I find GW's approach to Kill Team, Combat Patrol and 40k puzzling

[Deschenus Maximus]

With the impending release of KT 3.0, I thought I'd share something that's been on my mind for a bit: I just don't understand the approach GW is taking with their triumvirate of "mainline" 40k games.

 

So ever since 3rd ed was released, 40k has been a "battle game" (vice a skirmish game like it was in 1st-2nd ed). For a long time, there was nothing to fill the gap between having a functional army and... well, having nothing and just starting out. Sure, you could play a really low points game of 40k, but generally those didn't really give you a satisfying experience and could run the risk of leading to truly uneven match-ups.  Thankfully, eventually GW came up with Kill Team and Combat Patrol, game modes that you can play with a smaller amount of models, and while that's good in theory, the execution leaves me scratching my head.

 

Let's start with Kill Team. It's great because you can play a full game with a single squad of models. This, in theory, would make it the perfect entry point for a new player looking to get into 40k, what with having a (theoretical) much lower barrier to entry than "proper" 40k. In practice, though, I don't think it works out like that as well as it could or should. Yes, you can get away with buying a single team and never expand beyond that, but in truth, you have to get the cards and all the doodads like the barriers to actually play the game. Furthermore, and more importantly, there is a massive disconnect between KT's rules and 40k's. KT's rules are much more involved for one thing, and differ so drastically beyond that that I'm quite confident there must be a non-zero amount of people who start with KT but never make the jump into 40k because they don't like the much simpler 40k ruleset. On the flipside, there must also be some people that try KT, find it too complicated, and never make the transition to 40k even though they might have liked those rules.

 

Now, with Combat Patrol, the contrast with 40k isn't so stark, obviously. That said, one of the key components of 40k is making your army - choosing your specific detachment, units and equipment. All of that goes bye bye in Combat Patrol. I personally have no interest in CP because of that even though it should be right up my alley as someone who doesn't have a lot of time to build and paint models.

 

Taking all of this together, you have a weird "continuum" from KT to full 40k that could use some ironing out. I know I'm doing some armchair general-ing here, but if I was in charge of GW, this is what I would do:

• First off, you should be able to play Kill Team with the barest amount of investment possible - your team, some dice, a measuring stick and that's it. If the models could be snap-fit so you didn't have to buy glue, that would be even better. The teams should come in differently coloured plastics so as to be visually distinct even without paint - heck, they could even go the Gundam model kit route and have differently-coloured plastics on the same kit to make the models look passable without any paint. All the rules (including a printable PDF of the cards) should be available for free online. The plastic accessories should be jettisoned off the nearest airlock.
• The 40k rules should be recognizable to a KT player. Obviously, you can't have the same amount of granularity when you have a game featuring 50-100 models a side compared to 5-10, but the core concepts should be the same. As someone who is a huge advocate for Alternating Activations (vs IGOUGO), I would prefer if 40k became more like KT than vice versa, but that's secondary to having a consistent framework for the rules.
• Combat Patrol should be expanded to be its own, full game that would bridge the gap between Kill Team and 40k. It should allow you to build the foundation of your future 40k army with more constraints than 40k has but less than current Combat Patrol does (so army selection would be limited to mostly infantry and light(er) vehicles but you wouldn't have to take exactly what's in the Combat Patrol box anymore). The amount of granularity to the rules should also sit somewhere between KT and 40k.
• While I'm at it, GW should REALLY bring back Apocalypse in some form (AND SUPPORT IT PROPERLY) to give an outlet for people with massive armies to play with all their toys at once (if I'm being cynical, every GW customer having an Apocalypse-sized force should be GW's end goal). Apocalypse should be where all the stuff that doesn't really make sense in "normal" 40k (like Superheavies and Flyers) resides - 40k wouldn't have anything bigger than say a Tau Riptide or a Marine Land Raider. I understand that would basically limit Knight players to running Armigers in 40k... but isn't that what they're already mostly doing anyways? Again, the rules should follow the same framework the other games follow, but with the appropriate amount of granularity.

 

That's it. Thanks for reading my rambling dissertation :P

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Good points. 

 

I find many things GW do confusing. I put it down to humans being fundamentally insane. 

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

Good points. 

 

I find many things GW do confusing. I put it down to humans being fundamentally insane. 

 

Haha! Yeah honestly I'm struggling to find a logical reason for this state of being beyond just lack of strategic vision on the part of the GW higher ups.

[Halandaar]

I think part of the issue here is that Kill Team simply isn't the game it used to be. In older editions it was presented more like a heavily modified mission of normal 40k; the Kill Team box from 2016 even came with a softback copy of the main 40k rulebook.

