Kill Team Vantage point FAQ drama explained!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 сер 2022
- An unexpected video appears
---------------------------------------------------
Thanks for watching. Please do leave any feedback in the comments - even if it is negative. Every bit of feedback makes the next video better. If your curious to see what comes next then you can subscribe to the channel and press the notification button.
If you want to buy stuff, if you buy it from here I can get some pennies
elementgames.co.uk/?d=10730
Or if you live in the US, you can now buy stuff from here to help me out
www.nobleknight.com/?awid=1208
I now have an exciting discord server were you can talk about Warhammer stuff:
/ discord
If you want to you can follow me here on instagram:
/ tabletop_impulse
Over here on Twitter:
/ philipj90112332
Or you can look at my really old school website:
www.nerv-impulse.net - Ігри
If only flamers had indirect
xD I'd love that.
There should’ve been a designer’s commentary on this change because modifying two bullet points has done anything but clarify the issue.
I definately agree. But then they would have to admit designers notes and erratas make changes rather then fixing typos and clarifying rules, which seems to be a weird sticking point.
Yes, and we know how infrequently GW admits fault or explains how things have gone awry.
I think you are spot on, especially with containers.
Thanks for the vote of confidence :)
Octaruis terrain floors are basically a series of holes loosely connected by rust that rounds go right through. Containers on the other hand are thick metal things that will deflect bullets. 🤷♂
That's one way of looking at it, I suppose it depends if you think the rules in this case are supposed to be you cant shoot the operative because there is solid metal in the way, or you cant shoot because you cant see them. Octarius floors look at least as solid as Octarious light walls? I don't know what the correct answer is.
@@TabletopImpulse I think the rules are the rules. Sometimes stuff gets abstracted or flat-out hand waved to make a better play experience (bumping in X-Wing or colliding ships not actually moving in Armada for example). That justification is just the RPG GM in me coming up with a reason my players will buy 😇
I think GW is trying to represent the difficulty of shooting someone almost directly above you. Give a bit of a cinematic aspect to the high ground and all. If I were GW I would just make a simple on/off rule that if you are within Circle of a Vantage point you are below and you target someone on that Vantage point, they get light cover. I think that would be nice, simple and clean, and they could expand it to Square or nerf it to triangle if need be. I think this compromise would make Obi-Wan proud. I may even just house rule my campaign to be like this for simplicity sake.
Also Mechanicus do have a sniper, and this change can still benefit Phobos without the need for a sniper since they can just shoot and then conceal.
A fair house rule. The Transuranic arquebus does not have silent, so its not a "sniper" in the sense I mean.
@@TabletopImpulse Fair. Forgot that bit.
My approach is to have a clear conversation before a game is played. I'm inclined to see floors as cover for the simple reason of cohesiveness but if my opponent doesn't wanna I'm not going to push the issue. For people playing in tournaments, TO's need to make a ruling and probably in the tournament pack. I feel like the Sniper interaction is an unintended consequence rather than a carefully crafted thought process, but until it's explained or changed its Obi-Wan on Mustafar memes for everyone.
Love a good meme
Phobos don't need a sniper, the whole team can flip back to concealed.
Very true
I would like this to be "If you within Red (Or may be White) from the vantage point, the floor counts as light cover, if you farther away it doesnt." that gives you a narative logic, and also the option to spend a move to reposition so you can still shoot, so the sniper has to calculate when its going to be safe or when to get out of a compromised position
Kurnite Hunter wouldn't be able to flip the conceal in your example because the Nov is within 1" of heavy terrain. So even that won't save us. :)
Well. Ok. I tried to find some logic.
@@TabletopImpulse :)
And now some more serious thoughts. We talked about this in our local group last night and the only place we really have a problem with it is on the Chalnath terrain, which has very substantial flooring. That should probably have the light trait at the very least.
The thing with the indy tournament community is that it, rather than Warhammer World, is the actual tournament scene. WW is a fun but functionally irrelevant side-meta. That's not intended as a slight on WW's events. We can discuss their flaws ad nauseum on the Discord if necessary, but I think we're all in settled positions now. The issue is there's only one WW, and a very limited number of people will ever play at their events.
There are also already big differences in the indy community events. Look at London vs Spain vs Poland vs the US. There are very different terrain layouts both in terms of density and types used. That changes how the game is played and what teams are the absolute panicle in every 'national' meta.
Everything you say is true, but I wish it were not so. Edit: On chalnath floors, if your group want to assign them heavy or light then that's perfectly within the rules. It is going to make snipers very hard to dislodge.
@@TabletopImpulse I feel the same way. Part of X-Wing’s overwhelming success as a competitive game was the fact you could go anywhere in the world with three ‘rocks’ & two to eight ships and the game you were playing would be the same as you played at your FLGS’ casual Sunday tournament. I think the ITCC has a lot to answer for here. Because the community organised itself standardisation was minimal. As long as you had a way to score across events for the rankings nothing else mattered to them, but their organising meant that GW didn’t need to establish their own proper OP program. They are trying now, but it may genuinely be too late to ever get a unified competitive scene for any GW games.
