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.

I thoroughly enjoy GW's new design ethos of making games that are fun to play, and completely ignoring the "the only way to play is to play to win" crowd.

Requiet wrote:

Mr. Funktastic wrote:
Charging happens in the movement phase which precedes the Shooting phase. Unless some rule specifies you can't even shoot Pistols when you charge, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to? Pistol's whole shtick is to be able to fire when you're within 1" of an enemy model.

In the charge rules it explicitly states you cannot fire any weapons if you attempt a charge. In the pistol rules it explicitly states if you were charged you cannot fire it that turn. Gotta wait a round of combat to shoot your side piece sorry

Welp, that sucks a box of roosters.

I thought for a second there Games Workshop had figured out why every single motherflipping melee unit in the game was equipped with a pistol.

completely mono-build harlequins it is! Embraces for evvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvveryone, no exceptions!

Pancakey wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Genoside07 wrote:
So hanging out at the local FLGS one of the guys said that the Rogue Trader Box set will introduce new unit
types..Plus different types of heroes. Like inquisitors and more detailed psykers. of course more Kill zones..
I am sure a space ship will be it ; you can tell that by the pictures..

Then later on another box set will have light vehicles in it.. Don't know if he was just blowing smoke or
knew something..Anyone else hearing anything this??

Hope it's true. At the present state, the game seems to be much too shallow and restrictive for it to be enjoyable imo.

yi

Shallow is the new design paradigm at GW.

I think he's making a lot of assumptions. Many of the game boards, even the recommended terrain layouts, leave little to no room for anything larger than a 40mm base. So unless they're going to try to fit a vehicle on that, then I don't see the point of bringing a vehicle. Venoms are just going to get tangled up. Sentinels will be able to be seen from any angle. Plus the point cost for vehicles in Kill Team will likely be sky high and all it will take is a lucky shot from a fusion pistol and it's gone.

I'm not surprised by the idea that inquisitors and such are coming to Kill Team. That's something the design team has stated that they wanted and that the fanbase clearly wants. Inquisitorial warbands would be excellent.

There's also an interesting Tactic that Harlequins get that specifically targets 'Slaanesh' units. Currently, the only Slaanesh unit in the game is a Chaos Marine with a Mark of Slaanesh. Seems awfully specific to have a tactic against that one option. I foresee Slaanesh getting expanded, either with Emperor's Children, Slaanesh Daemons, or both in Kill Team (and in 40k).

And finally

You haven't played the game and you think it's shallow? Y'all complainers are hopeless. Watching battle reports and reading through what I can of the rules, I can assure you there's a lot of strategic intrigue in this game. If your definition of a good game is having so many options that you're buried under a bog of unbalancable rules, then 40k already exists. You can have your vehicles, your terminators, allllll that stuff. Why do you need to bring your negativity into a new game?

 streetsamurai wrote:
Hope it's true. At the present state, the game seems to be much too shallow and restrictive for it to be enjoyable imo.

I think this is the case for people looking for this to be Mordheim in Space or Inq28. In which case...those folks already have Inq28 or HoR. I've tried both, and they're good, but the former requires an RPG like investment of time in the narrative and the latter requires a lot of attention to detail and complex rules that are more akin to Necromunda. Though, I will concede that because neither are “sanctioned” by GW with official rules, one may have a harder time finding folks to play with.

For another large group of players, this looks like a way to have the fun of 40K without all the time, cost, and issues of the primary game. I'm a good decade past that time in my life where my friends and I could have multiple fully painted 3000 point tournament-ready armies AND spend time on tables worth of terrain. That doesn't even mention 4 hours to go to the store and get a game in or a whole Saturday for a tournament (how do you people mow your lawns?)

I think GW hit a sweet spot where I can paint up a force over the 2 or 3 free hours I get in a week over a few weeks and still get in a couple of good games with close friends. They’re going to get some money from me now, whereas a month ago they were going to get $0. I’ll probably build multiple kill teams and enjoy it since I’m not worried about making sure I’ve got my “50 guardsman on the board to meet minimum force requirements” or that “I’ve maxed out on 3 Riptides that I didn’t want because I don’t like the model, but I need them to be competitive” type of thing.

