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.

 Redemption wrote:
Are those steps and the mural with the robed dude with flames part of a new upcoming terrain piece or did I miss a release somewhere?

It's a kitbash using Sector Imperialis pillars, wall sections from Plasma Obliterator and Warcry floors/roofs.

 Albertorius wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

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.

Explain to me how any of the above would have been prevented if instead of 3-◯ the rules would have said 3-2.

If one model moves 2-3 and one models moves 3-2 and both suffer a -1 penalty to their movement stat, which values are being modified? Are they going to 1-3 and 2-2? Are they going to 2-2 and 3-1? Are they going to 1-2 and 2-1?

If one model moves 2(Square) and one model moves 3(Circle) and both suffer a -1 penalty to their movement stat, the answer is obvious as there is only one place that number can be applied to, because (Square) and (Circle) aren't numbers. The models are now moving 1(Square) and 2(Circle).

Writing the rules to accommodate the latter is simple. Writing the rule to accommodate the former requires a lot more writing to provide clear and concise instruction to players.

Likewise, if I have a terrain piece that effects models differently based on their movement stat, something to the effect of "Models that move 2" suffer a -1 penalty to their movement stat through this terrain feature", what exactly am I instructing you to do? Am I telling you that a model with a 3-2 stat now moves 2-2? Is that saying It now moves 3-1? 2-1? What if I don't actually move the full 2" while moving through the terrain feature, like I only move 1.5" instead, do I still suffer the penalty? I now need to write a lot more rules to clarify what the meaning of this is, the criteria, exception, non-exceptions, etc.

If I simply write "Models with (Circle) suffer -1 movement throgh this terrain feature", the impact on a model with 3(Circle) is clear, its now moving 2(Circle) instead. Theres very little that needs to be written, specified, clarified, or explained. The argument that if I move 1.5" instead of 2" disappears entirely because I'm not tying it to a numeric distance that can be reduced. (Circle) is (Circle), even if you aren't moving its full distance.

I really do feel like there are some people here really keen on misinterpret a side. And what better way than ridiculing them, am I right?

Absolutely. There is a level of reasonable skepticism - these people are perfectly fine. Then there are people who - without any actual knowledge of the rules whatsoever - insist that the implementation is unnecessary and wrong and could be accomplished just as easily through some other means while achieving all of the same design goals. These people deserve ridicule because they are being extremely presumptuous and probably have super-inflated egos that cause them to believe that they are smarter than they actually are and know how to write rules for a game they have never played or read than the people who actually designed it.

 kodos wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

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

3, the third looks at the rules and thinks: I can see the idea behind or were they copied it, but the execution is poor and/or they do not understand why this is used in the first place

Fair though I would argue your type 3 are skewing dangerously towards the type that I just discussed with Albertorius. You don't know the full scope of how the rules and mechanics are implemented. Assuming that GWs staff are some sort of idiot savants or something blindly cribbing another publishers homework without actually knowing how any of it works is extremely presumptuous.

the whole controversy of why using Circle instead of 2" is there because GW made a big picture to advertise it
and with that it burned inside peoples minds that the numbers are still there, because they is there for us to know, so it must be important and we need the 2 systems of symbols and numbers (and I would not be surprised if we end up with needing the tape measure for deployment zones or objective placement and and that other factions come with rules that need different ranges)

measurement tools with fixed ranges are there to remove the problem of imperial VS metric, ease of use for ranges in the game, speed up gameplay
here, they told us the numbers so imperial VS metric is not solved because everyone know they are meant to be Inch and will have those in mind (and might even start converting them in his mind automatically from Symbol to Inch to Metric, just because he knows them instead of thinking in Short, Medium, Long Range)

