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.

 the_scotsman wrote:
I see primarily people are still butthurt about having to memorize four shapes with primary colors. I will return tomorrow.

This is Dakkadakka where everything GW does is hated out of instinct.

But yeah, I am signing out. I am super optimistic about the new KT and Dakkadakka is such a downer zone these days. So much negativity.

Perhaps these rules are actually brilliant in use. I don't really know. Trying to understand a completely new rule system from small snippets seems pointless. I read it once I can see the rules in full. Though I have to say that my initial impression is that this seems needlessly complicated and lessens my enthusiasm. I think I would have preferred something more directly 40K based.

Also, we still don't have confirmation about the Krieger base size? The models are the most important bit of this release.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Not necesarily... they could just have used a 6 too .

But they stated in the article that a 3 Circle isn't always a 6 because when the model gets wounded it will drop down to 2Circle(and further depending on factors I guess). This seems to be the ruling that most people are either overlooking or misunderstanding. The reason for the 3 x (2") system is to add granularity to injury effects and terrains and other features. This means that if an Aeldari loses an XSymbol they have the potential to lose out in similar proportions to a guardsman instead of a -2" or whatever that punishes a slower moving individual proportionally more than a fast moving one.

No, I understood that. I simply don't feel, with the little we know right now, that it's the best way around doing that

Difference is that the X-Wing rulers are a bit more than just a measure of length but also turning speed and whatnot and are there to simplify something that would be unpleasant to measure out with a measuring tape. I would also iterate that nothing in the ruleset forces you to use these rulers. Literally nothing.

That's a difference without a difference. As easily as they did the weird, door-like movement templates they could have done a sprue of sticks with proper movement sizes. (1 circle, 2 circles, 3 circles, 1 square, 2 squares, 3 squares... you know, that kind of stuff).

Nobody would force you to use them either way, literally nobody, but they'd be much more useable out of the box, which is also something that's, you know, interesting and all.

 Crimson wrote:
Perhaps these rules are actually brilliant in use. I don't really know. Trying to understand a completely new rule system from small snippets seems pointless. I read it once I can see the rules in full. Though I have to say that my initial impression is that this seems needlessly complicated and lessens my enthusiasm. I think I would have preferred something more directly 40K based.

Also, we still don't have confirmation about the Krieger base size? The models are the most important bit of this release.

My assessment is directly the opposite - they appear to be building a system that's easier and quicker to resolve (I roll, you roll at exactly the same time, and we cancel out some rolls and quickly determine the damage the target takes as opposed to rolling to hit, rolling to wound, rolling to save, rolling to see how much damage, rolling for injury) but is more complicated in terms of your options as a player when activating a model.

That's a good thing. current KT is vastly too simplistic to be a satisfying skirmish system in terms of options, and vastly too complex in terms of action resolution.

At the very least I'll probably try to snag the rulebook from someone buying the minis, if only to be able to have a proper opinion.

And I'm quite certain I can get that on the cheap.

Honestly? That's already more interest than I had for the current KT ruleset, so there's that.

 the_scotsman wrote:

My assessment is directly the opposite - they appear to be building a system that's easier and quicker to resolve (I roll, you roll at exactly the same time, and we cancel out some rolls and quickly determine the damage the target takes as opposed to rolling to hit, rolling to wound, rolling to save, rolling to see how much damage, rolling for injury) but is more complicated in terms of your options as a player when activating a model.

That's a good thing. current KT is vastly too simplistic to be a satisfying skirmish system in terms of options, and vastly too complex in terms of action resolution.

Perhaps (and hopefully!) you're correct. I haven't tried to properly understand the system yet, I want to read it in full.

Thus far I'm hopeful this version of kill team will be better.

The shapes with colors indicating ranges is somewhat concerning. I'm tired of having to buy proprietary nick-nacks just to play the game. My blast markers are still sitting around unused, and I don't particularly want to buy gauges. Especially when we are uncertain how long this system will be supported and played.

While there's nothing that objectionable about these new rules( so far... ) I feel that after waiting on GW to do anything worthwhile with the last edition, this new edition is too little too late.

For the time being I shall stick with the current edition.

