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.

We've seen it all over the place. Kill Team, the new kid on the block. Before Titanicus takes over as GW's hype-priority over the next month, let's talk a moment about the importance of Kill Team to GW's business.

First off, let's lay down the framework for what I'm going to talk about here. In the summer of last year, 8th edition dropped. It was huge. It revived 40k in a big way, brought a lot of new players in, and brought a lot of old players back. The promises GW was making were incredible. All of the codexes updated before the end of the following year? Regular FAQ's born from community feedback? Incredible! And here we are, a year later, and they're making good on their promise.

>In before Ork and Space Wolf players complain. We get it. I'm not going to coddle you any longer. You'll get your Codex when you get your Codex.

A year later and GW has a conundrum. They've got to release Age of Sigmar 2.0 in a big way, but they've also got to hedge their bets. Age of Sigmar is growing, but it's still not as big as 40k, and they need to make sure their Summer 2018 profits look just as good as their Summer 2017 profits did. How do they do this? Well, first, they pad out the front of the summer with Imperial Knights, a fan-favorite faction that has people buying lots of new big robot kits to fill out their army, along with a Codex that's got a heaping dose of the power creep. Then they drop Age of Sigmar, and then on the other side of it, they produce Kill Team.

GW's promise with Kill Team is simple: We learned our lesson from Shadow War and don't want to repeat that catastrophe. This will be its own game, with its own rules, supported by a line of products and expansions.

That's pretty great in my humble opinion. We get a new specialist game, one that's been a fan favorite for years, to add to the list of returning games.

And with Kill Team are a host of unexpected changes. Not only do we have alternating activation of units, but also new terrain, an odd shaped board, and a curated list of datasheets to select from, some more limited than others. We also just learned that NOVA will be hosting a Kill Team event that has a very ITC-looking set of rules for Kill Team, including snippets to address cheating, slow play, and other concerns of competitive play.

So let's go down through each of these developments to see why they might be important...

1. The Odd-Sized Board - Kill Team's board is played on a 22"x30" board. Two of these can make a 30x44, or a 22x60. Adding onto those doesn't make a 48"x72" board, no matter how you arrange them, and yet we know that the boards line-up from the various Kill Zone expansions. Odd. To be honest, I think this has less to do with 40k and more to do with GW trying out different size boards for their specialist games so that Kill Team feels more unique and balanced. But, could this herald some change for 40k that we don't yet know about?

2. Alternating Activation - Wargamers aren't strangers to alternating activations. We've seen it in Infinity and other games besides. You pick a unit to shoot, then I pick a unit to shoot. This keeps one side from dominating the other and keeps both players just as engaged in the phase, keeping the action fast. Even if it may actually take longer than clumping all your shooting together, the fact that you're engaged and will have to pick a unit to shoot next keeps the action from becoming dull. One of the big complaints that I have about 40k is that the shooting phase is, frankly, broken. You can tell a hundred people to use more "LOS-blocking terrain" but the fact of the matter is that some people don't have access to that much terrain, or they play in groups that like to alpha-strike each other off the board. I've played and seen many games that become 2000pts vs 1500pts or worse after one side has finished with their shooting phase.

But what if 40k units alternated shooting like they do in Kill Team? The player with initiative might be able to get off an important shot with their heavy-hitters, but after that, the opponent gets to retaliate with one of their valuable units before it gets wiped off the board. This could help balance the game in a big way. Yes, it'll take longer, but what if that's not a problem, because the games are more engaging?

3. Curating the Selection - This is actually very interesting on a multitude of levels. I'll break down what I think is curious about this system.
A - By choosing what units are available in Kill Team, GW can better balance the game. Instead of saying 'everything that fits these rules is fair game' in order to "future-proof" the game, they're taking the reigns and telling us exactly what can be used. This means fewer issues with outlying weird units that have potentially game-breaking rules because they were added in by a codex that came out much later than Kill Team.

