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 love the idea of kill team: less cost, each model feels more personal than a unit, you can spend more time painting the models and of course the alternative model activation.

Unfortunately it is still linked to 8th edition rules (pretty much). I bet 4+ to hit, 4+ to wound and opponent has 4+ save works pretty well in 8th since you are rolling a lot more dice. The results will more likely resemble probability. Using the above example feels really random in kill team, you might as well just toss coins. Many of you might enjoy the simplicity but I would like an alternative.

I was thinking roll 2d6 and pick highest but not sure it changes much. Another idea I had was using d8s for all rolls but giving models more wounds - at least if you knocked a wound off it would feel you have achieved something. I would rather it be more about positioning than just aim and hope for the best.

Could you recommend other skirmish rules that could fit using the data sheets we have? Have you come up with your own skirmish rules? I would love to hear about them.

On one hand, I can appreciate the “frustration” that comes with individual models having low chances to put others out of action.

On the other hand, you have 8th edition where everything feels like it’s wearing cardboard armour, and there’s no back and forth. Just scooping handfuls of models off the board.

There’s a couple of things you could try.

First, would be to keep your models in clumps. If we use an example of 4+, 4+, 4+, 4+, each attack has a roughly 6% chance to put a model out of action. 94% chance of failure. It takes 11 attacks to have a 50% overall chance of successfully putting a model out of action. You really need to focus fire.

Another, is that it’s easy to put too much terrain on the board, if you’re used to larger boards. Using a little less LOS blocking terrain gives shootier armies the opportunities they need to get those 6% successes.

While my boys and I haven’t gotten into using stratagems or specializations yet, they give you some much needed boosts, so if you’re looking at the game without factoring those in, a couple of strats can significantly boost successful attacks.

Lastly, S of 5 or higher with either many shots (Heavy Bolter) or multiple damage (Missile Launcher) are very effective at taking out other models. I consider a Krak Missile with an accuracy boost to be one of the most reliable ways to take a model out of action with the way OoA rolls resolve. Building a KT that focuses on such weaponry is an effective strategy, in my opinion.

Kill team by design rewards getting up close and getting your target dead to rights, whether that be double tapping or getting a charge off. However, as a Marine player it's nice to have a rule set where power armor actually matters and where even my one wound guys are able to be combat effective even with a flesh wound or two. I actually find it represents squad vs squad combat fairly well. Tagging an enemy in cover is not easy even for trained soldiers.

Yeah, no, I am 100% okay with gunlines not being good. I played a game yesterday where the opponent did literally nothing but ready. Boring as hell.

 greatbigtree wrote:
On one hand, I can appreciate the “frustration” that comes with individual models having low chances to put others out of action.

On the other hand, you have 8th edition where everything feels like it’s wearing cardboard armour, and there’s no back and forth. Just scooping handfuls of models off the board.

There’s a couple of things you could try.

First, would be to keep your models in clumps. If we use an example of 4+, 4+, 4+, 4+, each attack has a roughly 6% chance to put a model out of action. 94% chance of failure. It takes 11 attacks to have a 50% overall chance of successfully putting a model out of action. You really need to focus fire.

Another, is that it’s easy to put too much terrain on the board, if you’re used to larger boards. Using a little less LOS blocking terrain gives shootier armies the opportunities they need to get those 6% successes.

While my boys and I haven’t gotten into using stratagems or specializations yet, they give you some much needed boosts, so if you’re looking at the game without factoring those in, a couple of strats can significantly boost successful attacks.

Lastly, S of 5 or higher with either many shots (Heavy Bolter) or multiple damage (Missile Launcher) are very effective at taking out other models. I consider a Krak Missile with an accuracy boost to be one of the most reliable ways to take a model out of action with the way OoA rolls resolve. Building a KT that focuses on such weaponry is an effective strategy, in my opinion.

this raises an intreasting thought, is 8th's biggest problem the LACK of randomness?

No, I'm certainly not going to say that. And I don't want to derail the thread, but I'd say 8th's key flaw is that things die too easily. 1st turn Alpha. Guard are the Boogie Man because of long-range and not needing LOS. Hordes are good because a wound has so much value, but toughness and save have little value.

I think Kill Team has sufficient agency (player choices matter) but the low "kill" rate can feel like luck is the key factor to successfully killing opponents' models.

Having mained Guard for over a decade now, I feel the pain. Takes about 100 las-shots to do anything meaningful. Made even "worse" by poor BS at range and the OoA roll. But, given sufficient number of attacks, it does work out.

Though, I'm pretty sure the best build for AM is 8x Plasmaguns and a Sarge with a Plasma Pistol. But I haven't tried it because that seems cruel to play against my young sons that I want to actually enjoy the game.

I mean, if I could take Heavy Bolter Teams, or Autocannon teams? All. Day. Long. Yeah, you need to hit, but once you hit? Awesome sauce.

