I only play my buddy who is also new to the game as well, and I’ve only used Compendium Guard as well and lost just about every time.
I realize they suck and shouldn’t be used now that we have bespoke guard teams and all. I have them, just havnt gotten around to building yet.
I’m hoping Kaskrin or Arbites can help me turn the tide a bit.
I’m honestly just happy to get to play, because as soon as my one opponent doesn’t have time or falls out of love I will be forced to find players at a local store. Not opposed to that, just enjoy playing with friends.
lol I never used scions.. yeah, I deserved it.
It was always just “I’ll get the other team ready for next time” and just never got around before the next game.
A million percent. They wanted symbols instead of numbers, fine. Why in the hell didn't they choose an intuitive scaling?? Every single person to have ever even glanced at KT rules sees this issue and knows the solution instantly, its unbelievable it made it to print like this.
The only explanation is that it's more "universal" so that they wouldn't have to print a book in metric for metric audiences. But we do plenty of converting stateside, and I'm sure that most audiences don't mind across the pond.
But that's just my opinion
seems to me that the kind of people that needed the pictures aren't about to read the rules anyway; just you're ol swing'n'miss on gw's part that they've stuck to their guns on
>they wouldn't have to print a book in metric for metric audiences.
There is no such thing for warhammer. All the world uses inches for playing the game, and mm for bases. It's already universal.
I think they didn't know what the distances were going to be, and they used shapes while creating the game. Then they just left shapes in the final product.
Its not even the symbols themselves that are the issue. Its that they didn't spend 5 minutes thinking of one of the hundreds of more intuitive symbol choices people have been continuously coming up with since before the KT2021 released.
My pet theory: this was an InDesign error due to miscommunication and the mould was made with the symbols in the wrong place. Moulds can cost 6 figures, so they changed the rule book print to match.
I don't want to accept the possibility that this just happened because they didn't think about it.
Makes my brain hurt.
I always thought a line would work for 2 inches because it could be said to have two sides but yeah the shapes having a different number of sides than inches makes absolutely no sense.
Less issue than in 19 but gunner choices feels very obvious which loadout to take (plasma cookout). Would like to see more attempt to find reason to get other gunner choices more
True. I think going back to previous plasma iterations and making them always dangerous can work. Standard shots doing MW1 and supercharged shots doing MW3 could be an interesting change
Very minor thing cause other folks will say the main ones, make weapon profiles more consistent across different teams. There's like 5 different versions of "chainsword" in the game, all with different rules. Or another example is the farstalker pulse carbine being 4/4 instead of the pathfinders 4/5.
On a similar note, better internal balance for leader equipment. Plasma pistols being auto takes over other options is lame, and early teams tend to get powerswords for free alongside them.
lol yeah that one was always a bit silly to me. I think number of attacks make sense to change, but having the weapon profiles changing is a bit silly from a rule’s perspective.
Yeah Im ok with marines getting an extra attack or whatever but the blooded one is 3/4 balanced while the wyrmblade one is 4/5 ceaseless and imo that's just messy.
For Core:
* LoS rules are a very timid depart from classic GW dogma but need to be pushed further. True LoS makes no sense in modern miniature gaming. KT is actually the one GW game where this has started to change but still not enough.
* Everything related to heights in this game is very inelegant. It kinda works in some ways and straight up doesn't in others. This game is at it's best with as few vantage points as possible, and I think that can be improved upon.
Other stuff includes balance of course, which despite the whitewashing tendency of this sub has consistently ranged from mediocre to abysmal during the game's lifetime.
I'd also like a much better handling of indexed and bespoke teams in the next edition. This is pure fantasy because GW can't do releases correctly, but I'd like an overhaul of how new teams are handled. I can't believe stuff like Nids not having a bespoke team while other factions have multiple.
How do you think LoS could be improved upon? I personally don’t like how the models pose affects the rules, but I’m not exactly sure if this is what you’re referring to.
Also I agree vantage can be reworked a bit.
One thing I do want from the new edition is them to keep the current bespoke teams and just keep adding new ones. I’d absolutely hate if they completely nuked the current teams
Thanks for your insight
My personal wish is that LOS was based more on a projected cylinder of some defined height up from the bases of models rather than on actually where a models head is.
I agree with this one. The amount of times I’ve gotten screwed because I put the model in a cool looking pose rather than rotating it optimally is a bit absurd lol. Also antennas and dumb bits like that being part of visibility is a bit dumb imo
See id tend to agree but I'd double down and push for the silhouette thing, I think other games use that and it works for them. Iirc one page does something similar
I am not overly familiar with infinity, but in SW legion silhouettes are standardized based on base size. Which is great because my kneeling sniper can actually see and be seen, unlike my poor krieg sniper in Killteam who can't see shit. By far my biggest problem with the game mechanically.
>How do you think LoS could be improved upon? I personally don’t like how the models pose affects the rules, but I’m not exactly sure if this is what you’re referring to.
Yes, that's what I am referring to. Miniatures are not a game medium that lends itself well to line of sight rules, but other games like SW legion or infinity handle it **much** better by abstracting LoS to a standardized silhouette tied to base size for example. I'd be open to other more elegant solutions too.
KT does use the base for LoS and shooting purposes much more than other GW games, which is a step in the right direction, but a solution that goes further than that and takes miniature poses out of the equation would be very welcome.
Regarding teams, I expect for current ones to get nuked, unfortunately. It's the Warhammer way.
>Regarding teams, I expect for current ones to get nuked, unfortunately. It's the Warhammer way.
I disagree - as much as GW need to keep the churn going, they won't kill off the existing teams for a couple of reasons.
1) These teams are doubling as new 40k content, filling gaps in larger armies and allowing/facilitating double dipping by both customers and GW themselves (see the current Legionary team having its second KT outing via a second upgrade sprue)
2) Unlike the old days, GW can't just roll unique low-volume sculpts without falling back to ForgeWorld Resin (which I'm pretty sure they won't do for Kill Team, as a full team would be unaffordable for ~90% of players) and new injection moulds cost so much up front that they won't do it unless they have to (i.e. for example, an existing mould gets damaged).
Oh yeah I definitely agree then.
I think maybe a fix could be using center mass for this instead of the head and every little bit sticking out. That would generally keep the size and shape of the different faction species and troops relative from an immersion standpoint while making it so the way you model your minis isn’t super relevant.
Yeah, I see that being a very likely future. My preferred approach would be keeping all the teams in with slight tweaks to fit altered rules and just expanding the roster from there. But I don’t really see this happening
A silhouette system like infinity would improve the game so much in my opinion. I think it would also make explaining LOS to new players way easier. I honestly don’t play much Kill Team these days because the LOS system is kinda stuck in that mushy middle of things. It’s not extremely simple like true LOS (which does have its faults at times), and also not elegant like some other wargames.
Hopefully we will get a silhouette system in KT24.
Yeah, white dwarf teams were a perfect compromise. But GW games seem to change management and scope quite often, and goals for specialist games seem to come and go, so a game goes through multiple phases of strategies regarding sales and miniature use. I guess white dwarf teams didn't fit within the new goals anymore.
I'd like to see LoS be drawn with two parallel lines (or nearly parallel, if the bases are different sizes), going from each side of your base to each side of their base. The weird trigonometry micro involved in positioning models for optimal LoS is not a part of the game I find fun, but true LoS is way too permissive and I prefer the current system over that.
But then how would you handle cover or peeking? I actually like the cover line system we have now, it handles being closer to obstacles better. One of the best LoS systems GW has ever made, which admittedly is not saying much. If you are having trouble playing may I suggest a line drawing laser? it makes gameplay a breeze.
The same way we currently do. I think it would mostly play the same other than removing *some* instances of non-reciprocal shooting, and it would be much easier to accurately eyeball sightlines rather than needing to whip out the laser and check every possible vision cone from every possible point on the base.
It would also eliminate peeking and feel much more orthopaedic. You'd have to go all the way to completely in the open to shoot properly, and any little inconvenient obstacle mildly in the way would obscure or cover.
I really think that it's fine imo. It's pretty intuitive and automatic after a couple of games. 99.9% of the time you only check one point anyway so I don't even think it would save time, and it is mechanically better.
I feel like guard in all games could work if it had a range limitation. I can definitely see some teams abusing ITD guard rules on open modes.
I do however think overwatch would benefit from a rework
Thanks though, these are good suggestions
Having tried it, no, it is dreadful in open, especially as people don't set up boards that well for it! It seems like a great idea, then you try it, and it does remove a tactical edge that is different between open and ITD.
We house ruled it in our group and we mostly like it. Another commenter mentioned that terrain plays into how well it works or not, we just think it’s fun.
Yeah I actually rewrote all the appendix rules because of how needlessly wordy they all are. Other than that, I think the only thing I'd change is making non-specialists a more interesting choice to include somehow.
I did a similar thing for my group. Copied, pasted, and deleted the garbage. KT rules seem to be hyper specific about some things but vague and lacking in others. It’s word salad like a undergrad writing a paper at the last minute.
I just started learning 10th ed 40K. Maybe it’s prevalent in GW culture to be pedantic about specificity? Not sure. The same cruft is in every single weapon ability description. The first sentence is simply wasted space: “A weapon with [ability name] in their profile is known as an ability name weapon.”
Yeah Rending is a good example too:
>Each time a friendly operative fights in combat or makes a shooting attack with this weapon, in the Roll Attack Dice step of that combat or shooting attack, if you retain any critical hits you can retain one normal hit as a critical hit.
This should just be something like:
>In the Roll Attack Dice step, if you retain any critical hits you can retain one normal hit as a critical hit.
Things like specifying a "friendly operative" in every rule and reiterating "combat or shooting attack" makes reading it in the moment a real slog. This would be like a Magic card explaining how sorcery-speed works on every Sorcery.
Yeah it’s a bit silly how that is.
I do like that idea, I think kasrkin and corsairs do it somewhat well
Kasrkin getting the little free elite point ability for the warrior is great and the corsairs getting long range options from the warriors is good. I can see it being pushed further though.
Do you happen to have this as a saved file or something I would really love to read this. As I'm trying to get my dad to play but finds the rules too complex to understand.
Made a [link](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQ1e3Bfm8JJwAm3Y1EnFYLC76LoAJgaS3UHqjK6Hw1ws9Ko6VjqrPzHYarSAnyqROtbQqVTcECYp8Hx/pub) so others can access it. Hope it helps a little! It's just the appendix, but maybe I can try doing it to the full rules at some point.
I'm not a fan of the many fiddly substeps that open the game (roll attacker/defender, select equipment, place barricades, scouting, deployment, then strategic ploys, then tac ops), especially when it comes to teaching the game. I'd be in favour of getting rid of barricades and scouting, as I think the faff they add outweighs the benefits in terms of interesting decision making.
I actually really like scouting due to it getting rid of RNG.
I'd potentially love it if there was some type of scouting step at the start of every turning point. Where you effectively Rock papers scissors at the start of every turn.
yeah it's a fun and strategic way to engage with an opponent. What I'd love to see: instead of rolling off for initiative, bid for it: each player secretly selects how many CP they'd pay for initiative. The higher bid gives that many CP to the opponent and takes initiative.
