Real talk, the best thing about the lack of list building is that it’s much harder for new players to screw up, so they are much less likely to have a dreadful time and decide that the game is not for them.
Sorry but I don't think this should be an argument. Every videogame guide refers to players asking for the best class: there is none, you should play what you think enjoy and what is cool to you. Why should this be different for Kill Team? Why are we trying so hard to insist on there is a wrong and right choice to build (there is still in KT 21, Bolt Pistol instead of Plasma Pistol? Oh no)?
@@NightfallTH with the greatest of respect there are mechanically right and wrong choices in both video games and tabletop wargames. Sometimes those choices can mean it’s impossible to achieve a win condition, or even feel like you are actually having a game. In KT-18 for example you could build four absolutely mad Space Marines that look cool as all hell and are absolutely thematic but will be wiped out by any half decently built list in the first round. If you’re Jonny New Guy who loves marines and the game lets you build a list so bad it’s not really playing the game there’s a problem, and it’s not the people who are building good lists (especially those building good thematic lists like Court of the Young King). Tabletop minis games aren’t RPGs. They inherently involve winning and loosing, and loosing in list building because you don’t understand the game is a real feelsbad, man moment that can put people off the game for good (which is why I generally insist on providing both teams when I teach games with list building). KT-21 isn’t perfect. Options like taking bolt pistol over plasma exist mostly to allow people to use existing minis, and mostly just make your life a little harder rather than being a catastrophic problem. There are other ways of fixing the problem too, but in the end they are just pick-list systems like KT-21 hiding behind points build by restrictions on numbers of powerful pieces.
Some new players are having a dreadful time already because they can’t play the models they want without proxying rules, eg. techpriests as hierotek. Proxying is hard for new people because they won’t have WYSIWYG and have to memorize mappings for each unit. Or their team is compendium and never going to get white dwarf so not balanced by GW own statements of intent to stop balancing compendium like tyranids, sisters of battle, deathwatch.
As a casual, I would rather they have expanded list selection, rather than full list building. Not fully open, but Like the Phobos. Pick 6 models with 3 types of units to choose from.
I do not want a return to points, I think it would be a pointless change and going without points is a step in the right direction for a balanced competitive skirmish game. We still technically have points, in our equipment options. What I would like to see is a basic equipment list that all races can use, generic things worded in such a way they fit all teams. Such as climbing gear, sensor equipment. These work exactly the same as climbing ropes or an auspex, but are slightly higher cost. 2EP CLIMBING GEAR. 4EP auspex. This way every team has access to these important items but are at a disadvantage to teams who get them natively but at a lower cost. But you’re not without them. As for list building & rosters. I don’t really have an opinion, having never played in a tournament. But picking a faction like you explained with malifaux. That’s a cool concept and will become much more viable if they focused on necrons tau tyranids space marines & votaan in the next edition. Imperial guard already have quite the roster of teams they can use. Eldar have 3 teams, drukhari have 2, marine have 2 teams, chaos marines have 3 (including nemesis claw) you got chaos cults & blooded for traitor guard. Demons have gellerpox Would work out quite nicely in theory
3:50 it’s a Star Cannon. The dude with the basic SC is actually the leader, because his job was to hide at the back generating CP. Ork teams regularly used a Grot as their leader because it was the easiest of the models available to hide.
Thank you for the space elf explanatory note. And yes, all the stuff about your leader being a billy basic guy who stands at the back is coming back to me.
I played 40k 10 years ago. I enjoyed the hobby aspect, but not the constant escalation as other players wanted to grow their point values at different rates, and with different goals of optimizing for victory or fun. I'm over 40 now with more constraints on my time. The fact that KT does NOT require list building is one of the things I enjoy most about it. It reduces the time I spend naval gazing and instead helps get me and my small friend group playing on the table faster. When I want to try a new set of rules, I just have to build another 10 or so models and I'm good to go (ignoring proxies here). And as you pointed out some factions do come with soft list building so if thats more your jam, there are options for you. I'm sure there's a set of people who really enjoy all the theory crafting of min/maxing their kill team. I hope I never have to play across the table from one ;)
All very true and I tend to agree! Nothing puts you off list building like running a Warhammer club for children where they get into this classic arms race. One buys a land raider the next week another has bought a knight and so on.
To anyone that wasn't playing last edition it was fun. I miss my Tau team with a mix of what's in the compendium and freaken Crisis suits! I also had a Deathwatch Team close to KT Cassius , I had a few Terminators, Vanguard vets, mixed in Phobos stuff even Suppressors. Don't get me started on Sub factions that opened a whole nother window of fun! I will say, this edition plays so much better and I'm glad to see Spam gone. But I miss my list and I had more fun in the hobby with that. I hope the next Ed gives us List building and sub factions, with limiting each special weapon, that's been a good design so far.
