PDA

View Full Version : Kill points victories...hollow victories?



mattnaik
25-03-2009, 16:18
I had my first experience with Kill Points yesterday and I must say, even though I won, it really felt like a hollow victory.

I was playing my necron army against my friends SM army. I was literally 4 necrons away from phase out and I still won.

It almost appears you are severely penalized for taking a large number of small units.

My army consisted of 2 warrior units, 2 monoliths, 2 destroyer units, and a deceiver.

He took out a unit of warriors, a unit of destroyers, and a monolith. I took out 2 dreads, a rhino, and sqaud with a techmarine attatched. He still had 1000 pts of his 1500 left on the board and i won by 2 KP.

Just for fun we calculated 4th editiion victory points and he beat me by something like 450 pts.

I know its been said on here before, but does anyone else feel like KP victories are near meaningless. Or are there people out there that believe that a change in tactics could overcome this disadvantage?

scarletsquig
25-03-2009, 16:22
I'm not a fan of the Kill Points system, favours some armies, while being terrible for others, and castrates innovate army list building.

IrishDelinquent
25-03-2009, 16:34
They also need to iron out some of the wrinkles with the KP rules. I loved my biovores in 4th edition, but now they are a colossal waste of points; they have no armor, and they give your opponent a kill point every time they fire!

W0lf
25-03-2009, 16:36
It almost appears you are severely penalized for taking a large number of small units.

Which kind of works imo.

For most games MSU is always better but KP turns this on its head.

njfed
25-03-2009, 16:43
It almost appears you are severely penalized for taking a large number of small units.

Only in kill point missions. In objective missions you have an advantage. The concept is sound, force players to build armies that can fight different armies and different missions. However, the execution was a bit lacking. Some armies suffer because of how their units work, Nids being a great example. Biovorses, Zopes and Licters work against the Nid player in KP missions. Other armies, like Orks, have great builds that rock in any mission.

The_Outsider
25-03-2009, 16:47
Own their own KP are flawed.

On their own VP are flawed.

On their own objectives only are flawed.

When you start mixing and matching however the change to the metagame does create a balance.

Fixer
25-03-2009, 17:04
Perhaps victory points are flawed, but they are much more sensible that Killpoints in so many things.

As it stands, the free upgrade combat drones for a devilfish are the same value as a 500 point sledgehammer like Nob bikers. A 20 strong beserker unit reduced to just the skull champion is worth nothing. A split unit of three zoanthropes is worth 1kp per model killed. Apparently I can kill Abbadon the despoiler but lose two drop pods in the process and Chapter Master will have to sanction me for unforgivable combat losses.

The rules really hurt armies that rely on cheap transports, things not considered in older codexes or forces that rely on combined arms. It also means that the brick wall point sink units of the seer council and nob bikers are even better than their sheer killing power alone.

Lord Damocles
25-03-2009, 17:41
So do you feel that an objective based mission which is won by squad hunkering down and holding the objective while everyone else is blown apart is also a hollow victory?

Or an objective mission where you get one Guardsman within 3" of an objective on the last turn to claim it?

fluffstalker
25-03-2009, 17:52
Well yes you have to balance with objective grabbing, but I see why one couldnt do that with victory points.. Have objectives missions and then a victory point mission. you still have to destroy the opponents force but unlike KP certain armies dont get a major disadvantage and it will also help prevent people from maxing out on those gigantic nob biker, 30 man mobs, or termie units. (in objective games these guys still assault and take objective much better than a small number of cheaper units can, so it isnt really a disadvantage for their player) Just because im a guard player with a lot of scoring units doesnt mean I will have an advantage in sitting on or taking objectives- my units fragility balances it out. In KP, my units become a liability.

VP alllows for uber units to be penalized - you dont have to kill the whole thing to get one lousy point- even damaging a land raider will grab you alot of points in 4th ed. However, it doesnt unduly penalize them as KP penalizes small to medium unit armies because those units are generally bad enough to make their points back.

mattnaik
25-03-2009, 17:57
So do you feel that an objective based mission which is won by squad hunkering down and holding the objective while everyone else is blown apart is also a hollow victory?

Or an objective mission where you get one Guardsman within 3" of an objective on the last turn to claim it?

I guess the difference to me is, one is a strategy that can be accomplished with any army (some better than others) but achieved through gameplay. while KP victories seem to be pretty much the same regardless of how you play the mission. Most army lists just seems to be doomed to fail KP mission, no matter what they do. To me that seems hollow

Captain Micha
25-03-2009, 17:59
I guess the difference to me is, one is a strategy that can be accomplished with any army (some better than others) but achieved through gameplay. while KP victories seem to be pretty much the same regardless of how you play the mission. Most army lists just seems to be doomed to fail KP mission, no matter what they do. To me that seems hollow

But if most armies "Fail" at KP (btw we crons do infact suck at Kp) that kinda makes them.. you know balanced.

I prefer objective games myself but that's cause I like a little more spice to go with my Destroy Your Enemy.

Spyral
25-03-2009, 19:12
My suggestion would be max 1 kp per FO slot. So if I took 2 x 2 tomb spyders and a monolith the max you could get is 3 kp for HS.

Dittio with IG. If you have 2 platoons (3 squads each) and an armoured fist squad. Even if I wipe them ALL out I still only get max 6 KP for wiping out the troops.

Marine combat squads. If I take 6 10man tactical squads and split 3 of them into 5 man squad. I will have 9 squads. However even if you kill 7 you only get 6 kp.

Does that make sense?

I think it would be smarter and also it would avoid the min maxing of KPs by taking only 6 units. hiding one and wipining out 6 of his army. So if he kills your 5 units you still win on kp

sabre4190
25-03-2009, 19:24
I had my first experience with Kill Points yesterday and I must say, even though I won, it really felt like a hollow victory.

