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.

Take the MDF discussion somewhere else please, let's get back on topic. Or in lack of news, let the thread rest until actual news happens, thanks.

Cyel wrote:
You talk a lot about prices, MDFs, perceived rarity of models, their quality etc, but nobody mentions what is important - the rules and how KT24 plays.

How many of you actually play the game and what are your impressions?

Spoiler:

I am not too happy, tbh. KT21 was really good as far as I am concerned, and only required a couple of tweaks (Initiative, Tac Op balance) and these things are not fixed still. A lot of other things were introduced that I dislike - like non-counterable equipment, unnecessary granularity in ranges, terrible Tac Op balance and some pretty bad Crit Ops, removing binary effects with dice modifiers lessening the impact of positioning and increasing that of randomness. Team balance, allegedly adjusted with most meticulous precision in KT21, just thrown into a bucket and shaken vigorously.

A lot of changes for the worse with no real changes for the better, at most half-assed band-aids (like the extra CP for losing Initiative).


On a more subjective/personal note, I also am a bit lost with scoring this edition and feel I've lost my flow/mojo/whatever it is called. It reminds me of some point salad euro games where I hardly ever knew the consequences of my moves - is taking 2 stones now going to make me have more points than my opponent at the end of the game or is it taking 3 pigs? No idea!

The same now with invalidation of my favourite playstyle in any game - getting all my guys killed so that I win in the end () - I have problems with predicting when sacrificing an operative is actually worth it.

KT21 had a much clearer focus on scenario - sacrificing an operative for points was always worth it, and I loved it


The addition of scenarios where performing mission actions can actually backfire - like those when you build up points for the opponent to steal them - makes it even more of an obfuscated scoring reality I can't get my head around.

So, nobody does? Colour me not surprised The discussion about the material terrain is made of feels so relevant now XD

Quick start box - like terrain, love models, when I get my hands on it will be able to try the rules. Given how badly 10th ed for 40k is landing if its more of that stuff we will be playing other games.

Kill Team is very much NOT like big WH40K. I was refusing to accept it, having been disillusioned with how GW designs games for a decade now, but my friends kept nagging to make me try it...

Finally I agreed, with my expectations very low, and I tried KT21 and what do you know, my friends were right. It is very much a game unlike GW - low on randomness, with most time spent actually playing and not endlessly rolling dice, there are pretty cool choices to make all the time, positioning matters a lot, rules are clean and unambiguous. It is much more like a modern, well thought out, sleek board game, decision-heavy, quick with resolution, than the outdated, tedious, non-interactive pseudo-games that are main GW products.

So a surprise for me and I had to admit I'd had my expectations wrong with this one.

 Dysartes wrote:
"joke MDF sticker terrain" seems a bit harsh, unless you've already had your hands on it to evaluate the quality, Jake.

You're right, it may be; I'll walk it back a bit.

People spoke about ease of storage and use- those arguments do make sense. Also, the photo comparison of the old starter terrain revealed that it wasn't multi-level either, and that was one of my huge issues with the MDF.

I still think there could have been more variety- as others have mentioned, some MDF terrain kits are really intricate and diverse, and this is just fairly samey L-Shaped ruins. If other products begin to include MDF, maybe variety comes as new sets are released. Right now, this stuff doesn't fit with anything else GW makes... but that might not always be the case.

For me, the partial rules is the most serious drawback.

THIS

Right now, newcomers have a choice between Hivestorm and the starter. Between the two, the only logical choice is buying only the essentials(which includes the BRB), and half a box each of Primaris and Assault Intercessors.

This should not even be allowed to have a discussion.

Except you can't easily buy half a box. Or you might want to play Death Guard.

It makes sense to question the value of the starter but honestly I'm baffled by people suggesting it's actually better value to buy a £37.50 rulebook. That's by far the biggest rip off in the whole system. But each to their own I guess.

having the rules to play the game vs having the models to play the game, the rules are better value here
also because you can get models easily outside said boxes

51€+55€ for rulebook + 1 team VS 51€+87,5€ for rulebook and 2 teams VS 180€ for the big box
unless you want to play both specific Marine teams exclusive to the box, you are better of with any other team you like and the rules or the big box if you start together with someone else

outside of those people who really want the specific Marine models, no real reason to go for that box and as the "value" for playing Kill Team isn't there

It's two teams rather than one though. Your figures, 106EUR for one team and rulebook or 138.50EUR for two teams and rulebook. You won't get a second team for less than 32.50EUR anywhere else. Sure, if you have no interest in those teams then it's not great value to you, but again as a beginner unless it's aesthetics you're not going to know what teams you're interested in. An extra team is a different way of playing.