I love the fact that list building and points were dropped for KT21. It's one less variable to consider in an already nuanced game. It's cheaper as you can usually get a team from one box instead of cherry picking single operatives from several boxes. It helps focus how to best use the tools that you have been given, instead of hunting out what tools to use for the job.
It definitely makes the game cheaper for players brand new to GW games, on the flip side it makes it more expensive for people who cannot simply pull a selection of models from a huge 40k collection. IMO games workshop made a decision to go for a different audience this edition.
It's interesting to compare the priorities of different GW games and editions. KT18 was more like Warcry is now, encouraging players to buy more kits to build soup lists. KT21 is more of an on-ramp to 40k. You buy one product and then maybe you expand to a 40k army. With the reworked combat patrol, there isn't really a way to play a soupy 40k game until you reach 1000 points 40k. So that does seem like a demographic hole. That being said, points based systems are basically impossible to balance well. For example some Underworlds models are competitive in warcry because their points were set a long time ago and the warcry team hasn't had the bandwidth to rebalance them. The pool of 40k infantry and specialists that people would want rules for is larger than that of Age of Sigmar, so I don't think the designers at GW can be faulted for choosing a sustainable approach.
Thank you for the comment but I actually disagree with you on a couple of key points. KT18 was more like an on ramp for 40k in two key ways.. 1) By building a Kill team and buying those multiple kits you could quickly end up with enough models to play a small game of 40k. 2) The Rules where mechanically very similar to 40k at the time, unlike KT21. I think Warcry is in a weird place, because it has both "buy loads of boxes and soup lists" warbands and it ALSO has Kill Team style bespoke miniatures warbands. I think Warcry is very confused. Where you are 100% correct is the weird limit on Warcry "bandwidth" we don't hear from the team, we don't get balance updates, I couldn't even name the lead designer. It's a very quiet game for GW.
@@TabletopImpulse It will be interesting to see what they do with the next edition of Warcry. They might try to make list building more like KT21, but there might be an even larger backlash.
I’d like to see a return to compendium style fireteams for some more roster flexibility. With certain picks locking out more broken combinations. Or opening up different combinations. KT branded boxes could become new fire teams to slot in/replace compendium data sheets.
Would definitely be interesting if they decided to revert back to the compendium "mix and match" style with fire teams. I don't think folks would enjoy seeing the existing teams invalidated though.
@@TabletopImpulse Not invalidated as such, but they could possibly be split. 7 vet guard & 5 kasrkin could be just as valid as running a full team of one or the other. But perhaps the special weapons could be locked to the fire team your leader is in or something similar.
No, but what it could use is suggestions for other teams thst could use this datasheet. As in, human sized team? Could be humans, could be catachan, could be pirates. Melee Marines? Could be charchadons, could be space wolves. This chonk and small combo? Could be imperium and ogryn. Could be tau and a big machine. Could be small nids and a big nid.
Sort of like official proxy advice? A cool idea, but I can't see GW going for it. I think it would probably interact poorly with their sales model which is to get people excited about new plastic.
@@TabletopImpulse true, but it would be the superior option game wise. Plus current edition kill team was already the "we accidentally made it good and now don't know what to do with it" redheaded stepchild
0:14 My initial response is no if it’s points based. I enjoyed the previous version of Kill Team, but there were some very big issues with listening to building. You could easily build a functional team, but there were only a few *good* ways to build them for certain factions.
and regarding points - I don't know why people celebrated the new edition which took so much away instead of just demanded balancing imbalanced lists. Plasma spam is unfair and uncool? Yes. So limit Plasmas to two. That's one rules sentence. Or, if someone shows up with Plasma Spam at your house you say "ok Steve, but could you please use your other Kill Team? Thanks!" There are thousands of other, more effective measurements to take on before destroying flavorful Kill Teams which celebrate uniqueness
It is, but like I said in the video - what's the point of points if you have these other limits? Most of the folks who want to freely build want to spam, maybe not plasma but something.
@@TabletopImpulse I really think, casual people are using points to be able to choose a weaker option because they like it (Chainsword goes brrrrr, can't have a Commissar with a P-Sword, it has to be a Chainsword) BUT, if I opt for the weaker Chainsword, I should be able to purchase a Rocket Launcher on one of my other dudes.
I never played the 2018 version of the game but I'm quite satisfied with the current lists and don't want to reintroduce the previous point based list building system.
Great to hear from you Michael, like I said in the video it seems to be true that generally RUclips comments are negative toward points, but those on the discord tend to be in favor of them coming back - which is a little weird.
Just another comment concerning the seasons. The frogs 🐸 are croaking and the spring peepers are peeping in the bog behind my house. So, apparently amphibians agree with you, March is spring. So winter ends with February.
