Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And with those silly cover rules, breachers will be getting +1 wound the majority of the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
We at Games Workshop realize that what players are looking for most in Kill Team is the satisfaction of putting their miniatures back into their case after a quick game. To that end, we have kept the amount of wounds the same as in Warhammer 40,000 and developed new devastating morale effects to help you finish off the remnants and get that pesky game over with!

Did you miss all the sections about to-Hit modifiers, of the encouragement of plenty of terrain, and the flesh wound system? Single wound models are 50+% MORE durable.

50% more durable, considering how quickly that single-wound model dies right now, in a game with an expected average model count per Kill Team of about 10, is not that impressive. It may still help (though the to-hit modifiers work both ways) but if the expected game length is 30-40 minutes, not nearly enough for my tastes. The article emphasizes the speed of play so much that it is reasonable to conclude that game length was a primary factor for the design team, above the quality of the experience.

Exactly how long did you want a game to take? I’m not sure what you’re complaining about here- that because a game doesn’t take several hours that it will be boring? Too simple?

An hour or so would have been nice. it isn't about whether the game is boring or not, or complexity. I merely prefer fewer, longer games, than many shorter ones. If I am going to do something I enjoy, I would rather spend quality time on it instead of treating it as something to finish.

Blastaar wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
We at Games Workshop realize that what players are looking for most in Kill Team is the satisfaction of putting their miniatures back into their case after a quick game. To that end, we have kept the amount of wounds the same as in Warhammer 40,000 and developed new devastating morale effects to help you finish off the remnants and get that pesky game over with!

Did you miss all the sections about to-Hit modifiers, of the encouragement of plenty of terrain, and the flesh wound system? Single wound models are 50+% MORE durable.

50% more durable, considering how quickly that single-wound model dies right now, in a game with an expected average model count per Kill Team of about 10, is not that impressive. It may still help (though the to-hit modifiers work both ways) but if the expected game length is 30-40 minutes, not nearly enough for my tastes. The article emphasizes the speed of play so much that it is reasonable to conclude that game length was a primary factor for the design team, above the quality of the experience.

Unless the quality of the game was tied to that shorter experience. In many cases, a shorter game is preferable to a long, drawn out one, where decisions have more weight and a mistake can cost the game.

If you don't like it being faster, that's your preference, I can't fault that. But I don't think that it being shorter was the primary concern - I feel that the devs felt it would be a higher quality experience if it was shorter and more fast paced.

Again, single wound models die so quickly because there's often more shooting at them. When there's only about 10 guys shooting at another 10 guys, and there's cover, and then all the negatives to hit, then the fact that nearly any model could feasibly take up to 3 flesh wounds before being killed (I got that impression), and less of the things like battle cannons and such - survivability won't be gone.

Chopstick wrote:I'm not talking about weapons, i'm talking about the wargear option that isn't a weapons. The main different between an equipement and a skill in the specialist tree is that you start with the same skill, you only get to choose when you level up. Wargear you pay a price to get it right away.

Sorry, no? You choose specialists in part of your list construction. Will they be as effective as later down the line? No, but you still get a "tier 1" specialist.

You will absolutely be able to have a Sniper who is more specialised than the mooks in the squad with him.

I'm not insisting that intercessor should get medicare kit, I was expecting GW being a little more creative with the options, not constrained by the 8th ed datasheet.
In case you still wondering how the Specialists skill tree look like

Spoiler:

I've seen it. However, specialists still get to start differently to other specialists, or regular mooks.

Also before there was a guy that want his dude be able to dual wield pistols, nope look like he can't

And I'd love to take a Chimera.
It's called balance. They've chosen to balance it around that. You could quite easily model two pistols and "count as".

Also, I thought you weren't talking about "wargear that isn't a weapons"?

Certainly you can represent the specialism with some extra gear on a model? Silencer for a sniper, etc. I'm definitely going to do that.

Blastaar wrote:
An hour or so would have been nice. it isn't about whether the game is boring or not, or complexity. I merely prefer fewer, longer games, than many shorter ones. If I am going to do something I enjoy, I would rather spend quality time on it instead of treating it as something to finish.