 

The 2018 edition onwards though bore more resemblance to Necromunda in that it was a bespoke squad-level ruleset. You're right, in gameplay terms it feels connected to 40k only in a superficial way. IMO it does function as a gateway into the hobby, but not necessarily into the game of 40k itself. Combat Patrol is better at that, although not as much as AoS's version which is genuinely good. 

 

 

[TheMawr]

I think boarding actions was the thing you are "looking" for and probably still is but it got a little bit more limited.

 

Sure in contrary to combat patrol it favors a very specific setting "indoors" and therefore excludes those things that don't work indoors.. but coincidentally that are often also the things that work better in a big games rather than small ones.

 

Kill team being so separate is imho better for it,  mind you.. I never played it.

 

I like the current idea and mechanics behind combat patrol, but feel the teams ( "budget" boxes basically ) are more the issue. Combat patrols should be teams match up like the lowest level starterset opposites or the SoB limited set. Etb too imho, and come with paint. 

Then have "advanced" rules where you can add 3 things from a small selection of the wider scale. Wich is probably more what you are saying.

 

Imho right now combat patrol fails as a starter thing because the hobbyside is by far the bigger hurdle for complete newcomers than gameplay complexity is in this era and it also fails as a fun light newcomer game for established hobbyists, because experienced hobbyists definitely want the army building flexibility you talk about.

 

[Valkyrion]

I thought a Kill Team redux could be cool done like Blood Bowl.

You have Necromunda for squad level with complexity and nuance such as falling distance and cover, but Blood Bowl has squad level (or team level, in this case) combat in a more abstract way - like the size of crowd, the referee, random events that influence the affair aren't actually physical elements to be considered.

 

e.g lets say it's set on a spaceship - the kick off table and inducements are things like how good your crew is or how well your weapons are maintained or whether or not a nearby psyker is possessed or their head explodes, but the game play itself boils down to simply a board and 10 models each. 

Obviously you'd need to account for guns and the lack of touchdown scoring to find a point to the game, but on a basic level it could be a self contained, portable game which 40k doesn't currently have. 

[INKS]

spearhead is good in my opinion. fun. fairly simple. fairly balanced. cost isnt too bad.

i hope or wish they would copy spear head for 40kish stuff

combat patrol was supposed to be like it i think? but it isnt

[DemonGSides]

Boarding Actions, as mentioned above, is really what they want you to play for small points games. 

[Valkyrion]

For those of us not au fait with AoS, how does Spearhead differ from Combat Patrol?

[INKS]

 

For those of us not au fait with AoS, how does Spearhead differ from Combat Patrol?

without getting too off topic, 

 

i dont want this to become a spear head discussion but this video explains it well.

 

Spearhead is effective in both teaching the mechanics AND being fun by giving different tactical decisions through the secondary cards design, reinforcements, and the 4 enhancements for the general. You can play multiple times even with the same couple factions and have a different experience every time. But one of the most important parts-- Spearhead lets you actually DO things with your units, everything has an ability, so it's exciting thinking through all of the possibilities. It lets players FEEL tactical and grants some measure of play identity. Combat Patrol is HIGHLY faction dependent, with some outright having NO abilities on any of their units (World Eaters, for one). The fact that these also tend to be the better-value boxes certainly doesn't help either.

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

Boarding Actions, as mentioned above, is really what they want you to play for small points games. 

I honestly completely forgot about boarding actions. It just feels like such an afterthought, and besides, needing a completely different set of terrain goes completely against idea of being a stepping stone into full 40k.

[Valkyrion]

I've just briefly looked into Spearhead, and watched that video, but I can't really see that the distinction is so big.

Random AoS - Seraphon. Has a general with an either/or ability but can be used each turn, a faction ability which is either/or, and a choice of 4 wargear for your leader.

Random 40k - Tau. Choice of 2 wargear for your leader, choice of 2 objectives, default faction ability, 3 stratagems. 

Aos requires cards (this might fundamentally change the game), 40k requires scenery (I know that this does fundamentally change the game in 40k) and AoS is half the floor size. 

 

But, of course, they are different games that play differently so choice A in 40k might only have a meagre effect, but in AoS choice A might be death or glory, or vice versa.

Point is, that video and my own ignorance haven't led me down the 'Spearhead is better than Combat Patrol' path just yet, and I'm usually pretty on board the 'make 40k better' bandwagon. 

 

I'm also conscious of digressing too much, but discussing this helps one form a more educated opinion on Combat Patrol and Kill Team, discussing GW's very own alternative ruleset. 

[ZeroWolf]

I'd say spearhead took the prototype combat patrol made and ran with it. I fully expect combat patrol to be overhauled to better resemble spearhead in 11th edition.