Totally worth saying again that making "broken" "Beardy" lists can be it's own kind of fun, and some people really enjoy it. I think one of the nice things about GW making a lot of games is that they can appeal to lots of different gamers.
Competitive players would prefer list building as they 'win' the game before playing by picking the best options whilst more players are likely to take the 'ineffcient' choices - exploiting this difference minimises variance and player skill during the game. Without points, the player skill is more relevant and crucially, balance cane be easier to achive
Could just be the circles I move in but I have not actually heard one competitive Kill Team player wishing for more list building, the complaints all come from casual or narratively minded players - such as Uncle Adam.
So happy when people talk about Malifaux. It's such an amazing game and was also the game that got me back into hobby. On topic, you make great points. I really don't think people understand what they are asking for when they "just want list building" (sure this will be a popular statement). The previous edition of KT is objectively a worse game. KT '21 has such a tight, competitive rule set with a large skill ceiling. Pretty much any KT has a chance of winning when played skillfully. It also elevates the issue of running into skewed list. Which just leads to feels bad, auto lose moments. In addition, it forces GW to actually balance teams instead of the easy out of $adjusting points$. Not against the idea of more teams like Inquisition or Blades of Khaine, but full on list building I hope doesn't return. The new tabletopminions video (starting wargaming in 2024) was a disappointment, as you can see his biased come in during the Warhammer portion. Doesn't mention KT, but tries to push Warcry because it has list building. And thus, thinks its a better game (its not, sorry). Even goes as far to heart/like(?) comments suggesting people to buy a box set just so you can maaaybe get your friends into it. I've been able to get a few friends of mine into KT because you only need to buy one box (generally), and isn't "Well this is what is meta, so you need to buy these boxes". Which Warcry falls into unfortunately. Also you'll come to find out (at least for me) that Warcry isn't the most commonly played game, and this is coming from an area that has many LGSs available. I can find games of Malifaux before a game of Warcry. Anyway, great video.
Glad you enjoyed the video, agree on Tabletop Minions, used to love that channel but his biases are no longer my biases. Which is fine, you know it doesn't make him a bad guy. Just no longer for me. Malifaux was a great game. Seems to have fallen off the face of the earth now though.
If we’re talking about competitive KT, list building would destroy balance. KT is only as balanced as it is because your unit selection within a faction is limited and, therefore, manageable. If we’re talking about casual games between friends, then why not just go back to playing KT18 if you want list building?
Ah now hang on, I feel like "Just keep playing the old edition" is such a poorly thought through argument though, people want to play the game but still feel included in online discourse. Like that gets said a lot, but there are not really enclaves of people playing older editions of games really, Warhammer Fantasy being the single exception.
It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy when you stop playing a game, or a version of a game, just because the company releases a new version/edition. If fans of KT19 had just kept playing that version, then RUclips creators could have continued to support the community. And as things changed in big 40k, they would have filtered down to KT, giving people new opportunities for list building.
Kill Team is the only "competitive" game i play because you CAN'T just win with a bullshit list. Removing the list building element makes the game about player skill, not who has the 'better' list and opens the field to players like myself who just do armies because they're cool. If it goes back to '18 I'm out.
I think list building can be a valid expression of player skill, like I actually think 40k 10th edition is in a reasonable place with this - I don't play it much but looking at event winning lists they don't look deeply sad. But I do get your overall meaning and there have been various games over the years where the list building freedom has basically killed the game.
@@TabletopImpulse I'm a firm believer that restrictions are essential for a healthy game. They protect players from the worst excesses of the WAAC crowd and keep things, if not fair, then not a lost cause. Without that there comes a point where, without a huge gulf in player skill, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Like an opponent said to me at a HH event, "You didn't lose, you just never had a chance to begin with." I've never had that in Kill Team but it happened a lot in AoS.
I’d prefer an app. That works and is updated and that validates operative selection. It doesn’t matter whether it’s points or stones or some other currency or even if that then this type rules as currently, just an app that tells me, yes, this is permitted, no, you have made an illegal selection. The way say hunter Clade selection is written is like a logic puzzle. It’s so badly written and so needlessly wordy that it almost puts me Off bothering. Yes, I’m spoilt by having Malifaux as my main game but good god the team building Process in KT is painful. Thankfully it’s a good game So I persevere!
Apps can be good, but honestly I don't feel Kill Team needs an app as it stands. Ok yes, hunter Clade can be a little complex but basically every other team in the game is really straightforward. Do you really need an app to build say, a Kasrkin roster?
@@TabletopImpulseperhaps not, but an app such as the m3e one would allow me to track conditions in game and work out what the hell my Opponents stuff does if I’m not familiar with it during the game. Plus to which is effectively operates as a catalogue for GW. It seems a no brainier to me. Guess they’re worried that it would negate the need for annuals and other books 🤷🏽♂️
I am unconvinced you could have both! The question is if you had to choose which would you rather, a whole new more flexible paradigm, or all current teams remaining valid?