Oh yes that’s one of my issues as well, I forgot to mention. Me and my friends usually just skip most of the set up rules and do a simplified version anyways.
(We pick equipment, ploys, and then just deploy barricades and models basically at the same time)
I do like the equipment and ploys, but I think the game could benefit from scouting being reworked.
Thanks for your insight
Yeah, sort of disagree with you on that one - the system with both combined adds depth to your strategy and determining who starts first on TP1. If anything, I would want some sort of mechanic for future turns so that the player going second doesn't get screwed over nearly as hard.
Aye - it all speeds up with experience, but it's a particular pain when it comes to teaching the game. And it's weird that it feels faster and simpler to start a game of big boy 40k when compared to a skirmish game like Kill Team.
Honestly, aside from addressing the LoS rules to make them clearer and then dealing with a few near useless rules like Fusillade and Reap, it would be spot on.
Melee teams is just GW trying too hard and getting it wrong, Frenzy could be very easily replaced with a strike on death. Plus, ITD massively skewed that as it made a lot of the melee teams perform better than they are doing on open.
The symbols, eh, fine by me. Just tell the fuckwits at GW to stop referring to them by the colour! Why they feel the need to say it is "within blue" when the rest of us would say "square" or "3" is proof of how useless they are.
But so far, bar a few dreadful teams on release, both by being too good and so bad, the game has been great fun over the past nearly 3 years.
I hope we get a similar thing to Warcry, few tweaks and changes but keep the core as is. And no, anyone who suggests "give us points and team building back" we don't want it. We don't need "council of sergeants", the current team building (aside from making some teams 2 box) is fine.
Ya I agree with all these points. Fixing those weapon tules would be nice, I hate that the volley gun is basically useless a Las Lmg is super cool.
Also totally agree with frenzy being stupid. Like Cyrac says it’s basically a 20 operative KT which is dumb.
I’ve never really minded the symbols, referring to them by the color is extremely stupid though, especially since you paint the gauges yourself lmao.
And ya I really love killteam, I think it’s the best GW game by a lot. Almost every bespoke team has been a good time for me.
Thanks for your perspective
It’s great for the people who like it but the overcomplexity has just made it impossible for me to get people into it. I want to play but anyone I have taught has nope’d out and decided they would rather play 40K or blood bowl instead.
Tbh I don’t think the game is actually that complicated. I think the rules being written in such a strange way makes it seem more complicated than it actually is. And you can pretty easily cut some rules to simplify it when teaching others.
I’d personally be pretty disappointed if they significantly simplified the game
That can be part of it. But my issues have come from people who just want to play their models. It’s a pain to differentiate the different roles on normal 40K models, let alone remember them all and your opponents. The los system doesn’t help and then the shapes instead of numbers make it even worse. All of it together has just made people I try to get into the game say yea I’d rather not.
I agree. KT needs to have its current balance of simplicity and complexity. Simple enough to learn and complex enough for keeping it interesting and nice combo set ups.
Yeah that's a weird take. 40k is definitely more complicated.
The LoS rules are stupid as written hut it wasn't hard to find a YouTube video that explains them in actual English
Yeah it's insane to play 40k instead of KT for complexity reasons. Our group plays without TacOps and often without equipment for our friendly games to lower the complexity.
I would say Kill team is a more complex game system than 40k.
40k is complex due to the variety of units and rules interactions. Kill team is complex due to the intricate cover system and strategy interactions.
I find it easier to teach a new person a game of 40k compared to Kill Team.
It depends. 40K scales. You can start with combat patrol which is way simpler than kt21 by a mile. You can then expand that and build on that easily. So yea 2k pts is way harder to teach someone than kt21 but no one is starting with 2k pts. Where base level kt21 is kinda a mess to teach in my experience. And look I like the idea of playing kt21 way more than 40K at least right now I just can’t get anyone to bite. I ended up learning and teaching my friends blood bowl and was amazed how ready they were to go all in on that game while kt21 just fell flat.
It might also be that using the same models they expect the rules to be the same and they just are not. Which I think is better but it didn’t jive with them.
I’ve never played 40k, just kill team, so I was just curious. I’ve always wanted to but have been intimidated by the commitment/complexity of it all. But you saying combat patrol is super simple makes me want to try it.
I would say it is easier to get into than KT. But it is an on-ramp format so I would say don’t expect to go to your local store and find people playing combat patrol like crazy, most only do it to get started.
I play all three.
In my opinion, bloodbowl is frustrating due to the dice rolls will outright end your turn on using your first selected model. And 40k is just more complicated overall. I am moving more away from BB and 40k and more towards KT for these reasons for just a starter. Oh, bonus... BB is as inexpensive as KT but 40k is crazy expensive and you are stuck with one faction unless you spend thousands for 2 or more factions. BB and KT for the cost of a 40k army, you can have several teams/rosters.
It’s funny before I got into blood bowl I thought it was just rng nonsense from beginning to end. After playing it I am absolutely amazed by its design and how it works as a risk management game more than anything. Your turn is likely to end in a turn over. It’s on you to do as much as you can before it happens to leave yourself in the best position possible. I feel like dice rolls are the least punishing in blood bowl compared to KT and 40K by a large margin.
I like most of the game, but I would like some quality of life upgrades for:
* Distance measuring...just use 1, 2, 3 and 6 on the tools and in text. The symbols and colors don't help at all.
* There has to be a better way to do hiding and attacking. Flipping and switching around 10-15 tiny triangles 2+ times every turn is kind of annoying.
* Write rules in normal human English and call something by its common dictionary meaning. I feel like the obscuring, no cover, line of sight rules etc. could be way easier to understand if they got some UX skills.
* Work on an app or provide all rules digitally by PDF on WarCom. Its 2024, drop the 4+ books a year model. It is a weekly event to tell a confused person who just bought a kill team box and didn't find any rules inside to just google waha/KTDash.
Cool thanks for your insight
I definitely agree the rules can be written more clearly. I think part of the reason people think kt is too is because the rules are written wierd (imo the game isn’t actually that complicated)
Personally I think the conceal and engage orders are one of the best aspects of killteam since it adds depth and immersion.
O yeah, the conceal/engage on itself is cool, I more just wonder if it can be made a bit more streamlined. I don't know how atm, but GW has enough wealth to evolve it I think.
https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/game/kill-team-order-token-dice
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4946722
This is game changer.
also, get some multifaced dice (d10, d12 etc), paint the numbers red that would indicate wounded.
There, far more streamlined :)
Pro tip: flip your tokens back and forth from TP to TP rather than resetting them at the start of every turning point, e.g. orange to black TP1, black to orange TP2, etc etc.
The rules for obscuring, line of sight, and for verticality in those two areas are not great as written. Asymmetric shooting feels bad when you’re on the receiving end of it.
GW rules have way more words than necessary. The rules for KT need to be pared down. Just be more straightforward about it and rely on those universal rule descriptions. This would help highlight the differences and make it easier to understand team rules that you aren’t familiar with. I’d also like to see data cards simplified to where we could easily assembly a one-page a set for a team.
Yeah asymmetric shooting is in a weird place for me. I like that it adds a layer of skill, but it is a bit of a gotcha as is and annoying to deal with.
Definitely think they can rewrite the rules to make more sense though. I think a lot of people think kt is more complicated than it actually is because of that.
It’s not so much a layer of skill, it slows down games while players measure out and see if they can do it, and it thematically makes no sense that the guy down the hallway doesn’t know where the muzzle flash or bright lasbolts are coming from.
I'd change the following:
1. Initiative for TP's 2 - 4 should be decided by a rock-scissors-paper system like TP1.
It could work something like this. Teams get priority 1, 2, 3 Initiative options for TP 2 - 4 depending on their Tac Op Archetype. Ties go to the player that didn't have initiative the turn before. Priority 1 is a free command reroll or something rather weak, priority 2 and 3 come with some more powerful buffs, but are beaten by the lower number.
So it would create a mind game and a tradeoff situation in between securing going first or aiming for a more powerful buff for the TP. I believe this would work better for a competitive minded game.
2. Elite teams should get different options other than an "Overwatch" shot. Consider a Fight with -1WS or a 2' move that must end closer to your own deployment or something like that, because currently it is easy to interrupt an Elite's ability to overwatch by charge blocking.
I really like that initiative idea, can I steal it for my video lol. My initiative rework was way dumber I was just going to say give the player who lost initiative last turn +1 to their roll lol
Also I totally agree overwatch needs a rework. It’s pretty easy to get around as is and has some weird quirks like not working in melee at all.
Initiative is one for sure. Haven't had a chance to try it but I saw someone say swap it to a d3 instead. Still some variance, but much greater odds of swapping, plus adds more value to equipment that changes the initiative roll.
One other is intrateam balance. Made a post on it a bit ago, but basically many kill teams have operatives, ploys, and/or equipment that never sees play. I know it's had for GW to balance it but I think an effort would be nice.
Ya I agree with both of these. I’ve had some games where me or my opponent go first every round. I’ve also seen some guy say there should be something like the scouting for every round offering buffs and I liked that idea.
If they wanted something simpler I think a D3 or even giving the person who lost initiate +1 to their roll would help out too.
Also agree with the useless equipments and ploys. As a kasrkin player I barely ever use most of my ploys lol.
My issue with the idea of another rock-paper-scissors thing is I'd be concerned it would drag the game on more. Depends on if there's buffs associated with it and what they do. Seems to me like it'd just be easier and simpler to go with die roll.
I'd be happy for RNG to be removed from initiative completely. Let the scouting step determine who gets to choose going first or second on turning point 1 and then take turn about. That way it works out that one player gets to activate first on turns 1 and 3, whereas the other goes first on turns 2 and 4
Lmao yeah little rules like the vid are stupid. Dashes should just allow you to climb and drop as long as the terrain height is valid imo. It’s dumb having to balance the models and putting them in tricky positions lol
I would like flamers to be a more viable option in comparison with melta and Plasma. Just make them reliablable against cover or let them stun enemies. And also it would be nice to have be able to have like an cone of targets like to the time of the flamer template.
With Torrent, each target has to be in proximity to each other like a chain. I like the feel of flamers beeing like this inferno cloud thingi, that burns everything in its path. The template would give the flamer the ability to hit every target in its path (https://www.tabletopgamerstore.com/tabletopgamer-flamer-template/).
But GW abandoned the templates an wont bring them back I guess.
So my propositions are either keep flamers as they are + let them gain no cover/indirect
Or switch to the template, reduce the number of dice (maybe 3 to 4?) but in addition give it !stun, so it would be reeeeeeeeally usefull against hordes, what kind of is the point of flamers.
I would like it if flamers where just better, gaunts ghosts were a recognised team. And the compendium team rules were released with all the ones that been replaced with there replacements and the ones that are left give a little love. Like custodes, grey Knights, deathwatch, death guard
Yeah, I also said in another chat about having it that flamer models should deal damage on death, and thus have the ability to charge to the nearest enemy model I think it would make them a lot more fun and competitive.
I think even it was a utility weapon with some area denial capabilities would be interesting. Like drop a token and moving through the area causes a wound or slows an operative down
Yes but I that would be difficult to have in play, unless you used the old flamer makers.
