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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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

Are they?

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

That single sentence is what you took away from that post? Everything has a quality, or qualities. Not everything is high quality.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

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

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


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

Medics might actually be quite good in this game, assuming they interact with the flesh wound mechanic. A flesh wound is effectively -1 to hit, +1 to be hit, must take a morale test; removing that penalty is quite significant, a lot more significant than a 40k medic bringing back a single 4 point model to be sure.

Blastaar wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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

Are they?

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

That single sentence is what you took away from that post? Everything has a quality, or qualities. Not everything is high quality.

And you only took from mine that I was talking about quality?

The general element of what I posted was that you can think something, that the only games you want to play are the hyper-detailed ones, implying that you generally feel that Warhammer-esque board games are only the level of hyper-detailed that you like when they're 3 hours long.

However, I'm just saying that whilst you think that, and nothing is saying that you're wrong, there are plenty of people who have a different opinion and that maybe, to them, 3 one-hour games are more enjoyable than 1 three-hour game. To them, maybe 40k 8th edition, for all of it's Land Raider shoots all it's guns from a single tread glory, is more "intuitive" (if it has those guns, it can shoot them!) and "interactive" (I don't need to worry about clumping models up to avoid blasts!).

Frankly, rules for most things make no sense - because it's a game. It's never going to be 100% accurate. However, there's certain degrees to which people say "that's good!" - not too simple, not too complex. For you, having a less abstracted game which takes 3 hours is the best solution - for you. That's not to say that it's the only way. Unfortunately, and I don't feel that you think this, but it comes across like you feel that the only good way to play Kill Team would be if it was 3 hours long - which isn't true for everyone.

Chopstick wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/07/14/kill-team-focus-harlequins/

Harlequin preview up

Hopefully the Neuro Disruptor is still a brutal weapon like in SW:A.

Finally! Not surprised by this but also pleased. Now, Tau and my two interests will be met.

Honestly the thing that I find baffling is folk talking about having a game on their lunchbreak, which seems pretty impractical for anyone who isn't in school or working at GW.

First, you need opponents at work, which isn't a thing for the vast majority of us. Second, you need a place to play, which again is not really a thing. Third, err, are you not using your lunchbreak to, you know, eat some lunch?

I mean if you can and you enjoy it that's great for you, but if that's an actual consideration when GW were designing the game it seems like another example of their "design bubble" thinking where they assume their customers mostly have the same access, time, and approach to games and models that they do when that really isn't the case.

Still, it's evidently just not made for me and folk like me, so we're back to using fan rules for that "happy medium" experience in the style of Mordheim & Necromunda.

Blastaar wrote:

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

That single wound model dies quickly in 40K because he's being shot at by entire units. Given that most models in the game hit on a 3 or 4, shooting with single models at a time means you're missing half the time, and even when you hit you still need to wound and cause something better than a flesh wound.

You essentially need to look at each single model as a separate unit. Models are going to die quickly, yes... but only one at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

X078 wrote:
T'au Stealth suits.

Spoiler:

That terrain is seriously pretty.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Honestly the thing that I find baffling is folk talking about having a game on their lunchbreak, which seems pretty impractical for anyone who isn't in school or working at GW.

First, you need opponents at work, which isn't a thing for the vast majority of us. Second, you need a place to play, which again is not really a thing. Third, err, are you not using your lunchbreak to, you know, eat some lunch?

I mean if you can and you enjoy it that's great for you, but if that's an actual consideration when GW were designing the game it seems like another example of their "design bubble" thinking where they assume their customers mostly have the same access, time, and approach to games and models that they do when that really isn't the case.

Still, it's evidently just not made for me and folk like me, so we're back to using fan rules for that "happy medium" experience in the style of Mordheim & Necromunda.

I look forward to being able to play it during my lunch. Absolutely going to be doing it multiple days a week. I work in an office.

 insaniak wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

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

That single wound model dies quickly in 40K because he's being shot at by entire units. Given that most models in the game hit on a 3 or 4, shooting with single models at a time means you're missing half the time, and even when you hit you still need to wound and cause something better than a flesh wound.