B - In creating a small, tight game focused on the troop models, GW can use Kill Team as an interesting experiment. Setting aside the starter set, which is Genestealer Cult and Adeptus Mechanicus, Kill Team is a great way to get into the world of 40k with a very minimum investment. For many forces, you need only one box. What if GW is using this to test the popularity of some of their other factions? Ones that aren't Space Marines? In the week since Kill Team released, Ork Kommandos and Tyranid Lictors, both units that were not moving at all, are suddenly 'Temporarily Out of Stock' online. GW could be measuring the sales of different factions post-Kill Team to see what factions they may want to focus on giving some new attention in the future. I myself have picked up Tyranids, a force that I had never seen myself making a full army out of because of the hordes of models I'd have to build and paint, but in Kill Team I just need 3 boxes to make a balanced force with plenty of models to customize and choose from. Without Kill Team, GW would not have sold those Tyranid units to me.

C - GW has a long history of squatting things. Perhaps most recently, Rough Riders have not made the cut into the new Astra Militarum Codex. It's a sad thing, but necessary for a business to cut old product and make room for fresh new stuff. More than ever, we're seeing lots of models going 'Webstore Exclusive'. That's not to say they're not popular models, but rather that stores literally don't have enough room on the shelves to stock them! Kill Team could be an indicator of GW's plan for the future, where they're not afraid to chop off material or models that aren't doing well in favor of two things: A better balanced game, and a more profitable core of models. You may not like it, but when GW pulls the rug out from under your favorite kit, don't be surprised.

There's a secondary point of curiosity here. More and more, army lists are becoming increasingly homogeneous in the competitive scene. Astra Militarum CP batteries, Slamguinius, etc are taking the spotlight while other models languish, completely untouched for months or years at a time because they're just not as point-efficient as something else. When was the last time you saw a Techmarine in a list that wasn't attached to a Thunderfire Cannon? In fact, have there been any Thunderfire Cannons in tournament lists? You can't deny that when a unit becomes popular in the competitive scene, it gets bought up, but what about all those units that aren't perfectly competitive? What about all of the "unplayable" units that GW produces?

More importantly, what is GW supposed to do when a unit languishes while others are bought by the hundreds? "Just nerf X or power up Y!" I hear you say, but that's a bigger undertaking than anyone seems to consider. GW has started to plug into the community more than before, getting hundreds of playtesters from different parts of the world involved in attempting to balance this behemoth of a game. Any change needs to go through a long process of implementation and testing to see if the game plays out the way that GW wants it to, from Open Play, Narrative Play, and Matched Play perspectives.

We know that several GW employees have been making the rounds at tournaments, interviewing people, winners and losers, to try to find out why some armies are losing versus others in order to prepare for the future, not just for the next FAQ, but for the long term as well, I'm sure.

4. GW Making NOVA Kill Team Tournament Rules - Well holy crap. Who saw this coming? Really, who? In a surprising turn of events, GW has created their own tournament packet, complete with exacting terrain specifications and competitive missions that have their own secondary objectives. They mention cheating, slow playing, and other things besides, all in the hopes of creating a fun and rewarding experience for competitive players. When it comes to 40k, GW has been pretty hands-off when creating competitive packets. They've created suggestions for rules, such as the Rule of 3 that many tournaments have adopted for competitive play, but they have not made any sort of claim that these rules are mandatory, only suggested, and yet tournament players treat them like the gospel. I think by now GW has realized that we WANT them to make competitive rules, that there is a desire for GW to take the reigns and go ahead and tell us how to count terrain, how to score objectives, and how have a relatively balanced game of 40k. GW making rules for Kill Team could very well be an experiment into that, a practice-round. This ties into some of my previous points as well. Games Workshop is plugging into the competitive community and trying to make sense of it all.