I'd agree the big box is better value overall though.

Regarding rules on these bundle sets I think GW keeps missing the Solo play train. I mean they introduced them now to the main rules ( I dont know how robust they are or if they are any good) BUT holy cow what a missed chance to hype Solo play games on a bundle with all the rules.

Coop and Solo play were the things most people were hyped about the new version as far as I have seen, and the one thing completely left behind
and I am still surprised that at least the solo play rules didn't make it into the Marine starter because that being aimed at collectors were the solo play would make it a perfect addition

deano2099 wrote:
It's two teams rather than one though.[...]but again as a beginner unless it's aesthetics you're not going to know what teams you're interested in. An extra team is a different way of playing.

were we are again what was already said pages ago, that Space Marines VS Space Marines isn't a good choice here as the difference is playing isn't really there and for that case Marines VS anything not Marines would be better

so as a beginner, who doesn't really know, get the rulebook and a team that appeals by the aesthetics or the advertised play style is still the better value over 2 similar teams were you would need to buy a third one of that playstyle isn't for you

 NAVARRO wrote:
Regarding rules on these bundle sets I think GW keeps missing the Solo play train. I mean they introduced them now to the main rules ( I dont know how robust they are or if they are any good) BUT holy cow what a missed chance to hype Solo play games on a bundle with all the rules.

The solo/coop rules are...bad. I mean they're fine but as someone who does a lot of co-op gaming, I'll not be bothering with them. It's a nice value add but nowhere near the level of an actual co-op game. As in, if you released it as a boxed game on its own with no competitive rules it'd get laughed out of the store.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

deano2099 wrote:
It's two teams rather than one though.[...]but again as a beginner unless it's aesthetics you're not going to know what teams you're interested in. An extra team is a different way of playing.

were we are again what was already said pages ago, that Space Marines VS Space Marines isn't a good choice here as the difference is playing isn't really there and for that case Marines VS anything not Marines would be better

so as a beginner, who doesn't really know, get the rulebook and a team that appeals by the aesthetics or the advertised play style is still the better value over 2 similar teams were you would need to buy a third one of that playstyle isn't for you

I mean you could be right but we literally don't have the full Death Guard team rules yet.

deano2099 wrote:
Except you can't easily buy half a box. Or you might want to play Death Guard.

It makes sense to question the value of the starter but honestly I'm baffled by people suggesting it's actually better value to buy a £37.50 rulebook. That's by far the biggest rip off in the whole system. But each to their own I guess.

If you can't afford Hivestorm, then the book is the best deal, because if you can't afford Hivestorm, buying the book is the only way to actually play the whole game.

Calling something a "starter" when it doesn't include a full book is something that shouldn't be allowed- it's akin to false advertising. I mean, if you want to call it a starter, then right on the front of the box, just under the title in big, bold, all caps, you should have to include the words "WARNING: THIS KIT DOES NOT INCLUDE FULL RULES" - it needs to be written large enough so that any parent buying it for their kids can't possibly miss it.

If the the thing you most want to do with the game is play solo/ co-op, then "free rules" don't exist and this MDF sticker terrain, half squad*, lite rule BS is the least value option.... And in fact it is a NO VALUE option because it will not allow you to do the thing that you most want to do.

And honestly, I'm baffled by people who can't see that.

*Yes, I know that those are technically "full teams," but in terms of value (ie. not rules, but material costs) an infantry model is an infantry model and the Blooded box has 12 models in a single KT. This joke of a box has, what, 12? 13? The fact that it's two teams allows two people to play instead of one, but it doesn't increase the dollar value of the box contents. Pricing a product based on its rules rather than its production cost is another anti-consumer business practice that goes far beyond just being a problem with this box.

