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.

 Peregrine wrote:
There's also a statement that, after rolling an injury roll, you discard all other pending attacks and don't resolve them. IMO the only reasonable explanation is that the intent was to discard the pending attacks if the model dies, just stating the obvious that you don't need to keep rolling to wound a model that is already gone and you don't get to move the attacks to a different model. It's just so obviously stupid that if you get shot twice you magically make the second bullet go away if you survive the first one, and your chance of dying is no greater than if you had only been shot once.

No Peregrine, the reasonable explanation here is that you aren't taking a moment to consider why the rule might be written like it is.

In an abstracted combat game we obviously don't think every single roll made represents a single bullet. Just like in original D&D hit points don't represent mere physical integrity but things like your positioning and ability to avoid fatal hits (as the concept originally came from a famous Robin Hood film's swashbuckling scene), neither does the Hit/Wound/Save/Injury -system necessarily represent things in that order. What it does though is give us a funky model with a bunch of variables abstracting real world stuff that determine whether someone gets blown up or not, and this is no different from that: it is mechanically more likely to get injured with a flesh wound because you are under a hail of fire (more shots, more probable that something gets past your save and goes to the injury roll) and more likely to get outright knocked out or blown up by being hit with a lascannon (because that way you get to roll a bunch of injury dice at once). There is nothing inherently stupid in deciding that this is how things should go: pray'n'spray weapons produce light injuries, heavy weapons produce horrible injuries. If the mechanical way to get there means you might discard a few rolls, there is nothing problematic in that design, even if you feel it might not be the way you would have designed it. Done this way it also promotes more choice in gameplay, because you know you can waste your machine gun fire by pointing it all to one guy, when that is not the weapon's intended role.

Another thought experiment:

Your enemy is by a window, with walls thick enough to protect him from your gun. You have an assault rifle and shoot a burst in his direction, represented in a game by firing more shots. Some hit the window pane, some glance off his thick armour and knock him backwards away from your sustained fire. He bleeds a bit, but managed to avoid dying. Now some of your shots were wasted. Contrast this with firing a grenade launcher in there, where you get your singular, stronger effect immediately because the entire room he was in blew up. He is much more likely dead by now.

Just because you might not have made the rule in a similar fashion does not mean it is outright dumb.

But what if a bunch of bullets from a pray and spray weapons hits a dude at point blank range? Pretty sure if you unload an AK into someone at close quarters they aren't going to live.

 Sherrypie wrote:
No Peregrine, the reasonable explanation here is that you aren't taking a moment to consider why the rule might be written like it is.

No, I did take a moment to think about it. And I concluded that the reason for deliberately writing it that way is so stupid that it must be a mistake.

Your enemy is by a window, with walls thick enough to protect him from your gun. You have an assault rifle and shoot a burst in his direction, represented in a game by firing more shots. Some hit the window pane, some glance off his thick armour and knock him backwards away from your sustained fire. He bleeds a bit, but managed to avoid dying. Now some of your shots were wasted. Contrast this with firing a grenade launcher in there, where you get your singular, stronger effect immediately because the entire room he was in blew up. He is much more likely dead by now.

That's a terrible example. The protection of the walls is already represented by the -1 penalty on the hit roll. The protection of the armor is represented by the wound roll and save. Scoring multiple wounds represents your shooting being accurate enough to hit the target despite the cover. And discarding additional hits is not dependent on cover. You can have a character standing out in the open get hit by a full burst from a machine gun and the result is exactly the same as if only one bullet had hit. There is no situation where a high-ROF weapon can ever inflict more than one hit worth of wounds, and that's absurd.

And your example is especially ridiculous because a frag grenade is represented by a weapon with D6 shots and D1. So even the grenade that is supposedly great at killing a model in a room by blowing up the whole room is capped at a single potential wound, and passing that roll means discarding the rest of the grenade's effect.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
But what if a bunch of bullets from a pray and spray weapons hits a dude at point blank range? Pretty sure if you unload an AK into someone at close quarters they aren't going to live.