AGREED. They absolutely should not have put numbers to those shapes, that was a huge mistake because now people can't break from the idea that the numbers don't matter. In other threads people are insisting this is a problem because they now have to convert the shape to a number which is adding cognitive load. They cannot comprehend or accept the idea that the numbers don't matter, the game is not played with a tape measure, and that they only ever need to match shapes.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was done this way because some of the old grogs in the design studio that don't step outside the GW bubble couldn't comprehend playing a tabletop game without a tape measure and insisted on including the corresponding measurements. None of the games that I've played that use measuring tools ever tell the players what they translate to in terms of real world measurements, because there simply is not any reason to do so. Maybe SAGA does, but that might be the exception. Anyway, point is, that was a bad choice from a marketing standpoint and I think they are paying the price for it right now.

how easy they are to use depends on the final rules, but from what we have seen it looks like it is more complicated and very fiddly as small Skirmish games are usually with lot of terrain in 3D and laying a 2" stick 3 times on the model to move it can be tricky (guess they thought about 2D and a board that has never more terrain than on than shown on the promo pictures)

I would have preferred 4 separate measurement sticks personally. Those "all in one" measuring widgets are a pain in the ass to use as they rarely ever fit where you need them to be due to their shape and size, etc. I know they were popular in the community like 8-12 years ago, I bought a bunch of them myself, but I threw mine out years ago after acknowledging that they caused more problems than they solved.

and if the movement is really how most expect it (as 3 times Circle instead of anywhere within Pentagon makes only sense if it is base front to base back with exact movements like 1 Circle straight, 1 Circle up, 1 circle straight), there it is more time consuming

I think this interpretation lacks imagination. Again, if I were designing this game and I gave a model 3(Circle) for moves, then in practice the way that would look like is:

1. move 1 (Circle)
2. opponent checks line of sight for reactive fire
3. move 1 (Circle)
4. opponent checks line of sight for reactive fire
5. move 1 (Circle)
6. opponent checks line of sight for reactive fire

I really don't see any benefit to a 3(Circle) move otherwise, unless its because each segment of the move needs to be done in a straight line (i.e. you can't move through obstacles/obstructions, etc. you have to physically move around them). At least with the reactive fire concept, there is a meaningful difference between 3(Circle) and 1(Pentagon) - they might both move 6" total, but the model with 1(Pentagon) is much "faster", as it can move 6" and get from one area to cover to another in order to dodge line of sight and avoid reactive fire, whereas the model with 3(Circle) is slower and has two more opportunities to take reactive fire and is much more likely to be caught in the open.

well, just by looking at the weapons in 40k we have and had and 24" being the "standard" range I can see were they are coming from
yet there are a lot of weapons with 12" or were full and half range made a difference (in the past) and with a 22" board assuming that 24" will have everything in range anyway, means (again) the game is modeled with 2D in mind instead of 3D

Also quite a few weapons with 18" ranges as well.

 Garfield666 wrote:

The gauges and symbols can be worked around also. I just use a regular tapemeasure, but erase all the numbers and replace them with the official symbols and multiples thereof. Should work fine.

:eyeroll:

The way some people act you'd think tapemeasures were made of solid gold or these new movement tools will give you cancer or something.

So... tomorrow is the day of prices and limited availability, right?

Nope. Sometime in August. Tomorrow is the Beastsnagga box.

I like the idea of guns having infinite range. Seeing bullets just disappear after a certain distance is weird, especially at short ranges.

So the circle is 2".

Why not just say 2"...

chaos0xomega wrote:
If one model moves 2-3 and one models moves 3-2 and both suffer a -1 penalty to their movement stat, which values are being modified? Are they going to 1-3 and 2-2? Are they going to 2-2 and 3-1? Are they going to 1-2 and 2-1?

If one model moves 2(Square) and one model moves 3(Circle) and both suffer a -1 penalty to their movement stat, the answer is obvious as there is only one place that number can be applied to, because (Square) and (Circle) aren't numbers. The models are now moving 1(Square) and 2(Circle).

You define it on the rules, exactly as you have: "mods apply to the first part". Or "a miniature's movement stat is composed of two values: Steps and Pace (or whatever, it's just an example)".

