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.

How come there are no Genestealers in the Genestealer Cult? No profile and no point listings for them. I double checked the roster preview and they are there.

So what is correct Genestealers are suppose to be in a GSC or the preview is wrong?

Davor wrote:
How come there are no Genestealers in the Genestealer Cult? No profile and no point listings for them. I double checked the roster preview and they are there.

So what is correct Genestealers are suppose to be in a GSC or the preview is wrong?

You take them from the Tyranid section.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Davor wrote:
How come there are no Genestealers in the Genestealer Cult? No profile and no point listings for them. I double checked the roster preview and they are there.

So what is correct Genestealers are suppose to be in a GSC or the preview is wrong?

You take them from the Tyranid section.

Thank you for the reply. Where does it say this? I don't see it in the GSC section. I am not saying you are wrong just wanting to make sure.

There's a lot of over-the-top reactions out there right now.

I keep seeing posts like, "I HAD ONE GAME AND IT WAS AWFUL" and when pressed to answer 'why', there's a range of reasons. Stuff like

-We didn't have any terrain so we just played on my coffee table
-We read rules very wrong and didn't seek any clarification
-My army was hard-countered by my enemy's army

The first two points I roll my eyes. The last one is the only one I actually bother to respond to. If you were hard-countered by your enemy, then shift up your list and change up your tactics and try again. Get 10-12 games in before you give up on the system.

But, then again, if you're going to give up on the whole game after playing 1 round, then... cya. Go be a baby somewhere else. Don't pretend like you're some sort of tactical genius that can analyze all of the merits and flaws of a game by playing it once and writing up a huge blog post about your experience.

Conversely, you can be a non-tactical genius who plays one game where you find out the game system allows for total hard-counters and know right then & there that you think the game is bad for that reason.

For me personally, any game that can be won entirely at the listbuilding stage is a bad game.

drbored wrote:
There's a lot of over-the-top reactions out there right now.

I keep seeing posts like, "I HAD ONE GAME AND IT WAS AWFUL" and when pressed to answer 'why', there's a range of reasons. Stuff like

-We didn't have any terrain so we just played on my coffee table
-We read rules very wrong and didn't seek any clarification
-My army was hard-countered by my enemy's army

The first two points I roll my eyes. The last one is the only one I actually bother to respond to. If you were hard-countered by your enemy, then shift up your list and change up your tactics and try again. Get 10-12 games in before you give up on the system.

But, then again, if you're going to give up on the whole game after playing 1 round, then... cya. Go be a baby somewhere else. Don't pretend like you're some sort of tactical genius that can analyze all of the merits and flaws of a game by playing it once and writing up a huge blog post about your experience.

I thought the same after seeing countless posts like that on FB. You sir are my hobby hero

 Yodhrin wrote:
Conversely, you can be a non-tactical genius who plays one game where you find out the game system allows for total hard-counters and know right then & there that you think the game is bad for that reason.

For me personally, any game that can be won entirely at the listbuilding stage is a bad game.

Such a game would indeed feel a bit daft, but luckily Kill Team isn't that. Unless one does something very wrong, like builds a decidedly uncompetetive or underpointed group, a decent amount of terrain and non-stupid deployment should allow you enough leeway to actually get in the match and try your hand at that tactical geniusness without problems.

Davor wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Davor wrote:
How come there are no Genestealers in the Genestealer Cult? No profile and no point listings for them. I double checked the roster preview and they are there.

So what is correct Genestealers are suppose to be in a GSC or the preview is wrong?

You take them from the Tyranid section.

Thank you for the reply. Where does it say this? I don't see it in the GSC section. I am not saying you are wrong just wanting to make sure.

Page 319; “Purestrain Genestealers: When you add a Genestealer to your command roster (and create its datacard) you can choose for it to have the Genestealer Cults Faction keyword instead of the Tyranids Faction keyword.
”

Whats with the hilarious dubbing on the How to play Killteam put out on Warhammer TV?

 Yodhrin wrote:
Conversely, you can be a non-tactical genius who plays one game where you find out the game system allows for total hard-counters and know right then & there that you think the game is bad for that reason.

For me personally, any game that can be won entirely at the listbuilding stage is a bad game.

There's a difference between "I took a competent and well rounded army yet my opponent was able to bring an army I could not compete against" and "it's possible to take a ridiculously terrible army that my opponent's perfectly reasonable army destroyed effortlessly".

I've yet to see a good example of the former.

A well balanced should not be able to be won at the list building stage but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to lose at the list building stage.

Kiloran wrote:

Spoiler:

Davor wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Davor wrote:
How come there are no Genestealers in the Genestealer Cult? No profile and no point listings for them. I double checked the roster preview and they are there.