Come to that I’m not entirely sure the majority of the GW competitive community actually wants a unified OP experience.
If you have LoS from other Vantage point thats another counter play, which make sense like, battling snipers against snipers?
Yes indeed good point
Thank god we can't spam model types in Kill Team 2 anymore.
Yes indeed
This is a good point, and a reason why the barricade on the vantage points remain relevant
"Then you cry because you play Thousand Sons"
Mate, we have *unlimited range Indirect* in the form of Firestorm. We have anti-sniper tech. And unlike grenades, Firestorm can be used more than once.
No to be fair I was thinking of Auspex/Bird type things that turn off conceal. But yes, you have good indirect
Mostly a bit confused. Was there much complaint about the old rules for floors? I thought they kind of worked ok. Not sure why this was needed.
Sort of. There was a discord hypothetical about being able to shoot under ramparts. GW might have been trying to solve that problem, even though it was never played that way in the real world. I may have to make a second video.
As a new player to KT this is confusing as hell. Where can I find the latest rules regarding vantage points?
oof. This was a very specific and stupid thing that happened a year ago and has since been fixed, but to answer your question, the core rules FAQ on the kill team section of the downloads page on Warhammer Community.
I cannot find the change of rules, you show here. In the core rules faq 1.9 it is not mentioned that p. 72 did receive this change.
Hi! Yes, this video is about a year old! The problem has been solved for a long while and the FAQ's have been fixed.
@@TabletopImpulse Thank you for clarifying. This video really confused me for a while. ;-)
I would argue that the containers are not as overpowered as you originally indicated. My logic (though may be miss placed) is; due to the chamfer at the top of the container, the snipe on top of the container can be shot while on conceal, provided the shot can come from far enough away, that the line from base to base would not interest the side of the box. So a 6" range weapon may not hit them, but as you move farther out, the sniper on top, becomes a viable target. Note, the flat end of the container is still strong as well as other terrain. But a sniper can be shot off a container while on a conceal order. Or, is everything i just said BS?
to my eye, it looks like the cover line would clip it.
@@TabletopImpulse the more i read the rules, I agree, my statment is BS. But i belive my confusion comes in, that they changed one paragraph of vantage points, without changing it all. How does the sentence
"Instead, the operative must use parts that are the same height as or higher than the operative, such as a rampart or battlement on the Vantage Point." Come in to play? Or has this been deleted from the core rules too?
You have to draw the cover line to all parts of the base, so the rear of the base is certainly obscured by the face of the container
@@OurCognitiveSurplus No, since
The operative cannott be obscured (still) by terrain lower then it that is part of the vantage points terrain feature.
@@mattsomes Good call. My guess is that they forgot to clarify the paragraph you mentioned to say now Cover must come from the same height or higher.
Classic GW. Trying to clarify rules but creating more questions in the process.
So many more questions.
I feel attacked :)
If anything Matthew, you should feel supported!
@@TabletopImpulse I do, I was joking.
Same team! 😆
I don’t understand why you think B can shoot A in the first scenario (octarious floor only).
“If an operative positions themselves in Cover, they will use it for protection while they have an Engage order, or hide behind it while they have a Conceal order.”
If the floor can provide cover, they can hide behind it?
So, in the rule book where there is a diagram of the octarious terrain, you will see that the floor section is labelled "vantage point" not "Heavy cover" or "light cover" "vantage point" by itself, does not grant cover. The FAQ change doesn't seem like it RAW affects the floor. RAI maybe it should... but RAI maybe none of this was intended... really the floor thing is a sideshow though.
@@TabletopImpulse So the argument is that there are a couple of locations where the rules variously express “vantage doesn’t provide cover” and because they only delete one, it has no impact?
@@OurCognitiveSurplus No, I'm really sorry I must be explaining this poorly. Core book page 72 "Terrain Traits". The "Heavy" trait and "light" trait explicitly say they provide cover. The "vantage point" trait does not say it provides cover. Deleating "cannot use the floor of the vantage point as cover" implys that it can now be used as cover, but there is nothing in the rule for a vantage point to say it provides cover. Because the *floor* is not heavy or light - as per the terrain datasheet. You *could* assign it the keyword heavy or light if you and your opponent chose to.
@@TabletopImpulse yeah ok, I kind of see the argument. I’ve always taken those diagrams as indicative only, and the reason they didn’t indicate anything for the floor is that floors don’t / didn’t count.
I’d find it very hard to look at a floor and say “that has no characteristics” in a world where it’s clearly made out of thick metal strong enough to hold the weight of a bunch of Custodes or whatever.
@@OurCognitiveSurplus Absolutely, I also tend to take the diagrams as indicative only, but many folks don't.
But Bob... 😉
poor bob indeed.