You essentially need to look at each single model as a separate unit. Models are going to die quickly, yes... but only one at a time.

Yes. The concern is that they will die so quickly there will not be enough back-and-forth for my tastes.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Honestly the thing that I find baffling is folk talking about having a game on their lunchbreak, which seems pretty impractical for anyone who isn't in school or working at GW.

First, you need opponents at work, which isn't a thing for the vast majority of us. Second, you need a place to play, which again is not really a thing. Third, err, are you not using your lunchbreak to, you know, eat some lunch?

I mean if you can and you enjoy it that's great for you, but if that's an actual consideration when GW were designing the game it seems like another example of their "design bubble" thinking where they assume their customers mostly have the same access, time, and approach to games and models that they do when that really isn't the case.

Still, it's evidently just not made for me and folk like me, so we're back to using fan rules for that "happy medium" experience in the style of Mordheim & Necromunda.

I think you're taking the lunchbreak thing a little too literally, to be honest. It's a way of illustrating that the game plays quickly, with an example of a time to play when you might not have 3 hours to spare... and that's all.

Having said that, in one of my previous workplaces there were at least two other guys who played 40K (one of those was my fault) and with a one-hour lunchbreak this, like the original 40K in 40minutes (which later became Combat Patrol) would have been perfect.

It would also be great for weeknight evening games, where you don't necessarily want to be up until midnight playing, or where you want to get in a few games in the time you have. I used to play the WotC Star Wars minis game with my brother and his son for more or less the same reason... we could get in two or three games in the time it would take to get a 40K game set up, so we went with Star Wars for our weeknight gaming sessions, and left 40K for when we had a bigger block of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:

Yes. The concern is that they will die so quickly there will not be enough back-and-forth for my tastes.

Alternating shooting and combat takes care of that. Even if the game winds up being over in one turn, both players will at least get to play.


With single-model units, and an apparent return to just needing to be ever so slightly obscured to benefit making cover so much more accessible, and the addition of long-range hit modifiers, I suspect models are going to be significantly more long-lived than we think right now.

Blastaar wrote:
[spoiler]

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And you only took from mine that I was talking about quality?

Well, yes. Maybe it was your choice of words. So "enjoyablity" then?

Possibly my choice of words. However, no, I did butt back against you saying that "quality over quantity", as that's not ALWAYS true (not to mention quality being subjective), but that wasn't the main point.

The general element of what I posted was that you can think something, that the only games you want to play are the hyper-detailed ones, implying that you generally feel that Warhammer-esque board games are only the level of hyper-detailed that you like when they're 3 hours long.

However, I'm just saying that whilst you think that, and nothing is saying that you're wrong, there are plenty of people who have a different opinion and that maybe, to them, 3 one-hour games are more enjoyable than 1 three-hour game. To them, maybe 40k 8th edition, for all of it's Land Raider shoots all it's guns from a single tread glory, is more "intuitive" (if it has those guns, it can shoot them!) and "interactive" (I don't need to worry about clumping models up to avoid blasts!).

MOBAs and other games played in short matches proves that many do enjoy these kinds of games. I played LOL and HOTS for a while. Smash Bros is great, as is Magic. But I don't see any inherent appeal in many short games over fewer longer ones, if we're discussing game length in isolation. The thing about multiple, shorter games, is that you have to keep starting over again. I'm not opposed to the idea in principle but games like 40k, played with model kits assembled and painted yourself, seem an odd place for it when the genre has room to do more, and to do certain things better than others can, and there are already so many quicker match-style games to turn to if that is your preference.

You're more than welcome to have your own preferences. However, you seem to be implying that the ONLY way to have an enjoyable game, not just for you, but anyone, is that it should be longer, rather than shorter.

Multiple games would allow for more playthroughs of custom missions and scenarios, tactics and strategies. When each game is 3 hours long, if you made a choice that you regretted for that entire 3 hours, that might suck. If you do it for one of the three one hour games you might play that day, then you can decide "okay, that tactic isn't for me!".

