PDA

View Full Version : Killpoints are a bit wack!



Spyral
02-03-2009, 01:37
After reading the 40k rules (a bit TOO quickly I might add) and having my first game of 5th ed today (my nids won too ;) ) I was pondering the scenarios. Ours was Dawn of War with Seize and Defend (I think - where you have an objective in your zone and one in his) and it was fun, something older 40k wasn't for me for quite a while.

Anyway I was reading about killpoints and this struck me :

Sporemines = killpoints ?
Tau Vehicle Drones = killpoints ?
Necros with WBB = confusion ?

Firstly I would suggest that if a unit was listed as 'non scoring' (eg spore mines, scarab swarms etc) then they dont give kill points nor can hold/contest objectives - though I dont think they can hold contest as it stands anyway so maybe this is moot.)

Another query is that essentially if I buy a sporemine strike it costs me a KP before they do anything, rendering the notion of them as less than useless! I sacrifice a FA slot and points to do damage whcih may or may not (probably not) kill some enemies who then in return get points for my mine blowing up. This makes little sense to me.

The KP approach seems to penalise armies such as orcs, nids and IG... for example as necrons in 2000 points I would have about 10-12 units. IG and nids have 18-20 If I kill 12 of his units (no matter how crappy) and keep one of my own alive then I win. A highly abusable situation esp in tourneys

Also if biovores fire a sporemine and it hits you take damage. But if if misses and spore mine is out then how does it suddenly magically become worth a whole kill point ? How does shooting a balloon of corrosive urine equal killing a squad of 10 marines or 5 terminators ?

Also combat squads for marines - 1pt each or 1/2pt even though they are 1 squad? I would be inclined to say 1 each as they could hold objectives but as objectives aren't used for killpoint missions surely 1/2 a point each would be better and more sensible as they are the one squad.. just split into two.

Another problem arises with necrons... say I have 2 warrior squads of 10 men. If you riddle one unit of 10 and knock them all down. I magically WBB all 10 and they join the other squad making it into a squad of 20. How do KP work then ? The unit has not been destroyed its merely ' merged with another unit... but that unit is still 1 unit (albiet bigger) do you get 2 kps for that unit, 1 for the fact that the the other squad has 'ceased to exist' (as opposed to being 'destroyed'. I personally would say 1 for making the squad 'not be there' anymore and then another one if you wipe out the 20. (although obviously it will be harder to wipe the bigger squad which balances out the fact that they had to join another unit) but again its a loopy-hole

Tau vehicle drones... 2 drones and a devilfish is a troops choice so can the two flying saucers actually hold an objective despite the fact that they are ... well two flying saucers?! And do you get 1kp for killing two flying saucers, a KP that is equal to say a hive tyrant ?

I think another approach may be made - perhaps to assign a KP value to certrain units. Perhaps HQ Elites and Heavy Support units are worth 2 each if totally wiped out or 1 if below 50% at the end whereas FA and Troops are worth 1 each and 1/2 if below 50% at the end. 'Non scoring units' (swarms, zoanthropes etc) do not generate KP

Anyway I dont have much experience of new 40K rules but I'm just throwing out my ideas and thoughts and I would be delighted if I have overseen somethings and that there actually are remedies for these issues currently available.

Lord-Caerolion
02-03-2009, 01:41
Uhh... Just a correction, Devilfish are dedicated transports, not Troop choices themselves.

Spyral
02-03-2009, 01:45
ahh touché! Even more of a reason not to have the guy count as anything as they dont take up an FA slot... though that leaves the issues of death company.

CrownAxe
02-03-2009, 01:54
This is a stupid matter,

If they can take a kill point, they can be a kill point

Tau drones can take a kill point, so they can be a kill point

dedicated transports can take a kill point so they can be a kill point

and as for necrons, if the unit is gone, it's a kp, just because some of them WBB into another unit, it doesn't undo that kp. They are now apart of the other unit, thats it

ehlijen
02-03-2009, 01:59
One by one:

Yes, by RAW sporemines give up kill points (even if a biovore shot hits, as you still place the first model). This a result of an old codex having unforseen effects on a new ruleset. Most people will be quite happy to let spore mines not yield KPs (nor contest in exchange).

