the circle wedged between poor and mediocre: Triangle D4 = poor, Square D6 = mediocre, D12 pentagon = excellent. But since there are only D6s included in the KT box, it is unlikely that KT uses a similar mechanic. Simply having a consistent "design language" across games seems be a very weak reason for the symbols. So i am still baffled by the choice.
However it is a good decision to use a combination of number and symbol for the movement instead of two numbers. It is way easier, more intuitive and unambiguous when a rule refers to the first part or the latter. It is the same reason why cells in Microsoft Excel or chess are labeled A1 or B7 instead of 1:1 and 2:7. It is easier to distinguish what is what. And there are several exciting gameplay possibilities why 3x2" might not be the same as 2x3" movement.
Contrary to what some seem to believe, translation issues wouldn't be a factor. Warcry uses symbols for special abilities because then the fighter cards do not contain words and do not need to be translated, only the ability cards. So instead of "(number of fighter + 1) times number of languages", you only need "number of languages + number of fighter" cards. But this isn't the case with KT. Since the fighter cards use numbers anyway, there wouldn't be any savings. Language might only be a factor in regard of not using A,B,C and D as the symbol.
tl;dr Use of symbols = great, choice of symbols = highly questionable
Why would two numbers be used for movement?
I can think of lots of situations where this is preferential to a fixed value.
- If a model has 9" movement and another 6" and there is a -3" movement modifier, it affects the 6" model way more. And you want to avoid percentage modifiers because they are clunky. When you have a model with 3x3" and 3x2" movement, you can simply say: -1 movement and it reduces the speed of both models by 33%.
- Modifiers can work on both parts and be more granular and at the same time allow for more interaction between different modifiers, without the worry that some models are reduced to zero movement. So two -3 movement modifiers render a 6" model immobile, which is not particular fun. But a -1 movement and "treat 3" square as 2" circle" can be combined.
- Maybe a model moves in increments and after each increment the enemy can make reactive fire. So a 4x2" model is faster than a 1x6" model, but the latter can move from cover to cover without provoking overwatch fire.
- Maybe a charging model that uses only one fragment of their movement is treated have as having made a sneak attack, granting some bonuses.
the_scotsman wrote: from the images, we know that at least lasguns and shotguns are on the sprues (most likely more than one, unless 'guy loading shotgun' is the only sculpt on the sprue).
Optimists assume GW will use the two stat movement approach to make models lose/gain movement at different rates.
So you could have a 6xTriangle guy and a 3xCircle guy and they both move 6 base, but if they get a +1 move buff the first guy will move 7 and the second guy will move 8.
Its what they say in the article, not merely being optimistic.
streetsamurai wrote: No saving throw in melee is bizarre. Armour suddenly stop to work when you get hit by a knife??? I guess we'll have to see the full rule before judging but....
My assumption is that melee will be:
Attacker rolls (# of dice equal to melee weapon's A value), looks for WS or better for successes
Defender rolls (# of dice equal to DF), looks for WS or better for successes
Whether you think this is good or bad, I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
Personally, I can see some of the appeal for such a system -- your durability in melee combat has more to do with your skill as a melee combatant, not just what you're wearing. For a personalized system with a tighter focus on individuals, this could be an appealing notion. It also gets away from the difficulty of double-penalizing lightly armored melee glass cannons, by making them run a gauntlet naked to get to combat, and then suddenly still being fragile while in their element, too.
It also takes some of the focus off of favorable AP melee weapons, particularly in a system where we're not assigning multiple attacks at a model level rather than a weapon level. Such weapons can just get a high A and be done with it, which goes along with the streamlining and quicker play they seem to be going for.
Vovin wrote: I had the same initial reaction when I saw the symbols.
It uses the same logic from the Warhammer Quest games with the circle wedged between poor and mediocre: Triangle D4 = poor, Square D6 = mediocre, D12 pentagon = excellent. But since there are only D6s included in the KT box, it is unlikely that KT uses a similar mechanic. Simply having a consistent "design language" across games seems be a very weak reason for the symbols. So i am still baffled by the choice.
However it is a good decision to use a combination of number and symbol for the movement instead of two numbers. It is way easier, more intuitive and unambiguous when a rule refers to the first part or the latter. It is the same reason why cells in Microsoft Excel or chess are labeled A1 or B7 instead of 1:1 and 2:7. It is easier to distinguish what is what. And there are several exciting gameplay possibilities why 3x2" might not be the same as 2x3" movement.
Contrary to what some seem to believe, translation issues wouldn't be a factor. Warcry uses symbols for special abilities because then the fighter cards do not contain words and do not need to be translated, only the ability cards. So instead of "(number of fighter + 1) times number of languages", you only need "number of languages + number of fighter" cards. But this isn't the case with KT. Since the fighter cards use numbers anyway, there wouldn't be any savings. Language might only be a factor in regard of not using A,B,C and D as the symbol.
tl;dr Use of symbols = great, choice of symbols = highly questionable
Why would two numbers be used for movement?
I can think of lots of situations where this is preferential to a fixed value.
- If a model has 9" movement and another 6" and there is a -3" movement modifier, it affects the 6" model way more. And you want to avoid percentage modifiers because they are clunky. When you have a model with 3x3" and 3x2" movement, you can simply say: -1 movement and it reduces the speed of both models by 33%.
- Modifiers can work on both parts and be more granular and at the same time allow for more interaction between different modifiers, without the worry that some models are reduced to zero movement. So two -3 movement modifiers render a 6" model immobile, which is not particular fun. But a -1 movement and "treat 3" square as 2" circle" can be combined.
- Maybe a model moves in increments and after each increment the enemy can make reactive fire. So a 4x2" model is faster than a 1x6" model, but the latter can move from cover to cover without provoking overwatch fire.
- Maybe a charging model that uses only one fragment of their movement is treated have as having made a sneak attack, granting some bonuses.
Optimists assume GW will use the two stat movement approach to make models lose/gain movement at different rates.
So you could have a 6xTriangle guy and a 3xCircle guy and they both move 6 base, but if they get a +1 move buff the first guy will move 7 and the second guy will move 8.
I should have said "why use two numbers fror movement unless you are implementing it like Infinity." Many of the suggestions above are, I think, needlessly complicated. I don't think degrading profiles will improve KT, either.
Blastaar wrote: I should have said "why use two numbers fror movement unless you are implementing it like Infinity." Many of the suggestions above are, I think, needlessly complicated. I don't think degrading profiles will improve KT, either.
Man, that -1 to hit for models with a flesh wound ruined KT. Surely suggesting that a wounded model slows down will only go further down the road to destruction.
Blastaar wrote: I should have said "why use two numbers fror movement unless you are implementing it like Infinity." Many of the suggestions above are, I think, needlessly complicated. I don't think degrading profiles will improve KT, either.
Man, that -1 to hit for models with a flesh wound ruined KT. Surely suggesting that a wounded model slows down will only go further down the road to destruction.
Degrading profiles might work if GW wanted to go the Battletech route with rolling to see where on the target the shot lands, but................
I sometimes get the impression that GW looks at other games for "inspiration" and picks up what they think is cool to implement it into their own games
but they don't understand why it is used in the first place and they need to change it so it is not a direct copy
measurement sticks without numbers is nothing new
SAGA and FFG Star Wars Games make great use of it
one reason is to avoid problems between imperial and metric as well as problems with tabe measure used to cheat and for easy to use (X-WING with a tape measure would be much more complicated)
yet I don't see any benefit here other than being different
They made a point not having the number of sides of any shape represent its corresponding number, meaning you're not going to have any player think hexagon represents five because triangle represent three, etc - no shortcuts memorizing what shape represents what but GW doesn't need to come up with a two-sided shape either.
Has anyone seen Slayer posting? I figured he'd be all over this, but I haven't seen him in a while.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streetsamurai wrote: No saving throw in melee is bizarre. Armour suddenly stop to work when you get hit by a knife??? I guess we'll have to see the full rule before judging but....
It is interesting. Makes orks scary. Perhaps marines will have a huge wound pool or "defense" to make up for it.
I can think of lots of situations where this is preferential to a fixed value.
- If a model has 9" movement and another 6" and there is a -3" movement modifier, it affects the 6" model way more. And you want to avoid percentage modifiers because they are clunky. When you have a model with 3x3" and 3x2" movement, you can simply say: -1 movement and it reduces the speed of both models by 33%.
- Modifiers can work on both parts and be more granular and at the same time allow for more interaction between different modifiers, without the worry that some models are reduced to zero movement. So two -3 movement modifiers render a 6" model immobile, which is not particular fun. But a -1 movement and "treat 3" square as 2" circle" can be combined.
- Maybe a model moves in increments and after each increment the enemy can make reactive fire. So a 4x2" model is faster than a 1x6" model, but the latter can move from cover to cover without provoking overwatch fire.
- Maybe a charging model that uses only one fragment of their movement is treated have as having made a sneak attack, granting some bonuses.
I‘m cautiously optimistic from what I‘ve seen so far. Not much interested in the starter box factions or terrain, though. And I have zero interest in painting the gauges which aren‘t exactly pretty in grey plastic either, so I won‘t pay separately for those.
I guess we‘ll see a separate rulebook and nicer 3rd party measuring sticks tailored for Kill Team (ie., symbol & colour coded) from day one? Or we might just cut our own, to speed things up vs using a tape measure.
What if these four symbols shown here are not the only ones the game will ever use, hmm? Sure enough, nobody wants to carry dozens of gauges to a game but one or two gauges more could theoretically be added later on.. Or the second gauge might change to another gauge with one more extra lenght down the line?
I'm actually thinking the symbols/Gauges is a cool way to do percentage-based modifiers to the stats. can invent new lenghts and symbols to come up with new ratios as well.
EDIT: Another observation. APL affects how many activation "attempts" an operative can make in one turn. So maybe activation attempts are tested and might even suffer modifiers to the test under certain conditions (while being pinned by enemy fire or succesful overwatch, perhaps)?
Man, that'd be sweet - An astartes tries to use up one of his "transhuman" given extra AP's but freezes before pulling the action off because he's being pinned by weapons fire. That sort of things happened in the trailer too right?
streetsamurai wrote: No saving throw in melee is bizarre. Armour suddenly stop to work when you get hit by a knife??? I guess we'll have to see the full rule before judging but....
My assumption is that melee will be:
Attacker rolls (# of dice equal to melee weapon's A value), looks for WS or better for successes
Defender rolls (# of dice equal to DF), looks for WS or better for successes
Whether you think this is good or bad, I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
Personally, I can see some of the appeal for such a system -- your durability in melee combat has more to do with your skill as a melee combatant, not just what you're wearing. For a personalized system with a tighter focus on individuals, this could be an appealing notion. It also gets away from the difficulty of double-penalizing lightly armored melee glass cannons, by making them run a gauntlet naked to get to combat, and then suddenly still being fragile while in their element, too.
It also takes some of the focus off of favorable AP melee weapons, particularly in a system where we're not assigning multiple attacks at a model level rather than a weapon level. Such weapons can just get a high A and be done with it, which goes along with the streamlining and quicker play they seem to be going for.
I've played systems like that before and they're fun. It let's both sides roll dice and stay engaged to see whether or not the defender survives. It gives a similar benefit to the old WS chart where you might hesitate going in to tango with an elite unit. Plus it's easy to remember and doesn't require a chart.
Didn't they just have a new starter set or something in March....?
"Hey! Welcome to Kill Team! This starter set is everythi....Hey! Welcome to the new edition of Kill Team! This starter set is everything you need to play!"
They made a point not having the number of sides of any shape represent its corresponding number, meaning you're not going to have any player think hexagon represents five because triangle represent three, etc - no shortcuts memorizing what shape represents what but GW doesn't need to come up with a two-sided shape either.
No, they really don't. Make circle 1, rectangle 2, triangle 3, hexagon 6. There, done, solved with far less confusion and a chance for mistakes.
Kaffis wrote: Personally, I can see some of the appeal for such a system -- your durability in melee combat has more to do with your skill as a melee combatant, not just what you're wearing. For a personalized system with a tighter focus on individuals, this could be an appealing notion. It also gets away from the difficulty of double-penalizing lightly armored melee glass cannons, by making them run a gauntlet naked to get to combat, and then suddenly still being fragile while in their element, too.
Tell that to meganobz, terminators, aggressors, killa kanz, bullgryns, crusaders, mutilators, etc, etc.
By that standard arco-flagellants and penitent engines are the most durable combatants in 40k, eh?
They made a point not having the number of sides of any shape represent its corresponding number, meaning you're not going to have any player think hexagon represents five because triangle represent three, etc - no shortcuts memorizing what shape represents what but GW doesn't need to come up with a two-sided shape either.
No, they really don't. Make circle 1, rectangle 2, triangle 3, hexagon 6. There, done, solved with far less confusion and a chance for mistakes.
And 1 step further, put the number in the shape.
Seriously though... which moronic game designer decided a 5 sided shape was great for representing the number 6, and a square for 3 when a triangle is also used in the system. It makes me seriously wonder how thought out this version is. I have a feeling they've watched a few 'How to play' videos on other skirmish games and taken what they think are the best ideas and thrown them all thoughtlessly together.
Tell that to meganobz, terminators, aggressors, killa kanz, bullgryns, crusaders, mutilators, etc, etc.
By that standard arco-flagellants and penitent engines are the most durable combatants in 40k, eh?
The impression that I got is your Attack dice will be different than your Defense dice. Arco-flagellants for instance may have many attack dice but near nothing for Defense.
Siygess wrote: Soo.. Imperial Guard Veteran profile has a lasgun and bayonet, huh? That'll teach me to model my IG veteran models with a mixture of shotguns, autoguns and lasguns..
The good news is that you're probably fine. That card we see is a specific "loadout" per its keywords.
Spoiler:
Reading from left to right: Kill Team "faction" is Veteran Guardsman(with Guard symbol), with a superfaction of "Imperium", faction of "Astra Militarum", subfaction of <Regiment>, specific unit is "Trooper Veteran". Next to it are four "paths" that they can take...of which the Trooper Veteran can only take two(Staunch and Scout):
Spoiler:
It lines up with what they say at the bottom:
Lastly, there’s a keyword section at the bottom of the card – familiar to players of Warhammer 40,000 – that lets you quickly see if an operative is affected by rules that target a specific keyword. Next to that is an array of four symbols representing the specialisms your operatives can adopt during a narrative play campaign as you build a kill team of storied heroes. We’ll be taking a much closer look at narrative play in a future article too.
Shotguns might be an unlockable wargear piece or specific to a profile type or any number of things. With WarCry? We have specific cards for specific weapon loadouts. I could easily see that being the case here...especially since we've seen Marksmen, Medics, and Vox Operators.
Kaffis wrote: Personally, I can see some of the appeal for such a system -- your durability in melee combat has more to do with your skill as a melee combatant, not just what you're wearing. For a personalized system with a tighter focus on individuals, this could be an appealing notion. It also gets away from the difficulty of double-penalizing lightly armored melee glass cannons, by making them run a gauntlet naked to get to combat, and then suddenly still being fragile while in their element, too.
Tell that to meganobz, terminators, aggressors, killa kanz, bullgryns, crusaders, mutilators, etc, etc.
By that standard arco-flagellants and penitent engines are the most durable combatants in 40k, eh?
I'll be outright shocked if Terminators and Arco-flagellants have the same Df.
Actually, for that matter, Arcos might not even have a terribly high WS -- they might just have an outrageous number of attack dice with a 5+ WS or something. When you're not committed to any stats, and you've got 5 or more values to tune for how scary models are in ranged and melee combat, respectively, you've got a lot of leeway to make those distinctions and end up with a net result that feels appropriate to the qualitative measures of how they play in another system.
"Hey! Welcome to Kill Team! This starter set is everythi....Hey! Welcome to the new edition of Kill Team! This starter set is everything you need to play!"
Yes, Pariah Nexus. GW obsoleting rules is nothing new, but that's pretty fast even for them.
Edit: Okay, it was an expansion. Still short shelf life on the new rules.
They made a point not having the number of sides of any shape represent its corresponding number, meaning you're not going to have any player think hexagon represents five because triangle represent three, etc - no shortcuts memorizing what shape represents what but GW doesn't need to come up with a two-sided shape either.
No, they really don't. Make circle 1, rectangle 2, triangle 3, hexagon 6. There, done, solved with far less confusion and a chance for mistakes.
It's all well and good but how does a rectangle correlate to the number 2?
More importantly, does that satisfy the people whining about it? Or do they move on to something else? Or do they keep complaining about it anyway? People can talk it up all the want but at the end of the day recognizing shape x as completely arbitrary value y is probably the least complicated thing a 40k player would ever need to memorize - and there's a handy chart for those who can't.
Kaffis wrote: Personally, I can see some of the appeal for such a system -- your durability in melee combat has more to do with your skill as a melee combatant, not just what you're wearing. For a personalized system with a tighter focus on individuals, this could be an appealing notion. It also gets away from the difficulty of double-penalizing lightly armored melee glass cannons, by making them run a gauntlet naked to get to combat, and then suddenly still being fragile while in their element, too.
Tell that to meganobz, terminators, aggressors, killa kanz, bullgryns, crusaders, mutilators, etc, etc.
By that standard arco-flagellants and penitent engines are the most durable combatants in 40k, eh?
Actually crusaders, bullgryns and any other unit that uses a shield would be a good example of a unit that could perform noticably differently in and out of close combat in a more granular rule system. Likewise a sister repentia, who's eviscerator was conceptualized as an anti-tank weapon aught to have an easier time hitting a killa kan than a flagellant.
They made a point not having the number of sides of any shape represent its corresponding number, meaning you're not going to have any player think hexagon represents five because triangle represent three, etc - no shortcuts memorizing what shape represents what but GW doesn't need to come up with a two-sided shape either.
this is the point, if they would have understood why and how to use those fixed sizes from ea measurment stick, there would be no need to tell people numbers
look at X-Wing, Legion, Deadzone, or SAGA, there is never anywhere written how many Inches or Centimeters Range 1/2/3/Small/Medium/Large is
it is not needed to know them and to avoid confusion they never tell you
another point is that using those simple ranges is for easy to use and speed up gameplay while instead of moving Range 3 or Long, you move 3 times Circle
yet I don't know how ranges >Penatagon are going to work, will a weapon be 3 times Pentaqon, and how to you measure that because if you have a specific stick with 3 times Pentagon on it, why don't make it Octagon instead, (and maybe we get another 5 symbols for ranges)?