Except that is what happens to real people from time to time. There are war stories from soldiers who have fought on for a time even when riddled with bullets, because a bullet does not necessarily immediately evaporate you like a high explosive or supadupasciencefiction lascannon might. "They aren't going to live" is very different to "they immediately stop existing" and thus we have flesh wounds, immediate out of actions, post game injury tables and such things.

Real world reasoning aside, it makes sense from a gameplay point of view, because it gives more oomph for your specialist weapons and makes your precious few guys more resistant to immediate death by small arms while allowing the small arms to do what they should: to hamper the other side's ability to fight and allow you to gain fire superiority, thus winning the firefight and allowing you to go and complete your mission, thus winning the game.

Be that as it may there's no actual ambiguity in how they wrote it. Its an odd choice but one that everyone ive seen play has accepted and moved on from.

And yes if you roll 6 dice on the injury for the perfect lascannon and roll all 1s 2s and 3s you only suffer a single flesh wound because it only accounts for the highest roll (making reanimation protocols very good)


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Definitely sure Im reading it correct because the other passage that has been quoted specifically states that any other damage including mortal wounds waiting to be dealt with are discarded once that injury roll is made.

Use high RoF low damage weapons to hit multiple people and stop worrying about killing one guy really dead with 6 bullets and focus on high damage shots for that.

This isn't aimed at you cthulu just for the people who can't get behind this its how the rules are written. Everyone is free to house rule but this is what the rules currently mean

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
No Peregrine, the reasonable explanation here is that you aren't taking a moment to consider why the rule might be written like it is.

No, I did take a moment to think about it. And I concluded that the reason for deliberately writing it that way is so stupid that it must be a mistake.

Which again only goes to show that thinking in absolutes is bad, because you're missing out on potentially interesting mechanics and ideas by effectively shutting your ears and going "la la la" on your high horse.

 Peregrine wrote:

Your enemy is by a window, with walls thick enough to protect him from your gun. You have an assault rifle and shoot a burst in his direction, represented in a game by firing more shots. Some hit the window pane, some glance off his thick armour and knock him backwards away from your sustained fire. He bleeds a bit, but managed to avoid dying. Now some of your shots were wasted. Contrast this with firing a grenade launcher in there, where you get your singular, stronger effect immediately because the entire room he was in blew up. He is much more likely dead by now.

That's a terrible example. The protection of the walls is already represented by the -1 penalty on the hit roll. The protection of the armor is represented by the wound roll and save. Scoring multiple wounds represents your shooting being accurate enough to hit the target despite the cover. And discarding additional hits is not dependent on cover. You can have a character standing out in the open get hit by a full burst from a machine gun and the result is exactly the same as if only one bullet had hit. There is no situation where a high-ROF weapon can ever inflict more than one hit worth of wounds, and that's absurd.

And your example is especially ridiculous because a frag grenade is represented by a weapon with D6 shots and D1. So even the grenade that is supposedly great at killing a model in a room by blowing up the whole room is capped at a single potential wound, and passing that roll means discarding the rest of the grenade's effect.

You are missing the point. The rules are written in such a way that it allows for more survivability from small rounds, regardless of the situation, because that is the effect the game wants to go for. The end result of throwing an injury roll may be the same as with one bullet, but the probability isn't, so you're still much more likely to tag someone with a burst than you are with a single shot. For that end, you have to consider the whole sequence as an abstraction. I don't consider anything a hit or a physical wound or whatnot before the whole sequence is done and we see whether the model is dead on the ground or just bruised Hollywood style. And as the cover situation was easy to rationalise, so is the one in the open: the guy isn't standing, he's most likely running or lying down pinned or otherwise harder to hit and the machinegunner has to trace a bit. The end result is what matters, and there the choice is clear: lighter guns pierce muscle and break bones, but aren't meant to take people out as reliably as heavy gear. That is a respectable choice, even if your personal taste doesn't align with it's execution.

Regarding the grenade, I meant a ruleswise singular thing like a krak missile, sorry.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Requiet wrote:

Smellingsalts wrote:
Just a note on damage. I think there are a few misconceptions. If a weapon scores wounds, you only have to roll the number of injury dice it takes to reach zero, so a 1 wound model that takes 3 wounds rolls once, but a three wound model that takes 3 wounds rolls three times. Its a pretty cool way to balance multi wound models. Yes you will last longer, but you have higher odds of being taken out by multi wound weapons.

