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.

 Captain Joystick wrote:

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.

Right, the problem is that this system basically says that hitting the weak points on a guy wearing a full suit of power armor is as easy as hitting the weak points on a guy who isn't wearing any armor at all. Having an armor buff doesn't mean that you don't have any weak points, it means that those weak points are much better protected and much harder to get to then the weak points on someone who is wearing considerably less or absolutely no armor.

Kaffis wrote:
what's likely to shake out is that their ability to parry will be "as good as" their armor would have been anyways.

How?

Parrying is simply a function of making to-hit rolls with your weapon. The to-hit roll you need to make is based on your weapon. Weapons seem to be standardized across the board, I.E. a power weapon is a power weapon, regardless of whether its being wielded by a guardsman or an astartes.

Put in another way, the ability of a well armored operative to parry with a weapon will be identical to that of a completely unarmored operative.

Albino Squirrel wrote: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+.

In all cases 'almost' doesn't mean 'all' and factions that will have more action points or movement as their gimmick (again, nids...) will be grateful to have it in the core rule and not some paragraph long special rule they have to explain to people at the table.

We're certain to have enough of those already.

Gimgamgoo wrote: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.

Nah the reddit has been having fun with that mistake for a couple of days now.

TBH the latest article reads like even the author thinks the units for movement are stupid.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Kaffis wrote:
what's likely to shake out is that their ability to parry will be "as good as" their armor would have been anyways.

How?

Parrying is simply a function of making to-hit rolls with your weapon. The to-hit roll you need to make is based on your weapon. Weapons seem to be standardized across the board, I.E. a power weapon is a power weapon, regardless of whether its being wielded by a guardsman or an astartes.

Put in another way, the ability of a well armored operative to parry with a weapon will be identical to that of a completely unarmored operative.

I'm making the prediction that if a Chainsword is 4A BS3+ (with balanced, whatever that means), my guess is that the Space Marine's armor vs. ranged attacks is probably 4Df Sv3+, yielding the same dice roll anyways.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Right, the problem is that this system basically says that hitting the weak points on a guy wearing a full suit of power armor is as easy as hitting the weak points on a guy who isn't wearing any armor at all. Having an armor buff doesn't mean that you don't have any weak points, it means that those weak points are much better protected and much harder to get to then the weak points on someone who is wearing considerably less or absolutely no armor.

Except they're not representing each person clubbing at each other in a vaccum, a save made by a 'parry' by a guardsman is as much about jumping out of the way as it is about actually deflecting it with a weapon, likewise a marine would be about deflecting it into a plate on a good angle or an orc into a fleshy bits he ain't so 'ard up about.

I think we may be taking conflicting things for granted though, what makes you think weapon profiles will be homogenized across units? I would think the fact that each unit has their attacks listed in their own card suggests the opposite. So a Battle Sister is going to be saving on a 3+ at ranged but probably won't have a weapon skill better than 4+ which lines up quite nicely with their method of interfacing with power armour not being as good as a marine's, who'd most surely be WS 3+ on a chainsword or combat knife.

 The Phazer wrote:
TBH the latest article reads like even the author thinks the units for movement are stupid.

I guess that's one way to entirely not read what is actually said?

It says they've had lots of questions and that if you want to, you can just use a tape measure.

Well, I didn't like how CC handling is presented here. They may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, its always risky redesigning something from the ground up.

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I always liked KT1 rules. Not sure I like these new ones as much, but of course I'll reserve final judgement until we have all the facts about the rules straight and out in the open.

Sarouan wrote:
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.

Interesting, I figured they might have tried to balance it by having the Defender have less chance of succeeding than the attacker. The problem I see is if you're attacking an opponent that is good in melee and you're not, well it's certain death for you.

Let's say I'm attacking with my trusty bayonet which is 3 attacks on a 4+. Let's say I'm attacking Mr. Space Marine and let's take a wild gues that they will have 5 attacks on a 3+. That's fairly good odds they will have greater successes than me which means they could parry all blows and deal damage. I suppose if the player was blood thirsty they could trade hits for hits but I don't see elite units wanting to take wounds unneccessarily.

I don't know if it's been confirmed that Critical Hits will work the same in Melee, but if they do that well in my opinion that will probably be enough to give the attacker an advantage even when fighting skilled melee enemies.

What I want to know, and I don't feel this article adequately explained, is exactly what stage parries 'cancel' the incoming damage.

Since we seem to be rolling dice one at a time it appears to matter, so does a parry cancel a damaging attack that came in already, or do I bank it to cancel a damaging attack that may come in later?

I thought all melee dice are thrown simultaneously, and both players see each others roll results?

Then the dice picking starts, with the attacker deciding the first pick. If he picks up a 6, the defender will need to use one of their 6s, if any to counter, spend two of their hit dices, or suffer the full damage of the attacker's crit

I'm actually super certain that armour will be indicated in an operative's HP stat. Fighting a Terminator with lightning claws? You'll need to sacrifice a bunch of bayonet models to even have a small chance of stopping one.