So far it feels like they've done it for the wrong game as Necromunda: Hive Secundus was the perfect opportunity to delve into solo-coop. They've already proven the rules with the Ambot Hunt scenario and Secundus had the whole ALIENS thing going on, which is perfect for that style of play.

Otherwise, they should've released a new 40K Quest lined up to take over from Blackstone Fortress - pretty much the most acclaimed 40K game in recent years. Or even Space Hulk. Christmas is drawing closer and board games are the big thing at that time of the year.

I think where I struggle, and maybe where we keep seeing past each others point, is that we're constantly in this shifting place of what you need to start.

You can't start with just one team and the rulebook, you need two teams and the rulebook. That's what you need to play from scratch on your own.

And if the argument is "well what if you want to play against other people who already have teams" well then those same people... might also already have the rulebook. Or you can watch Learn to Play videos or playthroughs and learn the rules that way.

Obviously you need the rules for your team, but they're not in that book, they're free to download separately, or you can buy the cards.

And yeah if you want to just play solo/co-op - best option is to buy a good solo or co-op game instead of one with rules just tacked on.

(And it's 14 models, 7 for each team, same as you get in the Inquisitorial Agents box. Or the new Ork team seems to be 6 Orks and two Squigs, so I guess that box is awful too).

Pricing a product based on its rules rather than its production cost is another anti-consumer business practice that goes far beyond just being a problem with this box.

Yes, and by far the most egregious example of that is the £37.50 rulebook that we're arguing is good value!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Also just realised because the Starter Set minis are from the Heroes release, every single one comes on its own sprue, so in terms of production costs, it's going to be more expensive than the Blooded sprues. Even though it's fewer mins.)

I will just remind again, that the core rulebook from the Volkus set is sold for a much smaller price by all these people who sell parts of Volkus separately on online auctions.

SamusDrake wrote:


Otherwise, they should've released a new 40K Quest lined up to take over from Blackstone Fortress

Hell yes! I would so much rather have KT21 with all of its glorious spec ops rules for at least another year, and a glorious new 40k quest game. And they could have released solo and coop rules for KT21 via PDF or White Dwarf.

I mean, don't get me wrong- I'm happy to have actual measurements instead of shapes, but that's the only thing that was really wrong about KT21.

deano2099 wrote:
I think where I struggle, and maybe where we keep seeing past each others point, is that we're constantly in this shifting place of what you need to start.

You can't start with just one team and the rulebook, you need two teams and the rulebook. That's what you need to play from scratch on your own.

But what comes in this box ISN'T the rulebook. It's a thing that let's you play something like the game, but not the actual game. It could include 10 teams, and it still would not let you play the whole game. Seriously. It's not going to have all the tac-ops/ crit-ops. It's not going to have missions for the full game. This books ONLY value is that it walks somebody through tutorial sessions to introduce various rules over time, rather than playing the actual whole game from day one.

deano2099 wrote:

And if the argument is "well what if you want to play against other people who already have teams" well then those same people... might also already have the rulebook. Or you can watch Learn to Play videos or playthroughs and learn the rules that way.

Again, learn to play videos do not include the whole game. No video is going to give you the rules for ALL of the Tac-ops/ crit ops, nor will it give you a large enough selection of missions using full rules to keep you entertained.

What you need to play the whole game is the BRB, a team and an opponent OR if you want to play solo, a selection of models in addition to your team that can represent the NPO's (non-player operatives) used in that mode.

deano2099 wrote:

And yeah if you want to just play solo/co-op - best option is to buy a good solo or co-op game instead of one with rules just tacked on.

Games set in the 40k galaxy are the only miniature games that I'm interested in. No other company has the longevity and stability of GW, and no other games has such a variety of factions and models within each of those factions. Mediocre solo rules for the skirmish version of a game that includes 20+ factions and a model range that includes everything from grots to titans is better than THE BEST RULES IN THE WORLD for a game that includes 5-10 factions with nothin but samey infantry and maybe a vehicle or two per faction.

deano2099 wrote:

(And it's 14 models, 7 for each team, same as you get in the Inquisitorial Agents box. Or the new Ork team seems to be 6 Orks and two Squigs, so I guess that box is awful too).

