PDA

View Full Version : 5th Edition nerfed Guard 33%, this is B.S.



broxus
14-07-2008, 04:03
I have to say I like the new rules other than a few minor things such as defensive weapons being nerfed and wound allocation. Though I have found a huge NERF to the guard when I read the scenarios.. The annihilate mission which I though was just VP turned out to be Kill points. Now if any of you havenít read what that means its simple. For every unit you destroy or wipe out you get a KP the player with the most KP at the end of the game wins.

Now isnít this complete and utter B.S., so your telling me my 60 point guard squad gives the same points as a 300 point Assault Marine Squad. Point for point this isnít fair at all, the SM player gets 5 times the amount of KP for killing the same amount of VPs. This one really only hurt the guard because the squads are forced to be small and have crummy stats. They are meant to die in mass. Orcs can take mobs and same with tyranids, so this wonít really affect them much at all.

I hope that these scenarios never come up in a tournament or any game I play in, I might as well walk away against marines. I was hoping you would only get a KP if you killed the entire platoon which could make this fair but alas, nope its not in a FAQ.

#$#$

sir.spamalot
14-07-2008, 04:05
whinge moar...


Sorry I apologize for being a heartless b#*$%^ but really, you will lose some but you could also enjoy the game for what it is and still have fun playing a game even though you know your going to lose, or you could just not play but whining about it isnt going to A) get you sympathy's or B) solve any problems.. so

mchmr6677
14-07-2008, 04:07
There have been other threads on this topic in the old 5th ed forum, but they were closed because the conversation started to degenerate. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens here as well.

On your post, you are right. A footslogging guard force will be very hard to play in a KP mission.

Hellebore
14-07-2008, 04:09
And yet, 66% of the time the new rule BOOST Guard. They give out more kill points 1/3rd of the time and are able to control more objectives 2/3rds of the time.

Sounds like a win to me...

Hellebore

broxus
14-07-2008, 04:10
I've just got to ask what was GW thinking? They need to FAQ that this only is vs a platoon not a 60pt squad.

broxus
14-07-2008, 04:13
And yet, 66% of the time the new rule BOOST Guard. They give out more kill points 1/3rd of the time and are able to control more objectives 2/3rds of the time.

Sounds like a win to me...

Hellebore

Sir, that is not correct you can park a single squad of marines to guard a location. Now this would have been a disadvantage if it was who had the most scoring units next to an objective but it was changed. Its if you have a scoring unit there to hold it and a non scoring unit to contest it.

My question is what was wrong with the VP game version of this???

Caiphas Cain
14-07-2008, 04:17
i agree with err some one ... it needs to be changd to the whole platoon
or armored fist or conscripts OR grenadiers rule

Varath- Lord Impaler
14-07-2008, 04:17
Sir, that is not correct you can park a single squad of marines to guard a location. Now this would have been a disadvantage if it was who had the most scoring units next to an objective but it was changed. Its if you have a scoring unit there to hold it and a non scoring unit to contest it.

My Answer, put all of the Objectives you can on Hills with no real terrain around it so if they DO capture it, Mr battlecannon will say otherwise.

Hicks
14-07-2008, 04:21
The good thing at least is that lots of people play "kill everything" and don't care about missions at all.

But yeah, KPs are one thing about the new edition that I really am not sure I like.

Caiphas Cain
14-07-2008, 04:22
The good thing at least is that lots of people play "kill everything" and don't care about missions at all.

But yeah, KPs are one thing about the new edition that I really am not sure I like.

YA its like that at my gw "kill em all!" are the most common battles

broxus
14-07-2008, 04:26
The other scenerios are well thought and fun. I guess someone was drinking for the last scenerio. I dont think thats really good for anyone other than SM.

To be honest I know why they did it, to keep people from min/maxing squads such as the 5 man las/plas squads. This really only screws over the IG who are forced to take crummy small units. If they changed it so only platoons count towards the KP then this would all be fixed. Other horde armies are not affected by this to bad.

broxus
14-07-2008, 04:40
wow it gets worse I saw. Those 4 man command retinues for guard count as 1 KP and so does the officer meaning, yep so the IG are forced to take a total of lets 10 KP for their compulsarary units.

AfroCelt
14-07-2008, 04:45
Cain, the marines have and will always get the boost simply because of the sheer number of players and the iconic status. The Guard historically have done well, though their new book will bring a welcome boost. I still have a ton of Guard players around me here.

I'm quite suprised that this isn't already resolved, but you all will just have to suffer for a few months until the new codex is released to fix it all for you. Look at my orks...serious case of neglect up until last December....and shudder at the thought of the DE...a codex that's now two editions out of sync.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
14-07-2008, 04:50
The IG codex is scheduled for being revamped according to rumours at least. Perhaps that's why GW showed little regard for how the IG would fare in 5th edition with their current dex.

ehlijen
14-07-2008, 05:15
Having lots of units means you can easily screen the hurt ones. If the enemy doesn't have too many blast/template weapons even completely! IG will need to play a lot more conservatively in those missions but it's not as badly off as many seem to think.

Also: Chameloin cloaks!

Hicks
14-07-2008, 05:29
But what will we do againt running or infiltrating cc specialists that can tear a squad merely by looking at it?

Redeemer1988
14-07-2008, 05:34
You don't have to take platoons. You could just take two Grenadier squads instead, and then just load up on tanks :evilgrin:

ehlijen
14-07-2008, 05:39
Or: put the platoons into reserves. Include Sentinels with improved comms, also in reserves. Try to keep them off the board as long as you can.

Hellebore
14-07-2008, 05:41
Sir, that is not correct you can park a single squad of marines to guard a location. Now this would have been a disadvantage if it was who had the most scoring units next to an objective but it was changed. Its if you have a scoring unit there to hold it and a non scoring unit to contest it.

My question is what was wrong with the VP game version of this???

For a start, VPs are still in the book as an option so that's not a problem.

Second, a space marine army is quite vulnerable in objective based missions. They can take 6 tac squads and split them to get 12 scoring units.

A guard army can have 6 scoring units from TWO troops choices. The space marines are in greater danger of not being able to actually take objectives because you can destroy thier scoring units comparatively faster.

This is because no matter how easy it is to kill guardsmen, you can only fire at a single unit a turn. A squad of 5 marines is going to die pretty fast and considering that there are no Last Man Standing tests AND scoring units count down to the last man, I somehow think that in a game of attrition, guard will end up with more scoring units at the end of the game (and marines would quite likely end up with NONE).

A single guardsman in cover going to ground every turn has a 3+ cover save, he could sit on that objective for quite a while...

Hellebore

Marneus Calgar
14-07-2008, 05:59
Having lots of units means you can easily screen the hurt ones. If the enemy doesn't have too many blast/template weapons even completely! IG will need to play a lot more conservatively in those missions but it's not as badly off as many seem to think.

Also: Chameloin cloaks!

Too bad we most likely will not have chameleon in our new codex. I mean, with 5th edition and the way cover saves work, we all know they wouldn't let guard keep this. :rolleyes:

WallWeasels
14-07-2008, 06:13
Well then its something to use in the mean time. Guard will probably be damned awesome in their new codex. So I can't see you complain about that. :x

Polonius
14-07-2008, 06:35
I'm actually pretty shocked at how blase most people are to this, even more so how many people seem to think it's idle whining. IG armies, unlike every other army, don't have the option to take larger squads, they can only take more. Yes, that's usually an advantage. But so is having power armor, or BS4, or Waagh, or Fleet, etc. My point is that the platoon structure is an inherent ability of the guard, and it's something that hurts them. Just because it's usually an advantage doesn't make the screwjob any less. When fourth edition came out, people pointed out that escalation nerfed transport units, and after a year or so, you saw either very few transported units outside of all mechanzied armies, or very little escalation. The same thing applies here.

The argument "but you can grab more objectives" doesn't hold a ton of water either. IG aren't the most mobile army, and probably won't be able to get a troops choice into the enemy backfield during Capture and Control. I suppose in Seize ground missions they might have a decent chance at it.

However, and this is a big however, while IG have more units that could theoretically sieze objectives, none of their units are really that good at it. No unit in the IG codex is durable in HtH (Conscripts with Gaunt come close, as they can last a turn or two), and outside of conscripts none can be larger than 10 models. Yes, they can shrug off shooting, but you don't try to outshoot IG, and any IG that are moving to claim objectives aren't shooting.

In the objective missions, the balance between more and weaker scoring units and fewer but more durable scoring units is pretty apparent. For most armies, boiling down VPs to Kps is actually pretty decent. Most units tend to hover between 100-250 points, with a few being more and very few being less (transports are a big exception here). IG units, on the other hand, range from 50-180, which is lower. A full Orc Mob, a tactical squad, a crisis suit squad, a fire prism: these are all comparable. A full IG platoon is on the high end, but still comparable, however that platoon now gives up more KPs.

Of course, IG aren't the only ones screwed here. Rhinos give up a KP for hardly any points, as do solo light vehicles. Cheap ICs are hurt, of course IG have more of them than anybody else.

However, the biggest concern for me is the sheer unfairness of it all: it's not that IG have an uphill battle with KPs, it's that in some games it will be virtually unwinnable against a canny opponent. In a fairly balanced IG list I used in 4th, I gave up 23 KPs. In a fairly balanced, say, eldar list, 13 is pretty commmon. This means that as long as the eldar player keeps on model alive, if he can wiped out 13 of my units while losing the rest of his army, he wins.

