Kill Team - Command Roster

[MasterDeath]

To understand the Command Rooster I have a few questions:

 

- In my first game of a campaign I choose 100 p. of models following the battleforged rules

- In my second game I can use models from the first game (experienced models) and/or completely fresh models unless they are models of a Fireteam I already have. (then I would use the "add to Fireteam" rules)

- There is no limitation for the models on my command Rooster. I could have every Specialism 2 times + 5 leader and 20 Gunners

- But my Killteam for a mission has to follow battle forged

 

At first I hard somewhere that you couldnt add new specialists after one died, but according to p. 203 I can. If thats the correct way to play it, please GW make a Designers Note about this. Took me over a week to find it 

 

In addition: How do you guys use the command rooster? A few high level models or many lower level ones for more flexibility?

[Orpheus108]

Your command roster is 12 guys of various make up, and you can have multi leaders, sniper, comms and so forth.

 

Then if your playing campaign battle forged, you choose your 100pt kill team from that list. Next game you can sideline some or none and choose new models for the next game.

 

Pg. 203 first column, at the bottom Campaign Command Roster.

 

For non-campaign, your command roster is 20 guys and you can choose your team from that pool.

 

EDIT:

 

One of the things that they recommend is maybe as your specialists go up in level, you can increase the points from 100 to 150 or maybe 200. A two hundred point game would maybe be for all your specialists are level 4

[MasterDeath]

Whats the point of a command rooster for non-campaign games? Isnt that the maximal numbers of models in a Killteam? (re-read: no, you are right) For tournaments? (Actually that would be an interesting twist for a tournament, if you have to manage a command rooster and could lose models) 

 

So:

 

- I choose up to 12/20 models for the command rooster, no limitations here except faction keyword

- mission is determined via roll or agreement

- I pick up to 100 points of models from my command rooster following killteam-limitations. In this step I can choose new models that are not yet on my rooster with 0 experience or add models to a killteam. This also includes additional specialists.

- I could choose less then 100 points for extra CP

[Panzer]

Yes it's for tournaments and not for one-off games. It's basically a side-deck like in MTG or other TCGs.

[Juicemonger]

Pg 62 under Matched Play. It's basically for all games. Even one off matched play games. You and your opponent show each other your rosters. Then after the mission is chosen but before the game begins, you create a 100 point battleforged kill team. The game is balanced around well designed rosters that can adapt to different missions and match ups, not around a single take all comers 100 point team.

[Ioldanach]

It's basically for all games. Even one off matched play games. You and your opponent show each other your rosters. Then after the mission is chosen but before the game begins, you create a 100 point battleforged kill team. The game is balanced around well designed rosters that can adapt to different missions and match ups, not around a single take all comers 100 point team.

 

This is the correct answer.

 

Players don't have to build a complete command roster, and many players might start their "command roster" as nothing more than a 100-point kill team. The concept, though, is that the command roster represents the troops the commander has to pick from; and the kill team is selected from among those troops that the commander thinks are needed to execute the mission (based on the requirements of the mission, the terrain, and the opponent).

 

The command roster is actually a brilliant aspect to the game.

 

Playing Kill Team without a command roster is like a nation going to the Olympics with only ten athletes, each of those athletes having to participate in two dozen events even when they are not the best at those events. The command roster is like having sufficient athletes in terms of quantity and ability for each of the events. It's another layer of strategy to the game. and, as Juicemonger demonstrated, applicable to all styles of Kill Team play.

 

You can build a single kill team and hope that it does well against any opponent, but you'll do much better if you build a flexible command roster and tailor your kill teams based on your needs each mission.

 

<And it looks like I started composing this reply before Juicemonger edited his topic. ;) >

[UnkyHamHam]

So question: when building an Astartes CR, am I limited by the amounts of leaders and gunners? Or are those restrictions only there for deploying the team?

 

For instance, can I put two Tac Sergeants into my CR? One with auspex and one with a power fist. But only deploying one into a mission.