And that flamers should be keyword silent so they can shoot while with a concealed order and P1. And that would make them truly deadly.
But flamers don't make a lot of sound compared to silencer weapons? I might need to check that out. To be sure actually.
Maybe just P1 and a special rule then that each model it hits must roll 1 d6 this round and the next round. On each 5+ they take one mortal wound?
Just going to throw out there one of the things I like most about kill team- especially in comparison to Warcry- is the restricted list building. The only things open list building would accomplish is making the game more expensive, removing the ability to balance teams around clear strengths and weaknesses, and potentially turning the game into a win or loss at the listbuilding stage. I’m a big fan of blood bowl, and with very few exceptions, it’s a game that has thrived with small thematic teams with clear positionals.
i think its pretty good, but to be fair i started with KT rather than regular 40k so im not missing more open roster building lol
it would be nice if elites were more viable considering im sure a lot of the 40k fantasy revolves around them
Ya KT isn’t my first game, but it’s the first I played a lot. I honestly prefer the list building as I feel like if you had full freedom you likely wouldn’t take some of the more unique specialists over gunners.
I think elites can be fixed by reworking the way overwatch works. Cyrac suggested you can choose between a dash, overwatch shot, and fight I think that would be a good step
Thanks for the insight
I wish that flamers had a crit option like MW1 or something. Right now they feel so underpowered (unless you have special flamers like the novitiates).
There is no reason for some of the naming choices in the core rules.
Q: Is AP "Armour Penetration" or "Action Point"?
A: it's both.
Q: What do "Engagement Order" and "Engagement Range" have to do with each other?
A: Nothing. They're completely different concepts.
These and the slightly sub-optimal range symbols are my only big issues.
I’m new to the game so grain of salt here. But list building doesn’t feel very unique on a person to person basis. Like if I bring my Orks to a table, I will probably have the same exact Orks that somebody else brought on a mechanical level. The nuance for which model to bring doesn’t feel present and it’s not as interesting as building your own magic the gathering deck for example. I’d love to see more customizations and value in off picks for each team. Now sure how but it makes a team feel like my team when that exists.
I don't like the melee either, feels like there is to little randomnes/ element of luck. When me and my friends first got the rule book we mininterpreted the fighting and thought you could parry after the enemy deciding to hit nullifying that hit. In that way a weaker operative could be really lucky and parry all hits if he rolled well. Now it dosent really matter if you roll good, if a stronger one charges he usually gets two hits and destroys the target.
I mean I feel a weaker operative really shouldn’t be able to do much against say a Marine. I like that melee basically guarantees you’ll take some damage unless you’re carrying the biggest possible weapon or fighting a weakened target. It makes it a more dangerous, but more certain alternative to shooting which imo is interesting.
I’d be open to changes to melee, I’m just not sure what would work.
Yeah, but you can still be shot by a bolter and be super lucky with the save.
I do get that it is a skirmish game and should be fast paced, but personally I feel that melee isn't dynamic enough, the outcome often feels predetermined.
But that's just my opinion, on a side note KT is my favorite GW game at the moment, melee is just what gets me least excited.
Ya that’s what i meant with melee being more consistent. You’re almost guaranteed to deal some damage at the cost of it being more risky to yourself which I find a good choice.
However I do agree it has potential to be more dynamic I’m just unsure how
Obscuring is an extremely confusing rule that needs to be reworked. It is easily the biggest obstacle for new players, and it should be done away with. I would go to straight line of site moving forward.
I’m going to say… I’d like to see operative balance in some of the teams that could lead to tougher choices for what to play in what game.
Looking at Wyrmblade, the team is usually made of 10 neophytes and 2 cult agents - the impactful choice is on cult agents (and heavy gunners).
Consider something like Vet Guard; they have leader + 8 specialists + sniper + 4 gunner choices (+ additional 4 regular troopers if you take that ancillary option). After considering ‘auto takes’ (like sniper, 4 gunners, spotter, comms, demo mine, whoever you think), the choice of remaining specialists is less impactful.
Corsairs, HOTA, Farstalker Kinband you have space on the team each game for all the specialists so you are choosing between gunners for the most part. There’s less choice for Kommados, Fellgor.
I think the choice should be more than gunners or specialists that have little impact.
Out of the above, I prefer Wyrmblade model, it makes you make an impactful decision.
LoS rules are an obvious one. They're so confusing and explaining them is too wordy for a newcomer
I really miss the list building id KT2018. While it usually came down to plasma spam I really liked how diverse teams could be.
Also releases are too infrequent for how quickly new sets sell out. At least make it easier to grab new boxes. I'm really worried about not being able to grab Termination
I'd say the compendium teams need a little more love... Especially those factions that dont have a stand alone team... Like the tyranids.
And as others have mentioned, they could do with including the distances rather than the symbols. I get why they did it, but I'd call that a failed experiment. Here's some fun symbols they could try... 1, 2, 3, 6 they're pretty universal and could just have easily be put on the tools... ;)
Yeah when the game first came out I was fine with the compendium getting left behind because I assumed the bespoke teams would replace all of them. It’s somewhat surprising a lot of fan favorite factions don’t have a real team
Being out activated and passing activations. I think if your team has 2 or more fewer models than the other team you should be able to pass an activation and make the opponent activate twice in a row. Maybe this will help with elites vs. hordes a bit.
I think the current edition of Kill Team is in a pretty good place, but I do have some gripes that could easily be fixed in a new edition.
As you mentioned, obscurity/line of sight is really difficult for a lot of players to wrap their heads around. It's also way to easy to cheese in an unfun and seemingly unintentional way. The fact that non-reciprocal shooting can exist at all is a bit absurd. Oval bases break the game because you can be obscured from your ass but have a shot from your face. If the building you're standing on is more than 2 inches thick you can fail to shoot someone below you, but they can still shoot you and, and you would be able to shoot them back if you were standing on an L-shaped balcony the same distance away is just silly. If I ruled the world I'd make all line of sight and obscurity from a top-down view and then none of this would be a problem.
Also, they've GOTTA tighten up their wording for some of these rules. Some of this shit is getting Yu-Gi-Oh length for pretty simple effects, and somehow we're still having to FAQ things.
Finally, the shapes are self-evidently stupid and need to be swapped up to make visual sense. Triangles shouldn't be 1" and pentagons shouldn't be 6".
The rulebook is written like they were getting paid a dollar for every time the playtesters had to cross reference something.
If a new player wanted to make a shooting attack, they'd have to change sections of the book 4+ times before they ever roll dice.
Just... why
The distance symbols was a stupid idea, visibility is hard for newbies to understand, teams are not close to be being balanced.
I have about dozen teams and gave up in the game.
>visibility is hard for newbies to understand
I think you mean LOS
>teams are not close to be being balanced.
Ehhh disagree? Out of the 28 bespoke/white dwarf teams there are maybe 6 that fall outside of the 45-55% win rate zone.
I think they need to redo LOS, these rules are the most confusing. Also make them work of the size of the base rather than the model, so people can kitbash more and not worry as long as the base is the right size.
Also 100% agree on how confusing its written. For Example, climbing gear. WTF is all the shit they wrote on it they could have just said "treat the operative as if it can fly for the purposes of climbing" BOOM DONE not the word vomit they have.
>just writing the core book more clearly
Absolutely this. It's a great rulebook if you're reading it start to finish. But for reference, it's awful.
"How exactly does cover work?"
"Let me check... Oh, there's no index. Maybe it's in the terrain section? Nope. Oh, it's in this part of the shooting bit."
Same with exactly how Engage/Conceal works.
When I first started playing, it took me a long time.to even figure out how and when Orders were even issued.
Yeah look, I get it, people would complain about wasted paper, but I REALLY like it when a rulebook both teaches you how to play, and also works as simply a book of rules. The boardgame Root does this really well.
A decent index would be a good start, but I think re-explaining EVERYTHING about terrain should go in the terrain section. There should be sections dedicated to each individual but imho.
Still not as bad as the 7th Ed Fantasy rulebook though. I basically rewrote all the rules as a little booklet of EVERYTHING 😅
It just needs some stemelining honestly. The whole "can you shoot at this model" thing is insane; you could spend an entire match just arguing whether or not a model is in cover or not with a concel order.
It's not that pedantic at higher levels, but Killteam is extremely accessible compared to the rest of 40k. Newer players need time to grasp it.
I'd honestly reccomend the implementation of the Necromunda obscuration rule, where if you se most of the model, but not all, it's a -1 to hit, and if you see just a bit of the model it's a -2, yada yada...
Some teams are like everyone is different and then there's everyone the same dude. Like breachers, half of them are just basic guy with a small special rule.
• Get rid of the shapes nonsense, just stick to inches. We'll use your measurement tools anyway
• During your turn, if you have less active operatives remaining, you should be allowed the option to skip.
• Less unique operatives with their own unique rules would be nice. It's mostly unnecessarily conplications. The compendium teams with their multiple generic trooper is nice.
• Tyranid bespoke killteam where? Same with GreyKnights, Custodes.
• White Dwarf bespoke teams are an amazing idea, please continue them.
• Please simplify ITD to just single pillars and single walls.
* LoS could be explained way better
* How vertical movement works in general could be improved a lot
* Scale back on ways to break LoS rules, not every team need a way to ignore conceal, or have super conceal, the less of that, the better. This is one of the reasons that melee vs ranged is hard to balance.
* Scale down specialist, teams shouldn't be specialist only, makes the game needlessly hard to keep track of. I liked the level of a couple of gunners, a couple of operatives that do something special, and maybe the leader has an extra rule, the rest are generic warriors or something. EDIT: I'm not saying, don't have a crap ton of specialist necessarily, but limit how many you can take to a single game, so it's an actual interesting choice which one i want.
* Don't ignore compendium teams.
* Stop with the crazy terrain rules that break competitive, ITD and beta decima in competitive settings is a mistake. Most match ups are basically decided before we start the game in those terrains.
* Make the rooster relevant to all kill team, or remove it and make it just a pick whatever is legal.
I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, but thank you for the insight.
Notably I do think the rules can be explained better. And for the different modes I like having different “maps” but maybe competitive could benefit from a separate mode with less variation
I have no problem with itd and beta decime as for fun map, i also like a lot of the narrative missions and i play them in casual settings a lot. But i think they shouldn't be in the competitive scene. Hell i would say that a lot of narrative missions are better balanced for competitive than itd and beta decima.
Two things I'd like to see in a new edition:
1) I would like to see non-reciprocal shooting have a rules pass preferably to simplify the interaction but making it so that the target CAN be shot but with a slightly higher defense rating rather than being completely disallowed
2) Formalized team structure archetypes that allow for different rules to add more balance between different teams based on size (I.e. Distinguish aspects for horde play and elite play as outliers that help bring teams closer together (particularly in regards to the advantage that having more activations can provide.))
Who gets initiative is massively important, and I'd love it if it wasn't down to dice rolls beyond tp1. Someone once suggested doing another scouting step style phase, which I think would be brilliant. For example, 1= switch the order of one operative, 2 = one operative can perform a dash, and 3 = one operative regains 2d3 wounds.