@@TabletopImpulse I’m not convinced either. Have maybe a ruleset where you keep the current teams, but update them a bit compendium style (but not weak garbage like compendium for most of them) or simply include them as is, but the newer teams themselves follow newer more flexible rules.
As a new comer I feel no points is good, I can play the game from buying a box and I see skill as the new points. I also understand that a part of the hobby is deep diving rules, points making the most powerful team. Some people might not like this cause they can’t be “OP”, they have to be skilled instead.
I never played the former edition. Where equipment (like Grenades) included in the 100 points? Because i would like a trade off between equipment and model selection.
I’m not sure 40k 10th is really in that great a place. I’m not playing this edition so my evidence is largely hearsay, but GW seems to still be having trouble making Marines truly competitive. Supposedly it costs $2000 to field a tournament level Admech army. They “fixed” Death Guard primarily by dropping the points such that a 2000pt army became a 1500pt army. Attempts at creating “internal balance” generally result in the current hot units being over costed to the point they can’t be taken while the less played units have their points dropped to a level that makes them almost must include. I’m just not sure that reintroducing that type of challenge to KT is a net improvement.
Mmmhmm. You have definitely identified something valid here. When I say 40k is doing balance well I mean, specifically, when I look up tournament winning lists they aren't very spammy and look quite balance. However yes, you are correct that GW is balancing primarily with points costs. This is because, so they say, that their market research tells them people don't really like it when they change datasheets. So whenever possible they balance using points. However this does result in some armies, like Death Guard not "Feeling right" they should be a really hardy elite force of 10,000 year old veterans, instead the currently play as a horde. Not, I don't think unbalanced but the rules don't reflect the background properly for sure.
Another consideration is potential cost, depending on which models are allowed in a KT constructed list. Now, I can just spend $60 and get a playable team in one box. With points based list building, you could well be looking at buying several different boxes to get the specific models you need, sort of like the Salvation aspect warrior team has worked out.
It'd be nice to see Kill Team go back to a format closer to KT18. You're supposed to be able to take your 40k army's models and made a cool squad with Kill Team, not buy an entirely different game set.
hmm, you have definitely identified a difference between KT18 and KT21, but I don't know about supposed to. I think being a totally separate game has probably helped Kill Team become a really popular game. There are a lot of folks in the community who don't play 40k and have no wish to. One of the problems you can have when KT is essentially a game that mainly appeals to 40k players is that if something big and cool happens in 40k, interest in KT will drop off. Which definitely happened at times during KT 18's run.
I feel like that is more of GW problem and not a KT problem. I have no idea why they are selling incomplete kits for the big teams (how many vet guardsmen do I have to buy to cover all options?) and their approach to the rules books strikes me a silly as a new guy starting. Having 'official proxies' for the teams would be great if I could just pick up a box of intercession marines and be good to go for either game (and GW can whack on the parts that don't quite fit to make it work, if that's more sprues in the 10 man kit or looser rules or whatever). I mostly want to see more Kommandos in Cans.
From a noncompetetiv player of Gellerpox. More good one box no loadout Teams please. Thats what sold me on them and make them right choice after intercessors(tutorial).
I tend to think one of the nice things about Kill team is that people who want a nice simple one box team have quite a few options (Kommandos spring to mind, as well as the beastmen) and people who want to get stuck into list building have a few options (Inquisition, Adeptus Mechanicus) and so everyone can find their fun.
Real talk, the best thing about the lack of list building is that it’s much harder for new players to screw up, so they are much less likely to have a dreadful time and decide that the game is not for them.
That is also a factor yes, though I suppose you could decide you really loved flamethrowers.
@@TabletopImpulse I mean if you like Flamers that much there are always Novitiates, where flamers are actually the right choice 😉
Sorry but I don't think this should be an argument. Every videogame guide refers to players asking for the best class: there is none, you should play what you think enjoy and what is cool to you.
Why should this be different for Kill Team? Why are we trying so hard to insist on there is a wrong and right choice to build (there is still in KT 21, Bolt Pistol instead of Plasma Pistol? Oh no)?
@@NightfallTH with the greatest of respect there are mechanically right and wrong choices in both video games and tabletop wargames. Sometimes those choices can mean it’s impossible to achieve a win condition, or even feel like you are actually having a game. In KT-18 for example you could build four absolutely mad Space Marines that look cool as all hell and are absolutely thematic but will be wiped out by any half decently built list in the first round. If you’re Jonny New Guy who loves marines and the game lets you build a list so bad it’s not really playing the game there’s a problem, and it’s not the people who are building good lists (especially those building good thematic lists like Court of the Young King).