Sure, this impacts other armies, but as stated above they have ways to minimize the KP hit. Even if I avoid IG platoons, my units will still be relatively cheap and plentiful, whereas every other army can bulk up their existing units, with the notable exception of Tau, of course.

Takitron
14-07-2008, 06:46
Victory points are in the back of the book, just agree to use that if you have a huge disparity of Kill Points (like my friend Minus and his 20 KP Guard). They even talk about how KP shouldn't be used in tournaments, just use Victory Points.

tl;dr: Read the whole rulebook before posting on forums, the answers are there.

Starchild
14-07-2008, 06:58
I'm sure the new Guard codex will sort all this out. Until then, the IG will be handing out killpoints on a stick. :(

Technically, a platoon is one unit, so I'd say you'd have to take out the lot of them to score one killpoint. If I play against Guard, I'll happily offer this interpretation in the spirit of sportsmanship. :cool:

Polonius
14-07-2008, 07:02
I'm sure the new Guard codex will sort all this out. Until then, the IG will be handing out killpoints on a stick. :(

Technically, a platoon is one unit, so I'd say you'd have to take out the lot of them to score one killpoint. If I play against Guard, I'll happily offer this interpretation in the spirit of sportsmanship. :cool:


You are indeed a gentleman, but the BGB is pretty clear on what counts as a unit. IF you look on pages 86 and 92, a unit is a unit, even if bought in bulk. A single minimum mechanized platoon will cough up 7 KP: 3 squads, 3 transports, and 1 IC. However, in Dawn of War, only two "units" will be deployed as troops.

Takitron
14-07-2008, 07:34
Know whats funny? Ive always heard that we play the game differently from the designers (they just play since they all know how the rules are supposed to work) and I wouldn't be surprised if they intended it to be "Each FoC choice" gives one Kill point.

Polonius
14-07-2008, 07:37
Know whats funny? Ive always heard that we play the game differently from the designers (they just play since they all know how the rules are supposed to work) and I wouldn't be surprised if they intended it to be "Each FoC choice" gives one Kill point.

Except they clearly point out that each unit counts as a unit. They do it very clearly.

I'm guessing they simply assume that tournements will avoid KP they way they avoided escalation in 4th and Night Fight in 3rd: they're fun mission for casual play but screw up any army that's not "Average".

Occulto
14-07-2008, 07:53
I'm guessing they simply assume that tournements will avoid KP they way they avoided escalation in 4th and Night Fight in 3rd: they're fun mission for casual play but screw up any army that's not "Average".

I made sure people used Escalation in the last couple of tournaments I ran. There were groans, but I wasn't going to let people get easy victories.

It's always struck me as stupid that one of the best ways of reining in OTT armies like Nidzilla or Mech Eldar has been ignored by so many players. No wonder people complained about the power builds. :rolleyes:

The Guy
14-07-2008, 07:56
To kinda quote Rocky Balboa...

"It ain't about how hard us as guard players get hit, it's about how hard we can get hit and keep pushing forward against the facsism that is GW"

Just wait for the new guard 'dex [when it's made]. GW MAY realise what the hell they're playing at.

hush88
14-07-2008, 08:00
A single guardsman in cover going to ground every turn has a 3+ cover save, he could sit on that objective for quite a while...

Hellebore

Grenades, plasma fire, shuriken discs, explosions everywhere....
Guardsman hidding in a hole:"........man o man........everyone is dead from running to the objective here.....i can't run away cause i will killed by random fire.....all i have is this hole in the ground that i am hiding in....."

5 turns later.....

Lord Marshall to Guardsman :"Congralutions soldier....you are hereby promoted to Colonel as the single brave soldier that survive the war and captured the mission objective!!"

Polonius
14-07-2008, 08:01
I made sure people used Escalation in the last couple of tournaments I ran. There were groans, but I wasn't going to let people get easy victories.

It's always struck me as stupid that one of the best ways of reining in OTT armies like Nidzilla or Mech Eldar has been ignored by so many players. No wonder people complained about the power builds. :rolleyes:

This is the sort of thinking that worries me. Escaltion does hurt those two armies, but it also hurts: Mech sisters, Blood angels, mech tau, Mech IG, Mech Dark Eldar.

However, nearly or entirely non-infantry armies handle escaltion relatively well. Sure they may lose a few small squads as they rest of the army is in reserve, but they still get about half their army on turn 2.

What esclation really hurts are armies that have small amounts of non-infantry. Orks with big guns, IG with a few tanks, "balanced" Nids with a few fexes and hormagaunts, etc.

You say that escalation prevents easy wins, however it actually makes games very easy for all infantry IG, Ork Hordes, drop pod marines, and the necron phalanx.

Rules like escalation don't balance anything: they randomly nerf armies based on an arbitrary standard. In 4th it was if you were infantry or not. In 5th it's how many units you bring to the table. How is that balance? It's just a shake up for a shake ups sake.

Enderel
14-07-2008, 08:02
5th edition as a whole offers a very different way of playing the game. What GW take away with one hand (VP's) they give back in the other (TLOS).

I played a guard army yesterday and yes they struggled in a KP game but it was mainly down to the fact they used minimal sized units of rough riders and deep striking veterans.

It seems to me that GW have a very set idea of how to play this new edition and stepping outside of their intent for army builds does have strange effects on things like KP's.

With leman russes being so survivable now they can be used as objective grabbers. Smoke launchers that only allow glancing still and possibility of a cover save as well, I wish I had that!

I think guard have benefitted massively from TLOS. I endured massive amounts of firepower because it was very difficult to hide anywhere.

Varath- Lord Impaler
14-07-2008, 08:09
I love the Set up where you only deploy one HQ and 2 troops at the start of the game.

I deploy:

Command squad
2x Special Weapons squads with Flamers and Demo Charges
2x Infantry Platoons with 3 squads each

mwahahaha

bop
14-07-2008, 08:10
it is actually a very lucky player who can wipe a guard squad in 1turn on a 1 to 1 bases , i've found i need to fire two full squads to wipe out 1 guard unit in a turn (with cover saves now it could take longer) . thats around 400 points of marines used to take out 1 60+ point guard squad. thats a great exchange for the guard player.
as for the 1 platoon = 1 unit for kp if you do that you need 1 platoon =1 scoring unit for objectives .
bop

Polonius
14-07-2008, 08:11
5th edition as a whole offers a very different way of playing the game. What GW take away with one hand (VP's) they give back in the other (TLOS).

I played a guard army yesterday and yes they struggled in a KP game but it was mainly down to the fact they used minimal sized units of rough riders and deep striking veterans.

It seems to me that GW have a very set idea of how to play this new edition and stepping outside of their intent for army builds does have strange effects on things like KP's.

With leman russes being so survivable now they can be used as objective grabbers. Smoke launchers that only allow glancing still and possibility of a cover save as well, I wish I had that!

I think guard have benefitted massively from TLOS. I endured massive amounts of firepower because it was very difficult to hide anywhere.

I'm not sure you're really understanding the prediciment for IG. Yes, TLOS helps them, but it also helps Tau, Eldar, and Shooty Marines, DE, and Chaos. Yes, there are ways that 5th makes IG more competitive. Having a mission that's so sorely stacked is still not fair, no matter how much better IG were than before (which wasn't exactly uber).

Even avoiding minimun sized units, IG simply cough up a lot of KPs. There's no way to write an IG list that will have as few KPs as a Chaos, Ork, Eldar, or Marine list. IG platoons, you know, the basic troops that we're all suppsoed to take in fifth? At 270 points I get a JO, his four man retinue, and 2 IG squads. That's 4 KPs. If I buy more squads, that's more KPs! If I take Chimeras, it's more KPs. Yes, every army has to change the way they build their lists to adapt to 5th. My point is that there is no way for IG to adapt! There is simply no way to minimize IG kill points to the extent that they can compete in that mission.


I love the Set up where you only deploy one HQ and 2 troops at the start of the game.

I deploy:

Command squad
2x Special Weapons squads with Flamers and Demo Charges
2x Infantry Platoons with 3 squads each

mwahahaha

No you don't. I had to re-read the rules twice. It says deploy one Unit form you HQ choices, and two Units from your troops choices. You get 1 special weapon squad and two IG squads. That's it.

Occulto
14-07-2008, 08:27
This is the sort of thinking that worries me. Escaltion does hurt those two armies, but it also hurts: Mech sisters, Blood angels, mech tau, Mech IG, Mech Dark Eldar.

However, nearly or entirely non-infantry armies handle escaltion relatively well. Sure they may lose a few small squads as they rest of the army is in reserve, but they still get about half their army on turn 2.

What esclation really hurts are armies that have small amounts of non-infantry. Orks with big guns, IG with a few tanks, "balanced" Nids with a few fexes and hormagaunts, etc.

You say that escalation prevents easy wins, however it actually makes games very easy for all infantry IG, Ork Hordes, drop pod marines, and the necron phalanx.

Rules like escalation don't balance anything: they randomly nerf armies based on an arbitrary standard. In 4th it was if you were infantry or not. In 5th it's how many units you bring to the table. How is that balance? It's just a shake up for a shake ups sake.

*shrugs*

Well I can't help but think that's an incredibly counter productive way of dealing with things. It is incredibly rare to find a mission that is 100% balanced for every codex and build. Trust me, trying to pick 5 missions that don't unfairly disadvantage any conceivable list is nigh on impossible.

