PDA

View Full Version : Are you sick of people whining about kill points?



neophryte
14-06-2008, 21:17
Please post here if you are sick of the same 10 people arguing over and over that kill points suck.

Your opinion is widely known and all of those posts basically come down to the same people saying they suck and the same saying that they aren't bad in the context of the game as a whole.

This isn't a post in support of kill points or against, I am just curious if everyone else is as sick of it as I am especially considering that the book isn't even out and people don't have mass numbers of games under their belt yet.

Yes, I know game stores have the rules, but individuals for the most part do not.

Whitehorn
14-06-2008, 21:20
Hehe, a little.

Karhedron
14-06-2008, 21:33
Just a bit. But I gave people the benefit of the doubt and voted for a revisit.

Lord Malorne
14-06-2008, 21:47
I encourage whining as it is the best way to see whats wrong with something...and how to avoid the issue coming up...

Whiners I salute all your hard work ;).

Wrath
14-06-2008, 21:52
I actually have no problem with this being discussed, but I would prefer to get stuck into the rules before I weigh in or make up my mind. At first glance they seem absurd. this, however, seems to be the theme for 5th. <units providing cover with no consequence to the bullets flying into them, killing units that are out of LOS because 1 guy can be seen? :eyebrows: >

I need to see how these will mesh with each other and if they were changed for purely rules reasons. < cause sanity had nothing to do with it :p >

Da Black Gobbo
14-06-2008, 21:56
IMHO people should wait till we know how the kill points work playing a couple of games before whining.

Lord Malorne
14-06-2008, 22:00
IMHO people should wait till we know how the kill points work playing a couple of games before whining.

But we have the rumours...so the only way to avoid 'rumour whining' is to wait for things to come out of the dark and everyone to be aware of it at the same time...madness!

I hate whining about whining, but I also hate whining about it...so i'm off to de-tangle my mind ;).

Da Black Gobbo
14-06-2008, 22:24
But we have the rumours...so the only way to avoid 'rumour whining' is to wait for things to come out of the dark and everyone to be aware of it at the same time...madness!

I hate whining about whining, but I also hate whining about it...so i'm off to de-tangle my mind ;).


Agreed, but is always the same thing with games workshop and the rumours, people don't learn from the past. When GW decided to give High Elves in fantasy Allways Strike First they sky fell down and the earth shaked while the stars started falling and then it happened nothing, it wasn't OTT it was a different rule with some time to get used in order to fight against, is allways the same :rolleyes:.

Beware the Killpointsapocallipse is comming! and you cannot stop it!!

big squig
14-06-2008, 22:42
IMHO people should wait till we know how the kill points work playing a couple of games before whining.
Many people have. If something is truly broken, it deserves to be called out. Though I admit, we are being pretty loud about it. Still, it's amazing how something so unbalanced is deemed acceptable by GW.

Lardidar
14-06-2008, 23:28
I have been trying to count the number of posts 3/4 certain members have picked up from posting the same thing over and over about KP.

Yes it may well suck, you have the right to bring it up .... but when the same thing is being brought up for the 60th time (split over the same 3-4 users) it gets a little tiresome.

Sir_Turalyon
14-06-2008, 23:39
I'm sick of people in general ;) .

Then, people zealously protesting something that has not been tried and proved wrong yet are... tiresome.

Royal Tiger
15-06-2008, 00:07
I'm getting sick of people making topics to moan about other peoples topics

Starchild
15-06-2008, 06:19
I'm getting sick of people making topics to moan about other peoples topicsIf you don't like kill points, don't play the scenarios that use them. Case closed until further notice. :)

Mad Larkin UK
15-06-2008, 18:09
Ive played lots of games using all the missions, and i dont have a problem with Kill points. This mainly stems from the fact that no matter what the mission, someone will have an advantage based on their list. It is up to the players to win, even if disadvantaged.

Now dont get me wrong, i think that kill points needed a little more work, but i hope that in the FAQ's for each army that will come out on 5th edition release day will clear some of the sillyness up. For instance, Spore mines dont give away kill points ,etc. I think people should wait for the rulebook and FAQ's before making their minds up

Artois
15-06-2008, 18:42
I'm kinda sick of all the whiners, not just concerning the kill points issue. I think GW know what they're doing. They have a lot of experience concerning wargames:p

If they see that something doesn't work when they play test they abolish it...

Charax
15-06-2008, 18:51
I'm not sick of it at all - it's a natural reaction to seeing a rule that is absolutely, utterly and irredeemably unbalanced, people go "That can't possibly be right" and complain.

However, it is right. Kill points are unbalanced, and it's intentional - 2/3 of the time you'll be hunting objectives, 1/3 of the time you'll be using Kill Points. the reason Kill Points are unbalanced is to make optimising a list for all situations nearly impossibl - more units = more objectives = more likely to give away KPs. Smaller armies = fewer Kill Points for the enemy = less able to capture/contest onjectives - the Kill Points rules when taken in a vacuum are unbalanced, but the rules should never be taken in a vacuum.

Stingray_tm
15-06-2008, 19:20
I'm kinda sick of all the whiners, not just concerning the kill points issue. I think GW know what they're doing. They have a lot of experience concerning wargames:p

If they see that something doesn't work when they play test they abolish it...

What dream world are you living in?

Stingray_tm
15-06-2008, 19:22
I'm not sick of it at all - it's a natural reaction to seeing a rule that is absolutely, utterly and irredeemably unbalanced, people go "That can't possibly be right" and complain.

However, it is right. Kill points are unbalanced, and it's intentional - 2/3 of the time you'll be hunting objectives, 1/3 of the time you'll be using Kill Points. the reason Kill Points are unbalanced is to make optimising a list for all situations nearly impossibl - more units = more objectives = more likely to give away KPs. Smaller armies = fewer Kill Points for the enemy = less able to capture/contest onjectives - the Kill Points rules when taken in a vacuum are unbalanced, but the rules should never be taken in a vacuum.

As pointed out by several people (including me) repeatedly (but usually getting ignored), even in connection with the other missions, kill points are NOT balanced, because even with so called "balanced" armies, you will come up with armies, that give 8 KP and armies, that give 12 KP.

Charax
15-06-2008, 19:27
You know, you've convinced me, I've changed my mind.

Now I am sick of all the whining about kill points

Stingray_tm
15-06-2008, 19:34
It only becomes whining, when people run out of arguments and decide to accuse the other side of whining.

Mr Zephy
15-06-2008, 19:41
Smaller armies = fewer Kill Points for the enemy = less able to capture/contest onjectives - the Kill Points rules when taken in a vacuum are unbalanced, but the rules should never be taken in a vacuum.

However, smaller armies = fewer Kill Points for the enemy = more elite army (e.g. Space Marines) = better able to contest or defend objectives.

Can you really imagine Imperial Guardsmen assaulting SM tactical squads on an objective and winning?

Malachai
15-06-2008, 19:46
I hate all the whining, it's anoying. If you don't like your hobby, go and find yourself another one.

kendaop
15-06-2008, 20:03
I fail to see how killpoints is unbalanced. It's just another dimension of the game that you have to take into account. How can something be "unbalanced" if it affects all armies the same? If you want more/fewer killpoints in your army, then change your list up. Just because the current version of your army may not be ideal with killpoints in mind, doesn't mean the rule is broken. I'm looking forward to the new missions because with some being objective-based and some being killpoint based, it means that you can no longer create the "ideal" or "cheesy" army and expect to automatically win every tournament. Even the best armies are going to have a downside. Either they'll be bad at grabbing objectives (few scoring units) or they'll potentially give away many killpoints.

USER1
15-06-2008, 20:33
If you read any of the new rules and find yourself thinking that they are absolutly terrible you should stop and realize that you must have got the wrong end of the stick. GW may not always make perfect rules but they are unlikly to miss something that would ruin the game.

Stingray_tm
15-06-2008, 20:57
How can something be "unbalanced" if it affects all armies the same?

It doesn't affect all armies the same. Space Marines can have tough and versatile Troop selections, Nids can't. 800 points of Space Marine Troops beat 800 points of Nid Troops. And even then Space Marines probably will have less KP than Nids.

Opponents of KP state reasons, why KP won't work.
Supporters of KP say, that the opponents are wrong, because GW wouldn't do something, that is stupid.

1. GW already did many things, that are stupid and imbalanced in the past.
2. I find the reasoning of those supporters quite flawed, if it comes basing their opinion on logical thinking.

It's a bit like argueing with Creatonists. The bible can't be wrong, can it?

Latro_
15-06-2008, 21:24
All this KP talk has really got me in the mood for some peanuts.

Does the annihlation mission have a sole 'who ever gets the most KP's wins?' for example if army a has 4 units and army b has 12 units. If army a kills 5 units and army b kills 4 units (wiping out the opponent) does army a still 'win', this would be silly.

IJW
15-06-2008, 21:36
Wipeout = win, regardless of mission or objective.

Stingray_tm
15-06-2008, 21:56
But you will lose, if you have 12 units in the beginning and the enemy has 4. You kill 3 and he kills 4. He won, even though you killed 1500 of his 2000 points and he killed only 300.

DhaosAndy
15-06-2008, 22:12
The problem with kill points is that the're a retrograde step. They do what they do, but nothing they do could not be done better with victory points. Conclusion, they are a bad rule, even worse than being able to draw LOS through terrain.

One does not necessarily expect each edition to be better than the last, but what could not be improved should have been retained, not replaced with an inferior substitue. KP's are basically VP's for the hard of thinking.

Guess which way I voted. :angel:

Nexto
15-06-2008, 22:21
But you will lose, if you have 12 units in the beginning and the enemy has 4.

And as we all know, this is nearly never the case.
While having a lot of arguments on the killpoints matter, at some point i decided to stop trying argue against "made-up" and unrealistic arguments and started looking what really is the case. So i compiled a list showing the KP per 1000pts value of randomly selected tournament lists and this is what i got.


SM 1,95k - 14 KP 7,2 per thousand
BA 1,75k 11 KP 6,3
DA 1,85k 12 KP 6,5
DA Doublewing 1,75 10 KP 5,7
BT 1,75k - 10 KP 5,7
SW 1,85k - 15 KP 8
IA 1,85k - 19 KP 10,2
Soro 1,75k - 15KP 8,5
DJ 1,85k - 12 KP 6,5
Eldar 1,85k - 12 KP 6,5
DE 1,75k - 15 KP 8,5
CSM 1,5k - 9 KP 6
Tyra Horde 1,75k - 18 KP 10
Tyra Gozillas 1,85k - 16KP 8,6
Necs 1,75k - 8KP 4,5
Tau 1,85k - 14 KP 7,6
Orks 1,75k - 14KP 8

Surprisingly, the KP dont differ as much as expected and where they reach peak values, it is always because of choices like 3x1 ravener or 3x1 landspeeder and so on. Every list from the ones i took for this compilation can be tailored to meet the average 7 KP/1kpts value with relative ease by just grouping those 3x1 thing units together.
Space Marine armies, which tend to have quite high KP/1k values due to combat squads can just opt to not divide their squads in KP missions to have a lower KP/1kpts value while sacrificing some flexibility.
The only army which really has lots of problems is the 3rd edition imperial guard which normaly has 10 or more KP/1k. This can be solved to some extend by playing more elite armies but is not that much an issue bc ig isnt used in tournaments that much (in friendly matches, opponents could just agree to use vp instead if there is a big difference in possible kp).

An interesting point is that the codizes written with 5th edition in mind only vary by a very, very small margin in KP, making this scenario perhaps even more balanced than the other ones.