 Kanluwen wrote:
That's all I could see before Troke closed the book. It looks like there aren't shotguns...or if there are, it might be on a different unit we haven't seen yet. Sorry, Siygess!

Dang it! Ah well, it's only two models from my existing KT at the end of the day and the autogun guys will just have to be counts-as lasgun guys. And thanks for writing up that list. It is a lot more profiles than I was expecting after my experience with Warcry!

 Siygess wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
That's all I could see before Troke closed the book. It looks like there aren't shotguns...or if there are, it might be on a different unit we haven't seen yet. Sorry, Siygess!

Dang it! Ah well, it's only two models from my existing KT at the end of the day and the autogun guys will just have to be counts-as lasgun guys. And thanks for writing up that list. It is a lot more profiles than I was expecting after my experience with Warcry!

I think you could counts as shotguns for flamers. That'd be kinda fun.

 the_scotsman wrote:
I would guess, given how the mathhammer works out with the damage, that there's going to be some kind of rule for 'heavy' weapons that take 2AP rather than 1AP to fire, similar to Necromunda, and the Long-Las is one of those weapons.

It does something like 3x-4x the normal damage of a lasgun, so I would suspect you dont get to fire it if you move and it takes your whole turn.

I also suspect that when we see the whole rulebook, the WHC article as it often does will have fethed up the interpretation of the MW rule, and MW will basically just be 'crits are not stoppable, it does this much damage to you when it crits.'

Then why does the sniper rifle have its damage listed as 3/3? I'm sure they could have screwed it up, they certainly have done so before, but in this case, I think it's perfectly reasonable to work they way they state.

A Long-Las is going to do 3.33 hits on average. A Veteran Guardsman is going to get one success on their defense roll, on average. That means that, barring a crit, a sniper rifle probably won't one-shot a Guardsman most of the time. Okay, fair enough, leave them critically wounded if you don't get the headshot, that's thematically okay. But if you *do* get the critical shot? You should kill. If your interpretation is correct, that doesn't happen, the Guardsman still probably survives (because they get to cancel one of the normal hits with their defense). With the MW as additional damage, though? A crit probably results in a one-shot kill, because there's a second shot that won't, on average, be cancelled by a Guardsman's armor defense.

On another note, going back and watching Adam's flip-through again, I see that barring Flamers at 5 (as we saw in today's article), everything else is 3A or 4A. So not a ton of dice floating around, but boltguns, plasma, and melta all scale up the damage (to 6 on a standard hit with Melta!), so Lasguns still are laughably harmless, as the Emperor intended.

I'm quite curious to see where higher T 40k units will make up for the lack of a wound roll, though -- will they scale up their Wounds, or get bigger Df values to roll more dice on defense? (For that matter, it probably won't be universal, some might do one, others another, and still others a combination) Hopefully we get an Ork datasheet in the upcoming melee article.

So bets on how long before we get Aeldari Outcasts, Vanguard Organisms, and Brood Brothers Kill-Team sets?

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Siygess wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
That's all I could see before Troke closed the book. It looks like there aren't shotguns...or if there are, it might be on a different unit we haven't seen yet. Sorry, Siygess!

Dang it! Ah well, it's only two models from my existing KT at the end of the day and the autogun guys will just have to be counts-as lasgun guys. And thanks for writing up that list. It is a lot more profiles than I was expecting after my experience with Warcry!

I think you could counts as shotguns for flamers. That'd be kinda fun.

Given flamers don't ignore cover or anything specific to their function (that doesn't properly fit shotguns) like that, I'd definitely be happy to see somebody doing that, if I were across the table from that. Unless they get proper rules, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So bets on how long before we get Aeldari Outcasts, Vanguard Organisms, and Brood Brothers Kill-Team sets?

Hey, given how much I see Craftworld and 'Nid players complaining whenever Sisters get a new model, bring 'em on.

Kaffis wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
I would guess, given how the mathhammer works out with the damage, that there's going to be some kind of rule for 'heavy' weapons that take 2AP rather than 1AP to fire, similar to Necromunda, and the Long-Las is one of those weapons.