No change to the actual rules, no modification at all, no need even to modify the rulers (even though I don't like that kind of rules).

But also no need to use symbols.

Writing the rules to accommodate the latter is simple. Writing the rule to accommodate the former requires a lot more writing to provide clear and concise instruction to players.

I really don't believe that's the case, and it seems to me you're going out of your way to paint it as extremely complicated when... it's not.

If I simply write "Models with (Circle) suffer -1 movement throgh this terrain feature", the impact on a model with 3(Circle) is clear, its now moving 2(Circle) instead. Theres very little that needs to be written, specified, clarified, or explained. The argument that if I move 1.5" instead of 2" disappears entirely because I'm not tying it to a numeric distance that can be reduced. (Circle) is (Circle), even if you aren't moving its full distance.

See above: "Models with Pace 2 suffer -1 Steps through this terrain feature". That's all there's to it.

I really do feel like there are some people here really keen on misinterpret a side. And what better way than ridiculing them, am I right?

Absolutely. There is a level of reasonable skepticism - these people are perfectly fine. Then there are people who - without any actual knowledge of the rules whatsoever - insist that the implementation is unnecessary and wrong and could be accomplished just as easily through some other means while achieving all of the same design goals. These people deserve ridicule because they are being extremely presumptuous and probably have super-inflated egos that cause them to believe that they are smarter than they actually are and know how to write rules for a game they have never played or read than the people who actually designed it.

...alright then.

While you're debating needlessly about the symbols, the article on close combat is up on Warhammer Community :

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/07/16/close-combat-is-a-deadly-dance-of-death-in-new-kill-team/

Basically : each side roll their melee attack dice simultaneously and starting by the attacker, each alternate to determine which will be used to inflict damage or cancel a hit from the opponent (working like a save).

Interesting mechanic...and the attacker doesn't especially have the advantage, here. He'll have to be careful of the enemy counterattack and plan for it as well.

Welp, the movement bit in today's melee article ( https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/07/16/close-combat-is-a-deadly-dance-of-death-in-new-kill-team/ _https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/07/16/close-combat-is-a-deadly-dance-of-death-in-new-kill-team/ ) pretty much confirms that they're not doing anything interesting with the design space number-shape could have afforded. Oh well, this is GW, after all.

On the other hand, while the melee section was a lot lighter on detail and clarity than yestday's ranged article (does activating my model engaged with an enemy consume that enemy's activation for the turn? Or do both our models get to swing twice, once on my turn and once on my opponent's? Can melee crits be cancelled 2-for-1? And so on), I'm at least gratified that my expectation that WS would be the only target number in melee is borne out. Maybe we'll see some interesting perspectives on some classic favorite lightly armored melee monsters explored here, like Drukhari and the glass cannons from Adepta Sororitas. Or maybe I'm expecting too much from GW's game design folks again.

Yeah interesting article, almost like it'll be a good game or something.

They also mention at the end of that that if you like you can ignore the symbols and just use a tape measure. So, shockingly, it's almost like it's not a big deal.

 Garfield666 wrote:

So... tomorrow is the day of prices and limited availability, right?

Article says August. We'll get a Sunday preview article and then Monday through Wednesday is when prices usually get posted by indies.

Sarouan wrote:
Interesting mechanic...and the attacker doesn't especially have the advantage, here. He'll have to be careful of the enemy counterattack and plan for it as well.

There's still the advantage in that they get to react to their opponent's rolls and cancel a crit first, or whatnot. They get first option, even if they choose not to deal first blood.

 Albertorius wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If one model moves 2-3 and one models moves 3-2 and both suffer a -1 penalty to their movement stat, which values are being modified? Are they going to 1-3 and 2-2? Are they going to 2-2 and 3-1? Are they going to 1-2 and 2-1?