I was playing my necron army against my friends SM army. I was literally 4 necrons away from phase out and I still won.

It almost appears you are severely penalized for taking a large number of small units.

My army consisted of 2 warrior units, 2 monoliths, 2 destroyer units, and a deceiver.

He took out a unit of warriors, a unit of destroyers, and a monolith. I took out 2 dreads, a rhino, and sqaud with a techmarine attatched. He still had 1000 pts of his 1500 left on the board and i won by 2 KP.

Just for fun we calculated 4th editiion victory points and he beat me by something like 450 pts.

I know its been said on here before, but does anyone else feel like KP victories are near meaningless. Or are there people out there that believe that a change in tactics could overcome this disadvantage?

Yes you are severly penalized for taking lots of small units. But at the same time, those massive numbers of small units help when it comes to objective based games. The only way you can succeed is by taking a balanced list that has both units that can capture objectives, and ones that can work on the front lines.

And besides, why even bother having a max. unit size if every mission rewarded having nothing but lots of small units capturing objectives?

Gorbad Ironclaw
25-03-2009, 19:27
Does that make sense?

I can sort of see what you are going at, but I don't think it would work. For a start, the Marines with combat squads is a good example of why it would likely not work. Split into combat squads and it's going to be seriously difficult getting the kill points out of them.

Anyway, I don't see why winning on kill points any less 'valid' than winning on objectives or victory points or anything else.

It's a set of victory conditions, that's all.

Yeah, sometimes you will be at a disadvantage, but it's just one more thing to take into account when building your army. My Orks are not great at kill point missions, a lot of kill points in the army, and many of them is pretty fragile. I've still won KP games though, even against armies with half my number of kill points. It just makes it a different game where you have to adjust your playing style.

They are not perfect, but they work.

mattnaik
25-03-2009, 19:38
well let me pose another question: how many people actually play with KP? Or do you play with some homegrown house rules variation and if so, what would that be?

ehlijen
25-03-2009, 19:46
I use the missions as written in the book. For some reason that means 2 out of three games the dice comes up 5 or 6 and we play KP. Get's kind of annoying, but so would every other mission played in such near exclusion to all others.

I don't see kill points as hollow victories at all. It usually ends up with one side deciding that it's going to loose a static firefight and throwing itself at the enemy in the hopes of achieving wipeout and as such always end up with nice huge dead piles (nice because it's a game and that's the point of the game) and plays much like the old meatgrinder mission.

KP have their flaws, just as VP have their flaws. But at least KP are simpler and actually do something about that fact that MSU is just inherently superior to FBU due to the larger number of options each turn and the lack of wound spill over.

sliganian
25-03-2009, 19:54
Nids being a great example. Biovorses, Zopes and Licters work against the Nid player in KP missions. Other armies, like Orks, have great builds that rock in any mission.

Except that Ork armies versus, say MEQ's, can typically give up more KP's than the other side has in total and have half their points on the table.

A typical Chaos list may have 7-9 KP's in 1,500 points (HQ (1 KP), 2-3 expensive Troops with Rhinos (4-6 KP), 2 Heavy Support (2 more KP).

An roughly balanced Orky list at 1,500 could have 14+ KP's (Warboss (1) with MegaNobs (1) in a Trukk (1), a BigMek (1), 2 x Boyz on foot (2), 2x Boyz in Trukks (4), Bikers (1), Deffkoptas (1), Lootas (1), Killa Kans unit (1),etc.)

Colonial Rifle
25-03-2009, 20:13
KP are Epic fail. Any system where 2 Tau gun drones are the same tactical worth as a tooled-up terminator squad is structurally unsound. It was a broadbrush fix to the spaming of small units that falls apart without too much testing.

My group only plays KP's when they have to in a tournament setting. Otherwise's it's objectives or VP all the way.

Xelloss
25-03-2009, 20:13
OK, can we try not to do an other thread KP/VP is better ?

How about the system some people use in their special mission ?
- points for X objectives
- points for KP
- points for special achievement(s) defined ar the beginning
At the end the sum of points decide for the winner...

Instead a system of auto win/auto lose for a significant nomber of armies, the system could balance itself by players seeking to earn points were it is easier for them, while trying to prevent the other to do so.

Noserenda
25-03-2009, 20:25
Kill points look bad on paper but having now played with them for nearly a year they actually work out alright, the only game where it felt a bit cheap was one against Nids where I scraped a draw by hiding some rhinos and thats playing a couple of games a week.

The_Outsider
25-03-2009, 20:53
The flaw with KP only really shows when you dump massive amounts of them (read lots of units) into FoC slots that aren't troops.

Which some would say (read: me) is a good thing.

Cythus
25-03-2009, 20:53
KP are there to balance objective games
for objective games you need plenty of units to take objectives and for KP game you want as few units as possible

i prefer the victory system put forward in my really old rulebook (i think its 2nd ed)
practically everything is VP but you still have objective missions, captureing objectives gives you like 200 points depending on mission

boogle
25-03-2009, 20:56
I haven't played a KP mission yet, and realyl don't want to as it smacks of 'line up and shoot each other' which is not why i play or the style of play i prefer, if i can get my opponent to agree, we'll continue to play with Victory Points instead

The_Outsider
25-03-2009, 21:24
I haven't played a KP mission yet, and realyl don't want to as it smacks of 'line up and shoot each other' which is not why i play or the style of play i prefer, if i can get my opponent to agree, we'll continue to play with Victory Points instead

That is completely wrong.

KP don't change the game in such a dramatic way, not to mention the same example can easily be applied to any of the games set in 40k's universe (BFG, epic, Inquisitor etc).

