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.

Q1:
There is a stratagem that ads 1 exstta shot, asuming you have more then 1 shot. You pay upfront. No problem with rapid fire weapons etc, just be i range. But the tyranid weapons with d3 or d6 shots, those are indeed odd. If i roll a 1, is the command point wasted? Or does it upgrade it to two shots?

It is the level 1 heavy syratagem.


Q2:
Also, how do rapid fire weapons handle rong range?

Asumig a 24 bolter, is long range 24, long range and rapid fire range 12, and rapid fire range no long range at 6?

Or do they loose all long range and gain the abilaty to rapid fire at 12?


Q3:
Scout specialist: level 1

Swift, passive abilaty : lets you re-roll advances for that model.

Quick marsh, stratagem: lets you re-roll advances.

Does this mean you can re-roll a re-roll?

Q4:
Also, not a rule question per say, but you can not move and charge with the same model? Does that not make melee a bit bad vs models kiting the melee units? Faling back and shooting seems good.

Melee only, like genstealers seems a bit bad then.

1: it says it doesn't affect weapons that would fire 1 shot. I'd say anything with a dice roll would be Roll+1. So a D6 shot gun could potentially fire 7 shots. Or just 2 if you're unlucky.

2:bolter is 24" range. If your target is over 12" away you're at long range, so - 1 to hit and firing one shot. Under 12" and you're firing 2 shots with no range modifier

3:i dunno. I can't recall a specific mention of it, but given how much is copy/paste from 8th I'd assume you're not meant to be able to re-roll a re-roll.

4: when moving, you can make a normal move, an advance move, or a charge move. Pick one. You can't move and then charge. So, yes, your charging genestealers may only move 2".

1: the weapon doesn't have 1 shot, it has a random number of shots. So you add 1 to that

2: both at 12". Firing two shots does not reduce the weapon range, so no -1 t hit at 6"-12"

3: no, it means the rulebok is extremely poorly written (I suspect it was released with too much haste, they didn't even bother to proofread it). Not the only incongruous thing in there. It is clearly stated you can't reroll a reroll except during roll-offs.

4: actually, I believe melee is heavily favored over shooting in KT...

 Niiai wrote:

Also, not a rule question per say, but you can not move and charge with the same model? Does that not make melee a bit bad vs models kiting the melee units?

The board isn't really large enough to fall back more than once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Teschio wrote:

3: no, it means the rulebok is extremely poorly written

Extremely? That's quite hyberbolic. Name 20 things objectively wrong with it if it's so extremely poorly written.

1. If you have 1 extra shot on a random rolled weapon, you get that random roll +1. So, d6+1, for example.

2. If you're past 12", you get 1 shot and it's -1 to hit for long range. If you're within 12" you get 2 shots and it doesn't get the -1 to hit. Bolters are much better within rapid fire range.

3. No, you can never re-roll a re-roll. It's just a poorly designed ability.

4. On such a small board it doesn't make a huge difference. You'll get that charge off eventually, and even if you fail the charge, you can still move up to the distance you rolled. This is the game and that's how it works. Despite this, there are people that think that melee armies are OP in this game.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Extremely? That's quite hyberbolic. Name 20 things objectively wrong with it if it's so extremely poorly written.

So, you need TWENTY things that are blatantly screaming of a rushed job with no proofreading to say it's poorly written? I'd argue it would only take one, if the mistake is so obvious that even a passing glance would have caught it. Like for example the Deahwatch equip cost table: there are several options there that have a cost, but CANNOT be taken as gear because they aren't listed in the datasheet! It's more than evident that the game designers took the cost table from the codex, pasted it here and changed the cost of the gear, without consulting with the people who wrote the datasheet and decided to remove some of the options from it.

Want another, just for good measure? The fact that a lvl 2 leader has 2 possible skills, which are IDENTICAL in effect except one applies to a 3" area, the other just to him (and the aura grants immunity to Panic unless the leader is shaken... which he can't be since he is immune Panic!)

Not to mention, the mistakes in versions in different languages... in the Italian version, there is a typo in the freaking title of the freaking cover! "Core Manual" should be "Manuale Base", and IN THE SPINE it's written "Manuale BaseL" (the capitalization is mine for clarity). Or some gear for GSC (the three "rock" things) tha have different names in the datasheet than in the cost table...

Now, one would argue, if these macroscopic mistakes were not caught, and therefore there blatantly was no review of the material before publishing, what hope can you have of balanced teams? None, and in fact I would say that the disparity between teams is higher than in 40k games. Some are godly, some are bad to the point of being unusable.