Tabletop minis games aren’t RPGs. They inherently involve winning and loosing, and loosing in list building because you don’t understand the game is a real feelsbad, man moment that can put people off the game for good (which is why I generally insist on providing both teams when I teach games with list building).
KT-21 isn’t perfect. Options like taking bolt pistol over plasma exist mostly to allow people to use existing minis, and mostly just make your life a little harder rather than being a catastrophic problem. There are other ways of fixing the problem too, but in the end they are just pick-list systems like KT-21 hiding behind points build by restrictions on numbers of powerful pieces.
Some new players are having a dreadful time already because they can’t play the models they want without proxying rules, eg. techpriests as hierotek. Proxying is hard for new people because they won’t have WYSIWYG and have to memorize mappings for each unit. Or their team is compendium and never going to get white dwarf so not balanced by GW own statements of intent to stop balancing compendium like tyranids, sisters of battle, deathwatch.
As a casual, I would rather they have expanded list selection, rather than full list building. Not fully open, but Like the Phobos. Pick 6 models with 3 types of units to choose from.
Yeah, they could expand things somewhat without blowing it wide open.
31:10 Strange to not mention me as a top pro player!
Must have slipped my mind!
I do not want a return to points, I think it would be a pointless change and going without points is a step in the right direction for a balanced competitive skirmish game. We still technically have points, in our equipment options. What I would like to see is a basic equipment list that all races can use, generic things worded in such a way they fit all teams. Such as climbing gear, sensor equipment. These work exactly the same as climbing ropes or an auspex, but are slightly higher cost. 2EP CLIMBING GEAR. 4EP auspex. This way every team has access to these important items but are at a disadvantage to teams who get them natively but at a lower cost. But you’re not without them.
As for list building & rosters. I don’t really have an opinion, having never played in a tournament. But picking a faction like you explained with malifaux. That’s a cool concept and will become much more viable if they focused on necrons tau tyranids space marines & votaan in the next edition.
Imperial guard already have quite the roster of teams they can use. Eldar have 3 teams, drukhari have 2, marine have 2 teams, chaos marines have 3 (including nemesis claw) you got chaos cults & blooded for traitor guard. Demons have gellerpox
Would work out quite nicely in theory
A POINTLESS CHANGE?! hohoho. I could get behind a basic equipment list.
3:01 Beeranid is another KT RUclipsr that’s basically disappeared since the current edition came out.
I have heard of him from Glandy, but never watched his stuff back in the day.
3:50 it’s a Star Cannon. The dude with the basic SC is actually the leader, because his job was to hide at the back generating CP. Ork teams regularly used a Grot as their leader because it was the easiest of the models available to hide.
Thank you for the space elf explanatory note. And yes, all the stuff about your leader being a billy basic guy who stands at the back is coming back to me.
9:35 Secret sauce, the Court of the Young King list was way more filthy than Guard Plasma Spam.
Good to know, I never played KT18 at anything like a competitive level.
I played 40k 10 years ago. I enjoyed the hobby aspect, but not the constant escalation as other players wanted to grow their point values at different rates, and with different goals of optimizing for victory or fun. I'm over 40 now with more constraints on my time. The fact that KT does NOT require list building is one of the things I enjoy most about it. It reduces the time I spend naval gazing and instead helps get me and my small friend group playing on the table faster. When I want to try a new set of rules, I just have to build another 10 or so models and I'm good to go (ignoring proxies here). And as you pointed out some factions do come with soft list building so if thats more your jam, there are options for you. I'm sure there's a set of people who really enjoy all the theory crafting of min/maxing their kill team. I hope I never have to play across the table from one ;)
All very true and I tend to agree! Nothing puts you off list building like running a Warhammer club for children where they get into this classic arms race. One buys a land raider the next week another has bought a knight and so on.
And by "children" I assume you mean fully grown adults ;)@@TabletopImpulse
100% with you on list building. I never played last edition competitively but it totally encouraged jank
Yep, I agree. But we do need to acknowledge that some folks want list building for storytelling purposes.
To anyone that wasn't playing last edition it was fun. I miss my Tau team with a mix of what's in the compendium and freaken Crisis suits! I also had a Deathwatch Team close to KT Cassius , I had a few Terminators, Vanguard vets, mixed in Phobos stuff even Suppressors. Don't get me started on Sub factions that opened a whole nother window of fun!
I will say, this edition plays so much better and I'm glad to see Spam gone. But I miss my list and I had more fun in the hobby with that. I hope the next Ed gives us List building and sub factions, with limiting each special weapon, that's been a good design so far.
Agreed
23:43 Ah, the Harlequin experience except Harlequins never seem to be bad.
Harlequins are apparently not great in 10th right now? IDK.