Combat squads: KPs are awarded for units, not FO choices. So if you splite marines into two units, that's two units each yielding a KP.

DF gundrones: First, they can never score as their special rules forbid this. They can however contest and do give up a KP. Given that they are not intended to die, a lot less people will let you count them as non-units (ie no KP or contesting).
Two things to keep in mind: They are indestructible as long as you keep the fish alive and don't detach them (so they're not as easy to kill as many believe). Also, if you don't want them yielding KPs, upgrade them to an SMS.

Necrons:
One unit no longer exists. That's a KP to the enemy. The other unit is now bigger than before but that does not matter for KPs.

The point of KPs is to encourage people to take bigger units. Bigger units are less flexible on the battlefield compared to smaller ones and so needed a boost. KPs are that boost, maybe too much of one. But some kind of boost was needed.

Spyral
02-03-2009, 02:05
But doesn't it then contribute to the whole min/maxing of tournament armies to fit as much cheese in as possible and yet deny other armies by making bigger armies less viable? (orcs nids dark eldar etc)

I see the point of the gun drones.. if they can contest (but not claim) then it seems ok but the notion makes certain units purely a liability and will contribute to less fluffly lists will it not?

Why not just use victory points like in fantasy as it would be more clear cut than KPs?

That said in the claim the objectives type scenarios bigger lists obviously have an advantage as they have more claiming/contesting units than a smaller force but I was just pondering.

big squig
02-03-2009, 02:05
One by one:

The point of KPs is to encourage people to take bigger units. Bigger units are less flexible on the battlefield compared to smaller ones and so needed a boost. KPs are that boost, maybe too much of one. But some kind of boost was needed.

And a game design choice that I just can't get on board with. KP simply don't work. And big units already have an advantage...survivability.

CrownAxe
02-03-2009, 02:12
And a game design choice that I just can't get on board with. KP simply don't work. And big units already have an advantage...survivability.

not really

lets say you have a 20 necrons and 3 untis of 10 SMs

its its one big unit of 20 necrons, all 3 SM units can focus fire on all the 20 warriors

if the necrons were in 2 units of 10, the SMs have to divide there fire which will prevent all the necron being wiped out at once

and you still have the versitilty of being in multiple small units

RexTalon
02-03-2009, 02:17
This is a stupid matter,

If they can take a kill point, they can be a kill point

Have you ever seen a spore mine take out a whole unit? I haven't. I can't say I've seen too many nid players actually use them, but I still haven't even heard of it.

CrownAxe
02-03-2009, 02:23
Have you ever seen a spore mine take out a whole unit? I haven't. I can't say I've seen too many nid players actually use them, but I still haven't even heard of it.

If you think in terms of full units of infantry

but if the unit is only a single model, then it would take a kill point

Lord Inquisitor
02-03-2009, 02:46
My suggestion, as a rule of thumb for the more wacky killpoint related issues, is would you receive victory points for destroying the unit? If no, then no kill points are awarded.

So take spore mines. If you fire them from biovores, they're not worth victory points and so shouldn't be worth Kill Points (scoring points for destroying ammunition?), but if you buy a "brood" of spore mines as a FA choice, there's nothing saying you shouldn't get victory points from them (stupid, I know), so they're worth a Kill Point.

RexTalon
02-03-2009, 02:54
Yes, but the problem is that the fired spore mines ARE worth kill points. Once they hit the table they become a unit.