Well thanks for clarifying- I knew there were 7 DG models, but I'm so disinterested in this box I couldn't be bothered to double check the number of Marines. And you're right, there are other teams with fewer than ten models, and if you're a player of those teams, they're fine. I'm not saying any team is "awful" - I'm saying that a team that includes 10 models has more objective, cost-based value than a team that includes fewer than 10. If both of the teams in this box had been 10 man teams, it's value might have been higher. They aren't, so it isn't.

deano2099 wrote:

Pricing a product based on its rules rather than its production cost is another anti-consumer business practice that goes far beyond just being a problem with this box.

Yes, and by far the most egregious example of that is the £37.50 rulebook that we're arguing is good value!

I'm not saying the book is great value- its price IS higher than I'd like too. I'm saying that the full KT24 game cannot be played without it, and that my friend is an objective truth, not an opinion. If you are content playing less that the full game, there are cheaper ways to do that, and if a partial version of the game is all you're interested, yes, from that point of view, you can argue those other options are better value than the book.

But if your purpose in making a purchase is to play the full KT24 game, it can't be done without the BRB, so any option that doesn't include it has NO value, because it doesn't allow you to do the thing you want to do. The minis and terrain could cost $5- and hell, that's great value. But it doesn't get you any closer to being able to play the full version of KT24. If you want to do that, you must have (or have access to) the BRB.

deano2099 wrote:

(Also just realised because the Starter Set minis are from the Heroes release, every single one comes on its own sprue, so in terms of production costs, it's going to be more expensive than the Blooded sprues. Even though it's fewer mins.)

This is fair.

 PenitentJake wrote:

deano2099 wrote:

And yeah if you want to just play solo/co-op - best option is to buy a good solo or co-op game instead of one with rules just tacked on.

Games set in the 40k galaxy are the only miniature games that I'm interested in. No other company has the longevity and stability of GW, and no other games has such a variety of factions and models within each of those factions. Mediocre solo rules for the skirmish version of a game that includes 20+ factions and a model range that includes everything from grots to titans is better than THE BEST RULES IN THE WORLD for a game that includes 5-10 factions with nothin but samey infantry and maybe a vehicle or two per faction.

I'm pretty sure he meant non-miniature-wargaming games. We live in the Golden Age of board games and if you only stick to GW games, I promise you, you have no idea how far game design has progressed in the last 10-15 years. It's like being a tabletop gaming Amish and not realising it. And that includes solo designs - from small, incredibly smart designs like Aeon's End or Paleo to mammoths the likes of Aeon Tresspass Odyssey or Oathsworn.

GW's automa for KT24 in comparison is, honestly, an equivalent of the Game of Goose. Literal stone age of automa designs.

Can't wait to lay my hands on new Undaunted:Callisto for solo play, btw! Although, I should first open my SAS:Rogue Regiment megabox...

So you guys telling that the new KT solo rules are mediocre?

Can someone explain how a company with the resources of GW cannot make this right?

None of those resources and time go into game design?

 NAVARRO wrote:
So you guys telling that the new KT solo rules are mediocre?

Can someone explain how a company with the resources of GW cannot make this right?

They are first and foremost a miniatures company and that is their primary concern. Game systems are supported only so far as they enhance sales of the miniatures.

 PenitentJake wrote:

Again, learn to play videos do not include the whole game. No video is going to give you the rules for ALL of the Tac-ops/ crit ops, nor will it give you a large enough selection of missions using full rules to keep you entertained.

What you need to play the whole game is the BRB, a team and an opponent

My point is only one of you needs that rulebook. You're saying you don't need a second team because you can assume your opponent has one. I'm saying in that case, may as well assume your opponent has the rulebook as well then. You don't need all the tac / crit ops to learn the game, just one of you needs it for setup (or you can get the card pack). Or you can assume you need half a rulebook each I guess, if we want to do this statistically.

I dunno, I come from the board gaming world, we regularly play games with four or five players and we don't all have a copy of the rulebook. One is fine. Especially when that rulebook costs more than most of those games I play! Wargaming is different in that you need the rules for your models, sure, and it's expected that every player brings the rules for their models. But the KT BRB doesn't have those rules in it. You need one for set-up and perhaps as a reference if you forget a rule. But you don't need one each. You just don't.