 

However, I think there's a step missing between combat patrol and normal 40k and that is 500 points. It would offer the small scale of CP with more flexibility of what you take. It'd also serve as the introduction to the proper detachment rules.

 

As a side note, I find it interesting that in all of the learning games I see played at my local GW, there's never any mention of command points or stratagems. Probably for the best, in my opinion.

 

Can't speak for Kill Team as last time I played that...it was just an extra game mode in 4th edition (an unbalanced one if you were stuck having Termagaunts as the sentries!)

[ThaneOfTas]

 

Combat Patrol should be expanded to be its own, full game that would bridge the gap between Kill Team and 40k. It should allow you to build the foundation of your future 40k army with more constraints than 40k has but less than current Combat Patrol does (so army selection would be limited to mostly infantry and light(er) vehicles but you wouldn't have to take exactly what's in the Combat Patrol box anymore). The amount of granularity to the rules should also sit somewhere between KT and 40k.

 

I've been thinking for a while that GW should turn Combat patrol into their competitive/tournament mode. Expand the unit choices a bit like you mentioned, but keep each faction pretty balanced with numbers of unit types, rotate units in and out as of new releases, keep the balance updates coming regularly, and because its smaller in scope both inter and intra army balance should be easier to accomplish.

 

Then they basically just leave 40k as is, but because competitive meta chasers are more contained in their own sandbox  stuff like legends and narrative play will have more room to flourish. toss in a balance pass every 6 months and hopefully a lower incentive to remove rule support for OOP models.

 

I know its unrealistic and probably a bit naïve but it really does feel like competitive and narrative 40k struggle when trying to co-exist in the same ruleset, so maybe giving them both some space would be good for both.

[HeadlessCross]

 

without getting too off topic, 

 

i dont want this to become a spear head discussion but this video explains it well.

 

Spearhead is effective in both teaching the mechanics AND being fun by giving different tactical decisions through the secondary cards design, reinforcements, and the 4 enhancements for the general. You can play multiple times even with the same couple factions and have a different experience every time. But one of the most important parts-- Spearhead lets you actually DO things with your units, everything has an ability, so it's exciting thinking through all of the possibilities. It lets players FEEL tactical and grants some measure of play identity. Combat Patrol is HIGHLY faction dependent, with some outright having NO abilities on any of their units (World Eaters, for one). The fact that these also tend to be the better-value boxes certainly doesn't help either.

Combat Patrol is wildly unbalanced to the point of bewilderment. 

[Mr Farson]

 

Snip for size

 

That's it. Thanks for reading my rambling dissertation :P

 

I've been thinking about combat patrol a lot recently following on from spear heads exceptional release.

 

My solution to make it more appealing is to have it integrated into crusade where your starter combat patrol is the basis of the force to expand upon with specific enhancements for the units in the combat patrol to encourage their continued usage.

 

I think there's a lot to say in regards to match play being the default now especially with how skewed it is towards organised play but that's off topic

[Lord_Ikka]

 

Combat Patrol is wildly unbalanced to the point of bewilderment. 

That's because for a long time Combat Patrols were not a specific force designed to be played in a game made up of said forces- they were designed as either starter armies or add-on forces for current armies. So you have everything from a DG box that has 30 poxwalkers to a GK box with termies and a Dreadknight, not exactly an even matchup. From what I've heard Spearhead boxes have either been redone or at least reworked slightly so that they are designed more for playing in the Spearhead rules, rather than just as a grouping of units sold as a discount. 

 

What GW really should do is clarify what their 40k games are and what they do in a design-update:

 

Kill-Team: 40k models, Necromunda-style rules. A true skirmish game in the sense that you won't have more than 10 models on each side. Game is all about special ops teams and it doesn't really fit into the 40k proper as far as rules go. Need to stop trying to integrate all the special KT models into 40k rules and just keep them as standard troops who look cool when you use them for 40k. 

 

Boarding Actions: Get rid of. Requiring a specific set of terrain is a bad idea if you are going to try to make a full-fledged game out of it. If there is anything worth saving, fold it into either Kill-Team or Combat Patrol game sets. 

 

Combat Patrol: Roughly 500pts of 40k models, designed to play in a specific Combat Patrol set up. Make the boxes simple and standard (1/2 characters, 1/2 regular infantry units, 1 elite unit - no vehicles), where the boxes are as balanced as possible rules-wise rather than by price/model availability; ie- don't make the boxes dumping grounds for lesser-selling units. Make a set of rules that is 40k-lite, where you can get a clear flavor of the army and how it plays in a larger scale, but is also easier and quicker to play than a full 2k game. Maybe use the card system like Spearhead or something similar that cuts down on the rules-heavy 40k standard, so that new players can easily access information and in-game abilities.