All in all, the KP issue is exaggerated a lot. Dont get me wrong, im not really a fan of it, i think vp are a tad more balanced, but to be honest, KP are easier to count and as you see, are quite balanced.

So dont get fooled by people who make up arguments like 4kp vs 12kp. There is no army with only 4 kp which has any chance in the other 2 missions and there is no army which has to have as much as 12kp.

Stingray_tm
15-06-2008, 22:42
I don't get your line of reasing.

Necrons and Chaos Space Marines have only half the amount of kill points as Nids or IG, which is exactly, what i was saying. So you are proving MY point. And even Space Marine lists probably have something like Land Speeders, which players will no longer take with the dangers of KP. Also they will no longer take 6 men Las/Plas squads, but larger ones = less kill points.
You are assuming, that those lists with many kp will reduce their amounts of units, while the other armies will stay the same. Also these armys will have reduced KPs.

Even a difference of 1 KP is not fair, because it is not balanced. And we will probably have differences of 3-4 kill points, depending on the army you take.

4kps vs. 12 kps also will happen (not often, but they will happen), especially when pure Deathing goes up against hordy Nids. But even 2 KP will have a major impact in deciding, who wins, because those 2 KP might mean, the other guy has an advantage of 100 or 200 points. It's like fighting a 2200 points list with 2000 points. It's clearly not balanced.

And you compiled tourney lists? What about fluffy fun lists, which will probably have even more difference, because people take the units they like, not units, that are effective.

lain2k3
15-06-2008, 22:56
In a 4 vs 12 KP match with deathwing vs nids, deathwing will have 16 models. This comes to around 850-900 points. 1000 if you really max out the upgrades.
nids can fit in around 60 gaunts (2 kp) 24 genestealers (2 kp) and an HQ choice (1 kp) = 5 total. This could go up to about 8-10 kp if they make minimum sized units.

If people make their lists with actual missions in mind, there really won't be much of a difference, except with guard. Guard doesn't show at tournaments currently anyway, you can use VP in friendly games, and I'm positive that their next codex (Early 2009) will help them a lot, especially if it proves to be the end of the world as we know it as you are predicting.

Nexto
15-06-2008, 23:08
I don't get your line of reasing.

This is because you didnt read my post carefully. Let me explain in other words and elaborate on areas where i thought common sense would make the topic clear (but it seems the need for made-up arguments and reasoning in the vacuum superceded).


Necrons and Chaos Space Marines have only half the amount of kill points as Nids or IG, which is exactly, what i was saying

It is very easy for nid players to vastly reduce their amount of killpoints with relative ease: Choose less but more numerous standards (nid players love taking 6 mini standards), dont take to much lonely raveners.This alone can save you 4KP and more while just slightly reducing the efficiency of your list. Just as i wrote in my last post.

Another point is, that especially Necrons and Chaos tend to select as few troop choices as possible in 4th edition and rather invest in very expensive units which give few killpoints. In 5th edition, taking objectives and mobility is very important, so especially nec and csm might opt to take more cheap troop choices and some fast objective grabbers therefore raising their amount of kp.


And even Space Marine lists probably have something like Land Speeders, which players will no longer take with the dangers of KP. Also they will no longer take 6 men Las/Plas squads, but larger ones = less kill points.

See, the point is that your arguments always include only two choices: all or nothing, black or white. While it is true that marines might want to take less units for optimising in kp scenarios, they also have to have sufficient units to grab objectives in other missions, so it is a cost/utility thing. This game is not purely about minimising KP, there are other things to consider.
As soon as you start optimising your list for objective based scenarios, you will consider taking transports for mobilty and things like vypers and raveners for fast objective grabbing. rhinos and vypers/raveners etc are very cheap and effective for this task, but each of them is worth one KP.


Even a difference of 1 KP is not fair, because it is not balanced. And we will probably have differences of 3-4 kill points, depending on the army you take.

Its also not fair that a 600 points seer council only gives the full amount of victory points when the last witch is crushed, while 3 dead squads of marines out of 4 already give 450 victory points. Its not as if vp didnt have their drawbacks too.
In general, no mission is totally fair but as u can see, killpoints are quite balanced, even by now. When players know about kp and get a feeling about how many kp they should and can take, it will get even more balanced.


And you compiled tourney lists? What about fluffy fun lists, which will probably have even more difference, because people take the units they like, not units, that are effective.

This is contradictory: If players dont want to field effective lists, why should they get effective lists? Its always possible to make a list with units you "like" which totally sucks in any given scenario.

If your trying to make a fluff argument out of this, 5th edition is really a great thing for you because the rules in general heavily favor more fluffy lists bc they force players to take more and bigger troops and less min units. In the end, this should be a game where small armies comprised of squads engage, not a bunch of individuals.

big squig
16-06-2008, 07:10
Will someone please, PLEASE, explain to me how it is OK for two players to be evenly matched, play perfectly against each other, make all the right move, and totally slaughter each other down to like 1 or 2 guys, only for one to lose by a large margin because of it?

Will someone please, PLEASE, explain to me how it is OK for one player using a 5KP army to kill off 6KP and then tell his opponent, "You can't win unless you kill 100% of my army."

Will someone please, PLEASE, explain to me why it is OK that all armies are equally able to achieve 2/3 of the objectives, but 1/3 of the time small armies get a massive advantage?

lain2k3
16-06-2008, 07:49
Will someone please, PLEASE, explain to me how it is OK for two players to be evenly matched, play perfectly against each other, make all the right move, and totally slaughter each other down to like 1 or 2 guys, only for one to lose by a large margin because of it?

Clearly they weren't making the right moves and playing perfectly if one player loses by a large margin. They have to keep the Scenario in mind. hide those last 2 guys from each squad, protect your transports, go for the easy KP. Write your army lilst with KP in mind. Max out your squads. Pretend you're using 5th edition rules when you write 5th edition army lists. 4th edition army lists are not valid choices any more. Things change.


Will someone please, PLEASE, explain to me how it is OK for one player using a 5KP army to kill off 6KP and then tell his opponent, "You can't win unless you kill 100% of my army."

Because unless the guy who lost 6 KP was using a terrible list, his army is probably 100% gone already with those 6 KP. As in my example above, a 16 model deathwing force at 1000 points gives 4 KP, and an 85 model 1000 point tyranid army gives up 5. If people build their lists with the 5th edition obhectives in mind, they'll be fine.


Will someone please, PLEASE, explain to me why it is OK that all armies are equally able to achieve 2/3 of the objectives, but 1/3 of the time small armies get a massive advantage?

All armies are not equally able to achieve 2/3 of the objectives. The Necron and Chaos units Stingray always uses as examples of this (20 zerkers or 20 warriors + VOD lord or something close to it) are very limited in their scope. If someone builds a whole army using 4 units of these, they will have very poor anti tank capabilities, and if an opponent can wipe out just one of the 20 man squads, then stay out of assault with the other roaming zerker squads, he can win.


You have to play using the objective of the game as a goal. You can't play as if you were still in 4th edition and expect things to work out the same. There are new rules. Play some 5th edition. They work.

AND some food for thought:

Have you ever rolled 15 1's in a single game? Sure you have. That's all you have to do to have zero scoring units when playing the already infamous 4 KP deathwing.

Occulto
16-06-2008, 07:59
Will someone please, PLEASE, explain to me how it is OK for two players to be evenly matched, play perfectly against each other, make all the right move, and totally slaughter each other down to like 1 or 2 guys, only for one to lose by a large margin because of it?

You mean like how one person can win a cleanse mission because their last remaining squad is exactly half strength, while the other player's last remaining squad is one model below half strength?

Sometimes a single model can change the entire result. It happens under the current rules.


Will someone please, PLEASE, explain to me why it is OK that all armies are equally able to achieve 2/3 of the objectives, but 1/3 of the time small armies get a massive advantage?

Let me see what my DW's capable of against an IG infantry army eh? I don't think "equal" is the right word.

The entire point about kill points is to ensure those armies which can use a large number of cheap units (which gives them more opportunities to contest/hold objectives) have a counter balance. If you try to minimise your KP to do better in KP scenarios, then chances are you'll struggle in objective based scenarios. It's simply a way of encouraging people to think about their lists, and whether they'll go to one extreme.

Is it 100% flawless? Nope.

Is it 100% broken? Nope.

But missions that favour one type of army over another is nothing new. We went through this BS when 4th ed introduced escalation - players of mechanised armies were going absolutely nuts at the idea their list would arrive piecemeal in 1/3 of standard games.

KP is nothing different. It's simply something that players will have to deal with. Sometimes the odds will be in your favour, sometimes they won't. If this bugs you, then I'd suggest changing to WHFB where they like their pitched battles. ;)

Latro_
16-06-2008, 11:28
To be honest I havent heard any expected annoyance that 'fast' armies get a big advantage.

For example troops can occupy objectives in 2/3's of the missions. Fine.
However no one seems to mention that any otehr unit can contest these objectives. Fast armies esp with maxed out skimmers can hide somewhere and at the right moment 24" to an emey objective and contest it. Ok random game length puts a slight dampener on this but surely extremly fast armies have a big advantage here no?

For example in my ork army i'm working on a tactic of sitting 40+ of my shoota boyz on the home objective and let the enemy come. Then in the final stages of the game, plough cheap skorchas/traks at the enemie's home objective to contest it.

I win 1-0 by not doing very much :P.

Morganstern
16-06-2008, 11:32
Please post here if you are sick of the same 10 people arguing over and over that kill points suck.

Your opinion is widely known and all of those posts basically come down to the same people saying they suck and the same saying that they aren't bad in the context of the game as a whole.

This isn't a post in support of kill points or against, I am just curious if everyone else is as sick of it as I am especially considering that the book isn't even out and people don't have mass numbers of games under their belt yet.

Yes, I know game stores have the rules, but individuals for the most part do not.

This was the origional question of the tread. Not lets have another poinless debate about kill points. you aither like the idea or you don't. end of story.

Mike KK
16-06-2008, 12:24
Agreed, but is always the same thing with games workshop and the rumours, people don't learn from the past. When GW decided to give High Elves in fantasy Allways Strike First they sky fell down and the earth shaked while the stars started falling and then it happened nothing, it wasn't OTT it was a different rule with some time to get used in order to fight against, is allways the same :rolleyes:.

Beware the Killpointsapocallipse is comming! and you cannot stop it!!

lololol agree

Morganstern
16-06-2008, 12:29
I second that motion

Morganstern
16-06-2008, 12:33
. Fast armies esp with maxed out skimmers can hide somewhere and at the right moment 24" to an emey objective and contest.

Fast vehicles can only move 18" max in 5th ed.

IJW
16-06-2008, 12:38
Fast skimmers are still 24".

Morganstern
16-06-2008, 13:18
I'll check that one tomorow. Thank's anyway IJW.

Meriwether
16-06-2008, 15:32
As pointed out by several people (including me) repeatedly (but usually getting ignored), even in connection with the other missions, kill points are NOT balanced, because even with so called "balanced" armies, you will come up with armies, that give 8 KP and armies, that give 12 KP.

Speaking of getting ignored, Stingray... I have yet to see you answer the following question. (If you have somewhere and I missed it, please either point it out or indulge me here):

When building an army, one must make various decisions based on what one hopes to accomplish, and how one hopes to accomplish it. To this end, one must make choices -- bring this and not that. These choices all have advantages and disadvantages, and players must take these factors into account when building their army. Therefore, balance-wise, how are two different armies having different numbers of KPs any different than two armies having different numbers of:
Assault troops?
Shooty troops?
Scoring units?
Units in general?
Total model count?
Lascannons?
etc, etc, ect?