So what is correct Genestealers are suppose to be in a GSC or the preview is wrong?

You take them from the Tyranid section.

Thank you for the reply. Where does it say this? I don't see it in the GSC section. I am not saying you are wrong just wanting to make sure.

Page 319; “Purestrain Genestealers: When you add a Genestealer to your command roster (and create its datacard) you can choose for it to have the Genestealer Cults Faction keyword instead of the Tyranids Faction keyword.
”

I think I am missing something here. My Kill Team book only has 208 pages. I thought this was all that was needed to play Kill Team. What book do I need that has page 319?


*edit*

Found it. Page 185 under purstrain. Thank you for the help. Still curious where did you get page 319 from.

Davor wrote:

Kiloran wrote:

Spoiler:

Davor wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Davor wrote:
How come there are no Genestealers in the Genestealer Cult? No profile and no point listings for them. I double checked the roster preview and they are there.

So what is correct Genestealers are suppose to be in a GSC or the preview is wrong?

You take them from the Tyranid section.

Thank you for the reply. Where does it say this? I don't see it in the GSC section. I am not saying you are wrong just wanting to make sure.

Page 319; “Purestrain Genestealers: When you add a Genestealer to your command roster (and create its datacard) you can choose for it to have the Genestealer Cults Faction keyword instead of the Tyranids Faction keyword.
”

I think I am missing something here. My Kill Team book only has 208 pages. I thought this was all that was needed to play Kill Team. What book do I need that has page 319?


*edit*

Found it. Page 185 under purstrain. Thank you for the help. Still curious where did you get page 319 from.

Probably from the ebook. Page count there changes with font and screen size.

Davor wrote:

Kiloran wrote:

Spoiler:

Davor wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Davor wrote:
How come there are no Genestealers in the Genestealer Cult? No profile and no point listings for them. I double checked the roster preview and they are there.

So what is correct Genestealers are suppose to be in a GSC or the preview is wrong?

You take them from the Tyranid section.

Thank you for the reply. Where does it say this? I don't see it in the GSC section. I am not saying you are wrong just wanting to make sure.

Page 319; “Purestrain Genestealers: When you add a Genestealer to your command roster (and create its datacard) you can choose for it to have the Genestealer Cults Faction keyword instead of the Tyranids Faction keyword.
”

I think I am missing something here. My Kill Team book only has 208 pages. I thought this was all that was needed to play Kill Team. What book do I need that has page 319?


*edit*

Found it. Page 185 under purstrain. Thank you for the help. Still curious where did you get page 319 from.

Maybe a digital version? They tend to have half-sized pages.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Conversely, you can be a non-tactical genius who plays one game where you find out the game system allows for total hard-counters and know right then & there that you think the game is bad for that reason.

For me personally, any game that can be won entirely at the listbuilding stage is a bad game.

There's a difference between "I took a competent and well rounded army yet my opponent was able to bring an army I could not compete against" and "it's possible to take a ridiculously terrible army that my opponent's perfectly reasonable army destroyed effortlessly".

I've yet to see a good example of the former.

A well balanced should not be able to be won at the list building stage but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to lose at the list building stage.

That's not what "hard-counter" means in any sense I've ever heard it. A hard-counter means you got Rock-Paper-Scissored and lost. A hard-counter means you showed up in 7th Edition with a competently built TAC list and they showed up with a Knight Household, or you brought the same in earlier editions and they had an Armoured Company. On a unit-by-unit basis that kind of design can work, though I consider it a bit lazy, but if you can show up to a game with a list that you didn't intend to be a softball and your opponent's army cannot be defeated by it barring some kind of statistically miraculous dice performance then the game is borked.

And for me personally - it should be impossible to lose at the lisbuilding stage. I get that in terms of GW's design team and games that's not a practical expectation, but if we're talking in terms of what any game should be aiming for and working towards, it should be a state where no legal army selection should make victory impossible. Less likely, maybe, but not functionally impossible. Yes yes, "IRL there are lopsided engagements" and blah blah, but it's not IRL and very few wargames even make a pretense of being "simulationist", all are abstracted games, and games should be A: fun, and B: won or lost based on the gameplay, not whether you got the White set or the Black set.

The problem is that to force armies that can't lose in the list building state vs any other army on the game, you need to have a hard structure to how to build armies to ensure that balance.

So the choice comes down to more freedom in the list building phase or more balance in the list building phase. Of course, those aren't absolutes and you can have a good amount of freedom and balance in the list building phase.

I don't like rock-papers-scissors games, but at the same time I prefer to have the freedom to make very unorthodox armies that have the possibility of have a very hard, hard game agaisnt X enemy armies. But I expect a TAC army to have a fair chance agaisnt any kind of list my opponent can bring. So the choice of entering the rock-papers-scissors game is mine, if I chose to make a TAC army or a much more unorthodox one.