It would be relatively simple to increase the time of the game simply by increasing the number of models you play with and increasing the size of the playing field.

 Crimson wrote:
Certainly you can represent the specialism with some extra gear on a model? Silencer for a sniper, etc. I'm definitely going to do that.

Exactly. You don't need to buy some in-game item to make your guys looks awesome. In game, you can use the specialisms.

Bear in mind that Intercessors are probably the unit with the fewest options in 40K, so a preview of their datasheet doesn't tell you much about how the system will work for most choices. Also, there could easily be a miscellaneous equipment list that you can use for any model.

Blastaar wrote:
We at Games Workshop realize that what players are looking for most in Kill Team is the satisfaction of putting their miniatures back into their case after a quick game. To that end, we have kept the amount of wounds the same as in Warhammer 40,000 and developed new devastating morale effects to help you finish off the remnants and get that pesky game over with!

Did you not notice that in many cases it will just be a flesh wound?

I don't recall the Black Knight giving up so easily, perhaps you shouldn't either.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Exactly how long did you want a game to take? I’m not sure what you’re complaining about here- that because a game doesn’t take several hours that it will be boring? Too simple?

I think that's a reasonable assumption, detail is often the first thing sacrificed for speed. For this scale game though, for me personally, I think the sweet spot would be about an hour, hour and a half. If it runs under or over a bit that's fine, it's still enough time to get a couple of games in on a good night. At 30 to 40 minutes I can imagine there are going to be times where the gaming experience just won't feel substantial enough to be satisfactory.

I love how in their example of an obscured model the Skitarius' knee-cap is about the only thing in cover. Not the best example of cover there.

Really? I would think showing that such minimal cover is enough to be Obscured is a perfect example.

T'au Stealth suits.

Gotta agree with alextroy on that one. Will cut down on some arguments if you have an example like that handy. A rule like “If a model is within 1” of a terrain piece it is obscured” would be better tho.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Gotta agree with alextroy on that one. Will cut down on some arguments if you have an example like that handy. A rule like “If a model is within 1” of a terrain piece it is obscured” would be better tho.

Note really though because all models in a team might not get cover e.g. they have some cover in front of them but the ones in back of the team is more than 1" away. With just being obscured that's not an issue.

Based on the Intercessor datasheet it seems that stats and options are pretty much the same as in 40K, which should make houseruling additional units or factions easier.

No signs of needing to shoot at the closest model, cool, bit worried about Scions hitting on 4's outside of 9 inches, but hey, we shall see.

Personally I'm pretty happy with the 30-40 minute game length. That makes getting a game started and finished during lunch hour doable.

X078 wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Gotta agree with alextroy on that one. Will cut down on some arguments if you have an example like that handy. A rule like “If a model is within 1” of a terrain piece it is obscured” would be better tho.

Note really though because all models in a team might not get cover e.g. they have some cover in front of them but the ones in back of the team is more than 1" away. With just being obscured that's not an issue.

Yeah, I suppose including both might work? Would get awkward with a model in front of a building getting the benefit even if they’re not obscured at all so probably not.

 Aesthete wrote:
Personally I'm pretty happy with the 30-40 minute game length. That makes getting a game started and finished during lunch hour doable.

Agreed. This also means that you could play three or four games at a one-off gaming session and actually see the campaign aspects in motion.

Extremely happy about the game length. Being able to get a game in during my 45 minute lunch is great, as is being able to play 3 games in 2 hours or so.

We'll have to see how that affects the depth though - very valid concern.

I'm imagining that this is just using the standard matched play stipulations though, and should be easily modifiable by increasing points, model count etcetera.

 Zethnar wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Exactly how long did you want a game to take? I’m not sure what you’re complaining about here- that because a game doesn’t take several hours that it will be boring? Too simple?

I think that's a reasonable assumption, detail is often the first thing sacrificed for speed. For this scale game though, for me personally, I think the sweet spot would be about an hour, hour and a half. If it runs under or over a bit that's fine, it's still enough time to get a couple of games in on a good night. At 30 to 40 minutes I can imagine there are going to be times where the gaming experience just won't feel substantial enough to be satisfactory.