 

Another example is the Tac Gunner with special weapon. Can I take 4 of them in my CR, each with a different special weapon? Flamer, Grav, Plas, and Melta. Or am I seriously required to choose a single Tac Gunner special weapon equipped model for my CR, and subsequently, an entire narrative campaign should that be the case?

[Berzul]

you can put whatever you want on the command roster. You could make one with all leaders if you want.

But your TEAM for a match must be battle forged. One leader, 3-20 models, up to 3 specialists, one of each kind.

 

I gotta say, I started playing with just kill teams.

Yesterday I tried the command roster for the first time.

 

It works.

Man, it works as a mechanic.

It seems pretty non-consequential in the rules, but the way it works in defining your models after a mission is chosen, actually adds a lot to the game

[MasterDeath]

Basically you have to go away from thinking in teams towards thinking in roster terms. What missions are available? is there a mission that would make life hard for me? Can I add something to my roster to help me there?

[Berzul]

What I do think the Command Roster has as an issue, and I think is the one way that the game is going to face some issues down the line as it is played more and more, is variety.

 

Some factions have a wide variety of models and units to choose from, when making their Rosters and Teams. Orks, T'au, Imperial Guard, to name a few. You can make very varied and fun teams, with close to no resemblence between them, making your choices in picking models for a mission an exciting part of the game.

 

Others have very limited options, like Harlequins, Deathwatch, Grey Knights, to name some. Although their weapon options can be varied, their units are very restricted, giving you little options in terms of battle roles for each unit. They (can, or could, down the line) have a more narrow playstyle over multiple games.

 

Some, finally, have a somewhat balanced range of units and models. Adeptus Astartes, Chaos Space Marines, Death Guard, I think come most to mind. These factions have a bit of both the virtues of variety and the limitations of model types.

 

With this having been said, I can share what has been my experience with the Command Roster thus far.

 

It is indeed a good mechanic for the game. Makes the game feel more strategic, solves the issue of having to come up with that list that can face off against everything out there. Calms the senses as it gives you a sense of adaptability, where the team you bring is in your hands to be good, as you are not limited to showing up with a list that does one thing in a scenario that requires you do another.

 

To give an example of the difference this makes:

 

I played one scenario with no Command Roster. My list had 3 Sniper Scouts, 2 Heavy Weapon Scouts, and a Heay Weapon Tactical Marine, led by a Tactical Sergeant with Auspex and Pistol. But we rolled an Ambush scenario and I had to break through the board. With a static list. I got crushed in turn two.

 

Later, I played a scenario of Take Prisioners with a Command Roster. I saw the terrain, figured I had good vantage points no matter how I was deployed, so I decided to bring a team that was composed of 2 long range support units (a grenadier Intercessor and a Missile Launcher Marine, supported by a Comms Specialist), with a team of 3 tactical marines and a Power Sword and Plasma Pistol Leader to go hunt down the enemy under the cover fire of my heavy support squad. I had other units in the Roster, such as heavy bolters, more missiles, sniper rifles... but this fight was against tyranids, and I expected from my opponent's roster to be facing against genestealers and warriors specialized in combat, as the scenario was based around killing enemies up close. So I know heavy bolters and sniper rifles would be the weakes choice versus an accurate missile launcher, and some krak grenades.

 

And it did play like that. I forced my opponent to hunker down behind a large wall, as I took out his heavy support unit with missiles, and his gaunts with concentrated bolter fire from a flanking tactica team. He had to retreat so bad, he had no way to either shoot or assault me. It was great to see how the choice of models made a difference.

 

... BUT, and here is where I go back to my initial point, one has to admit that, in consecutive games, the weapon selection options and range of models for an Astartes team, for instance, becomes somewhat limited. I can already forsee how the game can get somewhat repetitive, in that sense, unless GW can provide some serious expansions to the game itself to keep it alive.