It does something like 3x-4x the normal damage of a lasgun, so I would suspect you dont get to fire it if you move and it takes your whole turn.

I also suspect that when we see the whole rulebook, the WHC article as it often does will have fethed up the interpretation of the MW rule, and MW will basically just be 'crits are not stoppable, it does this much damage to you when it crits.'

Then why does the sniper rifle have its damage listed as 3/3? I'm sure they could have screwed it up, they certainly have done so before, but in this case, I think it's perfectly reasonable to work they way they state.

A Long-Las is going to do 3.33 hits on average. A Veteran Guardsman is going to get one success on their defense roll, on average. That means that, barring a crit, a sniper rifle probably won't one-shot a Guardsman most of the time. Okay, fair enough, leave them critically wounded if you don't get the headshot, that's thematically okay. But if you *do* get the critical shot? You should kill. If your interpretation is correct, that doesn't happen, the Guardsman still probably survives (because they get to cancel one of the normal hits with their defense). With the MW as additional damage, though? A crit probably results in a one-shot kill, because there's a second shot that won't, on average, be cancelled by a Guardsman's armor defense.

On another note, going back and watching Adam's flip-through again, I see that barring Flamers at 5 (as we saw in today's article), everything else is 3A or 4A. So not a ton of dice floating around, but boltguns, plasma, and melta all scale up the damage (to 6 on a standard hit with Melta!), so Lasguns still are laughably harmless, as the Emperor intended.

I'm quite curious to see where higher T 40k units will make up for the lack of a wound roll, though -- will they scale up their Wounds, or get bigger Df values to roll more dice on defense? (For that matter, it probably won't be universal, some might do one, others another, and still others a combination) Hopefully we get an Ork datasheet in the upcoming melee article.

I think I'm going to assume that the MW3 granted by a long las crit will be in addition to the regular crit damage. Otherwise there will be no way to down a lowly guardsman in one turn, no matter how well you roll.

As for the datasheets, I don't think there is any reason to panic until we have seen the contents of the upcoming Kill Team 2.0 compendium book. We might still get most of the stuff which was available in KT1, including weapon options. The new website is too messed up to be a reliable source of intel at this point.

The new system looks really cool, and has lots of potential for interesting nuance and degrading effects and proper granularity. Some of the mechanics even seem to be growing out of Blackstone Fortress.

Unfortunately I have Necromunda, 1st edition KT, 5 Parsecs, Blackstone Fortress, Zombiecide, Operation Last Train and Stargrave all champing at the bit, and Covid is still pretty restrictive.

I need to retire I think... Anyone got any good horse racing tips?

"Once all dice have been rolled, the attacker’s hit rolls and the target’s saves are compared. Crucially, critical hits can only be blocked by one critical save or two standard saves. Any hits that aren’t cancelled by a save apply their Damage to the target’s Wounds – the split number represents how much damage is inflicted on a normal hit and a critical hit, respectively."

I think the word respectively here is a big deal. I don't think crits are additive to normal damage.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
"Once all dice have been rolled, the attacker’s hit rolls and the target’s saves are compared. Crucially, critical hits can only be blocked by one critical save or two standard saves. Any hits that aren’t cancelled by a save apply their Damage to the target’s Wounds – the split number represents how much damage is inflicted on a normal hit and a critical hit, respectively."

I think the word respectively here is a big deal. I don't think crits are additive to normal damage.

We're talking about whether the listed crit damage is additive to the MW damage, not whether you apply both normal and crit damage on crits -- that much is crystal clear.

Kaffis wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
"Once all dice have been rolled, the attacker’s hit rolls and the target’s saves are compared. Crucially, critical hits can only be blocked by one critical save or two standard saves. Any hits that aren’t cancelled by a save apply their Damage to the target’s Wounds – the split number represents how much damage is inflicted on a normal hit and a critical hit, respectively."

I think the word respectively here is a big deal. I don't think crits are additive to normal damage.

We're talking about whether the listed crit damage is additive to the MW damage, not whether you apply both normal and crit damage on crits -- that much is crystal clear.

