PDA

View Full Version : Kill points: a step in the right direction.



Chaplain Mortez
18-06-2008, 04:37
While I haven't picked up the rulebook or seen the leaked version, I have heard (and have no doubts that you have also) about kill points in one mission of 5th. When I first read a summary by another user about what they were--I was shocked at the horrible rule.

But as I was thinking, the more I liked them. However, I think that GW may have put them into the wrong place.

I think kill points should be in every mission.

Now, I know some people are thinking "IS MORTEZ ON CRACK?" but let me explain.

I like my Orc army. I like the look on my opponents face when I drop 200 models on the table and they're wondering how they're going to kill it all. I know I'm not the only one who likes winning with a hoard army. I also know that people win with hoards of troops in other games (zerg rush, anyone?)

However, there are those who also like playing with smaller, elite armies. The biggest example that comes to mind in 40k is pure Grey Knights. The most common difficulty I hear these players having is the fact that they have so few units to capture objectives, and are often penalized for having such high point costs.

On the other hand, it isn't really fair to penalize hoard armies in the same way it's not fair to penalize elite armies. Making missions that specifically benefit one or the other seems to me to create a lot of imbalance.

So why not integrate kill points into every mission, including cleanse?

4th. edition made an awesome move when they decided to make table corners and objectives worth an amount according to the points value of the game. If they just simplified victory points into something smaller, such as a table corner being worth 2 victory points and 4 for your opponent's in 1500 (just as an example--it would obviously have to be tuned; I just threw some numbers out there), and you got kill points which added to this overall score, I think this is a much better system than we currently use or will use in the near-future.

Many games already seperate deciding who wins and resources (Warmachine, Hoards, Settlers of Catan), so I think separating the resource we use when building armies (points) and the decider of who wins (victory points) is a much better system.

This way, missions that do not reward kill points or are kill points exclusively are special missions that may be thrown in to catch players off-guard, but not be a norm.

Thoughts?

lain2k3
18-06-2008, 04:48
I'd have no problem playing missions like that, but I'm also fine with the 5th missions as are.

big squig
18-06-2008, 05:02
Why not just leave KP and VP out of the game entirely? With only troops scoring, and all the codexes now requiring you to take large units to get stuff like heavy weapon upgrades, what's the point of KP?

Annihilation games are the worst anyways regardless of what edition you are playing. They were boring in 3rd ed, they were boring in 4th ed and they're gonna be boring in 5th ed. Each player just sits there dropping as much firepower as possible, or runs across the board. There's like 1/10 the strategy needed compared to objective based missions.

In an objective mission, people are going to take a solid troop base to win the game with, elites for specialist jobs, fast for flanking positions and counter assault, and heavies to support.

Whether your army is made to horde the battlefield with small weaklings (bugs, orks, guard), or is built around a few heavy elites (marines, chaos, eldar) everyone will be playing on the same level.

Killing should never be an objective. Killing should be means to complete an objective.

The big problem with using VP or KP is that a lot of armies win through attrition. They are based around units that sacrifice themselves to achieve a goal. So, to win the game, they MUST give up lots of points. Other armies (like MEQs) win with small hard to kill units. They win games by not sacrificing units, so they don't give points.

Meriwether
18-06-2008, 13:40
Why not just leave KP and VP out of the game entirely? With only troops scoring, and all the codexes now requiring you to take large units to get stuff like heavy weapon upgrades, what's the point of KP?

I think the point of KP is to mitigate the advantage that guard, orks, and other armies that can completely sick out on huge numbers of cheap scoring and contesting units have. If they know that they'll be playing KP missions some of the time, they'll have to moderate their army builds.


Killing should never be an objective. Killing should be means to complete an objective.

...although I agree with this statement rather wholeheartedly.

Meri

leo_neil316
18-06-2008, 15:58
The problem is that an 'average' army for most codexs comes in at around 7 killpoints.

An imperial guard army is looking at around 15. And thats not taking as much stuff as you can, thats just average. Orks and Nids have the option of running huge hordes of stuff that're still only 6-7 kill points (warboss and squads of 30 with all the trimmings for example, or tyrant, tyrant guard some 2 units of gaunts and 4 'fexes).