You can also get a game in in times in the day when you wouldn't be able to have a three hour one. Say, you have an hour or so between games at a FLGS - you're waiting on a friend to arrive, or for the table you booked to become open. You can grab a game of Kill Team in that time. If you did have that big three hour slot, then nothing stops you playing three Kill Team games. Hell, in my example, you could play Kill Team with models from your big three hour long normal 40k game as you're waiting.

You say that "if people want smaller games, they should go elsewhere" - why shouldn't the same apply to you? If you want longer games, go find some instead of Kill Team. Why is your preference the right one?

Again, both have merits, and I'm not trying to convince you that small is the right way. I'm just saying that to some people, it is.

Isn't not spacing out to avoid blasts, NOT doing something, and having less to think about when you move your models? Positioning being unimportant is not interactive. What I mean to say is more opportunities for models and units to affect each other, including but by no means limited to causing wounds. Preferably in a manner that requires the model or unit to DO something rather than a passive benefit.

It's interactive in that I get more freedom to place my models how I want to. Back when blasts were a thing, there was absolutely no way I'd cluster models up. Now, I have that choice to do it, if I think it'll look cool. Interactive.

There is absolutely rules that encourage a unit to "do something" in 8th. For a Captain, you need to be within 6". If it was a passive as you say, then EVERYTHING on the table would get his bonus.

Frankly, rules for most things make no sense - because it's a game. It's never going to be 100% accurate. However, there's certain degrees to which people say "that's good!" - not too simple, not too complex. For you, having a less abstracted game which takes 3 hours is the best solution - for you. That's not to say that it's the only way. Unfortunately, and I don't feel that you think this, but it comes across like you feel that the only good way to play Kill Team would be if it was 3 hours long - which isn't true for everyone.

As I was saying further back, it isn't even the game length in and of itself, but that the team seems to have made decisions based purely on length of play, even if it meant leaving out cool features. For Kill Team I had hoped for, but certainly not expected (not from GW) a deeper game than they appear to be releasing. More opportunities to out-maneuver and out-think your opponent with an Inquisitor and his customized retinue, with missions and objectives that create/permit tactical gameplay but also create a strong sense of immersion and narrative. More detail, more interactions past rolling to hit and to wound. If ever there was a time for GW to try a more complex game Kill Team with its low model count and its need to be a different game, not just lil' 40k, is it.

I think you're assuming too much based on your biases that "short = cannot be a good thing = therefore, intention".

I don't think that their entire reason was to make it short, and nothing else. Do I think it's a selling point? It's subjective, but it's totally a selling point for me.

I feel that GW focused on making the games fast paced. That's what they want. They want small, fast paced games, which, as a side effect means the games will be shorter. It's cause and effect. The shorter game isn't the goal, but it's a consequence of reaching their goal of a fast PACED game.

There's plenty of chance to out-maneuver opponents? Didn't you see about how morale and cover work? You can use morale to affect stronger parts of an army without even attacking them, you have to maneuver round cover to get good arcs of fire.

No idea where the Inquisitor part comes in - slightly irrelevant in this discussion.

I absolutely think that his will have strong immersion and narrative...
...for me.

That's what I'm getting at. Just because you think it's going to be shallow and that it was only built for shortness is your opinion on it. I disagree, and that's fine.

This is looking to hit playtime similar to xwing (perhaps before it bloated into something else). A sorted game like this is much easier for those of us with jobs/children/other responsibilities to fit in. Particularly after a long work day. Looking forward to seeing more of the rules

No, I am not implying anything, just discussing. And I think you're assuming an awful lot about me and what I've been saying. Try debating in good faith instead of repeatedly posting "that's, like, your opinion man. And it's wrong," or willfully misinterpreting what say because you have an ax to grind. People might actually listen to what you have to say.

Blastaar wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
[spoiler]

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And you only took from mine that I was talking about quality?

Well, yes. Maybe it was your choice of words. So "enjoyablity" then?