Ah I see now that that isn't a critical specification but rather a !.

 tauist wrote:
I'm not sure the article makes all aspects of this shooting mechanism clear. For one, what good does a critical save do against a regular hit? Does it also cancel out 2 regular hits? Also, in the case of the long las sniper rifle, do the 3 mortal wounds get added to all the other damage, or is it still just a 3 wound damage per shot? The way it's worded, its unclear to me whether a critical long las hit deals 3 mortal wounds + 3 regular, critical hit tier wounds, or just 3 wounds which you cannot try to save against.

In any case, this isn't relieving info to me regarding the decreased lethality of the new system. If a sniper can output a max of 12 wounds per turn, and an ork boy has more than 12, there is no way to "headshot frag". The battelfields will be full of wounded operatives, and the only way to take down one reliably in one turn will be to concentrate fire from several operatives against a single model.

That tidbit about a veteran never having to modify their APL tells me that indeed, some sort of supression mechanic will be onboard. You will probably be able to reduce a target's AP expenditure by pinning them with weapons fire (unless he's a veteran specialist or has other comparable tactics/abilities, that is)

If you'll notice the sniper crit damage is the same as normal. So a crit hit does 3MW that can't be blocked and 3 that can, but only with two normal or one crit. Therefore an opponent without proper saves will take 6 from a sniper crit.

 Kanluwen wrote:
So bets on how long before we get Aeldari Outcasts, Vanguard Organisms, and Brood Brothers Kill-Team sets?

Well, this is the thing. We spent all of the last edition waiting for a Craftworld faction set and yet were excluded from the fun despite a mid term release of the 40K plastic Howling Banshees.

There is no sugar coating it that this edition has a lot of catching up to do and win back players...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 tauist wrote:
I'm not sure the article makes all aspects of this shooting mechanism clear. For one, what good does a critical save do against a regular hit? Does it also cancel out 2 regular hits? Also, in the case of the long las sniper rifle, do the 3 mortal wounds get added to all the other damage, or is it still just a 3 wound damage per shot? The way it's worded, its unclear to me whether a critical long las hit deals 3 mortal wounds + 3 regular, critical hit tier wounds, or just 3 wounds which you cannot try to save against.

In any case, this isn't relieving info to me regarding the decreased lethality of the new system. If a sniper can output a max of 12 wounds per turn, and an ork boy has more than 12, there is no way to "headshot frag". The battelfields will be full of wounded operatives, and the only way to take down one reliably in one turn will be to concentrate fire from several operatives against a single model.

That tidbit about a veteran never having to modify their APL tells me that indeed, some sort of supression mechanic will be onboard. You will probably be able to reduce a target's AP expenditure by pinning them with weapons fire (unless he's a veteran specialist or has other comparable tactics/abilities, that is)

If you'll notice the sniper crit damage is the same as normal. So a crit hit does 3MW that can't be blocked and 3 that can, but only with two normal or one crit. Therefore an opponent without proper saves will take 6 from a sniper crit.

Which doesn't seem to be enough to kill a guardsmen (7 wounds). So tauist seems right to worry about decreased lethality.

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 tauist wrote:
I'm not sure the article makes all aspects of this shooting mechanism clear. For one, what good does a critical save do against a regular hit? Does it also cancel out 2 regular hits? Also, in the case of the long las sniper rifle, do the 3 mortal wounds get added to all the other damage, or is it still just a 3 wound damage per shot? The way it's worded, its unclear to me whether a critical long las hit deals 3 mortal wounds + 3 regular, critical hit tier wounds, or just 3 wounds which you cannot try to save against.

In any case, this isn't relieving info to me regarding the decreased lethality of the new system. If a sniper can output a max of 12 wounds per turn, and an ork boy has more than 12, there is no way to "headshot frag". The battelfields will be full of wounded operatives, and the only way to take down one reliably in one turn will be to concentrate fire from several operatives against a single model.

That tidbit about a veteran never having to modify their APL tells me that indeed, some sort of supression mechanic will be onboard. You will probably be able to reduce a target's AP expenditure by pinning them with weapons fire (unless he's a veteran specialist or has other comparable tactics/abilities, that is)

If you'll notice the sniper crit damage is the same as normal. So a crit hit does 3MW that can't be blocked and 3 that can, but only with two normal or one crit. Therefore an opponent without proper saves will take 6 from a sniper crit.

