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

[Rusted Boltgun]

I bought into KT21 when I came back to the hobby, thinking that a skirmish game would be a good entry point for 40k, having played some *ahem* film-property-based-sci-fi-skirmish game.

It wasn't. KT is its own beast and a great game, I have loved it.

 

The Gallowdark season inadvertently gave me a jumping off point into 40k - boarding actions terrain!

 

A 500pts boarding action force feels like a good entry point - limited list building rather than a restrictive combat patrol - and I can use my 500pt force as core units to later expand into a larger army.

 

500pts is a great entry as there aren't too many minis to paint for a newbie. It would be great if it wasn't tied to the boarding action terrain.

 

As for Spearhead, I have watched a couple of games and thought it was great - I can definitely see it ported to 40k for 11th.

[Blindhamster]

Honestly I’m glad kill team has more involved rules as that makes it a more interesting game. 
 

you make a fair point on it at one time being a sort of reasonable entry point game, but really the old combat patrol and new combat patrol are more than good enough for that.

 

personally I’d prefer combat patrol to work like it once did and be either 400 or 500 points with a number of restrictions on unit types.

 

back when I worked for GW Worcester we ran many of such games and they were always great fun

[ThePenitentOne]

Just in case there's anyone in the thread who hasn't been seeing my other posts on KT recently:

 

I loved KT 21. As with all my gaming, I'm only really interest in campaign style play- stand alone games don't really hold my interest. So for KT 21, that meant playing spec-ops... and being a narrative weirdo, I took it further by including those KTs in my 40k Crusade order of battle. This meant that I purchased both skills from KT and battle honours from 40k every time a unit that was used in both games hit a level break, regardless of which game I was playing when they hit it. Obviously, the KT rules were only used in KT games, and the 40k rules were only used in 40k games. I called the practice "Gestalt profiling."

 

The new KT will be good, and it will be fun for most people, but for now, Spec-Ops has been gutted. Many (including me) hypothesize that there may be a separate "Big Book of Narrative Campaigning" that will come at some point in the edition's lifespan. If so, I'm all in. If not, KT is pretty much dead to me, though I know that the parts of the game I loved are easily adaptable... at least for existing teams. It's the new teams that will present a problem.

 

Playing with scale and scope during an ongoing narrative campaign is really cool- in 9th ed, one of the campaign books even included rules for running KT games off to the side, and having them affect the overall 40k scale game.

 

I also like Boarding Actions, but I'm also not afraid to play a 500 point game using standard 40k rules on 40k table. I like running territory/ map-based campaigns, so there can be buildings on the table that Boarding Action units enter.

[tychobi]

I wonder how well Combat Patrol does as an intake mode for 40k with set lists. My enjoyment of 40k deeply involves the list building. I can't imagine enjoying assembling and painting a force that was not designed and picked by me. 

 

I do happen to have access to a fair few combat patrols and have played 6 or so games. Not really balanced or competitive as far as I can tell.  Death guard were a painful mess. Felt samey and stilted and devoid of the magic I feel when I bring  "my" list in a 40k match. That said I do very much enjoy small scale 40k. 500 points is a great game size and we have played a ton of it! Just let me pick my own list

[gideon stargreave]

 

I wonder how well Combat Patrol does as an intake mode for 40k with set lists. My enjoyment of 40k deeply involves the list building. I can't imagine enjoying assembling and painting a force that was not designed and picked by me. 

 

I do happen to have access to a fair few combat patrols and have played 6 or so games. Not really balanced or competitive as far as I can tell.  Death guard were a painful mess. Felt samey and stilted and devoid of the magic I feel when I bring  "my" list in a 40k match. That said I do very much enjoy small scale 40k. 500 points is a great game size and we have played a ton of it! Just let me pick my own list

I like the idea of fixed lists personally, because my hobby is about conversions. This means that as long as I have enough models for the list, I can pick the one that seems like the best fit, and run it with no confusion about the contents

[Bouargh]

It is a very interesting discussion and there are already a lot of arguments raised. So many that I will probably echoes some, forget others or will have to admit I missed some.

 

Generally speaking, the question of entry into the hobby can be done by many ways that have nothing to do with gaming: video games, fluff...

Yet things becomes coarser once the question of entry into the gaming is raised. It is the common question since a few editions, and may be has always been. But one question one should ask is: why would an entry game be needed? I guess it is a weak point of the discussion, albeit being its starting point.