The Kill Zones are great looking battlescapes to play on that I don't have to think too much about and can actually dedicate time to making look nice since my armies are now all of maybe 10 models. Reasonably priced that I can add over time to keep the game fresh and interesting and as an added bonus I don’t need to go to my FLGS to get a proper sized gaming table with nice terrain. I love my FLGS’s, but I can’t take care of a 5 year-old’s nightmare or drink a beer or switch the laundry to the dryer at the store.

 Genoside07 wrote:
So hanging out at the local FLGS one of the guys said that the Rogue Trader Box set will introduce new unit
types..Plus different types of heroes. Like inquisitors and more detailed psykers. of course more Kill zones..
I am sure a space ship will be it ; you can tell that by the pictures..

Then later on another box set will have light vehicles in it.. Don't know if he was just blowing smoke or
knew something..Anyone else hearing anything this??

Ok - I'd hateto be the guy but let's list the problems with this one:

1) The source. People go to LFGS to do two things - play games and lie about everything from their army to their employment status. I love the local game scene but you'll find more honest talk in a bar after 10:00pm than at a LFGS

2) We've seen the contents of the Rogue Trader box and it doesn't contain inquistors, vehicles, or new unit types. Why would the rules come out in a box set that contains none of the lements in question?

3) Light Vehicles released before fleshing out the infantry unit types?

4) Releasing details on a third/fourth wave of expansions before determining if the Kill Team release is a success? Is your source part of the GW design staff or something?

Another kill team video



Again with the Ventrillian Nobles. I'm surprised they haven't already released a set of them to replace Cadians, going by how much they've been pushing them.

Final Studio Kill Team showcase: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/07/27/27th-july-my-kill-team-frank-haas-death-guardgw-homepage-post-3/



Really loving the pair of Nurglings in the longcoat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also another interview, on campaigns I think over at their Twitch right now: https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Another kill team video



Again with the Ventrillian Nobles. I'm surprised they haven't already released a set of them to replace Cadians, going by how much they've been pushing them.

They're just Cadians with a headswap, from two different kits, no less, lots of investement for someone who likes their look.

Pancakey wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Genoside07 wrote:
So hanging out at the local FLGS one of the guys said that the Rogue Trader Box set will introduce new unit
types..Plus different types of heroes. Like inquisitors and more detailed psykers. of course more Kill zones..
I am sure a space ship will be it ; you can tell that by the pictures..

Then later on another box set will have light vehicles in it.. Don't know if he was just blowing smoke or
knew something..Anyone else hearing anything this??

Hope it's true. At the present state, the game seems to be much too shallow and restrictive for it to be enjoyable imo.

yi

Shallow is the new design paradigm at GW.

I think you might be mistaking controlled-for-balance design decisions for shallow...

In my opinion, GW has taken many lessons to heart from its previous relationship with FFG. They have adopted they 'pay-to-play/pay-to-collect' model FFG has been using for years. But more importantly, they have seen FFG's success with X-Wing and want to emulate its small model-count, small footprint competitive environment. They began with Shadespire and Kill Team is even closer to X-Wing's format.

Nom Nom

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Another kill team video



Again with the Ventrillian Nobles. I'm surprised they haven't already released a set of them to replace Cadians, going by how much they've been pushing them.

I'm mostly annoyed that Peachy has a character that they keep showing that has two melee weapons, even one with a banner, but none of those are actual options for Guard.

I get it, it's all fluffy and what not, but it's just a shame these weren't actual options for the army.

callidusx3 wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Genoside07 wrote:
So hanging out at the local FLGS one of the guys said that the Rogue Trader Box set will introduce new unit
types..Plus different types of heroes. Like inquisitors and more detailed psykers. of course more Kill zones..
I am sure a space ship will be it ; you can tell that by the pictures..

Then later on another box set will have light vehicles in it.. Don't know if he was just blowing smoke or
knew something..Anyone else hearing anything this??

Hope it's true. At the present state, the game seems to be much too shallow and restrictive for it to be enjoyable imo.

yi

Shallow is the new design paradigm at GW.

I think you might be mistaking controlled-for-balance design decisions for shallow...

In my opinion, GW has taken many lessons to heart from its previous relationship with FFG. They have adopted they 'pay-to-play/pay-to-collect' model FFG has been using for years. But more importantly, they have seen FFG's success with X-Wing and want to emulate its small model-count, small footprint competitive environment. They began with Shadespire and Kill Team is even closer to X-Wing's format.