If one model moves 2(Square) and one model moves 3(Circle) and both suffer a -1 penalty to their movement stat, the answer is obvious as there is only one place that number can be applied to, because (Square) and (Circle) aren't numbers. The models are now moving 1(Square) and 2(Circle).

You define it on the rules, exactly as you have: "mods apply to the first part". Or "a miniature's movement stat is composed of two values: Steps and Pace (or whatever, it's just an example)".

No change to the actual rules, no modification at all, no need even to modify the rulers (even though I don't like that kind of rules).

But also no need to use symbols.

Writing the rules to accommodate the latter is simple. Writing the rule to accommodate the former requires a lot more writing to provide clear and concise instruction to players.

I really don't believe that's the case, and it seems to me you're going out of your way to paint it as extremely complicated when... it's not.

If I simply write "Models with (Circle) suffer -1 movement throgh this terrain feature", the impact on a model with 3(Circle) is clear, its now moving 2(Circle) instead. Theres very little that needs to be written, specified, clarified, or explained. The argument that if I move 1.5" instead of 2" disappears entirely because I'm not tying it to a numeric distance that can be reduced. (Circle) is (Circle), even if you aren't moving its full distance.

See above: "Models with Pace 2 suffer -1 Steps through this terrain feature". That's all there's to it.

I'm greatful you're not a game designer. Thats just awful, awful, awful implementation.

Kaffis wrote:
Welp, the movement bit in today's melee article ( https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/07/16/close-combat-is-a-deadly-dance-of-death-in-new-kill-team/ _https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/07/16/close-combat-is-a-deadly-dance-of-death-in-new-kill-team/ ) pretty much confirms that they're not doing anything interesting with the design space number-shape could have afforded. Oh well, this is GW, after all.

Agreed.

Im abandoning my defense of the design, they should have just used numbers if thats all they are doing. Thats just poor design - kodos had it right, they have no idea what they are doing.

The plus side is that I now have the basis of a pretty great game design of my own XD

chaos0xomega wrote:
I'm greatful you're not a game designer. Thats just awful, awful, awful implementation.

Yeah, I can see how the one they've gone for is so much better ^^.

That said, I agree with you on principle: it did open rules space, and it could have been interesting. But IMHO, the rulers they went with were not good for that, and it would have been much better to have 1-Circle, 2-Circle, 3-Circle sticks and the like, probably similar as it's done for X-Wing, to avoid having to measure multiples of the ruler to move.

Well, that's dumb. This is looking more poorly designed. The combat rules would make sense if wounds was then a representation of your armor, so that weapons that go through armor do more damage. But if that were the case, you wouldn't be rolling an armor save against shooting attacks, because your wounds would already take that into account. What you'd roll would be more like a representation of how good you are at concealing yourself, like in Bolt Action how it's harder to hit veterans. I guess it's possible that's what they were going for, and a terminator would actually have a pretty bad save against shooting.

Edit: For some reason, I assumed there were modifiers to the save rolls, but looking back at the article there doesn't appear to be. So maybe "Defense" and "Save" do represent how good you are at avoiding getting shot, and wounds represent your armor? But I think if that's the case they would have used a different term than "Save", because people are going to think it's weird when their terminators have a 6+ save.

Yep - based on what they just revealed, I 100% agree with you there.

delete

I'm sorry, armour does nothing in close combat? Yeah, I'm out; too stupid to handle.

Apple fox wrote:


I already think it’s a better system, even with the anoying symble range rules, I think it’s more about if GW can stuff up a good thing from now

I also see that the distances at least from someone who has talked with devs, are effected by terrain movement at each increment. So IG going though Forrest or ruins are SLOW losing half their movement. Why Eldar only lose 1/3 due to different movement increments. So it does have a purpose.
But it could have just been 2/2/2 and been the same most likely.

So far it feels like the rules are an improvement, yes.

Not sure I understand the logic of that, like at the very least armor should have provided some sort of a bonus to any die that is used to parry/block a hit?