Incorrect it specifically states that it has to be an weapon with a damage greater than one. If you reduce my warrior to 0 wounds with 6 shots that all deal 1 damage I only roll 1 injury.

"If a model loses its last wound to an attack that has a Damage characteristic of more than 1, the player rolling the attack makes a number of injury rolls equal to that characteristic when making the injury roll..."

I think the interesting thing that keeps popping up in games ive played is your opponent is supposed to roll injuries for your models but every person ive played automatically rolls their own, maybe its because the roll is after saves and youre already rolling the dice but technically its something the opponent rolls

Are you sure you're reading it right? Because to me it seems to be referring to an single attack. If there's multiple attacks, then you would roll a number of dice equal to the total damage characteristic

"If a model loses its last wound to an attack that has a Damage characteristic of more than 1, the player rolling the attack makes a number of injury rolls equal to that characteristic when making the injury roll..."

If we are to assume that the 6 attacks with a damage characteristic of 1 are all separate attacks (in other words, each one is an attack), then yes, you would roll 6 injury rolls.

Attaks that take from say 2 to 1 don't cause damage roll(needs to be attack that caused last wound). Once model is 0 wound rest are ignored. And nven if it weren't hits that makes wound go below 0 aren#t causing damage rolls as per quoted rules.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Which again only goes to show that thinking in absolutes is bad, because you're missing out on potentially interesting mechanics and ideas by effectively shutting your ears and going "la la la" on your high horse.

Since when does "considered the rule and rejected it" mean "shutting your ears"? Is this a general rule, or one that only applies to rejecting rules that you personally like?

For that end, you have to consider the whole sequence as an abstraction.

Nope. First of all, if the end result is the only thing that matters then GW could easily have replaced it the sequence with a single D% roll. They made a deliberate choice to have a multiple-step sequence, so it matters what happens at each step. Second, aside from the fluff name of each step they are each tied to different aspects of the situation. To-hit represents accuracy and is modified by things that would increase or decrease accuracy. Save represents armor and is modified by things that interact with that armor. Etc. If something is representing a nonsense concept then that is a problem. Don't tell me "to-hit represents accuracy" and then apply a to-hit penalty to anything shooting at marines to represent their immunity to fear.

The end result is what matters, and there the choice is clear: lighter guns pierce muscle and break bones, but aren't meant to take people out as reliably as heavy gear.

Except it doesn't work that way. A plasma gun that hits twice should be twice as likely to kill you as when it hits once, and it's the textbook example of a heavy gun optimized for killing infantry. You're trying to rationalize design intent by selectively looking at the examples that fit your theory, and ignoring the fact that GW had many alternative options if they wanted to make lighter guns inflict wounds instead of kills. For example, a rule that anything with STR 4 or less suffers a -1 penalty on the wound/dead roll would actually accomplish the goal you're claiming.

Also, the end result is not nerfing the effectiveness of basic guns, it's nerfing the effectiveness of focused fire and encouraging multi-shot weapons to split fire across multiple targets. Two guardsmen with lasguns each shooting at two different targets will be more effective than each guardsman firing all of their shots at a single target. Same number of shots fired, but because of the resolution mechanic one is more effective than the other. Apparently the disappearing bullets only disappear if they don't come from different guns?

Regarding the grenade, I meant a ruleswise singular thing like a krak missile, sorry.

IOW, in your world if you want to blow up the whole room a model is in with an AoE weapon you use a krak missile with a shaped charge designed to inflict maximum focused damage on a heavily armored point target instead of a frag grenade that is designed to hit everything in a large blast radius with lethal shrapnel. Makes perfect sense to me...

@peregrine

The simple fact is that isn't how the rules work or how they were designed. Shoot gw an email berating them or with all of your great ideas and maybe in a year we'll be playing the game that you want. Right now despite your very... Impassioned text, we are playing Kill team 2018 and maybe its not the game for you but its been a blast for me and I can't wait to keep playing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Which again only goes to show that thinking in absolutes is bad, because you're missing out on potentially interesting mechanics and ideas by effectively shutting your ears and going "la la la" on your high horse.