BrianDavion wrote:
this raises an intreasting thought, is 8th's biggest problem the LACK of randomness?

It's probably a small problem of 8th, most definitely not the biggest.

In KT weapons are less lethal due to the low chance to actually hit and kill something, so the average damage output is lower - this is what 8th needs as well.

However, random is bad. I saw a tyranid KT made from warriors and a lictor play some imperial fists and one missile launcher tactical marine wiped out most of the enemy KT by simply rolling awesome for hit and damage each turn, one-shotting a specialist every turn. Both players felt that they were not having a good game. So high risk, high reward is something to avoid for wargames/tabletop games in general.

IMO 40k units need better defenses, like more wounds and armor saves. This would require a sweeping change though, something that probably won't be done anytime soon - few would have the patience to go through the whole index to codex cycle again.

for a smaller skirmish system going to a 2d6 or better still a 3d6 system would work a lot better, the scale allows something way closer to a Roleplay system, so why not use that?

I'd use something like GURPS to be honest for a game this scale, has a way to build characters and other models, equipment costs etc, adding a campaign system would be easy.

also means GW can have stuff work differently than the main game, the mechanics are now so different its hard to cross compare

leopard wrote:
for a smaller skirmish system going to a 2d6 or better still a 3d6 system would work a lot better, the scale allows something way closer to a Roleplay system, so why not use that?

I'd use something like GURPS to be honest for a game this scale, has a way to build characters and other models, equipment costs etc, adding a campaign system would be easy.

also means GW can have stuff work differently than the main game, the mechanics are now so different its hard to cross compare

While I like this idea, Killteam feels like a playground to rule test things for 40k, so I don't see them making the rules too different.

 Jidmah wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
this raises an intreasting thought, is 8th's biggest problem the LACK of randomness?

It's probably a small problem of 8th, most definitely not the biggest.

In KT weapons are less lethal due to the low chance to actually hit and kill something, so the average damage output is lower - this is what 8th needs as well.

However, random is bad. I saw a tyranid KT made from warriors and a lictor play some imperial fists and one missile launcher tactical marine wiped out most of the enemy KT by simply rolling awesome for hit and damage each turn, one-shotting a specialist every turn. Both players felt that they were not having a good game. So high risk, high reward is something to avoid for wargames/tabletop games in general.

IMO 40k units need better defenses, like more wounds and armor saves. This would require a sweeping change though, something that probably won't be done anytime soon - few would have the patience to go through the whole index to codex cycle again.

I believe high risk/high reward is good. It adds an element of gamble to a game, which creates suspense. The feeling of taking a risk and getting nothing is heartbreaking, but when it does connect, like when my Neutron Laser Onagers come thru and deliver that oh-so-sweet-armour-melting-goodness.... yummmm!

But I do get your point and do believe that too much high risk/high reward in a game can take away from the overall enjoyment for everyone. Balance is key.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

leopard wrote:
for a smaller skirmish system going to a 2d6 or better still a 3d6 system would work a lot better, the scale allows something way closer to a Roleplay system, so why not use that?

I'd use something like GURPS to be honest for a game this scale, has a way to build characters and other models, equipment costs etc, adding a campaign system would be easy.

also means GW can have stuff work differently than the main game, the mechanics are now so different its hard to cross compare

While I like this idea, Killteam feels like a playground to rule test things for 40k, so I don't see them making the rules too different.

Oh GW won't do it for sure, they want KT as an introduction to 40k and as you say a bit of a playground, just day dreaming (again), when you have maybe a dozen models you can afford a much more detailed system

Cyborg787 wrote:

I believe high risk/high reward is good. It adds an element of gamble to a game, which creates suspense.

I think this is valid, in the very least, for a game of such size. I could have problems with it in a 2h game but a 30 mins one? Fine and appropriate.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

leopard wrote:
for a smaller skirmish system going to a 2d6 or better still a 3d6 system would work a lot better, the scale allows something way closer to a Roleplay system, so why not use that?

I'd use something like GURPS to be honest for a game this scale, has a way to build characters and other models, equipment costs etc, adding a campaign system would be easy.

also means GW can have stuff work differently than the main game, the mechanics are now so different its hard to cross compare

While I like this idea, Killteam feels like a playground to rule test things for 40k, so I don't see them making the rules too different.

Kill Team is an answer to Infinity and other skirmish games on the rise, with players getting increasingly more casual, 5-10 model, low intro cost and simple, yet robust rules is what makes KT rather appealing.


Like in my local group, we used to play solely 40k, then Infinity and Warmachine split the play time/community, I see Kill Team as a great tool/game to get everyone back and so far it's working. It's faster than Infinity and way more so than regular 40k, with rules better than 40k


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, no, I am 100% okay with gunlines not being good. I played a game yesterday where the opponent did literally nothing but ready. Boring as hell.