"If I want to get lots of KP I have to kill lots of units"

"If I want lots of VP I have to kill lots of units"

The only real difference between KP and VP is KP is all or nothing, you kill the squad or you don't, VP does give you some reward for killing some of the unit but not all. Whether that is a good thing or not? I could not say.

Shogunate
25-03-2009, 21:25
I had my first experience with Kill Points yesterday and I must say, even though I won, it really felt like a hollow victory.

I was playing my necron army against my friends SM army. I was literally 4 necrons away from phase out and I still won.

It almost appears you are severely penalized for taking a large number of small units.

My army consisted of 2 warrior units, 2 monoliths, 2 destroyer units, and a deceiver.

He took out a unit of warriors, a unit of destroyers, and a monolith. I took out 2 dreads, a rhino, and sqaud with a techmarine attatched. He still had 1000 pts of his 1500 left on the board and i won by 2 KP.

Just for fun we calculated 4th editiion victory points and he beat me by something like 450 pts.

I know its been said on here before, but does anyone else feel like KP victories are near meaningless. Or are there people out there that believe that a change in tactics could overcome this disadvantage?

Terribly meaningless. Me and my friends just play point capture and annihilation.

sabre4190
25-03-2009, 21:41
If pure victory points were used, then there would be no reason not to take MSU. Kill points adds a new challenge to balancing lists that I have found to be extremely fun.

There are currently flaws in the system, such as spore mines or drones on tanks, but those should be addressed in FAQs or future codices. They havnt, which means GW has messed up in that sense.

If a system with only victory points were to be used (like fantasy), then it would work. Only kill points fails, because there would be an incentive to take big units of elites and nothing else. Kill points combined with objective games makes for something really fun as long as you create a list before you pick the game.

mattnaik
25-03-2009, 21:41
The only real difference between KP and VP is KP is all or nothing, you kill the squad or you don't, VP does give you some reward for killing some of the unit but not all. Whether that is a good thing or not? I could not say.

No the real difference between KP and VP is a 35pt rhino is equivalent to a squad of 10 marines. To me that doesn't seem fair

boogle
25-03-2009, 21:46
Well when a KP mission comes my way, i'll give it a go and let you know how i feel

jmiksa
25-03-2009, 21:56
After my KP game with mattnaik I'm really considering revising my army and strategy with space marines.

Kahadras
25-03-2009, 22:03
I'm in favor of kill points as it helps mix things up a bit. It gives people new things to concider when constructing lists and during the game itself. One of my pet hates is people who only want to play with missions or objectives which suit their particular army or list build.

Kahadras

Sarah S
25-03-2009, 22:10
Why not combine victory points, kill points and objectives into a single scenario?

So...
Whoever wins the victory point game gets a meta-point.
Whoever wins the kill point game gets a meta-point.
Whoever wins the objective game gets a meta-point.

The player with the most meta-points at the end wins the game.

Occulto
25-03-2009, 22:45
well let me pose another question: how many people actually play with KP? Or do you play with some homegrown house rules variation and if so, what would that be?

My group plays them as is. I dunno, maybe we're doing something wrong, but it's rarely as clear cut as people make it. Just because one side has more KPs does not mean they auto-lose.

For the record, last tournament I ran, I tried a variation on KPs. I did it by proportions - so if you killed 5 out of 10KPs, you got 50%. If your opponent killed 7 out of 14, they also got 50%. So it'd be a draw.

Interestingly people complained at my attempts to make it fairer.

Occasionally, no matter what mission, you'll get victories that just don't seem "deserved." Have we forgotten the old 3 cheap fast vehicle trick in table quarters?

"Oh I've got 3/4 quarters, you've got last turn, you just sent out 3 buggies to contest and now win 1 quarter to nil."

Xelloss
25-03-2009, 22:47
Why not combine victory points, kill points and objectives into a single scenario?

So...
Whoever wins the victory point game gets a meta-point.
Whoever wins the kill point game gets a meta-point.
Whoever wins the objective game gets a meta-point.

The player with the most meta-points at the end wins the game.

It can be a variation of my previous proposition (completly ignored btw), but still has the flaw of the need to calculate the total of VP (some people seems to find it difficult... The STC of calculators surely haven't been recovered everywhere)

Sarah S
25-03-2009, 23:55
but still has the flaw of the need to calculate the total of VP

I have no respect, let alone sympathy, for anyone that struggles with simple addition to 2000...

Blinder
26-03-2009, 01:09
I like that KPs emphasize finishing off a unit (and taking good care of units which have taken a pounding). The problem is that GW didn't do a very good job when they were figuring out what should give up a KP and what shouldn't... basically they left it so only a couple very specific things (upgrade characters is actually all I can think of) *don't* give up a KP, leaving a lot of forces inherently bloated when it comes to the total number of KP you can get from them. Personally I'd like to see it changed so that you can only nab one KP off any given FOC choice's "main" element and make exceptions from there. So, squad w/ cheap transport, you get the KP when you kill the squad (but don't *have* to kill the transport, so no hiding the transport to not give the KP). Basically, you have to kill whatever you *must* take to use the unit, optional stuff can neither save nor yield a KP. Add in something along the lines of, "for choices consisting of multiple or more individual units (other than transports), a kill point is gained when at least half of the units taken are destroyed." That takes care of things like IG platoons so you can't just hide the 5 command guys and say, "they're alive and I *had* to take them, so no KP even though you killed 5 squads from the platoon," and keeps marines wondering if they should split their tac squads for that game. Then add in something along the lines of, "units which can be taken either as a dedicated transport or their own choice always yield a kill point when taken as a dedicated transport, in addition to any killpoints from the unit it is taken for." Land Raiders mainly, because they're a force in their own right in ways that dedicated-only transports are not (even razorbacks and chimeras). Finally, "If a unit can be taken as a separate FOC choice and an FOC slot is available, it counts as using that slot for the purposes of determining kill points." So, no hiding a sentinel squadron in your IG HQ platoon (with some clarifying text to note that you don't have to count one squadron of 3 FA things as 3 KP if they're all the FA you take).