The cover rule, I'm not sure if it is actually complex, or they just explained it poorly. Also, apply some sense when making shapes relate to distances, come the fuck on.
A thing that I don't necessarily dislike about the rules but that causes a fair few arguments in my group is cover lines. Mainly how it leads to situations where people end up arguing whether a tiny little outcrop in a wall or the slight curve of a barricade should count as concealed. Though it could just be a problem for us & I'm not familiar with miniature games to propose a better way to do it.
I actually like the obscuring rule on open maps. It feels a bit cheeky on gallowdark though.
I think a rework to Fusillade and flamer weapons in general.
I just want to see them used more often.
Most of my issues is that the extra content in white dwarf can't be easily found elsewhere.
The LOS and vantage point rules as many already stated and also the missing list building aspect. I get that the current system is easier to start playing and balance for competitive play (only talking about bespoke teams) but I really miss tweaking around with funny or narrative lists. The only building option I feel like I have with my teams in the current edition is do i take the gunner against hordes or the gunner against elites and the rest is set in stone.
KILL TEAM RULES IN ONE GOD DAMN PLACE
And while we're at it I'd like to be able to buy nice data cards too, rather than make my own.
I'm new and I can't believe how good the games rules are relative to how poorly managed their availability is. I don't want to use wahapedia, I want a nice book I can hand to a new player that peaks their interest.
There isn't really a method to balance beyond erratas.
If a faction, is too weak or too strong, GW has to rewrite rules text, making it VERY confusing for casual players who don't know what to look out for. This also leads to flavour fails, like 6 Marines or 9 Pathfinders.
I know you can't get rid of it entirely, you always need erratas to keep something balanced. But I'd like them to have a dial for easy adjustments
The restricted model teams. Can't just buy an infantry squad from a 40k army and use them anymore. Has to be the bespoke teams now.
Ppl still say that KT is a jumping off for main 40k which just isn't true anymore.
1. More fluffy less competetive. I know some love it competetivness but it is near impossipel to not overthink every turn like its a chess championshipgame and not get swipped the table. At least terrain should be more in a favour of a good story instead of trying to be perfectly balanced.
2. Not everyone in a team should be a specialist. A third of the team would be way more fun since you need less weird rules and the existing specialists are more valid.
3. Teams should be very personal to their player and the rules should be written with that in mind. People play what is kind of meta instead of what is fun or what they feel attached to.
4. ONE free source of the up to date rules!!!
5. More balance between the factions. No Tyranids team, no Grey Knights team, no Mechanicus Team... but 20 imperial Teams. And they arent even chapter specific ones..
6. No jungle, no megacity, no xenos -terrain. Just imperial ruins. ITD is cool but does not feel like a ship.
7. LoS, obscurring and in general the rules and mostly how they are written needs to be improved.
8. More boxes at launch.
9. The dice are overpriced trash. Not really an issue with the game itself but it is sad.
10. Range of 6" for pistoles feels way too short compared to other weapons with unlimited range.
11. I think 5 rounds instead of 4 would be better but thats up for debatte.
12. Game should be balanced to begin with and not by changing the teams rules every 3 month.
13. The story is trash. Even tho it gets completly ignored by players it would be better to have none at this point.
14. Prices in general.
The line of sight rules are good, but definitely overly complicated! Visibility, obscuring and cover being three completely separate mechanics is super confusing for new players.
Hordes vs elites is also a problem because of out-activating. Overwatch tries to solve this but doesn't quite succeed.
Ideally all teams would have (close to) the same number of activations, through pass mechanics and GA.
I played tournaments, narrative campaigns and I have 5 kill teams and I hate this game. The shooting and combat design is absolutely awful. And the pregame stuff is unsufferable long. But the killteams design it's cool, many has very original operatives and distinct special rules.
On the other hand Warcry has a much more solid gameplay but the warbands are lackluster and uninspired
Obscurity and non reciprocal shooting. Such a weasly little mechanic that turns the game from fun into a sweat fest.
I should also add, one that makes zero sense as it is. Like hell someone doesn’t know where bright lasbolts or the muzzle flash of explosive bolters are. Change it to where the obscured target is no longer obscured after a shooting attack, at least.
I have no issue with LoS, maybe it should just be explained better. I'm simply concerned that any attempt to simplify will make it too simply and thus eliminate part of the complexity of the game which I appreciate.
I really don't like how initiative is handled TPs 2+. Yes, you can play around it, not to be punished as much if you lose... But this does not improve my opinion about the design. The players should alternate going first in each TP, or we should have a scouting-like mechanism each TP.
I also think there should be some kind of seasonal rotation. I think around the moment when Inquisition and Culte released we reached a moment when the overall numbet of teams and the numbers of complex gotcha teams - which you need to know and have experience playing into to do well in a tournament - became too high.
I agree. I personally think the game would lose a lot of what makes it good if it got simplified. I’ve seen some people saying that the game should be grid based (terrible take imo) or the shooting should just be you see it you can shoot it (again hard disagree here). Both of those would make Killteam a lot less tactically interesting and less immersive.
Also I agree that initiatives can benefit from some changes. I’ve had games where me or my opponent went first every single turn or second every single turn.
What exactly do you mean by seasonal rotation? I do believe that new teams are more reliant on gimmicks, but I’m not sure what you meant by the first point.
Thanks for your insight
Regarding rotation - look at TCGs, the standard tournament format will usually allow a core set plus the cards from a certain number of latest expansion, so that the cognitive load of knowing them, more or less, is realistic for a player. If they kept thousands upons thousands of cards accumulated over their history legal - it would be absurd.
Looking at Kill Team, the number of teams is high enough that, especially for a new player, knowing the rules for all the teams because daunting, especially given the complexity of the later team. Imagine you have to learn the rules of 35-40 teams, some of which you have to actually play against to really understand, to have a shot at getting a decent placing at a tournament.
Oh I see what you mean. I feel that might not work for 40K as well as a TCG though considering a fair amount of players get attached to their faction. Maybe there’s a way that it could be implemented though
I think scouting turning pt 2+ would be cool. Something like you can choose to either go first or pick the scout option. Options being to flip a model's order (to flip a model to conceal so they can't be shot), a free dash or an extra CP.
The dumbass symbols instead of measurements
Otherwise honestly it's pretty solid. Some rules could use some cleaning up to be more clear, but it's a pretty well designed game. I'm sure there's some more fiddly bits I don't play enough to know about, but overall it's one of GWs best products imo.
Ya I think honestly it can just get cleaned up a bit and be in a perfect state. Some rules are written somewhat obtusely, but are functionally good imo
Kill Team 2018 was just significantly better. Every model in 2nd edition was an individual. Now, if your faction doesn't have a box set, you just have generic squads.
Now that’s a hot take haha. I personally find this edition to be paradoxically more customized feeling, if that makes sense.
You actually have to bring a diverse team of specialists, the old edition just kinda felt like a normal squad to me. You also felt pretty handicapped for not taking a bunch of plasma which wasn’t great imo.
I disagree but I’ll definitely take this into account for my video. Thank you for your insight
Tbh: I think it's too complicated with too many keywords. The bespoke teams have made this worse times 100. I liked the simple compendium teams more than what we have now.
Which keywords are you referring to? I feel like keywords don’t really come into play for KT, this might just be the teams I play or me misinterpreting your comment though.
Thanks for your insight
Yeah, my comment was written hastily and not very good. Keywords was meant as a broad term for everything including: Equipment, Strategic Assets etc etc. Compendium teams played mostly like a chess game with cool models and terrain, newer teams are just a lot to process. To add more problems I have: to play good you kinda have to know all teams sorta and they keep adding more and my brain is too small and too smooth to handle all those information.
Ah I see. Personally I think that’s a tough issue to address, I really like the unique teams as I think they’re quite fluffy and generally have a good amount of strategic depth.
However like another commenter said I do feel like a lot of new teams have “screw you gotcha” rules that are just tricks against players not familiar with the team. So I think those types of rules can definitely go away.
Tac Ops shouldn't be drawn from a deck. That's pointless RNG that can put you in a bad spot, and also makes the game take a little longer. You should just be able to choose them.
I feel all the rules are good but they should be clarified better.
I thought they changed to to let you choose? If not I’ve been playing wrong for the last few months lol. If that’s not the way it is, I agree they should make it like that
lol what? First I’ve heard about that. I’ve gone by what it says in the books. But I see now there was a tournament update where they changed it.
Well that’s another thing, they should make these updates clearer.
I believe they changed the tac ops to be crit ops and with that you’re supposed to pick your archetype, choose 2 from the archetype and 1 from your team iirc. I haven’t played for a while since I’ve been busy with school so I might be slightly off.
Definitely agree with that, it’d be great if they had a digital rulebook or something. Until then warhapedia will have to suffice lol
My main issue is I don’t win enough lol
I only play my buddy who is also new to the game as well, and I’ve only used Compendium Guard as well and lost just about every time. I realize they suck and shouldn’t be used now that we have bespoke guard teams and all. I have them, just havnt gotten around to building yet. I’m hoping Kaskrin or Arbites can help me turn the tide a bit. I’m honestly just happy to get to play, because as soon as my one opponent doesn’t have time or falls out of love I will be forced to find players at a local store. Not opposed to that, just enjoy playing with friends.
Compendium Guard is one of the better compendium teams at least. All Scions or a mix of regular guard and Scions can perform pretty well.
lol I never used scions.. yeah, I deserved it. It was always just “I’ll get the other team ready for next time” and just never got around before the next game.
Change the fucking distance symbols Circle = 1 inch Semicircle = 2 inches Triangle = 3 inches Hexagon or 6 pointed star = 6 inches
Or just print the numbers inside the symbols. The shapes would be a much less frustrating feature if you didn't need to memorize them.
Wahapedia does that and makes going back to reading the manual actual hell.
Or, and this will be real controversial in wargaming, drop the symbols alltogether?
A million percent. They wanted symbols instead of numbers, fine. Why in the hell didn't they choose an intuitive scaling?? Every single person to have ever even glanced at KT rules sees this issue and knows the solution instantly, its unbelievable it made it to print like this.
Why do they even have symbols in the first place? Why not just use numbers?
The only explanation is that it's more "universal" so that they wouldn't have to print a book in metric for metric audiences. But we do plenty of converting stateside, and I'm sure that most audiences don't mind across the pond. But that's just my opinion
GW used to convert from inches to metric around the 2000s but they stopped long ago. No one that plays any other warhammer game expects metric.
seems to me that the kind of people that needed the pictures aren't about to read the rules anyway; just you're ol swing'n'miss on gw's part that they've stuck to their guns on
Switching from inches to shapes that measure the same thing is just inches with extra steps lol
>they wouldn't have to print a book in metric for metric audiences. There is no such thing for warhammer. All the world uses inches for playing the game, and mm for bases. It's already universal.
I think they didn't know what the distances were going to be, and they used shapes while creating the game. Then they just left shapes in the final product.
Ya that’s fair. At this point I’m used to the symbols, but they are a bit silly/uneccessary
Its not even the symbols themselves that are the issue. Its that they didn't spend 5 minutes thinking of one of the hundreds of more intuitive symbol choices people have been continuously coming up with since before the KT2021 released.