Which doesn't seem to be enough to kill a guardsmen (7 wounds). So tauist seems right to worry about decreased lethality.

Snipers also hit on a 2+ and have 4 attacks. It's possible, but unlikely. I agree, I do think they're trying to tone down lethality.

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 tauist wrote:
I'm not sure the article makes all aspects of this shooting mechanism clear. For one, what good does a critical save do against a regular hit? Does it also cancel out 2 regular hits? Also, in the case of the long las sniper rifle, do the 3 mortal wounds get added to all the other damage, or is it still just a 3 wound damage per shot? The way it's worded, its unclear to me whether a critical long las hit deals 3 mortal wounds + 3 regular, critical hit tier wounds, or just 3 wounds which you cannot try to save against.

In any case, this isn't relieving info to me regarding the decreased lethality of the new system. If a sniper can output a max of 12 wounds per turn, and an ork boy has more than 12, there is no way to "headshot frag". The battelfields will be full of wounded operatives, and the only way to take down one reliably in one turn will be to concentrate fire from several operatives against a single model.

That tidbit about a veteran never having to modify their APL tells me that indeed, some sort of supression mechanic will be onboard. You will probably be able to reduce a target's AP expenditure by pinning them with weapons fire (unless he's a veteran specialist or has other comparable tactics/abilities, that is)

If you'll notice the sniper crit damage is the same as normal. So a crit hit does 3MW that can't be blocked and 3 that can, but only with two normal or one crit. Therefore an opponent without proper saves will take 6 from a sniper crit.

Which doesn't seem to be enough to kill a guardsmen (7 wounds). So tauist seems right to worry about decreased lethality.

But the Long-Las is 4 dice at 2+ to begin with. It's going to average just over 3 hits to begin with, against a Veteran Guardsman defensive statline that is going to get 1 save most of the time. So if one of the Long-Las's hits is a crit, that means one normal hit and a crit will probably get through (or the MW from the crit and both normal hits, even in the event of a crit save), for 9 damage unless the target rolls two saves. That's a Guardsman kill for a crit, more often than not.

And we're talking about flashlights, remember. Boltguns are 4 dice at 3+ to hit, and 3/4 damage. So even without accounting for crits, they're threatening an average of 8 damage a shot (before saves). There's also plenty of room for Space Marines (with a higher APL) to throw additional shenanigans into the works -- it'll shock me if there's not an aim action that lets you burn an action point for a bonus on your hit roll, for instance, which would drive that number higher if the Space Marine is holding that boltgun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Which doesn't seem to be enough to kill a guardsmen (7 wounds). So tauist seems right to worry about decreased lethality.

Snipers also hit on a 2+ and have 4 attacks. It's possible, but unlikely. I agree, I do think they're trying to tone down lethality.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Thus far I'm hopeful this version of kill team will be better.

The shapes with colors indicating ranges is somewhat concerning. I'm tired of having to buy proprietary nick-nacks just to play the game. My blast markers are still sitting around unused, and I don't particularly want to buy gauges. Especially when we are uncertain how long this system will be supported and played.

If you can remember what four basic symbols mean, there is no need to buy any gauge and everything can be done with either a tape measure or a stick ruler.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Thus far I'm hopeful this version of kill team will be better.

The shapes with colors indicating ranges is somewhat concerning. I'm tired of having to buy proprietary nick-nacks just to play the game. My blast markers are still sitting around unused, and I don't particularly want to buy gauges. Especially when we are uncertain how long this system will be supported and played.

If you can remember what four basic symbols mean, there is no need to buy any gauge and everything can be done with either a tape measure or a stick ruler.

We don't really know what the symbols mean yet. They could be just a simple indication for range, or they could be something more similar to the movement sticks from Xwing. One is going to make it increasingly more likely that you'll need to use proprietary gauges. We just don't know.

 tauist wrote:

Kaffis wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
I would guess, given how the mathhammer works out with the damage, that there's going to be some kind of rule for 'heavy' weapons that take 2AP rather than 1AP to fire, similar to Necromunda, and the Long-Las is one of those weapons.