"Hey! Welcome to Kill Team! This starter set is everythi....Hey! Welcome to the new edition of Kill Team! This starter set is everything you need to play!"
Yes, Pariah Nexus. GW obsoleting rules is nothing new, but that's pretty fast even for them.
Edit: Okay, it was an expansion. Still short shelf life on the new rules.
I think the point of Pariah Nexus was that GW knew they were going to kill the edition. It was a wrap-up expansion for KT1 which brought the Space Marines in line with current stats and some of the new models. So now KT1 is left with core book, elites, commanders, annual 2019 and Pariah Nexus and a few WD extras. I have all of the books and think the complete set is comprehensive enough to keep KT1 players going without further support.
They made a point not having the number of sides of any shape represent its corresponding number, meaning you're not going to have any player think hexagon represents five because triangle represent three, etc - no shortcuts memorizing what shape represents what but GW doesn't need to come up with a two-sided shape either.
this is the point, if they would have understood why and how to use those fixed sizes from ea measurment stick, there would be no need to tell people numbers
look at X-Wing, Legion, Deadzone, or SAGA, there is never anywhere written how many Inches or Centimeters Range 1/2/3/Small/Medium/Large is
it is not needed to know them and to avoid confusion they never tell you
another point is that using those simple ranges is for easy to use and speed up gameplay while instead of moving Range 3 or Long, you move 3 times Circle
yet I don't know how ranges >Penatagon are going to work, will a weapon be 3 times Pentaqon, and how to you measure that because if you have a specific stick with 3 times Pentagon on it, why don't make it Octagon instead, (and maybe we get another 5 symbols for ranges)?
AFAICT, weapon ranges are no longer a thing in KT2, aside from pistols and certain special weapons like flamers.
Well yes, of course you can always 'counts as'. That's never been in question.
That's not going to trounce no model/no rule though. If shotguns aren't part of the Veteran Guardsmen kit, then they are unlikely to be part of their rules.
Looking at the kill team website there are two different factions for Imperial Guard. The first is Veteran Guardsmen which is specific to this new kit. The other faction is standard Inperial Guard and has rules for both regular guards and scions. If the veteran guard faction don’t have access to shotguns (if it’s not on the sprue) then you can play as the imperial guard faction instead.
Orks are the same way, they have a faction for this specific sprue and a faction for pre-existing ork kits.
Well, we know for sure the Genestealer Cults do have shotguns on their sprues. So we'll see if their weapon profile is any different (or, if I suspect, it will be mixed together with autoguns). If it's not...we'll have our answer.
Besides, so far, we just saw a card and we know nothing about the options. Like usual, wait and see for the full rules before jumping to conclusions.
Yeah, looks like another "modern" GW game with plenty of choices and decisions... Like are you going to roll all these dice with your left or your right hand :]
Sarouan wrote: Well, we know for sure the Genestealer Cults do have shotguns on their sprues. So we'll see if their weapon profile is any different (or, if I suspect, it will be mixed together with autoguns). If it's not...we'll have our answer.
And I'm sure Genestealer Cults will get a shotgun option, but we're talking about the Kreigers.
Sarouan wrote: Besides, so far, we just saw a card and we know nothing about the options. Like usual, wait and see for the full rules before jumping to conclusions.
And we'll also continue to speculate based upon previously demonstrated behaviours and patterns, 'no mode/no rule' being quite a bit example of such behaviour.
Kanluwen wrote: Shotguns might be an unlockable wargear piece or specific to a profile type or any number of things.
But it's not on the sprue, so the chances of it being in the rules are minimal.
Out of interest, have we actually seen all the sprues? Do we know that for definite? Seems to me like although that statcard is "trooper veteran" it's still the basic model because all kill team individuals are vets. Maybe there will be a list of potential loadout options in the rules to pick and choose.
Olthannon wrote: Out of interest, have we actually seen all the sprues? Do we know that for definite? Seems to me like although that statcard is "trooper veteran" it's still the basic model because all kill team individuals are vets. Maybe there will be a list of potential loadout options in the rules to pick and choose.
During the preview they showed the sprue. People have paused it and shown off the various items. There's a lot there, none of which appear to be shotguns.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm sure Genestealer Cults will get a shotgun option, but we're talking about the Kreigers.
Are you, though ? Someone talked about their own veteran guards with shotguns, but he didn't say they were kriegers.
Here, the box GW sells will be specifically kriegers. I actually don't remember the Death Korps of Krieg list allowing to have shotguns on their equivalent veteran guards.
Sure, you can always convert a krieger with a weapon option they never had, but that's on you here. If you're talking about generic veteran guards...we have yet to see the options on the Astra Militarum faction as well as the rest of the Veteran Guards.
Crucially, critical hits can only be blocked by one critical save or two standard saves.
Critical Hit Rules, as the name implies, are only applied to critical successes. The long-las’ MW3 (short for Mortal Wounds 3) rule, for instance, inflicts three automatic wounds for every critical hit rolled before the unfortunate target has any chance to prevent them.
Love the part where saves prevent hits, except critical hits, except critical saves, except critical hits that cause MW. Maybe. On the bright side the author clearly had a stroke while writing this, so we might not be subjected to much more.
Yep, ranged combat looks the way we've been lead to anticipate. Crit saves are interesting, and trading two saves to cancel a crit hit is a solid response to keep stuff like Ork dakka (high volume, bad BS) from just ignoring armor by dint of half its hits being crits.
Torrent and MW on flamers and snipers look solid. Pleased so far, looking forward to seeing what the twist is on melee.
All guns have unlimited range unless otherwise marked, as was surmised earlier.
Attack dice vs defence dice, cancelling successes is the method, presumably this works much the same in melee since close combat weapons also have Attacks and the to hit value column is marked BS/WS.
Interestingly, critical successes can be countered by regular ones at a 2:1 ratio. Lot of systems like this, the only counter to a crit is another crit.
Can anyone tell for sure if the sniper’s bonus wounds on a crit are cancelled by a critical save? The article implies no.
Yep, it's quite different from Warcry. Attacker rolls aren't modified by the defender's toughness, the defense is only the number of dice you'll roll for save.
I also like the difference between saves and critical saves : unlike Warcry, where 6 were always unavoidable for the defender. Here, there is a chance : unless it has the MW special rule, which then works like in Warcry. There's absolutely nothing confusing here, unless for people complaining for the sake of complaining against GW.
lord_blackfang wrote: If you're okay with triple layered hit quality good for you. Remember it next time you "cancel" a critical hit after it's already inflicted damage.
The article never said it works like that, though. It's your assumption it would.
Wait for the full rules before jumping to conclusions or complaining about GW.
lord_blackfang wrote: If you're okay with triple layered hit quality good for you. Remember it next time you "cancel" a critical hit after it's already inflicted damage.
The article never said it works like that, though. It's your assumption it would.
Yes I'm literally assuming what the rulebook quotes literally posted on Warhammer Community say.
Critical Hit Rules, as the name implies, are only applied to critical successes. The long-las’ MW3 (short for Mortal Wounds 3) rule, for instance, inflicts three automatic wounds for every critical hit rolled before the unfortunate target has any chance to prevent them. This rule reflects the devastating effect of a spectacular sniper shot that perfectly targets a gap in enemy armour.
Rule quotes are litteral copy-and-pastes from the rulebook. Explanations aren't. Can't tell the difference ? Suits yourself.
By the way, the explanation never said the automatic 3 wounds are an addition.
Anyway, we'll see the close combat rules tomorrow.
I'm not sure the article makes all aspects of this shooting mechanism clear. For one, what good does a critical save do against a regular hit? Does it also cancel out 2 regular hits? Also, in the case of the long las sniper rifle, do the 3 mortal wounds get added to all the other damage, or is it still just a 3 wound damage per shot? The way it's worded, its unclear to me whether a critical long las hit deals 3 mortal wounds + 3 regular, critical hit tier wounds, or just 3 wounds which you cannot try to save against.
In any case, this isn't relieving info to me regarding the decreased lethality of the new system. If a sniper can output a max of 12 wounds per turn, and an ork boy has more than 12, there is no way to "headshot frag". The battelfields will be full of wounded operatives, and the only way to take down one reliably in one turn will be to concentrate fire from several operatives against a single model.
That tidbit about a veteran never having to modify their APL tells me that indeed, some sort of supression mechanic will be onboard. You will probably be able to reduce a target's AP expenditure by pinning them with weapons fire (unless he's a veteran specialist or has other comparable tactics/abilities, that is)
Sarouan wrote: Are you, though ? Someone talked about their own veteran guards with shotguns, but he didn't say they were kriegers.
Here, the box GW sells will be specifically kriegers. I actually don't remember the Death Korps of Krieg list allowing to have shotguns on their equivalent veteran guards.
In the new Kill Team, the Kreiger models are being sold as Veteran Guardsmen, a distinct entity, it seems, from Imperial Guard.
Given no model/no rule, this is likely because the Krieger box has more specific options that the Cadian and Catachan boxes do not, as a result they get different rules. As such, as they don't have shotguns, there's a good chance that their rules won't allow for it.
They could be more open than that, but again, predicting based upon existing patterns/behaviours.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: So we are in agreement GW made it so needlessly unintuitive and stupid, so we buy their overpriced gauges to make it slightly stupid, right?
If you are capable of memorising what the 4 shapes correspond to, you don't really need the gauge. I understand some people might not like the choice, but is it all really that complicated?
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: So we are in agreement GW made it so needlessly unintuitive and stupid, so we buy their overpriced gauges to make it slightly stupid, right?
If you are capable of memorising what the 4 shapes correspond to, you don't really need the gauge. I understand some people might not like the choice, but is it all really that complicated?
I'm not saying GW is competent enough to make it so people buy the gauge, i'm merely saying that this was clearly the intention. Make up a problem then sell the solution.
I kind of want to see what a Krak Missile's damage potential will be in this new edition. If it's not going to be possible to oneshot kill an operative with a Krak Missile, I'm sticking to KT1
Imagine a SM veteran specialist in Terminator armour.. I bet he's going to be nigh on unkillable
So ranged combat is resolved like Warhammer: Underworlds? Except with the ability to stop crits with double normal hits. Not loving that they've expanded the crit system that always screwed me
Rihgu wrote: So ranged combat is resolved like Warhammer: Underworlds? Except with the ability to stop crits with double normal hits. Not loving that they've expanded the crit system that always screwed me
Rihgu wrote: So ranged combat is resolved like Warhammer: Underworlds? Except with the ability to stop crits with double normal hits. Not loving that they've expanded the crit system that always screwed me
And megacrits that can't be stopped by crit saves
That part seems fine? Some people are painting it out to try to make it seem like it's some terribly confusing thing. It's not like it is officially referred to as a "mega critical hit". It's just a rider. I like that they have special rules on normal attacks and critical hits. I'm sure there will be weapons with like 1MW on normal hits.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: So we are in agreement GW made it so needlessly unintuitive and stupid, so we buy their overpriced gauges to make it slightly stupid, right?
If you are capable of memorising what the 4 shapes correspond to, you don't really need the gauge. I understand some people might not like the choice, but is it all really that complicated?
I'm not saying GW is competent enough to make it so people buy the gauge, i'm merely saying that this was clearly the intention. Make up a problem then sell the solution.
If they'd wanted to do that they'd have made them not integer inches.
Seems to me they clearly thought this was an easier way to present rules when movement can be boosted or hindered.
People may well disagree that they've succeeded, but it's hardly a labyrinthine process to convert into numbers and carry on with your tape measure.
I distrust GW in all things, but Mortal Wounds are pretty easy to understand. Just assume it's the simplest intrepretation conceivable and you'll be right with GW rules 90% of the time. And then the other 10% just wait for the FAQ about the rule that's twice as long as the rule.
I really don't understand people's complaints about the symbols.
It is either 3Symbol or 3 x (2"). I personally prefer 3Symbol but if you like 3 x (2") better you can still play as such. These are after all simple numbers.
Honestly, it kinda feels like a blind man trying to paint a sunrise by hearsay >_>
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarsif wrote: I really don't understand people's complaints about the symbols.
It is either 3Symbol or 3 x (2"). I personally prefer 3Symbol but if you like 3 x (2") better you can still play as such. These are after all simple numbers.
So make the specific rulers for that, then! Make a Symbol, 2Symbol and 3Symbol rulers, for example. Using the single ruler to count multiples seem like a perfect way to never measure right.
Albertorius wrote: Honestly, it kinda feels like a blind man trying to paint a sunrise by hearsay >_>
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarsif wrote: I really don't understand people's complaints about the symbols.
It is either 3Symbol or 3 x (2"). I personally prefer 3Symbol but if you like 3 x (2") better you can still play as such. These are after all simple numbers.
So make the specific rulers for that, then! Make a Symbol, 2Symbol and 3Symbol rulers, for example. Using the single ruler to count multiples seem like a perfect way to never measure right.
You can technically 3D print those if you really wish to or even just use a measuring tape. I really don't see why people are so married to the rulers. I mean, I doubt many here are married to the weird ruler that is included in the Warhammer starting sets, the clear plastic one.
Eldarsif wrote: You can technically 3D print those if you really wish to or even just use a measuring tape. I really don't see why people are so married to the rulers. I mean, I doubt many here are married to the weird ruler that is included in the Warhammer starting sets, the clear plastic one.
You can technically 3D print those if you really wish to or even just use a measuring tape, yes. Or use strings cut to size, or whatever else. But it's stupid that GW dcides to use rulers... and then decides to use them in the less useable way possible, a way which will lead to mismeasurements and all kinds of issues.
Because, do you know how could they have avoided it? Using numbers from the start.
Sarouan wrote: Here, the box GW sells will be specifically kriegers. I actually don't remember the Death Korps of Krieg list allowing to have shotguns on their equivalent veteran guards.
Indeed, though the unit card is just for a generic IG Veteran. It isn't specifically for a Kreig veteran, those are just the models that you get in the box to represent them.
What I would like to have seen was a unit card that was synonymous with a 40k profile; a veteran trooper card with all allowable weapon options, equivalent to what would have been allowed in 40k or the previous KT (not that Veterans were an option. Just worse guys or better guys).
What we could see instead is a unit card for every possible model loadout.. so Veteran Trooper (lasgun), Dakka Veteran Trooper (autogun), Angry Veteran Trooper (shotgun).
But my gut says we won't be getting that either.
Instead, I think we will get the most Warcry-like solution where each faction gets a very limited set of model and weapon options, regardless of what is allowable in the previous KT or 40k. We will see, I guess.
Eldarsif wrote: You can technically 3D print those if you really wish to or even just use a measuring tape. I really don't see why people are so married to the rulers. I mean, I doubt many here are married to the weird ruler that is included in the Warhammer starting sets, the clear plastic one.
You can technically 3D print those if you really wish to or even just use a measuring tape, yes. Or use strings cut to size, or whatever else. But it's stupid that GW dcides to use rulers... and then decides to use them in the less useable way possible, a way which will lead to mismeasurements and all kinds of issues.
Because, do you know how could they have avoided it? Using numbers from the start.
So you like the 3 x (2") marking system better? Even if they use symbols you can still get accurate measurements as the length of the symbols was explicitly stated in the article. There is literally nothing that forces you to use the measuring rulers that come with the boxes. That appears to be more of an imposition you have applied to yourself.
Instead, I think we will get the most Warcry-like solution where each faction gets a very limited set of model and weapon options, regardless of what is allowable in the previous KT or 40k. We will see, I guess.
I really hope not. My biggest fear is that we won't get a book containing all entries like in previous KT and the datasheets are either divided among multiple books or in datasheet blister packs(like in Warcry on release).
Siygess wrote: What I would like to have seen was a unit card that was synonymous with a 40k profile; a veteran trooper card with all allowable weapon options, equivalent to what would have been allowed in 40k or the previous KT (not that Veterans were an option. Just worse guys or better guys).
What we could see instead is a unit card for every possible model loadout.. so Veteran Trooper (lasgun), Dakka Veteran Trooper (autogun), Angry Veteran Trooper (shotgun).
But my gut says we won't be getting that either.
Instead, I think we will get the most Warcry-like solution where each faction gets a very limited set of model and weapon options, regardless of what is allowable in the previous KT or 40k. We will see, I guess.
I seem to recall seeing, when Adam flipped through the book on-stream, that some of the Krieg datacards had some pretty extensive weapon lists.
What I suspect is that what we've been previewed is the "front-line" basic trooper, who by dint of that GA2 that hasn't been talked about, is constrained by the rules to a basic weapon setup. I don't think each weapon loadout is going to get its own datacard, but I think that when we do see the Veteran Guardsman Gunner (or whatever it's called), it'll have a broad selection of weapons.
This is essentially saying you can't equip your comms specialist with a meltagun. Trooper Veterans have some quality that makes it valuable to game balance to limit their options. (Again, I'm betting it's the GA2 -- if I had to guess it means you can activate two Trooper Veterans at a time. Getting to do that with two Long Las equipped models at a time would be MUCH more powerful, for example)
I seem to recall seeing, when Adam flipped through the book on-stream, that some of the Krieg datacards had some pretty extensive weapon lists.
What I suspect is that what we've been previewed is the "front-line" basic trooper, who by dint of that GA2 that hasn't been talked about, is constrained by the rules to a basic weapon setup. I don't think each weapon loadout is going to get its own datacard, but I think that when we do see the Veteran Guardsman Gunner (or whatever it's called), it'll have a broad selection of weapons.
This is essentially saying you can't equip your comms specialist with a meltagun. Trooper Veterans have some quality that makes it valuable to game balance to limit their options. (Again, I'm betting it's the GA2 -- if I had to guess it means you can activate two Trooper Veterans at a time. Getting to do that with two Long Las equipped models at a time would be MUCH more powerful, for example)
I'm so glad you brought this up, because you made me think to go back to the video!
00:49:42 is when we get to see that stuff. It's in the "Octarius" booklet, not the main book. It looks like it is because it is a premade Kill Team with a bit of wiggle room for weapon choices on the Gunner Veteran, Sergeant, and Confidant.