Anyway, yes, kill points are a bit off. IG suck for KP. The infantry is incredibly vulnerable. The "hq" squads are even worse. 2 KP for 5 squishy guys.

big squig
02-03-2009, 03:11
not really

lets say you have a 20 necrons and 3 untis of 10 SMs

its its one big unit of 20 necrons, all 3 SM units can focus fire on all the 20 warriors

if the necrons were in 2 units of 10, the SMs have to divide there fire which will prevent all the necron being wiped out at once

and you still have the versitilty of being in multiple small units
Yes, but there's a huge points difference between those two sides. The necrons are worth a lot less.

KP just weren't needed.

Lord Inquisitor
02-03-2009, 03:22
Yes, but the problem is that the fired spore mines ARE worth kill points. Once they hit the table they become a unit.
I understand the principle, but it's patently silly in this case. What I was suggesting was a consistent way of dealing with such cases in the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules.

CrownAxe
02-03-2009, 03:30
Yes, but there's a huge points difference between those two sides. The necrons are worth a lot less.

KP just weren't needed.

that's not the point, i was using them as an example. It doesn't matter who is shooting at what :rolleyes:

The point is that the enemy has to divide its firing against multiple small units. If their are excess unsaved wounds against one small unit, they are wasted as they can't be used against the other small unit. If it was one large unit those wounds would have killed something

thats why smaller units are more durable then large units

Takitron
02-03-2009, 04:28
ITT: Welcome to last year?

Use search, you'll find tons of these threads.

(I prefer VP, but whatever...)

fluffstalker
02-03-2009, 06:15
My suggestion, as a rule of thumb for the more wacky killpoint related issues, is would you receive victory points for destroying the unit? If no, then no kill points are awarded.

So take spore mines. If you fire them from biovores, they're not worth victory points and so shouldn't be worth Kill Points (scoring points for destroying ammunition?), but if you buy a "brood" of spore mines as a FA choice, there's nothing saying you shouldn't get victory points from them (stupid, I know), so they're worth a Kill Point.

Thats just the house rule I use.

However if Im playing non tournament games I tryto use the old VP system. No its not so complicated it ruins the game, and it doesnt horrifically penalize certain builds or armies so much either.

I much prefer VP.

Vaktathi
02-03-2009, 06:20
Yes KP's are extremely Dumb. No they were not introduced into the game for some meta-balance reason to retard the number of small units in favor of bigger units and make people think more strategically about army lists, they are there merely to make victory determination not require a calculator.

Don't ask for fixes, GW isn't going to be forthcoming, they don't particularly care about the issue, if you've read any of the recent FAQ's there are far more Victory Point Q&A's than KP ones, even though nothing explicitly uses VP's anymore.

I'm going to try not to get into this again, so I'll just say this, use Victory Points when you can, avoid KP games if you don't enjoy them.

big squig
02-03-2009, 07:58
that's not the point, i was using them as an example. It doesn't matter who is shooting at what :rolleyes:

The point is that the enemy has to divide its firing against multiple small units. If their are excess unsaved wounds against one small unit, they are wasted as they can't be used against the other small unit. If it was one large unit those wounds would have killed something

thats why smaller units are more durable then large units
But if there are excess wounds on a small unit, wounds double up, making it much easier to kill special weapons / PF sargs. A big unit would be near immune to this.

mughi3
02-03-2009, 08:07
I see KPs as the balance to the objective missions.

horde or high model count armies are the favored units in 2of the 3 scenerios in the new book. the 3rd throws a bone to small elite armies with less units.
consider a DW army. they are hard pressed to take or even contest 5 objectives because they simple do not have the units avaialbe to do it. but in a KPs game they have the advatage of less KPs on the table than their enemy.

Some armies are indeed at a huge disadvantage in KPs games. the current IG codex for example by RAW gives up no less than 6 KPs for basic required HQ and troop slots before even expanding the army out to something more effective.

The old VP system or the orginally planed variant KP system that awarded more KPs for heavy elite or HQ slots seemed more balanced.

