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.

So after just reading through the lists and rules i was wondering if any of you play any games bigger than the standard 100 / 200 point limit?

A commander or a couple of terminators and youre looking at a 3 or 4 man team.

Doesn't that get boring?

I generally stick to the 100-200 point area. It doesn't get boring, as there is a high degree of tactics to employ, and strategies. The nice thing with Kill Team is that the games are very quick. So While you are correct that a team is only a few models (unless you play something like orks) you can set back up and play multiple games in the time it takes one to play a regular game of 40k.

Yeah, once you get the rules down, games play in 30 to 45 minutes. I can easily play 3-4 games in the time it takes to play the first 2 turns of a 2000 point game... which is about the time a game of 40k is decided.

And with a wide variety of missions, I don’t mind playing a lop-sided mission in KT. Because I’ll give it my all for a half hour and if I lose the game that was stacked against me? I’ll probably win one stacked in my favour and have two really close games. And make-your-own scenarios? Perfect for KT. You can try it out in a half-hour. Tweak it, try again, and tweak/try again in the course of a couple hours. If it just doesn’t work, there’s a couple hours gone but you can test and correct pretty quick. It feels very sandbox to me. I’d have trouble getting bored with the game at 100 to 200.

I could see an apocalypse-style kill Team at 500 points... but that wouldn’t be quick, on a small board, with lots of room to manoeuvre... so would kind of be missing the point of Kill Team.

Maybe i misspoke
When i said boring i meant boring only from a team build standpoint. I want to play with all of my toys... lol.

If games are that quick then i can see saying let's try a terminator this game, ok let's try something else the next game.

I'm sure someone will say just play 40k but i like the rules in kt much more.

Thanks guys.

We normally play 3-4 games in a burst and there are curently 116 missions. We've still got missions that we've never played.

There seems to be a decent number of people playing core book missions only. That seems really boring to me.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
Maybe i misspoke
When i said boring i meant boring only from a team build standpoint. I want to play with all of my toys... lol.

If games are that quick then i can see saying let's try a terminator this game, ok let's try something else the next game.

I'm sure someone will say just play 40k but i like the rules in kt much more.

Thanks guys.

I mean kill team is build around the idea of having a "roster" of 15-20 models. and then drafting up to the points limit from that each game. So if you get bored of using those 4 models. then use different models next game. Try out different specialisms.

Good point bal.
Im looking at deathguard whose base roster is basically plague marines and pox guys.

It just made me wonder.

The Elites expansion seems pretty popular, and I personally like it.

We houserule that 100 point games use Core, 150 use Elites, and 200 use elites and commanders, and we pick a point level to play before the game starts.

If a mission refers to a "commander" and one isn't present, we just sub in "Leader".

If I recall, the core rules have 11 missions, but I think 5 have attacker / defender roles... so you could envision those as 2 different missions depending on A/D status.

So with that in mind, You could do 4 sessions of 4 games (4 weeks, say) worth of playing, using the exact same models, and have different games each time. If you then switched armies with your playing partner, you'd have another 4 weeks of playing different games.

If you then each pick up a second army, and don't mind swapping back and forth, you would take your initial 4 weeks of playing and now you'd have 12 new combinations (1 year) worth of games, never playing the same thing twice.

(AB, AC, AD, BA, BC, BD, CA, CB, CD, DA, DB, DC as different players will control A vs B, so BA is a different setup).

In my opinion, the Core set and 2 armies each can give you a full year of new play experiences as long as you're comfortable swapping armies. That's without changing rosters, even. There is a tremendous amount of playability in the core book.

We have gone up to 400 and probably further with specific narrative focus.
300 seems to play ok considering, but we have a highly discussed narrative meta.
And a lot of games fall into longer campaigns, rather than one off games as well.
Also we have a massive space for games themselves, 8x4 foot of use. So can do a lot with the rules.
We do not use commanders, but have a custom rules for vehicles that we use for specific missions.

Neat. I’ve considered that “Dreadnought” sized vehicles could probably work within KT so long as they’re a 0-1 kind of option.

Narratively, something like destroy the transport of a key unit / commander to delay them getting to a key location in time would fit the KT theme nicely. Or “assassinate” the artillery behind enemy lines that’s bombarding the main battle (looking at you, Basilisk!) would be fun. Could even tie into a game of 40k where one player gets to fire a Basilisk shot onto the field for every turn it survived and didn’t shoot at the KT board. Go full narrative and give the attacker a chance to kill the crew and steal the Bassie for themselves!

It would have to be strictly for pre-arranged narrative games. Some factions have enough special/heavy weapon access to kill vehicles, some just don't.

8th has made vehicles very resilient to non-AT weapons.

10x BS 3+, short range, no cover Krak missiles only has a 53% chance of killing a Rhino.

Fair enough. I’m coming from the perspective of KTs with lots of access to multi-damage weapons that I tend to load up on.

If you have a group that’s willing to give it a go, missions revolving vehicles are a blast.
Things like a convoy ambush is some of our highlights, do not even need 40k vehicles.
Once your go full urban, a lot of what makes the 40k vehicles so tough is also a fair bit more mitigated.
Things like a barricade can stop a sentinel or a dreadnaught moving where a infantry model can go without issue.

It’s really what you can come up with that is the only limit here.

Apple fox wrote:
If you have a group that’s willing to give it a go, missions revolving vehicles are a blast.
Things like a convoy ambush is some of our highlights, do not even need 40k vehicles.
Once your go full urban, a lot of what makes the 40k vehicles so tough is also a fair bit more mitigated.
Things like a barricade can stop a sentinel or a dreadnaught moving where a infantry model can go without issue.