 

40k: Full army game, flagship product. Designed for 2k points, but able to adjust up or down as desired by players. What everyone expects when you talk about 40k.

 

 

In essence, GW needs to treat Combat Patrol as a distinct game of its own rather than just as an intro into the 40k proper game or as an add-on discounted box for those looking to get more units for their armies in a value-style set.

Edited September 26 by Lord_Ikka

[firestorm40k]

 

The 40k rules should be recognizable to a KT player.

So it seems that your view - one that's held by many - is that Kill Team should be an introduction, or somewhat direct gateway into, 'proper' 40k. Indeed, as it was presented from about 2015/16, right up to the 2021 edition, it was kind of '40k lite' experience. The rules were similar, which was it's strength and weakness - would find plenty of commentary online with regards to people's issues with the 2018 edition. 

 

I think you have to bear in mind that GW don't seem to view it as a gateway to 40k anymore - they view it as a seperate game, with overlap to 40k. But it's very much it's own thing - a play style that works with your 40k army/armies won't win you many games of Kill Team, if at all..! 

 

Kill Team, I think, is aimed at established hobbyists, either those looking for a new challenge game wise, or who want a change from painting a full army. 

 

I'd agree that 40k does need a clear 'gateway' type of experience - Combat Patrol could be that, but the way it's been handled in 10th shows it's almost a bit of an afterthought on GW's part. Comparing it to AoS Spearhead really supports that view - that is very much a complete game of itself. 

 

I don't think Boarding Actions works as a gateway/intro experience, just because of the amount of terrain that's required. It's a fun adjunct to 40k though, a different way to experience the game (we're incorporating it into a narrative campaign running at our group from October). 

 

I think GW's current 40k starter sets are *almost* a good intro experience/gateway to the game, I think the issues are composition of the forces (in terms of balanced forces in a starter set, Assault on Black Reach remains possibly the best they've done), and price. Even though the terrain in the Ultimate starter is excellent, it makes for a high price point for someone starting out. 

 

So I'm not sure that 40k needs a skirmish game as a gateway - if they could make Combat Patrol really stand on it's feet the way Spearhead does, and have cheaper starter sets with better balanced forces and easier to build terrain, I think that would be the best approach for GW to take. 

[Halandaar]

 

I've just briefly looked into Spearhead, and watched that video, but I can't really see that the distinction is so big.

 

Play it and see. Honestly, it is much better. 

 

Armies are much better balanced against each other for one, and the game design generates much more variety than the 6 fixed missions of Combat Patrol.

 

You start out with only 4 map combinations (2 deployment layouts, 2 objective layouts), but each objective layout has it's own deck of "Twist" cards which puts an additional effect into the game each battle round, and includes a catch-up mechanic by allowing the player who's currently behind to determine how the effect is applied. 

 

Then each player is drawing their secondary objectives from a deck of 12 cards (much like Tactical Mission secondaries in 40K) each round, so the likelihood of you trying to do the same thing from one game to the next is remote. You can also sacrifice the chance to score those objectives for a specific one-time battlefield boost, so there's pro/con decision making too. 

 

Honestly just a solid fun game system wit a lot of replayability.

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

So it seems that your view - one that's held by many - is that Kill Team should be an introduction, or somewhat direct gateway into, 'proper' 40k. Indeed, as it was presented from about 2015/16, right up to the 2021 edition, it was kind of '40k lite' experience. The rules were similar, which was it's strength and weakness - would find plenty of commentary online with regards to people's issues with the 2018 edition. 

 

I think you have to bear in mind that GW don't seem to view it as a gateway to 40k anymore - they view it as a seperate game, with overlap to 40k. But it's very much it's own thing - a play style that works with your 40k army/armies won't win you many games of Kill Team, if at all..! 

 

Kill Team, I think, is aimed at established hobbyists, either those looking for a new challenge game wise, or who want a change from painting a full army. 

 

I'd agree that 40k does need a clear 'gateway' type of experience - Combat Patrol could be that, but the way it's been handled in 10th shows it's almost a bit of an afterthought on GW's part. Comparing it to AoS Spearhead really supports that view - that is very much a complete game of itself. 

 

I don't think Boarding Actions works as a gateway/intro experience, just because of the amount of terrain that's required. It's a fun adjunct to 40k though, a different way to experience the game (we're incorporating it into a narrative campaign running at our group from October). 