Guns are working as intended, KT just makes bad tactics way more apparent than 40k.


A squad that just sits and shoots is rather easy to displace in reality as well, getting your guns into where they need to be is the key. A melta or any other multi wound weapon with good AP is absolutely devastating

I have no issues with the randomness involved in taking opponents Out Of Action. My bigger issue is the randomness in some of the scenarios. Just played Search and Rescue this week in our league, and my opponent ended up with the ONLY objective in his corner on top of a 3 story building. By the time someone rolled a 6 to "activate" the objective, I literally could not make it there. I'd decimated his (Broken) team, but he had the objective and won. It's frustrating when the roll of a single die can take a game you're handily winning and take it from you.

Did I mention he won? He just sat and shot and he won.

What mission did you play and what armies? Both me and my friend tried to sit and shoot against a Harlequin army last week. He played Tau and I played Grey Knights. Clowns tabled us both while losing three models.

Additionally how much terrain did you use.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
What mission did you play and what armies? Both me and my friend tried to sit and shoot against a Harlequin army last week. He played Tau and I played Grey Knights. Clowns tabled us both while losing three models.

Additionally how much terrain did you use.

Decent amount of terrain. The mission where you try to get across your opponents table edge and also Kill Points.

I was Gellerpox (used the three Hullbreakers, one at level 2) and he was Tau.

A. Don't treat Kill Team like 40k. A model that only gets 1 attack that hits on a 4+ and wounds on a 5+ isn't meant to take models out of action. It's there to soak wounds, block assaults, cap objectives, or run off the other side of the board. It is much more difficult to bring weight of dice to Kill Team because you don't have a bucket to throw at the enemy's army, you have one or two.

B. Play to the objective and build your Kill Teams out of your Command Roster accordingly. You know your opponent's faction and the mission before you pick your Kill Team. In that way, it actually promotes a bit of list tailoring. Is the mission Assassinate? Then take a cheap leader and hide him as best you can behind some LOS blocking terrain and use your army to shield him as long as you can. Did you roll the mission that actually is kill points? Then take the special weapons and elite units that you can and do your best to outplay the enemy by getting into good firing positions and stacking bonuses.

Most games, however, come down to breaking the enemy. That often times means flesh wounds more than taking enemies out of action. You could focus fire one model until it's taken out, or spread the firepower to get more flesh wounds, meaning they have to take break checks earlier, and shaken tests across the board.

 JNAProductions wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
What mission did you play and what armies? Both me and my friend tried to sit and shoot against a Harlequin army last week. He played Tau and I played Grey Knights. Clowns tabled us both while losing three models.

Additionally how much terrain did you use.

Decent amount of terrain. The mission where you try to get across your opponents table edge and also Kill Points.

I was Gellerpox (used the three Hullbreakers, one at level 2) and he was Tau.

I'd say more terrain especially line of sight blocking and but yea that's a rough match up, a slow all melee army vs shooting is going to be an uphill battle.

Yeah no, please please keep chances to kill models low. If you are sitting at bad odds and can't make them better, one of two things are happening:

1) you are playing a horde faction that relies on weight of dice to get things done, and that is the nature of playing a faction like that. If your 10 shoota boyz shot as reliably as 5 space marines it'd be pointless even to bring the marines.

2) you are positioned badly, and should think about that positioning rather than just blindly sitting still and taking low-odds potshots.

My last game, I had an opponent using Tempestus happily engage my Deathwatch at 12" range, just sitting around with hotshot lasguns taking single shots on 5s, wounding on 5s, and getting annoyed when I was hitting on 3s, wounding on 3s and causing more damage.

I haven't enjoyed kill teams really at all. Lack of alternating activation throughout the game was a complete killer for me. Why are some phases alternating, and others not? Movement should alternate in a game like kill team.

For what it's worth, I also envisioned playing Grey Knights in kill team, because they didn't work in 40k, only to find out they are flatly worse in kill team than in 40k. God forbid you run into thousand sons. Flamers are slowed in kill team.

the_scotsman wrote:
2) you are positioned badly, and should think about that positioning rather than just blindly sitting still and taking low-odds potshots.

This isn't true, and shows a lack of understanding of just how bad the kill team odds are. Let's take an extremely favorable case of getting up close aggressively for a perfect shot: a BS 3+ model with an overloaded plasma gun against a T4 or lower target out in the open. The plasma gunner has a ~50% chance of killing its target, and a ~30% chance of dying to an exploding plasma gun. That's just plain ridiculous, even if you set up the perfect kill shot success is still a 50/50 coin flip. And god help you if your target is in cover, in a game where cover is way too easy to get. At that point your plasma gun is almost more dangerous to the shooter than to the target.

 Peregrine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
2) you are positioned badly, and should think about that positioning rather than just blindly sitting still and taking low-odds potshots.