 

I think of this in comparisson to 40k. In 40k, any army has some core units you pretty much have as autotakes. But you have such a wide range of units and vehicles to choose from, no two armies have to be the same at all. The variety is huge. Kill Team takes a fraction of this, which necessarily means that the variety is reduced considerably. Without variety, the game can get repetitive. And with that, people can begin to fall out of love with it.

 

THinks I think that GW could do to improve upon the game, is both do a SMALL increase in the range of models one can take (i.e.: Astartes could maybe include ONE terminator in their lists, Guard could include ONE Bullgryn, Tyranids could include ONE Zeonthrope, and so on and so forth). Also, factions could be brought into Kill Team, to provide SMALL bonuses to specific units or playstyle (i.e.: Astartes could have chapter tactics, for instance).

[Disruptor_fe404]

Teams with fewer actual unit choices will realistically be able to to bring a greater percentage of their possible options than teams with more unit choices.

 

For example, a Grey Knight team can possibly fit a Combat specialist of every loadout as well as a psycannon gunner of every specialty into a Command Roster, while an Adeptus Astartes team will likely have to make tougher choices about what they bring.

 

While I doubt a Grey Knight team will bring every possible permutation of model on a roster, the option of doing so is a form of power in itself since it increases both potential counterplay for the player while forcing his opponents to account for more variables.

 

 

... BUT, and here is where I go back to my initial point, one has to admit that, in consecutive games, the weapon selection options and range of models for an Astartes team, for instance, becomes somewhat limited. I can already forsee how the game can get somewhat repetitive, in that sense, unless GW can provide some serious expansions to the game itself to keep it alive.

 

I think of this in comparisson to 40k. In 40k, any army has some core units you pretty much have as autotakes. But you have such a wide range of units and vehicles to choose from, no two armies have to be the same at all. The variety is huge. Kill Team takes a fraction of this, which necessarily means that the variety is reduced considerably. Without variety, the game can get repetitive. And with that, people can begin to fall out of love with it.

 

THinks I think that GW could do to improve upon the game, is both do a SMALL increase in the range of models one can take (i.e.: Astartes could maybe include ONE terminator in their lists, Guard could include ONE Bullgryn, Tyranids could include ONE Zeonthrope, and so on and so forth). Also, factions could be brought into Kill Team, to provide SMALL bonuses to specific units or playstyle (i.e.: Astartes could have chapter tactics, for instance).

 

I'm not sure how you can conclude that Astartes teams (arguably one of the teams with the most options) are limited.

 

I'm sure we all want more options for teams (and more teams), but I for one think that the teams with more varied options can actually express their playstyle perfectly well, though I would expect the more niche subfactions to get separate teams a la Death Guard/Thousand Sons as opposed to something sweeping like Chapter tactics.

[Brother Tyler]

Teams with fewer actual unit choices will realistically be able to to bring a greater percentage of their possible options than teams with more unit choices.

 

For example, a Grey Knight team can possibly fit a Combat specialist of every loadout as well as a psycannon gunner of every specialty into a Command Roster, while an Adeptus Astartes team will likely have to make tougher choices about what they bring.

 

While I doubt a Grey Knight team will bring every possible permutation of model on a roster, the option of doing so is a form of power in itself since it increases both potential counterplay for the player while forcing his opponents to account for more variables.

 

...

@Ioldanach suggested a command roster for the Grey Knights here and the only limitations were in the Justicar (his command roster included only two Justicar variations). Otherwise, every weapons/wargear option was represented multiple times with some specialists and non-specialists for each.

 

I think that factions with fewer options are actually going to have an easier time populating a command roster. The only limitations they're going to face are whether or not they have the stat lines and equipment to build flexibility into their lists.

 

Factions with more options, however, will have to pick and choose. And those with lower point value models also have it harder because they have to balance flexible capabilities with depth in each capability. The more flexible they make their command rosters, the more likely it is that they'll have to sub-optimize because not every model on the roster can support required capabilities.