 

I think GW's current 40k starter sets are *almost* a good intro experience/gateway to the game, I think the issues are composition of the forces (in terms of balanced forces in a starter set, Assault on Black Reach remains possibly the best they've done), and price. Even though the terrain in the Ultimate starter is excellent, it makes for a high price point for someone starting out. 

 

So I'm not sure that 40k needs a skirmish game as a gateway - if they could make Combat Patrol really stand on it's feet the way Spearhead does, and have cheaper starter sets with better balanced forces and easier to build terrain, I think that would be the best approach for GW to take. 

The problem with having Combat Patrol as the entry point is that the barrier to entry is too high for someone to take a gamble on. The CPs are all 200 CAD. That’s quite a lot for something you’d ideally want people to pick up almost on a whim. A single box of infantry for KT is within the price range of a video game and makes for a more reasonable ask of the uninitiated, especially younger people. Heck, you could even make a micro starter set for KT with 3 monopose operatives a side and a small booklet plus tokens that fit inside a standard infantry box.

[INKS]

 

The problem with having Combat Patrol as the entry point is that the barrier to entry is too high for someone to take a gamble on. The CPs are all 200 CAD. That’s quite a lot for something you’d ideally want people to pick up almost on a whim. A single box of infantry for KT is within the price range of a video game and makes for a more reasonable ask of the uninitiated, especially younger people. Heck, you could even make a micro starter set for KT with 3 monopose operatives a side and a small booklet plus tokens that fit inside a standard infantry box.

depends on the team. the newer prices are 95 cdn a team. without rules, or dice and so on.

while cheaper than a CP, its not drastically cheaper.

guess it's all relative. 10 models vs whatever comes in a CP, you are paying about the same per model.

[tychobi]

I think  Kill Team is now set up as an exit ramp for 40k customers rather than entry point. It's a seperate product that appeals to a different set than full bore 40k.

 

Combat Patrol looks like the onramp product for 40k. Combat Patrol does suffer from a bit of a lack of support and a high price point but I'd imagine that GWs 40k problems are supply side rather than demand side so attracting a glut of new players would not move the needle profit wise so why invest? 

 

Apocalypse is a whole seperate ball of wax. The last Apocalypse rules set was excellent but was best played at 40k 2000 pts scale so kinda missed the mark as the huge scale rules set. I would imagine Apocalypse is hard to sell at volume, only a fraction of your already bought in customers are the target audience. Next iteration would hopefully be better at its stated task and be trimmed to a rule book add on rather than a box set experience. Be fan service for dedicated fans cause no one else has access. 

 

Over all GW makes decisions to suit itself and that can be hard to swallow as the end customer. Usually their reasoning is sound but focused on short term profit over long term retention of their customers.

[Schurge]

 

I think  Kill Team is now set up as an exit ramp for 40k customers rather than entry point. It's a seperate product that appeals to a different set than full bore 40k.

 

Interesting insight.

 

I've largely left Warhammer behind, having given away much of what I own and not having played in a year or two. I still keep tabs on it as its one of my favorite IPs and hobbies. There is just no room in my life for Warhammer anymore.

 

Kill Team though, precisely because it is so different is appealing to me. The more it sets itself apart the more I am interested. Just ape the good skirmish games out there like Infinity, MCP, or Judgement and give me my Warhammer flavor.

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

depends on the team. the newer prices are 95 cdn a team. without rules, or dice and so on.

while cheaper than a CP, its not drastically cheaper.

guess it's all relative. 10 models vs whatever comes in a CP, you are paying about the same per model.

“Not drastically cheaper”

 

It’s less than half. That’s pretty drastic in my book.

 

The value per model is not really relevant in my view because that’s not something someone brand new to the hobby would really understand.

[Timberley]

 

“Not drastically cheaper”

 

It’s less than half. That’s pretty drastic in my book.

 

The value per model is not really relevant in my view because that’s not something someone brand new to the hobby would really understand.

Let's say the uninitiated looks at a KT team and a CP in a random hobby shop. Maybe they've played SM2, and so know a tiny bit about the universe. If they saw the (frankly embarrassing) Space Marine CP, they'd definitely decide it's terrible value for money. However, that one next to it, the one with the guys that look like the guys from the game, but they wear black! And it comes with a tank! That's cool. But it's £100...

Above that they see a box of 10 guys, who kinda look like the bad guys from the game but they have red on them, not yellow. 10 guys for £45!? I can get nearly double that, with some cool guys with big swords, and a tank (!) for just over double that! Time to save the cash for the bigger box. 

 

Not saying it's exact, as this was 1991, but that was similar to my thought process when I got into the hobby with a set of Imperial Space Marines (ye olde Mk6) vs. getting 3x marines.