Sadly I must agree that this feel like a rushed job.
Much of the book is copy/pasted from 8th and the changes made doesnt all seem very well thought out.

The faction lists of units, gear and points are the worst though.
Why divide unit types into subtypes with names similar to specialities, its confusing...were not building Squads, were building A squad, we only need to know if its a guardsman or a scion.
If they had put some time into it they could have remade all unit selection lists to properly work with this game.

Im also sad to see the D10s not filling any real function in the game outside of narrative lists that no one will care about after the first time...come up with one more alternative and use 2d6 instead if that is all they are there for.

FWIW i also believe some of the preprinted cards have the point costs wrong.

IMO this is a rushed job wrapped in a very pretty cover, ill give it a few shots but fear it will not be what i had hoped for.

Teschio wrote:So, you need TWENTY things that are blatantly screaming of a rushed job with no proofreading to say it's poorly written? I'd argue it would only take one, if the mistake is so obvious that even a passing glance would have caught it.

I mean, there's a bit of a difference between a few mistakes, and being as poorly written as you seem to be advocating.

I won't lie that there's issues, but "extremely poorly written" is taking it too far, in my opinion. Hence why people are asking for you to back up your claims of it being "extremely" poorly written.

Like for example the Deahwatch equip cost table: there are several options there that have a cost, but CANNOT be taken as gear because they aren't listed in the datasheet! It's more than evident that the game designers took the cost table from the codex, pasted it here and changed the cost of the gear, without consulting with the people who wrote the datasheet and decided to remove some of the options from it.

Are these the bolt rifles, auto bolt rifles, stalker bolt rifles, heavy bolt pistols, bolt pistols and bolt carbines? If so, I'll tell you now that this point is quite misinformed.

All those weapons CAN be taken as gear in a Deathwatch list - by the Primaris units they can take. Deathwatch have access to Intercessors and Reivers, but to pay for the SIA, they add the points cost into the guns, not into the Space Marines themselves, like what they did with the Veterans.

It's more than evident that you didn't read the Deathwatch entry to figure this out.

Want another, just for good measure? The fact that a lvl 2 leader has 2 possible skills, which are IDENTICAL in effect except one applies to a 3" area, the other just to him (and the aura grants immunity to Panic unless the leader is shaken... which he can't be since he is immune Panic!)

There's still a difference, plus, they open up to different alternate options down the line.

With some common sense, it can be inferred that the "Inspiring" buff doesn't affect the Leader itself - this needs to be FAQd to be more clear, but they're still not "identical".

Not to mention, the mistakes in versions in different languages... in the Italian version, there is a typo in the freaking title of the freaking cover! "Core Manual" should be "Manuale Base", and IN THE SPINE it's written "Manuale BaseL" (the capitalization is mine for clarity). Or some gear for GSC (the three "rock" things) tha have different names in the datasheet than in the cost table...

Now yes, I'll concede to this (not that I've seen proof), but that's the first "mistake" I've seen. That's not enough to call it "extremely" poorly written.

Now, one would argue, if these macroscopic mistakes were not caught, and therefore there blatantly was no review of the material before publishing, what hope can you have of balanced teams? None, and in fact I would say that the disparity between teams is higher than in 40k games. Some are godly, some are bad to the point of being unusable.

Because a fault in the editing department means that the game testing teams are also at fault. Absolutely.

It's never been the case that the person who wrote the book has had little control over the editing and the publishing, and unforseen issues such as translation or misprints have occurred. Ever.

I don't know about your experience, but I personally find that Kill Team is far more balanced, and CERTAINLY more enjoyable to play. Of course, YMMV, but you can't pretend that your views aren't more than your opinion.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soulless wrote:
Why divide unit types into subtypes with names similar to specialities, its confusing...were not building Squads, were building A squad, we only need to know if its a guardsman or a scion.

For different Fireteams. You can have up to three different Fireteams in a Guard list. Whether that's a bug or feature, I don't know, but it does make a difference in the game.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Soulless wrote:
Why divide unit types into subtypes with names similar to specialities, its confusing...were not building Squads, were building A squad, we only need to know if its a guardsman or a scion.

For different Fireteams. You can have up to three different Fireteams in a Guard list. Whether that's a bug or feature, I don't know, but it does make a difference in the game.