Imperial guard? Well lets see how 'elite' and small we can get. Command (1) grenadiers (3) stormtroopers (3) chimeras (7) leman russ (2). wait thats still 15.

Since you have to win by 10? kill points or wipe the enemy compleatly that 15 kill point imperial guard army will loose if they still have an entire platoon of troops left and the other guy has one lone model.

So yeah, orks and nids can moderate their killpoints just fine and still have large numbers of scoring stuff. Guard though?

But hopefully that'll be sorted when guard get a new codex.

IJW
18-06-2008, 16:06
The problem is that an 'average' army for most codexs comes in at around 7 killpoints.
How many points are you talking about?

My 'elite' 1500pt Ork biker force is 9KP.
My 1500pt Eldar normally run between 10 and 13KP.
1500pt Nurgle Chaos, 8-12KP.



Since you have to win by 10? kill points or wipe the enemy compleatly
You don't have to win by a set number of KPs, you just have to inflicted more.

vladsimpaler
18-06-2008, 16:28
I think that my 850 points of guard is around 12 or 13 KP. I swear.

I don't get how this 'mixes' things up. It's more like a catch 22-ish thing.

First, it's "Only infantry can capture objectives, so use a bunch of them!"

Then it's "Killpoints are awarded for each squad eliminated!"

Sure, it's a step in the right direction for Necrons, GK, and Deathwing, but it's a step in the wrong direction for Guard and other horde based armies.

Lord Cook
18-06-2008, 16:46
I think the point of KP is to mitigate the advantage that guard, orks, and other armies that can completely sick out on huge numbers of cheap scoring and contesting units have.

That advantage is already mitigated by the fact that those huge numbers of scoring units are easily destroyed as they typically have inferior stats and vastly inferior armour. Yes a Guard army can easily get a dozen scoring units. But they will be no more difficult to destroy than 3 or 4 tactical squads, so it's already balanced. Adding KPs just throws it so far in the other direction it becomes impossible to win with a horde Guard army. All you have to do is lose 500 points of stuff, and so long as your opponent has at least 1 model left alive, he wins.

Bloodknight
18-06-2008, 17:02
Exactly. IG squads have next to no close combat ability, get shot easily and have to double as objective takers and damage dealers, but cannot do both (they're not even scary in rapid fire range). Obviously they are, due to lack of CC ability, bad objective holders.

They just get assaulted off it by anything but Firewarriors, and even that is dubious ;).

I see IG going to be a lot more Elite in 5th because somebody else has to do the shooting while 60 guys rush at the objectives with 50 of them getting killed either on the way or on the objective.

Also, transports are pretty rare in Guard armies because many units cannot take them, and if they can, the transport is often as expensive as the transported squad or more.

Rirekon
18-06-2008, 17:10
Iif you're going to have a system which assigns a value to each unit then nothing is going to be better than the system which already exists; The cost paid for them when you built the list.

I actually really like the current missions which are scored by the VP cost of the unit(s) holding each objective. It is a reasonable reflection of how much control you have over each objective and is well balanced for Horde vs Elite battles.

KP takes all the work GW has put into balancing the points costs of everything in the game and replaces it with arbitrary values.

Mojaco
18-06-2008, 17:19
Why not just leave KP and VP out of the game entirely? With only troops scoring, and all the codexes now requiring you to take large units to get stuff like heavy weapon upgrades, what's the point of KP?

My thought exactly. To the letter almost. Troops and large units are being pushed enough already. I love varied armies with many units, and Kps pretty much ruin that. Humbug.

Meriwether
18-06-2008, 17:20
It's more like a catch 22-ish thing.

First, it's "Only infantry can capture objectives, so use a bunch of them!"

Then it's "Killpoints are awarded for each squad eliminated!"


That's exactly what I _like_ about it. A compromise between the two will be necessary for 'good' army builds. Forcing people to make hard decisions instead of just maxing out on five man las-plas squads and asscannon spam (or, if you prefer, TMCs) is a good thing, not a bad thing, IMO.