Possibly my choice of words. However, no, I did butt back against you saying that "quality over quantity", as that's not ALWAYS true (not to mention quality being subjective), but that wasn't the main point.

The general element of what I posted was that you can think something, that the only games you want to play are the hyper-detailed ones, implying that you generally feel that Warhammer-esque board games are only the level of hyper-detailed that you like when they're 3 hours long.

However, I'm just saying that whilst you think that, and nothing is saying that you're wrong, there are plenty of people who have a different opinion and that maybe, to them, 3 one-hour games are more enjoyable than 1 three-hour game. To them, maybe 40k 8th edition, for all of it's Land Raider shoots all it's guns from a single tread glory, is more "intuitive" (if it has those guns, it can shoot them!) and "interactive" (I don't need to worry about clumping models up to avoid blasts!).

MOBAs and other games played in short matches proves that many do enjoy these kinds of games. I played LOL and HOTS for a while. Smash Bros is great, as is Magic. But I don't see any inherent appeal in many short games over fewer longer ones, if we're discussing game length in isolation. The thing about multiple, shorter games, is that you have to keep starting over again. I'm not opposed to the idea in principle but games like 40k, played with model kits assembled and painted yourself, seem an odd place for it when the genre has room to do more, and to do certain things better than others can, and there are already so many quicker match-style games to turn to if that is your preference.

You're more than welcome to have your own preferences. However, you seem to be implying that the ONLY way to have an enjoyable game, not just for you, but anyone, is that it should be longer, rather than shorter.

Multiple games would allow for more playthroughs of custom missions and scenarios, tactics and strategies. When each game is 3 hours long, if you made a choice that you regretted for that entire 3 hours, that might suck. If you do it for one of the three one hour games you might play that day, then you can decide "okay, that tactic isn't for me!".

You can also get a game in in times in the day when you wouldn't be able to have a three hour one. Say, you have an hour or so between games at a FLGS - you're waiting on a friend to arrive, or for the table you booked to become open. You can grab a game of Kill Team in that time. If you did have that big three hour slot, then nothing stops you playing three Kill Team games. Hell, in my example, you could play Kill Team with models from your big three hour long normal 40k game as you're waiting.

You say that "if people want smaller games, they should go elsewhere" - why shouldn't the same apply to you? If you want longer games, go find some instead of Kill Team. Why is your preference the right one?

Again, both have merits, and I'm not trying to convince you that small is the right way. I'm just saying that to some people, it is.

Isn't not spacing out to avoid blasts, NOT doing something, and having less to think about when you move your models? Positioning being unimportant is not interactive. What I mean to say is more opportunities for models and units to affect each other, including but by no means limited to causing wounds. Preferably in a manner that requires the model or unit to DO something rather than a passive benefit.

It's interactive in that I get more freedom to place my models how I want to. Back when blasts were a thing, there was absolutely no way I'd cluster models up. Now, I have that choice to do it, if I think it'll look cool. Interactive.

There is absolutely rules that encourage a unit to "do something" in 8th. For a Captain, you need to be within 6". If it was a passive as you say, then EVERYTHING on the table would get his bonus.

Frankly, rules for most things make no sense - because it's a game. It's never going to be 100% accurate. However, there's certain degrees to which people say "that's good!" - not too simple, not too complex. For you, having a less abstracted game which takes 3 hours is the best solution - for you. That's not to say that it's the only way. Unfortunately, and I don't feel that you think this, but it comes across like you feel that the only good way to play Kill Team would be if it was 3 hours long - which isn't true for everyone.

As I was saying further back, it isn't even the game length in and of itself, but that the team seems to have made decisions based purely on length of play, even if it meant leaving out cool features. For Kill Team I had hoped for, but certainly not expected (not from GW) a deeper game than they appear to be releasing. More opportunities to out-maneuver and out-think your opponent with an Inquisitor and his customized retinue, with missions and objectives that create/permit tactical gameplay but also create a strong sense of immersion and narrative. More detail, more interactions past rolling to hit and to wound. If ever there was a time for GW to try a more complex game Kill Team with its low model count and its need to be a different game, not just lil' 40k, is it.