Since when does "considered the rule and rejected it" mean "shutting your ears"? Is this a general rule, or one that only applies to rejecting rules that you personally like?

At the point when your conclusion is that there is no other option for the decision than stupidity and mistakes. It is a different thing to disagree with someone's design or philosophy because you don't think it's good and outright claim they are dumb and should feel bad.

 Peregrine wrote:

For that end, you have to consider the whole sequence as an abstraction.

Nope. First of all, if the end result is the only thing that matters then GW could easily have replaced it the sequence with a single D% roll. They made a deliberate choice to have a multiple-step sequence, so it matters what happens at each step. Second, aside from the fluff name of each step they are each tied to different aspects of the situation. To-hit represents accuracy and is modified by things that would increase or decrease accuracy. Save represents armor and is modified by things that interact with that armor. Etc. If something is representing a nonsense concept then that is a problem. Don't tell me "to-hit represents accuracy" and then apply a to-hit penalty to anything shooting at marines to represent their immunity to fear.

No, you're still a bit in the wrong here. What is true that yes, they could've replaced it with a singular roll but didn't, which is still just a mechanical choice to get to the result. The multiple steps just alter the probabilities of how the results are spread, but what the results should look like are still chosen in a fashion that here tends to make lighter guns less lethal. Everything in between is an abstraction and parts of that make sense better than others in representing what's going on in the battle. I agree that representing nonsensical parts would be a problem, but as such aren't really present (if one accepts GW's traditional conflict resolution scheme), that is a hypothetical that we don't have to be too worried about.

 Peregrine wrote:

The end result is what matters, and there the choice is clear: lighter guns pierce muscle and break bones, but aren't meant to take people out as reliably as heavy gear.

Except it doesn't work that way. A plasma gun that hits twice should be twice as likely to kill you as when it hits once, and it's the textbook example of a heavy gun optimized for killing infantry. You're trying to rationalize design intent by selectively looking at the examples that fit your theory, and ignoring the fact that GW had many alternative options if they wanted to make lighter guns inflict wounds instead of kills. For example, a rule that anything with STR 4 or less suffers a -1 penalty on the wound/dead roll would actually accomplish the goal you're claiming.

Also, the end result is not nerfing the effectiveness of basic guns, it's nerfing the effectiveness of focused fire and encouraging multi-shot weapons to split fire across multiple targets. Two guardsmen with lasguns each shooting at two different targets will be more effective than each guardsman firing all of their shots at a single target. Same number of shots fired, but because of the resolution mechanic one is more effective than the other. Apparently the disappearing bullets only disappear if they don't come from different guns?

But it does work that way. "Shooting a D2 plasma gun at someone is deadlier than shooting a D1 shotgun at someone" is the desired result. That is the intent and this rule supports that. I am not ignoring anything, because I'm not claiming this is the only way things could be done or that other ways are stupid. The only thing I'm claiming here is that this is A way to do it and that choice is a valid one from design perspective. You are the one ignoring things here, because you dismiss this option as something utterly useless, which is demonstratably false.

There is also nothing less effective about focusing fire like that, because then you are making a choice to ensure that one target is more likely to fall and since the second guardsman can cause another injury roll on the target. While you are perhaps lessening your possible combined damage spread over the enemy team, you are increasing your chances of taking out the target you actually want to take out. And even that is very dependent on the scenery and mission situation. You are worrying too much about very minute details here.

 Peregrine wrote:

Regarding the grenade, I meant a ruleswise singular thing like a krak missile, sorry.

IOW, in your world if you want to blow up the whole room a model is in with an AoE weapon you use a krak missile with a shaped charge designed to inflict maximum focused damage on a heavily armored point target instead of a frag grenade that is designed to hit everything in a large blast radius with lethal shrapnel. Makes perfect sense to me...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
No Peregrine, the reasonable explanation here is that you aren't taking a moment to consider why the rule might be written like it is.

No, I did take a moment to think about it. And I concluded that the reason for deliberately writing it that way is so stupid that it must be a mistake.