 

It might be tempting to assess purposes that are not the proper ones. The main games are set in a common universe and share the background but are not I think meant to be articulated into a series of consistant complexity scaling up. 40k entry game is 40k itself. KT is a different tactical level game where individual actions of individual models are under scrutiny whereas the 40k is a massified scale. with simplified rules. Or at least ruels that pretend being simplified. (becqus efrankly, these are even messier than before. I haven't have so much difficulties to manage rule interaction issues since decades. But this is another story).

 

Teaching/learning game mechanics has not necesarilly be always easy in GW games. I am not convinced that the current mechanics is noob friendly neither. But there are some virtues such as the Patrol scale. But is it meant to be a teaching level? I rather see it as a fast game setting a lunch time. Pick and drop. You can use CP as a teaching mode but it is worth for a couple of games. Then you go into the core stuff. And it is a clear indication of why an entry game would be probably a bad setting: it would become obsolete very fast. Once you got the tutorial done it loose its taste.

 

The additional question of cost is also an indirect misconception. 40k isn't cheap. And will not be. Any entry game that would pretend being cheap would be very counter productive as once the gamer wants to upgrade its army, he has to pay. Models; paints; table top scenery... it is expansive and whatever entry level game you get, many will be lost at this stage; hooked off. Of course the counter argument could be valid: get a cheap and attractive entry game to lure into a maximum of people and then; once the funnel will reduce you will remain with enough consumers left. 

 

After some decades playing games and learning new ones, I've reached a point that makes me think that what the more important is the how you are entering into and not the game size itself. Let's call it the learning environment: you get success when you have a friendly mentor/coach and a club like environement where you can start on budget, borrowing or being lent models. I look at "progresivity" into the learning curve through jumping from one set of rules to another by growing game size/complexity as something closer of a pyramid scam than the West Point method to learn how to shoot from  easy to harder target...

 

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

 

Of course the counter argument could be valid: get a cheap and attractive entry game to lure into a maximum of people and then; once the funnel will reduce you will remain with enough consumers left. 

 

It's partly that but it goes deeper: having a "funnel" approach, as you termed it, doesn't preclude the possibility that some people won't go "deeper" (i.e. get into 40k) but will stick around and continue playing KT and/or CP. There is still value in that as it creates more "entry points" for future customers.

 

 

I look at "progresivity" into the learning curve through jumping from one set of rules to another by growing game size/complexity as something closer of a pyramid scam than the West Point method to learn how to shoot from  easy to harder target...

 

That's just capitalism for you. My initial post was very much looking at things from the perspective of GW, not from "ours" (the consummer's). Though I do think there is overlap in our interests, here - a "smoother" progression from nothing to full 40k armies I truly think would help to grow the player base, which means more people to play with.

[Valkyrion]

For people of a certain vintage, the first entry games to GW were Hero Quest and Space Crusade, and Blood Bowl and Space Hulk later because they are, in essence, board games. (maybe, maybe, warhammer quest for those who went the HQ, Advanced HQ, WHQ route, and ended up playing WFB).

I can only speak for myself, but my older brother got me involved with Hero Quest, Space Crusade and Space Hulk in the early 90's when I'm 7-10 years old, and 40k is still a twinkle in Rogue Traders eye. He had no intention of following through to becoming a fully fledged hobbyist, treating them as the self contained worlds they were, but it kindled something in me that still endures today. Playing Space Hulk to him was like playing Atmosphere or Cluedo or Monopoly. He didn't care about the Sin of Damnation any more than he cared about Colonel Mustard, but I did, so my gateway was busted open by then. 

Given my hobbies and interests since my formative years, I'm sure I'd have found my way to miniature collecting, but had it not been for Space Hulk and Hero Quest it might've been historical or privateer press or star wars or whatever else was around at the time, or it might just have been Lego and Transformers, which both fell away as my GW interest grew. 

My point is that there needn't be an entry game to the ruleset, an entry game to the universe will often do and that was my entry way. 

 

I don't think there is a 40k based game you can get down from the shelf, open the box, and play with your 10 year old brother who has never heard of it before.

 

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

My point is that there needn't be an entry game to the ruleset, an entry game to the universe will often do and that was my entry way. 

 

TBH I'd be quite happy if GW resumed releasing board games. They were on a roll with that for a while sometimes back but that seems to have tappered off?

 

That said, why can't we have both? It's good that you made your way to 40k through the boardgames, but boardgames don't appeal to everyone. 