Astartes power armor and terminator armor are known for basically being fully encased - unless you aren't wearing a helmet there is almost no such thing as an "unprotected joint". This system basically gives a sharp stick the same probability of harming someone wearing a t-shirt as someone encased in adamantium. I get the concept is that your opponent is going to be aiming for exposed points, but surely it wouldn't have hurt to say power armor gives +1 bonus to parry dice or something? Even if a marine or terminator has an exposed joint or unhelmeted head to aim at, the presence of all the armor around it *still* makes it harder to hit that unprotected point beyond just what marine/terminator is doing to block you with their sword.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Im abandoning my defense of the design, they should have just used numbers if thats all they are doing. Thats just poor design - kodos had it right, they have no idea what they are doing.

The plus side is that I now have the basis of a pretty great game design of my own XD

I hate to be right
and your ideas about what possibilities there are really had something going for it and I was hoping that GW might have tried to make something this time

Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Not sure I understand the logic of that

easy, they wanted that only specialized close combat units can survive melee, while on the other hand being bad at fighting but having good armour does not help you if the opponent has a melee weapon
they more or less wanted to avoid that all good melee units need power weapons, while at the same time good melee units with bad armour would be hard to kill

would say typical GW game design, simplify rules to speed up gameplay until the make no sense any more, take longer to resolve and are more complicated to balance

PS:
I was thinking about buying the rules or share a box because I really like those Orcs (Krieg look good but I prefer a more modern look for SciFi humans) and selling off Krieg should be easy
but now, I guess I am not even buying the Orcs and I for sure won't get the box as I don't want the rules at all and I just get some Resin models now instead (Puppets War make some nice ones) and stay with Deadzone and Stargrave

 Crimson wrote:
I'm sorry, armour does nothing in close combat? Yeah, I'm out; too stupid to handle.

Not sure what to think of it myself.

While all the units featured on the KT website have some gap in their armour, some would definitely make it harder than others to land such hits - Heavy Intercessor and Tau Stealth Suit are practically stab-proof and would require either genestealer claws or a chainsword to rip apart.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I'm sorry, armour does nothing in close combat? Yeah, I'm out; too stupid to handle.

Not sure what to think of it myself.

While all the units featured on the KT website have some gap in their armour, some would definitely make it harder than others to land such hits - Heavy Intercessor and Tau Stealth Suit are practically stab-proof and would require either genestealer claws or a chainsword to rip apart.

I'd say hopefully there's some "bespoke" rule for such units on their sheets to account for this, but with GW bungling so much of this already, it'll probably amount to like one free cancellation per round.

Glass Half Dead seems to have been more or less on the money so far, no real surprises with CC as described here considering they already said the armour save wouldn't factor. It raises some questions about how a terminator would fare vs an assault terminator but I think the hypothetical scenario would be they'd get the same number of attacks with one having better melee weapons, obviously.

Of course that's presuming termies will even be invited.

Amusingly, the guardsman vet is, apples to apples, more safe fighting against itself in melee than it is at range, as it rolls the same number of defensive dice but can 'save' on a 4+ instead of 5+

chaos0xomega wrote:
Not sure I understand the logic of that, like at the very least armor should have provided some sort of a bonus to any die that is used to parry/block a hit?

Astartes power armor and terminator armor are known for basically being fully encased - unless you aren't wearing a helmet there is almost no such thing as an "unprotected joint". This system basically gives a sharp stick the same probability of harming someone wearing a t-shirt as someone encased in adamantium. I get the concept is that your opponent is going to be aiming for exposed points, but surely it wouldn't have hurt to say power armor gives +1 bonus to parry dice or something? Even if a marine or terminator has an exposed joint or unhelmeted head to aim at, the presence of all the armor around it *still* makes it harder to hit that unprotected point beyond just what marine/terminator is doing to block you with their sword.