Keeps the number of "forced to take" KPs in some armies down and provides a balance (guard being the one I'm most familiar with, which currently hand out as many KPs from their compulsory choices (8) as many armies do *total* in an average game...), also makes the tau drone problem go away and doesn't hand out as harsh a penalty for transports (especially as generally, the harder it is to pop a transport, the easier it is to kill the squad that goes with it. Tau and d-pod fish being a notable exception (at least I think that's dedicated-only) but then d-pods are just frustrating right now). Also focuses the game more on the killing the actual fighting core of the opposing force, which is what I gathered KP games are supposed to be all about.

MrGiggles
26-03-2009, 01:14
All kill points are is another set of rules to play and win by. It's really no different than running a custom scenario.

I pretty much see them as a response to the old 'How many laser cannons can I fit into this list' recipe armies, but that might just be me.

My beef with kill points is a little different from the general consensus here. I just see them come up too much when I play. My group has pretty much decided that any Dawn of War - Annihilation mission gets rerolled. Damn thing came up in ten of our last dozen games.

Vaktathi
26-03-2009, 01:26
The flaw with KP only really shows when you dump massive amounts of them (read lots of units) into FoC slots that aren't troops. Why does everyone assume that Scoring units VS Kill Points are a legitimate balance point?

They aren't.

That and you can still get tons of KP's that aren't scoring even in scoring FoC slots, such as Gun Drone, transports, etc...

Creeping Dementia
26-03-2009, 01:36
As a Tau player kill points can really suck. Counting free/manditory gun drones I'm fielding 22 KP, 7 of which are "units" with 2-4 wounds at T3 and a 4+ save. The odd thing with Tau is I have to spend more points to get less KP by upgrading gun drones to smart missiles, and I have to eliminate my favorite unit altogether (Piranha) in order to really get down to the average KP for an army.

Luckily, I just started playing at a different store (the old one closed a few months ago), and the owner there has a couple simple house rules that have made KP missions actually enjoyable. Gun drones, Spore mines and I think a couple other things, don't count for Kill points, but they also cannot contest objectives. It seems to work well and has made all the armys at least seem to be playing on a level field. And the owner doesn't even play one of the affected armys, he's an Ork player.
It's made me stop dreading the roll of 5-6 and have me play the entire game hiding behind buildings.

RichBlake
26-03-2009, 01:39
Firstly let me remind everyone there was no higher logic behind Kill Points, they just wanted a simpler victory point ruleset i.e. one that didn't involve calculators after the game.

Kill Points works fine in theory, 1 point for every unit killed. There is an issue of 10 terminators = a squad of 5 guardsmen (remenants obviously) but there will be issues with ANY system for example with victory points kill 9 terminators and the one survivor hides somewhere = only 50% of the squad?. Although I can do the same with Guardsmen 9 guardsmen with a survivor gives the opponent 30 points instead of 60. Hiding 1 terminator gives the opponent 200 instead of 400. See the gap? By hidng one model you prevent 200 points.

The issues I personally have with killpoints are generally army specific for example:

Why do Guard officers with their bodyguards give away 2 KP?
Why does Guard get penalised because it's a hoare army that can have max squads of 10?
Why to Tyranids get penalised for taking biovores which shoot spore mines which each give a KP away (if they don't explode when fired)?
Why do Tau Gun Drones give away Kill Points?

However these are all point that either will or hopefully wil be fixed. Example:

Guard Officers will no longer be Independent Characters.
Guard infantry squads can merge into 1 big squad in then codex, making them less effective but less KP.
(Made up) Special Rule: Living Ammunition: The Biovore fires spore mines which act independently and float around the battlefield if they survive being shot out of the Biovore (i.e they didn't hit anything). However these do not count as Kill Points as they are in fact ammunition.
(Made up) Special Rule: Expendable: The Tau manufacture million of drones and they are easily replaced. Drones do not count as kill points.

Easy solutions to annoying problems.

If all the army specific issues were whittled down then I'd have no problem with the system. If I play Guard I'm always going to be naturally better at objective missions then anhiliation ones, the difference should be by how much though.

Under the new Guard rules my 1500 point list can be made to give away 12 kill points as a minimum, 17 as a maximum. Currently it gives away 19 without any choice in the matter.

Kill points has its flaws but any mission will do, I much prefer it though as theres none of the "Oh well this under half strength squad will run away to prevent KP loss". While it is possible to hide units to prevent their destruction it seems to happen less now then before.

I have no idea why this is, perhaps its because people value their use over the chance they made be killed now, it's just the impression I get.

Also there's no tricksy maths, I like that part :P

CrownAxe
26-03-2009, 04:31
No the real difference between KP and VP is a 35pt rhino is equivalent to a squad of 10 marines. To me that doesn't seem fair
Except it is

Its not like the rhino can't do anything

it can Tank Shock a unit off the board, which can be loads better then a unit of 10 marines. it has a gun so can kill some models which can either wipe out the remaining unit for a KP or kill enough to cause a morale check

plus with out the rhino the marines are less effective

Vaktathi
26-03-2009, 06:23
Except it is

Its not like the rhino can't do anything

it can Tank Shock a unit off the board, which can be loads better then a unit of 10 marines. it has a gun so can kill some models which can either wipe out the remaining unit for a KP or kill enough to cause a morale check

plus with out the rhino the marines are less effective

That still does not make the Rhino worth what a squad of Space Marines are worth, which have far more firepower, combined survivability, CC ability, scoring ability, etc...