I love the fact that list building and points were dropped for KT21. It's one less variable to consider in an already nuanced game. It's cheaper as you can usually get a team from one box instead of cherry picking single operatives from several boxes. It helps focus how to best use the tools that you have been given, instead of hunting out what tools to use for the job.
It definitely makes the game cheaper for players brand new to GW games, on the flip side it makes it more expensive for people who cannot simply pull a selection of models from a huge 40k collection. IMO games workshop made a decision to go for a different audience this edition.
It's interesting to compare the priorities of different GW games and editions. KT18 was more like Warcry is now, encouraging players to buy more kits to build soup lists. KT21 is more of an on-ramp to 40k. You buy one product and then maybe you expand to a 40k army. With the reworked combat patrol, there isn't really a way to play a soupy 40k game until you reach 1000 points 40k. So that does seem like a demographic hole.
That being said, points based systems are basically impossible to balance well. For example some Underworlds models are competitive in warcry because their points were set a long time ago and the warcry team hasn't had the bandwidth to rebalance them. The pool of 40k infantry and specialists that people would want rules for is larger than that of Age of Sigmar, so I don't think the designers at GW can be faulted for choosing a sustainable approach.
Thank you for the comment but I actually disagree with you on a couple of key points. KT18 was more like an on ramp for 40k in two key ways..
1) By building a Kill team and buying those multiple kits you could quickly end up with enough models to play a small game of 40k.
2) The Rules where mechanically very similar to 40k at the time, unlike KT21.
I think Warcry is in a weird place, because it has both "buy loads of boxes and soup lists" warbands and it ALSO has Kill Team style bespoke miniatures warbands. I think Warcry is very confused. Where you are 100% correct is the weird limit on Warcry "bandwidth" we don't hear from the team, we don't get balance updates, I couldn't even name the lead designer. It's a very quiet game for GW.
@@TabletopImpulse It will be interesting to see what they do with the next edition of Warcry. They might try to make list building more like KT21, but there might be an even larger backlash.
Respect: thanks for not turning my lights on/off via google ❤😂
Of course!
I’d like to see a return to compendium style fireteams for some more roster flexibility. With certain picks locking out more broken combinations. Or opening up different combinations.
KT branded boxes could become new fire teams to slot in/replace compendium data sheets.
I'm not sure that I can be persuaded that the compendium era wasn't the most fun.
Would definitely be interesting if they decided to revert back to the compendium "mix and match" style with fire teams. I don't think folks would enjoy seeing the existing teams invalidated though.
@@TabletopImpulse Not invalidated as such, but they could possibly be split. 7 vet guard & 5 kasrkin could be just as valid as running a full team of one or the other. But perhaps the special weapons could be locked to the fire team your leader is in or something similar.
No, but what it could use is suggestions for other teams thst could use this datasheet. As in, human sized team? Could be humans, could be catachan, could be pirates. Melee Marines? Could be charchadons, could be space wolves.
This chonk and small combo? Could be imperium and ogryn. Could be tau and a big machine. Could be small nids and a big nid.
Sort of like official proxy advice? A cool idea, but I can't see GW going for it. I think it would probably interact poorly with their sales model which is to get people excited about new plastic.
@@TabletopImpulse true, but it would be the superior option game wise. Plus current edition kill team was already the "we accidentally made it good and now don't know what to do with it" redheaded stepchild
0:14 My initial response is no if it’s points based. I enjoyed the previous version of Kill Team, but there were some very big issues with listening to building. You could easily build a functional team, but there were only a few *good* ways to build them for certain factions.
mmhm
39:32 I agree that letting you make small choices in team & roster comp are a tool that helps players elevate their gameplay.
Indeed.
"The internet ruins everything" slide discussion - yes, 100 time yes.
Lets just pop in my time machine and head back to Warhammer in the 90's!
@@TabletopImpulseI still PVA glue sand to my bases (a and still have some goblin green) so sounds good!
and regarding points - I don't know why people celebrated the new edition which took so much away instead of just demanded balancing imbalanced lists. Plasma spam is unfair and uncool? Yes. So limit Plasmas to two. That's one rules sentence. Or, if someone shows up with Plasma Spam at your house you say "ok Steve, but could you please use your other Kill Team? Thanks!" There are thousands of other, more effective measurements to take on before destroying flavorful Kill Teams which celebrate uniqueness
It is, but like I said in the video - what's the point of points if you have these other limits? Most of the folks who want to freely build want to spam, maybe not plasma but something.
@@TabletopImpulse I really think, casual people are using points to be able to choose a weaker option because they like it (Chainsword goes brrrrr, can't have a Commissar with a P-Sword, it has to be a Chainsword) BUT, if I opt for the weaker Chainsword, I should be able to purchase a Rocket Launcher on one of my other dudes.