The profiles are: Trooper Veteran(as we've seen) Sniper Veteran(Long-Las only plus a Bayonet) Sergeant Veteran(Laspistol, Chainsword, Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Plasma Pistol, Power Sword, or Bayonet) Gunner Veteran(Flamer, Grenade Launcher, Plasma Gun, Meltagun, Bayonet) Confidant Veteran(same options as Sergeant Veteran--also has a 2nd in Command rule) Zealot Veteran(same as Trooper Veteran) Medic Veteran(same as Trooper Veteran) Demolitions Veteran(same as Trooper Veteran--but also explosives!) Comms Veteran(same as TV) Hardened Veteran(same as TV--plus weapon profile for bionic arm) Bruiser Veteran(same as TV--plus the club!) Spotter Veteran(same as TV--plus an artillery barrage!)
That's all I could see before Troke closed the book. It looks like there aren't shotguns...or if there are, it might be on a different unit we haven't seen yet. Sorry, Siygess!
Rihgu wrote: So ranged combat is resolved like Warhammer: Underworlds? Except with the ability to stop crits with double normal hits. Not loving that they've expanded the crit system that always screwed me
And megacrits that can't be stopped by crit saves
Just read the article and read it this way:
Critical Hit = Can only be saved by Critical Save or two normal ones
Critical Hit with Long-Las = Gives 3 Mortal Wounds you can't prevent with your normal saves. In addition it gives another 3 damage if you don't make a save as explained before.
Eldarsif wrote: So you like the 3 x (2") marking system better?
Depends on if it really is 3x(2") or Star Wars style front to back which means 3x(2" + base). Those are very much two different things, especially with the variety of base sizes infantry use. Anyone not using the template is either going to short themselves or have to math out the base differences for each increment.
Eldarsif wrote: You can technically 3D print those if you really wish to or even just use a measuring tape. I really don't see why people are so married to the rulers. I mean, I doubt many here are married to the weird ruler that is included in the Warhammer starting sets, the clear plastic one.
You can technically 3D print those if you really wish to or even just use a measuring tape, yes. Or use strings cut to size, or whatever else. But it's stupid that GW dcides to use rulers... and then decides to use them in the less useable way possible, a way which will lead to mismeasurements and all kinds of issues.
Because, do you know how could they have avoided it? Using numbers from the start.
So you like the 3 x (2") marking system better? Even if they use symbols you can still get accurate measurements as the length of the symbols was explicitly stated in the article. There is literally nothing that forces you to use the measuring rulers that come with the boxes. That appears to be more of an imposition you have applied to yourself.
Not necesarily... they could just have used a 6 too .
But if they're going to use bespoke rulers, and bespoke symbols for those rulers, I would have preferred if they used them properly. Namely, a ruler for a measurement. This [number][symbol] is the worst of both worlds. If you're already using something like that, probably a full set of movement templates a la X-Wing would have been a better idea.
I would guess, given how the mathhammer works out with the damage, that there's going to be some kind of rule for 'heavy' weapons that take 2AP rather than 1AP to fire, similar to Necromunda, and the Long-Las is one of those weapons.
It does something like 3x-4x the normal damage of a lasgun, so I would suspect you dont get to fire it if you move and it takes your whole turn.
I also suspect that when we see the whole rulebook, the WHC article as it often does will have fethed up the interpretation of the MW rule, and MW will basically just be 'crits are not stoppable, it does this much damage to you when it crits.'
Not necesarily... they could just have used a 6 too .
But they stated in the article that a 3 Circle isn't always a 6 because when the model gets wounded it will drop down to 2Circle(and further depending on factors I guess). This seems to be the ruling that most people are either overlooking or misunderstanding. The reason for the 3 x (2") system is to add granularity to injury effects and terrains and other features. This means that if an Aeldari loses an XSymbol they have the potential to lose out in similar proportions to a guardsman instead of a -2" or whatever that punishes a slower moving individual proportionally more than a fast moving one.
I mean, they could have done a 2"/3 and then have in the ruling to reduce division factor by 1 and then add a whole paragraph what they mean about division factor. Maybe I just play enough boardgames, but the current proposed system sounds very straightforward.
My guess is that the loss in movement is there to replace the -1 to hit the old system had and was rather infuriating. At least with a slow moving soldier you still have firepower to fall upon unless it is pistols/flamers, especially with the change to a universal range on most guns. I wonder if Shuriken Catapults will be limited in range.
But if they're going to use bespoke rulers, and bespoke symbols for those rulers, I would have preferred if they used them properly. Namely, a ruler for a measurement. This [number][symbol] is the worst of both worlds. If you're already using something like that, probably a full set of movement templates a la X-Wing would have been a better idea.
Difference is that the X-Wing rulers are a bit more than just a measure of length but also turning speed and whatnot and are there to simplify something that would be unpleasant to measure out with a measuring tape. I would also iterate that nothing in the ruleset forces you to use these rulers. Literally nothing.
Perhaps these rules are actually brilliant in use. I don't really know. Trying to understand a completely new rule system from small snippets seems pointless. I read it once I can see the rules in full. Though I have to say that my initial impression is that this seems needlessly complicated and lessens my enthusiasm. I think I would have preferred something more directly 40K based.
Also, we still don't have confirmation about the Krieger base size? The models are the most important bit of this release.
Not necesarily... they could just have used a 6 too .
But they stated in the article that a 3 Circle isn't always a 6 because when the model gets wounded it will drop down to 2Circle(and further depending on factors I guess). This seems to be the ruling that most people are either overlooking or misunderstanding. The reason for the 3 x (2") system is to add granularity to injury effects and terrains and other features. This means that if an Aeldari loses an XSymbol they have the potential to lose out in similar proportions to a guardsman instead of a -2" or whatever that punishes a slower moving individual proportionally more than a fast moving one.
No, I understood that. I simply don't feel, with the little we know right now, that it's the best way around doing that
Difference is that the X-Wing rulers are a bit more than just a measure of length but also turning speed and whatnot and are there to simplify something that would be unpleasant to measure out with a measuring tape. I would also iterate that nothing in the ruleset forces you to use these rulers. Literally nothing.
That's a difference without a difference. As easily as they did the weird, door-like movement templates they could have done a sprue of sticks with proper movement sizes. (1 circle, 2 circles, 3 circles, 1 square, 2 squares, 3 squares... you know, that kind of stuff).
Nobody would force you to use them either way, literally nobody, but they'd be much more useable out of the box, which is also something that's, you know, interesting and all.
Crimson wrote: Perhaps these rules are actually brilliant in use. I don't really know. Trying to understand a completely new rule system from small snippets seems pointless. I read it once I can see the rules in full. Though I have to say that my initial impression is that this seems needlessly complicated and lessens my enthusiasm. I think I would have preferred something more directly 40K based.
Also, we still don't have confirmation about the Krieger base size? The models are the most important bit of this release.
My assessment is directly the opposite - they appear to be building a system that's easier and quicker to resolve (I roll, you roll at exactly the same time, and we cancel out some rolls and quickly determine the damage the target takes as opposed to rolling to hit, rolling to wound, rolling to save, rolling to see how much damage, rolling for injury) but is more complicated in terms of your options as a player when activating a model.
That's a good thing. current KT is vastly too simplistic to be a satisfying skirmish system in terms of options, and vastly too complex in terms of action resolution.
My assessment is directly the opposite - they appear to be building a system that's easier and quicker to resolve (I roll, you roll at exactly the same time, and we cancel out some rolls and quickly determine the damage the target takes as opposed to rolling to hit, rolling to wound, rolling to save, rolling to see how much damage, rolling for injury) but is more complicated in terms of your options as a player when activating a model.
That's a good thing. current KT is vastly too simplistic to be a satisfying skirmish system in terms of options, and vastly too complex in terms of action resolution.
Perhaps (and hopefully!) you're correct. I haven't tried to properly understand the system yet, I want to read it in full.
Thus far I'm hopeful this version of kill team will be better.
The shapes with colors indicating ranges is somewhat concerning. I'm tired of having to buy proprietary nick-nacks just to play the game. My blast markers are still sitting around unused, and I don't particularly want to buy gauges. Especially when we are uncertain how long this system will be supported and played.
While there's nothing that objectionable about these new rules( so far... ) I feel that after waiting on GW to do anything worthwhile with the last edition, this new edition is too little too late.
For the time being I shall stick with the current edition.
Kanluwen wrote: That's all I could see before Troke closed the book. It looks like there aren't shotguns...or if there are, it might be on a different unit we haven't seen yet. Sorry, Siygess!
Dang it! Ah well, it's only two models from my existing KT at the end of the day and the autogun guys will just have to be counts-as lasgun guys. And thanks for writing up that list. It is a lot more profiles than I was expecting after my experience with Warcry!
Kanluwen wrote: That's all I could see before Troke closed the book. It looks like there aren't shotguns...or if there are, it might be on a different unit we haven't seen yet. Sorry, Siygess!
Dang it! Ah well, it's only two models from my existing KT at the end of the day and the autogun guys will just have to be counts-as lasgun guys. And thanks for writing up that list. It is a lot more profiles than I was expecting after my experience with Warcry!
I think you could counts as shotguns for flamers. That'd be kinda fun.
the_scotsman wrote: I would guess, given how the mathhammer works out with the damage, that there's going to be some kind of rule for 'heavy' weapons that take 2AP rather than 1AP to fire, similar to Necromunda, and the Long-Las is one of those weapons.
It does something like 3x-4x the normal damage of a lasgun, so I would suspect you dont get to fire it if you move and it takes your whole turn.
I also suspect that when we see the whole rulebook, the WHC article as it often does will have fethed up the interpretation of the MW rule, and MW will basically just be 'crits are not stoppable, it does this much damage to you when it crits.'
Then why does the sniper rifle have its damage listed as 3/3? I'm sure they could have screwed it up, they certainly have done so before, but in this case, I think it's perfectly reasonable to work they way they state.
A Long-Las is going to do 3.33 hits on average. A Veteran Guardsman is going to get one success on their defense roll, on average. That means that, barring a crit, a sniper rifle probably won't one-shot a Guardsman most of the time. Okay, fair enough, leave them critically wounded if you don't get the headshot, that's thematically okay. But if you *do* get the critical shot? You should kill. If your interpretation is correct, that doesn't happen, the Guardsman still probably survives (because they get to cancel one of the normal hits with their defense). With the MW as additional damage, though? A crit probably results in a one-shot kill, because there's a second shot that won't, on average, be cancelled by a Guardsman's armor defense.
On another note, going back and watching Adam's flip-through again, I see that barring Flamers at 5 (as we saw in today's article), everything else is 3A or 4A. So not a ton of dice floating around, but boltguns, plasma, and melta all scale up the damage (to 6 on a standard hit with Melta!), so Lasguns still are laughably harmless, as the Emperor intended.
I'm quite curious to see where higher T 40k units will make up for the lack of a wound roll, though -- will they scale up their Wounds, or get bigger Df values to roll more dice on defense? (For that matter, it probably won't be universal, some might do one, others another, and still others a combination) Hopefully we get an Ork datasheet in the upcoming melee article.
Kanluwen wrote: That's all I could see before Troke closed the book. It looks like there aren't shotguns...or if there are, it might be on a different unit we haven't seen yet. Sorry, Siygess!
Dang it! Ah well, it's only two models from my existing KT at the end of the day and the autogun guys will just have to be counts-as lasgun guys. And thanks for writing up that list. It is a lot more profiles than I was expecting after my experience with Warcry!
I think you could counts as shotguns for flamers. That'd be kinda fun.
Given flamers don't ignore cover or anything specific to their function (that doesn't properly fit shotguns) like that, I'd definitely be happy to see somebody doing that, if I were across the table from that. Unless they get proper rules, of course.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: So bets on how long before we get Aeldari Outcasts, Vanguard Organisms, and Brood Brothers Kill-Team sets?
Hey, given how much I see Craftworld and 'Nid players complaining whenever Sisters get a new model, bring 'em on.
the_scotsman wrote: I would guess, given how the mathhammer works out with the damage, that there's going to be some kind of rule for 'heavy' weapons that take 2AP rather than 1AP to fire, similar to Necromunda, and the Long-Las is one of those weapons.
It does something like 3x-4x the normal damage of a lasgun, so I would suspect you dont get to fire it if you move and it takes your whole turn.
I also suspect that when we see the whole rulebook, the WHC article as it often does will have fethed up the interpretation of the MW rule, and MW will basically just be 'crits are not stoppable, it does this much damage to you when it crits.'
Then why does the sniper rifle have its damage listed as 3/3? I'm sure they could have screwed it up, they certainly have done so before, but in this case, I think it's perfectly reasonable to work they way they state.
A Long-Las is going to do 3.33 hits on average. A Veteran Guardsman is going to get one success on their defense roll, on average. That means that, barring a crit, a sniper rifle probably won't one-shot a Guardsman most of the time. Okay, fair enough, leave them critically wounded if you don't get the headshot, that's thematically okay. But if you *do* get the critical shot? You should kill. If your interpretation is correct, that doesn't happen, the Guardsman still probably survives (because they get to cancel one of the normal hits with their defense). With the MW as additional damage, though? A crit probably results in a one-shot kill, because there's a second shot that won't, on average, be cancelled by a Guardsman's armor defense.
On another note, going back and watching Adam's flip-through again, I see that barring Flamers at 5 (as we saw in today's article), everything else is 3A or 4A. So not a ton of dice floating around, but boltguns, plasma, and melta all scale up the damage (to 6 on a standard hit with Melta!), so Lasguns still are laughably harmless, as the Emperor intended.
I'm quite curious to see where higher T 40k units will make up for the lack of a wound roll, though -- will they scale up their Wounds, or get bigger Df values to roll more dice on defense? (For that matter, it probably won't be universal, some might do one, others another, and still others a combination) Hopefully we get an Ork datasheet in the upcoming melee article.
I think I'm going to assume that the MW3 granted by a long las crit will be in addition to the regular crit damage. Otherwise there will be no way to down a lowly guardsman in one turn, no matter how well you roll.
As for the datasheets, I don't think there is any reason to panic until we have seen the contents of the upcoming Kill Team 2.0 compendium book. We might still get most of the stuff which was available in KT1, including weapon options. The new website is too messed up to be a reliable source of intel at this point.
The new system looks really cool, and has lots of potential for interesting nuance and degrading effects and proper granularity. Some of the mechanics even seem to be growing out of Blackstone Fortress.
Unfortunately I have Necromunda, 1st edition KT, 5 Parsecs, Blackstone Fortress, Zombiecide, Operation Last Train and Stargrave all champing at the bit, and Covid is still pretty restrictive.
I need to retire I think... Anyone got any good horse racing tips?
"Once all dice have been rolled, the attacker’s hit rolls and the target’s saves are compared. Crucially, critical hits can only be blocked by one critical save or two standard saves. Any hits that aren’t cancelled by a save apply their Damage to the target’s Wounds – the split number represents how much damage is inflicted on a normal hit and a critical hit, respectively."
I think the word respectively here is a big deal. I don't think crits are additive to normal damage.
Sledgehammer wrote: "Once all dice have been rolled, the attacker’s hit rolls and the target’s saves are compared. Crucially, critical hits can only be blocked by one critical save or two standard saves. Any hits that aren’t cancelled by a save apply their Damage to the target’s Wounds – the split number represents how much damage is inflicted on a normal hit and a critical hit, respectively."
I think the word respectively here is a big deal. I don't think crits are additive to normal damage.
We're talking about whether the listed crit damage is additive to the MW damage, not whether you apply both normal and crit damage on crits -- that much is crystal clear.
Sledgehammer wrote: "Once all dice have been rolled, the attacker’s hit rolls and the target’s saves are compared. Crucially, critical hits can only be blocked by one critical save or two standard saves. Any hits that aren’t cancelled by a save apply their Damage to the target’s Wounds – the split number represents how much damage is inflicted on a normal hit and a critical hit, respectively."
I think the word respectively here is a big deal. I don't think crits are additive to normal damage.
We're talking about whether the listed crit damage is additive to the MW damage, not whether you apply both normal and crit damage on crits -- that much is crystal clear.
Ah I see now that that isn't a critical specification but rather a !.
tauist wrote: I'm not sure the article makes all aspects of this shooting mechanism clear. For one, what good does a critical save do against a regular hit? Does it also cancel out 2 regular hits? Also, in the case of the long las sniper rifle, do the 3 mortal wounds get added to all the other damage, or is it still just a 3 wound damage per shot? The way it's worded, its unclear to me whether a critical long las hit deals 3 mortal wounds + 3 regular, critical hit tier wounds, or just 3 wounds which you cannot try to save against.
In any case, this isn't relieving info to me regarding the decreased lethality of the new system. If a sniper can output a max of 12 wounds per turn, and an ork boy has more than 12, there is no way to "headshot frag". The battelfields will be full of wounded operatives, and the only way to take down one reliably in one turn will be to concentrate fire from several operatives against a single model.
That tidbit about a veteran never having to modify their APL tells me that indeed, some sort of supression mechanic will be onboard. You will probably be able to reduce a target's AP expenditure by pinning them with weapons fire (unless he's a veteran specialist or has other comparable tactics/abilities, that is)
If you'll notice the sniper crit damage is the same as normal. So a crit hit does 3MW that can't be blocked and 3 that can, but only with two normal or one crit. Therefore an opponent without proper saves will take 6 from a sniper crit.
Kanluwen wrote: So bets on how long before we get Aeldari Outcasts, Vanguard Organisms, and Brood Brothers Kill-Team sets?
Well, this is the thing. We spent all of the last edition waiting for a Craftworld faction set and yet were excluded from the fun despite a mid term release of the 40K plastic Howling Banshees.
There is no sugar coating it that this edition has a lot of catching up to do and win back players...
tauist wrote: I'm not sure the article makes all aspects of this shooting mechanism clear. For one, what good does a critical save do against a regular hit? Does it also cancel out 2 regular hits? Also, in the case of the long las sniper rifle, do the 3 mortal wounds get added to all the other damage, or is it still just a 3 wound damage per shot? The way it's worded, its unclear to me whether a critical long las hit deals 3 mortal wounds + 3 regular, critical hit tier wounds, or just 3 wounds which you cannot try to save against.
In any case, this isn't relieving info to me regarding the decreased lethality of the new system. If a sniper can output a max of 12 wounds per turn, and an ork boy has more than 12, there is no way to "headshot frag". The battelfields will be full of wounded operatives, and the only way to take down one reliably in one turn will be to concentrate fire from several operatives against a single model.