Will someone please, PLEASE, explain to me how it is OK for two players to be evenly matched, play perfectly against each other, make all the right move, and totally slaughter each other down to like 1 or 2 guys, only for one to lose by a large margin because of it?

This question is nonsensical because this is a game, and in the framework of the game one player obviously outplayed the other in this instance.


Will someone please, PLEASE, explain to me how it is OK for one player using a 5KP army to kill off 6KP and then tell his opponent, "You can't win unless you kill 100% of my army."

Both players must, when designing their armies, try to strike a balance between having enough scoring/contesting units for objective based games and in not having too many KPs. Because you do not know which type of game you will be playing, both players have to make some hard decisions about what their force is going to look like -- just like any other game of 40K that doesn't involve lists specifically tailored for a particular game or a particular opponent, you have to be smart when building your army list. The fact that 'smart' in objective-based games means 'lots of units' and 'smart' in kill-points-based games means 'very few units', you have to think, hard, about what you are going to bring and why.

Why are rules that require people to make trade-offs and gambles in their army selection a bad thing?


Will someone please, PLEASE, explain to me why it is OK that all armies are equally able to achieve 2/3 of the objectives, but 1/3 of the time small armies get a massive advantage?

This question, too, is nonsensical. Armies with very few KPs will not be able to contest or control very many objectives -- especially assuming that they'll be taking damage as the game goes on. Armies optimised for objective-based games will be at a big disadvantage in KP-based games, and (and this is a big 'and') amires that are optimised for KP-based games will be at a disadvantage in objective-based games.

Meri

P.S. I'm sick of people whining about 40K in general, and KP specifically. I think they're a very good mechanic that makes people think more and will in the end create a greater balance in overall army selection.

Morganstern
16-06-2008, 16:33
Meriwether you speak a lot of sense, but i don't think your wisdom will get through to some of these people. nevermind.

Stingray_tm
16-06-2008, 16:36
When building an army, one must make various decisions based on what one hopes to accomplish, and how one hopes to accomplish it. To this end, one must make choices -- bring this and not that. These choices all have advantages and disadvantages, and players must take these factors into account when building their army. Therefore, balance-wise, how are two different armies having different numbers of KPs any different than two armies having different numbers of:
Assault troops?
Shooty troops?
Scoring units?
Units in general?
Total model count?
Lascannons?
etc, etc, ect?


In fact, i already answered that, just can't find the post. So here it is again:

All those points you are stating are balanced by giving every unit a point value reflecting it's value on the battlefield. These values might be off sometimes, but generally, it works quite well. Lascannons cost more than Lasguns, because (surprise) they are more effective. You take more units than the other guy? Well, then your units are cheaper, usually meaning, that they can be killed easier, so the opponent gets their victory points. But since he killed only a part of your army, he only gets the point value, that directly corresponds with their importance in the game. I usually field 14-16 different units in 4th edition, but those die easier than the 6-8 units my Space Marine opponent might take. So i will lose scoring units much earlier, than he does.
This works the better, the higher the point value of the whole game is, since then anomalies in both directions should cancel each other out.
With kill points, there is NO balance at all. When comparing it to my example above, a Lascannon would have exactly the same value as a Lasgun. This is just wrong and it doesn't work. It's totally disconnected from the mechanism, that is there to evaluate units and their importance, which is the point value in the codex, unlike the points you named.
The point system in the codex works, because it takes into account the whole army list and the playstyle of the army. A Space Marine and an Eldar could have the same point value, but the Eldar would have better stats in one area and worse stats in another, reflecting the playstyle. So you can have more assaulty units than the enemy, but this balanced by the fact, that he has the same point value in his army, thus having a general relatively similiar potential of winning. (similiar enough, to call this balanced, as long as nobody is minmaxing or using overpowered lists, which are a mistake of the codex, not of the whole system itself). Kill points are imbalanced from the very beginning, because they don't take into account, that a Spore Mine is destined to destroy itself, while a Carnifex probably will create chaos in the enemy lines. The Carnifex is 50 times more important than the Spore Mine (which actually IS reflected by the point costs), yet it has the same tactical value in the kill points system. THIS IS WRONG!
It's astonishing, that this has to be explained so often.

You keep repeating, that KP will balance themselves with the other missions. Only that this is NOT the case. Even when both opponents build there lists for all scenarios, you still will have differences in kill points. This has been stated several times here and it still gets ignored, while people repeat their claims, that it will balance it out.

Morganstern
16-06-2008, 16:50
I think that it's interesting that a thread that started with the question Are you sick of people whining about kill points? Has turned into a thread of the same few people whining about kill points.

Stingray_tm
16-06-2008, 16:54
It's only whining, when it is unfounded. We have reasons to be concerned and complain. If your only argument is "waaah, you're whining", then it is not very convincing in a discussion.

neXus6
16-06-2008, 17:43
Guard could be in trouble because of the Kill points system generally having double the number to give away than any other army...meaning if you don't wipe your enemy out entirely, as 1 model left is a scoring unit :rolleyes:, you probably cannot win on Kill Points.

See that looks to me like a probable fact...seems I'm just whining though.
Yay go me. :D

Fist of Crimson
16-06-2008, 17:52
It's only whining, when it is unfounded. We have reasons to be concerned and complain. If your only argument is "waaah, you're whining", then it is not very convincing in a discussion.

It's only whining when Stingray posts.
Your thoughts are abundantly clear in other threads on KP's, can you stop reiterating them here? It is not what the OP was asking. This may apply to a couple of others also.

On topic: Like most players, I will reserve judgement until several games are under my belt with and against a few different lists so it seems premature to whine yet (I suspect I will be whining in a couple of months though).

Keichi246
16-06-2008, 18:59
You keep repeating, that KP will balance themselves with the other missions. Only that this is NOT the case. Even when both opponents build there lists for all scenarios, you still will have differences in kill points. This has been stated several times here and it still gets ignored, while people repeat their claims, that it will balance it out.

Stingray_tm, I can see your point - but I disagree with it somewhat.
Meriwether - I can see you point and I agree with it.

Stingray - how is Killpoints ANY different than any of the current "mission altering" mechanics?

I mean - Stormtroopers in a Guard army have to pay extra points to get deep strike or infiltrate - yet 1/3 of the missions in the basic book don't allow those rules. (Alpha)

Or how escalate can keep key units off the field for one army build - and force the rest of the army to face a dramatically superior opponent; simply because one side decided to be mechanized and the other built a purely infantry army? (Omega)

Are Killpoints a little unbalanced? Yeah.
Then again - so are the mechanics of objective grabbing. Everyone knows that some troops are better suited to grabbing and holding objectives than others.

It's a factor that players will simply have to learn to adapt and overcome - like bad dice, or that GW seems to want to give Space Marines advantages in ALL aspects of the game. (Like - why can Vanguard Squad Imperial Space Marines deep strike and assault; when other units, who by all rights should have better "reasons" for that ability, don't? Why *doesn't* the Tyranid hivemind have such "expert timing"? Of all the forces in the 40k universe - it should probably have the best "battlefield sense" - it can probably see the whole battlefield from 100 viewpoints and can manuver units as natually as you type on a keyboard... But I digress.)

Stingray_tm
16-06-2008, 19:32
I never played escalation or alpha exactly for the reasons you stated. Those were imbalanced and this is not an excuse for another imbalanced rule.

lain2k3
16-06-2008, 19:50
I never played escalation or alpha exactly for the reasons you stated. Those were imbalanced and this is not an excuse for another imbalanced rule.

Well there you go. Problem solved. If you never rolled for missions in 4th, why start now?

Meriwether
16-06-2008, 20:02
In fact, i already answered that, just can't find the post. So here it is again:

Thank you. One of the previous KP threads disappeared -- seems like somebody must have said something naughty, or tempers were flaring or something -- soon after I had posted the question. It probably disappeared there and I never saw it.


All those points you are stating are balanced by giving every unit a point value reflecting it's value on the battlefield.

A fair opinion, but I disagree, and here's why: Every army we bring has the same point value. One of the things we now must consider when spending points for the army (as opposed to any individual unit) is how many KPs that list might give up, as well as how many objective-holders and objective-contesters it needs to have.

We now need to consider not one, not two, but now three different factors when building an army: points costs of units, number of KPs, and number of scoring/contesting units. This will undoubtedly change how army lists are built, but that doesn't maket it _unbalanced_ because **we all know about it ahead of time**.


With kill points, there is NO balance at all.

This is simply untrue, as stated many times before. Tabletop generals will need to balance how they build their lists in order to try to strike a balance between KPs and objective-grabbers.


Kill points are imbalanced from the very beginning, because they don't take into account, that a Spore Mine is destined to destroy itself, while a Carnifex probably will create chaos in the enemy lines.

Again I beseech you to wait until the army-specific FAQs come out. It would not surprise me in the least if you find that spore mines (and perhaps even gretchin?) give up no kill points.


The Carnifex is 50 times more important than the Spore Mine (which actually IS reflected by the point costs), yet it has the same tactical value in the kill points system. THIS IS WRONG!
It's astonishing, that this has to be explained so often.

I think it is astonishing that you cannot accept the fact that new rules require reevaluation and modification of army builds. I *can* bring 8-point cyber-grotz in my ork army -- but that would be a bad decision.

Is it worth giving up a KP to rain some spore mines down on someone? If you're playing against someone with a lot of light, open-topped vehicles, then the answer might be "HECK YEAH!"


You keep repeating, that KP will balance themselves with the other missions. Only that this is NOT the case. Even when both opponents build there lists for all scenarios, you still will have differences in kill points. This has been stated several times here and it still gets ignored, while people repeat their claims, that it will balance it out.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm disagreeing with your assertion that unequal KP values is inherently imbalanced. Let's look at scoring units instead and apply your same argument to them:

Even when both opponents build their lists for all scenarios, you will still have differences in the number of scoring and contesting units. Is this fundamentally unbalanced? The number of scoring units doesn't have anything to do with points values, either. (I can take 6 squads of 10 grotz with slavers for a pittance -- 250-ish points -- and then bulk up the other 1600 points with the hardest, nastiest, evilest orky badasstacular units I can buy -- and then shield the grotz with the rest of my army so that they can claim and contest objectives.)

Why are kill points such a big deal, but the new objective-grabbing rules aren't? (Please note that this question is not rhetorical. I'm quite specifically looking for an answer).

Meri

cochise
16-06-2008, 20:44
Why are kill points such a big deal, but the new objective-grabbing rules aren't? (Please note that this question is not rhetorical. I'm quite specifically looking for an answer).


Objective grabbing rules are an issue, but everyone can see the logic of troops as the only scoring units. This is done to counter min/maxing list building. I think nobody as anything to say against that principle, though the way of dealing with it still favours some armies over others (Deathwing termis vs gaunts as objective holders).

Now, if we add to that kill points the game starts to favour some armies a lot more than other ones. When I have my hard and resilient options (those which donīt give easy kill points away) in the heavy support, elite, fast attack or HQ sections I am in a clear disadvantage against those whose can draw them from the troops section as my army needs to bring to the table more kill points than yours to be effective because your troops are almost all you need.
In objective based missions it doesnīt matter that much (though it DOES matter) as I can use those "extra" units to support my weak troops without fear of giving a potential win to my enemy before the game starts. But in kill points your "all comers" troops only has to deal with a small portion of my army (and if I have weak troops they can be easily dealt with) and will still win if at least one of them survive because I brought more KP to the table.