The new optional VP system is just as broken as the KP system is now. especially when it comes to vehicle damge. i lost a game simply because i had a single broken lascannon on a land raider at the end of a game using the new VP system. a player could wait till the end of the game and just go for stunned/shaken results on as many vehicles you have on the table and win the game by halving all your VP for those units.

slingersam
02-03-2009, 08:33
I use my own point system, it goes like this:
HQ = 5 Kill Points
Troops = 1 Kill Point
Elites = 3 Kill Points
Fast Attack = 2 Kill Points
Heavy = 4 Kill Points

Rules
-Anything summoned or not included
in the army list will not give up a kill
point
-When you create an army list that
is where you will derive your kill points
-If the entry has a special rule allowing
it to be considered a different type of
entry you will use the correct KP it
specifies (warboss -Nob elites = troops)
- IG platoons = 1KP per unit, so no saying
1 platoon = 1 KP 1 platoon = 6 KP

Example
HQ - Warboss - equipment - 5KP
- SAG Meq - equipment - 5kp
Elites - Komandos - 3KP
- Burna Boyz - 3kp
Troops - Biker Nobz - 2KP
- Ork Deff Dread - 4KP
- Ork Boyz - 1KP
- Ork Boyz - 1KP
- Ork Boyz - 1KP
Fast - Koptas - 2KP
Heavy - Killa Kans - 4KP
- Killa Kans - 4KP
- Killa Kans - 4KP
Total KP - 39KP

oviously this isn't a very good
list it is just an example.
I remeber I was playing a 1500 point game and I wiped him out and he tells me afterward I had only managed 1.5 KP except he had like 4 - 5 units, he then tells me that IG has this special rule that would effect the KP for each of his units, so thats when we changed the KP system saying each individual unit in a platoon = 1 KP.

Vaktathi
02-03-2009, 09:11
I see KPs as the balance to the objective missions.

horde or high model count armies are the favored units in 2of the 3 scenerios in the new book. Horde armies don't necessarily have more KP's than other armies. Most Ork and Tyranid armies I've come across typically have less than, or equal to, the # of KP's that my CSM's have, and far less than my Tau, IG, or even my Eldar.

Orks can fit 180 models into 6 KP's and 1080-1300pts just in Troops (making them all Scoring units of course). It's not about model count, it's about *unit* count.

The armies that get hurt the most are those that simply by their nature have a large number of distinct units, it doesn't matter if they have low model count per unit or are just filled with weeny dudes/vehicles. Tau, IG, Dark Eldar, and to a lesser extent Eldar and WH fit in there.

Eryx_UK
02-03-2009, 11:25
At my club we tried KPs but ultimately decided that they don't work, and went back to VPs.

volair
02-03-2009, 16:56
And a game design choice that I just can't get on board with. KP simply don't work. And big units already have an advantage...survivability.

KPs do work very well for the newer codices. Just don't play with outdated armies like Tau and you have nothing to worry about. Necrons actually do fine with KPs even though they are old.

SimonL
02-03-2009, 17:15
Just don't play with outdated armies like Tau and you have nothing to worry about.

So you expect people to ditch or shelve their existing armies because GW created a flawed system? Strange as it may seem, some people actually like the fluff and models of their army, not just the fact they optimize their chances of winning...

Ozymandiass
02-03-2009, 18:18
At my club we tried KPs but ultimately decided that they don't work, and went back to VPs.

Our club recently went through this discussion as well. If you look at KP's in absence of the rest of the missions then KP's are quite dumb. But if you look at KP's as a balance for the Objective missions then you can see why they are necessary. The mission table forces you to take an army that can:

1) Capture/Contest lots of objectives
2) Be mobile enough to capture objectives across the table
3) Limit the number of small units that are best for option #1.

Now some of the old codices have a real problem with this (especially IG but I expect that to change in May), and some armies are really good at doing all three (Space Marines with Combat Squads and Orks with large versatile troop units), but most codices can accomplish all three with good list building. Simply switching to VP's is lazy and allows for one-dimensional lists and a 4th ed playstyle.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Warboss Antoni
02-03-2009, 18:26
What can VPs do that KP can't, other then decide who wins a 2 hour epic conflict because some has 4 pts and the other has 3, because they killed a 5 man unit, all in a minute?