That tidbit about a veteran never having to modify their APL tells me that indeed, some sort of supression mechanic will be onboard. You will probably be able to reduce a target's AP expenditure by pinning them with weapons fire (unless he's a veteran specialist or has other comparable tactics/abilities, that is)
If you'll notice the sniper crit damage is the same as normal. So a crit hit does 3MW that can't be blocked and 3 that can, but only with two normal or one crit. Therefore an opponent without proper saves will take 6 from a sniper crit.
Which doesn't seem to be enough to kill a guardsmen (7 wounds). So tauist seems right to worry about decreased lethality.
tauist wrote: I'm not sure the article makes all aspects of this shooting mechanism clear. For one, what good does a critical save do against a regular hit? Does it also cancel out 2 regular hits? Also, in the case of the long las sniper rifle, do the 3 mortal wounds get added to all the other damage, or is it still just a 3 wound damage per shot? The way it's worded, its unclear to me whether a critical long las hit deals 3 mortal wounds + 3 regular, critical hit tier wounds, or just 3 wounds which you cannot try to save against.
In any case, this isn't relieving info to me regarding the decreased lethality of the new system. If a sniper can output a max of 12 wounds per turn, and an ork boy has more than 12, there is no way to "headshot frag". The battelfields will be full of wounded operatives, and the only way to take down one reliably in one turn will be to concentrate fire from several operatives against a single model.
That tidbit about a veteran never having to modify their APL tells me that indeed, some sort of supression mechanic will be onboard. You will probably be able to reduce a target's AP expenditure by pinning them with weapons fire (unless he's a veteran specialist or has other comparable tactics/abilities, that is)
If you'll notice the sniper crit damage is the same as normal. So a crit hit does 3MW that can't be blocked and 3 that can, but only with two normal or one crit. Therefore an opponent without proper saves will take 6 from a sniper crit.
Which doesn't seem to be enough to kill a guardsmen (7 wounds). So tauist seems right to worry about decreased lethality.
Snipers also hit on a 2+ and have 4 attacks. It's possible, but unlikely. I agree, I do think they're trying to tone down lethality.
tauist wrote: I'm not sure the article makes all aspects of this shooting mechanism clear. For one, what good does a critical save do against a regular hit? Does it also cancel out 2 regular hits? Also, in the case of the long las sniper rifle, do the 3 mortal wounds get added to all the other damage, or is it still just a 3 wound damage per shot? The way it's worded, its unclear to me whether a critical long las hit deals 3 mortal wounds + 3 regular, critical hit tier wounds, or just 3 wounds which you cannot try to save against.
In any case, this isn't relieving info to me regarding the decreased lethality of the new system. If a sniper can output a max of 12 wounds per turn, and an ork boy has more than 12, there is no way to "headshot frag". The battelfields will be full of wounded operatives, and the only way to take down one reliably in one turn will be to concentrate fire from several operatives against a single model.
That tidbit about a veteran never having to modify their APL tells me that indeed, some sort of supression mechanic will be onboard. You will probably be able to reduce a target's AP expenditure by pinning them with weapons fire (unless he's a veteran specialist or has other comparable tactics/abilities, that is)
If you'll notice the sniper crit damage is the same as normal. So a crit hit does 3MW that can't be blocked and 3 that can, but only with two normal or one crit. Therefore an opponent without proper saves will take 6 from a sniper crit.
Which doesn't seem to be enough to kill a guardsmen (7 wounds). So tauist seems right to worry about decreased lethality.
But the Long-Las is 4 dice at 2+ to begin with. It's going to average just over 3 hits to begin with, against a Veteran Guardsman defensive statline that is going to get 1 save most of the time. So if one of the Long-Las's hits is a crit, that means one normal hit and a crit will probably get through (or the MW from the crit and both normal hits, even in the event of a crit save), for 9 damage unless the target rolls two saves. That's a Guardsman kill for a crit, more often than not.
And we're talking about flashlights, remember. Boltguns are 4 dice at 3+ to hit, and 3/4 damage. So even without accounting for crits, they're threatening an average of 8 damage a shot (before saves). There's also plenty of room for Space Marines (with a higher APL) to throw additional shenanigans into the works -- it'll shock me if there's not an aim action that lets you burn an action point for a bonus on your hit roll, for instance, which would drive that number higher if the Space Marine is holding that boltgun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sledgehammer wrote: Which doesn't seem to be enough to kill a guardsmen (7 wounds). So tauist seems right to worry about decreased lethality.
Snipers also hit on a 2+ and have 4 attacks. It's possible, but unlikely. I agree, I do think they're trying to tone down lethality.
I think they're trying to dial in a little more consistency rather than tone down lethality.
Sledgehammer wrote: Thus far I'm hopeful this version of kill team will be better.
The shapes with colors indicating ranges is somewhat concerning. I'm tired of having to buy proprietary nick-nacks just to play the game. My blast markers are still sitting around unused, and I don't particularly want to buy gauges. Especially when we are uncertain how long this system will be supported and played.
If you can remember what four basic symbols mean, there is no need to buy any gauge and everything can be done with either a tape measure or a stick ruler.
Sledgehammer wrote: Thus far I'm hopeful this version of kill team will be better.
The shapes with colors indicating ranges is somewhat concerning. I'm tired of having to buy proprietary nick-nacks just to play the game. My blast markers are still sitting around unused, and I don't particularly want to buy gauges. Especially when we are uncertain how long this system will be supported and played.
If you can remember what four basic symbols mean, there is no need to buy any gauge and everything can be done with either a tape measure or a stick ruler.
We don't really know what the symbols mean yet. They could be just a simple indication for range, or they could be something more similar to the movement sticks from Xwing. One is going to make it increasingly more likely that you'll need to use proprietary gauges. We just don't know.
the_scotsman wrote: I would guess, given how the mathhammer works out with the damage, that there's going to be some kind of rule for 'heavy' weapons that take 2AP rather than 1AP to fire, similar to Necromunda, and the Long-Las is one of those weapons.
It does something like 3x-4x the normal damage of a lasgun, so I would suspect you dont get to fire it if you move and it takes your whole turn.
I also suspect that when we see the whole rulebook, the WHC article as it often does will have fethed up the interpretation of the MW rule, and MW will basically just be 'crits are not stoppable, it does this much damage to you when it crits.'
Then why does the sniper rifle have its damage listed as 3/3? I'm sure they could have screwed it up, they certainly have done so before, but in this case, I think it's perfectly reasonable to work they way they state.
A Long-Las is going to do 3.33 hits on average. A Veteran Guardsman is going to get one success on their defense roll, on average. That means that, barring a crit, a sniper rifle probably won't one-shot a Guardsman most of the time. Okay, fair enough, leave them critically wounded if you don't get the headshot, that's thematically okay. But if you *do* get the critical shot? You should kill. If your interpretation is correct, that doesn't happen, the Guardsman still probably survives (because they get to cancel one of the normal hits with their defense). With the MW as additional damage, though? A crit probably results in a one-shot kill, because there's a second shot that won't, on average, be cancelled by a Guardsman's armor defense.
On another note, going back and watching Adam's flip-through again, I see that barring Flamers at 5 (as we saw in today's article), everything else is 3A or 4A. So not a ton of dice floating around, but boltguns, plasma, and melta all scale up the damage (to 6 on a standard hit with Melta!), so Lasguns still are laughably harmless, as the Emperor intended.
I'm quite curious to see where higher T 40k units will make up for the lack of a wound roll, though -- will they scale up their Wounds, or get bigger Df values to roll more dice on defense? (For that matter, it probably won't be universal, some might do one, others another, and still others a combination) Hopefully we get an Ork datasheet in the upcoming melee article.
I think I'm going to assume that the MW3 granted by a long las crit will be in addition to the regular crit damage. Otherwise there will be no way to down a lowly guardsman in one turn, no matter how well you roll.
As for the datasheets, I don't think there is any reason to panic until we have seen the contents of the upcoming Kill Team 2.0 compendium book. We might still get most of the stuff which was available in KT1, including weapon options. The new website is too messed up to be a reliable source of intel at this point.
I am personally unconcerned about the game being not lethal enough - that has never in my experience been a problem for a GW game.
Assuming the less powerful version of this rule, with average rolling the long-las will deal exactly 7w to a guardsman - youd expect to be downing one each shot, and we are as-yet unclear as to whether multiple shots in a turn are possible. And this is just a guardsman sniper rifle, not for example an eldar ranger sniper rifle.
My assessment is directly the opposite - they appear to be building a system that's easier and quicker to resolve (I roll, you roll at exactly the same time, and we cancel out some rolls and quickly determine the damage the target takes as opposed to rolling to hit, rolling to wound, rolling to save, rolling to see how much damage, rolling for injury) but is more complicated in terms of your options as a player when activating a model.
Simultaneous dice rolls with Critical hits and Critical saves would be great if the dice actually had symbols for Criticals. If it becomes some "sixes cancel sixes or two fives" nonsense that sounds super lame.
I will wait for full rules before making up my mind about them but I am not convinced about all design choices so far.
EDIT: Now that I think of it, last edition Kill Team dice had a special Kill Team symbol no-one asked for (without it they could have sold bucketloads of faction dice to 40k players). Now that they could have use for such symbols, the dice are standard D6
My assessment is directly the opposite - they appear to be building a system that's easier and quicker to resolve (I roll, you roll at exactly the same time, and we cancel out some rolls and quickly determine the damage the target takes as opposed to rolling to hit, rolling to wound, rolling to save, rolling to see how much damage, rolling for injury) but is more complicated in terms of your options as a player when activating a model.
Simultaneous dice rolls with Critical hits and Critical saves would be great if the dice actually had symbols for Criticals. If it becomes some "sixes cancel sixes or two fives" nonsense that sounds super lame.
I will wait for full rules before making up my mind about them but I am not convinced about all design choices so far.
EDIT: Now that I think of it, last edition Kill Team dice had a special Kill Team symbol no-one asked for (without it they could have sold bucketloads of faction dice to 40k players). Now that they could have use for such symbols, the dice are standard D6
I have several faction-specific dice sets with faction symbols as their 6s. Will be nice for KT I think!
Is the keyword " Torrent" used for Kreig flamer rules a word generally templated across model ranges? For example, if a SoB or Orc wields a flamethrower with a parallel ability will it be listed as "Torrent" or will it be different terminology?
jaredb wrote: I'm really excited for this new version of Kill Team. Wasn't really invested in it before, when it was similar to the rules for 40k, I like that it'll be it's own game. This also can help them not have to deal with folks always asking why Kill Team datasheets are not always updated with 40k datasheet changes.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: This is the single most un-intuitive way they could've done something so simple. A shape with three sides is "1". A shape with one side is "2". A shape with four sides is "3", and a shape with five sides is "6". Why? WHAT? Why in the world would you do this? What is wrong with you?
The shapes are just keywords to go with the distance. The shape is also printed on the templates. Doesn't matter what symbol is used, they just use symbols. Things like this help with making the game easy for translation into other languages. especially for the templates.
He has a point though, it should have gone circle, triangle, square, pentagon if anything. While ultimately it doesn't matter what symbol is used, having a logic to the symbol progression can be helpful as a way of helping players memorize and recognize more effectively. circle triangle square pentagon has a +1 side progression type thing going to it, i.e. i know a triangle has more sides than a circle, ergo triangle moves farther than circle. Likewise squares relative to triangles and pentas relative to squares.
This isn't actually addressed. Apparently ◯ means 2", so does 3◯ mean 6"? So why not use the Pentagon symbol since that means 6"?
Or am I missing something?
They didn't explain it. Common thinking right now is that its 3 moves of 2", and these moves might be measured front-to-back (rather than front-to-front which is more common), meaning the potential movement of 3◯ is really more like 9" considering the size of the base itself. Another common thought is that each segment of the move involves a pause at which some sort of action/reaction might occur. In other words, a Guardsman moves 2", then an opponent checks to see if they have line of sight to do a reactive opportunity fire/overwatch, then it moves another 2", check LOS again, and then the final 2". In this way a model with 3◯ and a model with a Pentagon both have 6" of movement, but the model with the Pentagon is actually *faster* because it can move a full 6" from one point of cover to another and thereby limit opportunity reactions, whereas the 3◯ model is slower because it allows an opponent more opportunities to react to its movement.
the_scotsman wrote: i'll be honest, I never actually thought of the number of sides of the shape when I looked at it. It was just a symbol to associate with a particular length, and they're gonna put that symbol on the measuring tool that ships in the box.
Preeeeetty intuitive to me...
Know what shapes are more intuitive?
Numbers.
Not if you're also trying to degrade movement as damage is inflicted. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the way the damage seems to degrade in nuKT is actually pretty complex and not something you could easily write out in an understandable rule. The question becomes, is that stat reduction model superior to one which simply says "-1" of movement per point of damage" or whatever. On top of that, the symbols could correlate to terrain interactions as well - if you were just using numbers you would then need a completely separate stat to do what they are currently doing.
Blastaar wrote: Yes, the gauges are awful. They don't even need numbers to be better, GW could have done Short, Medium, and Long sticks. GW excels at botching the execution of their ideas.
TBH not seeing why they didn't go that route instead. I would prefer 3 or 4 distinct tools/sticks over one oddly shaped one which incorporates all of them together. I also suspect that calling them short, medium, long (and like point blank or extreme or something for the fourth measurement) probably would have generated less kvetching from the community.
Vovin wrote: I had the same initial reaction when I saw the symbols.
It uses the same logic from the Warhammer Quest games with the circle wedged between poor and mediocre: Triangle D4 = poor, Square D6 = mediocre, D12 pentagon = excellent. But since there are only D6s included in the KT box, it is unlikely that KT uses a similar mechanic. Simply having a consistent "design language" across games seems be a very weak reason for the symbols. So i am still baffled by the choice.
However it is a good decision to use a combination of number and symbol for the movement instead of two numbers. It is way easier, more intuitive and unambiguous when a rule refers to the first part or the latter. It is the same reason why cells in Microsoft Excel or chess are labeled A1 or B7 instead of 1:1 and 2:7. It is easier to distinguish what is what. And there are several exciting gameplay possibilities why 3x2" might not be the same as 2x3" movement.
Contrary to what some seem to believe, translation issues wouldn't be a factor. Warcry uses symbols for special abilities because then the fighter cards do not contain words and do not need to be translated, only the ability cards. So instead of "(number of fighter + 1) times number of languages", you only need "number of languages + number of fighter" cards. But this isn't the case with KT. Since the fighter cards use numbers anyway, there wouldn't be any savings. Language might only be a factor in regard of not using A,B,C and D as the symbol.
tl;dr Use of symbols = great, choice of symbols = highly questionable
Why would two numbers be used for movement?
I can think of lots of situations where this is preferential to a fixed value.
- If a model has 9" movement and another 6" and there is a -3" movement modifier, it affects the 6" model way more. And you want to avoid percentage modifiers because they are clunky. When you have a model with 3x3" and 3x2" movement, you can simply say: -1 movement and it reduces the speed of both models by 33%.
- Modifiers can work on both parts and be more granular and at the same time allow for more interaction between different modifiers, without the worry that some models are reduced to zero movement. So two -3 movement modifiers render a 6" model immobile, which is not particular fun. But a -1 movement and "treat 3" square as 2" circle" can be combined.
- Maybe a model moves in increments and after each increment the enemy can make reactive fire. So a 4x2" model is faster than a 1x6" model, but the latter can move from cover to cover without provoking overwatch fire.
- Maybe a charging model that uses only one fragment of their movement is treated have as having made a sneak attack, granting some bonuses.
The possibilities are endless.
I really do feel like there are two types of people out there.
People who look at these symbols and go "NuMbAhS aRe AlReAdY iNtUiTiVe EnUfF!!!"
and
People who look at these symbols and immediately go "Oh man, this is fething brilliant, if you manipulate it this way then you can maintain consist ratio penalties to models with different baseline speeds, and if you manipulate it this way you can create some really interesting interactions with different terrain features, and if you manipulate it this way you can represent the agility and dexterity with which a model can move relative to another with the same movement stat", etc.
I suspect the latter are more inclined to playing a wider variety of games and potentially designing them as well, whereas the former are content only playing one game and complaining that it isn't designed to their liking.
Honest to god, if GW flubs the implementation on this and didn't consider any of the hypothetical avenues this opened up for them I'm going to take the concept and run with it and produce a much better game, the possibilities here really are endless as you say.
Why? You aren't playing with a tape measure, you don't need to know the number, only the shape. There are also reasons why you might not want to do that. If you do put the number in the circle and have movement of 3(Circle) and you take -2 movement is that 3(Circle-2) or 3-2(Circle)? If you don't put the number in the Circle, it can only ever be 3-2(Circle). The flip side of that is that if you *do* put the number in the circle it opens up some interesting design space, as you can have effects that create 3-2(Circle) and others that create 3(Circle-2) - but the potential for confusing them increases.
yet I don't know how ranges >Penatagon are going to work, will a weapon be 3 times Pentaqon, and how to you measure that because if you have a specific stick with 3 times Pentagon on it, why don't make it Octagon instead, (and maybe we get another 5 symbols for ranges)?
Ranges seem to be infinite with the exception of pistols and short range weapons that only shoot (Pentagon). Seems weird that there aren't any weapons that have a range greater than that but less than the full length of the table, but I suppose the 22" x whatever" board size for kill team probably isn't big enough for medium range weapons to really matter anyway.
lord_blackfang wrote: If you're okay with triple layered hit quality good for you. Remember it next time you "cancel" a critical hit after it's already inflicted damage.
You're so bent out of shape over this its comical. In the case of this one weapon (Im sure there are others with the same rule), you're canceling the critical to prevent *further* damage. I don't understand what you have against the concept of a weapon which is so capable that under the right circumstances some degree of damage is unavoidable.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: So we are in agreement GW made it so needlessly unintuitive and stupid, so we buy their overpriced gauges to make it slightly stupid, right?
Speak for yourself. This is the first GW game I've been really excited to play since the latest edition of Titanicus.
Rihgu wrote: So ranged combat is resolved like Warhammer: Underworlds? Except with the ability to stop crits with double normal hits. Not loving that they've expanded the crit system that always screwed me
And megacrits that can't be stopped by crit saves
Just read the article and read it this way:
Critical Hit = Can only be saved by Critical Save or two normal ones
Critical Hit with Long-Las = Gives 3 Mortal Wounds you can't prevent with your normal saves. In addition it gives another 3 damage if you don't make a save as explained before.