The problem here is that the combination of "only troops scoring" and "kill points" clearly favour some armies over others (those with hard and resilient troop options). And while only troops scoring is reasonable, kill points just seems to be a bad thought way of judging the winner in a "kill them all" mission.

Edit: And about the original topic of this thread...seriously, what expected you to have in the post but the same discussion again with such a biased question?

EmperorEternalXIX
16-06-2008, 20:46
I wrote a big post about how VPs suck and how KPs are much more adequate but the forum ate it.

Basically my post explained why VPs is a bad system to begin with.


All those points you are stating are balanced by giving every unit a point value reflecting it's value on the battlefield. This is where you are mistaken, my friend, and so your entire argument hinges on this one very incorrect point. Point values do not reflect a models value on the battlefield whatsoever.

Example: The Chaplain is often the cheapest HQ option available to marines, but he is also pretty much the scariest. His abilities are amazing and his basic saves are top notch; in the BA, you can get an amped up jump pack chaplain with a special negative to enemy leadership for less than a company captain with a power fist.

The points cost is more of a balancing factor, and it levels out models' abilities and gear relative to the rest of the army. It is NOT an indication of overall effectiveness, but rather, overall potential action. You can make an Heroic Senior Officer cost the same as a Space Marine Chaplain...but who is going to have the bigger impact? Who has more "battlefield effectiveness" ?

Kill Points is a better system because of two reasons: #1, it is simple and not convoluted by the fact that a guy with a more expensive helmet or gun is apparently much more of a blow to an army when killed then a squad of troops. And of course, #2 is because it's force org based (as far as I know, anyhow), where HQs are worth the most at 3 points, Elite/Heavy/Fast choices are worth 2, and Troops are only worth 1.

That means if you lose 25 of your guardsmen and are down a whole platoon, you give up 3 KP...but you get off a lucky shot and insta-kill that SM leader, you get 3 too. He had to kill 310 points minimum, 25 wounds, that could've been spread around the board even. You would (if what I understand is correct) get the same amount of kill points for killing a 100-point, two wound Librarian with no invul.

There. Does that look a little less horrifying now?

I see people propping up these hypotheticals about "5KP army vs. 6KP army" and I laugh. A 5 KP army, from what I have read, is an HQ and two Troop choices, barely above 500ish points. Obviously a lot of this complaining is from people who haven't really tried it. I have found it to be vastly better, personally.

Stingray_tm
16-06-2008, 20:57
A fair opinion, but I disagree, and here's why: Every army we bring has the same point value. One of the things we now must consider when spending points for the army (as opposed to any individual unit) is how many KPs that list might give up, as well as how many objective-holders and objective-contesters it needs to have.
We now need to consider not one, not two, but now three different factors when building an army: points costs of units, number of KPs, and number of scoring/contesting units. This will undoubtedly change how army lists are built, but that doesn't maket it _unbalanced_ because **we all know about it ahead of time**.
This is simply untrue, as stated many times before. Tabletop generals will need to balance how they build their lists in order to try to strike a balance between KPs and objective-grabbers.

This does NOT work. As i said several times before, even if you try to balance this missions out, you still will end up with KP differences. Or what magical mechanism do you think is there, that makes every balanced army list come out at 10 KPs?
I make an army list for all scenarios, and i get 8 KP.
You make an army list for all scenarios and you get 11 KP.
How is this balanced?!?
You would need to agree with your opponent, how many KP the battle would be, just as you agree about the total point value. That's nuts!!!



Again I beseech you to wait until the army-specific FAQs come out. It would not surprise me in the least if you find that spore mines (and perhaps even gretchin?) give up no kill points.

Again, as i said before, several times, this doesn't change anything. Still 5 Plaque Marines will give the same amount as 10 Plaque Marines. A 100 point Carnifex gives the same kill points as a 250 points Carnifex.
It would only work, if you'd faq every unit of every army, deciding how many KP each is worth. This would mean two things:
A. You'd better do that in a whole new codex
B. We already got such a system. It's called Victory points.



I think it is astonishing that you cannot accept the fact that new rules require reevaluation and modification of army builds. I *can* bring 8-point cyber-grotz in my ork army -- but that would be a bad decision.

What you can't accept is the fact, that the armies out there are designed differently and if you make a balanced Nid list, it will have a different amount of KP than a balanced Marine list. Even two "balanced" Marine lists will have different amounts of KPs.
And Marines have more usefull troops than Nids, so they can happily spend a lot of points in them, giving few kill points, while i can spend only half the amount of points in the same amount of troops selections, forcing me to take more other unit types, thus more KPs!!!



Is it worth giving up a KP to rain some spore mines down on someone? If you're playing against someone with a lot of light, open-topped vehicles, then the answer might be "HECK YEAH!"

I should give up one KP in order to have a slight chance to get back one KP? BS.



I'm not ignoring it. I'm disagreeing with your assertion that unequal KP values is inherently imbalanced. Let's look at scoring units instead and apply your same argument to them:

Even when both opponents build their lists for all scenarios, you will still have differences in the number of scoring and contesting units. Is this fundamentally unbalanced? The number of scoring units doesn't have anything to do with points values, either. (I can take 6 squads of 10 grotz with slavers for a pittance -- 250-ish points -- and then bulk up the other 1600 points with the hardest, nastiest, evilest orky badasstacular units I can buy -- and then shield the grotz with the rest of my army so that they can claim and contest objectives.)

I already answered that. Those grotz die much faster than your 10 men squad of Marines. Take a whirlwind, use some deep striking stuff or just contest the objectives yourself. Your troops are tougher.



Why are kill points such a big deal, but the new objective-grabbing rules aren't? (Please note that this question is not rhetorical. I'm quite specifically looking for an answer).

I don't like the new objective-grabbing rules either, for the reason i stated before in this forum, several times. But KPs are even worse.

Stingray_tm
16-06-2008, 21:00
Example: The Chaplain is often the cheapest HQ option available to marines, but he is also pretty much the scariest. His abilities are amazing and his basic saves are top notch; in the BA, you can get an amped up jump pack chaplain with a special negative to enemy leadership for less than a company captain with a power fist.

The points cost is more of a balancing factor, and it levels out models' abilities and gear relative to the rest of the army. It is NOT an indication of overall effectiveness, but rather, overall potential action. You can make an Heroic Senior Officer cost the same as a Space Marine Chaplain...but who is going to have the bigger impact? Who has more "battlefield effectiveness" ?


I agree, but in the end both armies have the same amount of 2000 points, evening this whole thing out. There are limits on how many of the hard stuff you can take, you take some weak and some good, etc. And as i said before if this doesn't work with some army list, that is a problem of a Codex, that wasn't playtestet enough, not a problem of the system itself, which is quite good. (So good, that almost every tabletop game i know, uses it or some variation of it)
In KP it's the equivalent of one army having 2000 points and the other having 2500 points.

IJW
16-06-2008, 21:04
And of course, #2 is because it's force org based (as far as I know, anyhow), where HQs are worth the most at 3 points, Elite/Heavy/Fast choices are worth 2, and Troops are only worth 1.
No, that was just in the leaked playtest version - the actual rules are 1 unit = 1 KP, regardless of FOC slot.

But you're absolutely spot on about points costs being a relative measurement within an army, and not an absolute measurement between armies.

Bloodknight
16-06-2008, 21:09
#2 is because it's force org based (as far as I know, anyhow), where HQs are worth the most at 3 points, Elite/Heavy/Fast choices are worth 2, and Troops are only worth 1.

It's not. Everything is worth 1KP regardless of position in the FOC. 400 points of Terminators are worth the same amount of KP as 5 Guardsmen.


edit: too slow...that's what you get for posting while watching football...

big squig
17-06-2008, 04:42
I just don't see why a system that forces players to make armies with as many scoring units/contesting units as possible but at the same time have as few total units as possible is good game design.

DarkAzrael169
17-06-2008, 05:00
I'm kinda sick of all the whiners, not just concerning the kill points issue. I think GW know what they're doing. They have a lot of experience concerning wargames:p

If they see that something doesn't work when they play test they abolish it...

This is a joke, right? :confused:


I hate all the whining, it's anoying. If you don't like your hobby, go and find yourself another one.

Uhh, excuse me? Thats not polite. Let me re-phrase it for you...
"I think all these opinions are great. However, if you guys truly no longer enjoy this hobby, and prefer, you may leave this hobby and find one that will not 'pull the carpet out from under your feet' and quite possibly make your army(s) obsolete."

Thats good, I like that one way more. :angel:


Objective grabbing rules are an issue, but everyone can see the logic of troops as the only scoring units...

Fun Fact: Game-rules and fluffwise, terminators were specificaly designed to take objectives.

Kill Points are broken. Its almost as if they were made to beef-up the new Space Marines... As if they even needed it... :eyebrows:

lain2k3
17-06-2008, 05:17
I just don't see why a system that forces players to make armies with as many scoring units/contesting units as possible but at the same time have as few total units as possible is good game design.

They want people to think about their lists and come up with a BALANCE between the two. Is this not the definition of balance.


Kill Points are broken. Its almost as if they were made to beef up the new Space Marines ... As if they even needed it...


SM are not overpowered in any way. They are easy to use and forgiving, but have very low potential as an army list, in comparison to the current Nids, Eldar, Chaos, and Orks codices

DarkAzrael169
17-06-2008, 05:19
Sorry, I was referring to the newest Space Marine Codex.

Occulto
17-06-2008, 05:20
I just don't see why a system that forces players to make armies with as many scoring units/contesting units as possible but at the same time have as few total units as possible is good game design.

I think it's actually very good game design.

If someone goes to one extreme, then they'll face extreme consequences. That's what Escalation was intended to do, but unfortunately people looked at the rule and said: "I don't like what it does to my mechanised list. Let's not play it."

Currently if you gear your list up exclusively to win an Alpha Cleanse, then you'll suffer a penalty when you play an Omega Seek and Destroy. It's a choice you've made when you wrote your list and you've got to accept the consequences. You can't very well tell an player that you refuse to play him because you wrote your list for Cleanse and now he's rolled a Seek and Destroy, the game will be too "unbalanced."

That's not too different from saying: "well, sorry, but this mission uses KPs and that isn't what I wrote my list for."

Would you accept me saying: ""well, sorry, but this mission uses objectives and that isn't what I wrote my list for?"

Occulto
17-06-2008, 05:23
Sorry, I was referring to the newest Space Marine Codex.

Which hasn't been released yet. :rolleyes:

Varath- Lord Impaler
17-06-2008, 05:30
I think its good game design (and i play Imperial Guard)

In 3000 points my army gives up...

29 Kill Points.

Yes, thats harsh, yes i will have to play well to win Annihilation games but lets consider a few things shall we.

In the other 2 missions, my army has...

16 Scoring Units, with 13 able to contest objectives.

Also, lets consider that there is a 33.3% chance that in Annihilation we will have to deploy only 1 HQ and 2 Troops choices against each other, due to the Dawn of War rules.

In this mission the enemy will have 3 Squads on the table, while i will have...14! 13 if i choose to Outflank the sentinels.

with my Immobile Artillery squadrons deep striking in, vehicles coming from reserve and outflanking sentinels running in from the sides, i should be able to deal with most enemy armies due to this massive Numerical Advantage. (Edit: Especially if i outfit my Sentinels with Improved Comms)

Im not really worried about Kill Points, i just need to play better to win. I think i can manage that.

lain2k3
17-06-2008, 05:47
Sorry, I was referring to the newest Space Marine Codex.