Your enemy is by a window, with walls thick enough to protect him from your gun. You have an assault rifle and shoot a burst in his direction, represented in a game by firing more shots. Some hit the window pane, some glance off his thick armour and knock him backwards away from your sustained fire. He bleeds a bit, but managed to avoid dying. Now some of your shots were wasted. Contrast this with firing a grenade launcher in there, where you get your singular, stronger effect immediately because the entire room he was in blew up. He is much more likely dead by now.

That's a terrible example. The protection of the walls is already represented by the -1 penalty on the hit roll. The protection of the armor is represented by the wound roll and save. Scoring multiple wounds represents your shooting being accurate enough to hit the target despite the cover. And discarding additional hits is not dependent on cover. You can have a character standing out in the open get hit by a full burst from a machine gun and the result is exactly the same as if only one bullet had hit. There is no situation where a high-ROF weapon can ever inflict more than one hit worth of wounds, and that's absurd.

And your example is especially ridiculous because a frag grenade is represented by a weapon with D6 shots and D1. So even the grenade that is supposedly great at killing a model in a room by blowing up the whole room is capped at a single potential wound, and passing that roll means discarding the rest of the grenade's effect.

It is a gameplay abstraction introduced to give multi-wound low ROF weapons a reason to exist in the system, and mitigate the power of multi-shot weapons' suppressing fire capabilities.

You're free to ignore it if you like, just like you're free to play 40k with no terrain on the table at all, or ignoring the Character rule, or with some similar houserule. The fact of the matter is though you're going to be drastically reducing the level of balance in the game system.

Theres a couple realities people are not considering in Kill Team. The first is that the board is TINY. The odds that your models are going to be near each other simply because that's where they need to go and you have a lot of them are pretty high. The other is that the morale bonus is really important for the teams that you're going to want to be using Split Fire against.

Also, tailoring is very much a thing that is a part of the game and encouraged. If you're in a situation where you're going to have a ton of overkill from your multi-shot weaponry (vs grey knights for example) you can just bring the dude on your roster with the plasma gun instead.

For those who missed it the first time around:




Beware, some quick camera cuts and odd angles await thee.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, I did take a moment to think about it. And I concluded that the reason for deliberately writing it that way is so stupid that it must be a mistake.

Your well reasoned argument for why this rule is poorly conceived is most compelling.

 Peregrine wrote:
There is no situation where a high-ROF weapon can ever inflict more than one hit worth of wounds, and that's absurd.

No, of course they can do multiple hits worth of wounds. You keep wounding until the target is at zero wounds. They only ever make one injury roll.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

No, I did take a moment to think about it. And I concluded that the reason for deliberately writing it that way is so stupid that it must be a mistake.

Your well reasoned argument for why this rule is poorly conceived is most compelling.

 Peregrine wrote:
There is no situation where a high-ROF weapon can ever inflict more than one hit worth of wounds, and that's absurd.

No, of course they can do multiple hits worth of wounds. You keep wounding until the target is at zero wounds. They only ever make one injury roll.

Also - what is the following situation: My opponent has three chaos cultists grouped together. I declare 2 storm bolter shots on one, 1 storm bolter shot on another, and the final storm bolter shot on the third. I miss one, and cause 1 wound to 2 of them, causing 2 injury rolls.

How is that not my multiple shot weapon dealing multiple hits worth of wounds?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

No, I did take a moment to think about it. And I concluded that the reason for deliberately writing it that way is so stupid that it must be a mistake.

Your well reasoned argument for why this rule is poorly conceived is most compelling.

 Peregrine wrote:
There is no situation where a high-ROF weapon can ever inflict more than one hit worth of wounds, and that's absurd.

No, of course they can do multiple hits worth of wounds. You keep wounding until the target is at zero wounds. They only ever make one injury roll.

Also - what is the following situation: My opponent has three chaos cultists grouped together. I declare 2 storm bolter shots on one, 1 storm bolter shot on another, and the final storm bolter shot on the third. I miss one, and cause 1 wound to 2 of them, causing 2 injury rolls.

How is that not my multiple shot weapon dealing multiple hits worth of wounds?

Or you repeatedly wound a tyranid warrior?