A recon mission - where the objective is to get into the opposing deployment zone. Incredibly difficult for an all-infantry force yet rewards mechanised. Are you saying recon missions shouldn't be played in tournaments?

Unbalanced matchups happens already - either because your list meets the perfect counterlist, or the scenery is more suited to the other guy's army, or the mission is incredibly hard to complete. Hell, it even happens when the other guy gets first turn and takes down the guts of your army with a well placed ordinance blast.

The thing is, players need to suck it up and occasionaly push s*** uphill without embarking on a rant about "unfairness."

Yes, KPs are going to cause IG some serious headaches, but that's no different to the headaches a DW player will face when their opponent has about five times as many units to hold/contest objectives!

Stingray_tm
14-07-2008, 08:37
Yes, KPs are going to cause IG some serious headaches, but that's no different to the headaches a DW player will face when their opponent has about five times as many units to hold/contest objectives!

So not only KP are stupid, mission objectives are unfair aswell. And that is an argument pro 5th edition?

5th edition is clearly inferiour to 4th edition, when it comes to mission balance. Period. And there is no reason for this other than GW trying to find something that they can change so they have a justification to release a new edition and a new Space Marine codex.

All the things GW supposedly tries to accomplish must be done within codizes, not in the general rules. You don't like min/maxing of Space Marines? Then prohibit this in the new Space Marine codex. You don't like Nidzilla? Then remove the elite Fex rule (which was purely there to sell the new Carnifex kit in the first place). GW is doing a crappy job, when it comes to game balance, because they don't really care. There is always "next codex or next edition" to balance things out. Only that it doesn't. Before any kind of game balance is reached, there is a new edition to frakk things up again.

Polonius
14-07-2008, 08:41
The thing is, players need to suck it up and occasionaly push s*** uphill without embarking on a rant about "unfairness."

Yes, KPs are going to cause IG some serious headaches, but that's no different to the headaches a DW player will face when their opponent has about five times as many units to hold/contest objectives!

I think you misread me. I'm not saying every mission can be perfectly winnable by any given army, that's clearly not going to happen.

However, I think that the counter arguments that are made as to IG having a really hard time are specious. In addition, you specifically said that you liked escalation because you thought it hurt OTT armies, when I think empirically it's hurt balanced armies more.


Regardless, escalation was something that armies could deal with: include more or fewer vehicles, take autarchs/improved comss, etc. Recon is doable with infanty heavy armies as well: including deep strikers, having units infiltrate, etc. Additionally, in 4th edition, outside of alpha, objectives were in addition to victory points. You could always "win the old fashioned way."

As for DW having fewer units with which to claim objectives somehow balancing IG getting hosed with objectives, let's ignore the fact that DW are a sublist in codex: DA, and can include combat squad capable tactical squads if they wanted (or ravenwing squads as troops). Instead, let's look at some facts. DW with an AC cost rouglhy the same as three IG squads with HB/Flamer, or about 2.5 times las/plas squads. Here's a question: what would you rather have to secure and hold an objective: 5 deathwing, or 30 IG? I'd rather have teh IG, but it's close, right? Deathwing are great at killing marines in HtH, so IG aren't exactly their main target, but the IG are going to have a problem moving and shooting effectively, while the DW can do both with ease. Admittedly, the IG have more chances to take an objective, but their units are all far worse at it.

That's the way it should be: the choice exists between taking a few hard units, or more soft units. It's a factor in objectives, and its' a factor in KPs. The problem, as I've stated a few times, is that IG can't avoid taking a ton of units! They're platoons are three squads plus an IC. Their mandatory HQ has a retinue. Their heavy weapon squads max out at six men.

So, while I don't expect every mission to be perfectly fair, I think it's signifigant that one of the three basic missions in 5th edition is unfair to IG even with proper planning! Unlike escaltion mission, or Recon, or night fight, there is nothing I can do to have a better chance at winning annhilation missions.

Irennicus
14-07-2008, 08:48
I don't understand why someone would use KPs as opposed to just racking up the total number of points worth of material you've killed. That's a much better system.

Polonius
14-07-2008, 08:53
I don't understand why someone would use KPs as opposed to just racking up the total number of points worth of material you've killed. That's a much better system.

I think maybe because it took about 5-10 minute to add up VPs? That's the only reason I can think of to do this. Admittedly, outside of IG, the rule is a pretty good approximation. There are a few incredibly expensive or ridiculously cheap units, but most tend to settle in a band around 150-250 pts.

IMO any system that assigns as much value to killing a rhino or an IG remnant squad as to a Landraider or Demon Prince is questionable.

Enderel
14-07-2008, 08:54
I'm not sure you're really understanding the prediciment for IG. Yes, TLOS helps them, but it also helps Tau, Eldar, and Shooty Marines, DE, and Chaos. Yes, there are ways that 5th makes IG more competitive. Having a mission that's so sorely stacked is still not fair, no matter how much better IG were than before (which wasn't exactly uber).

Even avoiding minimun sized units, IG simply cough up a lot of KPs. There's no way to write an IG list that will have as few KPs as a Chaos, Ork, Eldar, or Marine list. IG platoons, you know, the basic troops that we're all suppsoed to take in fifth? At 270 points I get a JO, his four man retinue, and 2 IG squads. That's 4 KPs. If I buy more squads, that's more KPs! If I take Chimeras, it's more KPs. Yes, every army has to change the way they build their lists to adapt to 5th. My point is that there is no way for IG to adapt! There is simply no way to minimize IG kill points to the extent that they can compete in that mission.

I play Renegade militia as well as a couple other armies so I understand perfectly how KP's effect guard style armies ;)

I also know how difficult it is on the table top to destroy units of IG with the amount of cover saves available in 5th. If we went to kill points for the platoon as some suggested it would be nearly impossible to get any KP's out of a guard army.

Anyone with any sense in that instance would have squads set up at different ends of the line so it's difficult to figure out which is in which platoon (unless your watching very carefully at deployment), it would be extremely difficult to assassinate individual squads (1 HQ, 5 inf squads) to get 1 KP? That's something like 55 men!

The ratio suggestion I like (from Tactica guard thread) work out ratio of kill points left for each army compared to starting points. I'd adopt that one with no issues.

My thoughts currently are that yes we have issues with KP's but how many people have fully changed their army lists over to 5th way of thinking?

Rough Riders worked as 5 man squads in 4th due to opponents min maxing, but in 5th 10 man squads will work just as well (as long as they aren't over equipped) as the targets they are after are bigger as well now. Veterans worked as 5 man drop squad (suicide!) but having them sat in your lines now as ten man with las, plas will work just as well and reduce your KP's.

Some armies have seriously silly KP limits (CSM can do the whole army in seven) but that reduces the amount of firepower out of them to seven units?

I'm just trying to bring some balance and hopefully reason to an arguement that will spiral out of control as everyone jumps on the band wagon of KP's and beats people to death with it :D

We gain a lot from 5th but yes we do to an extent get hamstrung by KP's.

Occulto
14-07-2008, 08:55
So not only KP are stupid, mission objectives are unfair aswell. And that is an argument pro 5th edition?

I haven't heard people bitching about missions like Recon with the same vitriole as they do against KPs - what's changed?

Absolutely nothing.

My sympathy for IG will evaporate the first time they outnumber my DW and chuckle as I try to kill every single one of those scoring units down to the last man. Can I have the option of refusing to play objective missions against them because they've clearly got the upper hand?


5th edition is clearly inferiour to 4th edition, when it comes to mission balance. Period. And there is no reason for this other than GW trying to find something that they can change so they have a justification to release a new edition and a new Space Marine codex.

Uh-huh. Remove the tin-foil hat. This edition's right on time.


All the things GW supposedly tries to accomplish must be done within codizes, not in the general rules. You don't like min/maxing of Space Marines? Then prohibit this in the new Space Marine codex. You don't like Nidzilla? Then remove the elite Fex rule (which was purely there to sell the new Carnifex kit in the first place). GW is doing a crappy job, when it comes to game balance, because they don't really care. There is always "next codex or next edition" to balance things out. Only that it doesn't. Before any kind of game balance is reached, there is a new edition to frakk things up again.

Oh dear. I think you're too far gone here.

But I'm confused, I thought you were going to go play FoW until 6th ed came round. Why are you still hanging round in threads about a game you so obviously despise? :rolleyes:

Lord Martel
14-07-2008, 08:56
While we canít do anything about the KP situation we can find some ways to limit the guardís problems with it. I suggest a squad of Grey Knights in power armour as an allied troop choice. What Guard player wouldnít love 18 str 6 attacks (three more for the power weapon)?

Some Sisters of Battle can also be brought in. At 20 strong they can be a tough unit to kill outright.

Some of the teleporting Grey Knights can be useful as well.

Just some ideas to help you out. Hang in there

Varath- Lord Impaler
14-07-2008, 09:01
But I'm confused, I thought you were going to go play FoW until 6th ed came round. Why are you still hanging round in threads about a game you so obviously despise?

Heres the funny part, whenever someone mentions this to Stingray he seems to mysteriously disappear from that thread.

Shows someone isnt prepared to eat Humble Flavoured Pie.

Polonius
14-07-2008, 09:02
Oh, I don't think it should be 1 Kp per platoon either, that would get silly in a hurry. I just think the entire idea is poorly thought out, poorly executed, and utterly unnecessary.