So you're automatically assuming the marine codex will be overpowered and undercosted, when history has proven this incorrect for all marine codices so far?

We're getting some cool new units, but I seriously doubt the overall power level of marines will go up. They'll just have a little more diversity. After all, there's only so much you can do when every single squad is based around 5-10 of the same exact guy with a few different wargear options. And many of those wargear options will be dissapearing.

bambamBIGILO
17-06-2008, 05:51
I play fluffy armies
Nids- no more than 3 somtimes 4 MC but only in Apoc ( prefer Broodlords myself )
Guard- (definatly nerfed in 5th but i dont care)
Nurgle- ( footsloogers the way there supposed to be)

Ill lose more then less but its all fun and good enough for me

big squig
17-06-2008, 06:00
I think its good game design (and i play Imperial Guard)

In 3000 points my army gives up...

29 Kill Points.

Yes, thats harsh, yes i will have to play well to win Annihilation games but lets consider a few things shall we.

In the other 2 missions, my army has...

16 Scoring Units, with 13 able to contest objectives.

Also, lets consider that there is a 33.3% chance that in Annihilation we will have to deploy only 1 HQ and 2 Troops choices against each other, due to the Dawn of War rules.

In this mission the enemy will have 3 Squads on the table, while i will have...14! 13 if i choose to Outflank the sentinels.

with my Immobile Artillery squadrons deep striking in, vehicles coming from reserve and outflanking sentinels running in from the sides, i should be able to deal with most enemy armies due to this massive Numerical Advantage. (Edit: Especially if i outfit my Sentinels with Improved Comms)

Im not really worried about Kill Points, i just need to play better to win. I think i can manage that.

With 29 KP you can't win an annihilation mission.

big squig
17-06-2008, 06:04
Would you accept me saying: ""well, sorry, but this mission uses objectives and that isn't what I wrote my list for?"
Those armies don't really exist. Even if you take 2 min troops, you will have more than enough HQ, Fast, Elite, and heavy power to clear out any objective for your troops. Sure, it won't be easy, but it's far from challenging.

Now, show up with that army in a kp mission and you will simply win.

Next, take an army that loads up on units to grab objectives and you don't have any noticeable advantage since you have very few to no specialist units. But, play in a KP mission and you are set up to lose from turn one.

Troops being scoring was all they needed to do to balance everything. KP just throws a wrench into the mix and messes everything up making most armies unplayable.

Varath- Lord Impaler
17-06-2008, 06:07
With 29 KP you can't win an annihilation mission.

Yes i can, Destroy the enemy army completly and i auto win, says so in the 5th rulebook :)

Also, with the amount of targets which i present, it will be very difficult for the enemy to kill them all, Especially After i Knock out their Tanks (6 Seige shells which hit the side armour [even out of sight], 6 Lascannons with Infantry, and 5 lascannons on Outflanking sentinels+ many many Meltaguns)

Going to ground may save me one guardsmen, but it saves me a Kill point. Going to Ground is less useful for the enemy since i work through masses of armour saves rather than the big bada boom.

big squig
17-06-2008, 06:21
Yes i can, Destroy the enemy army completly and i auto win, says so in the 5th rulebook :)

Also, with the amount of targets which i present, it will be very difficult for the enemy to kill them all, Especially After i Knock out their Tanks (6 Seige shells which hit the side armour [even out of sight], 6 Lascannons with Infantry, and 5 lascannons on Outflanking sentinels+ many many Meltaguns)

Going to ground may save me one guardsmen, but it saves me a Kill point. Going to Ground is less useful for the enemy since i work through masses of armour saves rather than the big bada boom.

Well, how often do you kill 100% (as in every single model, there's no more 50% crap) in 5 turns? I've only see it happen when one player is a noob.

Also, all that player has to do is kill like 5 or 6 squads and he auto wins. And considering guardsmen die in droves and it only takes one shot to kill a tank, you might as well just forfeit 1/3 of all games you play.

All your opponent has to do is have a single model left after 5 turns.

It's like playing meat grinder, without sustained attack.

lain2k3
17-06-2008, 06:24
On average, other (non IG) armies at 3000 points currently have about 21 KP. Yes, guardsmen are not durable. However, in order to combat the problem IG will have with KP, you can take doctrines that let you increase the cost of guardsmen and subsequently increase their durability. I'm going to venture that Light infantry, Cameoline, Chem Inhalers, Grenadiers, Veterans, and Carapace Armor (Obviously not all at once) will become popular as a way to keep down KP and increase survivability of Scoring units. Squads of 50 Conscripts will likely be seen as a unit that takes a lot of fire power to kick them off an objective. There are ways to build with KP in mind, even for guard players.

Also, Keep in mind that 29 kp army was not built under 5th edition rules.

Army lists will change. MSU will not be a good way to max out heavy weapons, because the rules have changed. The game is changing. Army lists changed from 3-4th, they're changing from 4-5th. It's not that big a deal.

Stingray_tm
17-06-2008, 06:34
You keep repeating, that KP will balance themselves with the other missions. Only that this is NOT the case. Even when both opponents build there lists for all scenarios, you still will have differences in kill points. This has been stated several times here and it still gets ignored, while people repeat their claims, that it will balance it out.

Occulto
17-06-2008, 06:41
Those armies don't really exist. Even if you take 2 min troops, you will have more than enough HQ, Fast, Elite, and heavy power to clear out any objective for your troops. Sure, it won't be easy, but it's far from challenging.

If I only have two min sized Troop choices then it will be easy enough for a competent player to destroy them, leaving me nothing but units than can contest (not hold) objectives. If I can't hold any then the most I can achieve is a draw (0 objectives each) even if I annihilate the enemy.

That, by definition, is an army not designed for objective missions.


You keep repeating, that KP will balance themselves with the other missions. Only that this is NOT the case. Even when both opponents build there lists for all scenarios, you still will have differences in kill points. This has been stated several times here and it still gets ignored, while people repeat their claims, that it will balance it out.

At the moment even if I build a list for all scenarios I'll come across opponents with distinct advantages. What's changed?

But in any case, I thought you'd given up on 5th edition. Why are you still here? :rolleyes:

Varath- Lord Impaler
17-06-2008, 06:43
Well, how often do you kill 100% (as in every single model, there's no more 50% crap) in 5 turns? I've only see it happen when one player is a noob.

Also, all that player has to do is kill like 5 or 6 squads and he auto wins. And considering guardsmen die in droves and it only takes one shot to kill a tank, you might as well just forfeit 1/3 of all games you play.

All your opponent has to do is have a single model left after 5 turns.

It's like playing meat grinder, without sustained attack.

Well since the game goes to turn 6 on a 3+ then turn 7 on a 4+ after that, its not only 5 turns.

Also, you cannot make such generalisations about the game since there are key differences. You need to take into account that Specialists can be killed off easier in squads from masses of fire, you need to remember that there is less LoS blocking Terrain, you need to remember that Going to ground might save 1 or 2 models from the unit.

On that last point, i usually have enough units that i can spare shooting at those little guys, not many other armies can spare the firepower.


You keep repeating, that KP will balance themselves with the other missions. Only that this is NOT the case. Even when both opponents build there lists for all scenarios, you still will have differences in kill points. This has been stated several times here and it still gets ignored, while people repeat their claims, that it will balance it out.

Yes, there is a difference in Kill points.

This means it is down to Player ability as well as luck to carry the game. Not just Mathematical probability.

Vaktathi
17-06-2008, 06:46
People seem to be overestimating the value of massed scoring units for IG armies (and not all IG armies with tons of KP's have lots of scoring units). Sure, its nice to have more scoring units, but its not going to decide the game from the outset by any means and those units aren't exactly hard to kill. 3 35 man IG platoons will have trouble with 60 Chaos marines, even though they have twice as many scoring units, its not going to be easy to keep that superior number.

KP's *will* decide the game before a single model is set down unless you think there is any realistic chance of tabling your opponent (and lets be real, that doesn't happen often even in overwhelming victories).

People using the analogy of "well, you win 66% of missions easily so you should lose 33%" have a terrible sense of game design. As I posted in another thread, its like looking at the average without looking at the median. You average could be 2500, but if the median is 16, then something is odd. Same thing with this system, auto-losing 1/3 of games practically because you (may depending on build) have a slight advantage in the other two is very poor game design and does not yield a reasonable average, its too extreme. Why bother setting up on a KP game if you know you have to table your opponent in 5 turns to win?

Hell, even with IG armies, its not even all that fair. Some have masses of platoons, some don't. Some armies that currently work "meh" will not work at all under 5th ed rules like this. Looking at my IG army, I've got 19 kill points. And 3 scoring units.

:(:cries::skull: (I may be a bit biased)

lain2k3
17-06-2008, 06:47
You keep repeating, that KP will balance themselves with the other missions. Only that this is NOT the case. Even when both opponents build there lists for all scenarios, you still will have differences in kill points. This has been stated several times here and it still gets ignored, while people repeat their claims, that it will balance it out.

I don't think that there needs to be equal KP on each side for things to be balanced. if there were equal KP on each side, but one army had more scoring units, there would be a distinct imbalance in favor of small min-maxed squads again. Which is what the new system intends to (And likely will) get rid of.



Looking at my IG army, I've got 19 kill points. And 3 scoring units.

Did you build your army with 5th edition missions and rules in mind? Didn't think so. Do that, then play some games until you know when to go to ground, when to run to objectives instead of shoot, when to use transports as cover and when to hide them to deny KP, and all the difficult decisions that will come in with 5th edition.

I really don't undertand all these examples that use 4th edition army lists to prove that 5th edition sucks. It makes no sense.

DarkAzrael169
17-06-2008, 07:26
Did you build your army with 5th edition missions and rules in mind? Didn't think so.

Thats the point. His army and other's have to be completely changed to a point that is redundant. And even so, Vaktathi's army will still be at a major disadvantage before the game has even begun.

(Correct me if I'm wrong)Example: A Tactical Space Marine Squad vs. a Impreial Guard Platoon Squad. They have the same amount of kill points. There is no question who would win. Quickly, look at a Imperial Guard command squad, before it dies. Look at how many kill points that thing is... And its dead. "Okay, here's X kill points." (Someone clicks the Easy button in the background) :wtf:

Varath- Lord Impaler
17-06-2008, 07:33
Thats the point. His army and other's have to be completely changed to a point that is redundant. And even so, Vaktathi's army will still be at a major disadvantage before the game has even begun.

(Correct me if I'm wrong)Example: A Tactical Space Marine Squad vs. a Impreial Guard Platoon Squad. They have the same amount of kill points. There is no question who would win. Quickly, look at a Imperial Guard command squad, before it dies. Look at how many kill points that thing is... And its dead. "Okay, here's X kill points." (Someone clicks the Easy button in the background)

Well of course in a 1 on 1 then thats an easy win.

How bout this.

The same 2 squads. The Tactical squad fires, does enough damage to kill the guard squad. With nothing to lose the guard squad goes to ground and manages to save one.

Next turn tactical squad is walloped by Battle cannon and whats left is killed by a second guardsmen squad.

I have spare squads to shoot with, you dont.

DarkAzrael169
17-06-2008, 07:40
The same 2 squads. The Tactical squad fires, does enough damage to kill the guard squad. With nothing to lose the guard squad goes to ground and manages to save one.