5. GW Designing New Terrain and Terrain Rules - Being Obscured is incredibly important in Kill Team. Not only is it critical to your survival, figuring out what parts of a model are in cover has been notoriously difficult in past editions. We've gone through the gamut, between trying to calculate the percentage of a model in cover, to simply saying 'I see your flag' and denying you cover altogether. With Kill Team, there are pretty straightforward statements on how to figure this out. Don't count the base or basing material, don't count weapons, aerials, or anything else that 'sticks out' and focus on the head, torso, and limbs of the model when figuring out whether a model is 'Obscured'. This simple statement is something that people CRAVE for 40k ever since the simplification of terrain. But there's something else. The new terrain that GW has created STILL has holes in it, even on the expansive 5" tall first floors. Windows that can be peeked through, archways that can be spied through, and more besides. Perhaps the only truly LOS-blocking terrain that GW has produced in recent memory are the Munitorum crates! But, the newest stuff has windows. It has holes. You can't hide perfectly from every angle behind one of the walls of their new ruins... and maybe that's what GW is going for into the future? Yes, keeping your models behind LOS-blocking cover prevents half your army from leaving the table turn 1, but it also removes engagement from the game. It removes risk. Things like the ITC 'first floor' rule, in my mind, aren't necessarily conducive to a balanced game. Now that we know that the standard 'first floor' is 5" tall for GW's new terrain, perhaps they're trying to push the terrain rules into a new direction. This style of terrain, and the Obscured rule could easily make it into 40k with a few more clarifications for squads and vehicles.

6. Command Point Generation - If your leader is alive, you get 2 command points at the start of the turn. Otherwise, it's just 1. We see this in Kill Team, and we've seen a similar system in Age of Sigmar. Neither of these games use detachments or complex formations that start the game off with anywhere between 9 and 18 command points. The command points are balanced, with forces having equal opportunity to get them, including gaining starting command points by taking fewer points in their lists! This, in my mind, is a much needed addition to 40k, to get rid of things like CP batteries, Supreme Command Detachments, and other cheap ways to get more use out of stratagems that can swing a battle. What's worse, in 40k currently, many armies burn through their bank of CP's by turn 2! That tells me one thing: CP's are being used to better alpha-strike, or survive an alpha strike, and are not important at all in later parts of the game. If they've served to kill more of the enemy or keep more of your stuff alive for the later game, then that's all that matters. But that's not engaging. That becomes a war of command points, where the side that has more has an advantage. I have no doubt that GW is looking at new ways of balancing command points for 40k, and Kill Team is another testbed for exactly that.

---

So, between curating models, alternating activation, and new terrain and rules for them, I think GW is not only creating a new, engaging game, but showing us what could be making its way into the main game in the future...

What are your thoughts?

Your post was quite long so I won't respond to each item for the sake of brevity, but rather the idea as a whole: yes.

To be a little less laconic: GW has already shown the willingness to take ideas from AoS to use in 40k, and if testing shows the ideas work well in Kill Team we could see them bridge into 40k properly as well.

I don't expect any mass squattings to bring the game into tighter focus (in fact Kill Team might open up further as things go on to bring in more units to give teams more tools to work with, though under tight restrictions).

Basically, while I know some people loathe the idea of more shooting modifiers, if we can drop the shooting modifiers from army rules, pepper in some "always hit on natural 6s" (that or bring back the 7+ mechanic from WFB: roll 6s, then roll your BS target number to hit) and "always overheat on natural 1s" we'd see a much more balanced game that promotes less static play, kills the plasma spam a bit and keeps modifiers from overly punishing armies while giving melee armies more top table potential in competitive play.

Overall if we could take more mechanics from Kill Team I could see 40k turning into a more tactical game with a lot of interesting mechanics. Could you imagine moving squads versus readying them? Being able to fall 3" to try and avoid a charge instead of just overwatching? Charging to lock up shooting units during the movement phase so your army can shift about more safely?

I mean the mechanics of the game look ripe for a larger game and I honestly want to try it in a regular 40k game to see how it plays.

Maybe a few small ideas will filter down, but we have to understand...Kill Team is not a major undertaking beyond the few people it took to create it. There are very few Kill Team components which are not simply graphics on a screen (the boards, the cards, a few special dice).

This is a gimme for GW. A way to package a few bits of terrain, etc. It's supremely low investment if it generates extra revenue. Icing on the cake I suppose you could say.

Regarding the future of 40K? I'm not sure how concerned they are with making sweeping rules changes. That's not their area of concern - pushing plastic is. I think people in general seem to think GW is waaaaay more concerned about tight rules writing than they really are. They know very well they need to produce rules which are fun "enough", and tight "enough" to warrant continuing plastic purchases from the consumers. I'm in no way saying this is a bad thing. The company used to be far more consumer friendly and was run by a bunch of geeks...and was nearly bankrupt.