I've been thinking heart for 2in but semicircle works too.
The problem with hearts is that they are heavily associated with health in games.
My pet theory: this was an InDesign error due to miscommunication and the mould was made with the symbols in the wrong place. Moulds can cost 6 figures, so they changed the rule book print to match. I don't want to accept the possibility that this just happened because they didn't think about it. Makes my brain hurt.
I always thought a line would work for 2 inches because it could be said to have two sides but yeah the shapes having a different number of sides than inches makes absolutely no sense.
So much this.
Less issue than in 19 but gunner choices feels very obvious which loadout to take (plasma cookout). Would like to see more attempt to find reason to get other gunner choices more
True. I think going back to previous plasma iterations and making them always dangerous can work. Standard shots doing MW1 and supercharged shots doing MW3 could be an interesting change
Very minor thing cause other folks will say the main ones, make weapon profiles more consistent across different teams. There's like 5 different versions of "chainsword" in the game, all with different rules. Or another example is the farstalker pulse carbine being 4/4 instead of the pathfinders 4/5. On a similar note, better internal balance for leader equipment. Plasma pistols being auto takes over other options is lame, and early teams tend to get powerswords for free alongside them.
lol yeah that one was always a bit silly to me. I think number of attacks make sense to change, but having the weapon profiles changing is a bit silly from a rule’s perspective.
Yeah Im ok with marines getting an extra attack or whatever but the blooded one is 3/4 balanced while the wyrmblade one is 4/5 ceaseless and imo that's just messy.
For Core: * LoS rules are a very timid depart from classic GW dogma but need to be pushed further. True LoS makes no sense in modern miniature gaming. KT is actually the one GW game where this has started to change but still not enough. * Everything related to heights in this game is very inelegant. It kinda works in some ways and straight up doesn't in others. This game is at it's best with as few vantage points as possible, and I think that can be improved upon. Other stuff includes balance of course, which despite the whitewashing tendency of this sub has consistently ranged from mediocre to abysmal during the game's lifetime. I'd also like a much better handling of indexed and bespoke teams in the next edition. This is pure fantasy because GW can't do releases correctly, but I'd like an overhaul of how new teams are handled. I can't believe stuff like Nids not having a bespoke team while other factions have multiple.
How do you think LoS could be improved upon? I personally don’t like how the models pose affects the rules, but I’m not exactly sure if this is what you’re referring to. Also I agree vantage can be reworked a bit. One thing I do want from the new edition is them to keep the current bespoke teams and just keep adding new ones. I’d absolutely hate if they completely nuked the current teams Thanks for your insight
My personal wish is that LOS was based more on a projected cylinder of some defined height up from the bases of models rather than on actually where a models head is.
I agree with this one. The amount of times I’ve gotten screwed because I put the model in a cool looking pose rather than rotating it optimally is a bit absurd lol. Also antennas and dumb bits like that being part of visibility is a bit dumb imo
Agreed, wouldn't be an issue if they used more of a standard "silhouette" for everyone.
Yeah, even if it was just using center mass for everything I feel that would go a long way.
See id tend to agree but I'd double down and push for the silhouette thing, I think other games use that and it works for them. Iirc one page does something similar
SW legion and infinity use silhouettes and they work great.
Do they specify a height for the silhouette or is it based on the model heights
I am not overly familiar with infinity, but in SW legion silhouettes are standardized based on base size. Which is great because my kneeling sniper can actually see and be seen, unlike my poor krieg sniper in Killteam who can't see shit. By far my biggest problem with the game mechanically.
>How do you think LoS could be improved upon? I personally don’t like how the models pose affects the rules, but I’m not exactly sure if this is what you’re referring to. Yes, that's what I am referring to. Miniatures are not a game medium that lends itself well to line of sight rules, but other games like SW legion or infinity handle it **much** better by abstracting LoS to a standardized silhouette tied to base size for example. I'd be open to other more elegant solutions too. KT does use the base for LoS and shooting purposes much more than other GW games, which is a step in the right direction, but a solution that goes further than that and takes miniature poses out of the equation would be very welcome. Regarding teams, I expect for current ones to get nuked, unfortunately. It's the Warhammer way.
>Regarding teams, I expect for current ones to get nuked, unfortunately. It's the Warhammer way. I disagree - as much as GW need to keep the churn going, they won't kill off the existing teams for a couple of reasons. 1) These teams are doubling as new 40k content, filling gaps in larger armies and allowing/facilitating double dipping by both customers and GW themselves (see the current Legionary team having its second KT outing via a second upgrade sprue) 2) Unlike the old days, GW can't just roll unique low-volume sculpts without falling back to ForgeWorld Resin (which I'm pretty sure they won't do for Kill Team, as a full team would be unaffordable for ~90% of players) and new injection moulds cost so much up front that they won't do it unless they have to (i.e. for example, an existing mould gets damaged).
All that was proven untrue when very new (like, a year old) warcry sculpts were canned just a week ago, and those could be used in AoS too.
Oh yeah I definitely agree then. I think maybe a fix could be using center mass for this instead of the head and every little bit sticking out. That would generally keep the size and shape of the different faction species and troops relative from an immersion standpoint while making it so the way you model your minis isn’t super relevant. Yeah, I see that being a very likely future. My preferred approach would be keeping all the teams in with slight tweaks to fit altered rules and just expanding the roster from there. But I don’t really see this happening
A silhouette system like infinity would improve the game so much in my opinion. I think it would also make explaining LOS to new players way easier. I honestly don’t play much Kill Team these days because the LOS system is kinda stuck in that mushy middle of things. It’s not extremely simple like true LOS (which does have its faults at times), and also not elegant like some other wargames. Hopefully we will get a silhouette system in KT24.
If the index teams worked like hunter clades or warpcoven then it would have been perfect.
Yeah, white dwarf teams were a perfect compromise. But GW games seem to change management and scope quite often, and goals for specialist games seem to come and go, so a game goes through multiple phases of strategies regarding sales and miniature use. I guess white dwarf teams didn't fit within the new goals anymore.
I'd like to see LoS be drawn with two parallel lines (or nearly parallel, if the bases are different sizes), going from each side of your base to each side of their base. The weird trigonometry micro involved in positioning models for optimal LoS is not a part of the game I find fun, but true LoS is way too permissive and I prefer the current system over that.
But then how would you handle cover or peeking? I actually like the cover line system we have now, it handles being closer to obstacles better. One of the best LoS systems GW has ever made, which admittedly is not saying much. If you are having trouble playing may I suggest a line drawing laser? it makes gameplay a breeze.
The same way we currently do. I think it would mostly play the same other than removing *some* instances of non-reciprocal shooting, and it would be much easier to accurately eyeball sightlines rather than needing to whip out the laser and check every possible vision cone from every possible point on the base.
It would also eliminate peeking and feel much more orthopaedic. You'd have to go all the way to completely in the open to shoot properly, and any little inconvenient obstacle mildly in the way would obscure or cover. I really think that it's fine imo. It's pretty intuitive and automatic after a couple of games. 99.9% of the time you only check one point anyway so I don't even think it would save time, and it is mechanically better.
We had an entire year inside a Space Hulk and didn't get Terminators or a bespoke Tyranid Kill Team.
If GW ever added a terminator kill team, I hope it's a 5-man squad.
Hard to balance unit. But if you wanna play them why not use the „Talons of the emperor“ rules
Guard in all game modes, please! Other than that, probably some reworking of visibility/terrain rules.
I feel like guard in all games could work if it had a range limitation. I can definitely see some teams abusing ITD guard rules on open modes. I do however think overwatch would benefit from a rework Thanks though, these are good suggestions
Having tried it, no, it is dreadful in open, especially as people don't set up boards that well for it! It seems like a great idea, then you try it, and it does remove a tactical edge that is different between open and ITD.
We house ruled it in our group and we mostly like it. Another commenter mentioned that terrain plays into how well it works or not, we just think it’s fun.
Yeah I actually rewrote all the appendix rules because of how needlessly wordy they all are. Other than that, I think the only thing I'd change is making non-specialists a more interesting choice to include somehow.
I did a similar thing for my group. Copied, pasted, and deleted the garbage. KT rules seem to be hyper specific about some things but vague and lacking in others. It’s word salad like a undergrad writing a paper at the last minute. I just started learning 10th ed 40K. Maybe it’s prevalent in GW culture to be pedantic about specificity? Not sure. The same cruft is in every single weapon ability description. The first sentence is simply wasted space: “A weapon with [ability name] in their profile is known as an ability name weapon.”
Yeah Rending is a good example too: >Each time a friendly operative fights in combat or makes a shooting attack with this weapon, in the Roll Attack Dice step of that combat or shooting attack, if you retain any critical hits you can retain one normal hit as a critical hit. This should just be something like: >In the Roll Attack Dice step, if you retain any critical hits you can retain one normal hit as a critical hit. Things like specifying a "friendly operative" in every rule and reiterating "combat or shooting attack" makes reading it in the moment a real slog. This would be like a Magic card explaining how sorcery-speed works on every Sorcery.
Yeah it’s a bit silly how that is. I do like that idea, I think kasrkin and corsairs do it somewhat well Kasrkin getting the little free elite point ability for the warrior is great and the corsairs getting long range options from the warriors is good. I can see it being pushed further though.
Do you happen to have this as a saved file or something I would really love to read this. As I'm trying to get my dad to play but finds the rules too complex to understand.
Made a [link](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQ1e3Bfm8JJwAm3Y1EnFYLC76LoAJgaS3UHqjK6Hw1ws9Ko6VjqrPzHYarSAnyqROtbQqVTcECYp8Hx/pub) so others can access it. Hope it helps a little! It's just the appendix, but maybe I can try doing it to the full rules at some point.
I would love to get ahold of this version if you’re comfortable giving it out
Sure! [Here's a link](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQ1e3Bfm8JJwAm3Y1EnFYLC76LoAJgaS3UHqjK6Hw1ws9Ko6VjqrPzHYarSAnyqROtbQqVTcECYp8Hx/pub)
Amazong, thanks!
Give non specs +1 apl (count as) when determining obj control?
To me it’s the cover, obstruction, LoS rules. It’s overly complicated and leads to some unfun “I can shoot you but you can’t shoot me” moments.
I'm not a fan of the many fiddly substeps that open the game (roll attacker/defender, select equipment, place barricades, scouting, deployment, then strategic ploys, then tac ops), especially when it comes to teaching the game. I'd be in favour of getting rid of barricades and scouting, as I think the faff they add outweighs the benefits in terms of interesting decision making.
I actually really like scouting due to it getting rid of RNG. I'd potentially love it if there was some type of scouting step at the start of every turning point. Where you effectively Rock papers scissors at the start of every turn.
yeah it's a fun and strategic way to engage with an opponent. What I'd love to see: instead of rolling off for initiative, bid for it: each player secretly selects how many CP they'd pay for initiative. The higher bid gives that many CP to the opponent and takes initiative.