I think you're assuming too much based on your biases that "short = cannot be a good thing = therefore, intention".

I don't think that their entire reason was to make it short, and nothing else. Do I think it's a selling point? It's subjective, but it's totally a selling point for me.

I feel that GW focused on making the games fast paced. That's what they want. They want small, fast paced games, which, as a side effect means the games will be shorter. It's cause and effect. The shorter game isn't the goal, but it's a consequence of reaching their goal of a fast PACED game.

There's plenty of chance to out-maneuver opponents? Didn't you see about how morale and cover work? You can use morale to affect stronger parts of an army without even attacking them, you have to maneuver round cover to get good arcs of fire.

No idea where the Inquisitor part comes in - slightly irrelevant in this discussion.

I absolutely think that his will have strong immersion and narrative...
...for me.

That's what I'm getting at. Just because you think it's going to be shallow and that it was only built for shortness is your opinion on it. I disagree, and that's fine.

No, I am not implying anything, just discussing. And I think you're assuming an awful lot about me and what I've been saying. Try debating in good faith instead of repeatedly posting "that's, like, your opinion man. And it's wrong," or willfully misinterpreting what say because you have an ax to grind. People might actually listen to what you have to say.

Pot calls kettle black. Check.
Maybe take it somewhere else? You two are clogging up the thread with this garbage.
It's a Kill Team thread, not a personal grievances thread.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Honestly the thing that I find baffling is folk talking about having a game on their lunchbreak, which seems pretty impractical for anyone who isn't in school or working at GW.

First, you need opponents at work, which isn't a thing for the vast majority of us. Second, you need a place to play, which again is not really a thing. Third, err, are you not using your lunchbreak to, you know, eat some lunch?

I mean if you can and you enjoy it that's great for you, but if that's an actual consideration when GW were designing the game it seems like another example of their "design bubble" thinking where they assume their customers mostly have the same access, time, and approach to games and models that they do when that really isn't the case.

Still, it's evidently just not made for me and folk like me, so we're back to using fan rules for that "happy medium" experience in the style of Mordheim & Necromunda.

I look forward to being able to play it during my lunch. Absolutely going to be doing it multiple days a week. I work in an office.

 insaniak wrote:

Having said that, in one of my previous workplaces there were at least two other guys who played 40K (one of those was my fault) and with a one-hour lunchbreak this, like the original 40K in 40minutes (which later became Combat Patrol) would have been perfect.

I mean, great, but you guys get that isn't the norm yeah? Most folk aren't surrounded by fellow tabletop wargamers when at work.

It would also be great for weeknight evening games, where you don't necessarily want to be up until midnight playing, or where you want to get in a few games in the time you have. I used to play the WotC Star Wars minis game with my brother and his son for more or less the same reason... we could get in two or three games in the time it would take to get a 40K game set up, so we went with Star Wars for our weeknight gaming sessions, and left 40K for when we had a bigger block of time.

This bit though comes back to the core difference in preference - I would much, much rather have one game with a detailed ruleset than two or three with a less detailed one, and if I have so little time that I would need a less detailed one to get a game in then I'd just do something else. It's like, sure, I could afford several takeaway burgers for the price of a steak, but that's not much use if I want steak.

Like I say though, it seems the game just isn't aimed at folk like me, which is fine, just disappointing for us.

Three short games gives the benefit of two opportunities for gaining skills and advancement in a single session. That’s a massive plus for me - the entire point of the game, in fact.

Shrapnelbait wrote:

I could be mistaken, but I think the initial shipping to Aus is part of the problem. Not the shipping across the country, but the container shipping across the ocean. Everything I've heard about points to stupid international shipping costs for you guys.