 

 

I don't think there is a 40k based game you can get down from the shelf, open the box, and play with your 10 year old brother who has never heard of it before.

 

Perhaps, perhaps not. I guess that's where the value of 40k themed board games would come in.

[Rusted Boltgun]

 

I don't think there is a 40k based game you can get down from the shelf, open the box, and play with your 10 year old brother who has never heard of it before.

 

 

V.1 Space Hulk (+Deathwing and Genestealer) were my intro to 40k. Well, I had the RT book but never played a game. Space Hulk was the game Jr Boltgun first played too and, by Terra, it is still great.

And you're right. We bought the KT21.starter box and it isn't a game for an 8/9 yr old (or even his decrepit Dad), we've had to play 'lite' rules.

 

The modern equivalents to the old 'all in one box' game might be those Target / Walmart specials that come up from time to time but they don't seem to have much replayability.

 

Or Spearhead. I do think a 40K version is just that - 40k in a box. Or was Leviathan? It ought to have been. Or are they just too complicated?

[ThePenitentOne]

Blackstone Fortress is the best, recent approximation of the Space Hulk feel.

 

Gallowdark boarding action games can feel Space-Hulkish, but may still have more complexity than you want.

 

I so hope they do another BSF style game, as long as they don't mess it up by making it too marine-heavy. BSF was awesome because it was a bunch of weirdos, and most of those went on to have great utility in the larger game- really pushing the envelope in a way that shielded the company from the risk of having these models for only one system- you just need to use them in as much as possible to justify the cost of a plastic mold. The character attachment rules in 10th provide GW with a convenient place for another round of weirdos to find traction outside the Warhammer Quest game itself.

 

As for the idea of entry games, I think people are thinking in terms only of gaming. For me, the entry staging is all about painting.

 

Like, if I was buying the Leviathan box, it'll take me half the edition to paint all of those models. But sheer enthusiasm would propel me to the completion of a KT from each force. Now this only worked when compendium armies were available... Although KTs CAN be fielded as the barebones- 40k units, it only really works if both teams agree to do that. And for my purposes, it works- most of the games I get come because I can supply models for my opponent, so a compendium KT of gaunts vs a compendium team of marines was fine. And once that's no longer possible, an equivalent team with only the specialists you're allowed to take in the 40k unit would work just as well. It's especially easy if even basic rules are free.

 

What that means is that even though it's going to take me 14 more months to paint the rest of the box, I can game with what I've got fully painted while I'm working on the other stuff... And yes, the next painting goal is NOT the full army, it's the Combat Patrol. The only issue here is that WYSIWYGing the Combat patrol can sometimes be a suboptimal build in the larger 40k game. And remember, for me, sub-optimal doesn't always mean less competitive; for me, every unit that is restricted from letting the narrative determine equipment choices is equally sub-optimal.

 

Either way, the principle is the same- if you take the intermediate step of Combat Partrol, it's best to design the units as you'll want them to be used in 40k, but use those models in Combat Patrol to represent the fixed list without worrying about WYSIWYG.

 

So I bought the box, and I was playing KT with fully painted models in a month or two. A year later, I can field painted combat patrols. Some time around the two or two and a half year mark, I can play the entire Indomitus box painted. And sure, at that point, they're six months from blowing up the edition, but it doesn't even matter, because you've already got two fully painted armies, so the sunk-cost fallacy is in effect. And your investment risk in the next edition is really low if you just try the game out by playing with what you have- especially if even basic rules are free.

 

Tenth isn't my favourite edition, but it's utility from the starter box was genius. The Indomitus box included full combat patrols PLUS extra models, full rules including both combat patrol and Crusade variants. Stacking the CP/ 40K and Crusade rules with full model support was brilliant. IMHO, if the 11th limited box included a KT which functioned as a CP and 40K unit with enough other models to create both CP and 40K forces, GW would cast a really broad net for people who might otherwise spend almost the entire edition painting before they could play a fully painted game.

 

Rules complexity is not the barrier for entry for most people. Painting and value for money are, and both are mitigated by having KT and CP as developmental stages to participation in the hobby. 

[Bouargh]

 

That's just capitalism for you. 

 

Indirectly, you are right. But my point was more aimed at putting myself into the shoes of a "Noob"/kid with limited amount of money available. Putting myself into that position, I would say I would not appreciate a "get started game box" for introducing me to 40k rules. Especially if this mechanism would stick me to an army I might not want to keep on playing latter or would require an investment felt a bieng wasted as, after a short series of games, I would have done and reached the synthesis of that what the starter kit could offer.