A 10man kitted Khornate Terminator 420+pt squad should not be worth what the gundrones on a Tau devilfish are worth either.

CrownAxe
26-03-2009, 06:26
In terms of KP it is

Vaktathi
26-03-2009, 06:35
In terms of KP it is

And that's exactly the problem with KP's. They don't take into account the relative value of a unit, they only account for the fact that it is a unit by itself. 1 Sentinel is 1 KP, but 3 Sentinels in a squadron is still 1 KP, but 3 by themselves are 3 KP's. This is a problem and does not accurately reflect the value of the units. A squadron of 3 should probably be less than 3 single ones, but KP's don't do this well at all, and in fact the old VP system did it better. Killing 2 single Sentinels was worth more than killing 2 in a Squadron.

ehlijen
26-03-2009, 07:02
KP are not meant to make sense. They are meant to balance the fact that without them, there is no reason to not spam MSUs.

CrownAxe
26-03-2009, 07:15
And that's exactly the problem with KP's. They don't take into account the relative value of a unit, they only account for the fact that it is a unit by itself. 1 Sentinel is 1 KP, but 3 Sentinels in a squadron is still 1 KP, but 3 by themselves are 3 KP's. This is a problem and does not accurately reflect the value of the units. A squadron of 3 should probably be less than 3 single ones, but KP's don't do this well at all, and in fact the old VP system did it better. Killing 2 single Sentinels was worth more than killing 2 in a Squadron.

The point value of a unit no longer matters in KP, which isn't a problem

using you're sentinal example, a squad of 3 may only be 1 KP but can only shot at 1 unit per turn, so the squadren can not get KPs as effectively as it can if it were 3 seperate Sentinals but when its 3 seperate sentinals its easier to give kps to the opponent as each 1 is worth a KP

ultimately it balances out

decker_cky
26-03-2009, 08:38
KP or something was needed to stop spamming. I think something that would've worked better would have been that each unit fully killed is worth +X pts. Same problem would exist, just the scale is much lower.

Ronin_eX
26-03-2009, 08:39
KP are not meant to make sense. They are meant to balance the fact that without them, there is no reason to not spam MSUs.

If morale still mattered that would fix that in a less artificial way. Multiple Small Units are a problem because there is no real consequence. In general the consequence is that the squad can be made ineffectual much quicker than a larger squad by causing a few casualties and breaking morale.

Again, GW came up with a band-aid solution for a problem instead of determining why there was a problem to begin with. Make the morale system useful again and MSU will become more specialized and only useful in certain armies(like it is in WFB).

Kill points are a solution to MSU (which wouldn't be a problem with well written rules) as well as speeding up the post game (which is really only important in tournament settings come to think of it).

It penalizes armies forced to take multiple units (Guard) and it doesn't take actual value into account. It is also a binary state of destroyed or not destroyed so leaving even a single mini in a squad loses you a kill point even if the squad isn't a threat and another is. Thus (because of the inane lack of splitting fire in the game) you need to then waste resources or make bad tactical decisions in order to get that kill point instead of dealing with actual threats.

Is it so hard to use the 2nd Edition style VP system. A squad worth less than 100 points is only worth a VP when destroyed, above 100 it is worth 1 VP for half casualties and 1 VP for destruction. This "destroyed" value is increased by one if it is above 200 points. Just calculate VP for squads when making your army and at the end of the game you just tally it up. That gives the simplicity of kill points with only a little extra work while taking actual unit value into account.

When killing a handful of throw away units yields the same value as killing an elite, well-armoured unit then things are out of whack. In the end it is a broken system that exists only because GW don't actually know what they should fix in their rules.

The Clairvoyant
26-03-2009, 09:15
I've only had one KP game

It was a 1000pt game against a randomer in GW.

He had a chaos army consisting of 2 oblits, one lash sorcerer, one berserker unit, one unit of thousand sons and some noise marines.

I had 3 units of 20 ork boyz, a unit of nobz led by a warboss, a unit of lootas, two deffkoptas and a basic Battlewagon with big shoota.

It was a very close fight, but in the end i wiped him out. In terms of actual KPs, it was 6-5 to me.

I actually enjoyed playing the game where it was annihilation rather than just sitting on an objective. I'd have felt the same if i'd lost too.

I think KPs are there as a balancing act against armies designed for capturing objectives.

Somebody mentioned biovore spore mines giving up KPs. If i was facing tyranids i'd never expect to get a KP for each one. Thats just silly.

a squig
26-03-2009, 09:22
i dislike them alot , i had a perfect example of stupid win for my oponent, he asked to play my Mc nid army with cyborg orks i was up for a laugh. anway at the end of the game i had 4 carnifexs left and he had 3 boys traped between the 4 incoming fexs most on full wounds.

He won because he killed my flanking stealers after they killed his looters etc. he had to leave, but another round and there would be no more orks on the table but i stll would of lost due to KP :(

Lord Damocles
26-03-2009, 10:29
another round and there would be no more orks on the table but i stll would of lost due to KP :(
Or, you would have followed the rules, and won due to wipeout...


WIPEOUT!
Regardless of the victory conditions, if at the end of any standard mission your enemy has no units left on the table, you win the game!

Vaktathi
26-03-2009, 11:07
The point value of a unit no longer matters in KP, which isn't a problem

using you're sentinal example, a squad of 3 may only be 1 KP but can only shot at 1 unit per turn, so the squadren can not get KPs as effectively as it can if it were 3 seperate Sentinals but when its 3 seperate sentinals its easier to give kps to the opponent as each 1 is worth a KP

Ah, but as a counterpoint, my 420pt Khornate terminator squad may only shoot one squad per turn, but may be able to make a multiple assault into many enemies (my record so far is 4 units with one charge). So it may maul one unit with shooting and eat several in an assault.