Also for tweaking purposes - the Gunners, Fighters and the like can have their Max stat, points cost and the like changed independently, have the Specialisms they have access to changed individually, etcetera.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
All those weapons CAN be taken as gear in a Deathwatch list - by the Primaris units they can take. Deathwatch have access to Intercessors and Reivers, but to pay for the SIA, they add the points cost into the guns, not into the Space Marines themselves, like what they did with the Veterans.

You're right, I completely missed the Fortis Kill Team rule, I read only the datasheet and assumed Veterans were the only choice (not the only team that would have a single one). My bad.

With some common sense, it can be inferred that the "Inspiring" buff doesn't affect the Leader itself - this needs to be FAQd to be more clear, but they're still not "identical".

Sorry, no. "Common sense" has no place in a ruleset, because it's not universal and objective. A ruleset needs to leave no room for personal interpretation, this is the only way to make sure you and your opponent use the same rules. And since it's not specifically written that the aura does not affect the Leader, it does, according to page 19. Therefore, you have two different skills, one of which does the exact same thing as the other + some other effect. Oh, and you didn't address how they specified the aura doesn't work if he is shaken, when he can never be so...

Because a fault in the editing department means that the game testing teams are also at fault. Absolutely.

No. But a rushed job is rushed in every respect: editing, texting, translation, etc. And this WAS a rushed job, no sense denying it

I don't know about your experience, but I personally find that Kill Team is far more balanced, and CERTAINLY more enjoyable to play. Of course, YMMV, but you can't pretend that your views aren't more than your opinion.

More enjoyable, maybe (after 8 games, I still prefer 40k). More balanced, certainly not. Some teams are extremely bad (tau, eldar), some are almost unstoppable (harlequins). The gap is bigger than it is in 40k.

There's narrative themes to their way the abilities progress, so perhaps it's fitting that the leader who inspires his own troops is better than the one who's in it for himself.

At least at level 2, the real question is do you want Paragon or Tyrant at level 3?

 Dedwoods42 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Soulless wrote:
Why divide unit types into subtypes with names similar to specialities, its confusing...were not building Squads, were building A squad, we only need to know if its a guardsman or a scion.

For different Fireteams. You can have up to three different Fireteams in a Guard list. Whether that's a bug or feature, I don't know, but it does make a difference in the game.

Also for tweaking purposes - the Gunners, Fighters and the like can have their Max stat, points cost and the like changed independently, have the Specialisms they have access to changed individually, etcetera.

Im positive the same tweaking and balancing can be achieved with three lists of units, Leaders-Gunners-Troopers where each feature whatever models may be fielded and their options. Instead of having the same entry on several different datasheets.
Its more of a layout matter i guess but its sad to see they put so little effort into a new system.

theres a handful of stratagems oversights.
Orks have a stratagem to reroll a single die when charging. Except theres a generic stratagem to reroll 1 die when doing anything....
yeah i kinda facepalmed when i saw that. Bravo GW....

You still cant reroll a reroll though. Benefit of the scout is his reroll isnt spending CP though.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
theres a handful of stratagems oversights.
Orks have a stratagem to reroll a single die when charging. Except theres a generic stratagem to reroll 1 die when doing anything....
yeah i kinda facepalmed when i saw that. Bravo GW....

You still cant reroll a reroll though. Benefit of the scout is his reroll isnt spending CP though.

The generic one is worded as a 'charge roll' - defined as both dice. Not a single die while making a charge roll.
Likewise it specifices Psychic Test or Deny The Witch Test - both of which are 2D6.
They have different use cases.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
theres a handful of stratagems oversights.
Orks have a stratagem to reroll a single die when charging. Except theres a generic stratagem to reroll 1 die when doing anything....
yeah i kinda facepalmed when i saw that. Bravo GW....

You still cant reroll a reroll though. Benefit of the scout is his reroll isnt spending CP though.

Maybe a bit unimaginative but not an oversight, you can only use a tactic once per phase so having two different ones doing the same gives you the chance to do it twice.

Teschio wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Extremely? That's quite hyberbolic. Name 20 things objectively wrong with it if it's so extremely poorly written.

So, you need TWENTY things that are blatantly screaming of a rushed job with no proofreading to say it's poorly written?

If it's extreme, yes.

So far, you've only found 1 problem, because your others have already been nullified by other posters. That doesn't at all fit with "extremely poorly written".

 Dedwoods42 wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
theres a handful of stratagems oversights.
Orks have a stratagem to reroll a single die when charging. Except theres a generic stratagem to reroll 1 die when doing anything....
yeah i kinda facepalmed when i saw that. Bravo GW....