He understands how it works fully, hes just being a cynic and nitpicking.
the_scotsman wrote: I see primarily people are still butthurt about having to memorize four shapes with primary colors. I will return tomorrow.
Short and sweet.
Crimson wrote: I think I would have preferred something more directly 40K based.
Then just keep playing the current edition. Or just play 40k. Or just play any of the countless indy 40k knockoff rules out there. I for one am glad to be getting something that isn't just more of the same.
That's a difference without a difference. As easily as they did the weird, door-like movement templates they could have done a sprue of sticks with proper movement sizes. (1 circle, 2 circles, 3 circles, 1 square, 2 squares, 3 squares... you know, that kind of stuff).
I don't disagree that separate movement sticks would have been preferable, but I don't see why you think that 2(Circle) and 3(Cirlce), etc. sticks are even necessary? You're assuming that a Kreigsman being able to move 3(Circle) means that it goes 3(Circle) in one movement, when there is a bit to suggest that it actually does that move as 3 discrete steps with stops in between to allow for some sort of action/reaction dynamic. If thats the case, then no model will *ever* move 2(Circle) or 3(Circle) or anything of the sort, because the rules simply do not allow that to occur.
My assessment is directly the opposite - they appear to be building a system that's easier and quicker to resolve (I roll, you roll at exactly the same time, and we cancel out some rolls and quickly determine the damage the target takes as opposed to rolling to hit, rolling to wound, rolling to save, rolling to see how much damage, rolling for injury) but is more complicated in terms of your options as a player when activating a model.
That's a good thing. current KT is vastly too simplistic to be a satisfying skirmish system in terms of options, and vastly too complex in terms of action resolution.
Amen.
Kanluwen wrote: So bets on how long before we get Aeldari Outcasts, Vanguard Organisms, and Brood Brothers Kill-Team sets?
Hopefully not too long of a wait. My Tyranid Kill Team was 4 Lictors. Hoping I can still run them.
Tokhuah wrote: Is the keyword " Torrent" used for Kreig flamer rules a word generally templated across model ranges? For example, if a SoB or Orc wields a flamethrower with a parallel ability will it be listed as "Torrent" or will it be different terminology?
We don't know that yet. Presumably its standardized across all factions.
Sledgehammer wrote: Thus far I'm hopeful this version of kill team will be better.
The shapes with colors indicating ranges is somewhat concerning. I'm tired of having to buy proprietary nick-nacks just to play the game. My blast markers are still sitting around unused, and I don't particularly want to buy gauges. Especially when we are uncertain how long this system will be supported and played.
If you can remember what four basic symbols mean, there is no need to buy any gauge and everything can be done with either a tape measure or a stick ruler.
We don't really know what the symbols mean yet. They could be just a simple indication for range, or they could be something more similar to the movement sticks from Xwing. One is going to make it increasingly more likely that you'll need to use proprietary gauges. We just don't know.
We do know. Its plopped in the middle of the article on movement in big bold picture with multiple colors.
black Triangle= 1
white Circle = 2
blue Square = 3
red Pentagon= 6
Kill Team uses a system of four colours with corresponding shapes to represent common distances.
They explicitly represent the same distances every time.
The trapezoid tool has the three shorter measurements (and a useless side), and the stick with the pentagon is 6". That's it. The whole thing.
The Signal guy, laspistols and flamers are all effective at 6", and flamers have a 2" splash. Real guns are infinite (because boards are some value of 'small' and they didn't want to make a bigger or more common measuring tool). Guardsman scurry 2" up to 3 times.
Flinty wrote: The new system looks really cool, and has lots of potential for interesting nuance and degrading effects and proper granularity. Some of the mechanics even seem to be growing out of Blackstone Fortress.
Unfortunately I have Necromunda, 1st edition KT, 5 Parsecs, Blackstone Fortress, Zombiecide, Operation Last Train and Stargrave all champing at the bit, and Covid is still pretty restrictive.
I need to retire I think... Anyone got any good horse racing tips?
As I have a similar list, I'm beginning to think the problem is wanting variety. Too many games and too little time. For instance, I like the concept of the Mythic Americas mini game by Warlord, but I don't yet another mini game. Ignoring the latest version of KT will simplify matters and save money. However, we'll see what happens once the core is sold separately ...
Pedantic much? These rules previews rarely ever spell out the full details of anything, they're just snippets of information. 100% possible (and quite likely) the snippet they fed us on this only covered the part relevant to movement distance and ignored everything else. I mean, the same article outright stated, and doth I quote:
As operatives are injured or affected by special conditions, their movement values will increase or decrease – this new system makes modifying their characteristics a snap.
On that basis alone, you're incorrect. Thats NOT it. Thats NOT the whole thing. There is *clearly* still more to be discussed on that topic.
Flinty wrote: The new system looks really cool, and has lots of potential for interesting nuance and degrading effects and proper granularity. Some of the mechanics even seem to be growing out of Blackstone Fortress.
Unfortunately I have Necromunda, 1st edition KT, 5 Parsecs, Blackstone Fortress, Zombiecide, Operation Last Train and Stargrave all champing at the bit, and Covid is still pretty restrictive.
I need to retire I think... Anyone got any good horse racing tips?
As I have a similar list, I'm beginning to think the problem is wanting variety. Too many games and too little time. For instance, I like the concept of the Mythic Americas mini game by Warlord, but I don't yet another mini game. Ignoring the latest version of KT will simplify matters and save money. However, we'll see what happens once the core is sold separately ...
Historic and Fantasy are my main jams. For SciFi I like the Krieg models, 5 Parsecs rules, and Stargrave too so KT is no longer necessary, just the models.
Edit: I am extremely happy about the Krieg models and am enjoying joking about a traditionally bad rules company, but not complaining about what I am not buying. Nothing but salted joy here!
Kanluwen wrote: So bets on how long before we get Aeldari Outcasts, Vanguard Organisms, and Brood Brothers Kill-Team sets?
Hopefully not too long of a wait. My Tyranid Kill Team was 4 Lictors. Hoping I can still run them.
I would assume so, even if we get a Vanguard Organisms setup.
Worth mentioning though that the "factions" breakdown has Veteran Guardsmen and Kommandos as their own factions. While Greenskins still get access to "Clan Kommandos"(the photo there uses the metal/resin Kommandos rather than the new plastics), Veteran Guardsmen are not listed under Astra Militarum.
If I had to make a wild ballpark guess for what factions might see further treatments?
Vanguard Organisms to bring out a new Lictor brood set.
Brood Brothers, since the GSC are weirdly called out as "Brood Covens" rather than just "Genestealer Cultists".
Aeldari Outcasts, bringing in Corsairs.
NephMakes wrote: One of the new stats is Action Point Limit (APL). So perhaps each side will have a limited number of action points to spend. Spamming cheap bodies is less useful when you can't use them all.
APL seems to imply that different dudes can do more or less, depending on APL.
There doesn’t seem to be anything stopping some weapons having a range of 2 pentagram for example, so there’s still scope for medium range weaponry to be implemented in this way. Whether GW do or not is a different question ofc
Tokhuah wrote: Is the keyword " Torrent" used for Kreig flamer rules a word generally templated across model ranges? For example, if a SoB or Orc wields a flamethrower with a parallel ability will it be listed as "Torrent" or will it be different terminology?
Based on the design it seems likely that all flamers will be torrent regardless of faction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: The Signal guy, laspistols and flamers are all effective at 6", and flamers have a 2" splash. Real guns are infinite (because boards are some value of 'small' and they didn't want to make a bigger or more common measuring tool). Guardsman scurry 2" up to 3 times.
Another thought - there isn't going to be any across the table measuring. Everything looks like it will happen in the immediate vicinity of the model itself. I kind of like that.
I really do feel like there are two types of people out there.
Surely you mean "◯ types of people!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MaxT wrote: There doesn’t seem to be anything stopping some weapons having a range of 2 pentagram for example, so there’s still scope for medium range weaponry to be implemented in this way. Whether GW do or not is a different question ofc
Maybe guns like meltas will just have fewer shots? Could go either way.
Kanluwen wrote: So bets on how long before we get Aeldari Outcasts, Vanguard Organisms, and Brood Brothers Kill-Team sets?
Hopefully not too long of a wait. My Tyranid Kill Team was 4 Lictors. Hoping I can still run them.
I would assume so, even if we get a Vanguard Organisms setup.
Worth mentioning though that the "factions" breakdown has Veteran Guardsmen and Kommandos as their own factions. While Greenskins still get access to "Clan Kommandos"(the photo there uses the metal/resin Kommandos rather than the new plastics), Veteran Guardsmen are not listed under Astra Militarum.
If I had to make a wild ballpark guess for what factions might see further treatments?
Vanguard Organisms to bring out a new Lictor brood set.
Brood Brothers, since the GSC are weirdly called out as "Brood Covens" rather than just "Genestealer Cultists".
Aeldari Outcasts, bringing in Corsairs.
My reckoning would be that the Eldar rumour engine we saw some time ago will be a ranger kill team.
This is GW's true genius, the memes are going to be so rampant that no one will ever forget which symbol means what
But yeah, it doesn't seem like there's any further depth to the symbol system given they've cast rulers with the symbols embedded into them, doesn't look like the symbols themselves will be dynamic.
Not if you're also trying to degrade movement as damage is inflicted. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the way the damage seems to degrade in nuKT is actually pretty complex and not something you could easily write out in an understandable rule. The question becomes, is that stat reduction model superior to one which simply says "-1" of movement per point of damage" or whatever. On top of that, the symbols could correlate to terrain interactions as well - if you were just using numbers you would then need a completely separate stat to do what they are currently doing.
Explain to me how any of the above would have been prevented if instead of 3-◯ the rules would have said 3-2.
chaos0xomega wrote: I really do feel like there are two types of people out there.
People who look at these symbols and go "NuMbAhS aRe AlReAdY iNtUiTiVe EnUfF!!!"
and
People who look at these symbols and immediately go "Oh man, this is fething brilliant,"
I really do feel like there are some people here really keen on misinterpret a side. And what better way than ridiculing them, am I right?
Not if you're also trying to degrade movement as damage is inflicted. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the way the damage seems to degrade in nuKT is actually pretty complex and not something you could easily write out in an understandable rule. The question becomes, is that stat reduction model superior to one which simply says "-1" of movement per point of damage" or whatever. On top of that, the symbols could correlate to terrain interactions as well - if you were just using numbers you would then need a completely separate stat to do what they are currently doing.
Explain to me how any of the above would have been prevented if instead of 3-◯ the rules would have said 3-2.
chaos0xomega wrote: I really do feel like there are two types of people out there.
People who look at these symbols and go "NuMbAhS aRe AlReAdY iNtUiTiVe EnUfF!!!"
and
People who look at these symbols and immediately go "Oh man, this is fething brilliant,"
I really do feel like there are some people here really keen on misinterpret a side. And what better way than ridiculing them, am I right?
Is it allready known if the new edition will also contain rules/stats for other factions, like the old KT?
Or will this be "buy this mini expansion with propritary cards and rules for faction X to use them"?
I really do feel like there are two types of people out there.
3, the third looks at the rules and thinks: I can see the idea behind or were they copied it, but the execution is poor and/or they do not understand why this is used in the first place
the whole controversy of why using Circle instead of 2" is there because GW made a big picture to advertise it
and with that it burned inside peoples minds that the numbers are still there, because they is there for us to know, so it must be important and we need the 2 systems of symbols and numbers (and I would not be surprised if we end up with needing the tape measure for deployment zones or objective placement and and that other factions come with rules that need different ranges)
measurement tools with fixed ranges are there to remove the problem of imperial VS metric, ease of use for ranges in the game, speed up gameplay
here, they told us the numbers so imperial VS metric is not solved because everyone know they are meant to be Inch and will have those in mind (and might even start converting them in his mind automatically from Symbol to Inch to Metric, just because he knows them instead of thinking in Short, Medium, Long Range)
how easy they are to use depends on the final rules, but from what we have seen it looks like it is more complicated and very fiddly as small Skirmish games are usually with lot of terrain in 3D and laying a 2" stick 3 times on the model to move it can be tricky (guess they thought about 2D and a board that has never more terrain than on than shown on the promo pictures)
and if the movement is really how most expect it (as 3 times Circle instead of anywhere within Pentagon makes only sense if it is base front to base back with exact movements like 1 Circle straight, 1 Circle up, 1 circle straight), there it is more time consuming
Ranges seem to be infinite with the exception of pistols and short range weapons that only shoot (Pentagon). Seems weird that there aren't any weapons that have a range greater than that but less than the full length of the table, but I suppose the 22" x whatever" board size for kill team probably isn't big enough for medium range weapons to really matter anyway.
well, just by looking at the weapons in 40k we have and had and 24" being the "standard" range I can see were they are coming from
yet there are a lot of weapons with 12" or were full and half range made a difference (in the past) and with a 22" board assuming that 24" will have everything in range anyway, means (again) the game is modeled with 2D in mind instead of 3D
Garfield666 wrote: Is it allready known if the new edition will also contain rules/stats for other factions, like the old KT?
Or will this be "buy this mini expansion with propritary cards and rules for faction X to use them"?
I believe they said on the stream that the rulebook will contain the Veteran Guardsmen and Ork Kommandos faction rules, and a separate book will have everyone else.
Kanluwen wrote: So bets on how long before we get Aeldari Outcasts, Vanguard Organisms, and Brood Brothers Kill-Team sets?
Well, this is the thing. We spent all of the last edition waiting for a Craftworld faction set and yet were excluded from the fun despite a mid term release of the 40K plastic Howling Banshees.
There is no sugar coating it that this edition has a lot of catching up to do and win back players...
I already think it’s a better system, even with the anoying symble range rules, I think it’s more about if GW can stuff up a good thing from now
I also see that the distances at least from someone who has talked with devs, are effected by terrain movement at each increment. So IG going though Forrest or ruins are SLOW losing half their movement. Why Eldar only lose 1/3 due to different movement increments. So it does have a purpose.
But it could have just been 2/2/2 and been the same most likely.
For those fearing the new Krieg soldiers are on a different base than 25 mm, fear not :
Given the difference in size between orks and krieg and the general height of the miniatures, can tell the base of Krieg miniatures is 25 mm (too small for 28 mm while the orks are 32).
Redemption wrote: Are those steps and the mural with the robed dude with flames part of a new upcoming terrain piece or did I miss a release somewhere?
Spoiler:
Terrain has been identified (by people more knowledgeable then I) to be kitbashes of multiple GW kits.
tauist wrote: All GW starters are like that, dexes sold separately. If you don't like it, just buy the rulebooks & dexes separately
Yeah, that's what I was planning to do, if the game looks interesting enough
I haven't yet made up my mind about which way to go myself. If the box comes with a big enough discount, I'll probably go for it, but if the price is on the high side, I'll just get the rulebook and Compendium + cards separately and snag up the separate DKoK kit later. HH launch box is coming in November and I might want to save some moneys, because that one I'll be getting for sure.
Not so much into Orks nor the orky terrain, although I'd imagine I could de-orkify it with some sawing & cutting. But my backlog already has the Mekboy workshop to de-orkify (to make it fit better with the STC ruins kit I've got) so dunno when I'd get around to it hehehe
Yes, the stopwatch bit being onboard was mentioned in the reveal stream. Remains to be seen if it grants some sort of ability for the model..
Probably, but im not overly bothered, it may just be to fit in with a particular archetype like the zealot type guy with the mini aquila hanging from parchment/hymns sheet/relic. Rules change, cool models always remain
That picture shows very nicely whats inside. I somehow missed it.
Good to see that the cards seem to be general tactical cards, like with the old KT. I feared they would implement some card mechanic where you have to buy faction specific cards to be able to play at all...
The gauges and symbols can be worked around also. I just use a regular tapemeasure, but erase all the numbers and replace them with the official symbols and multiples thereof. Should work fine.
So... tomorrow is the day of prices and limited availability, right?
Redemption wrote: Are those steps and the mural with the robed dude with flames part of a new upcoming terrain piece or did I miss a release somewhere?
It's a kitbash using Sector Imperialis pillars, wall sections from Plasma Obliterator and Warcry floors/roofs.
Not if you're also trying to degrade movement as damage is inflicted. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the way the damage seems to degrade in nuKT is actually pretty complex and not something you could easily write out in an understandable rule. The question becomes, is that stat reduction model superior to one which simply says "-1" of movement per point of damage" or whatever. On top of that, the symbols could correlate to terrain interactions as well - if you were just using numbers you would then need a completely separate stat to do what they are currently doing.
Explain to me how any of the above would have been prevented if instead of 3-◯ the rules would have said 3-2.
If one model moves 2-3 and one models moves 3-2 and both suffer a -1 penalty to their movement stat, which values are being modified? Are they going to 1-3 and 2-2? Are they going to 2-2 and 3-1? Are they going to 1-2 and 2-1?
If one model moves 2(Square) and one model moves 3(Circle) and both suffer a -1 penalty to their movement stat, the answer is obvious as there is only one place that number can be applied to, because (Square) and (Circle) aren't numbers. The models are now moving 1(Square) and 2(Circle).
Writing the rules to accommodate the latter is simple. Writing the rule to accommodate the former requires a lot more writing to provide clear and concise instruction to players.
Likewise, if I have a terrain piece that effects models differently based on their movement stat, something to the effect of "Models that move 2" suffer a -1 penalty to their movement stat through this terrain feature", what exactly am I instructing you to do? Am I telling you that a model with a 3-2 stat now moves 2-2? Is that saying It now moves 3-1? 2-1? What if I don't actually move the full 2" while moving through the terrain feature, like I only move 1.5" instead, do I still suffer the penalty? I now need to write a lot more rules to clarify what the meaning of this is, the criteria, exception, non-exceptions, etc.
If I simply write "Models with (Circle) suffer -1 movement throgh this terrain feature", the impact on a model with 3(Circle) is clear, its now moving 2(Circle) instead. Theres very little that needs to be written, specified, clarified, or explained. The argument that if I move 1.5" instead of 2" disappears entirely because I'm not tying it to a numeric distance that can be reduced. (Circle) is (Circle), even if you aren't moving its full distance.
I really do feel like there are some people here really keen on misinterpret a side. And what better way than ridiculing them, am I right?