Face it, it's a horribly dumbed down, stupid rule. It doesn't even have any depth to it. It's "I has more point den u111". It's just lazy. Gw didn't even deicde to have any specialty or detail to it.
The rulebook even says you can play VP if you want, and has the entire system ( which hapens to be more then a paragraph ).

Why would you come up with a special KP system when you have VPs sitting right in front of you?
KP would work if every game was balanced completely, 2 sqauds of space marines a dread and a commander versus the same, but alas we have a points system which means there actually happen to be varying point costs, and different army compositions.
Single digit victory system =/= 4 digit point limits.

Eryx_UK
02-03-2009, 18:31
Our club recently went through this discussion as well. If you look at KP's in absence of the rest of the missions then KP's are quite dumb. But if you look at KP's as a balance for the Objective missions then you can see why they are necessary.

Except that with CnC and Seize Ground missions, its pretty obvious at the end of the game if its a win, loss or a draw. VP's only really count for the Annihilation mission, at which point the different strengths/weaknesses of units is what should count, hence working victory by victory points.

YMMV.

CrownAxe
02-03-2009, 22:47
But if there are excess wounds on a small unit, wounds double up, making it much easier to kill special weapons / PF sargs. A big unit would be near immune to this.

I'm talking about unsaved wounds, wounds that you already failed

itcamefromthedeep
03-03-2009, 00:31
Yes KP's are extremely Dumb.
No, they're not. Walking off a cliff is extremely dumb. Looking down the barrel of a loaded gun is extremely dumb. Swallowing an entire unmarked bottle of pills is extremely dumb. Getting on a bike and playing chicken with a train is extremely dumb. KPs don't quite measure up the aforementioned bastions of spectacular stupidity.

Kill points are simple, not dumb. There's a difference.


No they were not introduced into the game for some meta-balance reason to retard the number of small units in favor of bigger units and make people think more strategically about army lists, they are there merely to make victory determination not require a calculator.You're not a mind reader and nor am I. So, unless you were on the 5th ed design team or are somehow otherwise privy to the motivations of the designers, neither you nor I know what they were getting at.

Maybe it was designed to encourage bigger units, maybe it wasn't. Regardless, it does encourage bigger units. It does not encourage filling the FOC, which some armies can take advantage of better than others. How much of an effect that has on the game is debatable, but I like big units, and I like that piece of design. It's less gamey than splitting up units to take advantage of the FOC or objective missions.

It may have been designed to "balance" the objective missions by limiting scoring/contesting units, or it may not have. If that was what they were going for, I think they failed, because it doesn't matter how many units you have holding an objective. What matters is how strong the units holding the objective are.

It may have been done because GW thinks so little of their players that they assume we're ****** who can't do basic addition and subtraction. I can't be sure they don't think that. I really don't care, because KPs are good for the metagame.

There are some silly results from Annihilation and the 4th ed Codexes. That's the price we pay for getting too keep old codexes when the basic rules are updated. I'm willing to house-rule things like Gun Drones or Spore Mines until the relevant 5th ed versions come out.

big squig
03-03-2009, 02:01
I see KPs as the balance to the objective missions.

horde or high model count armies are the favored units in 2of the 3 scenerios in the new book.
No, they're not. High model count armies are weak and squishy. Pushing 10 guardsman off an objective is a heck of a lot easier that 5 terminators. And considering you only need one objective to win and not five, horde armies don't have any real advantage.

big squig
03-03-2009, 02:05
The best way is to drop KP entirely (they don't work) and VP as well. Neither are very good systems. Don't do annihilation missions at all, they are dull and strip a ton of depth and strategy out of the game. Killing should never be an objective, it should be a means to achieve an objective.

fluffstalker
03-03-2009, 02:24
No, they're not. High model count armies are weak and squishy. Pushing 10 guardsman off an objective is a heck of a lot easier that 5 terminators. And considering you only need one objective to win and not five, horde armies don't have any real advantage.