You still cant reroll a reroll though. Benefit of the scout is his reroll isnt spending CP though.

The generic one is worded as a 'charge roll' - defined as both dice. Not a single die while making a charge roll.
Likewise it specifices Psychic Test or Deny The Witch Test - both of which are 2D6.
They have different use cases.

Oh yeah i completely forgot they have it ruled that way now where if you roll a pair of dice that stratagem rerolls both.

 Niiai wrote:

Q3:
Scout specialist: level 1

Swift, passive abilaty : lets you re-roll advances for that model.

Quick marsh, stratagem: lets you re-roll advances.

Does this mean you can re-roll a re-roll?

I don't know about Kill Team but as a general principle in all of GW's games (as far as I know) you can never re-roll a re-roll. This is/was the case for 40k, fantasy, Blood Bowl, Necromunda, GorkaMorka, BFG, Mordheim ++

Teschio wrote:

With some common sense, it can be inferred that the "Inspiring" buff doesn't affect the Leader itself - this needs to be FAQd to be more clear, but they're still not "identical".

Sorry, no. "Common sense" has no place in a ruleset, because it's not universal and objective. A ruleset needs to leave no room for personal interpretation, this is the only way to make sure you and your opponent use the same rules. And since it's not specifically written that the aura does not affect the Leader, it does, according to page 19. Therefore, you have two different skills, one of which does the exact same thing as the other + some other effect. Oh, and you didn't address how they specified the aura doesn't work if he is shaken, when he can never be so...

Even if you ignore common sense, the same stats aren't identical. They lead onto different trees, and have different effects. If you find it redundant, it still has different effects.

Because a fault in the editing department means that the game testing teams are also at fault. Absolutely.

No. But a rushed job is rushed in every respect: editing, texting, translation, etc. And this WAS a rushed job, no sense denying it

I really don't think it was. There are issues, but a lot of them are editing, which can always slip through, and the game issues could well be features, not bugs.

I don't know about your experience, but I personally find that Kill Team is far more balanced, and CERTAINLY more enjoyable to play. Of course, YMMV, but you can't pretend that your views aren't more than your opinion.

More enjoyable, maybe (after 8 games, I still prefer 40k). More balanced, certainly not. Some teams are extremely bad (tau, eldar), some are almost unstoppable (harlequins). The gap is bigger than it is in 40k.

Funny you say Tau being bad, they've been a pretty solid contender in my experience. I've never had a situation which is as bad as the potential in 40k. But of course, YMMV.

Baxx wrote:

 Niiai wrote:

Q3:
Scout specialist: level 1

Swift, passive abilaty : lets you re-roll advances for that model.

Quick marsh, stratagem: lets you re-roll advances.

Does this mean you can re-roll a re-roll?

I don't know about Kill Team but as a general principle in all of GW's games (as far as I know) you can never re-roll a re-roll. This is/was the case for 40k, fantasy, Blood Bowl, Necromunda, GorkaMorka, BFG, Mordheim ++

Yeah I figure so as well. But the only one who can use quick marsh is also the only model with swift, you can not have one without the other.

p.26

"Psybolt
Psybolt has a warp charge value of 5. If manifested,
the closest enemy model within 18" of and visible
to the psyker suffers 1 mortal wound (pg 33). If the
result of the Psychic test was 11+, the target suffers
D3 mortal wounds instead."

Does it mean being outside the combat I can help my homie locked in CC and shoot psybolt on his enemy? As well, being locked in CC I still can shoot psybolt at the enemy in psychic phase?

Hi,
just a quick rules question:
The grapple launcher on Primaris Reivers works only on normal moves. So I assume it’s not working on charges or while advancing? Is this correctly?

Thanks
Thoni

 Filq wrote:
p.26

"Psybolt
Psybolt has a warp charge value of 5. If manifested,
the closest enemy model within 18" of and visible
to the psyker suffers 1 mortal wound (pg 33). If the
result of the Psychic test was 11+, the target suffers
D3 mortal wounds instead."

Does it mean being outside the combat I can help my homie locked in CC and shoot psybolt on his enemy? As well, being locked in CC I still can shoot psybolt at the enemy in psychic phase?

It seems so. I've found no restrictions in the rulebook saying that you cannot target models in cc with a psychic power. Also, there is nothing about being unable to cast powers while you're locked in cc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thoni wrote:
Hi,
just a quick rules question:
The grapple launcher on Primaris Reivers works only on normal moves. So I assume it’s not working on charges or while advancing? Is this correctly?

Thanks
Thoni

Normal moves only.