 

It's still an interesting and strategic component of the game, but we'll see if the rules for the command roster are later modified based on feedback.

[Disruptor_fe404]

 

@Ioldanach suggested a command roster for the Grey Knights here and the only limitations were in the Justicar (his command roster included only two Justicar variations). Otherwise, every weapons/wargear option was represented multiple times with some specialists and non-specialists for each.

 

I think that factions with fewer options are actually going to have an easier time populating a command roster. The only limitations they're going to face are whether or not they have the stat lines and equipment to build flexibility into their lists.

 

Factions with more options, however, will have to pick and choose. And those with lower point value models also have it harder because they have to balance flexible capabilities with depth in each capability. The more flexible they make their command rosters, the more likely it is that they'll have to sub-optimize because not every model on the roster can support required capabilities.

 

It's still an interesting and strategic component of the game, but we'll see if the rules for the command roster are later modified based on feedback.

 

 

Agreed 100%.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Another thing to keep in mind is how expensive the models are point wise after gear.  For example, I will be playing in a campaign where killteams start with a 12 man roster.  My 100 points is 12 models - and I have fit every special weapon in that I can except for I could have 1 additional tempustus with a special weapon.  So, I certainly don't feel I'm spamming guardsmen.

 

For those who are curious, my roster can be found here: http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/349399-kill-team-tactica-astra-militarum/?p=5156417

 

However, because my models are cheap even after wargear, I essentially have no ability to vary my team based on opponent or mission - every game, I'm fielding my entire roster.

 

So, while the roster system gives flexibility to many factions, those with cheaper models don't necessarily share that flexibility - especially with lower roster caps. 

[Disruptor_fe404]

At that point, you just add all the models you want to take in the next mission. Assuming the second mission isn't the exact same victory condition, battlefield, and enemy as the first, of course.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Well, I'll have to see when in the campaign the roster size increases - I don't think the rules allow you to swap out one roster fro another.   Until its the roster size does increase same kill team all day, every day.  Or experience kicks in, at which point I get a bit more versatility by virtue of having to remove models from my active kill team as my models jump in price.

 

Which isn't a big deal, just means that I have to field the same team whether I face orks or necrons (for example - no idea what the other players in the campaign are fielding yet).  Good thing my most common special weapon (grenade launchers, of which I have 2) are by their nature versatile - and plasma guns (I have 2) and flamers (ditto) are reasonably decent as "take all comers" as well.

[Disruptor_fe404]

You can take completely new models the next mission if you want, though the Fire Team members won't gain (or contribute, but check this) experience until they have an old-timer show them the ropes.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Yes, I can add new models, but I can't go over roster size.  So if my roster is capped at 12, that means no new models until someone dies - at least that's my read on it.

 

Otherwise, what's the point of a limit on roster size if you replace your team with an entirely new one whenever you want.

[Disruptor_fe404]

Campaigns don't have a max limit. The limit of 12 is only for the first game.

[Excessus]

Sooo, I'm guessing this will be digital?

 

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/08/30/breaking-previews-and-reveals-from-novagw-homepage-post-1/

[Panzer]

Sooo, I'm guessing this will be digital?

 

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/08/30/breaking-previews-and-reveals-from-novagw-homepage-post-1/

 

Uhm yes?

 

Joining Combat Roster and Warscroll Builder, Command Roster will be a free tool that lets you build matched play kill teams in no time. Look out for it soon.

 

Unless of course you know a way to get those apps physically and for free. :P

[Brother Tyler]

The more I think about it, and the more I see anecdotal evidence such as @Dr_Ruminahui posted above, the more I think that the Command Roster rules need some tweaking.

 

The concept is great and provides interesting strategic depth, but the execution isn't balanced across the various factions.

 

Ultimately, I think that the maximum size of a Command Roster needs to depend on the faction. "Horde" type factions with lots of low-cost models might be allowed [slightly?] larger Command Rosters than elite type factions.