If shipping was an issue, then it wouldn't still be massively cheaper to ship a single unit from the UK or USA via air, still pay tax on it, and have it still be massively cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chikout wrote:

Why do you insist on attacking Phil Kelly all the time? He has not been a rules writer for many years. He has absolutely nothing to do with the rules of Killteam or anything in 8th edition. Even the stuff you are angry with him about is not true
He was not the lead rules writer on the 7th edition Eldar book. James Hewitt explained that the most broken rules were a result of upper management pressure.

This seems interesting, do you have a link?

Loving the prospect of a shorter play time, between shift work, toddler, the somewhat strange hours of my local FLGS (3pm-1am) and the serious hourage needed for a standard 40k game I've normally got zero chance to play.

A short game means it might be possible to squeeze a quick match in around those commitments. Another plus is it'll make it easier to try and rope friends/the wife into a match.

 Azazelx wrote:


This seems interesting, do you have a link?

It was from his ama. Here is the relevant bit.

 Dedwoods42 wrote:
Extremely happy about the game length. Being able to get a game in during my 45 minute lunch is great, as is being able to play 3 games in 2 hours or so.

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

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

The fact that models get stronger and their rules get deeper the more games you play in a session implies that the individual match length isn't all that important.

Folks who think length means quality are missing the forest for the trees. Each subsequent game in a session gets deeper because of specialist levels, all without sacrificing the length of an individual match.

mistake.

Woops! Wrong thread

Wrong thread?

 Azazelx wrote:
This seems interesting, do you have a link?

This response in the AMA he did on reddit six months ago.

Edit: Didn't see that someone had already responded with this. Still, the full AMA is a good read if you're interested.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:

 Dedwoods42 wrote:
Extremely happy about the game length. Being able to get a game in during my 45 minute lunch is great, as is being able to play 3 games in 2 hours or so.

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

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

The fact that models get stronger and their rules get deeper the more games you play in a session implies that the individual match length isn't all that important.

Folks who think length means quality are missing the forest for the trees. Each subsequent game in a session gets deeper because of specialist levels, all without sacrificing the length of an individual match.

This article specifically mentions that it's only going to be in narrative play. If you're regularly getting a group together to play a short campaign every week or something then awesome, I bet that'll be great, but I suspect a majority of play is going to be pick-up games using matched play.

I like a lot of what I've seen but the insistence they have in bundling terrain with all the single teams is really baffling. The whole point of this game is a cheap gateway dru- I mean starting point for 40k. Making it where each factions starter box is $60 and isn't even covering all your options is a really dumb business move. The money they make shifting terrain isn't going to offset the money they lose scaring off new players accustomed to other systems.

I get they want to ensure everyone has terrain, but they're going to sell bundles of terrain with Mats already, we don't need additional terrain in the single starters.

The teams should have been in the $30 range, with a single box of a useful troop type and the cards, tokens,etc. As it sits the only box that's really useful to any degree is the Ork one and that's only because orks always need more vehicles to convert for orky purposes. And even there, that's only useful for big 40k, not Killteam. This would have been the perfect time to drop a "gubbinz" sprue that's designed to just provide tons of bits to orkify existing terrain, like that Maelstrom edge terrain thing.

Heck that would have been perfect for all the killteams, a basic sprue packed with basic bits and bobs those players always need. Pouches, ammo boxes, insignia, signs, defensive structures, additional weapons that are known to be in high demand *cough*IG plasma guns*cough* additional heads, arms, I could go on all day. These would be ideal not only for sprucing up your team, but letting you customize your terrain to your story. For example some orky bitz slapped on eldar terrain to show where a squad of Kommandos has set up shop while they complete an op, or a Tau defensive structure with an Aquila slapped over all the Tau logos to show a squad of guardsmen behind enemy lines sick of staring at blasphemous xenos symbols.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Honestly the thing that I find baffling is folk talking about having a game on their lunchbreak, which seems pretty impractical for anyone who isn't in school or working at GW.

First, you need opponents at work, which isn't a thing for the vast majority of us. Second, you need a place to play, which again is not really a thing. Third, err, are you not using your lunchbreak to, you know, eat some lunch?