People keep blaming IG's high KP total on minimum RR and suicide vet squads. Even trimming those, Ig are going to be high KP. 2 las/plas squads and a quad flamer command section is jsut over 250 points, and is 4 KPs. An armored fist with Heavy Bolter/Flamer isn't even 180pts and is 2 KPs. A full RR squad with lances and vet isn't even 120pts. A vet squad with las/triple plas doesn't crack 150pts. There is just no way to do IG and not be bloated with KPs.

I think the idea was the some how discourage min/maxers, which isn't a horrible goal, I suppose. Even Max/maxing IG have more KPs than any other army.

Varath- Lord Impaler
14-07-2008, 09:08
Well lets consider how the next codex will fix this problem.

1. Officers wont be Independant characters anymore.
2. Perhaps each Infantry squad will be worth half a kill point? Meaning that Guard still have more than the enemy, but it isnt as severe.

Enderel
14-07-2008, 09:09
People keep blaming IG's high KP total on minimum RR and suicide vet squads. Even trimming those, Ig are going to be high KP. 2 las/plas squads and a quad flamer command section is jsut over 250 points, and is 4 KPs. An armored fist with Heavy Bolter/Flamer isn't even 180pts and is 2 KPs. A full RR squad with lances and vet isn't even 120pts. A vet squad with las/triple plas doesn't crack 150pts. There is just no way to do IG and not be bloated with KPs..

This is very true but trimming down on the throw away units does limit your KP's, having ten men in 4+ cover is a lot more difficult to shift rather than two 5 man squads sat in DS formation in the open?

It's all swings and roundabouts, they take with one hand and give with the other.

I got a DP into contact with a gunline yesterday, normally I'd have walked all the way through it consolidating the whole time, not anymore so know he stands in the middle of no where and gets shot!


I think the idea was the some how discourage min/maxers, which isn't a horrible goal, I suppose. Even Max/maxing IG have more KPs than any other army.

Very true, the intent was excellent I believe, the way they did the "fix" wasn't how I'd have done it. We worked out KP's and then we worked out VP's on our game yesterday, seems fairer (result was 8 vs 5 KPs to chaos and +500 or so for IG) make of that what you will. He did have a super cheesey drop vet army though so deserved to loose those easy KP's!!

Polonius
14-07-2008, 09:10
While we canít do anything about the KP situation we can find some ways to limit the guardís problems with it. I suggest a squad of Grey Knights in power armour as an allied troop choice. What Guard player wouldnít love 18 str 6 attacks (three more for the power weapon)?

Some Sisters of Battle can also be brought in. At 20 strong they can be a tough unit to kill outright.

Some of the teleporting Grey Knights can be useful as well.

Just some ideas to help you out. Hang in there

I can also just play my marines:rolleyes: Seriously, that's what I'm probably going to end up doing. Sisters are going to be aces in 5th, and adding a few squads to my IG is a good way to ease into them. Its' not really IG then anymore, and it doesn't change the fact that the basic IG unit, the platoon, is insanely KP rich, or that the IG HQ has a mandatory, easily killed retinue so that it can be easily seen and killed for 2 KPs.

No, clearly the days of "tons of squads" IG are coming to an end wherever KPs roam. And yeah, suicide vets were a little silly, so I'm guessing IG will adapt with more tanks, more allies, etc.


This is very true but trimming down on the throw away units does limit your KP's, having ten men in 4+ cover is a lot more difficult to shift rather than two 5 man squads sat in DS formation in the open?

It's all swings and roundabouts, they take with one hand and give with the other.

I got a DP into contact with a gunline yesterday, normally I'd have walked all the way through it consolidating the whole time, not anymore so know he stands in the middle of no where and gets shot!


I guess I just don't understand the philosophy that gaining some advantage from the new rules makes up for GW writing a mission that bones the IG so completly. IMO, I prefered having an ok chance in all mission to having a good chance in 2/3 of the missions and virtually no chance in 1/3. As i've stated before, teh changes help a lot of armies, particularly Tau, yet KPs hurt IG the worst.

Malachai
14-07-2008, 09:22
I wouldn't even be surprised if IG could get space marines allies. And why shouldn't they get that option.

Occulto
14-07-2008, 09:23
I think you misread me. I'm not saying every mission can be perfectly winnable by any given army, that's clearly not going to happen.

However, I think that the counter arguments that are made as to IG having a really hard time are specious. In addition, you specifically said that you liked escalation because you thought it hurt OTT armies, when I think empirically it's hurt balanced armies more.

In my experience those who played the balanced mechanised forces that you described are more open to missions that included Escalation.


Regardless, escalation was something that armies could deal with: include more or fewer vehicles, take autarchs/improved comss, etc. Recon is doable with infanty heavy armies as well: including deep strikers, having units infiltrate, etc. Additionally, in 4th edition, outside of alpha, objectives were in addition to victory points. You could always "win the old fashioned way."

And armies can't deal with KPs?

That's the thing - when people reel off 20+ KPs, that's a lot of units to get through. Just through pure virtue of the fact you can't consolidate into unit after unit, it's going to be hard to physically target and take down all those units - especially when they start going to ground in hard cover. It will be almost impossible!

When I look at games I've had against IG, it's been rare that I could actually kill all those units off. Even with the nifty ability to consolidate from combat to combat.

That's what gets to me - when people point to IG with 20+ KPs, then point to another army with 10 KPs and scream: "look! IG can't do it!" without factoring in anything else.

In a game of 6 turns, you're going to need to kill between 3 and 4 units per turn from the get go. If an IG player hides sufficiently well to deny you any first turn kills, then you've gone up to 4 to 5 kills per turn. If that IG player has kept a sufficient number of units in reserve, it's going to push the equation even more in their favour.

Let's say the majority of their army is off the table, in hard cover or out of LOS for the first couple of turns. (Especially with the Dawn of War setup). You're starting to look at racking up ever increasing numbers of kill points in shorter and shorter turns.

And I'm expected to believe than the IG player is just going to sit there and let me chomp through 6 units a turn? If they do, then they deserve to lose.


As for DW having fewer units with which to claim objectives somehow balancing IG getting hosed with objectives, let's ignore the fact that DW are a sublist in codex: DA, and can include combat squad capable tactical squads if they wanted (or ravenwing squads as troops). Instead, let's look at some facts. DW with an AC cost rouglhy the same as three IG squads with HB/Flamer, or about 2.5 times las/plas squads. Here's a question: what would you rather have to secure and hold an objective: 5 deathwing, or 30 IG? I'd rather have teh IG, but it's close, right? Deathwing are great at killing marines in HtH, so IG aren't exactly their main target, but the IG are going to have a problem moving and shooting effectively, while the DW can do both with ease. Admittedly, the IG have more chances to take an objective, but their units are all far worse at it.

Yup, talking about "pure" DW here.

DW are good at HtH, but now run the risk of being isolated after winning combat. They're vaunted firepower is also more vulnerable to the new casualty removal rules. Also, my DW unit can only target one enemy unit per turn. Even assuming I can kill a full unit per turn, that's still 3 turns to kill your 3.

That's what I'm trying to get at. No matter how easily I can obliterate that unit of IG, I'll still be limited as to how quickly I can do it. You can concentrate your firepower from all those squads, I'm having to split it.


there is nothing I can do to have a better chance at winning annhilation missions.

I disagree with that.

Enderel
14-07-2008, 09:23
I suspect that KP's will be modified in the new IG codex in some form or another don't get me wrong I'm not saying they even out in this mission.

I'm all for a change in the way they work, but in the mean time there are so many different ways of being able to stop them being given away cheaply an IG army can work in this mission type.

I think that is the basis of my main point, due to the other rules changes it's a lot easier to avoid giving away your KP's than it was before.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule and if you know your facing IG then you can cheese out you low KP army to hurt them significantly, but for balanced armies I believe IG offer as big a challenge as they always have.

IJW
14-07-2008, 09:28
But what will we do againt running or infiltrating cc specialists that can tear a squad merely by looking at it?
Watch them kill the unit they charged and then end up standing there in the open unable to consolidate into a new unit... :D


I'm guessing they simply assume that tournements will avoid KP
VPs are already suggested as a tie-breaker for competitive gamers, and the book specifically suggests that they are used for tournaments (or even if the two players simply agree to).

Whitehorn
14-07-2008, 09:30
I've just got to ask what was GW thinking? They need to FAQ that this only is vs a platoon not a 60pt squad.

I asked Rick/Allesio at the open day if we'd get some clarification on sub-squads and so on.

They shrugged, failing to see how it is hard to understand. Every squad is worth a kill point. You make the decision to take your army and split squads as you see fit. ie, marine combat squads become 1 KP each if you split the 10 men up.

Xen-Ra
14-07-2008, 09:38
God you all starting to sound like eldar players!!! Yes some things have made the game harder for us guard players but I guess weíll have to change our tactics and adapt to the new system. At the end of the day if youíre moaning that it will be harder for you to win then I guess that is more important to you than the fun of playing the game. Maybe you should grow up a bit then come back and play when you have?

Gazak Blacktoof
14-07-2008, 09:51
Victory points are in the back of the book, just agree to use that if you have a huge disparity of Kill Points (like my friend Minus and his 20 KP Guard). They even talk about how KP shouldn't be used in tournaments, just use Victory Points.