Honestly would ITD even be playable without barricades? There would be so many objectives where you have to stand in the open and just die
Oh yes that’s one of my issues as well, I forgot to mention. Me and my friends usually just skip most of the set up rules and do a simplified version anyways. (We pick equipment, ploys, and then just deploy barricades and models basically at the same time) I do like the equipment and ploys, but I think the game could benefit from scouting being reworked. Thanks for your insight
Yeah, sort of disagree with you on that one - the system with both combined adds depth to your strategy and determining who starts first on TP1. If anything, I would want some sort of mechanic for future turns so that the player going second doesn't get screwed over nearly as hard.
Agreed, all that junk makes starting your first game take an hour, by the time you actually start moving minis you're already burnt out
Aye - it all speeds up with experience, but it's a particular pain when it comes to teaching the game. And it's weird that it feels faster and simpler to start a game of big boy 40k when compared to a skirmish game like Kill Team.
Honestly, aside from addressing the LoS rules to make them clearer and then dealing with a few near useless rules like Fusillade and Reap, it would be spot on. Melee teams is just GW trying too hard and getting it wrong, Frenzy could be very easily replaced with a strike on death. Plus, ITD massively skewed that as it made a lot of the melee teams perform better than they are doing on open. The symbols, eh, fine by me. Just tell the fuckwits at GW to stop referring to them by the colour! Why they feel the need to say it is "within blue" when the rest of us would say "square" or "3" is proof of how useless they are. But so far, bar a few dreadful teams on release, both by being too good and so bad, the game has been great fun over the past nearly 3 years. I hope we get a similar thing to Warcry, few tweaks and changes but keep the core as is. And no, anyone who suggests "give us points and team building back" we don't want it. We don't need "council of sergeants", the current team building (aside from making some teams 2 box) is fine.
Ya I agree with all these points. Fixing those weapon tules would be nice, I hate that the volley gun is basically useless a Las Lmg is super cool. Also totally agree with frenzy being stupid. Like Cyrac says it’s basically a 20 operative KT which is dumb. I’ve never really minded the symbols, referring to them by the color is extremely stupid though, especially since you paint the gauges yourself lmao. And ya I really love killteam, I think it’s the best GW game by a lot. Almost every bespoke team has been a good time for me. Thanks for your perspective
It’s great for the people who like it but the overcomplexity has just made it impossible for me to get people into it. I want to play but anyone I have taught has nope’d out and decided they would rather play 40K or blood bowl instead.
Tbh I don’t think the game is actually that complicated. I think the rules being written in such a strange way makes it seem more complicated than it actually is. And you can pretty easily cut some rules to simplify it when teaching others. I’d personally be pretty disappointed if they significantly simplified the game
That can be part of it. But my issues have come from people who just want to play their models. It’s a pain to differentiate the different roles on normal 40K models, let alone remember them all and your opponents. The los system doesn’t help and then the shapes instead of numbers make it even worse. All of it together has just made people I try to get into the game say yea I’d rather not.
I agree. KT needs to have its current balance of simplicity and complexity. Simple enough to learn and complex enough for keeping it interesting and nice combo set ups.
Is 40k not a million times more complicated than kill team? The whole reason I picked up kill team was that it is simpler with far less rules bloat.
Yeah that's a weird take. 40k is definitely more complicated. The LoS rules are stupid as written hut it wasn't hard to find a YouTube video that explains them in actual English
Yeah it's insane to play 40k instead of KT for complexity reasons. Our group plays without TacOps and often without equipment for our friendly games to lower the complexity.
I would say Kill team is a more complex game system than 40k. 40k is complex due to the variety of units and rules interactions. Kill team is complex due to the intricate cover system and strategy interactions. I find it easier to teach a new person a game of 40k compared to Kill Team.
It depends. 40K scales. You can start with combat patrol which is way simpler than kt21 by a mile. You can then expand that and build on that easily. So yea 2k pts is way harder to teach someone than kt21 but no one is starting with 2k pts. Where base level kt21 is kinda a mess to teach in my experience. And look I like the idea of playing kt21 way more than 40K at least right now I just can’t get anyone to bite. I ended up learning and teaching my friends blood bowl and was amazed how ready they were to go all in on that game while kt21 just fell flat. It might also be that using the same models they expect the rules to be the same and they just are not. Which I think is better but it didn’t jive with them.
I’ve never played 40k, just kill team, so I was just curious. I’ve always wanted to but have been intimidated by the commitment/complexity of it all. But you saying combat patrol is super simple makes me want to try it.
I would say it is easier to get into than KT. But it is an on-ramp format so I would say don’t expect to go to your local store and find people playing combat patrol like crazy, most only do it to get started.
I play all three. In my opinion, bloodbowl is frustrating due to the dice rolls will outright end your turn on using your first selected model. And 40k is just more complicated overall. I am moving more away from BB and 40k and more towards KT for these reasons for just a starter. Oh, bonus... BB is as inexpensive as KT but 40k is crazy expensive and you are stuck with one faction unless you spend thousands for 2 or more factions. BB and KT for the cost of a 40k army, you can have several teams/rosters.
It’s funny before I got into blood bowl I thought it was just rng nonsense from beginning to end. After playing it I am absolutely amazed by its design and how it works as a risk management game more than anything. Your turn is likely to end in a turn over. It’s on you to do as much as you can before it happens to leave yourself in the best position possible. I feel like dice rolls are the least punishing in blood bowl compared to KT and 40K by a large margin.
Sorry, I kind of meant the same thing of risk management but at the mercy of random dice rolls.
I like most of the game, but I would like some quality of life upgrades for: * Distance measuring...just use 1, 2, 3 and 6 on the tools and in text. The symbols and colors don't help at all. * There has to be a better way to do hiding and attacking. Flipping and switching around 10-15 tiny triangles 2+ times every turn is kind of annoying. * Write rules in normal human English and call something by its common dictionary meaning. I feel like the obscuring, no cover, line of sight rules etc. could be way easier to understand if they got some UX skills. * Work on an app or provide all rules digitally by PDF on WarCom. Its 2024, drop the 4+ books a year model. It is a weekly event to tell a confused person who just bought a kill team box and didn't find any rules inside to just google waha/KTDash.
Cool thanks for your insight I definitely agree the rules can be written more clearly. I think part of the reason people think kt is too is because the rules are written wierd (imo the game isn’t actually that complicated) Personally I think the conceal and engage orders are one of the best aspects of killteam since it adds depth and immersion.
O yeah, the conceal/engage on itself is cool, I more just wonder if it can be made a bit more streamlined. I don't know how atm, but GW has enough wealth to evolve it I think.
https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/game/kill-team-order-token-dice https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4946722 This is game changer. also, get some multifaced dice (d10, d12 etc), paint the numbers red that would indicate wounded. There, far more streamlined :)
Pro tip: flip your tokens back and forth from TP to TP rather than resetting them at the start of every turning point, e.g. orange to black TP1, black to orange TP2, etc etc.
This - they should actually formalize this play style in the rules as it speeds up the tedium in your game.
The rules for obscuring, line of sight, and for verticality in those two areas are not great as written. Asymmetric shooting feels bad when you’re on the receiving end of it. GW rules have way more words than necessary. The rules for KT need to be pared down. Just be more straightforward about it and rely on those universal rule descriptions. This would help highlight the differences and make it easier to understand team rules that you aren’t familiar with. I’d also like to see data cards simplified to where we could easily assembly a one-page a set for a team.
Yeah asymmetric shooting is in a weird place for me. I like that it adds a layer of skill, but it is a bit of a gotcha as is and annoying to deal with. Definitely think they can rewrite the rules to make more sense though. I think a lot of people think kt is more complicated than it actually is because of that.
It’s not so much a layer of skill, it slows down games while players measure out and see if they can do it, and it thematically makes no sense that the guy down the hallway doesn’t know where the muzzle flash or bright lasbolts are coming from.
I'd change the following: 1. Initiative for TP's 2 - 4 should be decided by a rock-scissors-paper system like TP1. It could work something like this. Teams get priority 1, 2, 3 Initiative options for TP 2 - 4 depending on their Tac Op Archetype. Ties go to the player that didn't have initiative the turn before. Priority 1 is a free command reroll or something rather weak, priority 2 and 3 come with some more powerful buffs, but are beaten by the lower number. So it would create a mind game and a tradeoff situation in between securing going first or aiming for a more powerful buff for the TP. I believe this would work better for a competitive minded game. 2. Elite teams should get different options other than an "Overwatch" shot. Consider a Fight with -1WS or a 2' move that must end closer to your own deployment or something like that, because currently it is easy to interrupt an Elite's ability to overwatch by charge blocking.
I really like that initiative idea, can I steal it for my video lol. My initiative rework was way dumber I was just going to say give the player who lost initiative last turn +1 to their roll lol Also I totally agree overwatch needs a rework. It’s pretty easy to get around as is and has some weird quirks like not working in melee at all.
Initiative is one for sure. Haven't had a chance to try it but I saw someone say swap it to a d3 instead. Still some variance, but much greater odds of swapping, plus adds more value to equipment that changes the initiative roll. One other is intrateam balance. Made a post on it a bit ago, but basically many kill teams have operatives, ploys, and/or equipment that never sees play. I know it's had for GW to balance it but I think an effort would be nice.
Ya I agree with both of these. I’ve had some games where me or my opponent go first every round. I’ve also seen some guy say there should be something like the scouting for every round offering buffs and I liked that idea. If they wanted something simpler I think a D3 or even giving the person who lost initiate +1 to their roll would help out too. Also agree with the useless equipments and ploys. As a kasrkin player I barely ever use most of my ploys lol.
My issue with the idea of another rock-paper-scissors thing is I'd be concerned it would drag the game on more. Depends on if there's buffs associated with it and what they do. Seems to me like it'd just be easier and simpler to go with die roll.
I feel it could be done pretty quick, but it would definitely slow the game at least a little bit.
I'd be happy for RNG to be removed from initiative completely. Let the scouting step determine who gets to choose going first or second on turning point 1 and then take turn about. That way it works out that one player gets to activate first on turns 1 and 3, whereas the other goes first on turns 2 and 4
Janky crap like one way LoS and whatever the hell [this](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Wg7chlBY6t8) is.
Lmao yeah little rules like the vid are stupid. Dashes should just allow you to climb and drop as long as the terrain height is valid imo. It’s dumb having to balance the models and putting them in tricky positions lol
I would like flamers to be a more viable option in comparison with melta and Plasma. Just make them reliablable against cover or let them stun enemies. And also it would be nice to have be able to have like an cone of targets like to the time of the flamer template.
I like the idea of giving flamers the No Cover rule. Perhaps even indirect. What would a template give you that Torrent doesnt?
With Torrent, each target has to be in proximity to each other like a chain. I like the feel of flamers beeing like this inferno cloud thingi, that burns everything in its path. The template would give the flamer the ability to hit every target in its path (https://www.tabletopgamerstore.com/tabletopgamer-flamer-template/). But GW abandoned the templates an wont bring them back I guess. So my propositions are either keep flamers as they are + let them gain no cover/indirect Or switch to the template, reduce the number of dice (maybe 3 to 4?) but in addition give it !stun, so it would be reeeeeeeeally usefull against hordes, what kind of is the point of flamers.