Agreed. Having large numbers of units is not really useful in either KP or objectives at all unless there is a rule that is introduced whereby you gain control over the objective if you have more scoring units nearby. For example two squads of guardsmen would gain an objective rather than simply contest it if a Deathwing terminator sitting was sitting on it.

It could be argued that then all players will do is horde the objectives - except the weakness of most low model armies like guants or guards is that they're easy to destroy. So if we look at the above situation, the two guardsmen squads are very easy to destroy in a singe round of shooting and CC, but the trade off is that they're cheap.

ehlijen
03-03-2009, 02:37
Without KP, we're right back to everyone filling every slot with as many small units as they can. 2*5 marines are always going to offer more options, and will thus be better, than 10 space marines in one unit. And why not bring a rhino for everyone and his dog to shield yourself from enemy fire support if there's no downside seeing how cheap it is?

Yes, it hurts guard a bit (due to some silly things like officers being ICs) but they're first in line to be fixed as well (ok, after the obligatory marine dex, but still). Everyone else, and yes I mean everyone, has to option to bring larger, harder to kill squads and minimise KP count. 20 strong DE warrio units? 29 strong Kroot units or 3 suit + 6 drone teams? SMS on devilfish? Everyone can have units in the 150-200 points regions without too much problems, and with that you're looking at 7-8 KPs for 1.5k. Those are not flexible armies, no. But that's always the price you pay for low KP count.

The only real problem is spore mines, but given how unpopular they were already and that most people are willing to houserule that, it's a problem that can be dealt with.

Linkdead
03-03-2009, 02:44
I think kill points will be better balanced once every army gets a 5th edition Codex. Their still some crazy kill point sinks in the older armies that should go away. Right now stupid things are worth KP like spore mines, and disembarked gun drones.

ehlijen
03-03-2009, 03:06
Disembarked gundrones are fine as they are. They can contest objectives, making the opponent loose the objective or waste firepower on two frisbees. Also: keep the fish alive and noone forces you to disembark them!

Lord Inquisitor
03-03-2009, 03:24
Without KP, we're right back to everyone filling every slot with as many small units as they can. 2*5 marines are always going to offer more options, and will thus be better, than 10 space marines in one unit.
This can, and should, be fixed in other ways. Right now, who wouldn't take 10 marines? It's the only way to get the special weapon options, even better, they're free.

The 6-man las/plas units were killed by the new codex. They simply don't exist any more except as combat squads, which is not the same thing. 10-man Tactical squads became a necessity due to mission rules and codex design even without Kill Points

There were some issues with popcorn armies in 4th - I dislike the formations of 3x1 landspeeders too - but it wasn't unbalanced. We've had a double-whammy of dealing with a problem at the Codex level and at the rules level. Rhinos got so good due to having a points drop and seriously buffed toughness. It's the GW pendulum in action (transports are the classic pendulum: deathtraps, too good, deathtraps, too good). MSU too good? We'll make them totally screwed over in a horribly arbitrary way.

That's assuming there was this much thought put into Kill Points. Personally I doubt it, I think they were designed for simplicity's sake alone.

Sekhmet
03-03-2009, 04:04
I see KPs as the balance to the objective missions.

horde or high model count armies are the favored units in 2of the 3 scenerios in the new book. the 3rd throws a bone to small elite armies with less units.
consider a DW army. they are hard pressed to take or even contest 5 objectives because they simple do not have the units avaialbe to do it. but in a KPs game they have the advatage of less KPs on the table than their enemy.

Some armies are indeed at a huge disadvantage in KPs games. the current IG codex for example by RAW gives up no less than 6 KPs for basic required HQ and troop slots before even expanding the army out to something more effective.

The old VP system or the orginally planed variant KP system that awarded more KPs for heavy elite or HQ slots seemed more balanced.