Precisely. Quality over quantity. Isn't a large part of the appeal of skirmish games the depth and granularity possible with so few models on the table? I just don't see the appeal of sacrificing depth for speed, or playing multiple games over fewer more satisfying ones. Who wants to be done having fun?

Has it been clarified whether it is three specialists per roster or three per active team?

Blastaar wrote:

 Zethnar wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Exactly how long did you want a game to take? I’m not sure what you’re complaining about here- that because a game doesn’t take several hours that it will be boring? Too simple?

I think that's a reasonable assumption, detail is often the first thing sacrificed for speed. For this scale game though, for me personally, I think the sweet spot would be about an hour, hour and a half. If it runs under or over a bit that's fine, it's still enough time to get a couple of games in on a good night. At 30 to 40 minutes I can imagine there are going to be times where the gaming experience just won't feel substantial enough to be satisfactory.

Precisely. Quality over quantity. Isn't a large part of the appeal of skirmish games the depth and granularity possible with so few models on the table? I just don't see the appeal of sacrificing depth for speed, or playing multiple games over fewer more satisfying ones. Who wants to be done having fun?

You don't see the appeal of being able to play a game in your lunch break? Or a few games (and seeing the effects of campaign progression) in an evening?

I do. It's what I was hoping for.

Blastaar wrote:

 Zethnar wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Exactly how long did you want a game to take? I’m not sure what you’re complaining about here- that because a game doesn’t take several hours that it will be boring? Too simple?

I think that's a reasonable assumption, detail is often the first thing sacrificed for speed. For this scale game though, for me personally, I think the sweet spot would be about an hour, hour and a half. If it runs under or over a bit that's fine, it's still enough time to get a couple of games in on a good night. At 30 to 40 minutes I can imagine there are going to be times where the gaming experience just won't feel substantial enough to be satisfactory.

Precisely. Quality over quantity. Isn't a large part of the appeal of skirmish games the depth and granularity possible with so few models on the table? I just don't see the appeal of sacrificing depth for speed, or playing multiple games over fewer more satisfying ones. Who wants to be done having fun?

Why not go for quick and deep?

 Crimson wrote:
Has it been clarified whether it is three specialists per roster or three per active team?

Really excited to see more about this. Currently, having my "Lord" as a level 3 demolitionist giving me a bonus trap when I trap terrain sounds amazing, and I can't wait to see what more are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That and my God, I hope I can take a medic. I have an amazing medic model and want desperately to use it in a world where it's possibly worth a damn.

Vorian wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Zethnar wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Exactly how long did you want a game to take? I’m not sure what you’re complaining about here- that because a game doesn’t take several hours that it will be boring? Too simple?

I think that's a reasonable assumption, detail is often the first thing sacrificed for speed. For this scale game though, for me personally, I think the sweet spot would be about an hour, hour and a half. If it runs under or over a bit that's fine, it's still enough time to get a couple of games in on a good night. At 30 to 40 minutes I can imagine there are going to be times where the gaming experience just won't feel substantial enough to be satisfactory.

Precisely. Quality over quantity. Isn't a large part of the appeal of skirmish games the depth and granularity possible with so few models on the table? I just don't see the appeal of sacrificing depth for speed, or playing multiple games over fewer more satisfying ones. Who wants to be done having fun?

Why not go for quick and deep?

I suppose you could. MTG games are typically best-of-three in about an hour, and it has depth. I still don't see the hurry, though. Take your time and enjoy the experience instead of worrying about getting it over with. There is also the hobby element. If I am going to put my time and effort into assembling, potentially converting, and painting up an army or kill team, I want more of a reward once they are in games.

Blastaar wrote:

Vorian wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Zethnar wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Exactly how long did you want a game to take? I’m not sure what you’re complaining about here- that because a game doesn’t take several hours that it will be boring? Too simple?