Also, with a squadron, there are other drawbacks which are intended to balance out the ability to split fire. Squadron vehicles are hit as a unit, not individually, meaning 2 destroyed results with a heavy bolter against sentinels means 2 dead walkers in a squadron, not 2 destroyed results on a single walker. Squadrons also have the further drawback of being destroyed on a glancing hit.



ultimately it balances outI'm still not seeing it. The ability to split fire with independent units is not such a great boon, nor is it necessarily worth much in a lot of units cases, that KP's are in any way anything but a tremendous overbalance in the opposite direction.




KP are not meant to make sense. They are meant to balance the fact that without them, there is no reason to not spam MSUs. I've seen this argument many times, but I'm having trouble believing that this was in fact the designers intent, as opposed to simply making victory tabulation easier.

It's also an extremely hamfisted and ill fitting approach to solving this problem as there are many cases where armies have little choice *but* to use MSU's (Tau) or simply have lots of normal sized, but cheap units (IG, and no, IG isn't going to get all of its KP problems solved).




Simply put, any mission where the objective is the annihilation of an opponent and the preservation of ones own force that can end in a victory for the force that took the most casualties and killed the least in terms of relative proportion of the overall enemy force, but merely killed more discrete units of maneuver, is borked, flat out borked.



Somebody mentioned biovore spore mines giving up KPs. If i was facing tyranids i'd never expect to get a KP for each one. Thats just silly. Except they do. They are a unit. As such, when killed, they give up a kill point. Same as Tau gun drones off their vehicles. Same with (at least until may 2nd) 40pt IG Platoon Command squads giving up 2 KP's.

It's all silly. But that's how kill points work. They are silly.





KP's work in games like Flames of War because armies generally have similar numbers of units, in a 1750pt almost every army will have 5-7 units (and the majority will have exactly 6). When all armies are built in such a manner, they can work. KP's don't work when one army has 21 kill points and the other has 9.

IJW
26-03-2009, 11:20
And that's exactly the problem with KP's. They don't take into account the relative value of a unit
Points values are pretty abstract in the first place, especially when you start comparing across books and editions. KPs a just a step more abstract. Objective games don't take the relative points values of units into account either. I agree that they can lead to some odd situations, though.


It penalizes armies forced to take multiple units (Guard) and it doesn't take actual value into account. It is also a binary state of destroyed or not destroyed so leaving even a single mini in a squad loses you a kill point even if the squad isn't a threat and another is. Thus (because of the inane lack of splitting fire in the game) you need to then waste resources or make bad tactical decisions in order to get that kill point instead of dealing with actual threats.
For me, you just summed up why I find KPs more bearable than a lot of posters seem to - to get all those KPs for 'larger' armies you have to 'waste' resources by taking pressure off the other units.

Although whether you can call anything that fulfils the mission objectives as 'bad tactical decisions' or 'waste' comes down to semantics - by my definition, anything that goes towards the victory conditions isn't bad tactics.


Is it so hard to use the 2nd Edition style VP system. A squad worth less than 100 points is only worth a VP when destroyed, above 100 it is worth 1 VP for half casualties and 1 VP for destruction.
If you want to see every army list made up of 99pt, 199pt, 299pt etc. units again, sure. Just remember that it could lead to bigger VP/KP imbalances than 5th ed. KPs if one player kept strictly to '1 point less than a multiple of a hundred' and the other player didn't, or had lots of <100pt models/units running around.

Even with two near-identical same-codex armies you could end up with imbalances because one player had 11 x 180pt units (11VP) and the other had 9 x 220pt units (18VP). That's potentially the same unit types, the same number of figures, the same upgrades, but organised slightly differently.

MasterDecoy
26-03-2009, 11:27
The are only 2 real fair ways to work out an annhilation mission.

the first is to count up VP equal to what you killed (on a model by model basis).

However this requires far more math than your average joe can muster, It would also require much more time at the end of the game adding it up.

Another Fair idea would be to count up all your models in your army (perhaps make vehicles and MC's count as 5) then work out a percentage of models killed.

Like the aforementiond VP method this requires far more math than your average joe can muster however.

Any other method will produce weird situations, and gamey attiditudes.

Bunnahabhain
26-03-2009, 11:28
If morale still mattered that would fix that in a less artificial way. Multiple Small Units are a problem because there is no real consequence. In general the consequence is that the squad can be made ineffectual much quicker than a larger squad by causing a few casualties and breaking morale.

Again, GW came up with a band-aid solution for a problem instead of determining why there was a problem to begin with. Make the morale system useful again and MSU will become more specialized and only useful in certain armies(like it is in WFB).

Kill points are a solution to MSU (which wouldn't be a problem with well written rules) as well as speeding up the post game (which is really only important in tournament settings come to think of it).

It penalizes armies forced to take multiple units (Guard) and it doesn't take actual value into account. It is also a binary state of destroyed or not destroyed so leaving even a single mini in a squad loses you a kill point even if the squad isn't a threat and another is. Thus (because of the inane lack of splitting fire in the game) you need to then waste resources or make bad tactical decisions in order to get that kill point instead of dealing with actual threats.

When killing a handful of throw away units yields the same value as killing an elite, well-armoured unit then things are out of whack. In the end it is a broken system that exists only because GW don't actually know what they should fix in their rules.

This sums up my view rather well


Is it so hard to use the 2nd Edition style VP system. A squad worth less than 100 points is only worth a VP when destroyed, above 100 it is worth 1 VP for half casualties and 1 VP for destruction. This "destroyed" value is increased by one if it is above 200 points. Just calculate VP for squads when making your army and at the end of the game you just tally it up. That gives the simplicity of kill points with only a little extra work while taking actual unit value into account.