It does something like 3x-4x the normal damage of a lasgun, so I would suspect you dont get to fire it if you move and it takes your whole turn.

I also suspect that when we see the whole rulebook, the WHC article as it often does will have fethed up the interpretation of the MW rule, and MW will basically just be 'crits are not stoppable, it does this much damage to you when it crits.'

Then why does the sniper rifle have its damage listed as 3/3? I'm sure they could have screwed it up, they certainly have done so before, but in this case, I think it's perfectly reasonable to work they way they state.

A Long-Las is going to do 3.33 hits on average. A Veteran Guardsman is going to get one success on their defense roll, on average. That means that, barring a crit, a sniper rifle probably won't one-shot a Guardsman most of the time. Okay, fair enough, leave them critically wounded if you don't get the headshot, that's thematically okay. But if you *do* get the critical shot? You should kill. If your interpretation is correct, that doesn't happen, the Guardsman still probably survives (because they get to cancel one of the normal hits with their defense). With the MW as additional damage, though? A crit probably results in a one-shot kill, because there's a second shot that won't, on average, be cancelled by a Guardsman's armor defense.

On another note, going back and watching Adam's flip-through again, I see that barring Flamers at 5 (as we saw in today's article), everything else is 3A or 4A. So not a ton of dice floating around, but boltguns, plasma, and melta all scale up the damage (to 6 on a standard hit with Melta!), so Lasguns still are laughably harmless, as the Emperor intended.

I'm quite curious to see where higher T 40k units will make up for the lack of a wound roll, though -- will they scale up their Wounds, or get bigger Df values to roll more dice on defense? (For that matter, it probably won't be universal, some might do one, others another, and still others a combination) Hopefully we get an Ork datasheet in the upcoming melee article.

I think I'm going to assume that the MW3 granted by a long las crit will be in addition to the regular crit damage. Otherwise there will be no way to down a lowly guardsman in one turn, no matter how well you roll.

As for the datasheets, I don't think there is any reason to panic until we have seen the contents of the upcoming Kill Team 2.0 compendium book. We might still get most of the stuff which was available in KT1, including weapon options. The new website is too messed up to be a reliable source of intel at this point.

I am personally unconcerned about the game being not lethal enough - that has never in my experience been a problem for a GW game.

Assuming the less powerful version of this rule, with average rolling the long-las will deal exactly 7w to a guardsman - youd expect to be downing one each shot, and we are as-yet unclear as to whether multiple shots in a turn are possible. And this is just a guardsman sniper rifle, not for example an eldar ranger sniper rifle.

 the_scotsman wrote:
.

My assessment is directly the opposite - they appear to be building a system that's easier and quicker to resolve (I roll, you roll at exactly the same time, and we cancel out some rolls and quickly determine the damage the target takes as opposed to rolling to hit, rolling to wound, rolling to save, rolling to see how much damage, rolling for injury) but is more complicated in terms of your options as a player when activating a model.

Simultaneous dice rolls with Critical hits and Critical saves would be great if the dice actually had symbols for Criticals. If it becomes some "sixes cancel sixes or two fives" nonsense that sounds super lame.

I will wait for full rules before making up my mind about them but I am not convinced about all design choices so far.

EDIT: Now that I think of it, last edition Kill Team dice had a special Kill Team symbol no-one asked for (without it they could have sold bucketloads of faction dice to 40k players). Now that they could have use for such symbols, the dice are standard D6

jullevi wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
.

My assessment is directly the opposite - they appear to be building a system that's easier and quicker to resolve (I roll, you roll at exactly the same time, and we cancel out some rolls and quickly determine the damage the target takes as opposed to rolling to hit, rolling to wound, rolling to save, rolling to see how much damage, rolling for injury) but is more complicated in terms of your options as a player when activating a model.

Simultaneous dice rolls with Critical hits and Critical saves would be great if the dice actually had symbols for Criticals. If it becomes some "sixes cancel sixes or two fives" nonsense that sounds super lame.

I will wait for full rules before making up my mind about them but I am not convinced about all design choices so far.