I'm also not sure where this not making sense comes in, this seems pretty straightforwards. You're shooting at someone with your machine gun: you miss, you hit them but their armour stops it, you score a solid hit that penetrates their armour and they go down so the rest of your shots impact around their fighting position. They don't stand there until you're done shooting...

Alright, not to break up the passive-aggressive back and forth, but let's be real here if we're using that as an example.

If you're "shooting someone with a machine gun" they physically could not move away fast enough to avoid the remaining hits. They wouldn't "drop" and then miss, either.

It's fine if it's the rule, it's just silly.

So is an average-ly trained and experienced Guardman hitting at the same rate at 12" range as a super ninja-samurai space elf. But that's the rules.

Maybe you can all take this conversation to another forum?

 Peregrine wrote:

Also, the end result is not nerfing the effectiveness of basic guns, it's nerfing the effectiveness of focused fire and encouraging multi-shot weapons to split fire across multiple targets. Two guardsmen with lasguns each shooting at two different targets will be more effective than each guardsman firing all of their shots at a single target. Same number of shots fired, but because of the resolution mechanic one is more effective than the other. Apparently the disappearing bullets only disappear if they don't come from different guns?

This is a good thing! You actually have to consider your options, instead of just automatically focus firing the enemy leaders and specialists down one by one.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Alright, not to break up the passive-aggressive back and forth, but let's be real here if we're using that as an example.

If you're "shooting someone with a machine gun" they physically could not move away fast enough to avoid the remaining hits. They wouldn't "drop" and then miss, either.

It's fine if it's the rule, it's just silly.

But that's the point when one is emulating reality with an abstracted system: there are many situations where that thing absolutely could happen, they just don't differ ruleswise because the line of abstraction is drawn there.

The gunner shoots in bursts, which aren't represented 1:1 with attack rolls because that would be dumb, and it is entirely possible that the target gets hit by one round of a burst that otherwise went high, or that he was running and just caught some hits to his leg while tumbling over to cover, the gunner was covering the whole street with bullets as the target tried to cross or what not.

The chance of hitting someone with a sustained machine gun fire is very high. The chance of the target dying to that is smaller than when he is hit by a missile blast. Most shots fired in real fights don't hit anyone, yet they still manage to do their job. Just like these rules.

Sure they're a bit silly like all 40k systems ever, but it would also be a tad silly to say they don't make sense at all.

 BrookM wrote:
For those who missed it the first time around:

Spoiler:

Beware, some quick camera cuts and odd angles await thee.

Don't forget the ol' stare five feet off to the side of the camera pose as well. Regardless, it's a helpful video to folks following peripherally like me.

Probably old news but it looks like they've changed the turn order for the game with charges determined in the movement phase (similar to many older non-GW games). Is there much of a benefit then to assault weapons other than getting to advance and shoot? I don't play 8th edition so I don't have a current wide knowledge base to fall back on from that game about tips and tricks with assault weapons.

I read in te latest genestealerbox preview following sentence: The Writhing Shadow set features cards for the six core Tyranids Tactics in the Kill Team Core Manual, as well as seven brand-new Tactics for you to try. 
The way i understand this is that i must pay 50€ just for 7 new stratagems as i'm not intrested in more genestealer models, and have more than enough terrain.
Also, the cards that they've shown seem actually pretty usefull so there's again a balance issue between standard rulebook only players and box buyers.
And because i play ork too, does that mean i have to give gw 100€ for 4 containers, some dice, counters and 14 new tactics if i'm serious about kill team?
Please tell me i'm wrong...

You play for everything in the box. The fact you only want part of the contents doesn’t make them magically disappear.

 wallygator wrote:
I read in te latest genestealerbox preview following sentence: The Writhing Shadow set features cards for the six core Tyranids Tactics in the Kill Team Core Manual, as well as seven brand-new Tactics for you to try. 
The way i understand this is that i must pay 50€ just for 7 new stratagems as i'm not intrested in more genestealer models, and have more than enough terrain.
Also, the cards that they've shown seem actually pretty usefull so there's again a balance issue between standard rulebook only players and box buyers.
And because i play ork too, does that mean i have to give gw 100€ for 4 containers, some dice, counters and 14 new tactics if i'm serious about kill team?
Please tell me i'm wrong...