Next turn tactical squad is walloped by Battle cannon and whats left is killed by a second guardsmen squad.

I have spare squads to shoot with, you dont.

This is a few turns in, for me to be in range to shoot you...
Your assuming that your Leman Russ wasn't already blown back to the immortal god-emperor. My support hits more than half the time, unlike yours. :p

Varath- Lord Impaler
17-06-2008, 07:47
This is a few turns in, for me to be in range to shoot you...
Your assuming that your Leman Russ wasn't already blown back to the immortal god-emperor. My support hits more than half the time, unlike yours.

and i have twice the amount

Also, why does that have too be a few turns in? Could be turn 1 or 2.

Close in is where marines dont want to be against guardsmen. Its where the Rapid fire, Meltas, flamers, demo charges and Close Order drill are, its where attrition comes into it.

Ill just say this, my Guardsmen army has around 180 Guardsmen, all with special weapons out the wazoo. While being supported by 8 Ordinance blasts a turn and other things of that nature.

never do 1-1 comparisons with guard because it just doesnt work.

If you want to see my army and continue this, then look at my thread in the 5th edition forum.

DhaosAndy
17-06-2008, 07:49
@ Occulto; small point, you can still win in 5th ed. even if you have no scoring units, you could wipe out the enemy and thus auto win.

DarkAzrael169
17-06-2008, 07:59
and i have twice the amount

Also, why does that have too be a few turns in? Could be turn 1 or 2.

Close in is where marines dont want to be against guardsmen. Its where the Rapid fire, Meltas, flamers, demo charges and Close Order drill are, its where attrition comes into it.

Ill just say this, my Guardsmen army has around 180 Guardsmen, all with special weapons out the wazoo. While being supported by 8 Ordinance blasts a turn and other things of that nature.

never do 1-1 comparisons with guard because it just doesnt work.

If you want to see my army and continue this, then look at my thread in the 5th edition forum.

Good point :cool:

Occulto
17-06-2008, 08:04
@ Occulto; small point, you can still win in 5th ed. even if you have no scoring units, you could wipe out the enemy and thus auto win.

*chuckles*

That's not a regular thing for me. :D

big squig
17-06-2008, 08:53
*chuckles*

That's not a regular thing for me. :D
That's not a regular thing for anyone. I don't know why people keep making this point...as if killing every single model in your opponent's army is a every day thing. That's like a 1 in 100 game occurance.

lain2k3
17-06-2008, 08:57
It's also not common that an army has zero scoring units, which was the origin of the example.

IJW
17-06-2008, 08:57
That's like a 1 in 100 game occurance.
I must be bucking the odds, then because four of my last nine games would have ended that way if I or my opponent hadn't conceded...

Bloodknight
17-06-2008, 09:13
Probably you are. ;)

I haven't been massacred, or massacred somebody, or witnessed such a massacre in months (pretty close, yes, but usually one or two guys survive at least). We play tournament style games, and people do not throw their units at the enemy lightly; so they hide them if they go below half strength to stop giving up VP for units that cannot accomplish more, and under the new rules they will do so if the rest is very easy to kill and gives up 1KP for no reason except bad use of the unit.

Varath- Lord Impaler
17-06-2008, 09:32
I haven't been massacred, or massacred somebody, or witnessed such a massacre in months (pretty close, yes, but usually one or two guys survive at least). We play tournament style games, and people do not throw their units at the enemy lightly; so they hide them if they go below half strength to stop giving up VP for units that cannot accomplish more, and under the new rules they will do so if the rest is very easy to kill and gives up 1KP for no reason except bad use of the unit.

What?! Wheres the fun in that?! :P

Throw them in, i say! Give them a chance to prove their worth.

Ianos
17-06-2008, 10:42
Varath- Lord Impaler: Your logic of fun as much as it is desirable has nothing to do with the real competitive environment out there. If i go on a pick up game or a tournament i want KPs out of the freaking way cause they are so imba they make baby Apollo cry!

Varath- Lord Impaler
17-06-2008, 10:54
Varath- Lord Impaler: Your logic of fun as much as it is desirable has nothing to do with the real competitive environment out there. If i go on a pick up game or a tournament i want KPs out of the freaking way cause they are so imba they make baby Apollo cry!

I am still yet to see what is so bad about them.

There are so many ways that a player can defend their last few troops of each squad that i see Kill points as not being so heartrending as people say.

somy
17-06-2008, 12:44
Honestly, VP wasn't that balanced to start with... FREX some armies can spread point in unit with around the same point cost AND effectiveness, while other are forced to have cheap unit, and expensive one, so the opponent can ignore the cheap and go for the expensive. Other armies had unit very hard to kill (monolith, falcon) who cost a lot and almost never give away their point to the opponents.

KP WUOLD work quite nice if it was 1 KP x 1 FOC slot. One KP for one unit scare me little because stuff like IG platoons, sniper drones give away too many KP.

But honestly, the only codex seriously impaired is IG, and is going to be redone pretty soon, so at the end I guess it will not be SO hard. Just wait and hope! Meanwhile, I’ll be forced to play weird armies, waiting for a proper codex.

Meriwether
17-06-2008, 13:03
This does NOT work. As i said several times before, even if you try to balance this missions out, you still will end up with KP differences.

Ok, here is the problem with this discussion: When I (and I daresay several others) say that KPs will balance themselves out, we do *NOT* mean that other factors will magically intervene in order to make two armies with identical numbers of KPs.

You continuously come back to the notion that two armies must have identical KPs in order to be balanced. As far as I can tell reading these various threads, this is an assumption you have not at all backed up. So please, do so here.


I make an army list for all scenarios, and i get 8 KP.
You make an army list for all scenarios and you get 11 KP.
How is this balanced?!?

It's balanced because we've both made theoretically intelligent decisions on what we want our army to look like and operate like, based on the range of possible victory conditions that we might face. In the creation of our army lists we must balance the need for scoring units with the need to not give up too many KPs. This is not at all unlike having different numbers of anything else -- we've both built the 'best' army we can, with the objectives of the game in mind.

Balance =/= identical.


You would need to agree with your opponent, how many KP the battle would be, just as you agree about the total point value. That's nuts!!!

That is nuts, and it's entirely unneccessary. You and I can build very, very different lists because we intend to play in very, very different ways. That may very well result in one list that has more KPs than the other.


Again, as i said before, several times, this doesn't change anything. Still 5 Plaque Marines will give the same amount as 10 Plaque Marines. A 100 point Carnifex gives the same kill points as a 250 points Carnifex.

So what? It changes the parameters of how you win -- that was done on purpose, and I personally think it's brilliant. VP-only games have bored me for years, and we almost never use them 'round these parts. As much as 40K is a very, very loose simulation of anything resembling actual war, engagements have never, ever, ever been about how many of the enemy you kill -- they are about achieving specific objectives. Of course, achieving those objectives often involves killing lots of the other guys and keeping your own guys from getting killed, but not always. (Stalingrad, anyone?)


What you can't accept is the fact, that the armies out there are designed differently and if you make a balanced Nid list, it will have a different amount of KP than a balanced Marine list.

Please don't tell me what I can and can't accept. I play Marines (3,000 points), Eldar (20,000 points), Dark Eldar (6,000 points), Orks (12,000 points), Emperor's Children (4,000 points), and Daemons (3,000 points and growing). I also borrow my brother's Tyranids and a friend's guard.

Not only will a 'balanced' Marine list have different numbers of KPs when compared with a 'balanced' Tyranid list, but two different lists from the same codex can have very different numbers of KPs, too. My Eldar in particular allow me to field almost literally anything I want -- the only things I don't own in the line are (a) titans and (b) enough Wraithguard to fill more than three troops choices. I just went through a dozen-ish of my lists, and few of them had the same number of KPs. I would still happily play any one of them against any other of them, regardless of whether objectives or KPs were being used -- because each army functions the way I want it to function. I am more than willing to add more KPs to an army if it gives it the form and function that I want. It's simply not a big deal.


I should give up one KP in order to have a slight chance to get back one KP? BS.

I didn't say you should. I said 'could it be worth it'? In certain circumstances, absolutely.

A squad of guardians with a bright lance is a 'slight chance to get back one KP', and yet you risk losing 1 KP with only ~100 points of your army. Does that make them not worth it?


I just don't see why a system that forces players to make armies with as many scoring units/contesting units as possible but at the same time have as few total units as possible is good game design.

I think it's absolutely inspired.

"I gotta have as many units as possible, no WAIT, I gotta have as few units as possible. What do I do?" Answer: Think, make compromises, and plan well.

It is my prediction that the combination of objectives and KPs will get rid of a lot of the min-maxing you see in current army lists.


Well, how often do you kill 100% (as in every single model, there's no more 50% crap) in 5 turns? I've only see it happen when one player is a noob.

Really? I do it probably 50% or more of the time. Morgrad and I are pretty equally matched, and at the end of most games we both typically have 1-2 squads left, tops. It doesn't take much to swing it to a wipe out.


There are so many ways that a player can defend their last few troops of each squad that i see Kill points as not being so heartrending as people say.

Shhhh! Don't tell anybody they ain't that bad!

Meri

Varath- Lord Impaler
17-06-2008, 13:44
Shhhh! Don't tell anybody they ain't that bad!

Meri

...oh no...i already did...

WHAT DO I DO?!

neophryte
17-06-2008, 16:17
I must be bucking the odds, then because four of my last nine games would have ended that way if I or my opponent hadn't conceded...

Actually, it is much easier in 5th edition. Being able to run down an opponent much easier is huge, as is having to take panic checks for units falling back through other units. This second especially really punishes things like shooty marines who like to line the back of the table.

Blah blah, high leadership, won't happen... but, really, it does when you PLAY THE FREAKING GAME.

cochise
17-06-2008, 16:22
You mean those shooty marines rumoured to be able to fail/pass morale checks willingly in their new codex? Or those marines that will automatically regroup because of ATSKNF? Or did you mean both?

Vaktathi
17-06-2008, 17:50
You continuously come back to the notion that two armies must have identical KPs in order to be balanced. As far as I can tell reading these various threads, this is an assumption you have not at all backed up. So please, do so here. In some cases, a slight difference may not be huge, however when the entire scenario is based off of gaining KP's, any difference is inherently imbalanced. VP's were balanced because each army has the same number of potential VP's to offer, whereas with KP's, any difference means one army will have an advantage from the start. It doesn't matter whether you killed a 60pt IG squad or a 420pt 10man terminator squad, its still 1 KP. When you have a very large imbalance, it gets to the point where the army with the larger number of KP's would need to steamroll their opponent to win, whereas the other need only inflict a moderate number of casualties and simply keep what they have alive.




It's balanced because we've both made theoretically intelligent decisions on what we want our army to look like and operate like, based on the range of possible victory conditions that we might face. You are making the *very* large assumption that one is able to make a "balanced" list with one's codex, or at the least make a list that would be "balanced" within the range of what one wants their army to look and operate like. This does not hold true.

IG for instance will almost always hold at least 50% more KP's than most opponents, and in many cases several multiples more. This really isn't able to be balanced currently. Maybe with the new book, however that is, at best, 7 months away. going to the table with 19 KP's against your opponents 9 (not an uncommon occurance by any means) would require one to physically table an opponent as long as they can kill their own number of KP's back (not hard to do against Guard, lets face it), and tabling an opponent is not something that happens often with balanced lists, and not something IG do all that often, especially against armies like Eldar, Nids or Tau.



Balance =/= identical. When it comes to a zero-sum game like KP's where on side or the other has a discreet advantage/disadvantage, yes it does.