This paragraph, however, I totally disagree with. This kind of system makes a 199pt unit much better than a200pt one , as it's worth half as many kill points. This leads to very constrained builds.

Victory points take the units worth into account, and don't have this problem. Adding up a few double or triple digit numbers is not hard, especially as you either have an army list with you or are playing an approximate game with freinds, with a codex you know like the back of your hand, so you know that mech sisters squad is always 214pts.

Vitroc
26-03-2009, 11:32
KP's haven't been bothering me so much. The last of the dutch Gt's the scenario's gave the mayor victorie outlining. Even though I played a WON gaunt/ TMC list (70+ models) this hasn't been bothering me much.

Vaktathi
26-03-2009, 11:37
Points values are pretty abstract in the first place, especially when you start comparing across books and editions. Sure, although much of that is the result of GW's schedule of releasing each army every 4-9 years (without rhyme, reason, or pattern) across editions and without updates.


KPs a just a step more abstract. The problem is that KP's don't measure value at all. They simply measure discrete units of maneuver. Nothing more.

If I lose 3 units of Gun Drones off devilfish transports I don't give a flying ****. If I lose a Daemon Prince, a large Terminator Squad, and my Oblits, I care a lot.


Objective games don't take the relative points values of units into account either. Ah, but there the point isn't the destruction of the enemy force, but the accomplishment of an objective. The enemy force's value has no bearing on the victory conditions. My entire force is secondary to the imperative of capturing the objective.

In a KP game my mission is to destroy the enemy while keeping my own force intact. How many distinct maneuver groups are killed should be irrelevant. The amount of the enemy force I destroy and how much of mine I keep intact is what really should matter. The number of maneuver groups isn't necessarily by any means reflective of this, and thus, is a flawed way of measuring victory.

Vitroc
26-03-2009, 11:44
Vaktathi I don't quite agree with your saying that objective based games do not limit certain army constructs.
Perhaps I am playing devils advocate here, but during objective based games you need a certain amount of (mobile) troop units.
Not all armies can reliable do this.

W0lf
26-03-2009, 11:52
If I lose 3 units of Gun Drones off devilfish transports I don't give a flying ****. If I lose a Daemon Prince, a large Terminator Squad, and my Oblits, I care a lot.

1. Not a single pro-KP player thinks gundrones giving KPs should work that way and my GG dont.

2. In any mission exept KPs i wouldnt care if my prince, termies and oblits died. Because it means my marines are alive in their place and winning the game. In KP id mourn their loss the same.

I like KPs. Simple and decisive. I like tournaments and playing vs a plethora of people you quickly see how annoying VPs can be (when your opponent has no idea of maths and you have to recalcuklate your VPs infront of them for the third time in a day well..)

Tbh W40K is full of imbalance and always will be. KPs just adds to the list of problems, and tbh KPs bother me far less then Nob bikers, uber-councils, mech eldar, lash+oblit spam and fast vehicles contesting last turn.

Vaktathi
26-03-2009, 11:56
Vaktathi I don't quite agree with your saying that objective based games do not limit certain army constructs.
Perhaps I am playing devils advocate here, but during objective based games you need a certain amount of (mobile) troop units.
Not all armies can reliable do this.

Oh I didn't say that, in fact I'll agree with your assertion. My point was that the relative value of the enemies force, as well as their destruction was irrelevant. I can lose 100,000 points and 97 KP's worth of dudes to achieve the objective. I can win with 100pts or 100,000pts. I can lose by the same token. My enemy can be untouched and my force mauled, but I can still win by accomplishing the objective. This is fine when the point of the mission isn't the destruction of the enemy and the preservation of your own force but rather the capture of ground or some other objective, but when the former is the objective, simply measuring by units of maneuver is flawed greatly.


1. Not a single pro-KP player thinks gundrones giving KPs should work that way I've met plenty that think it's perfectly legitimate in other similar threads. Either way, That's not the point. The point is that KP's aren't measuring either the proportion or value of enemy forces, simply units of maneuver. Killing 3 super cheap units should not equal in any way the value of 3 large units.



and my GG dont. Then you are using a house rule if you are not counting them. They are a *unit*. Kill points are awarded for every *unit* destroyed, regardless of size, cost or value.



2. In any mission exept KPs i wouldnt care if my prince, termies and oblits died. Because it means my marines are alive in their place and winning the game. In KP id mourn their loss the same. Missed the point, replace whatever units you want in there, any big powerful/important unit lost *should* be worth more to the other players victory tally than killing much less capable and important units.



I like KPs. Simple and decisive. That's fine, but don't try to argue them as a balanced method of determining victory then. Killing 3 Chimera's and a Guard squad and losing your Chapter Master, two tac squads and a Land Raider in an annihilation game should be a Guard victory, not a tie. Killing a Farseer, two full units of Wraithguard, and a Dire Avenger Squad at the cost of a Tac Squad, two Rhinos, a drop pod and a Techpriest should be an SM victory by any reckoning, not an Eldar win.


I like tournaments and playing vs a plethora of people you quickly see how annoying VPs can be (when your opponent has no idea of maths and you have to recalcuklate your VPs infront of them for the third time in a day well..) That has nothing to do with the game balance, only the ease of determining victory (and in all reality unless it's a close game, only the margin of victory).

This line of reasoning only exists because people are too lazy to get a damn $2 calculator, not because of any valid game balance concern. If that is more important, then that is fine, but it's not a solid basis for arguing game balance.

Xelloss
26-03-2009, 12:00
Just got an idea, need your opinion : how about defining that all non-HQ independant characters and "living munitions/wargear" (bio-spores, drones, etc...) don't count as KP and can't contest objectives. They would become a way to distract the ennemy, who will have to choose between earning KP/deal with units that can contest objectives, or deal with such units that can be a physical threat to them.