Close Combat specialists will become more or less impossible to beat by non CC specialists, unless they outnumber the specialist and dont even try to parry any damage to themselves. I suppose it'll result in "heroic" moments on the tabletop, where hordes eventually take out a lone combatant..

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

The rules are abstractions. From what I've been able to gather, the armour stat is relevant specifically to shooting and interacts with the ranged attack rules to enable the likelihood of an attack being effective to be determined.

The armour stat is not used in close combat, becuase that has an entirely different mechanism to work out how likely a model is going to be affected by an attack.

The effectiveness of a models' armour is accounted for in a different way to represent the survivability in close combat.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Since we seem to be rolling dice one at a time it appears to matter, so does a parry cancel a damaging attack that came in already, or do I bank it to cancel a damaging attack that may come in later?

You both roll all dice simultaneously then alternate deciding what to do with successes. The way it reads, it seems to say that Player A picks their first success to inflict damage, Player B then decides whether to let it through or use their first success to negate it.

 tauist wrote:
I thought all melee dice are thrown simultaneously, and both players see each others roll results?

Then the dice picking starts, with the attacker deciding the first pick. If he picks up a 6, the defender will need to use one of their 6s, if any to counter, spend two of their hit dices, or suffer the full damage of the attacker's crit

I'm actually super certain that armour will be indicated in an operative's HP stat. Fighting a Terminator with lightning claws? You'll need to sacrifice a bunch of bayonet models to even have a small chance of stopping one.

Close Combat specialists will become more or less impossible to beat by non CC specialists, unless they outnumber the specialist and dont even try to parry any damage to themselves. I suppose it'll result in "heroic" moments on the tabletop, where hordes eventually take out a lone combatant..

Ahhh, that makes a good deal of sense, thanks for explaining the one die at a time I didn't pick that up from the article. That does allow for some strategy on the attacker's part.

On the topic of hordes, I'm curious how melee will work if their is simultaneous actions for say multiple units / a squad. Would it be two guardsmen worth of bayonets against one chainsword for instance?

tauist wrote:I thought all melee dice are thrown simultaneously, and both players see each others roll results?

Then the dice picking starts, with the attacker deciding the first pick. If he picks up a 6, the defender will need to use one of their 6s, if any to counter, spend two of their hit dices, or suffer the full damage of the attacker's crit

Platuan4th wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Since we seem to be rolling dice one at a time it appears to matter, so does a parry cancel a damaging attack that came in already, or do I bank it to cancel a damaging attack that may come in later?

You both roll all dice simultaneously then alternate deciding what to do with successes. The way it reads, it seems to say that Player A picks their first success to inflict damage, Player B then decides whether to let it through or use their first success to negate it.

Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
What I want to know, and I don't feel this article adequately explained, is exactly what stage parries 'cancel' the incoming damage.

Since we seem to be rolling dice one at a time it appears to matter, so does a parry cancel a damaging attack that came in already, or do I bank it to cancel a damaging attack that may come in later?

 tauist wrote:
I thought all melee dice are thrown simultaneously, and both players see each others roll results?

Then the dice picking starts, with the attacker deciding the first pick. If he picks up a 6, the defender will need to use one of their 6s, if any to counter, spend two of their hit dices, or suffer the full damage of the attacker's crit

My read of the story today is that, like ranged attacking, both players roll their full dice pool, and then we resolve successes.

Where they differ, is that in ranged shooting, the defender resolves all their "successes" to cancel the attacker's hits before the hits resolve. (Mortal Wounds aside) In melee, both players throw their dice pool, and then the attacker resolves one of his dice -- either choosing to cancel one of his opponent's hits, or deal damage with that success. Then, the defender does the same, and on and on back and forth until all the successes are gone.

So in melee, if the attacker "picks up a 6" as tauist says, the defender does NOT get a chance to cancel it -- the defender gets that chance on their own resolution alternation. So the attacker always gets to see one of their successes go through uncanceled, if they want to make their first resolution do damage. (Doing so may risk getting damaged in return, though)

So far the symbols seem entirely redundant and could have been better served with numbers.
Movement seems to have plenty of space to just have 2/2/2 or 3/2/2 for slightly faster units. And even torrent I think would have been able to function with torrent 2 just fine.
Unless I have misread today’s movement, with movement such a important part of a skirmish game. It’s coming off like they looked at infinity and Xwing and kinda wanted both.

I think there still has to be something more to the symbols. I mean, if an obstacle slows a model down by 2", and getting injured slows down a model by 2", there is no point whatsoever in using the symbols. Torrent circle coulda easily been just "Area 2"".

There's something more they haven't told us..

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

Sarouan wrote:
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.