Initial thoughts today from getting a few games in myself and watching a few more:

-quite pleased with the way Marines and Deathwatch in particular play. I know I had my gripes about their lack of options but actually playing the game with them they feel pretty good with the equipment they have. Atsknf and Transhuman Biology make them feel like the disciplined jack of all trades they're supposed to be. I saw a couple games where Marines superior morale pretty much won against seemingly impossible odds and played one myself where a single monster of a Deathwatch vet carried the game through.

-Tau by contrast have some pretty major structural problems. Trying to set up marker lights for your team to focus fire on someone basically gives up a HUGE amount of turn tempo, not only giving up your models shooting but letting the enemy take several actions in a row. I saw a couple times where someone took a shot with a marker to try and have a reroll to a special weapon, then the enemy just shot the special weapon before it could do anything. Add in the fact that marker lights are at best a 50-50 shot ...ew. The best Tau strategy is most likely going to be just ignoring markers entirely in favor of spamming drones, stealth suits and fire warriors because all the cute "I'll use this to set up this and synergize with this over here" is hilariously easy to counter in a system where any high value target has the lifespan of a snowball in hell.

-melee felt great, the charge system in KT made the risk/reward of melee feel very worthwhile, and combined with the already good micro mechanics of 8th Ed melee felt tactical and rewarding and just the right amount of deadly. Bit of a "yeah, I was wrong" here as well: pistols came into play several times in prolonged fights and basically "tanking" a special weapon guy with a trooper with a pistol was a tactic that worked well. By contrast, any kind of bold play in the shooting phase felt really unsatisfying. I saw a ton of shotgun/flamer rushes met with a simple "I ready all the dudes you're running at, and shoot you in the face before you get to actually use that flamer."

-shooting factions because of all the minuses to hit and the speed of melee factions felt really pushed into very uninteresting camp-and-shoot tactics, while it felt like melee armies got to use all the fun tactical choices.

Definitely a good game, all the games seemed balanced and they definitely improved on 8th in a few key areas. Marine players frustrated with 8th will be very pleased with their signature 3+ armor and ATSKNF holding their team together against all odds. I just hope the games I played with the shootier factions felt the way they did because I had some fundamental misunderstanding of the games mechanics and I'm just missing something.

Davor wrote:

Kiloran wrote:

Spoiler:

Davor wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Davor wrote:
How come there are no Genestealers in the Genestealer Cult? No profile and no point listings for them. I double checked the roster preview and they are there.

So what is correct Genestealers are suppose to be in a GSC or the preview is wrong?

You take them from the Tyranid section.

Thank you for the reply. Where does it say this? I don't see it in the GSC section. I am not saying you are wrong just wanting to make sure.

Page 319; “Purestrain Genestealers: When you add a Genestealer to your command roster (and create its datacard) you can choose for it to have the Genestealer Cults Faction keyword instead of the Tyranids Faction keyword.
”

I think I am missing something here. My Kill Team book only has 208 pages. I thought this was all that was needed to play Kill Team. What book do I need that has page 319?




*edit*

Found it. Page 185 under purstrain. Thank you for the help. Still curious where did you get page 319 from.

Indeed, the digital enhanced edition. I did not realise the page counts were different.

Simplest thing is charging instead of moving being played as 8th instead.

Also im thinking that flamers aren't for rushing, but for cohntering melee units more or less

Thank you very much again Kiloran you helped. Just wanted to make sure I didn't screw up.

 BrookM wrote:
No pistol weapons whatsoever, confusion is probably be due to the models all holding their shortened bolters in one hand.

Argh. I feel like a dolt. I didn't realize the shortened, one-handed bolters weren't bolt pistols.

I've never used Deathwatch as an army, and was really hoping to use Kill Team Cassius as a Deathwatch Kill Team (which would seem to be a reasonable goal, one would think), only to realize that of the eleven guys on that kill team, only THREE are legal in Kill Team. One can't be fielded with a chainsword and additional CCW, another can't have a power maul and a bolt pistol, and a third can't have a power sword and a plasma pistol.

Not owning the main Codex, is there some reason why the Deathwatch don't employ bolt pistols?

Because the kit doesn't have them. Simple as that.

Remember this nonsense:


That got fixed when GW finally released the Deathwatch Codex. Seems that they forgot about it when designing Killteam.

drbored wrote:
There's a lot of over-the-top reactions out there right now.