I think that's a reasonable assumption, detail is often the first thing sacrificed for speed. For this scale game though, for me personally, I think the sweet spot would be about an hour, hour and a half. If it runs under or over a bit that's fine, it's still enough time to get a couple of games in on a good night. At 30 to 40 minutes I can imagine there are going to be times where the gaming experience just won't feel substantial enough to be satisfactory.

Precisely. Quality over quantity. Isn't a large part of the appeal of skirmish games the depth and granularity possible with so few models on the table? I just don't see the appeal of sacrificing depth for speed, or playing multiple games over fewer more satisfying ones. Who wants to be done having fun?

Why not go for quick and deep?

I suppose you could. MTG games are typically best-of-three in about an hour, and it has depth. I still don't see the hurry, though. Take your time and enjoy the experience instead of worrying about getting it over with. There is also the hobby element. If I am going to put my time and effort into assembling, potentially converting, and painting up an army or kill team, I want more of a reward once they are in games.

3 one hour games are the same length as 1 three hour game? Your models will get the same exposure.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I love how in their example of an obscured model the Skitarius' knee-cap is about the only thing in cover. Not the best example of cover there.

More like his whole leg and 1/3 of his base. How is that a little? If he was able to crouch on the obscured part of his base, only his gun and half of his head would be visible...

 Bobthehero wrote:
No signs of needing to shoot at the closest model, cool, bit worried about Scions hitting on 4's outside of 9 inches, but hey, we shall see.

I wonder if rapid fire is still a thing. I just can't see it being still in the game given how drastic fire improvement it would be over arbitrary cutoff line.

I’m hopeful that each factions’ specialists have some sort of unique flare, like a Scion Medic slapping on an instant prosthetic, or some AdMech telling a guy “here is you’re new cyberdong.” And I hope there is some sort of in game effect to go with it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

Vorian wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Zethnar wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Exactly how long did you want a game to take? I’m not sure what you’re complaining about here- that because a game doesn’t take several hours that it will be boring? Too simple?

I think that's a reasonable assumption, detail is often the first thing sacrificed for speed. For this scale game though, for me personally, I think the sweet spot would be about an hour, hour and a half. If it runs under or over a bit that's fine, it's still enough time to get a couple of games in on a good night. At 30 to 40 minutes I can imagine there are going to be times where the gaming experience just won't feel substantial enough to be satisfactory.

Precisely. Quality over quantity. Isn't a large part of the appeal of skirmish games the depth and granularity possible with so few models on the table? I just don't see the appeal of sacrificing depth for speed, or playing multiple games over fewer more satisfying ones. Who wants to be done having fun?

Why not go for quick and deep?

I suppose you could. MTG games are typically best-of-three in about an hour, and it has depth. I still don't see the hurry, though. Take your time and enjoy the experience instead of worrying about getting it over with. There is also the hobby element. If I am going to put my time and effort into assembling, potentially converting, and painting up an army or kill team, I want more of a reward once they are in games.

3 one hour games are the same length as 1 three hour game? Your models will get the same exposure.

Sure, but that's still quantity over quality. Those three games are probably each less deep and satisfying than that one 3-hour game would be. It's like RPG sessions- yes, you could theoretically play 4 times a week for just a couple hours at a time, but it's always the all-nighter on the weekend where you accomplish the most and have the most fun with it.

Magic has depth despite being quick. But CCGs are a different format, and quite a different experience from a tabletop miniatures game. CCGs are much more abstracted, and have to be by the very nature of the genre. Heavily abstracted miniatures games, by contrast, lack depth and never seem quite "right." Why does a space marine become a better shot because the captain is six inches away? How does a Land Raider fire all of its guns from s single tread link? Why does every demoralized soldier flee? Miniatures games are at their best when they are intuitive, interactive, and the rules make sense and are highly immersive. To speed up the game these qualities must necessarily be sacrificed and ending sooner is not preferable to a better game. There are many games that can be played in 30-40 minutes, and are deep. But to my knowledge they are all CCGs or board games, both different genres and experiences.

Blastaar wrote:
Sure, but that's still quantity over quality.

Are they?

In your opinion, yeah, maybe. I won't take that from you. But I think it's worth saying that it's not always the case, and as some people say "quantity has a quality all of it's own".