GW exists to sell plastic figures. They're not on the cutting edge of rules design, and never have been. Are they doing research online trying to determine which units are genuine garbage? Sure, it's good business to study up on what might be driving away buyers. But they're not doing mathhammer or looking for nuance. They'll change the rules just often enough to keep it fresh, keep interest and promote discussion, etc.

The higher ups want to sell stuff. The designers make things that could potentially appeal to players. If Kill Team shows that people love X mechanic, the designers can go to the higher ups and say "they want this", to which the higher ups will say "GO" and then market the crap out of it.

Also, we know this isn't "just" about terrain. They have promised 2-5 years of releases for Kill Team, and we know it won't just be terrain (see Rogue Trader).

Any competant design team is always looking to evolve the current game to manage a balance between streamlining and rules representation. GW's been doing this for years, they just seem to be a little more concerned about it since Kirby was ousted from his high horse.

I imagine we'll see the cover rules filter into the game with CA and a change to how CP are acquired in spent in 9E (it would be too drastic a change for 8E at this time).

Other than that, I think the primary thing we may see is a slow separation into three "levels" of the game -

1) Kill Team as an introductory level to 40K that veterans occasionally dip into.

2) 40K proper, handling the game we love to hate up to the inclusion of Knights (anything bigger will be "out of the ordinary" and unsupported - much less so than now)

3) Epic, 8/10mm or *possibly* 28mm scale battles focusing on vehicles and titans (dropping the inclusion of human-sized infantry - at least at the individual model scale), covering really big battles and - most importantly - different rules than the "zoomed-in" version we see for regular 40K.

(I actually think this model is more influenced by other companies such as Warlord and Mantic, which currently have games for these three scales at 28mm)

Hit modifiers in 40k might work just fine. When 8th came around I wished cover gave a -1 hit instead of an armor modifier but we know how that turned out. The only problem is an army wide blanket -1 hit which is too strong no matter how you look at it. Combine that with obscene amounts of firepower and psychic shenanigans and you run into some problems quickly.

But there are some things that would be very welcome in 40k, like plasmas overheating on natural 1 only, 6 is always a hit and the biggest of the bunch ALTERNATING ACTIVATIONS. I cannot stress how important AA would be in balancing out 40k. First turn is, has been, and always will be the biggest deciding factor of a game's outcome unless the turn sequence is changed.

 Weazel wrote:
Hit modifiers in 40k might work just fine. When 8th came around I wished cover gave a -1 hit instead of an armor modifier but we know how that turned out. The only problem is an army wide blanket -1 hit which is too strong no matter how you look at it. Combine that with obscene amounts of firepower and psychic shenanigans and you run into some problems quickly.

But there are some things that would be very welcome in 40k, like plasmas overheating on natural 1 only, 6 is always a hit and the biggest of the bunch ALTERNATING ACTIVATIONS. I cannot stress how important AA would be in balancing out 40k. First turn is, has been, and always will be the biggest deciding factor of a game's outcome unless the turn sequence is changed.

Yeah, with the dramatic upswing in the game's firepower, unless alternating activation come to 40K, the nerfs GW is attempting to put into place to corral it is akin to them switching to one man stores. Hint: it isn't going to fix the problem.

Yea I agree with first turn being to powerful these days. Back in 5th when most scoring only got counted up at the end of the game, going second actually could be a significant advantage. Now between fire power being out of control and most missions using turn by turn scoring, going first is to much of a decisive advantage.

I do enjoy some of the mechanics. I can see them adding the Max limit onto certain units as opposed to the rule of 3

It’s the “sell some bundled terrain” model of SWA dialled up to 11, tbh. Fool me once, etc.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s the “sell some bundled terrain” model of SWA dialled up to 11, tbh. Fool me once, etc.

Even if that's the case, which GW has explicitly said it's not, the kill team box is an insanely good deal. between the terrain and the models, your getting a lot of bang for your buck.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s the “sell some bundled terrain” model of SWA dialled up to 11, tbh. Fool me once, etc.

Even if that's the case, which GW has explicitly said it's not, the kill team box is an insanely good deal. between the terrain and the models, your getting a lot of bang for your buck.

Insanely good deal for GW priced terrain, not, I believe for sane terrain pricing in the first place.

GW has done some good things of late - fixing their overpriced models is not one.