Interesting, I figured they might have tried to balance it by having the Defender have less chance of succeeding than the attacker. The problem I see is if you're attacking an opponent that is good in melee and you're not, well it's certain death for you.

But... isn't that what *should* happen?

 tauist wrote:
I think there still has to be something more to the symbols. I mean, if an obstacle slows a model down by 2", and getting injured slows down a model by 2", there is no point whatsoever in using the symbols. Torrent circle coulda easily been just "Area 2"".
There's something more they haven't told us..

I really don't think there is. The only missing piece seems to be how exactly the movement stat degrades with damage. As others have pointed out, if it works the way we think it works it means that the degrading effect is consistent regardless of peoples move stats (i.e. the impact on 2 different models with 2 different move stats will always be a 33% reduction in distance moved, rather than one model potentially suffering a 50% cut while the other only gets hit with 25%). But, uhh... if thats the only thing that the symbols really do they could have basically achieved the same result with a damage chart ala vehicles in 40k. Not quite as streamlined but he overhead is minimal. If you're implementing something like these shapes then the overhead that comes with the shapes needs to be LESS than the overhead that players would have to contend with if the shapes were not present. Right now, it seems like a wash, at best, and at worst the shapes are more of a burden than an asset.

Sure but it makes for unfun gameplay if your opponent has a unit you simply can't hurt in Melee.

I think the Attacker Crits will solve that problem but we'll see.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Sure but it makes for unfun gameplay if your opponent has a unit you simply can't hurt in Melee.

I think the Attacker Crits will solve that problem but we'll see.

What ever happened to shoot the choppy, and chop the shooty?

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

yep, same here. so a terminator armour that can protect against pretty much any gun in thegalxy is useless against the mighty power of the knife? I can't even believe that got pass out of studio

 streetsamurai wrote:

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

yep, same here. so a terminator armour that can protect against pretty much any gun in thegalxy is useless against the mighty power of the knife? I van't even believe that got pass out of studio

Have we seen the terminator rules yet?

They might have 150 wounds each,or additional parry opportunities or something. Or they might be stupid and not worth taking

terminator armour is an example among others. Unless all type or armour as some kind of bespoken (I said it) rule, the point remain.

Ignoring the first x points of damage of each attack might work as well.

 Flinty wrote:
Ignoring the first x points of damage of each attack might work as well.

I don't disagree. But at this point, therems no evidence that this will be the case. They would have make a mention of it if it was the case

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Ignoring the first x points of damage of each attack might work as well.

I don't disagree. But at this point, therems no evidence that this will be the case. They would have make a mention of it if it was the case

They've literally only talked in generalizations and in terms of the 2 squads in the box. There is no real "at this point" to judge other factions by.

Rihgu wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Sure but it makes for unfun gameplay if your opponent has a unit you simply can't hurt in Melee.

I think the Attacker Crits will solve that problem but we'll see.

What ever happened to shoot the choppy, and chop the shooty?

Ah but at some point we have super choppy with super armor who is hard to kill in either respect. I'm interested to see what the CC specialist gives, I wonder if it'll be a boost to Attacks but only on offense.

these two factions have armours (at the very least DKoK does). So if armour was doing something in CC they would have mentionned it.

They even gave an argument for amour not doing anything in cc (an extremely stupid one imo).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Ignoring the first x points of damage of each attack might work as well.

I don't disagree. But at this point, therems no evidence that this will be the case. They would have make a mention of it if it was the case

They've literally only talked in generalizations and in terms of the 2 squads in the box. There is no real "at this point" to judge other factions by.

these two factions have armours (at the very least DKoK does). So if armour was doing something in CC they would have mentionned it.

They even gave an argument for amour not doing anything in cc (an extremely stupid one imo), so it seems pretty evident that it will be the case. Sure, we can cling to the hope that we only have a partial view of the rules, and that
the full one will be ''better'' or/and more complete, but this kind of hope pretty much always ends up to be false when it comes to GW

I'm okay with the Risk style combat resolution, sounds slow but at least has choices and represents simultaneous strikes and parries.

I agree that they went too far with the streamlining if stabbing a Terminator is exactly as easy as stabbing a grot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So the expectation is then that MEQs and better will either be stupidly easy to stab to death with a butter knife, or have a bazillion wounds to compensate and be impossible to affect at range when power armour does its job.

 tauist wrote:

Not so much into Orks nor the orky terrain, although I'd imagine I could de-orkify it with some sawing & cutting. But my backlog already has the Mekboy workshop to de-orkify (to make it fit better with the STC ruins kit I've got) so dunno when I'd get around to it hehehe

I'm thinking of doing the same thing. They'd probably make good generic "ramshackle ruins" for themed Necromunda boards or whatever.

I also de-orkified the mekshop! Pro-tip: try to find a way to lower the "workbench" detail, if you have the time and inclination. I skipped out on doing that, but now it's at shoulder/head height for most human minis and annoys me every time someone stands next to it.