Despite this, power armour clearly has weak points. The knees, elbows, armpits etc are all clearly exposed spaces between the armour plates with a relatively soft material layer underneath, and while it can be described as 'relatively strong' compared to say, clothing, it clearly isn't as strong as the ultra-thick shoulder pauldron or bellbottom boot. In fact, a failed armour save against a weapon with relatively low AP like a lasgun or shotgun only really works if its considered an abstraction of hitting the armour in its soft places, and marine on marine combat in other material backs this up.

 Crimson wrote:
I'm sorry, armour does nothing in close combat? Yeah, I'm out; too stupid to handle.

It will be represented in wounds. I would even wager that terminators will have an increased capacity to ignore criticals or some other protective effect.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I'm sorry, armour does nothing in close combat? Yeah, I'm out; too stupid to handle.

It will be represented in wounds. I would even wager that terminators will have an increased capacity to ignore criticals or some other protective effect.

Looking through the website, no faction is bringing Terminators to the fight at this time(not even Loyalist Marines with their 10 unit options), so we can stop speculating on them.

The melee phase in this seems to have a similar design philosophy to shadow war armageddon's and while I loved that system, the melee phase WAS hot garbage. This looks better than that, but we'll see.

Honestly, if the fluff of "power armor is the bestest, most impenetrable thing that ever existed!" doesn't translate completely to melee combat, where bayonets can find gaps in the armor if the Marine doesn't parry... that's a price I can pay if it means that paper-armored melee combatants can be vulnerable to shooting but scary in melee without just automatically invalidating armor or always swinging first.

Given that part of the point of Power Armored forces like Space Marines is that the armor makes even line troops formidable in melee, what's likely to shake out is that their ability to parry will be "as good as" their armor would have been anyways. So I don't think this means that Space Marines will suddenly be dying to Guardsmen with Bayonets left and right.

Pausing at 49:51 on the stream, I see that Chainswords are 4A WS3+ D3/4, with "Balanced". Even without knowing what Balanced is, it's going to get 2.66 successes per swing, where Bayonets will get 1.5. So they can block all incoming damage and do 3-4 back, on average.

Throw in the wound differential, and the Space Marine is laughing at Bayonets, even if we explain the occasional Bayonet hit with "it hit the elbow joint, you know, where you can see the black 'flexible joint' that may fully enclose it for a vacuum seal, but is NOT ceramite".

I was hoping that they'd be doing interesting things with the shape paradigm, such as

Big, less agile but still fast models, such as say Ogryn or Tyranid Warriors(?) that can build up momentum but don't hand obstacles well, have larger shapes for movement but less increments.

Small, agile models would have smaller shapes but more increments.

Terrain would reduce movement by entire increments, rather than set shape.

So harlequins would be 4 Circles, and terrain would impede movement only slightly as they gracefully hop over it.

Ogryn would be 3... squares? I think that's the 3" move. So their long legs would give them a large stride but if they hit terrain they struggle to get over it/have to bash through it, taking away from their momentum/overall speed.

It seems like most units are going to be 2-3 Circle, and all units are going to use Circle movement, and that's sort of a disappointing use of the design space they opened up with shapes.

Rihgu wrote:
It seems like most units are going to be 2-3 Circle, and all units are going to use Circle movement, and that's sort of a disappointing use of the design space they opened up with shapes.

I think we need to wait to see how anomalously fast units (lictors, for example) get expressed in this system to be absolutely sure but I generally agree, it would have been interesting for something that has a few numbers of big-movement shapes get tangled up trying to deal with a ladder - but we might still see it.

Yeah, it seems like they have a lot of pointless stuff they don't end up making much use of. Almost everyone will have 3 circle movement. Almost everyone will have 2 action points. Why even have a stat for it? And the range of possible stats for movement or action points appears to be 2-3. That's even worse than being limited to a stat being between 2+ and 6+.

Is it just my slow old tablet showing things wrong on the new 'best ever Kill Team' website...

The Forge World (Admech) team shows the pic of a Vanguard labelled a Ranger, then shows a Marshall for a Vanguard.