Absolutely. There is a level of reasonable skepticism - these people are perfectly fine. Then there are people who - without any actual knowledge of the rules whatsoever - insist that the implementation is unnecessary and wrong and could be accomplished just as easily through some other means while achieving all of the same design goals. These people deserve ridicule because they are being extremely presumptuous and probably have super-inflated egos that cause them to believe that they are smarter than they actually are and know how to write rules for a game they have never played or read than the people who actually designed it.
I really do feel like there are two types of people out there.
3, the third looks at the rules and thinks: I can see the idea behind or were they copied it, but the execution is poor and/or they do not understand why this is used in the first place
Fair though I would argue your type 3 are skewing dangerously towards the type that I just discussed with Albertorius. You don't know the full scope of how the rules and mechanics are implemented. Assuming that GWs staff are some sort of idiot savants or something blindly cribbing another publishers homework without actually knowing how any of it works is extremely presumptuous.
the whole controversy of why using Circle instead of 2" is there because GW made a big picture to advertise it
and with that it burned inside peoples minds that the numbers are still there, because they is there for us to know, so it must be important and we need the 2 systems of symbols and numbers (and I would not be surprised if we end up with needing the tape measure for deployment zones or objective placement and and that other factions come with rules that need different ranges)
measurement tools with fixed ranges are there to remove the problem of imperial VS metric, ease of use for ranges in the game, speed up gameplay
here, they told us the numbers so imperial VS metric is not solved because everyone know they are meant to be Inch and will have those in mind (and might even start converting them in his mind automatically from Symbol to Inch to Metric, just because he knows them instead of thinking in Short, Medium, Long Range)
AGREED. They absolutely should not have put numbers to those shapes, that was a huge mistake because now people can't break from the idea that the numbers don't matter. In other threads people are insisting this is a problem because they now have to convert the shape to a number which is adding cognitive load. They cannot comprehend or accept the idea that the numbers don't matter, the game is not played with a tape measure, and that they only ever need to match shapes.
Wouldn't be surprised if it was done this way because some of the old grogs in the design studio that don't step outside the GW bubble couldn't comprehend playing a tabletop game without a tape measure and insisted on including the corresponding measurements. None of the games that I've played that use measuring tools ever tell the players what they translate to in terms of real world measurements, because there simply is not any reason to do so. Maybe SAGA does, but that might be the exception. Anyway, point is, that was a bad choice from a marketing standpoint and I think they are paying the price for it right now.
how easy they are to use depends on the final rules, but from what we have seen it looks like it is more complicated and very fiddly as small Skirmish games are usually with lot of terrain in 3D and laying a 2" stick 3 times on the model to move it can be tricky (guess they thought about 2D and a board that has never more terrain than on than shown on the promo pictures)
I would have preferred 4 separate measurement sticks personally. Those "all in one" measuring widgets are a pain in the ass to use as they rarely ever fit where you need them to be due to their shape and size, etc. I know they were popular in the community like 8-12 years ago, I bought a bunch of them myself, but I threw mine out years ago after acknowledging that they caused more problems than they solved.
and if the movement is really how most expect it (as 3 times Circle instead of anywhere within Pentagon makes only sense if it is base front to base back with exact movements like 1 Circle straight, 1 Circle up, 1 circle straight), there it is more time consuming
I think this interpretation lacks imagination. Again, if I were designing this game and I gave a model 3(Circle) for moves, then in practice the way that would look like is:
1. move 1 (Circle)
2. opponent checks line of sight for reactive fire
3. move 1 (Circle)
4. opponent checks line of sight for reactive fire
5. move 1 (Circle)
6. opponent checks line of sight for reactive fire
I really don't see any benefit to a 3(Circle) move otherwise, unless its because each segment of the move needs to be done in a straight line (i.e. you can't move through obstacles/obstructions, etc. you have to physically move around them). At least with the reactive fire concept, there is a meaningful difference between 3(Circle) and 1(Pentagon) - they might both move 6" total, but the model with 1(Pentagon) is much "faster", as it can move 6" and get from one area to cover to another in order to dodge line of sight and avoid reactive fire, whereas the model with 3(Circle) is slower and has two more opportunities to take reactive fire and is much more likely to be caught in the open.
well, just by looking at the weapons in 40k we have and had and 24" being the "standard" range I can see were they are coming from
yet there are a lot of weapons with 12" or were full and half range made a difference (in the past) and with a 22" board assuming that 24" will have everything in range anyway, means (again) the game is modeled with 2D in mind instead of 3D
The gauges and symbols can be worked around also. I just use a regular tapemeasure, but erase all the numbers and replace them with the official symbols and multiples thereof. Should work fine.
:eyeroll:
The way some people act you'd think tapemeasures were made of solid gold or these new movement tools will give you cancer or something.
So... tomorrow is the day of prices and limited availability, right?
Nope. Sometime in August. Tomorrow is the Beastsnagga box.
chaos0xomega wrote: If one model moves 2-3 and one models moves 3-2 and both suffer a -1 penalty to their movement stat, which values are being modified? Are they going to 1-3 and 2-2? Are they going to 2-2 and 3-1? Are they going to 1-2 and 2-1?
If one model moves 2(Square) and one model moves 3(Circle) and both suffer a -1 penalty to their movement stat, the answer is obvious as there is only one place that number can be applied to, because (Square) and (Circle) aren't numbers. The models are now moving 1(Square) and 2(Circle).
You define it on the rules, exactly as you have: "mods apply to the first part". Or "a miniature's movement stat is composed of two values: Steps and Pace (or whatever, it's just an example)".
No change to the actual rules, no modification at all, no need even to modify the rulers (even though I don't like that kind of rules).
But also no need to use symbols.
Writing the rules to accommodate the latter is simple. Writing the rule to accommodate the former requires a lot more writing to provide clear and concise instruction to players.
I really don't believe that's the case, and it seems to me you're going out of your way to paint it as extremely complicated when... it's not.
If I simply write "Models with (Circle) suffer -1 movement throgh this terrain feature", the impact on a model with 3(Circle) is clear, its now moving 2(Circle) instead. Theres very little that needs to be written, specified, clarified, or explained. The argument that if I move 1.5" instead of 2" disappears entirely because I'm not tying it to a numeric distance that can be reduced. (Circle) is (Circle), even if you aren't moving its full distance.
See above: "Models with Pace 2 suffer -1 Steps through this terrain feature". That's all there's to it.
I really do feel like there are some people here really keen on misinterpret a side. And what better way than ridiculing them, am I right?
Absolutely. There is a level of reasonable skepticism - these people are perfectly fine. Then there are people who - without any actual knowledge of the rules whatsoever - insist that the implementation is unnecessary and wrong and could be accomplished just as easily through some other means while achieving all of the same design goals. These people deserve ridicule because they are being extremely presumptuous and probably have super-inflated egos that cause them to believe that they are smarter than they actually are and know how to write rules for a game they have never played or read than the people who actually designed it.
Basically : each side roll their melee attack dice simultaneously and starting by the attacker, each alternate to determine which will be used to inflict damage or cancel a hit from the opponent (working like a save).
Interesting mechanic...and the attacker doesn't especially have the advantage, here. He'll have to be careful of the enemy counterattack and plan for it as well.
On the other hand, while the melee section was a lot lighter on detail and clarity than yestday's ranged article (does activating my model engaged with an enemy consume that enemy's activation for the turn? Or do both our models get to swing twice, once on my turn and once on my opponent's? Can melee crits be cancelled 2-for-1? And so on), I'm at least gratified that my expectation that WS would be the only target number in melee is borne out. Maybe we'll see some interesting perspectives on some classic favorite lightly armored melee monsters explored here, like Drukhari and the glass cannons from Adepta Sororitas. Or maybe I'm expecting too much from GW's game design folks again.
Yeah interesting article, almost like it'll be a good game or something.
They also mention at the end of that that if you like you can ignore the symbols and just use a tape measure. So, shockingly, it's almost like it's not a big deal.
Sarouan wrote: Interesting mechanic...and the attacker doesn't especially have the advantage, here. He'll have to be careful of the enemy counterattack and plan for it as well.
There's still the advantage in that they get to react to their opponent's rolls and cancel a crit first, or whatnot. They get first option, even if they choose not to deal first blood.
chaos0xomega wrote: If one model moves 2-3 and one models moves 3-2 and both suffer a -1 penalty to their movement stat, which values are being modified? Are they going to 1-3 and 2-2? Are they going to 2-2 and 3-1? Are they going to 1-2 and 2-1?
If one model moves 2(Square) and one model moves 3(Circle) and both suffer a -1 penalty to their movement stat, the answer is obvious as there is only one place that number can be applied to, because (Square) and (Circle) aren't numbers. The models are now moving 1(Square) and 2(Circle).
You define it on the rules, exactly as you have: "mods apply to the first part". Or "a miniature's movement stat is composed of two values: Steps and Pace (or whatever, it's just an example)".
No change to the actual rules, no modification at all, no need even to modify the rulers (even though I don't like that kind of rules).
But also no need to use symbols.
Writing the rules to accommodate the latter is simple. Writing the rule to accommodate the former requires a lot more writing to provide clear and concise instruction to players.
I really don't believe that's the case, and it seems to me you're going out of your way to paint it as extremely complicated when... it's not.
If I simply write "Models with (Circle) suffer -1 movement throgh this terrain feature", the impact on a model with 3(Circle) is clear, its now moving 2(Circle) instead. Theres very little that needs to be written, specified, clarified, or explained. The argument that if I move 1.5" instead of 2" disappears entirely because I'm not tying it to a numeric distance that can be reduced. (Circle) is (Circle), even if you aren't moving its full distance.
See above: "Models with Pace 2 suffer -1 Steps through this terrain feature". That's all there's to it.
I'm greatful you're not a game designer. Thats just awful, awful, awful implementation.
Im abandoning my defense of the design, they should have just used numbers if thats all they are doing. Thats just poor design - kodos had it right, they have no idea what they are doing.
The plus side is that I now have the basis of a pretty great game design of my own XD
chaos0xomega wrote: I'm greatful you're not a game designer. Thats just awful, awful, awful implementation.
Yeah, I can see how the one they've gone for is so much better ^^.
That said, I agree with you on principle: it did open rules space, and it could have been interesting. But IMHO, the rulers they went with were not good for that, and it would have been much better to have 1-Circle, 2-Circle, 3-Circle sticks and the like, probably similar as it's done for X-Wing, to avoid having to measure multiples of the ruler to move.
Well, that's dumb. This is looking more poorly designed. The combat rules would make sense if wounds was then a representation of your armor, so that weapons that go through armor do more damage. But if that were the case, you wouldn't be rolling an armor save against shooting attacks, because your wounds would already take that into account. What you'd roll would be more like a representation of how good you are at concealing yourself, like in Bolt Action how it's harder to hit veterans. I guess it's possible that's what they were going for, and a terminator would actually have a pretty bad save against shooting.
Edit: For some reason, I assumed there were modifiers to the save rolls, but looking back at the article there doesn't appear to be. So maybe "Defense" and "Save" do represent how good you are at avoiding getting shot, and wounds represent your armor? But I think if that's the case they would have used a different term than "Save", because people are going to think it's weird when their terminators have a 6+ save.
I already think it’s a better system, even with the anoying symble range rules, I think it’s more about if GW can stuff up a good thing from now
I also see that the distances at least from someone who has talked with devs, are effected by terrain movement at each increment. So IG going though Forrest or ruins are SLOW losing half their movement. Why Eldar only lose 1/3 due to different movement increments. So it does have a purpose.
But it could have just been 2/2/2 and been the same most likely.
So far it feels like the rules are an improvement, yes.
Not sure I understand the logic of that, like at the very least armor should have provided some sort of a bonus to any die that is used to parry/block a hit?
Astartes power armor and terminator armor are known for basically being fully encased - unless you aren't wearing a helmet there is almost no such thing as an "unprotected joint". This system basically gives a sharp stick the same probability of harming someone wearing a t-shirt as someone encased in adamantium. I get the concept is that your opponent is going to be aiming for exposed points, but surely it wouldn't have hurt to say power armor gives +1 bonus to parry dice or something? Even if a marine or terminator has an exposed joint or unhelmeted head to aim at, the presence of all the armor around it *still* makes it harder to hit that unprotected point beyond just what marine/terminator is doing to block you with their sword.
Im abandoning my defense of the design, they should have just used numbers if thats all they are doing. Thats just poor design - kodos had it right, they have no idea what they are doing.
The plus side is that I now have the basis of a pretty great game design of my own XD
I hate to be right
and your ideas about what possibilities there are really had something going for it and I was hoping that GW might have tried to make something this time
easy, they wanted that only specialized close combat units can survive melee, while on the other hand being bad at fighting but having good armour does not help you if the opponent has a melee weapon
they more or less wanted to avoid that all good melee units need power weapons, while at the same time good melee units with bad armour would be hard to kill
would say typical GW game design, simplify rules to speed up gameplay until the make no sense any more, take longer to resolve and are more complicated to balance
PS:
I was thinking about buying the rules or share a box because I really like those Orcs (Krieg look good but I prefer a more modern look for SciFi humans) and selling off Krieg should be easy
but now, I guess I am not even buying the Orcs and I for sure won't get the box as I don't want the rules at all and I just get some Resin models now instead (Puppets War make some nice ones) and stay with Deadzone and Stargrave
Crimson wrote: I'm sorry, armour does nothing in close combat? Yeah, I'm out; too stupid to handle.
Not sure what to think of it myself.
While all the units featured on the KT website have some gap in their armour, some would definitely make it harder than others to land such hits - Heavy Intercessor and Tau Stealth Suit are practically stab-proof and would require either genestealer claws or a chainsword to rip apart.
Crimson wrote: I'm sorry, armour does nothing in close combat? Yeah, I'm out; too stupid to handle.
Not sure what to think of it myself.
While all the units featured on the KT website have some gap in their armour, some would definitely make it harder than others to land such hits - Heavy Intercessor and Tau Stealth Suit are practically stab-proof and would require either genestealer claws or a chainsword to rip apart.
I'd say hopefully there's some "bespoke" rule for such units on their sheets to account for this, but with GW bungling so much of this already, it'll probably amount to like one free cancellation per round.
Glass Half Dead seems to have been more or less on the money so far, no real surprises with CC as described here considering they already said the armour save wouldn't factor. It raises some questions about how a terminator would fare vs an assault terminator but I think the hypothetical scenario would be they'd get the same number of attacks with one having better melee weapons, obviously.
Of course that's presuming termies will even be invited.
Amusingly, the guardsman vet is, apples to apples, more safe fighting against itself in melee than it is at range, as it rolls the same number of defensive dice but can 'save' on a 4+ instead of 5+
chaos0xomega wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of that, like at the very least armor should have provided some sort of a bonus to any die that is used to parry/block a hit?
Astartes power armor and terminator armor are known for basically being fully encased - unless you aren't wearing a helmet there is almost no such thing as an "unprotected joint". This system basically gives a sharp stick the same probability of harming someone wearing a t-shirt as someone encased in adamantium. I get the concept is that your opponent is going to be aiming for exposed points, but surely it wouldn't have hurt to say power armor gives +1 bonus to parry dice or something? Even if a marine or terminator has an exposed joint or unhelmeted head to aim at, the presence of all the armor around it *still* makes it harder to hit that unprotected point beyond just what marine/terminator is doing to block you with their sword.
Despite this, power armour clearly has weak points. The knees, elbows, armpits etc are all clearly exposed spaces between the armour plates with a relatively soft material layer underneath, and while it can be described as 'relatively strong' compared to say, clothing, it clearly isn't as strong as the ultra-thick shoulder pauldron or bellbottom boot. In fact, a failed armour save against a weapon with relatively low AP like a lasgun or shotgun only really works if its considered an abstraction of hitting the armour in its soft places, and marine on marine combat in other material backs this up.
Crimson wrote: I'm sorry, armour does nothing in close combat? Yeah, I'm out; too stupid to handle.
It will be represented in wounds. I would even wager that terminators will have an increased capacity to ignore criticals or some other protective effect.
Crimson wrote: I'm sorry, armour does nothing in close combat? Yeah, I'm out; too stupid to handle.
It will be represented in wounds. I would even wager that terminators will have an increased capacity to ignore criticals or some other protective effect.
Looking through the website, no faction is bringing Terminators to the fight at this time(not even Loyalist Marines with their 10 unit options), so we can stop speculating on them.
The melee phase in this seems to have a similar design philosophy to shadow war armageddon's and while I loved that system, the melee phase WAS hot garbage. This looks better than that, but we'll see.
Honestly, if the fluff of "power armor is the bestest, most impenetrable thing that ever existed!" doesn't translate completely to melee combat, where bayonets can find gaps in the armor if the Marine doesn't parry... that's a price I can pay if it means that paper-armored melee combatants can be vulnerable to shooting but scary in melee without just automatically invalidating armor or always swinging first.
Given that part of the point of Power Armored forces like Space Marines is that the armor makes even line troops formidable in melee, what's likely to shake out is that their ability to parry will be "as good as" their armor would have been anyways. So I don't think this means that Space Marines will suddenly be dying to Guardsmen with Bayonets left and right.
Pausing at 49:51 on the stream, I see that Chainswords are 4A WS3+ D3/4, with "Balanced". Even without knowing what Balanced is, it's going to get 2.66 successes per swing, where Bayonets will get 1.5. So they can block all incoming damage and do 3-4 back, on average.
Throw in the wound differential, and the Space Marine is laughing at Bayonets, even if we explain the occasional Bayonet hit with "it hit the elbow joint, you know, where you can see the black 'flexible joint' that may fully enclose it for a vacuum seal, but is NOT ceramite".
I was hoping that they'd be doing interesting things with the shape paradigm, such as
Big, less agile but still fast models, such as say Ogryn or Tyranid Warriors(?) that can build up momentum but don't hand obstacles well, have larger shapes for movement but less increments.
Small, agile models would have smaller shapes but more increments.
Terrain would reduce movement by entire increments, rather than set shape.
So harlequins would be 4 Circles, and terrain would impede movement only slightly as they gracefully hop over it.
Ogryn would be 3... squares? I think that's the 3" move. So their long legs would give them a large stride but if they hit terrain they struggle to get over it/have to bash through it, taking away from their momentum/overall speed.
