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 hated the symbols in Blackstone Fortress and Cursed City even if they were somewhat logical as they almost matched dice shapes. I fail to see the logic in these. At least the miniatures are nice.

Soo.. Imperial Guard Veteran profile has a lasgun and bayonet, huh? That'll teach me to model my IG veteran models with a mixture of shotguns, autoguns and lasguns..

So let's just hope Range is the only dumb gimmick.

Love the argument that 3◯ is easier to translate into other languages than 6 tho, that's the sort of quality water carrying I read Dakka for.

If a triangle numerically equals anything other than 3 the templating system is a failure on a pre-k level.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So let's just hope Range is the only dumb gimmick.

Love the argument that 3◯ is easier to translate into other languages than 6 tho, that's the sort of quality water carrying I read Dakka for.

It makes sense that 3◯ becomes 4◯ when given a sprint* order from the sgt or 2◯ when under half wounds because you can then write that "sprint order adds 1 to your Mv" when your base may be 2, 3 or 5 (triangle, circle, square, whatever).

Especially in a warband where the Mv is not the same for all the different unit entries.

*something I've made up as an example and nothing we've heard about

The issue is not how the symbols are used but that the symbols itself do not make much sense. How come a square means 3" and a pentagon 6"? One will probably get used to them quite soon but they they feel rather gimmicky at the moment. And we know that GW will use them at every possible instance. All enemy models within SQUARE, watch out.

Wouldn’t it be funny if Jervis ordered the shapes thing as his farewell wave

Yes, the gauges are awful. They don't even need numbers to be better, GW could have done Short, Medium, and Long sticks. GW excels at botching the execution of their ideas.

Blastaar wrote:
Yes, the gauges are awful. They don't even need numbers to be better, GW could have done Short, Medium, and Long sticks. GW excels at botching the execution of their ideas.

On the bright side, I want to turn those measuring thingies into some sort of fortress gate.

I had the same initial reaction when I saw the symbols.

It uses the same logic from the Warhammer Quest games with the circle wedged between poor and mediocre: Triangle D4 = poor, Square D6 = mediocre, D12 pentagon = excellent. But since there are only D6s included in the KT box, it is unlikely that KT uses a similar mechanic. Simply having a consistent "design language" across games seems be a very weak reason for the symbols. So i am still baffled by the choice.

However it is a good decision to use a combination of number and symbol for the movement instead of two numbers. It is way easier, more intuitive and unambiguous when a rule refers to the first part or the latter. It is the same reason why cells in Microsoft Excel or chess are labeled A1 or B7 instead of 1:1 and 2:7. It is easier to distinguish what is what. And there are several exciting gameplay possibilities why 3x2" might not be the same as 2x3" movement.

Contrary to what some seem to believe, translation issues wouldn't be a factor. Warcry uses symbols for special abilities because then the fighter cards do not contain words and do not need to be translated, only the ability cards. So instead of "(number of fighter + 1) times number of languages", you only need "number of languages + number of fighter" cards. But this isn't the case with KT. Since the fighter cards use numbers anyway, there wouldn't be any savings. Language might only be a factor in regard of not using A,B,C and D as the symbol.

tl;dr Use of symbols = great, choice of symbols = highly questionable

 Siygess wrote:
Soo.. Imperial Guard Veteran profile has a lasgun and bayonet, huh? That'll teach me to model my IG veteran models with a mixture of shotguns, autoguns and lasguns..

from the images, we know that at least lasguns and shotguns are on the sprues (most likely more than one, unless 'guy loading shotgun' is the only sculpt on the sprue). Given that autoguns and lasguns are usually statistically identical, I think you'll be forgiven for using an autogun vet as a lasgun vet.

 Vovin wrote:
I had the same initial reaction when I saw the symbols.

It uses the same logic from the Warhammer Quest games with the circle wedged between poor and mediocre: Triangle D4 = poor, Square D6 = mediocre, D12 pentagon = excellent. But since there are only D6s included in the KT box, it is unlikely that KT uses a similar mechanic. Simply having a consistent "design language" across games seems be a very weak reason for the symbols. So i am still baffled by the choice.

However it is a good decision to use a combination of number and symbol for the movement instead of two numbers. It is way easier, more intuitive and unambiguous when a rule refers to the first part or the latter. It is the same reason why cells in Microsoft Excel or chess are labeled A1 or B7 instead of 1:1 and 2:7. It is easier to distinguish what is what. And there are several exciting gameplay possibilities why 3x2" might not be the same as 2x3" movement.

Contrary to what some seem to believe, translation issues wouldn't be a factor. Warcry uses symbols for special abilities because then the fighter cards do not contain words and do not need to be translated, only the ability cards. So instead of "(number of fighter + 1) times number of languages", you only need "number of languages + number of fighter" cards. But this isn't the case with KT. Since the fighter cards use numbers anyway, there wouldn't be any savings. Language might only be a factor in regard of not using A,B,C and D as the symbol.

tl;dr Use of symbols = great, choice of symbols = highly questionable

Why would two numbers be used for movement?

The new Kill Team rules seem neat and I'm looking forward to trying them out. Is the Attack / Defense mechanic straight out of Warcry? I'm really interested to see how they are going to do melee with back and forth and apparently no Saving Throws. I wonder if there will be something akin to the old WS chart to allow for 'elite' units to have better melee defense.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Yes, the gauges are awful. They don't even need numbers to be better, GW could have done Short, Medium, and Long sticks. GW excels at botching the execution of their ideas.

On the bright side, I want to turn those measuring thingies into some sort of fortress gate.

I had the same thought, those measuring rulers look like an awesome gate when stood up.

No saving throw in melee is bizarre. Armour suddenly stop to work when you get hit by a knife??? I guess we'll have to see the full rule before judging but....

Blastaar wrote:
Why would two numbers be used for movement?

Optimists assume GW will use the two stat movement approach to make models lose/gain movement at different rates.

So you could have a 6xTriangle guy and a 3xCircle guy and they both move 6 base, but if they get a +1 move buff the first guy will move 7 and the second guy will move 8.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
This is the single most un-intuitive way they could've done something so simple. A shape with three sides is "1". A shape with one side is "2". A shape with four sides is "3", and a shape with five sides is "6". Why? WHAT? Why in the world would you do this? What is wrong with you?

My satire sense was tingling but this is too mad to be satire. They've made it "quick and easy" by using unintuitive symbols instead of numbers, great. I can only assume it's a cynical way to make people buy the gauges

Blastaar wrote:

 Vovin wrote:
I had the same initial reaction when I saw the symbols.

It uses the same logic from the Warhammer Quest games with the circle wedged between poor and mediocre: Triangle D4 = poor, Square D6 = mediocre, D12 pentagon = excellent. But since there are only D6s included in the KT box, it is unlikely that KT uses a similar mechanic. Simply having a consistent "design language" across games seems be a very weak reason for the symbols. So i am still baffled by the choice.

However it is a good decision to use a combination of number and symbol for the movement instead of two numbers. It is way easier, more intuitive and unambiguous when a rule refers to the first part or the latter. It is the same reason why cells in Microsoft Excel or chess are labeled A1 or B7 instead of 1:1 and 2:7. It is easier to distinguish what is what. And there are several exciting gameplay possibilities why 3x2" might not be the same as 2x3" movement.

Contrary to what some seem to believe, translation issues wouldn't be a factor. Warcry uses symbols for special abilities because then the fighter cards do not contain words and do not need to be translated, only the ability cards. So instead of "(number of fighter + 1) times number of languages", you only need "number of languages + number of fighter" cards. But this isn't the case with KT. Since the fighter cards use numbers anyway, there wouldn't be any savings. Language might only be a factor in regard of not using A,B,C and D as the symbol.

tl;dr Use of symbols = great, choice of symbols = highly questionable

Why would two numbers be used for movement?

I can think of lots of situations where this is preferential to a fixed value.

- If a model has 9" movement and another 6" and there is a -3" movement modifier, it affects the 6" model way more. And you want to avoid percentage modifiers because they are clunky. When you have a model with 3x3" and 3x2" movement, you can simply say: -1 movement and it reduces the speed of both models by 33%.
- Modifiers can work on both parts and be more granular and at the same time allow for more interaction between different modifiers, without the worry that some models are reduced to zero movement. So two -3 movement modifiers render a 6" model immobile, which is not particular fun. But a -1 movement and "treat 3" square as 2" circle" can be combined.
- Maybe a model moves in increments and after each increment the enemy can make reactive fire. So a 4x2" model is faster than a 1x6" model, but the latter can move from cover to cover without provoking overwatch fire.
- Maybe a charging model that uses only one fragment of their movement is treated have as having made a sneak attack, granting some bonuses.

The possibilities are endless.

 the_scotsman wrote:
from the images, we know that at least lasguns and shotguns are on the sprues (most likely more than one, unless 'guy loading shotgun' is the only sculpt on the sprue).

That is a grenade launcher.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Why would two numbers be used for movement?

Optimists assume GW will use the two stat movement approach to make models lose/gain movement at different rates.

So you could have a 6xTriangle guy and a 3xCircle guy and they both move 6 base, but if they get a +1 move buff the first guy will move 7 and the second guy will move 8.

Its what they say in the article, not merely being optimistic.

 streetsamurai wrote:
No saving throw in melee is bizarre. Armour suddenly stop to work when you get hit by a knife??? I guess we'll have to see the full rule before judging but....

My assumption is that melee will be:

Attacker rolls (# of dice equal to melee weapon's A value), looks for WS or better for successes
Defender rolls (# of dice equal to DF), looks for WS or better for successes

Whether you think this is good or bad, I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.

Personally, I can see some of the appeal for such a system -- your durability in melee combat has more to do with your skill as a melee combatant, not just what you're wearing. For a personalized system with a tighter focus on individuals, this could be an appealing notion. It also gets away from the difficulty of double-penalizing lightly armored melee glass cannons, by making them run a gauntlet naked to get to combat, and then suddenly still being fragile while in their element, too.

It also takes some of the focus off of favorable AP melee weapons, particularly in a system where we're not assigning multiple attacks at a model level rather than a weapon level. Such weapons can just get a high A and be done with it, which goes along with the streamlining and quicker play they seem to be going for.

Vovin wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 Vovin wrote:
I had the same initial reaction when I saw the symbols.

It uses the same logic from the Warhammer Quest games with the circle wedged between poor and mediocre: Triangle D4 = poor, Square D6 = mediocre, D12 pentagon = excellent. But since there are only D6s included in the KT box, it is unlikely that KT uses a similar mechanic. Simply having a consistent "design language" across games seems be a very weak reason for the symbols. So i am still baffled by the choice.

However it is a good decision to use a combination of number and symbol for the movement instead of two numbers. It is way easier, more intuitive and unambiguous when a rule refers to the first part or the latter. It is the same reason why cells in Microsoft Excel or chess are labeled A1 or B7 instead of 1:1 and 2:7. It is easier to distinguish what is what. And there are several exciting gameplay possibilities why 3x2" might not be the same as 2x3" movement.

Contrary to what some seem to believe, translation issues wouldn't be a factor. Warcry uses symbols for special abilities because then the fighter cards do not contain words and do not need to be translated, only the ability cards. So instead of "(number of fighter + 1) times number of languages", you only need "number of languages + number of fighter" cards. But this isn't the case with KT. Since the fighter cards use numbers anyway, there wouldn't be any savings. Language might only be a factor in regard of not using A,B,C and D as the symbol.

tl;dr Use of symbols = great, choice of symbols = highly questionable

Why would two numbers be used for movement?

I can think of lots of situations where this is preferential to a fixed value.

- If a model has 9" movement and another 6" and there is a -3" movement modifier, it affects the 6" model way more. And you want to avoid percentage modifiers because they are clunky. When you have a model with 3x3" and 3x2" movement, you can simply say: -1 movement and it reduces the speed of both models by 33%.
- Modifiers can work on both parts and be more granular and at the same time allow for more interaction between different modifiers, without the worry that some models are reduced to zero movement. So two -3 movement modifiers render a 6" model immobile, which is not particular fun. But a -1 movement and "treat 3" square as 2" circle" can be combined.
- Maybe a model moves in increments and after each increment the enemy can make reactive fire. So a 4x2" model is faster than a 1x6" model, but the latter can move from cover to cover without provoking overwatch fire.
- Maybe a charging model that uses only one fragment of their movement is treated have as having made a sneak attack, granting some bonuses.

The possibilities are endless.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Why would two numbers be used for movement?

Optimists assume GW will use the two stat movement approach to make models lose/gain movement at different rates.

So you could have a 6xTriangle guy and a 3xCircle guy and they both move 6 base, but if they get a +1 move buff the first guy will move 7 and the second guy will move 8.

I should have said "why use two numbers fror movement unless you are implementing it like Infinity." Many of the suggestions above are, I think, needlessly complicated. I don't think degrading profiles will improve KT, either.

Blastaar wrote:
I should have said "why use two numbers fror movement unless you are implementing it like Infinity." Many of the suggestions above are, I think, needlessly complicated. I don't think degrading profiles will improve KT, either.

Man, that -1 to hit for models with a flesh wound ruined KT. Surely suggesting that a wounded model slows down will only go further down the road to destruction.

Kaffis wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
I should have said "why use two numbers fror movement unless you are implementing it like Infinity." Many of the suggestions above are, I think, needlessly complicated. I don't think degrading profiles will improve KT, either.

Man, that -1 to hit for models with a flesh wound ruined KT. Surely suggesting that a wounded model slows down will only go further down the road to destruction.

Degrading profiles might work if GW wanted to go the Battletech route with rolling to see where on the target the shot lands, but................

I sometimes get the impression that GW looks at other games for "inspiration" and picks up what they think is cool to implement it into their own games

but they don't understand why it is used in the first place and they need to change it so it is not a direct copy

measurement sticks without numbers is nothing new
SAGA and FFG Star Wars Games make great use of it
one reason is to avoid problems between imperial and metric as well as problems with tabe measure used to cheat and for easy to use (X-WING with a tape measure would be much more complicated)


yet I don't see any benefit here other than being different

I think GW has the right idea with the shapes.

They made a point not having the number of sides of any shape represent its corresponding number, meaning you're not going to have any player think hexagon represents five because triangle represent three, etc - no shortcuts memorizing what shape represents what but GW doesn't need to come up with a two-sided shape either.

Has anyone seen Slayer posting? I figured he'd be all over this, but I haven't seen him in a while.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streetsamurai wrote:
No saving throw in melee is bizarre. Armour suddenly stop to work when you get hit by a knife??? I guess we'll have to see the full rule before judging but....

It is interesting. Makes orks scary. Perhaps marines will have a huge wound pool or "defense" to make up for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vovin wrote:

I can think of lots of situations where this is preferential to a fixed value.

- If a model has 9" movement and another 6" and there is a -3" movement modifier, it affects the 6" model way more. And you want to avoid percentage modifiers because they are clunky. When you have a model with 3x3" and 3x2" movement, you can simply say: -1 movement and it reduces the speed of both models by 33%.
- Modifiers can work on both parts and be more granular and at the same time allow for more interaction between different modifiers, without the worry that some models are reduced to zero movement. So two -3 movement modifiers render a 6" model immobile, which is not particular fun. But a -1 movement and "treat 3" square as 2" circle" can be combined.
- Maybe a model moves in increments and after each increment the enemy can make reactive fire. So a 4x2" model is faster than a 1x6" model, but the latter can move from cover to cover without provoking overwatch fire.
- Maybe a charging model that uses only one fragment of their movement is treated have as having made a sneak attack, granting some bonuses.

The possibilities are endless.

Thanks for that. Sounds neat if they go that way.

I‘m cautiously optimistic from what I‘ve seen so far. Not much interested in the starter box factions or terrain, though. And I have zero interest in painting the gauges which aren‘t exactly pretty in grey plastic either, so I won‘t pay separately for those.

I guess we‘ll see a separate rulebook and nicer 3rd party measuring sticks tailored for Kill Team (ie., symbol & colour coded) from day one? Or we might just cut our own, to speed things up vs using a tape measure.

Hey, just thought of something...

What if these four symbols shown here are not the only ones the game will ever use, hmm? Sure enough, nobody wants to carry dozens of gauges to a game but one or two gauges more could theoretically be added later on.. Or the second gauge might change to another gauge with one more extra lenght down the line?

I'm actually thinking the symbols/Gauges is a cool way to do percentage-based modifiers to the stats. can invent new lenghts and symbols to come up with new ratios as well.

EDIT: Another observation. APL affects how many activation "attempts" an operative can make in one turn. So maybe activation attempts are tested and might even suffer modifiers to the test under certain conditions (while being pinned by enemy fire or succesful overwatch, perhaps)?

Man, that'd be sweet - An astartes tries to use up one of his "transhuman" given extra AP's but freezes before pulling the action off because he's being pinned by weapons fire. That sort of things happened in the trailer too right?

Kaffis wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
No saving throw in melee is bizarre. Armour suddenly stop to work when you get hit by a knife??? I guess we'll have to see the full rule before judging but....

My assumption is that melee will be:

Attacker rolls (# of dice equal to melee weapon's A value), looks for WS or better for successes
Defender rolls (# of dice equal to DF), looks for WS or better for successes

Whether you think this is good or bad, I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.

Personally, I can see some of the appeal for such a system -- your durability in melee combat has more to do with your skill as a melee combatant, not just what you're wearing. For a personalized system with a tighter focus on individuals, this could be an appealing notion. It also gets away from the difficulty of double-penalizing lightly armored melee glass cannons, by making them run a gauntlet naked to get to combat, and then suddenly still being fragile while in their element, too.

It also takes some of the focus off of favorable AP melee weapons, particularly in a system where we're not assigning multiple attacks at a model level rather than a weapon level. Such weapons can just get a high A and be done with it, which goes along with the streamlining and quicker play they seem to be going for.

I've played systems like that before and they're fun. It let's both sides roll dice and stay engaged to see whether or not the defender survives. It gives a similar benefit to the old WS chart where you might hesitate going in to tango with an elite unit. Plus it's easy to remember and doesn't require a chart.

Didn't they just have a new starter set or something in March....?

"Hey! Welcome to Kill Team! This starter set is everythi....Hey! Welcome to the new edition of Kill Team! This starter set is everything you need to play!"