I keep seeing posts like, "I HAD ONE GAME AND IT WAS AWFUL" and when pressed to answer 'why', there's a range of reasons. Stuff like

-We didn't have any terrain so we just played on my coffee table
-We read rules very wrong and didn't seek any clarification
-My army was hard-countered by my enemy's army

The first two points I roll my eyes. The last one is the only one I actually bother to respond to. If you were hard-countered by your enemy, then shift up your list and change up your tactics and try again. Get 10-12 games in before you give up on the system.

But, then again, if you're going to give up on the whole game after playing 1 round, then... cya. Go be a baby somewhere else. Don't pretend like you're some sort of tactical genius that can analyze all of the merits and flaws of a game by playing it once and writing up a huge blog post about your experience.

Instead of disparaging those that gave the effort to play the game and give the community a review, why dont you give us your impression of the game?

drbored wrote:
. Get 10-12 games in before you give up on the system.

This is ridiculous. The game should be good enough to grab you from the outset, not require that you invest large amounts of time into it before it 'becomes good'. Personally I don't think its hard to see why a game where you can charge almost all the way into your opponents deployment zone on the first turn might not appeal to some people.

the_scotsman wrote:
Initial thoughts today from getting a few games in myself and watching a few more:

-quite pleased with the way Marines and Deathwatch in particular play. I know I had my gripes about their lack of options but actually playing the game with them they feel pretty good with the equipment they have. Atsknf and Transhuman Biology make them feel like the disciplined jack of all trades they're supposed to be. I saw a couple games where Marines superior morale pretty much won against seemingly impossible odds and played one myself where a single monster of a Deathwatch vet carried the game through.

-Tau by contrast have some pretty major structural problems. Trying to set up marker lights for your team to focus fire on someone basically gives up a HUGE amount of turn tempo, not only giving up your models shooting but letting the enemy take several actions in a row. I saw a couple times where someone took a shot with a marker to try and have a reroll to a special weapon, then the enemy just shot the special weapon before it could do anything. Add in the fact that marker lights are at best a 50-50 shot ...ew. The best Tau strategy is most likely going to be just ignoring markers entirely in favor of spamming drones, stealth suits and fire warriors because all the cute "I'll use this to set up this and synergize with this over here" is hilariously easy to counter in a system where any high value target has the lifespan of a snowball in hell.

Good to hear about the marines but not so much about the tau. I wasn't expecting much from markerlights though as their benefit comes from one (cheap) model buffing either a small amount of much more expensive models or a dozen as cheap ones... neither of which would happen at the skirmish scale this game is meant to be played at. As a tau player myself, I didn't plan on taking one since they're better fired in groups and I don't think any kill team can afford to have that many "wasted" shooting rolls that result in no immediate damage/models taken out of play.

Tau out dakka everyone in this game with cheap drone that give 4 shot.

Having no actual long range/short range modifier tune for specfic weapons is a lazy design decision. Like the tau Pulse Blaster. But they didn't forget to include no hit penalty for Sniper weapon, which for some weapon like the Arquebus alerady cover the almost the entire map. at short range

 Zethnar wrote:

drbored wrote:
. Get 10-12 games in before you give up on the system.

This is ridiculous. The game should be good enough to grab you from the outset, not require that you invest large amounts of time into it before it 'becomes good'. Personally I don't think its hard to see why a game where you can charge almost all the way into your opponents deployment zone on the first turn might not appeal to some people.

Not rediculous at all. Did you even read what he said?

Today I was able to play two amazing games on top of the two I played last night!

I had a blast, and now I feel as though I finally have a way to get a lot of my friends who've been on the fence for years into the game.

When I picked up my stuff yesterday at my FLGS, I picked up extra kill teams, Grey Knights, 1K Sons, Deathwatch. As far as I'm concerned, they've all played great!

On top of that, I had some amazingly fun things happen in game, including getting shot with a Lascannon, falling off the first floor of a building and surviving. 1 shotting a charging Ork boy with a GSC shotgun, and having my leader die due to power fisting from a marine!

I'm really excited to play more games as the week goes on.

We're we playing pistols wrong? I'm sure I've read here you had to be in CC a full turn, but couldn't see it in the book (albeit not my book but my opponents so I just skimmed it) so we allowed units to shoot in the shooting phase after charges.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
We're we playing pistols wrong? I'm sure I've read here you had to be in CC a full turn, but couldn't see it in the book (albeit not my book but my opponents so I just skimmed it) so we allowed units to shoot in the shooting phase after charges.

4. Shooting phase section 1. Choosing model : cannot choose model that charge, advance, fall back (unless it had fly).... or within 1".

Pistol section indicated that they can only bypass the within 1" rule. But if you are a target of a succesful charge, you cannot shoot. You can however fire overwatch.

 Togusa wrote:
and having my leader die due to power fisting from a marine!

I'm really excited to play more games as the week goes on.

Please tell me that marine's name was Caligula.