If true this does beg the question of why they bothered putting kill points in.

Essentially they aren't considered to provide a balanced scenario.


They sort of work in AT-43 (the allocation of kill points changes for each scenario) but even then they can result in some odd games.

Polonius
14-07-2008, 09:58
Wow, either I'm completely wrong or I'm having a hard time explaing myself. Both are fine options, of course, but I'll take one more stab at this and see if it's maybe my explanation.

Yes, it will be hard to get all 20 KPs from a guard army. It's called tabling soembody, and it's pretty rare. In fact, it's about as hard as getting the 12 KPs from an eldar army. That much we agree on. And yes, IG are now more durable. Of course, so is everbody else, even if IG benefit more. No matter how much cover is on the board, however, IG are still less durable than other armies. No matter the cover, 1 guardsman is easier to kill than one space marine or one ork. With me so far? No matter how hard it is to kill, say, 10 guardsmen, it is easier than killing 10 orks or 10 space marines. Because of this, IG give up KP easier. This has nothing to do with minimum squads, cheesy armies, or odd builds. It's the simple truth. Its' easier to get the 1 KP from 10 guardsmen than from 10 space marines. At the very, very least, it's no more difficult.

Because of this, it's pretty likely that an opponent will be able to kill a pretty decent number of units. Here's the thing: IG have a number of extremely fragile, 2 KP units! Command squads are worth 2 kps and have between 5 and 8 wounds, more if you buy advisors. How many armies have trouble killing 5 guardsmen. Sure, I can hide them, if thre is adequet terrain. But what about my heavy weapon squads? Well, I suppose I shouldn't take them, as they give up a KP really easily. So I rely on my basic squads for firepower, and I try to score some KPs of my own. Now, assuming my opponent is as savvy as I am, he's going to hide small, fragile units while only taking out durable units.

With KPs, you only have to kill more units than the opponent to win. If I kill two and my opponent kills three, he wins. My units are all weaker and smaller than my opponents, thus my units are easier to kill. All things being equal, there's virtually no way I can kill enough enemy KPs to make up for the ones I lose without every IG unit drastically over-performing. even with the new consolidation rules, if an assault unit kills on IG unit, it's a wash for KPs.

Any adjustment IG make, either in list construction or style of play (by hiding units) can be equally executed by a good opponent.

I think the 5th edition rules are good. I think they balanced the field of play for all armies, including IG. I think that more army types are playable now. I think that it's a great time to play warhammer. However I think that one of the three basic mission was ill conceived. People keep saying that IG will simply need to adapt, and of course we will. We're not going to not play.

Here's a question: if they mission were that however killed the most models wins, would that be fair? Of course not, as some armies will take more casualties as part of who they are. Why is it that whoever kills the most squads is better? Armies that have to take more squads, of less quality, are simply at a disadvantage, and that's before you add in the utterly unnecessary IC's bundled into IG armies.

Other armies deal with this by taking bigger squads, avoiding single vehicles instead of squadrons, etc. How are IG to deal with it? Everybody says that IG can, but nobody has shown how. The reason is simple: there's no way to avoid it.

To Xen-Ra: sorry if my desire for a fair shake offends you, but I think that a fun game includes a certain amount of equality.

AventineCrusader
14-07-2008, 10:10
I haven't lost KP's with my Guard yet...

All in all 5th is way more balanced than 4th. I really like the KP scenario. It's so tense, one good turn by your opponent and they take the lead, sometimes it can be hard to get it back, but all in all I'm psyched...

totgeboren
14-07-2008, 10:36
I might have to try a KP battle, but really, it sounds so odd. It really does nothing to immerse you in the game, and make cinematic scenes and such.

Capture the bridge(i.e. "seize ground")/bunker assault/ambush and even that capture and control make for so much better games than "killl the other guys".

I sometimes play those kinds of scenarios, but I always try and make the battle have a point.

Playing Annihilation-style battle is like playing MTG. Ok, kinda fun, for an hour or so, but it could be so much better.

Lord Martel
14-07-2008, 10:41
As far as KPís for marines I think GW has it backward. Any Guard Major That lost 15 squads of men, three tanks, 6 sentinels, 1 commissar, and 5 heavy weapons teams to take out 6 full squads of Chaos Marines would be a Colonel before the day was over.

Every unit of Marines should be worth 2 or 3 kill points to put them on par with the cheaper troops in other armies.

It appears the KP system was made mostly for newbieís and not for the more experienced player. There doesn't seem to be a lot of thought put in it. Just a quick dirty way to see who wins.

If that stigma sticks to the KP system then most players should have little trouble agreeing on using the VP system in all scenarios.

IJW
14-07-2008, 10:44
If that stigma sticks to the KP system then most players should have little trouble agreeing on using the VP system in all scenarios.
Why would you want to use VPs in the objective missions?!?

marv335
14-07-2008, 11:01
Every unit of Marines should be worth 2 or 3 kill points to put them on par with the cheaper troops in other armies.
If a unit of Marines uses the combat squads rule, it does give up 2 KP

Stingray_tm
14-07-2008, 11:02
If a unit of Marines uses the combat squads rule, it does give up 2 KP

Yeah. That's gonna happen a lot, i guess (as long as the Marine Player has a seizure or a lobotomy, of course)...

Malachai
14-07-2008, 11:03
Watch them kill the unit they charged and then end up standing there in the open unable to consolidate into a new unit... :D


VPs are already suggested as a tie-breaker for competitive gamers, and the book specifically suggests that they are used for tournaments (or even if the two players simply agree to).

I had a fun experience on that one last thursday.
1500 points of renegade militia against my opponents 1500 orks(no vehicles!).
Needless to say the greenskins were massed. looked great on the tabletop.
I had 100+ renegades but felt heavily outnumbered.

I use beastmen as conscripts and got the first turn.
I moved my 30 beastmen towards the green hordes(the conscripts were my bait aka meatshield).
My basilisk threw a big bomb on the greenskins and killed about 7.
Other units killed about 10 of them.
His turn: He charged my conscripts with 3 big mobs of Orks.
Needless to say the conscripts were wiped out...exactly what i hoped for.
The greenskins were exactly in the middle of the table, no cover whatsoever.I manouvred 2 chimera's with heavy flamers and stormtroopers towards their flanks. My Hellhound was immobilised on turn one...damn.
The heavy flamers on my chimera's did terrible damage to his troops.
So did the rest.
After the smoke was gone there were no orks left in the centre of the table.
(i think about 40 kills in a row).
I felt save again...
But as his second wave aproached and his heavy guns stunned all my vehicles(except for the basilisk) i realised that i had no more cover and nothing would protect my troops from harm.
Once again i had to shoot the hordes of greenskins but with alot less firepower. I missed about 90% of my shots...
It was GAME OVER.
Allthough he couldn't consolidate, i just wasn't capable of showing him enough resistance and he overrun my deserting troops.
Don't get me wrong, i think it was alot of fun and i really enjoyed the new rules.But don't think that enemy's not able to consolidate into other squads will automatically win you a game.
(it helps alot though)

IJW
14-07-2008, 11:36
I assumed Hicks was talking about individual CC specialist units. Ork Horde is a problem for pretty well everyone...

marv335
14-07-2008, 11:40
the split down into combat squads is a tactical choice.
with a 10 man squad, you're restricted to standing around shooting. you can't advance without sacrificing firepower. split into two 5s and to get your mobility back, and retain your rate of fire ant the cost of increasing vulnerability to fire/KP.
It's a risk but it can pay off. I've done it myself.

I've played/watched a few KP games with guard vs several different opponents.
so far they've done ok.
I watched a striking scorpion squad get mugged by a bunch of guardsmen last night. very funny.
against shooting the guard are more survivable now. against assault, with the death of sweeping into new combat, a guard army is very scary.
I'm seeing a lot of advantages to guard in this edition with few disadvantages.

Killgore
14-07-2008, 12:12
when a guardsmen unit is down to its last few members and is not legging it when not hide them?

KP denial is all part of the tactics required for such games


makes games more interesting ;)

Gazak Blacktoof
14-07-2008, 12:22
the split down into combat squads is a tactical choice.
with a 10 man squad, you're restricted to standing around shooting. you can't advance without sacrificing firepower. split into two 5s and to get your mobility back, and retain your rate of fire ant the cost of increasing vulnerability to fire/KP.

Or you could use fire support or assault squads which ever takes your fancy and then retain your squads as 10 man teams. Or even adance with one squad of tacticals whilst the other one stays back.

I think its fair to say that few people are going to make use of the ability to split squads in a kill point game whilst its almost a no-brainer when it comes to objective games.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
14-07-2008, 12:24
Guard loses one squad. Nobody cares or really notices.

Marines lose one squad. Oh. Thats a bit of a gap in your line there, isn't it?

Could people actually break the habit of a lifetime and do something proactive instead of just whinging about things? Don't like KPs? Then ask your opponent if he minds playing to a different scenario (you know, like the rulebook suggests?) Or is that too much?

x-esiv-4c
14-07-2008, 12:39
Make IG platoons 300pts!
simple :)

Gazak Blacktoof
14-07-2008, 12:48
Could people actually break the habit of a lifetime and do something proactive instead of just whinging about things? Don't like KPs? Then ask your opponent if he minds playing to a different scenario (you know, like the rulebook suggests?) Or is that too much?

I believe this has already been sugested.