It seems like most units are going to be 2-3 Circle, and all units are going to use Circle movement, and that's sort of a disappointing use of the design space they opened up with shapes.
Rihgu wrote: It seems like most units are going to be 2-3 Circle, and all units are going to use Circle movement, and that's sort of a disappointing use of the design space they opened up with shapes.
I think we need to wait to see how anomalously fast units (lictors, for example) get expressed in this system to be absolutely sure but I generally agree, it would have been interesting for something that has a few numbers of big-movement shapes get tangled up trying to deal with a ladder - but we might still see it.
Yeah, it seems like they have a lot of pointless stuff they don't end up making much use of. Almost everyone will have 3 circle movement. Almost everyone will have 2 action points. Why even have a stat for it? And the range of possible stats for movement or action points appears to be 2-3. That's even worse than being limited to a stat being between 2+ and 6+.
Despite this, power armour clearly has weak points. The knees, elbows, armpits etc are all clearly exposed spaces between the armour plates with a relatively soft material layer underneath, and while it can be described as 'relatively strong' compared to say, clothing, it clearly isn't as strong as the ultra-thick shoulder pauldron or bellbottom boot. In fact, a failed armour save against a weapon with relatively low AP like a lasgun or shotgun only really works if its considered an abstraction of hitting the armour in its soft places, and marine on marine combat in other material backs this up.
Right, the problem is that this system basically says that hitting the weak points on a guy wearing a full suit of power armor is as easy as hitting the weak points on a guy who isn't wearing any armor at all. Having an armor buff doesn't mean that you don't have any weak points, it means that those weak points are much better protected and much harder to get to then the weak points on someone who is wearing considerably less or absolutely no armor.
Kaffis wrote: what's likely to shake out is that their ability to parry will be "as good as" their armor would have been anyways.
How?
Parrying is simply a function of making to-hit rolls with your weapon. The to-hit roll you need to make is based on your weapon. Weapons seem to be standardized across the board, I.E. a power weapon is a power weapon, regardless of whether its being wielded by a guardsman or an astartes.
Put in another way, the ability of a well armored operative to parry with a weapon will be identical to that of a completely unarmored operative.
Albino Squirrel wrote:Yeah, it seems like they have a lot of pointless stuff they don't end up making much use of. Almost everyone will have 3 circle movement. Almost everyone will have 2 action points. Why even have a stat for it? And the range of possible stats for movement or action points appears to be 2-3. That's even worse than being limited to a stat being between 2+ and 6+.
In all cases 'almost' doesn't mean 'all' and factions that will have more action points or movement as their gimmick (again, nids...) will be grateful to have it in the core rule and not some paragraph long special rule they have to explain to people at the table.
We're certain to have enough of those already.
Gimgamgoo wrote:Is it just my slow old tablet showing things wrong on the new 'best ever Kill Team' website...
The Forge World (Admech) team shows the pic of a Vanguard labelled a Ranger, then shows a Marshall for a Vanguard.
Nah the reddit has been having fun with that mistake for a couple of days now.
Kaffis wrote: what's likely to shake out is that their ability to parry will be "as good as" their armor would have been anyways.
How?
Parrying is simply a function of making to-hit rolls with your weapon. The to-hit roll you need to make is based on your weapon. Weapons seem to be standardized across the board, I.E. a power weapon is a power weapon, regardless of whether its being wielded by a guardsman or an astartes.
Put in another way, the ability of a well armored operative to parry with a weapon will be identical to that of a completely unarmored operative.
I'm making the prediction that if a Chainsword is 4A BS3+ (with balanced, whatever that means), my guess is that the Space Marine's armor vs. ranged attacks is probably 4Df Sv3+, yielding the same dice roll anyways.
chaos0xomega wrote: Right, the problem is that this system basically says that hitting the weak points on a guy wearing a full suit of power armor is as easy as hitting the weak points on a guy who isn't wearing any armor at all. Having an armor buff doesn't mean that you don't have any weak points, it means that those weak points are much better protected and much harder to get to then the weak points on someone who is wearing considerably less or absolutely no armor.
Except they're not representing each person clubbing at each other in a vaccum, a save made by a 'parry' by a guardsman is as much about jumping out of the way as it is about actually deflecting it with a weapon, likewise a marine would be about deflecting it into a plate on a good angle or an orc into a fleshy bits he ain't so 'ard up about.
I think we may be taking conflicting things for granted though, what makes you think weapon profiles will be homogenized across units? I would think the fact that each unit has their attacks listed in their own card suggests the opposite. So a Battle Sister is going to be saving on a 3+ at ranged but probably won't have a weapon skill better than 4+ which lines up quite nicely with their method of interfacing with power armour not being as good as a marine's, who'd most surely be WS 3+ on a chainsword or combat knife.
Well, I didn't like how CC handling is presented here. They may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, its always risky redesigning something from the ground up.
I guess I'm in the minority here, but I always liked KT1 rules. Not sure I like these new ones as much, but of course I'll reserve final judgement until we have all the facts about the rules straight and out in the open.
Basically : each side roll their melee attack dice simultaneously and starting by the attacker, each alternate to determine which will be used to inflict damage or cancel a hit from the opponent (working like a save).
Interesting mechanic...and the attacker doesn't especially have the advantage, here. He'll have to be careful of the enemy counterattack and plan for it as well.
Interesting, I figured they might have tried to balance it by having the Defender have less chance of succeeding than the attacker. The problem I see is if you're attacking an opponent that is good in melee and you're not, well it's certain death for you.
Let's say I'm attacking with my trusty bayonet which is 3 attacks on a 4+. Let's say I'm attacking Mr. Space Marine and let's take a wild gues that they will have 5 attacks on a 3+. That's fairly good odds they will have greater successes than me which means they could parry all blows and deal damage. I suppose if the player was blood thirsty they could trade hits for hits but I don't see elite units wanting to take wounds unneccessarily.
I don't know if it's been confirmed that Critical Hits will work the same in Melee, but if they do that well in my opinion that will probably be enough to give the attacker an advantage even when fighting skilled melee enemies.
What I want to know, and I don't feel this article adequately explained, is exactly what stage parries 'cancel' the incoming damage.
Since we seem to be rolling dice one at a time it appears to matter, so does a parry cancel a damaging attack that came in already, or do I bank it to cancel a damaging attack that may come in later?
I thought all melee dice are thrown simultaneously, and both players see each others roll results?
Then the dice picking starts, with the attacker deciding the first pick. If he picks up a 6, the defender will need to use one of their 6s, if any to counter, spend two of their hit dices, or suffer the full damage of the attacker's crit
I'm actually super certain that armour will be indicated in an operative's HP stat. Fighting a Terminator with lightning claws? You'll need to sacrifice a bunch of bayonet models to even have a small chance of stopping one.
Close Combat specialists will become more or less impossible to beat by non CC specialists, unless they outnumber the specialist and dont even try to parry any damage to themselves. I suppose it'll result in "heroic" moments on the tabletop, where hordes eventually take out a lone combatant..
Crimson wrote: I'm sorry, armour does nothing in close combat? Yeah, I'm out; too stupid to handle.
The rules are abstractions. From what I've been able to gather, the armour stat is relevant specifically to shooting and interacts with the ranged attack rules to enable the likelihood of an attack being effective to be determined.
The armour stat is not used in close combat, becuase that has an entirely different mechanism to work out how likely a model is going to be affected by an attack.
The effectiveness of a models' armour is accounted for in a different way to represent the survivability in close combat.
Captain Joystick wrote: Since we seem to be rolling dice one at a time it appears to matter, so does a parry cancel a damaging attack that came in already, or do I bank it to cancel a damaging attack that may come in later?
You both roll all dice simultaneously then alternate deciding what to do with successes. The way it reads, it seems to say that Player A picks their first success to inflict damage, Player B then decides whether to let it through or use their first success to negate it.
tauist wrote: I thought all melee dice are thrown simultaneously, and both players see each others roll results?
Then the dice picking starts, with the attacker deciding the first pick. If he picks up a 6, the defender will need to use one of their 6s, if any to counter, spend two of their hit dices, or suffer the full damage of the attacker's crit
I'm actually super certain that armour will be indicated in an operative's HP stat. Fighting a Terminator with lightning claws? You'll need to sacrifice a bunch of bayonet models to even have a small chance of stopping one.
Close Combat specialists will become more or less impossible to beat by non CC specialists, unless they outnumber the specialist and dont even try to parry any damage to themselves. I suppose it'll result in "heroic" moments on the tabletop, where hordes eventually take out a lone combatant..
Ahhh, that makes a good deal of sense, thanks for explaining the one die at a time I didn't pick that up from the article. That does allow for some strategy on the attacker's part.
On the topic of hordes, I'm curious how melee will work if their is simultaneous actions for say multiple units / a squad. Would it be two guardsmen worth of bayonets against one chainsword for instance?
tauist wrote:I thought all melee dice are thrown simultaneously, and both players see each others roll results?
Then the dice picking starts, with the attacker deciding the first pick. If he picks up a 6, the defender will need to use one of their 6s, if any to counter, spend two of their hit dices, or suffer the full damage of the attacker's crit
Platuan4th wrote:
Captain Joystick wrote: Since we seem to be rolling dice one at a time it appears to matter, so does a parry cancel a damaging attack that came in already, or do I bank it to cancel a damaging attack that may come in later?
You both roll all dice simultaneously then alternate deciding what to do with successes. The way it reads, it seems to say that Player A picks their first success to inflict damage, Player B then decides whether to let it through or use their first success to negate it.
Captain Joystick wrote: What I want to know, and I don't feel this article adequately explained, is exactly what stage parries 'cancel' the incoming damage.
Since we seem to be rolling dice one at a time it appears to matter, so does a parry cancel a damaging attack that came in already, or do I bank it to cancel a damaging attack that may come in later?
tauist wrote: I thought all melee dice are thrown simultaneously, and both players see each others roll results?
Then the dice picking starts, with the attacker deciding the first pick. If he picks up a 6, the defender will need to use one of their 6s, if any to counter, spend two of their hit dices, or suffer the full damage of the attacker's crit
My read of the story today is that, like ranged attacking, both players roll their full dice pool, and then we resolve successes.
Where they differ, is that in ranged shooting, the defender resolves all their "successes" to cancel the attacker's hits before the hits resolve. (Mortal Wounds aside) In melee, both players throw their dice pool, and then the attacker resolves one of his dice -- either choosing to cancel one of his opponent's hits, or deal damage with that success. Then, the defender does the same, and on and on back and forth until all the successes are gone.
So in melee, if the attacker "picks up a 6" as tauist says, the defender does NOT get a chance to cancel it -- the defender gets that chance on their own resolution alternation. So the attacker always gets to see one of their successes go through uncanceled, if they want to make their first resolution do damage. (Doing so may risk getting damaged in return, though)
So far the symbols seem entirely redundant and could have been better served with numbers.
Movement seems to have plenty of space to just have 2/2/2 or 3/2/2 for slightly faster units. And even torrent I think would have been able to function with torrent 2 just fine.
Unless I have misread today’s movement, with movement such a important part of a skirmish game. It’s coming off like they looked at infinity and Xwing and kinda wanted both.
I think there still has to be something more to the symbols. I mean, if an obstacle slows a model down by 2", and getting injured slows down a model by 2", there is no point whatsoever in using the symbols. Torrent circle coulda easily been just "Area 2"".
Basically : each side roll their melee attack dice simultaneously and starting by the attacker, each alternate to determine which will be used to inflict damage or cancel a hit from the opponent (working like a save).
Interesting mechanic...and the attacker doesn't especially have the advantage, here. He'll have to be careful of the enemy counterattack and plan for it as well.
Interesting, I figured they might have tried to balance it by having the Defender have less chance of succeeding than the attacker. The problem I see is if you're attacking an opponent that is good in melee and you're not, well it's certain death for you.
But... isn't that what *should* happen?
tauist wrote: I think there still has to be something more to the symbols. I mean, if an obstacle slows a model down by 2", and getting injured slows down a model by 2", there is no point whatsoever in using the symbols. Torrent circle coulda easily been just "Area 2"".
There's something more they haven't told us..
I really don't think there is. The only missing piece seems to be how exactly the movement stat degrades with damage. As others have pointed out, if it works the way we think it works it means that the degrading effect is consistent regardless of peoples move stats (i.e. the impact on 2 different models with 2 different move stats will always be a 33% reduction in distance moved, rather than one model potentially suffering a 50% cut while the other only gets hit with 25%). But, uhh... if thats the only thing that the symbols really do they could have basically achieved the same result with a damage chart ala vehicles in 40k. Not quite as streamlined but he overhead is minimal. If you're implementing something like these shapes then the overhead that comes with the shapes needs to be LESS than the overhead that players would have to contend with if the shapes were not present. Right now, it seems like a wash, at best, and at worst the shapes are more of a burden than an asset.
Crimson wrote: I'm sorry, armour does nothing in close combat? Yeah, I'm out; too stupid to handle.
yep, same here. so a terminator armour that can protect against pretty much any gun in thegalxy is useless against the mighty power of the knife? I can't even believe that got pass out of studio
Crimson wrote: I'm sorry, armour does nothing in close combat? Yeah, I'm out; too stupid to handle.
yep, same here. so a terminator armour that can protect against pretty much any gun in thegalxy is useless against the mighty power of the knife? I van't even believe that got pass out of studio
Have we seen the terminator rules yet?
They might have 150 wounds each,or additional parry opportunities or something. Or they might be stupid and not worth taking
The Red Hobbit wrote: Sure but it makes for unfun gameplay if your opponent has a unit you simply can't hurt in Melee.
I think the Attacker Crits will solve that problem but we'll see.
What ever happened to shoot the choppy, and chop the shooty?
Ah but at some point we have super choppy with super armor who is hard to kill in either respect. I'm interested to see what the CC specialist gives, I wonder if it'll be a boost to Attacks but only on offense.
Flinty wrote: Ignoring the first x points of damage of each attack might work as well.
I don't disagree. But at this point, therems no evidence that this will be the case. They would have make a mention of it if it was the case
They've literally only talked in generalizations and in terms of the 2 squads in the box. There is no real "at this point" to judge other factions by.
these two factions have armours (at the very least DKoK does). So if armour was doing something in CC they would have mentionned it.
They even gave an argument for amour not doing anything in cc (an extremely stupid one imo), so it seems pretty evident that it will be the case. Sure, we can cling to the hope that we only have a partial view of the rules, and that the full one will be ''better'' or/and more complete, but this kind of hope pretty much always ends up to be false when it comes to GW
I'm okay with the Risk style combat resolution, sounds slow but at least has choices and represents simultaneous strikes and parries.
I agree that they went too far with the streamlining if stabbing a Terminator is exactly as easy as stabbing a grot.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So the expectation is then that MEQs and better will either be stupidly easy to stab to death with a butter knife, or have a bazillion wounds to compensate and be impossible to affect at range when power armour does its job.
Not so much into Orks nor the orky terrain, although I'd imagine I could de-orkify it with some sawing & cutting. But my backlog already has the Mekboy workshop to de-orkify (to make it fit better with the STC ruins kit I've got) so dunno when I'd get around to it hehehe
I'm thinking of doing the same thing. They'd probably make good generic "ramshackle ruins" for themed Necromunda boards or whatever.
I also de-orkified the mekshop! Pro-tip: try to find a way to lower the "workbench" detail, if you have the time and inclination. I skipped out on doing that, but now it's at shoulder/head height for most human minis and annoys me every time someone stands next to it.
streetsamurai wrote: these two factions have armours (at the very least DKoK does). So if armour was doing something in CC they would have mentionned it.
They even gave an argument for amour not doing anything in cc (an extremely stupid one imo).
Flinty wrote: Ignoring the first x points of damage of each attack might work as well.
I don't disagree. But at this point, therems no evidence that this will be the case. They would have make a mention of it if it was the case
They've literally only talked in generalizations and in terms of the 2 squads in the box. There is no real "at this point" to judge other factions by.
these two factions have armours (at the very least DKoK does). So if armour was doing something in CC they would have mentionned it.
They even gave an argument for amour not doing anything in cc (an extremely stupid one imo), so it seems pretty evident that it will be the case. Sure, we can cling to the hope that we only have a partial view of the rules, and that
the full one will be ''better'' or/and more complete, but this kind of hope pretty much always ends up to be false when it comes to GW
All fair points... I live in hope though that the newly found potential for crunchiness of this new rule set will finally give Terminators the level of survivability they have always deserved
Basically : each side roll their melee attack dice simultaneously and starting by the attacker, each alternate to determine which will be used to inflict damage or cancel a hit from the opponent (working like a save).
Interesting mechanic...and the attacker doesn't especially have the advantage, here. He'll have to be careful of the enemy counterattack and plan for it as well.
Interesting, I figured they might have tried to balance it by having the Defender have less chance of succeeding than the attacker. The problem I see is if you're attacking an opponent that is good in melee and you're not, well it's certain death for you.
But... isn't that what *should* happen?
tauist wrote: I think there still has to be something more to the symbols. I mean, if an obstacle slows a model down by 2", and getting injured slows down a model by 2", there is no point whatsoever in using the symbols. Torrent circle coulda easily been just "Area 2"".
There's something more they haven't told us..
I really don't think there is. The only missing piece seems to be how exactly the movement stat degrades with damage. As others have pointed out, if it works the way we think it works it means that the degrading effect is consistent regardless of peoples move stats (i.e. the impact on 2 different models with 2 different move stats will always be a 33% reduction in distance moved, rather than one model potentially suffering a 50% cut while the other only gets hit with 25%). But, uhh... if thats the only thing that the symbols really do they could have basically achieved the same result with a damage chart ala vehicles in 40k. Not quite as streamlined but he overhead is minimal. If you're implementing something like these shapes then the overhead that comes with the shapes needs to be LESS than the overhead that players would have to contend with if the shapes were not present. Right now, it seems like a wash, at best, and at worst the shapes are more of a burden than an asset.
Umm but wasn't it already revealed that all models in the game will just have a various number of circles as their M stat? If that's the case, the finer nuances of percentages goes out the window, its just cumulative +2"/-2" modifiers to all ranges.. and if this is the case, they coulda just used regular inch values.
However, its possible that whoever wrote the WC article is clueless about the things we will be introduced to in the Compendium.. wouldn't be the first time.
lord_blackfang wrote: I'm okay with the Risk style combat resolution, sounds slow but at least has choices and represents simultaneous strikes and parries.