This isn't true, and shows a lack of understanding of just how bad the kill team odds are. Let's take an extremely favorable case of getting up close aggressively for a perfect shot: a BS 3+ model with an overloaded plasma gun against a T4 or lower target out in the open. The plasma gunner has a ~50% chance of killing its target, and a ~30% chance of dying to an exploding plasma gun. That's just plain ridiculous, even if you set up the perfect kill shot success is still a 50/50 coin flip. And god help you if your target is in cover, in a game where cover is way too easy to get. At that point your plasma gun is almost more dangerous to the shooter than to the target.

That's just plain false

1) Have a Comms Specialist with Auspex


2) Use a Sniper specialist, 1 CP stratagem to add +1 to hit, re-roll 1s as a Sniper:

97% to hit chance, 3% chance to burn

If you're in range for a double tap - you should be, that's 2 97% hits, with ~84% chance to wound, all in al netting an over 80% chance of putting someone out of action versus 3% chance of burning


3) Use another gunner with a Heavy Bolter, heavy specialist > +1 to hit from comms specialist > 84% chance of Mortal wounds


Basically use multi damage weapons and stack you + to hit while denying cover, you can have consistent odds of dropping someone that way

 Peregrine wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
2) you are positioned badly, and should think about that positioning rather than just blindly sitting still and taking low-odds potshots.

This isn't true, and shows a lack of understanding of just how bad the kill team odds are. Let's take an extremely favorable case of getting up close aggressively for a perfect shot: a BS 3+ model with an overloaded plasma gun against a T4 or lower target out in the open. The plasma gunner has a ~50% chance of killing its target, and a ~30% chance of dying to an exploding plasma gun. That's just plain ridiculous, even if you set up the perfect kill shot success is still a 50/50 coin flip. And god help you if your target is in cover, in a game where cover is way too easy to get. At that point your plasma gun is almost more dangerous to the shooter than to the target.

Good thing you can make 3 members of your team specialists and one of those specialisms might as well be called "the plasma gunner specialist" because it cuts the chance of killing yourself from 30% to 5%. And if you've got a single CP to spend from the 2 you get per turn, you can drop the sniper tactic to make that kill happen about 73% of the time.

It is OK for a good turn to cause 2-3 casualties and a couple flesh wounds. Contrary to what 40k might lead you to believe, games don't need to end in a single turn for them to be fun. You can still pull off powerful wombo-combos with tactics if you save them up (my personal favorite is 2CP to go first with the leader in combat, 1CP for the leader tactic to activate a friendly fighter, 1CP for the Combat tactic to activate your Combat specialist).

Also, decisive move exists for the rare occasions when alternating move activations would actually make a difference. Your critical model needs to make a charge and tie someone up? it's only 1cp to do that.

Looking at an ideal situation of an overcharged, 2+ reroll to-hit Plasma Gun vs MEQ in the open...

35/36 to hit
5/6 to wound
5/6 to fail save

0.6752 to cause OoA rolls. Taking the highest of 2 rolls is 0.75, so a given shot has 0.5064 to take a model OoA.

The only way we can resolve a second attack is if the first fails to achieve an OoA roll. So the second attack is

0.3248 (fail to achieve OoA roll)
0.6752 (success at second attempt to generate OoA roll)
0.75 (Successful OoA roll)

0.1645 additional chance to put MEQ OoA, due to KT’s wound resolution rules.

Put it all together, a rapid firing, 2+ reroll to-hit, overcharged Plasma Gun has a 67% or 2/3 chance to put a MEQ target, in the open, OoA.

Put the target in a ruin, however, and that value takes a huge dive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The above character, with a base 2+ to hit rerolling 1’s becomes 3+, rr 1’s.

14/18 to hit
5/6 to wound
5/6 to fail save
0.5401 chance to generate an OoA roll

5/9 to go OoA (two tries at 5+)
0.3000 to put MEQ OoA on first shot

0.4499 to fail to generate OoA roll on first attempt
0.5501 to succeed at generating an OoA roll
0.5556 to go OoA

0.1375 additional chance to succeed

44% or 4/9 to put an MEQ OoA with said super-sniper, if that MEQ is in a ruin.


All of this said, I’m mostly in favour of low odds of success. That ensures that lone-wolf super-stars don’t completely dominate the game. It helps to ensure that combined fire is required to produce “probable” kill scenarios. Otherwise, we’d have a game of chicken where whomever put their head out first loses.

It would also create binary situations where Close Combat was the only viable strategy or Long Range high ROF weapons are the only viable strategy, depending on available LOS blocking terrain. If a single model has a high probability, let’s say 50% with a single attack, the only defence becomes being out of LOS / Range. So we’d enter an era where, like 8th edition, if you’re exposed you’re hosed.

Being that’s my major beef with 8th edition, I’d hate to see that come to KT.