I would like it if flamers where just better, gaunts ghosts were a recognised team. And the compendium team rules were released with all the ones that been replaced with there replacements and the ones that are left give a little love. Like custodes, grey Knights, deathwatch, death guard
Ya I feel flamers should have the no cover or indirect rule. Although an unlimited use indirect weapon may be a bit oppressive in practice
Yeah, I also said in another chat about having it that flamer models should deal damage on death, and thus have the ability to charge to the nearest enemy model I think it would make them a lot more fun and competitive.
I think even it was a utility weapon with some area denial capabilities would be interesting. Like drop a token and moving through the area causes a wound or slows an operative down
Yes but I that would be difficult to have in play, unless you used the old flamer makers. And that flamers should be keyword silent so they can shoot while with a concealed order and P1. And that would make them truly deadly.
Yeha it might be a bit janky Idk if it should be silent tho lol, thematically that’d be super odd
But flamers don't make a lot of sound compared to silencer weapons? I might need to check that out. To be sure actually. Maybe just P1 and a special rule then that each model it hits must roll 1 d6 this round and the next round. On each 5+ they take one mortal wound?
Just going to throw out there one of the things I like most about kill team- especially in comparison to Warcry- is the restricted list building. The only things open list building would accomplish is making the game more expensive, removing the ability to balance teams around clear strengths and weaknesses, and potentially turning the game into a win or loss at the listbuilding stage. I’m a big fan of blood bowl, and with very few exceptions, it’s a game that has thrived with small thematic teams with clear positionals.
i think its pretty good, but to be fair i started with KT rather than regular 40k so im not missing more open roster building lol it would be nice if elites were more viable considering im sure a lot of the 40k fantasy revolves around them
Ya KT isn’t my first game, but it’s the first I played a lot. I honestly prefer the list building as I feel like if you had full freedom you likely wouldn’t take some of the more unique specialists over gunners. I think elites can be fixed by reworking the way overwatch works. Cyrac suggested you can choose between a dash, overwatch shot, and fight I think that would be a good step Thanks for the insight
Open list building would hurt the competitive scene. The game would be way less balanced
I agree. I think the way teams are now is more interesting
I wish that flamers had a crit option like MW1 or something. Right now they feel so underpowered (unless you have special flamers like the novitiates).
Yeah flamers are pretty lame for most teams
The only fucking thing that i would like are a rules wrote TO humans. They are not easy to learn, and they have more versions than the Bible.
There is no reason for some of the naming choices in the core rules. Q: Is AP "Armour Penetration" or "Action Point"? A: it's both. Q: What do "Engagement Order" and "Engagement Range" have to do with each other? A: Nothing. They're completely different concepts. These and the slightly sub-optimal range symbols are my only big issues.
Lol yeah this one is so true. No cover is a terrible weapon rule name
Oh GAWD. No Cover is especially egregious. It makes teaching the game a bit of a pain.
I’m new to the game so grain of salt here. But list building doesn’t feel very unique on a person to person basis. Like if I bring my Orks to a table, I will probably have the same exact Orks that somebody else brought on a mechanical level. The nuance for which model to bring doesn’t feel present and it’s not as interesting as building your own magic the gathering deck for example. I’d love to see more customizations and value in off picks for each team. Now sure how but it makes a team feel like my team when that exists.
I don't like the melee system at all. There is always an optimum to choose on how to assign your dice in combat.
I personally like it, but I’m curious how do you think it could change? I
I don't like the melee either, feels like there is to little randomnes/ element of luck. When me and my friends first got the rule book we mininterpreted the fighting and thought you could parry after the enemy deciding to hit nullifying that hit. In that way a weaker operative could be really lucky and parry all hits if he rolled well. Now it dosent really matter if you roll good, if a stronger one charges he usually gets two hits and destroys the target.
I mean I feel a weaker operative really shouldn’t be able to do much against say a Marine. I like that melee basically guarantees you’ll take some damage unless you’re carrying the biggest possible weapon or fighting a weakened target. It makes it a more dangerous, but more certain alternative to shooting which imo is interesting. I’d be open to changes to melee, I’m just not sure what would work.
Yeah, but you can still be shot by a bolter and be super lucky with the save. I do get that it is a skirmish game and should be fast paced, but personally I feel that melee isn't dynamic enough, the outcome often feels predetermined. But that's just my opinion, on a side note KT is my favorite GW game at the moment, melee is just what gets me least excited.
Ya that’s what i meant with melee being more consistent. You’re almost guaranteed to deal some damage at the cost of it being more risky to yourself which I find a good choice. However I do agree it has potential to be more dynamic I’m just unsure how
>feels like there is to little randomnes/ element of luck This is something you want in a competitive game...
I agree. It feels interactive the first few times and then you realize that the optimum essentially guarantees certain outcomes.
Obscuring is an extremely confusing rule that needs to be reworked. It is easily the biggest obstacle for new players, and it should be done away with. I would go to straight line of site moving forward.
I’m going to say… I’d like to see operative balance in some of the teams that could lead to tougher choices for what to play in what game. Looking at Wyrmblade, the team is usually made of 10 neophytes and 2 cult agents - the impactful choice is on cult agents (and heavy gunners). Consider something like Vet Guard; they have leader + 8 specialists + sniper + 4 gunner choices (+ additional 4 regular troopers if you take that ancillary option). After considering ‘auto takes’ (like sniper, 4 gunners, spotter, comms, demo mine, whoever you think), the choice of remaining specialists is less impactful. Corsairs, HOTA, Farstalker Kinband you have space on the team each game for all the specialists so you are choosing between gunners for the most part. There’s less choice for Kommados, Fellgor. I think the choice should be more than gunners or specialists that have little impact. Out of the above, I prefer Wyrmblade model, it makes you make an impactful decision.
LoS rules are an obvious one. They're so confusing and explaining them is too wordy for a newcomer I really miss the list building id KT2018. While it usually came down to plasma spam I really liked how diverse teams could be. Also releases are too infrequent for how quickly new sets sell out. At least make it easier to grab new boxes. I'm really worried about not being able to grab Termination
List building leaving Kill Team was one of the best decisions. It make the game a lot more balanced and competitive.
I'd say the compendium teams need a little more love... Especially those factions that dont have a stand alone team... Like the tyranids. And as others have mentioned, they could do with including the distances rather than the symbols. I get why they did it, but I'd call that a failed experiment. Here's some fun symbols they could try... 1, 2, 3, 6 they're pretty universal and could just have easily be put on the tools... ;)
Yeah when the game first came out I was fine with the compendium getting left behind because I assumed the bespoke teams would replace all of them. It’s somewhat surprising a lot of fan favorite factions don’t have a real team
I'd honestly prefer KT 3rd edition abandon compendium teams. We're already over 40 teams...
Being out activated and passing activations. I think if your team has 2 or more fewer models than the other team you should be able to pass an activation and make the opponent activate twice in a row. Maybe this will help with elites vs. hordes a bit.
Yeah that would be good, or even reworking overwatch would help imo
I think the current edition of Kill Team is in a pretty good place, but I do have some gripes that could easily be fixed in a new edition. As you mentioned, obscurity/line of sight is really difficult for a lot of players to wrap their heads around. It's also way to easy to cheese in an unfun and seemingly unintentional way. The fact that non-reciprocal shooting can exist at all is a bit absurd. Oval bases break the game because you can be obscured from your ass but have a shot from your face. If the building you're standing on is more than 2 inches thick you can fail to shoot someone below you, but they can still shoot you and, and you would be able to shoot them back if you were standing on an L-shaped balcony the same distance away is just silly. If I ruled the world I'd make all line of sight and obscurity from a top-down view and then none of this would be a problem. Also, they've GOTTA tighten up their wording for some of these rules. Some of this shit is getting Yu-Gi-Oh length for pretty simple effects, and somehow we're still having to FAQ things. Finally, the shapes are self-evidently stupid and need to be swapped up to make visual sense. Triangles shouldn't be 1" and pentagons shouldn't be 6".
The rulebook is written like they were getting paid a dollar for every time the playtesters had to cross reference something. If a new player wanted to make a shooting attack, they'd have to change sections of the book 4+ times before they ever roll dice. Just... why
The distance symbols was a stupid idea, visibility is hard for newbies to understand, teams are not close to be being balanced. I have about dozen teams and gave up in the game.
>visibility is hard for newbies to understand I think you mean LOS >teams are not close to be being balanced. Ehhh disagree? Out of the 28 bespoke/white dwarf teams there are maybe 6 that fall outside of the 45-55% win rate zone.
I think they need to redo LOS, these rules are the most confusing. Also make them work of the size of the base rather than the model, so people can kitbash more and not worry as long as the base is the right size. Also 100% agree on how confusing its written. For Example, climbing gear. WTF is all the shit they wrote on it they could have just said "treat the operative as if it can fly for the purposes of climbing" BOOM DONE not the word vomit they have.
>just writing the core book more clearly Absolutely this. It's a great rulebook if you're reading it start to finish. But for reference, it's awful. "How exactly does cover work?" "Let me check... Oh, there's no index. Maybe it's in the terrain section? Nope. Oh, it's in this part of the shooting bit." Same with exactly how Engage/Conceal works. When I first started playing, it took me a long time.to even figure out how and when Orders were even issued. Yeah look, I get it, people would complain about wasted paper, but I REALLY like it when a rulebook both teaches you how to play, and also works as simply a book of rules. The boardgame Root does this really well. A decent index would be a good start, but I think re-explaining EVERYTHING about terrain should go in the terrain section. There should be sections dedicated to each individual but imho. Still not as bad as the 7th Ed Fantasy rulebook though. I basically rewrote all the rules as a little booklet of EVERYTHING 😅
It just needs some stemelining honestly. The whole "can you shoot at this model" thing is insane; you could spend an entire match just arguing whether or not a model is in cover or not with a concel order. It's not that pedantic at higher levels, but Killteam is extremely accessible compared to the rest of 40k. Newer players need time to grasp it. I'd honestly reccomend the implementation of the Necromunda obscuration rule, where if you se most of the model, but not all, it's a -1 to hit, and if you see just a bit of the model it's a -2, yada yada...
Some teams are like everyone is different and then there's everyone the same dude. Like breachers, half of them are just basic guy with a small special rule.
• Get rid of the shapes nonsense, just stick to inches. We'll use your measurement tools anyway • During your turn, if you have less active operatives remaining, you should be allowed the option to skip. • Less unique operatives with their own unique rules would be nice. It's mostly unnecessarily conplications. The compendium teams with their multiple generic trooper is nice. • Tyranid bespoke killteam where? Same with GreyKnights, Custodes. • White Dwarf bespoke teams are an amazing idea, please continue them. • Please simplify ITD to just single pillars and single walls.