I think we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out. I see a lot of "The sky is falling!" on this subject, while I myself see it as a positive development.

Meri

big squig
18-06-2008, 17:30
I think the point of KP is to mitigate the advantage that guard, orks, and other armies that can completely sick out on huge numbers of cheap scoring and contesting units have. If they know that they'll be playing KP missions some of the time, they'll have to moderate their army builds.

Meri
But there's no advantage to mitigate. If you're playing orks or guard or something similar, yes you have more units. But those units are so fragile compared to things like marines that it already balances out.

Cheap units cost less because they are easier to kill. When did we get to a point where this was forgotten?

Meriwether
18-06-2008, 19:03
...but one surviving member of any one of those units can contest an objective.

*sigh* I think I'm done here. Just try it out when the totality of the rules come out, and we'll see what happens.

Meri

SwordJon
18-06-2008, 19:37
But there's no advantage to mitigate. If you're playing orks or guard or something similar, yes you have more units. But those units are so fragile compared to things like marines that it already balances out.


Yes for Guard, no for Orks. My Ork mobs are far more survivable than any tactical squad.

big squig
18-06-2008, 23:15
Yes for Guard, no for Orks. My Ork mobs are far more survivable than any tactical squad.
They won't be in 5th ed. Expect to lose a LOT of boys to any weapon with an area of effect and expect a lot more firepower concentrated on them then usual because they are the only scoring units.

Kill points is a system where really weak easy to kill units give out a lot of points, and really hard tough to kill units give out little points.

foehammer888
18-06-2008, 23:41
They won't be in 5th ed. Expect to lose a LOT of boys to any weapon with an area of effect and expect a lot more firepower concentrated on them then usual because they are the only scoring units.

Kill points is a system where really weak easy to kill units give out a lot of points, and really hard tough to kill units give out little points. But the cheap units are no longer so easy to kill. In 5th edition

- cover saves are rampant. They are higher value and more of them than in previous editions, with most being 4+. You know who gains the most from those cover saves? Units without a 3+ armor save, cheap units like guard, orks, and tyranids.
- LOS rules. In objective missions all you need to do is place those cheap, disposable units behind one tougher, elite unit, and if the opponent wants to shoot them instead of the elite unit, the weak unit gets a cover save and will ignore 50% of the wounds you would normally have caused. Now its much easier for those cheaper squads to survive to claim objectives. Again, this is an advantage that is far less useful for those really expensive elite units, as their armor save was likely better in the first place.

Foehammer
-

cochise
18-06-2008, 23:50
You forgot to mention that CC is quite deadly now, and that means bad news for weak units.
Also, TLOS and the height systems means that if you are in a high spot you donīt have to worry about cover from other units.

Necrotyr18
18-06-2008, 23:54
Killpoints in my opinion is simply a need for different tactics.

Now I don't want to come off as glouting but I have a friend that under 4th ed., I would always win. Now with Killpoints it may swing into his favor. Variety is the spice of life.

foehammer888
19-06-2008, 00:55
You forgot to mention that CC is quite deadly now, and that means bad news for weak units.
Also, TLOS and the height systems means that if you are in a high spot you donīt have to worry about cover from other units. The close combat issue isn't that severe. There are only 6 or so turns in a game. This seriously limits how many weak enemy units even the most powerful elite unit can kill.

You also forget to mention that while there are lots of ways to make weak units disappear there are also numerous ways to make expensive elite units disappear. Now that blasts don't cause partials, battlecannons, plasmacannons, and earthshakers can do nasty things to small elite armies.

Foehammer

GreenDracoBob
19-06-2008, 03:05
I have only played one game using the old leaked rules, but I think that even the killpoints in that version were better. It made the more specialized units worth more than the basic guys. It just seemed that the HQs, which are smaller and arguably less effective, became worth more, and therefore a bit more realistic. Now, it just seems that they will be killed just because the are smaller and less effective, but worth the same.

That said, I have no idea what to think of killpoints, and hold my judgement until I have actually played with the rules. I would prefer if they could eliminate such a poor part of the game, but I'm not sure the "cleanse"/"annihilation" missions could do without a horrible way to score them, and I am not sure I want to see them go.