IMO complaining is only whinging if its unjustified. I think complaining about KP is jusitified, its worse than the historic alternative of VPs and represents a step backwards in game design with the current codexes. If nothing else its a waste of trees unless there's a plan to adjust the codexes to make them work with kill points.

EDIT: Your thinking about gaps in lines seems to be flawed MDG, please read Polonius' post (#63) above re: difficulty in killing squads.

leo_neil316
14-07-2008, 13:59
Just..... something I really do need to point out. Because apparently the whingers didn't read the rule book.

An IC who's in a retinue (defined as a squad he is not alowed to leave until it is destroyed) counts as an upgrade character and -him and the squad he is in count as one kill point total-.

Officer + squad = 1kp.

Gaunt = 1 kp

Techpriest = 1kp

Techpriest + 4 combat servitors = 1kp. (did I mention I love how they refaqed guard so that techpriests don't count servitors to their wargear limits again?)

mchmr6677
14-07-2008, 14:08
Victory points are in the back of the book, just agree to use that if you have a huge disparity of Kill Points (like my friend Minus and his 20 KP Guard). They even talk about how KP shouldn't be used in tournaments, just use Victory Points.

tl;dr: Read the whole rulebook before posting on forums, the answers are there.

Actually, VPs are a way to determine a "moral victory" in the case of a draw. They are not an optional way of determining victory which is why they are on one of the last pages of the book and not in the mission rules themselves.

So, make sure to follow one's own advice from time to time...

TheOverlord
14-07-2008, 14:10
I'd like to see the methodology of your calculations, sir!

Damn kids and their QQing.

t-tauri
14-07-2008, 14:49
A quantity of posts removed and merged. Please check out the posting guidelines linked to in my signature. Please post in a civil manner and please don't double post.

t-tauri

The Warseer Inquisition

TheDarkDuke
14-07-2008, 17:17
wow it gets worse I saw. Those 4 man command retinues for guard count as 1 KP and so does the officer meaning, yep so the IG are forced to take a total of lets 10 KP for their compulsarary units.

Re-read Kill Points. All heroes and their retinues count as a single KP. Also keep in mind you can field a comp of only 3, in the Guard book. Also keep in mind yes IG infantry armies take a hit in KP missions, but also gain the most cover saves out of any army, increasing their survivability, a small degree.

Lastly, stop crying your new codex is 5-6 months out. There are 3 other armies that deserve to cry and whine more then IG. So go stand in line behind, DE, Necron and DH.

bobbles
14-07-2008, 17:27
I for one think the victory conditions in a number of senarios aparently going against guard is nothing compared to the bonus's, guard armys have gotten huge boost and until i've played a kill points game as guard i wont try comment on its fairness
And neither should you until you have played enough games to have adapted to the new edition

Speaking as a proud player of guard who plays on and on againts nidzilla and what ever else the unsypatic non-guard players throw at us

Loki73
14-07-2008, 17:41
This is because no matter how easy it is to kill guardsmen, you can only fire at a single unit a turn. A squad of 5 marines is going to die pretty fast and considering that there are no Last Man Standing tests AND scoring units count down to the last man, I somehow think that in a game of attrition, guard will end up with more scoring units at the end of the game (and marines would quite likely end up with NONE).


Yes thank you finally some sense lol.

unheilig
14-07-2008, 17:43
I have to say I like the new rules other than a few minor things such as defensive weapons being nerfed and wound allocation. Though I have found a huge NERF to the guard when I read the scenarios.. The annihilate mission which I though was just VP turned out to be Kill points. Now if any of you haven’t read what that means its simple. For every unit you destroy or wipe out you get a KP the player with the most KP at the end of the game wins.

Now isn’t this complete and utter B.S., so your telling me my 60 point guard squad gives the same points as a 300 point Assault Marine Squad. Point for point this isn’t fair at all, the SM player gets 5 times the amount of KP for killing the same amount of VPs. This one really only hurt the guard because the squads are forced to be small and have crummy stats. They are meant to die in mass. Orcs can take mobs and same with tyranids, so this won’t really affect them much at all.

I hope that these scenarios never come up in a tournament or any game I play in, I might as well walk away against marines. I was hoping you would only get a KP if you killed the entire platoon which could make this fair but alas, nope its not in a FAQ.

#$#$

with all the other units you can throw in the way, ist really not hard to keep guard unit remnants alive.

i would imagine it would be pretty hard to score a lot of KP from guard... i rarely lose full squads.

Durath
14-07-2008, 17:46
Or: put the platoons into reserves. Include Sentinels with improved comms, also in reserves. Try to keep them off the board as long as you can.

This is an awesome idea for KP missions with weak manditory units! Kudos!

Its good to see more IG players thinking outside of the box, rather than just throwing in the towel.

Polonius
14-07-2008, 18:19
Re-read Kill Points. All heroes and their retinues count as a single KP. Also keep in mind you can field a comp of only 3, in the Guard book. Also keep in mind yes IG infantry armies take a hit in KP missions, but also gain the most cover saves out of any army, increasing their survivability, a small degree.

Lastly, stop crying your new codex is 5-6 months out. There are 3 other armies that deserve to cry and whine more then IG. So go stand in line behind, DE, Necron and DH.


My book says rather clearly that an IC with retinue gives up a KP each. If I'm wrong, please show me where it says what you say it says.

I contest the notion that I'm crying at all. I think I'm pointing out something that's unfair and silly, and so far a lot of people seem to be saying one of two things"
1) that KPs are totally fair for IG, or
2) that if even if they're not fair, I shouldn't complain.

I don't see this. First, yes, KP denial is going to be a tactic. Multiple guard squads are hard to kill, but no harder to kill than any other unit! Dont you think SM are going to do the same thing? If I can somehow hide my last trooper, why can't the ork player hide his last boy? And difficulty of killing the last of anything aside, laying 10 wounds on IG is, as I've pointed out repeatedly, easier than anything else. I've played IG for years now, and I tend to lose half my army in a game that I win. Under KPs, that would be a huge loss.

I guess that's my main point. If I play my friend, and I destroy two baal predators, two veteran assault squads, two assault squads, and a squad of attack bikes, I've usually won. But if he managed to kill 2 command sections, three IG squads and a single tank, He wins!

Finally, as to the arguments that I shouldn't complain: I think that by pointing out it's utter unfairness, the community will stop using the mission, at least with IG until the new book comes out. What I guess would be neat to see would be people who don't play IG saying, "hey, that is really unfair and silly, Lets play VP instead until they fix that." That's my goal. Unlike ranting about rules that can't possibly change, the community has the power to simply realize a mission is bad. We did it with Night Fight in 3rd, and we did it with alpha missions and/or escalation in 4th. fun missions, undeniably, but unfair to the point where they shouldn't be part of the rotation. And I don't consider IG being better in the other missions consolation. That's not how it works, and you all know that. If that's the case, why bother playing the games? If I know 66% of the time I've got all kinds of advantage while 33% I'm screwed? I dont' think IG are that overpowered in the other missions, which means people are essentially arguing, "well, IG are now actually decent 2/3 of the time, so cheer up! Before they totally sucked." I dont' buy that. I think that it's a shame that one mission undermines the work of 5th ed.


Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe KPs work out just like all the folks here say they will, and IG will be totally fine. All i Know is that I have 7000pts of IG, all metal, all painted, and I've been playing three editions behind the eightball. So yeah, I resent being told that I'll have to play smarter or harder. IG players already do that, with not too much to show for it. I'm not asking for the next broken codex of death, or an environment where IG rule supreme. I guess I was just hoping it'd be fair this time. Sorry if I sound like ranting lunatic, but far more upsetting than the mission itself (whcih I'm sure I can avoid reasoably well) is the inability to see it's unfairness here coupled with indifference or animosity about it.

Ekranoplan
14-07-2008, 20:41
Guard have no problem in the objective based missions. Chances are you will have a few objectives right near your deployment zone. All you need to do is castle right on or near them, and then don't even bother trying to capture any other objectives, just contest them. Use tanks and drop troopers. Always try to go second.

Just keep the enemy 3 inches away from those points and you will do fine. This is extremely easy especially if you have the point surrounded by guard squads.

bobbles
14-07-2008, 20:49
ranting lunatic.

Pretty much sums it up.
And just because you've been playing for years with metal models does'nt make you any less of a

ranting lunatic.or right

Ekranoplan
14-07-2008, 20:49
In a game of 6 turns, you're going to need to kill between 3 and 4 units per turn from the get go. If an IG player hides sufficiently well to deny you any first turn kills, then you've gone up to 4 to 5 kills per turn. If that IG player has kept a sufficient number of units in reserve, it's going to push the equation even more in their favour.

Let's say the majority of their army is off the table, in hard cover or out of LOS for the first couple of turns. (Especially with the Dawn of War setup). You're starting to look at racking up ever increasing numbers of kill points in shorter and shorter turns.

And I'm expected to believe than the IG player is just going to sit there and let me chomp through 6 units a turn? If they do, then they deserve to lose.

After playing as IG in a 5th ed 1850 tournament with 21 kill points, I can say that this statement is completely accurate.

Consider that in KP missions you do not need to worry about objectives, whereas in VP Missions you still needed to get objectives as they were worth a considerable amount of points. You would need to waste your IG squads grabbing objectives and giving up VPs. With KPs you just need to sit back and not get killed which is extremely easy with going to ground.