EDIT: Now that I think of it, last edition Kill Team dice had a special Kill Team symbol no-one asked for (without it they could have sold bucketloads of faction dice to 40k players). Now that they could have use for such symbols, the dice are standard D6

I have several faction-specific dice sets with faction symbols as their 6s. Will be nice for KT I think!

Is the keyword " Torrent" used for Kreig flamer rules a word generally templated across model ranges? For example, if a SoB or Orc wields a flamethrower with a parallel ability will it be listed as "Torrent" or will it be different terminology?

 jaredb wrote:
I'm really excited for this new version of Kill Team. Wasn't really invested in it before, when it was similar to the rules for 40k, I like that it'll be it's own game. This also can help them not have to deal with folks always asking why Kill Team datasheets are not always updated with 40k datasheet changes.

 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?

The shapes are just keywords to go with the distance. The shape is also printed on the templates. Doesn't matter what symbol is used, they just use symbols. Things like this help with making the game easy for translation into other languages. especially for the templates.

He has a point though, it should have gone circle, triangle, square, pentagon if anything. While ultimately it doesn't matter what symbol is used, having a logic to the symbol progression can be helpful as a way of helping players memorize and recognize more effectively. circle triangle square pentagon has a +1 side progression type thing going to it, i.e. i know a triangle has more sides than a circle, ergo triangle moves farther than circle. Likewise squares relative to triangles and pentas relative to squares.

This isn't actually addressed. Apparently ◯ means 2", so does 3◯ mean 6"? So why not use the Pentagon symbol since that means 6"?
Or am I missing something?

They didn't explain it. Common thinking right now is that its 3 moves of 2", and these moves might be measured front-to-back (rather than front-to-front which is more common), meaning the potential movement of 3◯ is really more like 9" considering the size of the base itself. Another common thought is that each segment of the move involves a pause at which some sort of action/reaction might occur. In other words, a Guardsman moves 2", then an opponent checks to see if they have line of sight to do a reactive opportunity fire/overwatch, then it moves another 2", check LOS again, and then the final 2". In this way a model with 3◯ and a model with a Pentagon both have 6" of movement, but the model with the Pentagon is actually *faster* because it can move a full 6" from one point of cover to another and thereby limit opportunity reactions, whereas the 3◯ model is slower because it allows an opponent more opportunities to react to its movement.

 Albertorius wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
i'll be honest, I never actually thought of the number of sides of the shape when I looked at it. It was just a symbol to associate with a particular length, and they're gonna put that symbol on the measuring tool that ships in the box.
Preeeeetty intuitive to me...

Know what shapes are more intuitive?
Numbers.

Not if you're also trying to degrade movement as damage is inflicted. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the way the damage seems to degrade in nuKT is actually pretty complex and not something you could easily write out in an understandable rule. The question becomes, is that stat reduction model superior to one which simply says "-1" of movement per point of damage" or whatever. On top of that, the symbols could correlate to terrain interactions as well - if you were just using numbers you would then need a completely separate stat to do what they are currently doing.

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.

TBH not seeing why they didn't go that route instead. I would prefer 3 or 4 distinct tools/sticks over one oddly shaped one which incorporates all of them together. I also suspect that calling them short, medium, long (and like point blank or extreme or something for the fourth measurement) probably would have generated less kvetching from the community.

 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.

I really do feel like there are two types of people out there.

People who look at these symbols and go "NuMbAhS aRe AlReAdY iNtUiTiVe EnUfF!!!"

and

People who look at these symbols and immediately go "Oh man, this is fething brilliant, if you manipulate it this way then you can maintain consist ratio penalties to models with different baseline speeds, and if you manipulate it this way you can create some really interesting interactions with different terrain features, and if you manipulate it this way you can represent the agility and dexterity with which a model can move relative to another with the same movement stat", etc.

I suspect the latter are more inclined to playing a wider variety of games and potentially designing them as well, whereas the former are content only playing one game and complaining that it isn't designed to their liking.