Chaplain Mortez
19-06-2008, 04:13
Why not just leave KP and VP out of the game entirely? With only troops scoring, and all the codexes now requiring you to take large units to get stuff like heavy weapon upgrades, what's the point of KP?

Annihilation games are the worst anyways regardless of what edition you are playing. They were boring in 3rd ed, they were boring in 4th ed and they're gonna be boring in 5th ed. Each player just sits there dropping as much firepower as possible, or runs across the board. There's like 1/10 the strategy needed compared to objective based missions.

In an objective mission, people are going to take a solid troop base to win the game with, elites for specialist jobs, fast for flanking positions and counter assault, and heavies to support.

Whether your army is made to horde the battlefield with small weaklings (bugs, orks, guard), or is built around a few heavy elites (marines, chaos, eldar) everyone will be playing on the same level.

Killing should never be an objective. Killing should be means to complete an objective.

The big problem with using VP or KP is that a lot of armies win through attrition. They are based around units that sacrifice themselves to achieve a goal. So, to win the game, they MUST give up lots of points. Other armies (like MEQs) win with small hard to kill units. They win games by not sacrificing units, so they don't give points.

Agreed that annihilation is the most dull and boring mission (you might as well just play a game for six turns with no objectives at all), but I think that having BOTH KP and VP (for objectives) is still the way to go. It's a matter of "Do I want to be able to decimate multiple units with one?" (getting KP's) or "Do I want to be able to grab more objectives?" To me, this is much more balanced since it requires players to take into consideration army composition. As it is right now in 4th., the people I play with take a minimum of 4 troop choices in an 1850 game--simply because you can grab more objectives easier and have the numbers to do so. Having troops being the only ones to capture objectives encourages people to take more than the compulsory two, but I think kill points makes people want to take more than the compulsory zero for the rest of the chart (or more than one HQ).


The problem is that an 'average' army for most codexs comes in at around 7 killpoints.

An imperial guard army is looking at around 15. And thats not taking as much stuff as you can, thats just average. Orks and Nids have the option of running huge hordes of stuff that're still only 6-7 kill points (warboss and squads of 30 with all the trimmings for example, or tyrant, tyrant guard some 2 units of gaunts and 4 'fexes).

Imperial guard? Well lets see how 'elite' and small we can get. Command (1) grenadiers (3) stormtroopers (3) chimeras (7) leman russ (2). wait thats still 15.

Since you have to win by 10? kill points or wipe the enemy compleatly that 15 kill point imperial guard army will loose if they still have an entire platoon of troops left and the other guy has one lone model.

So yeah, orks and nids can moderate their killpoints just fine and still have large numbers of scoring stuff. Guard though?

But hopefully that'll be sorted when guard get a new codex.

That's just the consideration you should take in when using IG, in the same way you should consider the small unit count for Demonhunters. I do think it's a bit stupid to have transports and spore mines counting for kill points--I like the current rules for scoring units better. Perhaps if only scoring units (like we have now) only counted for kill points, it would be better.


Iif you're going to have a system which assigns a value to each unit then nothing is going to be better than the system which already exists; The cost paid for them when you built the list.

I actually really like the current missions which are scored by the VP cost of the unit(s) holding each objective. It is a reasonable reflection of how much control you have over each objective and is well balanced for Horde vs Elite battles.

KP takes all the work GW has put into balancing the points costs of everything in the game and replaces it with arbitrary values.

The problem is that I feel that I see too few elite armies being used competitively or even casually. There are some great armies out there, but people won't use them because a) they don't dish out enough firepower (10 Grey Knights are not going to kill 300 points worth of orks, which is 50); or b) cannot capture objectives. Both of those should call for a either point reduction or beefing up/nerfing on the unit (because the troops in question are not balanced with each other). That, however, seems like you are destroying the fluff and/or balance of the unit (lowering Grey Knights to 18 or 20 points? Or making their storm bolters be assault three?)

Overall, I just wanted to hear what people had to say about mixing VP's and KP's together, instead of having them exist exclusively of one another.