I would want GW to go for "elite" teams for the teams that currently are not elite, and horde for the teams that are elite
Yeah it would be great if more factions had more playstiles represented. Though I suppose some factions don't suit every style.
I never played the 2018 version of the game but I'm quite satisfied with the current lists and don't want to reintroduce the previous point based list building system.
Great to hear from you Michael, like I said in the video it seems to be true that generally RUclips comments are negative toward points, but those on the discord tend to be in favor of them coming back - which is a little weird.
Just another comment concerning the seasons. The frogs 🐸 are croaking and the spring peepers are peeping in the bog behind my house. So, apparently amphibians agree with you, March is spring. So winter ends with February.
Frogs agree with the facts.
I don''t miss KT list building in the main, however, "Beardy" Deathwatch lists used to be great fun 🙂
Totally worth saying again that making "broken" "Beardy" lists can be it's own kind of fun, and some people really enjoy it. I think one of the nice things about GW making a lot of games is that they can appeal to lots of different gamers.
Competitive players would prefer list building as they 'win' the game before playing by picking the best options whilst more players are likely to take the 'ineffcient' choices - exploiting this difference minimises variance and player skill during the game.
Without points, the player skill is more relevant and crucially, balance cane be easier to achive
Could just be the circles I move in but I have not actually heard one competitive Kill Team player wishing for more list building, the complaints all come from casual or narratively minded players - such as Uncle Adam.
So happy when people talk about Malifaux. It's such an amazing game and was also the game that got me back into hobby.
On topic, you make great points. I really don't think people understand what they are asking for when they "just want list building" (sure this will be a popular statement). The previous edition of KT is objectively a worse game. KT '21 has such a tight, competitive rule set with a large skill ceiling. Pretty much any KT has a chance of winning when played skillfully. It also elevates the issue of running into skewed list. Which just leads to feels bad, auto lose moments. In addition, it forces GW to actually balance teams instead of the easy out of $adjusting points$. Not against the idea of more teams like Inquisition or Blades of Khaine, but full on list building I hope doesn't return.
The new tabletopminions video (starting wargaming in 2024) was a disappointment, as you can see his biased come in during the Warhammer portion. Doesn't mention KT, but tries to push Warcry because it has list building. And thus, thinks its a better game (its not, sorry). Even goes as far to heart/like(?) comments suggesting people to buy a box set just so you can maaaybe get your friends into it. I've been able to get a few friends of mine into KT because you only need to buy one box (generally), and isn't "Well this is what is meta, so you need to buy these boxes". Which Warcry falls into unfortunately. Also you'll come to find out (at least for me) that Warcry isn't the most commonly played game, and this is coming from an area that has many LGSs available. I can find games of Malifaux before a game of Warcry.
Anyway, great video.
Glad you enjoyed the video, agree on Tabletop Minions, used to love that channel but his biases are no longer my biases. Which is fine, you know it doesn't make him a bad guy. Just no longer for me. Malifaux was a great game. Seems to have fallen off the face of the earth now though.
If we’re talking about competitive KT, list building would destroy balance. KT is only as balanced as it is because your unit selection within a faction is limited and, therefore, manageable. If we’re talking about casual games between friends, then why not just go back to playing KT18 if you want list building?
Ah now hang on, I feel like "Just keep playing the old edition" is such a poorly thought through argument though, people want to play the game but still feel included in online discourse. Like that gets said a lot, but there are not really enclaves of people playing older editions of games really, Warhammer Fantasy being the single exception.
It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy when you stop playing a game, or a version of a game, just because the company releases a new version/edition. If fans of KT19 had just kept playing that version, then RUclips creators could have continued to support the community. And as things changed in big 40k, they would have filtered down to KT, giving people new opportunities for list building.
Kill Team is the only "competitive" game i play because you CAN'T just win with a bullshit list. Removing the list building element makes the game about player skill, not who has the 'better' list and opens the field to players like myself who just do armies because they're cool. If it goes back to '18 I'm out.
I think list building can be a valid expression of player skill, like I actually think 40k 10th edition is in a reasonable place with this - I don't play it much but looking at event winning lists they don't look deeply sad. But I do get your overall meaning and there have been various games over the years where the list building freedom has basically killed the game.
@@TabletopImpulse I'm a firm believer that restrictions are essential for a healthy game. They protect players from the worst excesses of the WAAC crowd and keep things, if not fair, then not a lost cause. Without that there comes a point where, without a huge gulf in player skill, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Like an opponent said to me at a HH event, "You didn't lose, you just never had a chance to begin with." I've never had that in Kill Team but it happened a lot in AoS.
I’d prefer an app. That works and is updated and that validates operative selection. It doesn’t matter whether it’s points or stones or some other currency or even if that then this type rules as currently, just an app that tells me, yes, this is permitted, no, you have made an illegal selection.