It’s really what you can come up with that is the only limit here.

This sounds AWESOME. I may have to try this soon...

 Scott-S6 wrote:
We normally play 3-4 games in a burst and there are curently 116 missions. We've still got missions that we've never played.

There seems to be a decent number of people playing core book missions only. That seems really boring to me.

May I ask where you're getting that total number of missions? We're among those who only have book missions and i'm eager to see what sources give the best bang-for-the-buck, for more.

The other missions are all in the team and zone expansions. (and the bsf killzone in WD) I'm afraid that none of these represent good value in terms of getting missions.

This is my mission selector spreadsheet. If the source is card then check the faction and zone columns - that'll tell you where it came from.

https://mega.nz/#F!y7YCTQyY!p3pIGNVx-7lYp6iLnyRtgA

Yesterday, I played a doubles game that originally was almost a 2 vs. 1 game but a 4th player showed up (see spoiler for image of the game). It was a nice thematic game of Rusted Claw Genestealer Cults and Leviathan Tyranids vs. Deathwatch and Crimson Fists playing the Elites mission Ultima Objective that came down to the wire ending in a tie. It was easily my favorite multiplayer miniatures wargame game I have ever played.

I am not normally for team games or large point games, but I had a lot of fun in that game. Because of it, I could easily be convinced to play a 200 point game with each player controlling 2 kill teams. The doubles game took no longer than a full 40k game being played the next table over. I think going back to a 2 player game controlling two kill teams would be even faster. And I like the idea of having two different teams to compliment each other like nids and cultists or at very least get around the 20 man roster limit. These big games isn't something I would want to do all the time, but they do create interesting changes to the game that you take for granted (or granite if you are rock person) playing the standard way. Kinda like a Kill Team version of Apocalypse.

It won't cover that full 40k itch if you really want vehicles though. I don't think Kill Team can cover that without some serious modifying. I think it would probably be better to take full 40k and introduce the mechanics from Kill Team you like to give you a better game. I still think there is a bit of a dead zone where the game is too big for Kill Team but too small for full 40k. I just don't know if their is enough space for a whole commerical game to fill it.

I think its just a matter of time before we see vehicles in kill team. I see no reason why a 0-1 light vehicle or a walker would break the game. I've played games where overall casualties were low anyways, so even if one is unable to destroy a vehicle, it doesn't guarantee a victory, with objectives and whatnot.

300 points with elites and 0-1 light vehicles, played on a 6 x 4" board, I would be all over that! Std 40K is too streamlined for my tastes (still nostalgic for 2nd ed 40K times)

tauist wrote:
I think its just a matter of time before we see vehicles in kill team. I see no reason why a 0-1 light vehicle or a walker would break the game. I've played games where overall casualties were low anyways, so even if one is unable to destroy a vehicle, it doesn't guarantee a victory, with objectives and whatnot.

300 points with elites and 0-1 light vehicles, played on a 6 x 4" board, I would be all over that! Std 40K is too streamlined for my tastes (still nostalgic for 2nd ed 40K times)

I think that pushes the limit of Kill Team too much. I mean at 300 points that is practically an unlimited points amount for some factions as they could have everything they could ever want for an all infantry team of 20. If you played Genestealer Cultists and didn't want vehicles, I don't think you could spend more than 250 sans Commanders. As for the 6'x4' board, not even full 40k plays 1000 points or less on that size of a table (its 4x4).

And that is before we get into the idea that heavy support infantry or equivalent is pretty limited for some factions. I mean Orks don't have worthwhile ranged anti-armor (a couple of Rokkit Launcha Boyz lookin' for 6s is about it) and even their heavy hitting melee doesn't come on exactly the most durable platforms. You say they wouldn't have to destroy the vehicle to still have a chance, but I think there is a big difference between neither side taking many casualties but they very well could have and one side having something that would take all game focus firing to maybe bring down having the ability to bully being functionally invincible. I mean that is kinda why tanks were invented and used in WWI.

I am not sure sure where you get the idea that full 40k is streamlined over Kill Team. Even in small point games, full 40k has a lot more going on. It just isn't in the basic rules of the game like it is in Kill Team. They are still practically the same game with a few exceptions. The exceptions do change how the game is played, but I don't see the two games as all that different. The basic unit rules are fundamentally the same and most of the data sheets are also the same (or were when Kill Team was released). I think it would be much easier to just play a low point game of full Warhammer 40k (300-500 points) and introduce the elements from Kill Team you like. Or maybe just play Kill Team adding select units agreed upon by the players.

Don't get me wrong, this weekend my group is planning on playing Kill Team with one player taking a big model (such as carnifex or a dreadnought and seeing if a kill team can take it down) just for funsies. I also agree that there is a gap between Kill Team and full 40k that I would like to play as I like the idea of playing a 1HQ, 3-5 Infantry squads and vehicle type game over jumping up to a full 2000 point 40k game. I just don't want to turn Kill Team into that that game as it would radically alter what Kill Team is. I also don't know if there is enough of a market for GW to bother with a Combat Patrol game.

I dont see any of this as impossible. All it takes is one new expansion, like elites & commanders. Players can decide not to include that expansion in their games if they wish.

In regular 40k, I dislike things like no flesh wounds, units moving in clumps, shooting mechanics not detailed enough. Introduce some way to get that stuff (along with readying) into 40k and I'd be much more into it.

and 4x4" tables, sorry, never use em. Takes all flavour from using ranged weapons IMHO.

Guess I'm just the type who loves small skirmish games too much. Necromunda rules with vehicles would be me ideal way to 40k :p