If you want to play at the kitchen table with friends who are not KT players then obviously you do. But you also need more than one team for that as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PenitentJake wrote:


Games set in the 40k galaxy are the only miniature games that I'm interested in. No other company has the longevity and stability of GW, and no other games has such a variety of factions and models within each of those factions. Mediocre solo rules for the skirmish version of a game that includes 20+ factions and a model range that includes everything from grots to titans is better than THE BEST RULES IN THE WORLD for a game that includes 5-10 factions with nothin but samey infantry and maybe a vehicle or two per faction.

If that's what you want, sure. But if you enjoy that sort of solo gameplay I'd encourage you to think about what you want, what in it you really enjoy, and I can probably recommend some board games that you'd absolutely love.

I mean I can give you mediocre solo rules for 40K if you want:

Just set up two sides and play them against each other.

Honestly the KT solo rules are not much better than that. They basically read like the sort of well-meaning board gamer who converts a game utterly unsuitable for solo play into a solo game. It's probably not a bad way to learn how a new team plays I guess, but... I was pretty excited for it when announced and then massively dissappointed. (And because they use generic profiles for the enemies, I don't expect it to get any better with future expansion)

 NAVARRO wrote:
So you guys telling that the new KT solo rules are mediocre?

Can someone explain how a company with the resources of GW cannot make this right?

It was a quick and cheap bolt-on, rather than something they focussed a lot of attention on? Possibly, one day we'll get a full solo expansion book that adds more to the bare-bones in the base book.

 NAVARRO wrote:
So you guys telling that the new KT solo rules are mediocre?

Can someone explain how a company with the resources of GW cannot make this right?

I don't know how they do it but GW have managed to leave a lot of money on the table when it comes to solo-gaming. Black Library could easily have it's very own "Fighting Fantasy" series of books, and Five Parsecs/Leagues and Rangers of Shadowdeep should have inspired them to do their own such games in the 40K and AOS settings. GW also had a great thing going with FFG with card games of Quest and Space Hulk, but for whatever reason they parted ways.

They should at least be doing a lot more with Warhammer Quest...

thing is GW just doesn't care about gaming or rules outside as vehicle to sell more models

specially as community works for free, so why should GW invest money to add something that the people can do for free to support them

 kodos wrote:
thing is GW just doesn't care about gaming or rules outside as vehicle to sell more models

specially as community works for free, so why should GW invest money to add something that the people can do for free to support them

I don't think that's 100% true, but yeah, GW makes it money selling models so it's rules writing tends to follow model sales. It has made stabs at building games from the ground up based on rules (underworlds), but they never took off. OTOH GW will sometimes create enormous amounts of rules for stuff that you know made almost no money, for example, Warcry 1st edition had tons of books with campaigns and all kinds of rules and basically nobody played it, lol.

I do think GW does still often operate on a "we make what we feel like" philosophy way more than people realize.

what we know from some of the designers, the best games GW makes are those were the designer doesn't do what GW asks for but their own stuff (like playtesting the game private at home to flesh things out) and certain addons or new rules often happen after the original designer left

and Underworlds did took off, just not in the wider "Warhammer" hobby because buying warbands to get a specific card to use on a different warband serves a very different target audience
same as Warcry 1st edition was well received, just that the usual handling of follow up released didn't go well with the original players

burn and churn isn't always working in GWs favour, specially with those niche games in a less known and/or liked setting
people just don't care enough about the AoS background to accept those things, while in 40k, people don't care about the game as long as it is in the 40k universe (as PenitentJake made clear above)

long story short, for AoS GW needs to make a good game because people care more about gaming than the setting, while for 40k it doesn't matter if the game is good or bad as people only care about the setting (and those people who want a good 40k game and see GW responsible in making one are usually turned away as haters or worse)

SamusDrake wrote:
Black Library could easily have it's very own "Fighting Fantasy" series of books

The Black Library did do a range of solo gamebooks - even got Jonathan Green to write them! - but I guess they didn't sell well enough to become a fixture.

I think now with AoS established it would be worth another shot.

Well, it sold out within an hour on the GW webstore.
Just think of all those brand new players to KT, just coincidentally doing their GW shopping in that 1 specific hour picking up the new starter. So many new players to KT incoming.


/sigh