Of course, achieving those objectives often involves killing lots of the other guys and keeping your own guys from getting killed, but not always. (Stalingrad, anyone?) So an Imperial Guard company would lose an engagement where it slays half a company of Space Marines simply because there were more Guardsmen? :confused::wtf:








A squad of guardians with a bright lance is a 'slight chance to get back one KP', and yet you risk losing 1 KP with only ~100 points of your army. Does that make them not worth it? that 1 KP is enough to lose the game by.




I think it's absolutely inspired.

"I gotta have as many units as possible, no WAIT, I gotta have as few units as possible. What do I do?" Answer: Think, make compromises, and plan well.

It is my prediction that the combination of objectives and KPs will get rid of a lot of the min-maxing you see in current army lists. min-maxing is a codex issue, not a core gameplay issue (which has already been addressed with the new wound allocation system anyway).

Some armies inherently have more units than others. Its how they have been designed to operate forever, there are simply more of them but weaker. Now you have a mission where more units=bad and its somehow good game balance?




Really? I do it probably 50% or more of the time. Morgrad and I are pretty equally matched, and at the end of most games we both typically have 1-2 squads left, tops. It doesn't take much to swing it to a wipe out. I've done it a handful of times maybe? Against a competent opponent on a board with decent terrain, it shouldn't happen much.

EmperorEternalXIX
17-06-2008, 17:58
I don't know. I like the idea of it being more "sport-like" in that the score is able to be seen in real time. So decisions are able to be made more freely with awareness to the overall tactical situation. With VPs, yeah you know you just killed a squad but who knows HOW expensive...some people even paint up some squads to LOOK expensive but are actually pretty cheap, even.

All the worries about the Imperial Guard are going to be taken care of, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if it was through an FAQ. All these cries of "Imba! Imba!" will certainly fall on deaf ears if they suddenly get a rule like "Imperial Guard Infantry Platoons count as a single kill point" or "Infantry Platoon squads only count for kill points once a Platoon's command squad is dead" or something like that. There are a thousand easy 1-sentence fixes for that whole bit.

It's worth noting right now, however, that guys with complaints like Vaktathi's haven't seemed to bring up that the KPs have value dependent on the force org, as far as I've seen (correct me if this is no longer true, please). As I mentioned earlier in the thread...one lucky battle cannon shot kills a stray HQ, you get 3 KP...I then have to kill 30 guardsmen to get that 3 KP myself. So it has ways to work in your favor as well. Elites/Heavies/Fast are worth 2 points each, so armies that take a lot of them are going to have a hard time also. So this like...9 KP army mentioned above...that's like an HQ, 2-3 troops, and an elite squad. 1000-1250 point army at best.

I still feel very little sympathy. You have enough men to provide cover saves against a vast majority of incoming fire, and for 10 points per squad you can make that cover save a 3+. Even crazier, you can probably then go to ground and get a 2+ if it suits the situation.

Do you seriously think that you are going to be so helpless in KP games?

Meriwether
17-06-2008, 18:21
In some cases, a slight difference may not be huge, however when the entire scenario is based off of gaining KP's, any difference is inherently imbalanced. VP's were balanced because each army has the same number of potential VP's to offer, whereas with KP's, any difference means one army will have an advantage from the start.

...but it's your choice when planning your army, right? So that means that you can choose to add more KPs (risky!) to get more scoring units (good!) and/or units that enable you to do what you want.

For example, six units of six genestealers don't cost much, and they give away six KPs. However, they are tactically more flexible, can tie up more stuff, and might ultimately end up killing more stuff than three units of twelve genestealers. You get to choose what you bring.


You are making the *very* large assumption that one is able to make a "balanced" list with one's codex, or at the least make a list that would be "balanced" within the range of what one wants their army to look and operate like. This does not hold true.

It doesn't hold true _now_. IG haven't been competitive for years, and continue to not be. *If* KPs are revised so that platoons only give away KPs for their command squads (or whatever) you might suddenly see a significant *increase* in the balance of some of these weaker armies.


IG for instance will almost always hold at least 50% more KP's than most opponents, and in many cases several multiples more. This really isn't able to be balanced currently.

I know stingray will blow a gasket when I say this (again), but: Wait for the full 5th edition release with the FAQs. *If* there are no mitigating rules for things like spore mines or entire platoons of guardsmen, *then* we can have a conversation of what that means. How's that?


Maybe with the new book, however that is, at best, 7 months away. going to the table with 19 KP's against your opponents 9 (not an uncommon occurance by any means) would require one to physically table an opponent as long as they can kill their own number of KP's back (not hard to do against Guard, lets face it)

The fact that hiding a single guardsman will prevent KPs from the entire squad might be an interesting advantage *for the guard player*. ...Gee, do I spend my effort killing that _one guy_ for the KP, or do I try to deal with that squad of 10 with the two meltaguns that just rounded the corner? One's a surer KP, but exposes me to more danger.

The opposite is true as well. Having less KPs on the board makes your opponents' choices simpler, because he doesn't need to focus his efforts on as many units -- and that's never a good thing for you.


When it comes to a zero-sum game like KP's where on side or the other has a discreet advantage/disadvantage, yes it does.

I hope I've sufficiently argued in the previous two paragraphs that it isn't that simple.


that 1 KP is enough to lose the game by.

:confused: *ANY* 1 KP is enough to lose the game by. I'm sure you're not saying that bringing anything worth 1 KP isn't worth the points because you might lose the game by that 1 KP, because then you couldn't actually play the game... but I'm not sure what your point was, here. Please elaborate and/or clarify. (Because it won't show up when you hit quote, I'll restate the question here: because 10 guardians with a support platform can give up 1 KP for only 100 points, does that mean they aren't worth bringing?)


I've done it a handful of times maybe? Against a competent opponent on a board with decent terrain, it shouldn't happen much.

You and I have very different experiences playing 40K. In my group I think it happens more often than not.

Meri

Fist of Crimson
17-06-2008, 18:25
I don't see why people have trouble tabling an opponent. On a table with decent cover almost all my games end with wipe out or being wiped out.

Close assault armies either destroy me in combat or get flattened by my countering with close range fire (where my armies tend to excel)

Unless people are running gunline vs gunline, tabling your opponent should be pretty doable.

As to all this speculation, has anyone actually played a good number of games with killpoints? I'd like to hear how that worked out.

Vaktathi
17-06-2008, 20:39
...but it's your choice when planning your army, right? So that means that you can choose to add more KPs (risky!) to get more scoring units (good!) and/or units that enable you to do what you want. Again, that depends on what you have available to you and the basic nature of some armies is that they will simply vastly outnumber their opponent in terms of raw number of units. This was previously balanced simply through VP's. One unit of big dudes is worth 300vp, but a unit of small dudes is only 100. Now Both are worth 1 KP. There are some armies that simply will always have more KP's and as such are at an inherent disadvantage is such games, especially because they are easier to knock off.

Not only do armies with lots of KP's ave more to give up, but their individual KP's are easier to kill off too.



For example, six units of six genestealers don't cost much, and they give away six KPs. However, they are tactically more flexible, can tie up more stuff, and might ultimately end up killing more stuff than three units of twelve genestealers. You get to choose what you bring. Sure, however when you don't have a choice of unit size, only number of units such as with the Imperial Guard, that argument goes out the window. Also, even though they may kill more, losing one and a half units of twelve genestealers only nets an opponent 1 KP, whereas losing 3 units of 6 nets an opponent 3 KP, meaning they have to do triple the work.




It doesn't hold true _now_. IG haven't been competitive for years, and continue to not be. *If* KPs are revised so that platoons only give away KPs for their command squads (or whatever) you might suddenly see a significant *increase* in the balance of some of these weaker armies.


I know stingray will blow a gasket when I say this (again), but: Wait for the full 5th edition release with the FAQs. *If* there are no mitigating rules for things like spore mines or entire platoons of guardsmen, *then* we can have a conversation of what that means. How's that? Thats making a mighty big assumption with no basis for thinking so however. There has been nothing indicating that GW will do such a thing with the IG FAQ and nothing in the past has suggested that FAQ's are there to do such. They are not there to change the rules usually, merely to clarify them. Changing how IG platoons give away KP's isn't likely something to be done in an FAQ.







The fact that hiding a single guardsman will prevent KPs from the entire squad might be an interesting advantage *for the guard player*. ...Gee, do I spend my effort killing that _one guy_ for the KP, or do I try to deal with that squad of 10 with the two meltaguns that just rounded the corner? One's a surer KP, but exposes me to more danger. That totally depends on what point the game is at, what units you have there, and how well one thinks they can take the heat. If its turn 5 and I've got 10 marines in cover, I'm killing that last guy. If its turn 3, I'll probably try and get at both (I believe you can still charge multiple units) or granted shoot the big squad if its not in charge range.



The opposite is true as well. Having less KPs on the board makes your opponents' choices simpler, because he doesn't need to focus his efforts on as many units -- and that's never a good thing for you. Thats not necessarily any different than it is now however. If I'm facing a CSM army with 8 KP's and 6 big troops squads, its pretty much business as usual for my 19 KP IG army, only I basically have to wipe him from the board.






:confused: *ANY* 1 KP is enough to lose the game by. I'm sure you're not saying that bringing anything worth 1 KP isn't worth the points because you might lose the game by that 1 KP, because then you couldn't actually play the game... but I'm not sure what your point was, here. Please elaborate and/or clarify. (Because it won't show up when you hit quote, I'll restate the question here: because 10 guardians with a support platform can give up 1 KP for only 100 points, does that mean they aren't worth bringing?) The point was that in KP games, throw-away units are going to be a greater liability than an advantage. You aren't going to want to throw away KP's for a small squad with a marginal chance of killing something,




You and I have very different experiences playing 40K. In my group I think it happens more often than not.

Meri
That could be, however in the two different cities I play in, there's almost always *something* left on the board.


It's worth noting right now, however, that guys with complaints like Vaktathi's haven't seemed to bring up that the KPs have value dependent on the force org, as far as I've seen (correct me if this is no longer true, please). As I mentioned earlier in the thread...one lucky battle cannon shot kills a stray HQ, you get 3 KP...I then have to kill 30 guardsmen to get that 3 KP myself. So it has ways to work in your favor as well. Elites/Heavies/Fast are worth 2 points each, so armies that take a lot of them are going to have a hard time also. So this like...9 KP army mentioned above...that's like an HQ, 2-3 troops, and an elite squad. 1000-1250 point army at best. Its one unit, 1 KP. Characters count as 1, their retinue counts as 1. Thats it I believe (from what I read at the LA battle bunker)



I still feel very little sympathy. You have enough men to provide cover saves against a vast majority of incoming fire, and for 10 points per squad you can make that cover save a 3+. Even crazier, you can probably then go to ground and get a 2+ if it suits the situation. That all depends on the build you are running and what you have available. Changing up an IG army is *not* like changing up a Marine army. In many cases, even for basic platoons, entirely different models or WYSIWYG stuff is needed, and a greater variety of models come into play.

There are all sorts of IG armies, and most are not optimized for what you are describing. There are gunlines, conscript horde gunlines, mechanized armies, Grenadier/Stormtrooper armies (like mine), Drop Troop armies, etc... and each of these plays much differently and has vastly different units, and most won't work in the way you are expecting an IG army to work. For example, come 5th Ed, I'll have *3* scoring units (even with 30something% comp in Troops) and 19 KP's.