 

In that sense, I feel like the CP aproach, although unperfect, is better than any get-started/beginner oriented box such as Recruit Edition or so...

 

As for introduction to the 40k universe (and NOT rules) I can´t agree more than what has already been underlined by others: Space Hulk or other boxed sets are great entry points. Although I started with RT, it is through Space Hulk and Advanced Space Crusade that I consolidated my dependancy to 40k setting. Battle for Armaggeddon board game played a role too. And this one did not even has models inside!

 

 

[zulu.tango]

Games Workshop no longer believes Kill-Team is a pipeline for 40k, but rather a core game in the setting. Combat patrol is the entry-point into 40k, Fundamentally I think its great that they consider other game-systems within the setting as "core" games because big-hammer isn't for everyone, both in scale, time, and rules. Having more games in the setting with different rules lets them snag a broader spectrum of players. 

[Mandragola]

I don't really think kill team should be seen as just a feed-in for 40k now. It's very much its own full game, with its own proper events and a thriving community.

 

If anything it's the other way round, with 40k players switching to KT because they enjoy it more. That's certainly the case for me. I find KT a more tactical game, in large part due to using alternating activations instead of IGOUGO - which I hate. I also really like having fairly small "armies" and full terrain boards boxed up with the starter set. I get more out of it and I don't have to put so much in.

 

I think the Hivestorm set compares extremely favourably with Leviathan. True it's a fraction of the models but you really do get everything you need to play the full game. A great board of terrain, two full forces to fight each other and all the cards, barricades and so on that you need. On the other hand Leviathan leaves you far short of an army for 40k, and actually with a bunch of models you might well not use if you did make a whole army. Plus you need to get a codex, a whole board's worth of terrain somehow etc. etc.

 

Obviously I'm not saying 40k is a bad game, but I don't think it's the case that all roads lead to 40k. Instead what I see is people get a few models, then maybe a combat patrol, then maybe progress to 40k. Some stick with 40k but a lot drift off to other parts of the wargaming hobby: Heresy and other specialist games, Kill Team, Historicals or any of the huge array of games that now exist. Warhammer is kind of the gateway to wargaming, thanks to having physical shops mainly, but it's not necessarily the destination.

 

 

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

I don't really think kill team should be seen as just a feed-in for 40k now. It's very much its own full game, with its own proper events and a thriving community.

 

Yes I understand that - I just think it could be BOTH its own game AND be a feed-in to 40k.

 

 

 

If anything it's the other way round, with 40k players switching to KT because they enjoy it more. That's certainly the case for me. I find KT a more tactical game, in large part due to using alternating activations instead of IGOUGO - which I hate. I also really like having fairly small "armies" and full terrain boards boxed up with the starter set. I get more out of it and I don't have to put so much in.

 

I completely agree there - that’s why I think 40k’s rules should be reworked to be more in line with KT’s than the other way around.

 

 

 

I think the Hivestorm set compares extremely favourably with Leviathan. True it's a fraction of the models but you really do get everything you need to play the full game. A great board of terrain, two full forces to fight each other and all the cards, barricades and so on that you need. On the other hand Leviathan leaves you far short of an army for 40k, and actually with a bunch of models you might well not use if you did make a whole army. Plus you need to get a codex, a whole board's worth of terrain somehow etc. etc.

 

Obviously I'm not saying 40k is a bad game, but I don't think it's the case that all roads lead to 40k. Instead what I see is people get a few models, then maybe a combat patrol, then maybe progress to 40k. Some stick with 40k but a lot drift off to other parts of the wargaming hobby: Heresy and other specialist games, Kill Team, Historicals or any of the huge array of games that now exist. Warhammer is kind of the gateway to wargaming, thanks to having physical shops mainly, but it's not necessarily the destination.

 

 

 

[HeadlessCross]

 

 

I completely agree there - that’s why I think 40k’s rules should be reworked to be more in line with KT’s than the other way around.

At minimum they need to do what Apocalypse did with removing casualties after both players have gone. 

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

At minimum they need to do what Apocalypse did with removing casualties after both players have gone. 