Alternating Activations is key here. Implementing it will actually make 40K a decent game to play. Shooting is way too strong in this game already.

Change back the dice rolls to the way they were before. What you roll is what you roll, none of this modifier gak. If theres a -1 to hit, you just need to roll a 4 if you have a BS of 3+ for example, instead of "well you actually rolled a 3 but that gets modified down to a 4. 1's always fail, 6 always passes. The way they've done dice rolls in this edition is way overcomplicated and actually creates issues in the gameplay and destroys emersion with things like plasma guns exploding more at night.

Lets get some genuine thought and attention put into terrain rules and interaction please.

After seeing how close 8th was to AoS compared to 7th. I believe that everything GW does is testing grounds for their other games. 8th was inspired by AoS, and AoS 2.0 was inspired by 8th.

 Elbows wrote:
Maybe a few small ideas will filter down, but we have to understand...Kill Team is not a major undertaking beyond the few people it took to create it. There are very few Kill Team components which are not simply graphics on a screen (the boards, the cards, a few special dice).

This is a gimme for GW. A way to package a few bits of terrain, etc. It's supremely low investment if it generates extra revenue. Icing on the cake I suppose you could say.

Regarding the future of 40K? I'm not sure how concerned they are with making sweeping rules changes. That's not their area of concern - pushing plastic is. I think people in general seem to think GW is waaaaay more concerned about tight rules writing than they really are. They know very well they need to produce rules which are fun "enough", and tight "enough" to warrant continuing plastic purchases from the consumers. I'm in no way saying this is a bad thing. The company used to be far more consumer friendly and was run by a bunch of geeks...and was nearly bankrupt.

GW exists to sell plastic figures. They're not on the cutting edge of rules design, and never have been. Are they doing research online trying to determine which units are genuine garbage? Sure, it's good business to study up on what might be driving away buyers. But they're not doing mathhammer or looking for nuance. They'll change the rules just often enough to keep it fresh, keep interest and promote discussion, etc.

Having played a good dozen games now, I disagree. There are a lot of rules here that look as though they've been designed to create a much tighter 40K experience. I wouldn't be surprised if they release a "8.5" style book within the next 12-15 months further updating the game, and expanding on current rules. For example, adding the new terrain rules, and the cover mechanics to Base 40K would be a great asset!

The one thing I don’t want to see is charge moves taking the place of movement. Otherwise I have to to be within 8” of my opponent at the beginning of my movement phase in order to have a better than even chance of making it into assault.

Man I hope so alternating shooting is amazing. The game actually feels balanced. They need to work a bit more on charging. But over all I think alternating shooting really metigates turn one bs.

 greyknight12 wrote:
The one thing I don’t want to see is charge moves taking the place of movement. Otherwise I have to to be within 8” of my opponent at the beginning of my movement phase in order to have a better than even chance of making it into assault.

I'm not sure, I really like charges working this way. It feels a lot more cenematic. The thing is, CC is so good in KT. It actually works, and it seems to work quite well as opposed to the mess it has been for the past two editions.

I hope so, AA ifor 40k would be a huge, welcome change. I like the move of Necro and KT away from allowing every unit to move, shoot, charge. Sitting still to shoot, move then charge, move and shoot, or move then advance should be a units limit for a turn. Not all of them at once.

Will be interesting to see what they do. My guess is new 40k will drop 1-3.months after the Sisters Dex and invalidate most of it. GW has changed, but they haven't changed that much.

 Togusa wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
The one thing I don’t want to see is charge moves taking the place of movement. Otherwise I have to to be within 8” of my opponent at the beginning of my movement phase in order to have a better than even chance of making it into assault.

I'm not sure, I really like charges working this way. It feels a lot more cenematic. The thing is, CC is so good in KT. It actually works, and it seems to work quite well as opposed to the mess it has been for the past two editions.

CC is as good as it is in KT mostly because the board is so small and because models are generally more difficult to kill. I don't think the "charge in the movement phase" mechanic would work as well in 40k as it does in KT.

What world are people living in where assault isn't an important part of 40k?

The world of my two armies I guess? Not everyone wants to charge into CC, shattering skies from a comfy castle of artilery guns or making it rain men with guns is much more fun than charging into other people, imo.