,

Polonius
14-07-2008, 21:05
After playing as IG in a 5th ed 1850 tournament with 21 kill points, I can say that this statement is completely accurate.

Consider that in KP missions you do not need to worry about objectives, whereas in VP Missions you still needed to get objectives as they were worth a considerable amount of points. You would need to waste your IG squads grabbing objectives and giving up VPs. With KPs you just need to sit back and not get killed which is extremely easy with going to ground.

,

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. I'm kind of suprised, somebody has actually pointed out something that shows how IG can succeed, instead of simply shouting that they can.

As for the guy who seems to agree that I'm a ranting lunatic, I had included that to show that I actually wasn't, you know, completely set in my opinion. I had hoped that by saying I'm willing to hear the other side, somebody would post something that actually convices me that things aren't as bad, as Ekranoplan so kindly did. I think it's a shame that you decided to take a cheap shot at me instead of discussing opinions.

I post a lot at Dakka, and it's got the reputation as the snake pit of the 40k internet community, but I think you read this thread, the reaction to what I (and a few others) see as a worrying fact was met with either indifference or hostility. I like posting here, don't get me wrong. I just think that there's a seriously overpowering sense of moral superiority from a lot of the posters. Oh well, to each their own.

Ekranoplan
14-07-2008, 21:46
Although I have been arguing how the IG can survive KP missions, I still think the IG are at a severe disadvantage in KP missions. You basically need to playing at your best (or your opponent playing at their worst), and/or you need to utilize all the mentioned tactics to their fullest, just to have an even shot of winning the mission.

I can only hope that the new IG codex has something to help in this area. What if you could combine squads from the same platoon at the beginning of a mission? Kind of like reverse of the marine combat squads.

Or maybe an IG squad could be 10-20 men.

Polonius
14-07-2008, 21:57
Although I have been arguing how the IG can survive KP missions, I still think the IG are at a severe disadvantage in KP missions. You basically need to playing at your best (or your opponent playing at their worst), and/or you need to utilize all the mentioned tactics to their fullest, just to have an even shot of winning the mission.

I can only hope that the new IG codex has something to help in this area. What if you could combine squads from the same platoon at the beginning of a mission? Kind of like reverse of the marine combat squads.

Or maybe an IG squad could be 10-20 men.

that's a good idea. I've basically been railing about this because there are some people that dont' think IG have any problems, others think that it's fair because IG got a little better in fifth, and others seem to think that because the mission isn't utterly unwinnable, I should suck it up and play. And of course I'm going to play. I just like to point out that playing IG isn't exactly point and click to begin with, it's not the most forgiving army, and I'm already used to playing at the top of my game to have a fair shake.

MegaPope
14-07-2008, 22:08
One thing that I think should be borne in mind regarding the effects of KP on IG forces is the changes to close combat.

In the vast majority of games I've played with IG since the advent of 3ed, the prime cause of massive infantry casualties (unless you were playing other Guard or Tau) was close combat. A reasonably effective CC unit, like and unupgraded SM assault squad could concievably attack two or more of your infantry squads at the same time, kill a substantial number, survive whatever attacks you could muster, rout and destroy your troops, and then romp unopposed into other units with consolidation, remaining 'sheltered' from shooting for a considerable time. All the while disrupting your OTHER shooting by blocking LOS for other units and exacting a terrible toll on your infantry - if you used a lot of infantry and were bottled into a diagonal deployment, it was hard to maintain sufficient distance between your units.

Now, that isn't going to happen anymore. On-the-fly, unco-ordinated assaults by single enemy units - other than, perhaps, 30-strong units of Hormagaunts (ugh!) - are going to achieve far less. You will lose a squad, maybe two, but as long as you are careful (and your troops break on the correct turn) you should be able to exact some harsh counter-measures, preferably involving flamerthrowers or Rough Riders. IF the IG gets the rumoured Platoon Drill rules, this will be more effective.

One other possible advantage we have with the Platoon system, as opposed to big mobs of troops, concerns cover saves - if a unit is targeted by shooting, and the shooter can see more models in the open than are in cover, the target unit doesn't get a cover save unles it 'goes to ground' thereby pinning itself for a turn and saving you a problem. If exactly half a unit can be seen, it's cover save is worsened.

Now imaging the practicalities of hiding a 20-30 Ork mob behind a 6-8" long wall (unless you bunch them up, thereby creating a nice juicy target for those barrage weapons we love so much:D).

Next, imaging doing this with a 20-30 strong Guard Platoon. Like the layers of an onion, each squad can potentially shield the unit behind it with cover saves. If the front most squad is mostly behind an obstacle (much easier to do on standard terrain with 10 men than 30), so much the better - it will itself also gain a cover save without GTG. Think about this before disdaining Platoons in favour of Conscripts. IG aren't about making a big thick front line and charging. They are about deployment in depth and a strategy of aggressive defence. As before, I am very much hoping Platoon Drill appears in an updated Codex - your own units providing the enemy cover saves is currently the fly in the ointment of what could (and should) be a standard basic battleplan.

Other than that, the biggest worry will be outflanking infiltrators who get lucky and turn up on your base-line, thereby peeling your 'onion' from the side: unlike Deepstrikers, I believe they can assault on the turn they arrive, and your forces may be less well-positioned to repel them.

With the IG, you must fight a war of annihalation. KPs are not a problem if everyone on the other side is dead, Dave;) - winning in the truly 'old-fashioned way'. It's often said that the IG fights wars of attrition - this is true, but what doesn't get mentioned is that this is done by making your enemies suffer even more attrition than you:p. Or as George Patton put, the point isn't to die for your country, it's to make the other b*****d die for his!:D

I know these points aren't whole solution by a long chalk, and it currently has the disadvantage of being theoretical, since I haven't played 5th yet, only read the book, but these are the terms on which I'm thinking, and I'm keen to put them into action.

And if all else fails, we're soon to get a new codex, which will hopefully address some of the problems. We can count ourselves lucky that this time, the new book comes AFTER the new rules, unlike 3.5/4ed.

Chem-Dog
14-07-2008, 22:17
Firstly, I'd like to state I don't have any particular feelings about the KP system, I've yet to have the chance to give it a good try out, so I'm not gonna slate it until I have a reason to (or not to, obviously).
My standard 1K list currently hands out 10-12 KP (depending on your interpretation of the Retinues rule....


.... you could also enjoy the game for what it is and still have fun playing a game even though you know your going to lose

A credo all IG players should live by anyway ;)


The IG codex is scheduled for being revamped according to rumours at least. Perhaps that's why GW showed little regard for how the IG would fare in 5th edition with their current dex.

One of the main reasons I'm not too worried about the KP system at the moment, a new codex could see the problem evaporate.


Having lots of units means you can easily screen the hurt ones. If the enemy doesn't have too many blast/template weapons even completely! IG will need to play a lot more conservatively in those missions but it's not as badly off as many seem to think.

Don't forget these squads don't get an armour save against any army's basic weapon type, except for their own, why shoot at a screened squad when you can just vape the squad doing the screening?


You don't have to take platoons. You could just take two Grenadier squads instead, and then just load up on tanks :evilgrin:

All well and good if you know, in advance, you're playing Annihilation, 2 troops slots for an objective mission is a big bag of ultrasuck.



A single guardsman in cover going to ground every turn has a 3+ cover save, he could sit on that objective for quite a while...


Same as a single Astartes can, the Astartes has a 3+ save he can take Vs a majority of hits and then shrug off the anti Marine shooting (Plasmaguns and the like) with an equal Cover save.


I'll happily offer this interpretation in the spirit of sportsmanship. :cool:

Very nice of you :) unfortunately, those who play pickup games or tournaments can't rely on having such a nice opponant.


It's always struck me as stupid that one of the best ways of reining in OTT armies like Nidzilla or Mech Eldar has been ignored by so many players. No wonder people complained about the power builds.

I resolutely refused to change a Escalation game to another type and I play Mech Inf, it's huge fun watching your army surge on in turn two after watching your opponant mill around uselessly for a turn!


With leman russes being so survivable now they can be used as objective grabbers.

They can't grab objectives, just deny the enemy. I think this is how Objective battles with the IG should go, hold what you can, deny what you can't. But we're talking about Annihilation missions.


DW are good at HtH, but now run the risk of being isolated after winning combat. They're vaunted firepower is also more vulnerable to the new casualty removal rules. Also, my DW unit can only target one enemy unit per turn. Even assuming I can kill a full unit per turn, that's still 3 turns to kill your 3.

That's what I'm trying to get at. No matter how easily I can obliterate that unit of IG, I'll still be limited as to how quickly I can do it. You can concentrate your firepower from all those squads, I'm having to split it.

Have you ever seen how devestatingly average an IG round of shooting is? At anything over 24" I'm reduced to half a dozen heavy weapons, half of the shots will miss and those that don't miss and succeed in wounding have an exceptionally high chance of bouncing off your armour.
I killed a squad of 5 terminators once, they teleported (scattered) right into the midst of a platoon that was hunkered down behind a building to hold an objective, they pasted a squad. Evey single Plasmagun, Missile Launcher, Lascannon and Grenade launcher either failed to hit or wound (I declared the whole platoon was shooting at the Terminators and then just rolled for different weapon types), not one forced the Termis to make a save ALL lasguns from 3 infantry squads and two command squads RAPID FIRING managed to JUST kill the squad outright. Now that example is as close to a "Laborotory Conditions" shooting scenario as you're gonna get, you really expect that kind of convergeance of fire in a battle.