The new optional VP system is just as broken as the KP system is now. especially when it comes to vehicle damge. i lost a game simply because i had a single broken lascannon on a land raider at the end of a game using the new VP system. a player could wait till the end of the game and just go for stunned/shaken results on as many vehicles you have on the table and win the game by halving all your VP for those units.

You're actually a little off.

1 command platoon with 1 command squad
2 infantry platoons with 1 command squad and 2 infantry squads
= 10 kp.

1 command platoon with 1 command squad
2 grenadier squads
= 4 kp.

ehlijen
03-03-2009, 05:56
Lord Inquisitor:

A) What if I don't want heavies or specials? What if all I want is 5 marines in a rhino with one power sword rushing forward? And even if I do take 10 marines, what's to stop me from always combat squadding?

Yes, large units should be encouraged by more than just one mission type and the new SM codex is going the right direction, but so far for everyone else, that one mission is all there is.
Orks: take a few 30 boy mobs or lot's of 10 boy ones in truks? (You loose fearless but gain more speed and powerklaw options.)
Chaos: Sure, I need 10 for a heavy weapon, but nothing encourages units of 11-20 even though that's an option. And outside of CSM squads, even that restriction isn't there.

Lord Inquisitor
03-03-2009, 20:32
Lord Inquisitor:

A) What if I don't want heavies or specials? What if all I want is 5 marines in a rhino with one power sword rushing forward? And even if I do take 10 marines, what's to stop me from always combat squadding?
Exactly. What's wrong with that? :eyebrows:


Orks: take a few 30 boy mobs or lot's of 10 boy ones in truks? (You loose fearless but gain more speed and powerklaw options.)
You lose fearless and become far more vulnerable to assaults. My Chaos Marines can shoot up or take 10 Orks in combat pretty easily. 30 are aa vastly bigger proposition. You don't need KP to encourage Ork players to take big mobs! The maximum 6 Troops slots are enough with the current emphasis on Troops.


Chaos: Sure, I need 10 for a heavy weapon, but nothing encourages units of 11-20 even though that's an option. And outside of CSM squads, even that restriction isn't there.
I'm not sure why we should be encouraged to do so. What's wrong with 10-strong units? What was so bad about small units anyway?

I personally ran 6-strong Noise Marine units. That suited me just fine, the free AC in the old list was a bonus. Each squad had a rhino. Why should I be forced to play with 10+ strong squads? If I wanted to throw units of 20 on the table I would turn to my LatD, my Emperor's Children were all about small versatile units. Yet, due to the arbitrary nature of Kill Points, the army became practically useless in 1/3 of missions. I'm adapting, but the point is that Kill Points does no sort of balancing act. It arbitrarily makes some units better than others for the same cost. Yes, 6-man las-plas squads and equivalents were and are annoying - but the codex fixed that nicely and other codexes could follow suit. Kill Points weren't needed for that reason.

fluffstalker
03-03-2009, 20:58
Exactly - its an issue of codex fixes instead of Kill Points fixing.

Thats why we contend that they didnt use KP for balance reasons, they used it because they want to streamline an already over streamlined game. If they did introduce KP to balance Objective missions they didnt do a very good job of it.

And as for buying rhinos for every squad - in 5h ed with the survivability of vehicles, espeically if one buys smoke, extra armour and uses cover effectively, I still fail to see why one wouldnt buy rhinos. As a guard player Im terrified of Mech Marine armies even if they do give out more Kill Points, because chances are they'll roll up right next to me with enough guys intact to seriously put a dent in my lines in his shooting phase and then his next assault phase. Conversely, I laugh at footslogging hordes of marines.

As for orcs they're a bit different because they can be taken more cheaply then Marines and also wartrukks are not as survivable as Rhinos due to open topped. The fearless rule and the mass of boyz protecting the claw are worth more then the transport in this case. Furthermore, the use of run and the WAAGH run means that on foot they're pretty fast in any case.