Honest to god, if GW flubs the implementation on this and didn't consider any of the hypothetical avenues this opened up for them I'm going to take the concept and run with it and produce a much better game, the possibilities here really are endless as you say.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

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

Why? You aren't playing with a tape measure, you don't need to know the number, only the shape. There are also reasons why you might not want to do that. If you do put the number in the circle and have movement of 3(Circle) and you take -2 movement is that 3(Circle-2) or 3-2(Circle)? If you don't put the number in the Circle, it can only ever be 3-2(Circle). The flip side of that is that if you *do* put the number in the circle it opens up some interesting design space, as you can have effects that create 3-2(Circle) and others that create 3(Circle-2) - but the potential for confusing them increases.

 kodos wrote:

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)?

Ranges seem to be infinite with the exception of pistols and short range weapons that only shoot (Pentagon). Seems weird that there aren't any weapons that have a range greater than that but less than the full length of the table, but I suppose the 22" x whatever" board size for kill team probably isn't big enough for medium range weapons to really matter anyway.

 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.

You're so bent out of shape over this its comical. In the case of this one weapon (Im sure there are others with the same rule), you're canceling the critical to prevent *further* damage. I don't understand what you have against the concept of a weapon which is so capable that under the right circumstances some degree of damage is unavoidable.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
So we are in agreement GW made it so needlessly unintuitive and stupid, so we buy their overpriced gauges to make it slightly stupid, right?

Speak for yourself. This is the first GW game I've been really excited to play since the latest edition of Titanicus.

 Viterbi wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
So ranged combat is resolved like Warhammer: Underworlds? Except with the ability to stop crits with double normal hits. Not loving that they've expanded the crit system that always screwed me

And megacrits that can't be stopped by crit saves

Just read the article and read it this way:
Critical Hit = Can only be saved by Critical Save or two normal ones
Critical Hit with Long-Las = Gives 3 Mortal Wounds you can't prevent with your normal saves. In addition it gives another 3 damage if you don't make a save as explained before.

He understands how it works fully, hes just being a cynic and nitpicking.

 the_scotsman wrote:
I see primarily people are still butthurt about having to memorize four shapes with primary colors. I will return tomorrow.

Short and sweet.

 Crimson wrote:
I think I would have preferred something more directly 40K based.

Then just keep playing the current edition. Or just play 40k. Or just play any of the countless indy 40k knockoff rules out there. I for one am glad to be getting something that isn't just more of the same.

 Albertorius wrote:

That's a difference without a difference. As easily as they did the weird, door-like movement templates they could have done a sprue of sticks with proper movement sizes. (1 circle, 2 circles, 3 circles, 1 square, 2 squares, 3 squares... you know, that kind of stuff).

I don't disagree that separate movement sticks would have been preferable, but I don't see why you think that 2(Circle) and 3(Cirlce), etc. sticks are even necessary? You're assuming that a Kreigsman being able to move 3(Circle) means that it goes 3(Circle) in one movement, when there is a bit to suggest that it actually does that move as 3 discrete steps with stops in between to allow for some sort of action/reaction dynamic. If thats the case, then no model will *ever* move 2(Circle) or 3(Circle) or anything of the sort, because the rules simply do not allow that to occur.

 the_scotsman wrote:

My assessment is directly the opposite - they appear to be building a system that's easier and quicker to resolve (I roll, you roll at exactly the same time, and we cancel out some rolls and quickly determine the damage the target takes as opposed to rolling to hit, rolling to wound, rolling to save, rolling to see how much damage, rolling for injury) but is more complicated in terms of your options as a player when activating a model.
That's a good thing. current KT is vastly too simplistic to be a satisfying skirmish system in terms of options, and vastly too complex in terms of action resolution.

Amen.

 Kanluwen wrote:
So bets on how long before we get Aeldari Outcasts, Vanguard Organisms, and Brood Brothers Kill-Team sets?

Hopefully not too long of a wait. My Tyranid Kill Team was 4 Lictors. Hoping I can still run them.

 Tokhuah wrote:
Is the keyword " Torrent" used for Kreig flamer rules a word generally templated across model ranges? For example, if a SoB or Orc wields a flamethrower with a parallel ability will it be listed as "Torrent" or will it be different terminology?

We don't know that yet. Presumably its standardized across all factions.