I mean if you can and you enjoy it that's great for you, but if that's an actual consideration when GW were designing the game it seems like another example of their "design bubble" thinking where they assume their customers mostly have the same access, time, and approach to games and models that they do when that really isn't the case.

Still, it's evidently just not made for me and folk like me, so we're back to using fan rules for that "happy medium" experience in the style of Mordheim & Necromunda.

I'm entirely speaking for myself - but I have an opponent at work, and the space at the coffee table in our break room to play. I work 12 hour days and typically eat as I work, so my 45 minute break is just a break. A perfect length of time for a game of kill team. We could play a mini campaign over a set of shifts.

I also struggle for full days to play the big 40k campaigns I love running, so being able to grab people for an evening or two to run a campaign is awesome.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I like a lot of what I've seen but the insistence they have in bundling terrain with all the single teams is really baffling. The whole point of this game is a cheap gateway dru- I mean starting point for 40k. Making it where each factions starter box is $60 and isn't even covering all your options is a really dumb business move. The money they make shifting terrain isn't going to offset the money they lose scaring off new players accustomed to other systems.

I get they want to ensure everyone has terrain, but they're going to sell bundles of terrain with Mats already, we don't need additional terrain in the single starters.

The teams should have been in the $30 range, with a single box of a useful troop type and the cards, tokens,etc. As it sits the only box that's really useful to any degree is the Ork one and that's only because orks always need more vehicles to convert for orky purposes. And even there, that's only useful for big 40k, not Killteam. This would have been the perfect time to drop a "gubbinz" sprue that's designed to just provide tons of bits to orkify existing terrain, like that Maelstrom edge terrain thing.

Heck that would have been perfect for all the killteams, a basic sprue packed with basic bits and bobs those players always need. Pouches, ammo boxes, insignia, signs, defensive structures, additional weapons that are known to be in high demand *cough*IG plasma guns*cough* additional heads, arms, I could go on all day. These would be ideal not only for sprucing up your team, but letting you customize your terrain to your story. For example some orky bitz slapped on eldar terrain to show where a squad of Kommandos has set up shop while they complete an op, or a Tau defensive structure with an Aquila slapped over all the Tau logos to show a squad of guardsmen behind enemy lines sick of staring at blasphemous xenos symbols.

Outside of a few specific cards in those starter boxes, people can just buy the individual kits for Kill Team, as all the rules are in the book. The cards, like in 40k, are a convenience but not required. New players won't have terrain, these kits give players some that presumably they will be using in addition to the core set. This give new players a handful of teams and enough terrain right out the gate. Assuming someone buys the core set and one extra starter box, that's 3 teams to play with friends and a table of terrain with the full rules for just under $200. If that scares off anyone, well frankly, this isn't the hobby for them. It's expensive. But this is a reason able price to many to get started. Many people online have already expressed as much.

What doesn't make good business sense is offering a super niche product like "gubbinz" sprue. That would be cool for converters, but new players probably are just going to want to build stuff out of the box.

GW is just launching Kill Team, and people are wanting hyper specific add ons. Those will likely come with expansions, but it's really silly to talk about such niche items as if it should be expected at launch when they're giving 16 factions with full rules and many discounted sets to build up a full board at a relativey afforadble price.

Yeah, a "starter" for kill team is called a normal infantry box

 Zethnar wrote:
This article specifically mentions that it's only going to be in narrative play. If you're regularly getting a group together to play a short campaign every week or something then awesome, I bet that'll be great, but I suspect a majority of play is going to be pick-up games using matched play.

Don't know where you play, but my FLGS's and big regional club have always been able to run Necromunda and Bloodbowl campaigns in what is essentially a pick up game setting. It just rewards players who show up every week, more than the once in a while players.

This does bring up the question of what exactly GW means by supporting organized play. I couldn't care less about random pick up games with people I couldn't pick out of a perp line. If organized play doesn't support narrative play then it will be an epic fail. Luckily narrative play will happen whether GW "supports" it or not--because that's why people want to play games like Kill Team.

From Facebook, some more KT suggestions: