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.

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

Pariah Nexus was an expansion (and has now gone OOP).

 Captain Joystick wrote:
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.

No, they really don't. Make circle 1, rectangle 2, triangle 3, hexagon 6. There, done, solved with far less confusion and a chance for mistakes.

Kaffis wrote:
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.

Tell that to meganobz, terminators, aggressors, killa kanz, bullgryns, crusaders, mutilators, etc, etc.

By that standard arco-flagellants and penitent engines are the most durable combatants in 40k, eh?

 Irbis wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:
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.

No, they really don't. Make circle 1, rectangle 2, triangle 3, hexagon 6. There, done, solved with far less confusion and a chance for mistakes.

And 1 step further, put the number in the shape.

Seriously though... which moronic game designer decided a 5 sided shape was great for representing the number 6, and a square for 3 when a triangle is also used in the system. It makes me seriously wonder how thought out this version is. I have a feeling they've watched a few 'How to play' videos on other skirmish games and taken what they think are the best ideas and thrown them all thoughtlessly together.

At least it'll save me some money.

 Irbis wrote:

Tell that to meganobz, terminators, aggressors, killa kanz, bullgryns, crusaders, mutilators, etc, etc.

By that standard arco-flagellants and penitent engines are the most durable combatants in 40k, eh?

The impression that I got is your Attack dice will be different than your Defense dice. Arco-flagellants for instance may have many attack dice but near nothing for Defense.

 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..

The good news is that you're probably fine.
That card we see is a specific "loadout" per its keywords.

Reading from left to right:
Kill Team "faction" is Veteran Guardsman(with Guard symbol), with a superfaction of "Imperium", faction of "Astra Militarum", subfaction of <Regiment>, specific unit is "Trooper Veteran". Next to it are four "paths" that they can take...of which the Trooper Veteran can only take two(Staunch and Scout):



It lines up with what they say at the bottom:

Lastly, there’s a keyword section at the bottom of the card – familiar to players of Warhammer 40,000 – that lets you quickly see if an operative is affected by rules that target a specific keyword. Next to that is an array of four symbols representing the specialisms your operatives can adopt during a narrative play campaign as you build a kill team of storied heroes. We’ll be taking a much closer look at narrative play in a future article too.

Shotguns might be an unlockable wargear piece or specific to a profile type or any number of things. With WarCry? We have specific cards for specific weapon loadouts. I could easily see that being the case here...especially since we've seen Marksmen, Medics, and Vox Operators.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Shotguns might be an unlockable wargear piece or specific to a profile type or any number of things.

But it's not on the sprue, so the chances of it being in the rules are minimal.

 Irbis wrote:

Kaffis wrote:
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.

Tell that to meganobz, terminators, aggressors, killa kanz, bullgryns, crusaders, mutilators, etc, etc.

By that standard arco-flagellants and penitent engines are the most durable combatants in 40k, eh?

I'll be outright shocked if Terminators and Arco-flagellants have the same Df.

Actually, for that matter, Arcos might not even have a terribly high WS -- they might just have an outrageous number of attack dice with a 5+ WS or something. When you're not committed to any stats, and you've got 5 or more values to tune for how scary models are in ranged and melee combat, respectively, you've got a lot of leeway to make those distinctions and end up with a net result that feels appropriate to the qualitative measures of how they play in another system.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
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!"

Yes, Pariah Nexus. GW obsoleting rules is nothing new, but that's pretty fast even for them.

Edit: Okay, it was an expansion. Still short shelf life on the new rules.

 Irbis wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:
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.

No, they really don't. Make circle 1, rectangle 2, triangle 3, hexagon 6. There, done, solved with far less confusion and a chance for mistakes.

It's all well and good but how does a rectangle correlate to the number 2?

More importantly, does that satisfy the people whining about it? Or do they move on to something else? Or do they keep complaining about it anyway? People can talk it up all the want but at the end of the day recognizing shape x as completely arbitrary value y is probably the least complicated thing a 40k player would ever need to memorize - and there's a handy chart for those who can't.

 Irbis wrote:

Kaffis wrote:
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.

Tell that to meganobz, terminators, aggressors, killa kanz, bullgryns, crusaders, mutilators, etc, etc.

By that standard arco-flagellants and penitent engines are the most durable combatants in 40k, eh?

Actually crusaders, bullgryns and any other unit that uses a shield would be a good example of a unit that could perform noticably differently in and out of close combat in a more granular rule system. Likewise a sister repentia, who's eviscerator was conceptualized as an anti-tank weapon aught to have an easier time hitting a killa kan than a flagellant.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
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.

this is the point, if they would have understood why and how to use those fixed sizes from ea measurment stick, there would be no need to tell people numbers

look at X-Wing, Legion, Deadzone, or SAGA, there is never anywhere written how many Inches or Centimeters Range 1/2/3/Small/Medium/Large is
it is not needed to know them and to avoid confusion they never tell you

another point is that using those simple ranges is for easy to use and speed up gameplay while instead of moving Range 3 or Long, you move 3 times Circle

yet I don't know how ranges >Penatagon are going to work, will a weapon be 3 times Pentaqon, and how to you measure that because if you have a specific stick with 3 times Pentagon on it, why don't make it Octagon instead, (and maybe we get another 5 symbols for ranges)?

I'm glad someone made this.

Ancestral Hamster wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
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!"

Yes, Pariah Nexus. GW obsoleting rules is nothing new, but that's pretty fast even for them.

Edit: Okay, it was an expansion. Still short shelf life on the new rules.

I think the point of Pariah Nexus was that GW knew they were going to kill the edition. It was a wrap-up expansion for KT1 which brought the Space Marines in line with current stats and some of the new models. So now KT1 is left with core book, elites, commanders, annual 2019 and Pariah Nexus and a few WD extras. I have all of the books and think the complete set is comprehensive enough to keep KT1 players going without further support.

kodos wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:
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.

this is the point, if they would have understood why and how to use those fixed sizes from ea measurment stick, there would be no need to tell people numbers

look at X-Wing, Legion, Deadzone, or SAGA, there is never anywhere written how many Inches or Centimeters Range 1/2/3/Small/Medium/Large is
it is not needed to know them and to avoid confusion they never tell you

another point is that using those simple ranges is for easy to use and speed up gameplay while instead of moving Range 3 or Long, you move 3 times Circle

yet I don't know how ranges >Penatagon are going to work, will a weapon be 3 times Pentaqon, and how to you measure that because if you have a specific stick with 3 times Pentagon on it, why don't make it Octagon instead, (and maybe we get another 5 symbols for ranges)?

AFAICT, weapon ranges are no longer a thing in KT2, aside from pistols and certain special weapons like flamers.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Shotguns might be an unlockable wargear piece or specific to a profile type or any number of things.

But it's not on the sprue, so the chances of it being in the rules are minimal.

Since the ruleset will be at last independant from 40k's system, it doesn't matter that much.

As long as it counts as a basic weapon...you can play the shotgun as lasgunn and bayonet with any knife / sword you have on the miniature.

Well yes, of course you can always 'counts as'. That's never been in question.

That's not going to trounce no model/no rule though. If shotguns aren't part of the Veteran Guardsmen kit, then they are unlikely to be part of their rules.

Looking at the kill team website there are two different factions for Imperial Guard. The first is Veteran Guardsmen which is specific to this new kit. The other faction is standard Inperial Guard and has rules for both regular guards and scions. If the veteran guard faction don’t have access to shotguns (if it’s not on the sprue) then you can play as the imperial guard faction instead.

Orks are the same way, they have a faction for this specific sprue and a faction for pre-existing ork kits.

Well, we know for sure the Genestealer Cults do have shotguns on their sprues. So we'll see if their weapon profile is any different (or, if I suspect, it will be mixed together with autoguns). If it's not...we'll have our answer.

Besides, so far, we just saw a card and we know nothing about the options. Like usual, wait and see for the full rules before jumping to conclusions.

Yeah, looks like another "modern" GW game with plenty of choices and decisions... Like are you going to roll all these dice with your left or your right hand :]

Sarouan wrote:
Well, we know for sure the Genestealer Cults do have shotguns on their sprues. So we'll see if their weapon profile is any different (or, if I suspect, it will be mixed together with autoguns). If it's not...we'll have our answer.

And I'm sure Genestealer Cults will get a shotgun option, but we're talking about the Kreigers.

Sarouan wrote:
Besides, so far, we just saw a card and we know nothing about the options. Like usual, wait and see for the full rules before jumping to conclusions.

And we'll also continue to speculate based upon previously demonstrated behaviours and patterns, 'no mode/no rule' being quite a bit example of such behaviour.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Shotguns might be an unlockable wargear piece or specific to a profile type or any number of things.

But it's not on the sprue, so the chances of it being in the rules are minimal.

Out of interest, have we actually seen all the sprues? Do we know that for definite? Seems to me like although that statcard is "trooper veteran" it's still the basic model because all kill team individuals are vets. Maybe there will be a list of potential loadout options in the rules to pick and choose.

 Olthannon wrote:
Out of interest, have we actually seen all the sprues? Do we know that for definite? Seems to me like although that statcard is "trooper veteran" it's still the basic model because all kill team individuals are vets. Maybe there will be a list of potential loadout options in the rules to pick and choose.

During the preview they showed the sprue. People have paused it and shown off the various items. There's a lot there, none of which appear to be shotguns.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm sure Genestealer Cults will get a shotgun option, but we're talking about the Kreigers.

Are you, though ? Someone talked about their own veteran guards with shotguns, but he didn't say they were kriegers.

Here, the box GW sells will be specifically kriegers. I actually don't remember the Death Korps of Krieg list allowing to have shotguns on their equivalent veteran guards.

Sure, you can always convert a krieger with a weapon option they never had, but that's on you here. If you're talking about generic veteran guards...we have yet to see the options on the Astra Militarum faction as well as the rest of the Veteran Guards.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/07/15/lasguns-can-kill-from-across-the-board-in-new-kill-teams-deadly-firefights/

Ranged combat preview is up, featuring more of our beloved random shapes

Crucially, critical hits can only be blocked by one critical save or two standard saves.

Critical Hit Rules, as the name implies, are only applied to critical successes. The long-las’ MW3 (short for Mortal Wounds 3) rule, for instance, inflicts three automatic wounds for every critical hit rolled before the unfortunate target has any chance to prevent them.

Love the part where saves prevent hits, except critical hits, except critical saves, except critical hits that cause MW. Maybe. On the bright side the author clearly had a stroke while writing this, so we might not be subjected to much more.

Yep, ranged combat looks the way we've been lead to anticipate. Crit saves are interesting, and trading two saves to cancel a crit hit is a solid response to keep stuff like Ork dakka (high volume, bad BS) from just ignoring armor by dint of half its hits being crits.

Torrent and MW on flamers and snipers look solid. Pleased so far, looking forward to seeing what the twist is on melee.

All guns have unlimited range unless otherwise marked, as was surmised earlier.
Attack dice vs defence dice, cancelling successes is the method, presumably this works much the same in melee since close combat weapons also have Attacks and the to hit value column is marked BS/WS.
Interestingly, critical successes can be countered by regular ones at a 2:1 ratio. Lot of systems like this, the only counter to a crit is another crit.


Can anyone tell for sure if the sniper’s bonus wounds on a crit are cancelled by a critical save? The article implies no.

'inflicts three automatic wounds for every critical hit rolled before the unfortunate target has any chance to prevent them'

I don't see anything implied about that? its mortal wounds just like the other games.

Yep, it's quite different from Warcry. Attacker rolls aren't modified by the defender's toughness, the defense is only the number of dice you'll roll for save.

I also like the difference between saves and critical saves : unlike Warcry, where 6 were always unavoidable for the defender. Here, there is a chance : unless it has the MW special rule, which then works like in Warcry. There's absolutely nothing confusing here, unless for people complaining for the sake of complaining against GW.

If you're okay with triple layered hit quality good for you. Remember it next time you "cancel" a critical hit after it's already inflicted damage.

Well it's nice they moved away from Warcry's somewhat math illiterate regular wound to critical wound ratio.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
If you're okay with triple layered hit quality good for you. Remember it next time you "cancel" a critical hit after it's already inflicted damage.

The article never said it works like that, though. It's your assumption it would.

Wait for the full rules before jumping to conclusions or complaining about GW.