The way say hunter Clade selection is written is like a logic puzzle. It’s so badly written and so needlessly wordy that it almost puts me Off bothering. Yes, I’m spoilt by having Malifaux as my main game but good god the team building
Process in KT is painful. Thankfully it’s a good game
So I persevere!
Apps can be good, but honestly I don't feel Kill Team needs an app as it stands. Ok yes, hunter Clade can be a little complex but basically every other team in the game is really straightforward. Do you really need an app to build say, a Kasrkin roster?
@@TabletopImpulseperhaps not, but an app such as the m3e one would allow me to track conditions in game and work out what the hell my
Opponents stuff does if I’m not familiar with it during the game. Plus to which is effectively operates as a catalogue for GW. It seems a no brainier to me. Guess they’re worried that it would negate the need for annuals and other books 🤷🏽♂️
I feel it needs something more flexible. But I also hope they don’t diverge much from the current versions and invalidate all teama
I am unconvinced you could have both! The question is if you had to choose which would you rather, a whole new more flexible paradigm, or all current teams remaining valid?
@@TabletopImpulse I’m not convinced either. Have maybe a ruleset where you keep the current teams, but update them a bit compendium style (but not weak garbage like compendium for most of them) or simply include them as is, but the newer teams themselves follow newer more flexible rules.
As a new comer I feel no points is good, I can play the game from buying a box and I see skill as the new points. I also understand that a part of the hobby is deep diving rules, points making the most powerful team. Some people might not like this cause they can’t be “OP”, they have to be skilled instead.
An interesting perspective for sure, I am not sure I totally agree that Skill and Points are directly opposed, but it's an interesting concept.
I never played the former edition. Where equipment (like Grenades) included in the 100 points? Because i would like a trade off between equipment and model selection.
Yes, everything was paid for with points, there was no idea of separate equipment points.
Sounds wonderful
I’m not sure 40k 10th is really in that great a place. I’m not playing this edition so my evidence is largely hearsay, but GW seems to still be having trouble making Marines truly competitive. Supposedly it costs $2000 to field a tournament level Admech army. They “fixed” Death Guard primarily by dropping the points such that a 2000pt army became a 1500pt army. Attempts at creating “internal balance” generally result in the current hot units being over costed to the point they can’t be taken while the less played units have their points dropped to a level that makes them almost must include. I’m just not sure that reintroducing that type of challenge to KT is a net improvement.
Mmmhmm. You have definitely identified something valid here. When I say 40k is doing balance well I mean, specifically, when I look up tournament winning lists they aren't very spammy and look quite balance. However yes, you are correct that GW is balancing primarily with points costs. This is because, so they say, that their market research tells them people don't really like it when they change datasheets. So whenever possible they balance using points. However this does result in some armies, like Death Guard not "Feeling right" they should be a really hardy elite force of 10,000 year old veterans, instead the currently play as a horde. Not, I don't think unbalanced but the rules don't reflect the background properly for sure.
Another consideration is potential cost, depending on which models are allowed in a KT constructed list. Now, I can just spend $60 and get a playable team in one box. With points based list building, you could well be looking at buying several different boxes to get the specific models you need, sort of like the Salvation aspect warrior team has worked out.
Malifaux ❤
Fond memories
It'd be nice to see Kill Team go back to a format closer to KT18. You're supposed to be able to take your 40k army's models and made a cool squad with Kill Team, not buy an entirely different game set.
hmm, you have definitely identified a difference between KT18 and KT21, but I don't know about supposed to. I think being a totally separate game has probably helped Kill Team become a really popular game. There are a lot of folks in the community who don't play 40k and have no wish to. One of the problems you can have when KT is essentially a game that mainly appeals to 40k players is that if something big and cool happens in 40k, interest in KT will drop off. Which definitely happened at times during KT 18's run.
I feel like that is more of GW problem and not a KT problem. I have no idea why they are selling incomplete kits for the big teams (how many vet guardsmen do I have to buy to cover all options?) and their approach to the rules books strikes me a silly as a new guy starting. Having 'official proxies' for the teams would be great if I could just pick up a box of intercession marines and be good to go for either game (and GW can whack on the parts that don't quite fit to make it work, if that's more sprues in the 10 man kit or looser rules or whatever). I mostly want to see more Kommandos in Cans.
From a noncompetetiv player of Gellerpox. More good one box no loadout Teams please. Thats what sold me on them and make them right choice after intercessors(tutorial).
I tend to think one of the nice things about Kill team is that people who want a nice simple one box team have quite a few options (Kommandos spring to mind, as well as the beastmen) and people who want to get stuck into list building have a few options (Inquisition, Adeptus Mechanicus) and so everyone can find their fun.
This video is not nearly as useful as a toilet!
I'd agree!