A game doesn't need to be so heavily restricted in what choices you can make to be balanced, though. It just makes it easier. At the cost of choices. I think it is a fair expectation that a company that is selling games for a profit do the hard work of making said games with a reasonable amount of decision-making, and then balancing them. 40k proper and KT are severely lacking in choice. That is the core issue for those of us who are critical of the game. The idea is good, but the execution leaves much to be desired.

Blastaar wrote:

callidusx3 wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Genoside07 wrote:
So hanging out at the local FLGS one of the guys said that the Rogue Trader Box set will introduce new unit
types..Plus different types of heroes. Like inquisitors and more detailed psykers. of course more Kill zones..
I am sure a space ship will be it ; you can tell that by the pictures..

Then later on another box set will have light vehicles in it.. Don't know if he was just blowing smoke or
knew something..Anyone else hearing anything this??

Hope it's true. At the present state, the game seems to be much too shallow and restrictive for it to be enjoyable imo.

yi

Shallow is the new design paradigm at GW.

I think you might be mistaking controlled-for-balance design decisions for shallow...

In my opinion, GW has taken many lessons to heart from its previous relationship with FFG. They have adopted they 'pay-to-play/pay-to-collect' model FFG has been using for years. But more importantly, they have seen FFG's success with X-Wing and want to emulate its small model-count, small footprint competitive environment. They began with Shadespire and Kill Team is even closer to X-Wing's format.

A game doesn't need to be so heavily restricted in what choices you can make to be balanced, though. It just makes it easier. At the cost of choices. I think it is a fair expectation that a company that is selling games for a profit do the hard work of making said games with a reasonable amount of decision-making, and then balancing them. 40k proper and KT are severely lacking in choice. That is the core issue for those of us who are critical of the game. The idea is good, but the execution leaves much to be desired.

This is exactly the problem. “Balance” by arbitrary, ham-fisted add-ons that further restrict the game. For example, The 40k 8th ed. character targeting rules have to be one of THE laziest and arbitrary attempts at “balance” I have ever seen. .

I love that Genestealer art. It seems to bring a little more humanity to the form than previously, which makes them seem all the more creepy/scary.

Also, we can already see examples of how the Kill Team ruleset creates imbalance just by looking at the rules.

Tau Breacher: The way that it would make sense to implement their gun in the game would be to give it a special rule where it is a S4 Ap- D1 weapon that gains +1S and -1AP if within 10" range, +2S and -2AP if within 3" range.

However, it was blindly copy/pasted in from the core 40k rules, and it's done as a "pick a profile" gun. This means if my breacher charges in 3" away from an enemy to use the S6 AP-2 profile, I suffer a -1 to hit because THREE INCHES IS LONG RANGE.

Or take the trainwreck of how pistols were implemented into this game. My harlequins have the privilege, nay, the honor of paying 2 extra points to give up their massive melee capabilities and 3D6" charge that ignores terrain in order to fire a single S3 pistol shot at something that gets -1 to hit if I'm over 6" away. Why does it cost that much? Because its stats are designed for 40k, where pistols are supposed to synergize with melee and not the opposite.

This kind of goofy incredibly low-effort balance would be just fine if this was another loosey-goosey system with tons of options where GW can just shrug and say "guys we can't pay attention to EVERYTHING there's just so many options in this game!" but these are the kinds of things you'd catch in even just one in depth playtesting session where you're really trying to catch and correct problems. Someone would go "hey, wait, this...this sucks, can we change this?"

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Genoside07 wrote:
So hanging out at the local FLGS one of the guys said that the Rogue Trader Box set will introduce new unit
types..Plus different types of heroes. Like inquisitors and more detailed psykers. of course more Kill zones..
I am sure a space ship will be it ; you can tell that by the pictures..

Then later on another box set will have light vehicles in it.. Don't know if he was just blowing smoke or
knew something..Anyone else hearing anything this??

Ok - I'd hateto be the guy but let's list the problems with this one:

1) The source. People go to LFGS to do two things - play games and lie about everything from their army to their employment status. I love the local game scene but you'll find more honest talk in a bar after 10:00pm than at a LFGS

2) We've seen the contents of the Rogue Trader box and it doesn't contain inquistors, vehicles, or new unit types. Why would the rules come out in a box set that contains none of the lements in question?