Nope, you are entirely correct. Unless of course you want to wait for a few weeks and pirate the cards for free, or buy them and generic tokens third party like decal sheets.

Regarding the whole fleshwound vs multi damage/shots issue, I think both arguments have validity, but its a question of whether you want to play more Hollywood or gritty realism. RAW seem to encourage a more Hollywood feel, where the hero has numerous shots coming at them but limps away with a leg wound.

Yeah i know but it sounds alot like "pay to win" to me. Is the player who's playing with the rulebook alone the underdog vs the player who bought the box and some terrain (and has acces to the double amount of tactics). I fear a yes-answer to this...

 warboss wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
For those who missed it the first time around:

Spoiler:

Beware, some quick camera cuts and odd angles await thee.

Don't forget the ol' stare five feet off to the side of the camera pose as well. Regardless, it's a helpful video to folks following peripherally like me.

Probably old news but it looks like they've changed the turn order for the game with charges determined in the movement phase (similar to many older non-GW games). Is there much of a benefit then to assault weapons other than getting to advance and shoot? I don't play 8th edition so I don't have a current wide knowledge base to fall back on from that game about tips and tricks with assault weapons.

That's all - Assault Weapons advance and shoot, rapid fire weapons get 2 shots at half range, Heavy weapons get a -1 to hit penalty if you move (though one of the available specialities you can assign your troops mitigates this at level 1, so less of an issue in Kill Team)

Shrapnelbait wrote:

 wallygator wrote:
I read in te latest genestealerbox preview following sentence: The Writhing Shadow set features cards for the six core Tyranids Tactics in the Kill Team Core Manual, as well as seven brand-new Tactics for you to try. 
The way i understand this is that i must pay 50€ just for 7 new stratagems as i'm not intrested in more genestealer models, and have more than enough terrain.
Also, the cards that they've shown seem actually pretty usefull so there's again a balance issue between standard rulebook only players and box buyers.
And because i play ork too, does that mean i have to give gw 100€ for 4 containers, some dice, counters and 14 new tactics if i'm serious about kill team?
Please tell me i'm wrong...

Nope, you are entirely correct. Unless of course you want to wait for a few weeks and pirate the cards for free, or buy them and generic tokens third party like decal sheets.

Thanks.

The Kill Team rulebook is obviously the "index" and the team starter sets are obviously the "codex".

If you don't like buying codices and play 40k with only indices, then do the same with Kill Team.

 wallygator wrote:
Yeah i know but it sounds alot like "pay to win" to me. Is the player who's playing with the rulebook alone the underdog vs the player who bought the box and some terrain (and has acces to the double amount of tactics). I fear a yes-answer to this...

The answer is....kind of maybe?

For perspective: You get 1CP per turn base, +1CP if your commander is on the field and alive. You are going to have 6 basic stratagems, including some of the most obviously useful ones (hmm, should I reroll that Wound roll to see if my Commander/Specialist is dead?), plus the faction stratagems that come from the book, plus the stratagems for whatever game board you're currently playing on.

Some percentage (we just don't know currently) of the stratagems that come with the Game Board boxes are going to pertain to the board, not the models inside. If you don't have the specific terrain pieces involved, you wouldn't have an advantage with those strats anyway.

Another percentage is going to be incredibly situational when you want to use them. You just have to look at some of the ones previewed so far - 2CP to move your Scion model 2d6" Before the game starts! wow, my....my scion can get a turn 1 charge...that's gonna be busted? Okay, IF an enemy model is within 1" of an armored container and IF I roll a six to hit him BUT I don't wound him with a tyranid shooting attack, THEN he takes an extra mortal wound that will hurt him anyway.

The terrain cards are usable by both players if the terrain is on the board. The unique factional strat cards might be powerful, but then again, you could just be spending those CPs on rerolls, and your cp pool is limited enough in Kill Team that you could very well be just fine with the stratagems out of the basic book. We don't know. And you can bet your butt if some faction gets a super strong card in the box...it's just words. You can read it on the internet and write it down on like, ANYTHING you want. and there it is, now you have it.

Yeah, that's also true