Granted I could make a vast horde platoon army with chameleoline equipment and the like, but that would essentially require building a whole new army. They don't fold over the same way Marine armies can.



Do you seriously think that you are going to be so helpless in KP games? It depends on the opponent. One of the Chaos lists I've been running (before any rumours of 5th Ed came out regarding KP's) with 20 termi's and 2 DP's has a grand total of 8 KP's. throw that against my IG army and all it has to do is kill a couple chimera's (not hard), half the stormtroopers (again, not hard), and one more unit and its got the game tied up unless it gets wiped out to a man.

Lordsaradain
17-06-2008, 20:47
All in all, I think 5th will be pretty good, I like the other rules changes anyway.

lain2k3
17-06-2008, 21:17
I've never, ever seen anyone disallow a guard player to take cameleoline (however you spell it) because his models didnt have camo netting all over them.

Switching doctrines is just as easy as traits. If you play with people who are ******s to that degree, find some new friends.

IJW
17-06-2008, 21:38
As I mentioned earlier in the thread...one lucky battle cannon shot kills a stray HQ, you get 3 KP...I then have to kill 30 guardsmen to get that 3 KP myself. So it has ways to work in your favor as well. Elites/Heavies/Fast are worth 2 points each,
And, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, this isn't true. It's one KP per unit, regardless of FOC slot.

Varath- Lord Impaler
18-06-2008, 01:12
Vaktathi-

I have to say that you are complaining about a loss of power in your army when it isnt even a very powerful army to begin with.

Stormtroopers are even more overcosted compared to their value than normal guardsmen, Chimeras much more so.

The fact that Kill Points and Scoring units compounds this issue, but it still remains that your army, while fluffy (i prefer fluffy armies over competative ones by far), isnt very competative.

FigureFour
18-06-2008, 01:16
Please post here if you are sick of the same 10 people arguing over and over that kill points suck.

Your opinion is widely known and all of those posts basically come down to the same people saying they suck and the same saying that they aren't bad in the context of the game as a whole.

This isn't a post in support of kill points or against, I am just curious if everyone else is as sick of it as I am especially considering that the book isn't even out and people don't have mass numbers of games under their belt yet.

Yes, I know game stores have the rules, but individuals for the most part do not.

Starting a poll to tell people on the internet to shut up is the lamest most childish thing I've ever seen.

Vaktathi
18-06-2008, 01:20
Vaktathi-

I have to say that you are complaining about a loss of power in your army when it isnt even a very powerful army to begin with. True, but I was able to stay *almost* 50/50 with it. The big thing is that it goes from being underpowered to "not a chance in hell" for no apparent reason :p.



Stormtroopers are even more overcosted compared to their value than normal guardsmen, Chimeras much more so. Yar.


The fact that Kill Points and Scoring units compounds this issue, but it still remains that your army, while fluffy (i prefer fluffy armies over competative ones by far), isnt very competative.Yes, and I'm really not looking forward to 5th Ed in general (to me it seems like a collection of arbitrary, spur of the moment changes for changes sake with one or two well thought out changes).

That said, looking at other IG armies even, KP games aren't going to be friendly or balanced.

EDIT: just to add; I've got 2 other 40k armies and a third underway, I'm not necessarily trying to look at 5th Ed only from an IG point of view, however I don't really see the benefit for any of them and the IG seemingly get hit ridiculously unfairly when they already are sub-par.

Varath- Lord Impaler
18-06-2008, 01:38
Yes, and I'm really not looking forward to 5th Ed in general (to me it seems like a collection of arbitrary, spur of the moment changes for changes sake with one or two well thought out changes).

That said, looking at other IG armies even, KP games aren't going to be friendly or balanced.

Well, for the first few months we are going to have to adapt and take it on the chin (weve done that for the past several years, im sure we are used to it) and then the problem can be solved with the new Imperial Guard Codex.

My army has 29 Kill points. But i know that if im smart with my choices (going to ground and rotating demolished squads with fresher ones from the back line) and my target selection i can still take the game.

The Imperial Guards advantage lies in that we have many squads all able to shoot at different targets, rather than one large squad for each FOC.

This means that we have the squads to fire upon enemy destroyed squads (such as the last 1 or 2 marines in the unit) while that same marine player cannot afford to direct much fire against our little 1-2 man units because that would be wasting the firepower his units have access too.

Also, consider that you can give any of your platoons (if you have a spare doctrine point, that is) Infiltrate. Meaning that you can have a platoon or 2 outflanking the enemy. Which would be very very useful.

Yes, this does change your list, im sorry. But if you dont change your list then you will NOT do very well in this new edition.

Meriwether
18-06-2008, 12:47
There are some armies that simply will always have more KP's and as such are at an inherent disadvantage is such games, especially because they are easier to knock off.

...and yet these armies will have major advantages in the other 2/3 of the games, where a 10,000-point uberunit holding an objective can be contested by a 40 point unit of grotz.


Sure, however when you don't have a choice of unit size, only number of units such as with the Imperial Guard, that argument goes out the window.

That specific point, sure. But you can still choose what you field and how in order to minimize your KPs if you feel it is really necessary.


Thats making a mighty big assumption with no basis for thinking so however. There has been nothing indicating that GW will do such a thing with the IG FAQ and nothing in the past has suggested that FAQ's are there to do such.

LOL. It is making an assumption that GW will do what they said they are going to do, and issue FAQ/errata material for each army when they release the 5th edition book.

The second sentence is simply false. When 3rd edition came out, GW released new army lists for every army with the core rules. This time, instead of going that far it looks like they are going to release army modifications with the core rules.

So not only is there not "nothing indicating that GW will do such a thing", there is direct precedent from a previous rules changeover.


That totally depends on what point the game is at, what units you have there, and how well one thinks they can take the heat.

Absolutely true.


Thats not necessarily any different than it is now however.

Also true. Are you ticked off with how things work now?


The point was that in KP games, throw-away units are going to be a greater liability than an advantage. You aren't going to want to throw away KP's for a small squad with a marginal chance of killing something,

...and for the most part 'throw away units' are unrealistic and absurd. (Except perhaps for things like penal units and spore mine clusters). That said, my favorite 'throw away unit' is storm guardians with flamer, flamer, warlock w/destructor in a waveserpent -- they almost always die, but they do horrific things to the enemy in the process. They'll still be well worth it even at 2 KP per squad.


Yes, and I'm really not looking forward to 5th Ed in general (to me it seems like a collection of arbitrary, spur of the moment changes for changes sake with one or two well thought out changes).

I think that the biggest change -- and this one is huge -- is that you cannot consolidate into the enemy after wiping out a squad. If you're in the position to wipe out a squad of IG, that means you're close. If you're close, that means you're in hugging distance of a boatload of melta, plasma, and flamer shots. Even flashlights will do horrible things to elite units like genestealers, wyches, orks, etc, etc.

It's funny how perspectives on changes are vastly different for different people. It is my prediction that even without a new codex and even with KPs a third of the time, guard's power level just skyrocketed. It's got me thinking about starting a guard army, actually!

Meri

DarthCycle
18-06-2008, 16:27
I agree with Meriwether,

the consolidation rule change is huge and will radically change the dynamic of combat.

Add to that the rule change for morale (roll penalty for casualties instead of outnumbering), counterattack for the defender, running (to get in combat range quicker, or to move in cover), initiative used when the attacker has frag grenade and the defender is in cover and we can see that 5th is very different for combat.

I like it.

Vaktathi
18-06-2008, 18:35
...and yet these armies will have major advantages in the other 2/3 of the games, where a 10,000-point uberunit holding an objective can be contested by a 40 point unit of grotz. True, but thats the same thing that exists now. Also, all those weeny units are much easier to kill than the bigger ones, and IG armies are notoriously immobile due to the nature of heavy weapons. Granted, Run helps some, but that usually won't come into play until late game, where the number of guardsmen should have been whittled down a good deal.


Also, as I have said before, the relative advantage in Scoring missions really isn't equal to the disadvantage in KP missions, and attempting to balance the game like that (where one side or the other has an obvious and nigh unsurmountable advantage) is poor game design. Its looking at the average without looking at the median (say the average is 2500, but the median is 16, you've got an outlier messing everything up) in an attempt to create balance for the average (which may be faulty).

What fun is it to constantly play games where you know that in all realistic expectations that you will lose? Sometimes that can be fun, but repeatedly for annihilation missions?

I honestly still don't see what was so bad about VP, it was fair, sure it may have taken a couple minutes to add up, but both sides started out equal, regardless of the army used.



That specific point, sure. But you can still choose what you field and how in order to minimize your KPs if you feel it is really necessary. True, but the point was that some armies are much more flexible in this regard than others. When you get KP's just for killing off units, when some armies have been designed around *inherently* having more units, that creates an obvious imbalance.




LOL. It is making an assumption that GW will do what they said they are going to do, and issue FAQ/errata material for each army when they release the 5th edition book. I'm not saying they won't issue an FAQ. However FAQ's (especially recently) have not been used to address balance issues, only foggy rules questions. If IG platoons are 4 KP right now, I'd expect them to be 4KP after the FAQ. The FAQ is there to clarify rules, not tweak the army (at least all the 4e/3e ones)



The second sentence is simply false. When 3rd edition came out, GW released new army lists for every army with the core rules. This time, instead of going that far it looks like they are going to release army modifications with the core rules.

So not only is there not "nothing indicating that GW will do such a thing", there is direct precedent from a previous rules changeover. I haven't seen anything indicating that the FAQ's will be anything other than rules clarifications, not changing the value of KP's, scoring ability, or anything else in regards to an army.



Also true. Are you ticked off with how things work now? No, however currently whatever I lose is directly proportional to what was spent on it, not simply the number of units I have. With KP's, a units cost and relative value are irrelevant, only the fact that it is a unit matters. Currently those few squads may tear through several of mine, but only come out even (for roughly the same points cost paid) now they will come out ahead simply by there being fewer of them.




...and for the most part 'throw away units' are unrealistic and absurd. (Except perhaps for things like penal units and spore mine clusters). That said, my favorite 'throw away unit' is storm guardians with flamer, flamer, warlock w/destructor in a waveserpent -- they almost always die, but they do horrific things to the enemy in the process. They'll still be well worth it even at 2 KP per squad.Mmm...that I could see being pretty brutal with the new flamer template rules, especially since DA's aren't as effective anymore. However when you look at an army like IG, until they get a new codex, they aren't anywhere near as efficient for the same number of KP's.




I think that the biggest change -- and this one is huge -- is that you cannot consolidate into the enemy after wiping out a squad. If you're in the position to wipe out a squad of IG, that means you're close. If you're close, that means you're in hugging distance of a boatload of melta, plasma, and flamer shots. Even flashlights will do horrible things to elite units like genestealers, wyches, orks, etc, etc. True, and that does seem to be a great boon to the IG for sure, that can't be denied. However IG firepower also will be greatly diluted by the abundance of 4+ cover saves in 5th Ed for intervening units, and CC units will be able to get into ones units faster with the ability to Run.



It's funny how perspectives on changes are vastly different for different people. True, everyone sees things differently.


It is my prediction that even without a new codex and even with KPs a third of the time, guard's power level just skyrocketed. See, I really only see the consolidation thing as the major benefit, IG firepower is lessened (through ubiquitous cover saves), mobile fire platform tanks (excepting Ordnance, but remember most IG tanks don't carry ordnance or don't use it every turn) is much less effective, KP games are almost auto-loss games, and enemies will get into CC faster.


It's got me thinking about starting a guard army, actually! Do it.:D