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.

Me and a mate just got this idea how to spice up our games of Kill Team further:

How about not limiting your kill team roster to a single subfaction? As in, allow including anything and everything from the datasheets (though still respecting the "0-1" limits of certain models), as long as one KEYWORD remains the same. This would allow a great deal more diversity in possible team compositions. EDIT: Glancing at the sheets, T'AU, KROOT, NECRONS and ORKS would need to make an exception, as they don't have any meaningful KEYWORD for this purpose... Or sometimes allowing the FACTION KEYWORD to match with KEYWORD. Anyways..

Would such an arrangement be rules legal in any way? I understand doing so would prevent the team from being battleforged, but does that actually prevent you from playing, at least allowing open play missions? We already abstain from using faction specific tactics (we play with just the 6 core tactics from the rulebook), so losing those is of no concern.

I got quite excited about this idea. Obviously some combos would probably be totally game-breaking, but nobody in our KillTeam group is into tourneys or WAAC-tier "competitive" gaming for our skirmish fun. Allowing faction keyword soup would already make KT feel much more RPG:y in a Rogue Trader way than the current implementation, which is presenting the same battleforged faction "boxes" to the forces as 40K proper, and tbh kinda dilutes the skirmish fun potential IMO.

What do yall think about such a thing? I was thinking to start with just a matching KEYWORD, but could even imagine expanding from this to a degree if things worked out well. Don't see why T'au/GSC couldn't have guard "traitors" or why GSC couldn't also soup with Tyranids.. As long as things made narrative sense, I could imagine considering it.

The intent with all the souping wouldnt be to game the datasheets for all their worth, but to be able to really evoke a narrative sense of "band of ragtag mercs/fighters joined together by a common goal/leading figure". Such a thing was prevalent in Rogue Trader era 40K but has since been banished largely into the 40K RPG spinoff games.. I was even considering coming up with a custom ruleset for such a thing but actually, this change to building your KT roster might be enough for me really, even with the existing KT rules otherwise left intact.

EDIT2: I'm reading the core rules again, and it seems that what we want to do is only legal in Open Play.. Basically it should also be allowed for Narrative Play, but AFAIK all Narrative Missions in KT state "battle-forged" as a requirement for participating in the mission. Anyhoo, I think we'll give it a shot, I dont mind calling it Open Play as long as we can pick any mission we fancy.. Don't see how that wouldn't be the epitome of "Open Play"

We got tired of waiting for GW to include Ynnari so we picked the most compatible tactics from the three eldar factions, in the core manual. I was also annoyed that Harlequins didn't get any new units for KT: Elites even though the Death Jester is an elite unit, so we altered its datasheet to be a non-commander model but within reason.

You do not need permission from anyone other than yourselves to play openly. I personally hate matched play rules in most GW games as they can come with annoying errata changes which throw one's army composition into complete chaos, or just silly datasheets to begin with.

I say go for it.

SamusDrake wrote:
We got tired of waiting for GW to include Ynnari so we picked the most compatible tactics from the three eldar factions, in the core manual. I was also annoyed that Harlequins didn't get any new units for KT: Elites even though the Death Jester is an elite unit, so we altered its datasheet to be a non-commander model but within reason.

You do not need permission from anyone other than yourselves to play openly. I personally hate matched play rules in most GW games as they can come with annoying errata changes which throw one's army composition into complete chaos, or just silly datasheets to begin with.

I say go for it.

You might want to check out KT: Commanders. Death Jester datasheet can be found there, among other Aeldari goodies

But yeh, I have seen the light... Open Play FTW!!

 tauist wrote:


You might want to check out KT: Commanders. Death Jester datasheet can be found there, among other Aeldari goodies

But yeh, I have seen the light... Open Play FTW!!

Commanders is what I was talking about! I hate that sodding expansion!

Seriously, I blew a fuse when they made the Death Jester an HQ commander in Kill Team. And then we Harles didn't even get the Solitaire in Elites. Why, it reminded me of that time when Al Capone was informed that the Untouchables got the whole shipment at the Canadian border...



...ahhhh deeearrrrrr. Sigh. But yes. Open play is indeed your - our - friend.

My buddies and I were working on a system for this that amounts to carving off the appropriate 'HATE' rules in favor of showing unlikely alliances and the like.
Obviously, I don't have a chart finished, but I'm looking for input on how to balance it.
One of the ideas was to include not just a list of "regular" keywords for when things are at their best, but also a list of "Allied" keywords for if the team was to consist of a mixed group.
Examples...
Trusted: Cadians and Ultramarines will trust each other inherently. Praise the Emperor!
Nervous: Cadians and Tau? They're going to be distrustful. But they might be trading goods and services.
Desperate: Cadians and Necrons... they're probably just trying to avoid each other. Things could go bad fast.
As for the Battle-Forged issue, one idea was to create a separate set options for special abilities that would be defined by why this rag-tag group was working together.
Prisoners? Mercenaries? Is there actually some common hero these people admire?
(I'd definitely like to see an Elites Kill Team with Yarrick leading Orks against Chaos Daemonettes.)