 

Coming up with an appropriately balanced solution isn't as simple as just using model points costs, though. Another factor that might need to be taken into consideration is the variety of models available to each faction - the overall variation in units and their upgrades/weapons/wargear. This requires a bit more analysis than I have time for right now, and there may be other options or factors to consider, so I'll leave it there for now (hopefully other members with their own ideas will offer up their thoughts).

 

If GW were to implement such a change, it could simply be as a rules update with each faction having a pre-determined Command Roster cap (i.e., no calculations or varying roster sizes based on composition).

 

Hopefully I'm not the lone crazy person on this train.

[Rogue]

Although if KillTeam follows regular 40k in favouring hordes over elites (not played yet, can’t say either way), then the command roster limit might be a way of tilting things back towards the elites.

 

So you can have more bodies on the ground, but you pay for that with less tactical flexibility.

[Mordekiem]

I think Hordes have the advantage in straight up fights.  The extra bodies just help it out.  But I think the Kill Team rules, missions and command roster help bring some advantage back to small, elite armies.  I think the missions in particular are important.  I believe there are two missions that give VP for taking enemies out of action.  3 if you count the take prisoners.  So even if an elite force dies, if they take out more than they lose then they win.  And then a third mission is the one to capture enemy models.  If your enemy has a horde your elites should be able to take some prisoners before they go down.  

 

I still need to get more battles under my belt and my buddies are starting a campaign soon.  So I will have to see how it turns out.  Fortunately for me my group is more than willing to house rule and make new missions as well.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

The more I think about it, and the more I see anecdotal evidence such as @Dr_Ruminahui posted above, the more I think that the Command Roster rules need some tweaking.

 

Let's call it pre-anecdotal evidence - the campaign hasn't started yet, its just issues that I'm expecting to arrize if the 12 roster cap works as I thought it did - if it goes away after the first game, that's not too bad.

 

Anyway, I'll be sure to let you guys know how it plays out for me.

 

 

I think Hordes have the advantage in straight up fights.  The extra bodies just help it out.  But I think the Kill Team rules, missions and command roster help bring some advantage back to small, elite armies.  I think the missions in particular are important.  I believe there are two missions that give VP for taking enemies out of action.  3 if you count the take prisoners.  So even if an elite force dies, if they take out more than they lose then they win.  And then a third mission is the one to capture enemy models.  If your enemy has a horde your elites should be able to take some prisoners before they go down.  

 

It will be interesting to see to which degree the horde "numbers advantage" is actually an advantage.  There are a couple of reasons why it may actually be a detriment - with cheaper models, hordes are easier to take out which combined with the way leadership tests work & hordes  typically abysmal leadership scores, I forecast  the morale phase being brutal for my astra millitarum kill team.  Additionally, depending on the board, more models means its harder to get cover and/or keep the enemy from getting into melee.

 

There is an interesting discussion on the Death Guard killteam thread about whether that list should mix hordes and elite models, or go heavily 1 way or the other - it starts about here: http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/349288-kill-team-tactica-death-guard/?p=5141922 .  The consensus there appears to be that mixing the 2 is the worst path.

 

Really, in my opinion, whether or not the rules favour hordes will depend in large part to how appropriately models are costed in terms of points.  I have no opinion on that at this time, as I haven't really looked at the points cost of non-militarum models - within the astra millitarum killteam itself, though, in my opinion it does favour hordes - tempestus cost pretty much twice as much as guardsmen, and I don't think either their stat line (one better BS and save) nor their weapons - a hotshot lasgun (which, if I recall correctly, get AP -3 in exchange for 6" less range) and krak grenades - justify that degree of points difference  My own list does include some tempustus, but only gunners so as to take advantage of their better BS and to allow me more special weapons in my list.

 

That said, this is all theory-hammer for me at this point - but I'll be sure to post my thoughts after I've had a few games.