Just..... something I really do need to point out. Because apparently the whingers didn't read the rule book.

An IC who's in a retinue (defined as a squad he is not alowed to leave until it is destroyed) counts as an upgrade character and -him and the squad he is in count as one kill point total-.


That's what my intepretation too.

If you had a SM commander and Gave him a Command squad (a seperate unit that can be assigned to the IC) it'd give 2 KP's but the IG officers get the bodyguard as standard, they aren't costed and can't be used seperate from the officer.

qwertywraith
14-07-2008, 23:00
"If a character has a retinue, the character and his unit are worth 1 kill point each". EACH. Page 91, in the description for Annihilation.

It's a hard scenario for guard. Accepted. However, there has been some good advice in this thread about tactics. I think leaving units in reserve is a good idea. Hiding in cover, moving up fresh units, and screening survivors is a great way to deny kill points. Also, playing on boards with true-LOS blocking terrain is important. It's all about knowing when to run, and when to go to ground. Yes marines get cover saves too, but there are always more guard, and with their numbers and weak armour, way more benefits from cover.

One thing though that gives Guard an edge is their defensive playing style. This is the one scenario where your enemy MUST come to you, and that means walking into the guard's guns, and with guard ordinance you can never hide. Yes, large guard platoons are worth a lot of VPs but at least the enemy can not jump from combat to combat anymore. The possibility of only playing 5 turns makes it harder to sit there and shoot in this scenario for most armies except guard.

Varath- Lord Impaler
15-07-2008, 02:22
Ive been thinking about Different Ways to play guard and ive come up with this:

1500 points:

HQ Command squad
Iron Discipline, Light Infantry
2x Grenade Launchers
Master Vox

Anti Tank squad
3x ML

Anti Tank Squa
3x Lascannons

Fire Support Squad
3x Heavy Bolters

Mortar Squad
3x Mortars

Infantry Platoon

Command squad
Iron Discipline, Light Infantry
2x Grenade Launchers
Vox

Infantry squad
Light infantry
Sniper rifle, Grenade Launcher

Infantry squad
Light infantry
Sniper rifle, Grenade Launcher

Infantry Platoon

Command squad
Iron Discipline, Light Infantry
2x Grenade Launchers
Vox

Infantry squad
Light infantry
Sniper rifle, Grenade Launcher

Infantry squad
Light infantry
Sniper rifle, Grenade Launcher

Sentinel
Lascannon

Sentinel
Lascannon

Sentinel
Lascannon

Heavy Weapons Platoon
Command squad
Light Infantry, Iron Discipline
2x Grenade Launchers
Vox

Anti Tank squad
3x Missile Launchers

Fire Support squad
3x Heavy Bolters

Mortar squad
3x Mortars

Total- 1501

***

Now im not sayingt this is a highly competative army, but basically all of the Heavy weapons teams are set up in the Guard deployment zone while all of the Light Infantry Outflanks.

Could be a fun game, i think.

Miggidy Mack
15-07-2008, 02:48
I've played a lot of 5th edition games with my guard (upwards of 20ish) and while you must be smart about how you play KP games you aren't actually that bad off.

The game is only 6 turns(ish) and in that amount of time your guardsmen going to ground in cover are going to have a 3+ save. While it isn't ideal, when they do get assaulted the rest of your stuff gets to nail them with rapid fire. It's all about killing their line of site with your new more robust tanks.

The rest of the games you're going to have a really easy time due to your TONS of scoring units!

kadun
15-07-2008, 02:56
I was thinking Cameleoline becomes a near must-take. 2+ going to ground cover saves for 100+ models means your opponent needs to assault you to kill you. After your unit breaks, the rest of your army (includes large foot slogging sister squads with Flamers in my case) get the Kill Point back.

Chem-Dog
15-07-2008, 03:05
All he needs are flamers. Or that heinous DA Whirlwind ammo variant.

MiketheFish
15-07-2008, 06:42
The other scenerios are well thought and fun. I guess someone was drinking for the last scenerio. I dont think thats really good for anyone other than SM.


It wasn't that they were JUST drinking, but rather that they were copying Privateer Press - just really badly. Their own VP system is remarkably like Kill Points, but they at least knew enough to have really nasty expensive stuff worth a couple of their "kill points" rather than just one per unit. Actually there is more than one element of 5th edition that smacks of aping PP's gaming methods. Kind of amusing really.

WallWeasels
15-07-2008, 08:24
Have to say Varath, it would be fun to play against that list, to say the least :) Thats a pretty decent amount of guardsmen D:

Vandur Last
15-07-2008, 09:15
Yeah that might even give my shuriken cannon/catapult list a good workout. :)

Anyway i dont play guard but surely the benefit of the no-consolidate rule outweighs the problem of KP's? I know id rather lose on KP's than have had to sweep all my models into the casualty bin.

MiketheFish
15-07-2008, 10:28
Plus you have to kill every single last model in order to get the KP, correct? I don't know, I think it's maybe not as bad as it seems to be on paper. Best to test it out a bit against some knowledgeable opponents.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
15-07-2008, 19:11
Plus you have to kill every single last model in order to get the KP, correct? I don't know, I think it's maybe not as bad as it seems to be on paper. Best to test it out a bit against some knowledgeable opponents.

Amen to the last bit.

At least try it instead of blind complaining. It's like a kid being offered some new food and declaring they don't like it.

kadun
15-07-2008, 20:49
All he needs are flamers. Or that heinous DA Whirlwind ammo variant.
Sure, but Flaming a guard squad is like beating it in close combat. You'll kill it, and then be on the receiving end of the rest of the army's guns.

Again, Cameleoline, 2+ cover saves mean you will win any shootout. Opponents will need to come assault/flame you off objectives or to get Kill Points.

Cameleoline lets you dictate what your opponent will be doing, a huge advantage.

eek107
15-07-2008, 22:46
Plus you have to kill every single last model in order to get the KP, correct? I don't know, I think it's maybe not as bad as it seems to be on paper. Best to test it out a bit against some knowledgeable opponents.

Kill or have them running away at the end. Which makes Iron Discipline even more useful for rallying those low strength squads and hiding them away for some KP denial.

Lord_Squinty
15-07-2008, 22:54
My Answer, put all of the Objectives you can on Hills with no real terrain around it so if they DO capture it, Mr battlecannon will say otherwise.

Brilliant! - funniest post I've read here in ages.
You win tinternets :D

vladsimpaler
16-07-2008, 00:50
I can't say that I approve of how Cailus said it; but his part about how not every single table is like that is totally on spot.


Sure; you'd get away with it for a couple battles, if you're lucky. After that, not so much.

Repoman
16-07-2008, 01:05
for guard it is almost impossible to win using KP and even tho they have the numbers in take and hold it doesn't if there is an enemy model there as well.
but guard players should be jumping for joy with the new 4+ cover from just about everything!

eshin's claws
16-07-2008, 01:43
if someone fights a horde army , with a small army (like my de), than the small army wins , every time!

vladsimpaler
16-07-2008, 03:46
Might want to watch the absolutes there, buddy.

Apparently you've never talked to my friends and their Smurfs. :angel:

mchmr6677
16-07-2008, 13:29
if someone fights a horde army , with a small army (like my de), than the small army wins , every time!

Remember the important thing about a small elite force. A single bad turn of combat can cripple an army that relies on a small number of units. If I lose a brood in my 14 brood nid force it sucks but I keep going, it only represents about 6% of my units. If a 6 unit force loses a unit, the wheels could come off as 16% of that army just went poof.

Quality is not always better then quantity.

Pyriel
16-07-2008, 15:28
For me, the problem lies in my core belief that the IG KP problem will NOT be adressed in next codex.

about getting IG KPs: just assault one squad.then the rest IG army rapid-fires... and kills NOTHING(i don't mean "no models", i mean very, very little enemy casualties).IG:NOT great in shooting.there is no such weapon as a lasgun.We shouldn't even roll the dice, wasted moments of our lives.It works well in conscripts as they are massed so all lasguns will be in range, but a non-conscripts 150 lasguns army will RARELY have more than 20 lasguns at rapid-fire range against a clever opponent.the only thing an average 10-man squad does is fire a spec/heavy weapon.

If we agree that "balance means balance vs. cheesy lists" IG are unplayable exactly because they are a shooty army whose troops are not that shooty.the KP thing is just an overkill-one that is VERY hard by GW to fix due to ultra-silly platoon structure, which is imho a major mistake, making the IG army too different to the others to balance properly.

now, why do i insist that the game should be balanced vs. cheesy lists?because if you defeat an opponent with a non-tourney-like list, you don't really defeat him-he just makes you a FAVOUR-out of feeling pitty for you-by not bringing his best possible list.

by cheesy lists i don't necessarily mean nidzilla-like;i mean lists that, while somewhat fluffy, can be tweeked.IG just doesn't have that-it has no options of changing the army structure, it is simply "5-man retinues, 6-man hvy squads, 10-man infantry".Since the army has such dire problems that will INHERENTLY be in the next codex(platoon structure, non-shooty troops in a full-shooting-useless-cc army, very few force organization options, etc.) there will be nothing "cheesy" in the next codex to save guard that actually uses infantry units.all possible buffs are in the army's tanks.

As you can see, IG problems are dire, and KP are just a small portion of it.