3) Light Vehicles released before fleshing out the infantry unit types?

4) Releasing details on a third/fourth wave of expansions before determining if the Kill Team release is a success? Is your source part of the GW design staff or something?

Not saying it's true or not (I have no idea), but here are a few thoughts.

2) Are you sure about no new unit types? So far, the biggest characters we have is squad leaders. There seem to be armsmen along with a squad leader. But what about the assassin or the Rogue Trader? How do they fit into a squad? It's not guaranteed, but unless Rogue Traders use fundamentally different organization to any other kill team, it stands to reason that they are characters with rules introduced in that expansion.

3) Ignoring for a moment a narrative expansion that has rules for various hunt the big'un missions, light vehicles are either infantry support (which is pretty equal to different infantry types supporting mainstay infantry that's already covered) or transports (which are closely related to the infantry we have, more so than additional infantry types). Regardless of whether it'll happen or not, it's not farfetched to get light vehicles before additional infantry types.

4) GW has publicly announced that they intend to keep Kill Team around as a core game with continued support. They have made up their mind long in advance and it would take at least a flop equal to the first release of Age of Sigmar to change this down the line. Down the line, mind you. That's not something that would impact Kill Team releases for at least half a year to a year.

The dog is probably a beast. I don't think there are any beast in KT yet. So technically that would be a new unit type.
The nurgle guys could be daemons and/or beasts.
But that's probably not what people think when you mention new unit types.

the_scotsman wrote:
Also, we can already see examples of how the Kill Team ruleset creates imbalance just by looking at the rules.

Tau Breacher: The way that it would make sense to implement their gun in the game would be to give it a special rule where it is a S4 Ap- D1 weapon that gains +1S and -1AP if within 10" range, +2S and -2AP if within 3" range.

However, it was blindly copy/pasted in from the core 40k rules, and it's done as a "pick a profile" gun. This means if my breacher charges in 3" away from an enemy to use the S6 AP-2 profile, I suffer a -1 to hit because THREE INCHES IS LONG RANGE.

Or take the trainwreck of how pistols were implemented into this game. My harlequins have the privilege, nay, the honor of paying 2 extra points to give up their massive melee capabilities and 3D6" charge that ignores terrain in order to fire a single S3 pistol shot at something that gets -1 to hit if I'm over 6" away. Why does it cost that much? Because its stats are designed for 40k, where pistols are supposed to synergize with melee and not the opposite.

This kind of goofy incredibly low-effort balance would be just fine if this was another loosey-goosey system with tons of options where GW can just shrug and say "guys we can't pay attention to EVERYTHING there's just so many options in this game!" but these are the kinds of things you'd catch in even just one in depth playtesting session where you're really trying to catch and correct problems. Someone would go "hey, wait, this...this sucks, can we change this?"

Yeah, with as limited as the unit choices are, I would expect them to have put a little more effort into making sure things work in Kill Team, instead of just copying the rules from 40K.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

Plenty of us managed just fine with the whole narrative aspect, and personally I've always liked settings that had some effort behind them rather than just being jokey pastiches of popular culture and sci-fi tropes. Rogue Trader was just about tolerable back in its own day, when being into this kind of hobby was still widely considered a shameful secret and going the "haha it's all silly I'm also laughing at how stupid it is and don't care at all and am only enjoying it ironically" route was understandable but these days we can get away with something a bit better.

I don't remember anyone enjoying Rogue Trader "ironically" at the time - that's reserved for today's hipsters who make "retro games" videos on Youtube. I liked the "kitchen sink" aspect of the setting because you can just pick the cool bits you like from some books or films and add them all in together. Once the setting reaches the point where the fanbase gets too judgemental, it does lose something.

I almost wonder if, given how there seems to be a lot of fine-tuned effort put into faction-wide special rules and the base rules, we might be seeing a little bit of upper management meddling with the rules design, where they HAD to keep statlines and weapon profiles exactly the same. Since it's supposed to be a gateway game for base 40k.

the_scotsman wrote:
I almost wonder if, given how there seems to be a lot of fine-tuned effort put into faction-wide special rules and the base rules, we might be seeing a little bit of upper management meddling with the rules design, where they HAD to keep statlines and weapon profiles exactly the same. Since it's supposed to be a gateway game for base 40k.