 Bobthehero wrote:
The world of my two armies I guess? Not everyone wants to charge into CC, shattering skies from a comfy castle of artilery guns or making it rain men with guns is much more fun than charging into other people, imo.

My Tau don't do a whole lot of assaulting, even in Kill Team, but I'm not going to say that assault doesn't work because of that.

 Stormonu wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s the “sell some bundled terrain” model of SWA dialled up to 11, tbh. Fool me once, etc.

Even if that's the case, which GW has explicitly said it's not, the kill team box is an insanely good deal. between the terrain and the models, your getting a lot of bang for your buck.

Insanely good deal for GW priced terrain, not, I believe for sane terrain pricing in the first place.

GW has done some good things of late - fixing their overpriced models is not one.

This. I’ve multiple tables worth of more playable scratch built terrain. I don’t need limited-utility, overpriced, plastic terrain. It’s beautiful, don’t get me wrong, but costs a second army’s worth of cash to get a decent coverage for 40K, and even then some of it is nigh on useless in all practical cover-giving sense unless you house rule all over the shop.

Nothing about it is “an insanely good deal”. If you think it’s good value, cool, but it’s not insanely good by any yardstick. It’s still overpriced plastic!

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
The one thing I don’t want to see is charge moves taking the place of movement. Otherwise I have to to be within 8” of my opponent at the beginning of my movement phase in order to have a better than even chance of making it into assault.

I'm not sure, I really like charges working this way. It feels a lot more cenematic. The thing is, CC is so good in KT. It actually works, and it seems to work quite well as opposed to the mess it has been for the past two editions.

CC is as good as it is in KT mostly because the board is so small and because models are generally more difficult to kill. I don't think the "charge in the movement phase" mechanic would work as well in 40k as it does in KT.

What about 2d6 + movement in 40k?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
The one thing I don’t want to see is charge moves taking the place of movement. Otherwise I have to to be within 8” of my opponent at the beginning of my movement phase in order to have a better than even chance of making it into assault.

I'm not sure, I really like charges working this way. It feels a lot more cenematic. The thing is, CC is so good in KT. It actually works, and it seems to work quite well as opposed to the mess it has been for the past two editions.

CC is as good as it is in KT mostly because the board is so small and because models are generally more difficult to kill. I don't think the "charge in the movement phase" mechanic would work as well in 40k as it does in KT.

What about 2d6 + movement in 40k?

Then you are just mixing the movement phase and the charge phase in one step but is basically the same.

meleti wrote:
What world are people living in where assault isn't an important part of 40k?

I suspect you haven't played much Kill Team. Assault works in 40k, yes, but it's exceptionally strong in KT. Furthermore, the best CC specialists appear to be the hard-to-kill types like Reivers and Plague Marines rather than the glass cannons that mostly rule the day in 40k.

 Galas wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
The one thing I don’t want to see is charge moves taking the place of movement. Otherwise I have to to be within 8” of my opponent at the beginning of my movement phase in order to have a better than even chance of making it into assault.

I'm not sure, I really like charges working this way. It feels a lot more cenematic. The thing is, CC is so good in KT. It actually works, and it seems to work quite well as opposed to the mess it has been for the past two editions.

CC is as good as it is in KT mostly because the board is so small and because models are generally more difficult to kill. I don't think the "charge in the movement phase" mechanic would work as well in 40k as it does in KT.

What about 2d6 + movement in 40k?

Then you are just mixing the movement phase and the charge phase in one step but is basically the same.

Except for the part that you don't get to shoot the guys assaulting you anymore (other than overwatch). Unless you also got rid of assault from reserves, it would be a little much.

 greyknight12 wrote:

Except for the part that you don't get to shoot the guys assaulting you anymore (other than overwatch). Unless you also got rid of assault from reserves, it would be a little much.

It'd be gone automatically. Coming in from reserves is done at the end of the movement phase and the unit counts as having already moved by coming in from reserves, so they wouldn't be able to charge out of reserves anymore.

I haven't played kill team, but what about allowing each model (unit) to pick two of the three phases when they activate;

Pick 2:
A) Movement
B) Shooting
C) Charge

So you could [move and charge], [move and shoot], or [shoot and charge] (if you were in range at the top of the turn).