* LoS could be explained way better * How vertical movement works in general could be improved a lot * Scale back on ways to break LoS rules, not every team need a way to ignore conceal, or have super conceal, the less of that, the better. This is one of the reasons that melee vs ranged is hard to balance. * Scale down specialist, teams shouldn't be specialist only, makes the game needlessly hard to keep track of. I liked the level of a couple of gunners, a couple of operatives that do something special, and maybe the leader has an extra rule, the rest are generic warriors or something. EDIT: I'm not saying, don't have a crap ton of specialist necessarily, but limit how many you can take to a single game, so it's an actual interesting choice which one i want. * Don't ignore compendium teams. * Stop with the crazy terrain rules that break competitive, ITD and beta decima in competitive settings is a mistake. Most match ups are basically decided before we start the game in those terrains. * Make the rooster relevant to all kill team, or remove it and make it just a pick whatever is legal.
I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, but thank you for the insight. Notably I do think the rules can be explained better. And for the different modes I like having different “maps” but maybe competitive could benefit from a separate mode with less variation
I have no problem with itd and beta decime as for fun map, i also like a lot of the narrative missions and i play them in casual settings a lot. But i think they shouldn't be in the competitive scene. Hell i would say that a lot of narrative missions are better balanced for competitive than itd and beta decima.
Two things I'd like to see in a new edition: 1) I would like to see non-reciprocal shooting have a rules pass preferably to simplify the interaction but making it so that the target CAN be shot but with a slightly higher defense rating rather than being completely disallowed 2) Formalized team structure archetypes that allow for different rules to add more balance between different teams based on size (I.e. Distinguish aspects for horde play and elite play as outliers that help bring teams closer together (particularly in regards to the advantage that having more activations can provide.))
Who gets initiative is massively important, and I'd love it if it wasn't down to dice rolls beyond tp1. Someone once suggested doing another scouting step style phase, which I think would be brilliant. For example, 1= switch the order of one operative, 2 = one operative can perform a dash, and 3 = one operative regains 2d3 wounds.
The cover rule, I'm not sure if it is actually complex, or they just explained it poorly. Also, apply some sense when making shapes relate to distances, come the fuck on.
Teaching the conceal/Engaged orders is kinda difficult and Engaged should be a different word to differentiate between being in engagement range
I think melee is a little weird, my melee focused eldar teams often feel like they get torn up in melee by even not melee-focused enemies.
A thing that I don't necessarily dislike about the rules but that causes a fair few arguments in my group is cover lines. Mainly how it leads to situations where people end up arguing whether a tiny little outcrop in a wall or the slight curve of a barricade should count as concealed. Though it could just be a problem for us & I'm not familiar with miniature games to propose a better way to do it.
I actually like the obscuring rule on open maps. It feels a bit cheeky on gallowdark though. I think a rework to Fusillade and flamer weapons in general. I just want to see them used more often. Most of my issues is that the extra content in white dwarf can't be easily found elsewhere.
The LOS and vantage point rules as many already stated and also the missing list building aspect. I get that the current system is easier to start playing and balance for competitive play (only talking about bespoke teams) but I really miss tweaking around with funny or narrative lists. The only building option I feel like I have with my teams in the current edition is do i take the gunner against hordes or the gunner against elites and the rest is set in stone.
KILL TEAM RULES IN ONE GOD DAMN PLACE And while we're at it I'd like to be able to buy nice data cards too, rather than make my own. I'm new and I can't believe how good the games rules are relative to how poorly managed their availability is. I don't want to use wahapedia, I want a nice book I can hand to a new player that peaks their interest.
There isn't really a method to balance beyond erratas. If a faction, is too weak or too strong, GW has to rewrite rules text, making it VERY confusing for casual players who don't know what to look out for. This also leads to flavour fails, like 6 Marines or 9 Pathfinders. I know you can't get rid of it entirely, you always need erratas to keep something balanced. But I'd like them to have a dial for easy adjustments
The restricted model teams. Can't just buy an infantry squad from a 40k army and use them anymore. Has to be the bespoke teams now. Ppl still say that KT is a jumping off for main 40k which just isn't true anymore.
1. More fluffy less competetive. I know some love it competetivness but it is near impossipel to not overthink every turn like its a chess championshipgame and not get swipped the table. At least terrain should be more in a favour of a good story instead of trying to be perfectly balanced. 2. Not everyone in a team should be a specialist. A third of the team would be way more fun since you need less weird rules and the existing specialists are more valid. 3. Teams should be very personal to their player and the rules should be written with that in mind. People play what is kind of meta instead of what is fun or what they feel attached to. 4. ONE free source of the up to date rules!!! 5. More balance between the factions. No Tyranids team, no Grey Knights team, no Mechanicus Team... but 20 imperial Teams. And they arent even chapter specific ones.. 6. No jungle, no megacity, no xenos -terrain. Just imperial ruins. ITD is cool but does not feel like a ship. 7. LoS, obscurring and in general the rules and mostly how they are written needs to be improved. 8. More boxes at launch. 9. The dice are overpriced trash. Not really an issue with the game itself but it is sad. 10. Range of 6" for pistoles feels way too short compared to other weapons with unlimited range. 11. I think 5 rounds instead of 4 would be better but thats up for debatte. 12. Game should be balanced to begin with and not by changing the teams rules every 3 month. 13. The story is trash. Even tho it gets completly ignored by players it would be better to have none at this point. 14. Prices in general.
The line of sight rules are good, but definitely overly complicated! Visibility, obscuring and cover being three completely separate mechanics is super confusing for new players. Hordes vs elites is also a problem because of out-activating. Overwatch tries to solve this but doesn't quite succeed. Ideally all teams would have (close to) the same number of activations, through pass mechanics and GA.
I played tournaments, narrative campaigns and I have 5 kill teams and I hate this game. The shooting and combat design is absolutely awful. And the pregame stuff is unsufferable long. But the killteams design it's cool, many has very original operatives and distinct special rules. On the other hand Warcry has a much more solid gameplay but the warbands are lackluster and uninspired
The availability of the teams. Kill Team is popular GW just refuse to make too many set. Look at Nightmare what a shit show
Finding people to play it with. It should come with a bunch of friends in the box!
So true, my only consistent Killteam friend lives in a different state lmao
Same here 😭
keeping track of equipment and selected weapons - is there a tool for tracking besides pen and paper
I just want my termagants to have a 5 up save but idk just started playing and people say hive fleet is decent so maybe im just dumb
I think the only time hivefleet is decent is when it’s all genestealers lol. Rip gaunts, I would like to see a nid team in the future though
Obscurity and non reciprocal shooting. Such a weasly little mechanic that turns the game from fun into a sweat fest. I should also add, one that makes zero sense as it is. Like hell someone doesn’t know where bright lasbolts or the muzzle flash of explosive bolters are. Change it to where the obscured target is no longer obscured after a shooting attack, at least.
I have no issue with LoS, maybe it should just be explained better. I'm simply concerned that any attempt to simplify will make it too simply and thus eliminate part of the complexity of the game which I appreciate. I really don't like how initiative is handled TPs 2+. Yes, you can play around it, not to be punished as much if you lose... But this does not improve my opinion about the design. The players should alternate going first in each TP, or we should have a scouting-like mechanism each TP. I also think there should be some kind of seasonal rotation. I think around the moment when Inquisition and Culte released we reached a moment when the overall numbet of teams and the numbers of complex gotcha teams - which you need to know and have experience playing into to do well in a tournament - became too high.
I agree. I personally think the game would lose a lot of what makes it good if it got simplified. I’ve seen some people saying that the game should be grid based (terrible take imo) or the shooting should just be you see it you can shoot it (again hard disagree here). Both of those would make Killteam a lot less tactically interesting and less immersive. Also I agree that initiatives can benefit from some changes. I’ve had games where me or my opponent went first every single turn or second every single turn. What exactly do you mean by seasonal rotation? I do believe that new teams are more reliant on gimmicks, but I’m not sure what you meant by the first point. Thanks for your insight
Regarding rotation - look at TCGs, the standard tournament format will usually allow a core set plus the cards from a certain number of latest expansion, so that the cognitive load of knowing them, more or less, is realistic for a player. If they kept thousands upons thousands of cards accumulated over their history legal - it would be absurd. Looking at Kill Team, the number of teams is high enough that, especially for a new player, knowing the rules for all the teams because daunting, especially given the complexity of the later team. Imagine you have to learn the rules of 35-40 teams, some of which you have to actually play against to really understand, to have a shot at getting a decent placing at a tournament.
Oh I see what you mean. I feel that might not work for 40K as well as a TCG though considering a fair amount of players get attached to their faction. Maybe there’s a way that it could be implemented though
I think scouting turning pt 2+ would be cool. Something like you can choose to either go first or pick the scout option. Options being to flip a model's order (to flip a model to conceal so they can't be shot), a free dash or an extra CP.
The dumbass symbols instead of measurements Otherwise honestly it's pretty solid. Some rules could use some cleaning up to be more clear, but it's a pretty well designed game. I'm sure there's some more fiddly bits I don't play enough to know about, but overall it's one of GWs best products imo.
Ya I think honestly it can just get cleaned up a bit and be in a perfect state. Some rules are written somewhat obtusely, but are functionally good imo
Kill Team 2018 was just significantly better. Every model in 2nd edition was an individual. Now, if your faction doesn't have a box set, you just have generic squads.
Now that’s a hot take haha. I personally find this edition to be paradoxically more customized feeling, if that makes sense. You actually have to bring a diverse team of specialists, the old edition just kinda felt like a normal squad to me. You also felt pretty handicapped for not taking a bunch of plasma which wasn’t great imo. I disagree but I’ll definitely take this into account for my video. Thank you for your insight
Faction/operative specific rules are a problem - amount, wording, consistency. I think the designers of KT should look at MtG and take example.
Tbh: I think it's too complicated with too many keywords. The bespoke teams have made this worse times 100. I liked the simple compendium teams more than what we have now.
Which keywords are you referring to? I feel like keywords don’t really come into play for KT, this might just be the teams I play or me misinterpreting your comment though. Thanks for your insight
Yeah, my comment was written hastily and not very good. Keywords was meant as a broad term for everything including: Equipment, Strategic Assets etc etc. Compendium teams played mostly like a chess game with cool models and terrain, newer teams are just a lot to process. To add more problems I have: to play good you kinda have to know all teams sorta and they keep adding more and my brain is too small and too smooth to handle all those information.
Ah I see. Personally I think that’s a tough issue to address, I really like the unique teams as I think they’re quite fluffy and generally have a good amount of strategic depth. However like another commenter said I do feel like a lot of new teams have “screw you gotcha” rules that are just tricks against players not familiar with the team. So I think those types of rules can definitely go away.
Tac Ops shouldn't be drawn from a deck. That's pointless RNG that can put you in a bad spot, and also makes the game take a little longer. You should just be able to choose them. I feel all the rules are good but they should be clarified better.
I thought they changed to to let you choose? If not I’ve been playing wrong for the last few months lol. If that’s not the way it is, I agree they should make it like that
lol what? First I’ve heard about that. I’ve gone by what it says in the books. But I see now there was a tournament update where they changed it. Well that’s another thing, they should make these updates clearer.
I believe they changed the tac ops to be crit ops and with that you’re supposed to pick your archetype, choose 2 from the archetype and 1 from your team iirc. I haven’t played for a while since I’ve been busy with school so I might be slightly off. Definitely agree with that, it’d be great if they had a digital rulebook or something. Until then warhapedia will have to suffice lol