We know that management and marketing do interfere with the design studio, so it is likely that is what was done here. Perhaps the devs wanted KT to be the game we were looking for, and their idiot bosses got in the way. It is pretty clear that the simple idea of "make awesome games and minis, price them reasonably and they'll sell" is something they just cannot grasp, since they try so hard to manipulate us into making purchases instead.

the_scotsman wrote:
I almost wonder if, given how there seems to be a lot of fine-tuned effort put into faction-wide special rules and the base rules, we might be seeing a little bit of upper management meddling with the rules design, where they HAD to keep statlines and weapon profiles exactly the same. Since it's supposed to be a gateway game for base 40k.

GW even tried to force Creative Assembly to have the units in Total War Warhammer have the same stats than in the tabletop. Of course they refused because that didn't make any sense. But it was hard for them to be left alone.

Most imbalance stuff that happens in GW games, as much as Peregrine likes to say, it is not because of the rules writers (In some cases it is, specailly when the rules are badly written), but by management and marketing forcing X things to be in a certain way.

 Galas wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I almost wonder if, given how there seems to be a lot of fine-tuned effort put into faction-wide special rules and the base rules, we might be seeing a little bit of upper management meddling with the rules design, where they HAD to keep statlines and weapon profiles exactly the same. Since it's supposed to be a gateway game for base 40k.

GW even tried to force Creative Assembly to have the units in Total War Warhammer have the same stats than in the tabletop. Of course they refused because that didn't make any sense. But it was hard for them to be left alone.

How would that even work? Have GW's marketing team (I'm assuming it was their marketing team) even played a TW game?

 Galas wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I almost wonder if, given how there seems to be a lot of fine-tuned effort put into faction-wide special rules and the base rules, we might be seeing a little bit of upper management meddling with the rules design, where they HAD to keep statlines and weapon profiles exactly the same. Since it's supposed to be a gateway game for base 40k.

GW even tried to force Creative Assembly to have the units in Total War Warhammer have the same stats than in the tabletop. Of course they refused because that didn't make any sense. But it was hard for them to be left alone.

Cite an actual source for this.

Ah well. Maybe there will be a "gunslinger" trait in one of the combat specialty trees that allows pistols to function. I'd take that, if just for the novelty of having a Harlequin with a different loadout or a double-pistol slinging Tau sergeant. It'd still be a dumb thing to do, because you're basically trading two shots at 18" for two shots at 12" (or 6" if you don't want -1 to hit) but hey, it'd make for a cool conversion.

I feel fairly confident that we'll be seeing new skill trees added in future expansions. It's simple enough to add a blurb about which units in the core book can take the new stuff.

Gunslinger would pair up nicely with Rogue Trader methinks.

We've already seen a GSC gunslinger too. I'd love someone who's able to shoot into combat.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Galas wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I almost wonder if, given how there seems to be a lot of fine-tuned effort put into faction-wide special rules and the base rules, we might be seeing a little bit of upper management meddling with the rules design, where they HAD to keep statlines and weapon profiles exactly the same. Since it's supposed to be a gateway game for base 40k.

GW even tried to force Creative Assembly to have the units in Total War Warhammer have the same stats than in the tabletop. Of course they refused because that didn't make any sense. But it was hard for them to be left alone.

Cite an actual source for this.

I dont think they'll be able to. All other sources have stated that GW only monitors the quality of the product, not its mechanisms. This sounds like a lie.

 judgedoug wrote:
I thoroughly enjoy GW's new design ethos of making games that are fun to play, and completely ignoring the "the only way to play is to play to win" crowd.

I second you on that good sir. Since the new CEO has taken over, and with their new game releases, I've really come back around to GW because of their design philosophy (rule of cool/games with emphasis on telling a cool story rather than WAAC).

 Sabotage! wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
I thoroughly enjoy GW's new design ethos of making games that are fun to play, and completely ignoring the "the only way to play is to play to win" crowd.

I second you on that good sir. Since the new CEO has taken over, and with their new game releases, I've really come back around to GW because of their design philosophy (rule of cool/games with emphasis on telling a cool story rather than WAAC).

Those things are not mutually exclusive. A game can have strong narrative elements, provide plentiful opportunities for decision making, and be fun all at once. Malifaux accomplishes this. And no, enjoying the challenge of competition does not make someone a bad person.