 

Yeah seriously if you are going to maintain the antiquated IGOUGO system, they should really implement simultaneous combat resolution. In fact, I'd almost like that more than just pure alternating activations because that system can be really gamey: a huge part of getting good in game with that mechanic is understanding the optimal activation order for your units, which is super artificial and can create an unnecessary skill gap between the players. Like, against one of my regular opponents, I tend to win pretty handily in part because I just have a better grasp of effective activation orders... which kind of sucks because it's such a completely unrepresentative (of actual combat) gameism.

 

In my perfect world, you'd have a game system that features alternating activations buoyed by simultaneous combat resolution, with a mechanic to address activation disparities in the movement phase thrown on top (something like the way BattleTech addresses this).

[Evil Eye]

I'm of the opinion alternating phases is a good happy medium between I-go-you-go and AA; Player 1 moves, player 2 moves, player 1 shoots, player 2 shoots etc. It has some of the benefits of AA without making the game take forever or adding that previously mentioned excessive gaminess.

 

As for the topic at hand, I'm actually of the opinion that KT should have slightly different and more in-depth rules than 40K. When you're playing with individual models as opposed to units, every model counts and things that would be asinine at a larger scale (more granular weapon options etc) can make all the difference. Case in point- in 40K proper, Plague Marines just having generic "plague weapons" for melee makes sense. For KT though, having different types (bubotic axe, mace of contagion etc) works and adds depth to the game.

[Frogian]

 

Honestly I’m glad kill team has more involved rules as that makes it a more interesting game. 
 

you make a fair point on it at one time being a sort of reasonable entry point game, but really the old combat patrol and new combat patrol are more than good enough for that.

 

personally I’d prefer combat patrol to work like it once did and be either 400 or 500 points with a number of restrictions on unit types.

 

back when I worked for GW Worcester we ran many of such games and they were always great fun

yeah, 500 pts can absolutely work - just talk to your opponent first. either a no tanks/walkers rule, or a max combined T+W - play on a smaller table, maybe have less objective markers.

 

personally for me ~1000-1200 pts is the sweetspot, and like the 2nd and 3rd games i'd often play

[Brother Carpenter]

 

Honestly I’m glad kill team has more involved rules as that makes it a more interesting game. 
 

you make a fair point on it at one time being a sort of reasonable entry point game, but really the old combat patrol and new combat patrol are more than good enough for that.

 

personally I’d prefer combat patrol to work like it once did and be either 400 or 500 points with a number of restrictions on unit types.

 

back when I worked for GW Worcester we ran many of such games and they were always great fun

Wasn't that 40K in 40 minutes?

 

Also I thought crusade is a great way to start getting into 40K, as you start and get an evolving team/collection.

 

But they smelled money and stowed the rules in a separate book.

 

In my perfect world, you'd have a game system that features alternating activations buoyed by simultaneous combat resolution, with a mechanic to address activation disparities in the movement phase thrown on top (something like the way BattleTech addresses this).

You mean how initiative worked in close combat?

 

That would be nice if that returned.

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

I'm of the opinion alternating phases is a good happy medium between I-go-you-go and AA; Player 1 moves, player 2 moves, player 1 shoots, player 2 shoots etc. It has some of the benefits of AA without making the game take forever or adding that previously mentioned excessive gaminess.

 

I mean... it's a little better, but not by much. You're still going to run into situations where one player loses a sizeable chunk of their army before they get to fire a single shot. At a very minimum, if you want to maintain any sort of IGOUGO mechanic, you need simultaneous combat resolution.

 

 

As for the topic at hand, I'm actually of the opinion that KT should have slightly different and more in-depth rules than 40K. When you're playing with individual models as opposed to units, every model counts and things that would be asinine at a larger scale (more granular weapon options etc) can make all the difference. Case in point- in 40K proper, Plague Marines just having generic "plague weapons" for melee makes sense. For KT though, having different types (bubotic axe, mace of contagion etc) works and adds depth to the game.

 

Yes I completely agree with that. All I'm suggesting is that the core mechanics should follow a logical continuum; there should still be design space to implement the appropriate level of granularity, though.

[HeadlessCross]

 

Wasn't that 40K in 40 minutes?

 

Also I thought crusade is a great way to start getting into 40K, as you start and get an evolving team/collection.

 

But they smelled money and stowed the rules in a separate book.

You mean how initiative worked in close combat?

 

That would be nice if that returned.

Initiative was dumb and the current "pick a unit to fight" is dumb as well. Unless you charged, all combats should be simultaneous for thr most part. Basically there should only be 3 steps of speed (Fights First, Normal, Fights Last) and you can base core rules around that.