I agree that they went too far with the streamlining if stabbing a Terminator is exactly as easy as stabbing a grot.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So the expectation is then that MEQs and better will either be stupidly easy to stab to death with a butter knife, or have a bazillion wounds to compensate and be impossible to affect at range when power armour does its job.
Those models will still possess a defense stat which will likely be more efficient at blocking hits than a grot.
Sooo, I was 200% right, the CC system IS comically stupid, doesn't make any sense, and ruins the game for every single model that dares to take better armor than nothing. I hope Terminators cost the same as Scouts, ditto with Tempestus and Conscripts
And I especially like beyond idiotic quip about 'not wearing a helmet'. All my models do. Can I double the number of defence dice then?
No. What should happen is that naked berserker attacking armored warrior has a big chance of losing. That's how say Roman legionnaires owned Gaul and Britannic berserkers despite them being stronger, bigger, and using longer weapons. Or knights were trampling 10x their numbers in light infantry. Because flailing at enemy you can't hurt does nothing. Not in this comically stupid system though, you can be naked but your weapons phase through enemy shields and plates like nothing. Why take storm shield, better take potato peeler in off hand so you can make more attack rolls because then your opponent will run out of dice and you can stab his Terminator model to death with butter knife
I especially like that dumb power sword profile. All you need is two salad forks and you can stab him to death because you roll more dice so you can easily parry attacks you shouldn't be able to affect at all and just dump extra dice into stabbing that Daemon Price dead
Also, just look at factions, at all the helmetless necrons and demons covered in all these gaps-- Wait, what do you mean their whole body is 'armour' and this comically stupid nonsense of a mechanic makes even less sense with them?
Flinty wrote: They might have 150 wounds each,or additional parry opportunities or something.
These would be just bandaids on beyond idiotic system. Let's say I stun terminator and really try to stab a gap in the armour - he is suddenly parrying me without moving? Or twice as durable as any other SM despite being attacked in vulnerable spot? Why not just give them them the number of wounds/parries every other veteran SM has, just with chance of saving them? They already have armour save on the sheet, just use it!
streetsamurai wrote: these two factions have armours (at the very least DKoK does). So if armour was doing something in CC they would have mentionned it.
They even gave an argument for amour not doing anything in cc (an extremely stupid one imo).
Flinty wrote: Ignoring the first x points of damage of each attack might work as well.
I don't disagree. But at this point, therems no evidence that this will be the case. They would have make a mention of it if it was the case
They've literally only talked in generalizations and in terms of the 2 squads in the box. There is no real "at this point" to judge other factions by.
these two factions have armours (at the very least DKoK does). So if armour was doing something in CC they would have mentionned it.
They even gave an argument for amour not doing anything in cc (an extremely stupid one imo), so it seems pretty evident that it will be the case. Sure, we can cling to the hope that we only have a partial view of the rules, and that the full one will be ''better'' or/and more complete, but this kind of hope pretty much always ends up to be false when it comes to GW
You're missing the entire point, which was wrapping around to what you were quoting: that Marines and other power armor and above models may have rules that ignore or affect the very general statement of "armor doesn't work in melee"(which is very much hinting at the actual characteristic of AV not being the melee defensive stat). As stated, there is no "at this point" regarding those factions or models because they have only talked about the models in the box.
This isn't a "wait and see approach" statement, this is a "they've literally only talked about 2 out of X factions, we can't definitely say" statement.
I suppose in a game that has saves that can save critical wounds that cant't be saved by critical saves that can save critical wounds, it wouldn't be beyond the unimaginable to have armour that works when armour does not work, and probably a weapon that negates the armour that works when armour does not work.
I'm kind of glad. I was worrying this edition would be great, and it still might be, but now I know I can stick to infinity and use the models here, as the game is going down a path I am not a fan of.
lord_blackfang wrote: I suppose in a game that has saves that can save critical wounds that cant't be saved by critical saves that can save critical wounds, it wouldn't be beyond the unimaginable to have armour that works when armour does not work, and probably a weapon that negates the armour that works when armour does not work.
God this edition is shaping up to be such a disaster
The Armour stats are specifically designed to work against shooting. The close combat mechanic is entirely different and I imagine that the number of combat dice you roll and the number of wounds the model has will take into account the survivability of the model in question, including armour effects. Making a specific dice roll to represent an armour save is only one way of factoring in the effects of armour to determine if a model becomes combat ineffective in any given turn, against any given opponents.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Re the point about a stunned terminator, yes you could easily give something with heavy armour additional parry bonuses to represent the armour stopping the incoming attacks. It’s all just abstracted mechanisms to model ultimately whether a model continues to fight or does not continue to fight.
lord_blackfang wrote: I suppose in a game that has saves that can save critical wounds that cant't be saved by critical saves that can save critical wounds, it wouldn't be beyond the unimaginable to have armour that works when armour does not work, and probably a weapon that negates the armour that works when armour does not work.
God this edition is shaping up to be such a disaster
Its amazing how quickly I went from "Oh gak, this looks like it might be incredible" to "meh, it might be okay".
Umm but wasn't it already revealed that all models in the game will just have a various number of circles as their M stat? If that's the case, the finer nuances of percentages goes out the window, its just cumulative +2"/-2" modifiers to all ranges.. and if this is the case, they coulda just used regular inch values.
However, its possible that whoever wrote the WC article is clueless about the things we will be introduced to in the Compendium.. wouldn't be the first time.
Nope. Todays article said most models have squares or circles for movement (which implies that some may use triangles or pentagons), so really its going to be a cumulative +/- 2 or +/- 3 in most cases. This is a case where an idea (i.e. ensuring both suffer a consistent 33% penalty or whatever) sounds good in theory, but in practice I'm not sure it really matters all that much.
As regards the opposed melee rules, it looks like an attempt to keep both players engaged with the game, but I'm not sure how well it will work in practice. The samurai minis game Ronin: Skirmish Wargames in the Age of the Samurai (2013) did something similar, but with players choosing to use a figure's bonus dice either as offense or defense before the Attacker rolls to hit. In practice, we found it made the game take longer as we had to select different color tokens secretly, then reveal them simultaneously. With the new KT melee rules, it should not take as long since both sides have seen how the dice fell, but my prior experience makes me wary.
I'm going to have to read the complete rules for myself. However, I also don't want to waste money on a train wreck of a game, not with GW prices. Since the old KT Core was $40 US, the new one will be more expensive, say $50. Ronin may be unplayable, but only set me back $12.55 US in 2013.
lord_blackfang wrote: I suppose in a game that has saves that can save critical wounds that cant't be saved by critical saves that can save critical wounds, it wouldn't be beyond the unimaginable to have armour that works when armour does not work, and probably a weapon that negates the armour that works when armour does not work.
God this edition is shaping up to be such a disaster
Its amazing how quickly I went from "Oh gak, this looks like it might be incredible" to "meh, it might be okay".
Umm but wasn't it already revealed that all models in the game will just have a various number of circles as their M stat? If that's the case, the finer nuances of percentages goes out the window, its just cumulative +2"/-2" modifiers to all ranges.. and if this is the case, they coulda just used regular inch values.
However, its possible that whoever wrote the WC article is clueless about the things we will be introduced to in the Compendium.. wouldn't be the first time.
Nope. Todays article said most models have squares or circles for movement (which implies that some may use triangles or pentagons), so really its going to be a cumulative +/- 2 or +/- 3 in most cases. This is a case where an idea (i.e. ensuring both suffer a consistent 33% penalty or whatever) sounds good in theory, but in practice I'm not sure it really matters all that much.
Ahh ok, thanks for setting me straight squire. If other shapes are involved in other datasheets, there is still some merit to them. But can't help thinking the shape mechanic coulda been used to a much greater effect, via some "advanced rules" perhaps, where each multiple of a gauge could have triggered a reaction etc
Now I just want to see the compendium datasheets..
All fair points... I live in hope though that the newly found potential for crunchiness of this new rule set will finally give Terminators the level of survivability they have always deserved
Maybe they'll let Termies make their save on 2D6....
All fair points... I live in hope though that the newly found potential for crunchiness of this new rule set will finally give Terminators the level of survivability they have always deserved
Maybe they'll let Termies make their save on 2D6....
This is the single most out of touch with the game machanics post in this thread.
All fair points... I live in hope though that the newly found potential for crunchiness of this new rule set will finally give Terminators the level of survivability they have always deserved
Maybe they'll let Termies make their save on 2D6....
This is the single most out of touch with the game machanics post in this thread.
Flinty wrote: The Armour stats are specifically designed to work against shooting. The close combat mechanic is entirely different and I imagine that the number of combat dice you roll and the number of wounds the model has will take into account the survivability of the model in question, including armour effects. Making a specific dice roll to represent an armour save is only one way of factoring in the effects of armour to determine if a model becomes combat ineffective in any given turn, against any given opponents.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Re the point about a stunned terminator, yes you could easily give something with heavy armour additional parry bonuses to represent the armour stopping the incoming attacks. It’s all just abstracted mechanisms to model ultimately whether a model continues to fight or does not continue to fight.
abstraction still should feel to fit the setting. Armoured units are a huge part of the settings theme, so having armor for shooting and not in CC is a bit odd. I wonder if they tested it and found it made units like space marines all too resilient. Well I suspect that’s the reason.
Maybe a AP system on CC was a better fit for feel, but with the table being so small once marines where in combat they would be far to hard to hurt under the current system.
But I feel with GW only focused on two teams, they kicked themselves down as we really need to see how they interact with more specific things. Like deamons and marines to really understand.
A bespoke rules Approach is just not a good way to handle these sort of interactions.
Would it have been bad to at least put the ork weapons down so we can see, assuming they are slightly more cc focussed.
It’s coming back why I never read warhammer community articles.
Edits after reading better
I've been looking a bit more at recent discussions regarding the no armor saves in combat, and there's two main defenses. One is that your attacks are now your armor saves, which I heavily dislike. Knights wore armor so they could take hits and not die, and a weapon to kill. Not a weapon to act as armor, though blocking was important.
The other defense, and the one that will make or break me buying the starter set, is that armor in close combat is represented by wounds. If this is the case, I'm not playing at all.
Wounds affect close combat and ranged combat roughly equally, but you get armor saves in ranged combat. If wounds are armor in close combat, it neuters ranged, and it will be a shame. I was wondering why a lasgun took so many shots to kill a guardsman, and I hope my worries are unsubstantiated.
All fair points... I live in hope though that the newly found potential for crunchiness of this new rule set will finally give Terminators the level of survivability they have always deserved
Maybe they'll let Termies make their save on 2D6....
This is the single most out of touch with the game machanics post in this thread.
It was a jest and reference to how they worked long ago. Try not to take your games and toy soldiers too seriously.
Irbis wrote: Sooo, I was 200% right, the CC system IS comically stupid, doesn't make any sense, and ruins the game for every single model that dares to take better armor than nothing. I hope Terminators cost the same as Scouts, ditto with Tempestus and Conscripts
And I especially like beyond idiotic quip about 'not wearing a helmet'. All my models do. Can I double the number of defence dice then?
No. What should happen is that naked berserker attacking armored warrior has a big chance of losing. That's how say Roman legionnaires owned Gaul and Britannic berserkers despite them being stronger, bigger, and using longer weapons. Or knights were trampling 10x their numbers in light infantry. Because flailing at enemy you can't hurt does nothing. Not in this comically stupid system though, you can be naked but your weapons phase through enemy shields and plates like nothing. Why take storm shield, better take potato peeler in off hand so you can make more attack rolls because then your opponent will run out of dice and you can stab his Terminator model to death with butter knife
I especially like that dumb power sword profile. All you need is two salad forks and you can stab him to death because you roll more dice so you can easily parry attacks you shouldn't be able to affect at all and just dump extra dice into stabbing that Daemon Price dead
Also, just look at factions, at all the helmetless necrons and demons covered in all these gaps-- Wait, what do you mean their whole body is 'armour' and this comically stupid nonsense of a mechanic makes even less sense with them?
Flinty wrote: They might have 150 wounds each,or additional parry opportunities or something.
These would be just bandaids on beyond idiotic system. Let's say I stun terminator and really try to stab a gap in the armour - he is suddenly parrying me without moving? Or twice as durable as any other SM despite being attacked in vulnerable spot? Why not just give them them the number of wounds/parries every other veteran SM has, just with chance of saving them? They already have armour save on the sheet, just use it!
You seem to know a lot more about the rules than has been published so far. Do you work in the GW design team, by chance?
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I've been looking a bit more at recent discussions regarding the no armor saves in combat, and there's two main defenses. One is that your attacks are now your armor saves, which I heavily dislike. Knights wore armor so they could take hits and not die, and a weapon to kill. Not a weapon to act as armor, though blocking was important.
The other defense, and the one that will make or break me buying the starter set, is that armor in close combat is represented by wounds. If this is the case, I'm not playing at all.
Wounds affect close combat and ranged combat roughly equally, but you get armor saves in ranged combat. If wounds are armor in close combat, it neuters ranged, and it will be a shame. I was wondering why a lasgun took so many shots to kill a guardsman, and I hope my worries are unsubstantiated.
Its all an abstraction, nothing really has to directly reflect these concepts. Everything gets mixed up into the melting pot of the mechanics and the end result either feels fitting or it doesn't.
I would say it looks more like shooting is at a normal level and they were finding that the mechanism of being able to block hits was leaving melee combat too weak in comparison and they needed to fix that somehow.
Generally you want melee to be more deadly because you have to account for the fact that you have to cover ground to get there and you are leaving yourself vulnerable too.
There were other options to do this other than just remove the armour saves, but we won't know if they've succeeded in making everything *feel* right until we see the various profiles.
They can easy enough ad extra dice for armour and skill, but even a extra two dice is a huge bump in defence for CC.
The system needs a gang up mechanic of some kind as well or under what we know and can be reasonable about assuming would make units way more durable than I think is expected.
We really should have got a these are some profiles to see how they will work out. So we can at least discuss what we know based on info like what they intend a space marine to be.
The funniest part of this “conversation” was most people originally thought that close combat was just going to be the same as shooting, but instead you actually defend by attacking and most models have a better WS than armour save.
Vorian wrote: Its all an abstraction, nothing really has to directly reflect these concepts. Everything gets mixed up into the melting pot of the mechanics and the end result either feels fitting or it doesn't.
I would say it looks more like shooting is at a normal level and they were finding that the mechanism of being able to block hits was leaving melee combat too weak in comparison and they needed to fix that somehow.
Generally you want melee to be more deadly because you have to account for the fact that you have to cover ground to get there and you are leaving yourself vulnerable too.
There were other options to do this other than just remove the armour saves, but we won't know if they've succeeded in making everything *feel* right until we see the various profiles.
I don't know why people use terribad argument 'it's just an abstraction'. Abstractions are not inherently bad, but when one pees all over realism and feel of the setting, it's gak abstraction. Especially when big point of the setting is elite units being more durable - you really want scouts being identical to terminators?
The new system is garbage because it ruins all of the powerful, slow bricks, like meganob with klaw or terminator with fist. Either these now do bazillion attacks to be durable (and completely lose their feel, never mind fist will have comically low damage to compensate) or they can't hurt naked dude armed with two salad forks at all because he rolls more dice and just effortlessly parries said brick. Any bandaids (like fist being unparryiable) will just add complications and exceptions warping the system into a confusing mess.
This will also will be stupid buff for units that were always supposed to be glass cannons by making them indestructible in melee - imagine arco-flagellants and repentia losing their whole point and becoming best units in the game because they don't stupidly pay points for stat that is now useless (along with another stealth, comically stupid buff to DE and Harlequins making them doubly broken, especially that weapon adding a ton of extra attacks)
There is nothing stopping them putting a tough like roll on terminators and other war gear like shields.
This system is far more interesting for CC, Arco flagelent can have a all hits must be used as attacks USR.
Terminators can even have a they gain a free hit, that can only be used as a defence die and must be used first.
It’s why I said GW really kicking there own system without giving us some useful comparesson before. We need some units to see just what’s up.
The abstraction comes in the overall unit stats though. Power klaws should do lots of damage. You can represent in the rules either through lots of little bits of damage or a few big hits. Historically, klaws and fists have had big strength values but not a huge actual amount of damage, so I think you could spin either way to represent the ability of a Nob to slice up a target.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The system might end up being garbage, but we don’t know and I’m willing to wait and see.
Vorian wrote: Its all an abstraction, nothing really has to directly reflect these concepts. Everything gets mixed up into the melting pot of the mechanics and the end result either feels fitting or it doesn't.
I would say it looks more like shooting is at a normal level and they were finding that the mechanism of being able to block hits was leaving melee combat too weak in comparison and they needed to fix that somehow.
Generally you want melee to be more deadly because you have to account for the fact that you have to cover ground to get there and you are leaving yourself vulnerable too.
There were other options to do this other than just remove the armour saves, but we won't know if they've succeeded in making everything *feel* right until we see the various profiles.
I don't know why people use terribad argument 'it's just an abstraction'. Abstractions are not inherently bad, but when one pees all over realism and feel of the setting, it's gak abstraction. Especially when big point of the setting is elite units being more durable - you really want scouts being identical to terminators?
The new system is garbage because it ruins all of the powerful, slow bricks, like meganob with klaw or terminator with fist. Either these now do bazillion attacks to be durable (and completely lose their feel, never mind fist will have comically low damage to compensate) or they can't hurt naked dude armed with two salad forks at all because he rolls more dice and just effortlessly parries said brick. Any bandaids (like fist being unparryiable) will just add complications and exceptions warping the system into a confusing mess.
This will also will be stupid buff for units that were always supposed to be glass cannons by making them indestructible in melee - imagine arco-flagellants and repentia losing their whole point and becoming best units in the game because they don't stupidly pay points for stat that is now useless (along with another stealth, comically stupid buff to DE and Harlequins making them doubly broken, especially that weapon adding a ton of extra attacks)
I mean everything is an abstraction, so worrying about what's being represented by "wounds" or if there's an "armour roll" is a bit pointless because they are just abstract concepts trying to represent real life things.
Obviously you want tough things to feel tough, hth specialists to do well in hth etc - but judge things on the whole.
They could well have fouled it up royally, I just mean the lack of an armour roll doesn't automatically mean it is bad.