HQ independant characters have an additional value, since they are the head of the army.

Ronin_eX
26-03-2009, 17:23
If you want to see every army list made up of 99pt, 199pt, 299pt etc. units again, sure. Just remember that it could lead to bigger VP/KP imbalances than 5th ed. KPs if one player kept strictly to '1 point less than a multiple of a hundred' and the other player didn't, or had lots of <100pt models/units running around.

Even with two near-identical same-codex armies you could end up with imbalances because one player had 11 x 180pt units (11VP) and the other had 9 x 220pt units (18VP). That's potentially the same unit types, the same number of figures, the same upgrades, but organised slightly differently.

Is it any wonder I hate the tourney mindset so much? :p

Yup that would be a problem, I will admit. In that case I see the best way to do it as simply bringing back victory points as the point value of the army. I suppose if they work then there is little value in replacing them.

In the end this is why I prefer objective only games though. Even with the occaisional "one squad left against many" it is easier for me to imagine that the end of the game involves reinforcements coming in as 40k is based around being part of a larger battle. In epic terms it would be like winning a close assault and forcing the enemy off before retaining the initiative to reinforce the winning with troops from a mounted unit or by bombarding the hell out of the losing forces. Since objective only battles aren't fought in a vacuum and are part of a bigger front even if it ends up being one squad holding out against several the outcome seems more logical than not.

So for me I'd probably just advocate leaving victory points at home and basing it all off of objectives (ala Cities of Death). Annihilation can even turn into the 40k version of Epic's 'Break their Spirit' objective where you need to destroy the most powerful unit in order to win. But personally I don't think that is even really needed (maybe a random secondary objective of an actual mission). But I grew tired of set 'em up knock 'em down a while ago.

IJW
26-03-2009, 17:42
So for me I'd probably just advocate leaving victory points at home and basing it all off of objectives (ala Cities of Death).
Which would be fine with me - I always preferred objective-based scenarios. :)

Always nice to find a point of agreement.

Marshal Augustine
26-03-2009, 17:46
KP can be tough. Up here in CAD the gaming group has opted to use the secondary objectives that have been designed for tournament play. They add a lot to a game, especially when it is KP's

Badger[Fr]
26-03-2009, 18:40
KP are not meant to make sense. They are meant to balance the fact that without them, there is no reason to not spam MSUs.
What about the new wound allocation system? Or increasing standard squad sizes (no more 5-man SM Tactical Squads)?

The sad truth is that KP do not balance objectives-based games. A Plague Marine squad or an Ork mob excel at holding objectives, yet are worth only one miserable KP.

Grazzy
26-03-2009, 18:56
I did prefer victory points, as killpoints just do not make much sense. Some armies are simply better at killpoints missions due to their list - see orks.

evilsponge
26-03-2009, 19:58
Kill points were GW's answer to streamlining victory condidtions that, like many rules GW makes, is half-baked and not really thought out. (ex. a unit of 30 orks being worth the same amonut of KPs as a 10 man guard squad)

Spyral
26-03-2009, 20:05
Guard Officers will no longer be Independent Characters.
Guard infantry squads can merge into 1 big squad in then codex, making them less effective but less KP.
(Made up) Special Rule: Living Ammunition: The Biovore fires spore mines which act independently and float around the battlefield if they survive being shot out of the Biovore (i.e they didn't hit anything). However these do not count as Kill Points as they are in fact ammunition.
(Made up) Special Rule: Expendable: The Tau manufacture million of drones and they are easily replaced. Drones do not count as kill points.

The real issue is why don't GW get their tenticles out and issue an FAQ to this effect. It smacks of lazyness tbh. But I agree drones and biovores shouldn't give kp, IG shouldnt give 2 kps either for that squad. Its a farce really.



Except they do. They are a unit. As such, when killed, they give up a kill point. Same as Tau gun drones off their vehicles. Same with (at least until may 2nd) 40pt IG Platoon Command squads giving up 2 KP's.

One could argue that unless it has been specifically killed by the enemy then it has actually killed itself. It is not part of the starting army list so isn't part of the army.



However this requires far more math than your average joe can muster, It would also require much more time at the end of the game adding it up.

Since when is warhammer or 40k for the average joe ? I realise GW want to suck in more people but they shoudnt alienate their established customers

MasterDecoy
26-03-2009, 21:45
Since when is warhammer or 40k for the average joe ? I realise GW want to suck in more people but they shoudnt alienate their established customers

So your saying that ordenary people dont play warhammer, or your not alloud to if you arnt strong with math?

Thats pretty "snobbish"

samiens
26-03-2009, 22:15
look, kill points just provide a different tactical challenge to victory points- and in fairness it is easier to keep track of the score with kill points- i found it much more tense than old vp games (especially as unless you're great at maths in your head you won't besure who's winning so can't plan for that)

KIll points, like troops only scoring, pushes a different kind of build an d may be a direct attack on min-maxing that used to be the 'big evil' in 40k. Personally, I don't care either way- and no I don't find kill points hollow victories- I used to really dislike everyone taking even numbered units just because they didn't give away vps that easily (it would be odd numbers with the 5th ed vp rules)

At the end of the day, don't play kill points if you don't like it, some of us enjoy the rather different challenge and its certainly added a differemnt dimension to balancing a list for tournament play

noobzilla
26-03-2009, 22:28
This to me is nothing but a gigantic BMC thread.

Lame Duck
26-03-2009, 22:57
A much easier way to promote larger squads would be to fix the points.

Ie squad of 5 ys costs 100 points
may have up to 5 more ys costing 12 points each.

That encourages larger squads cost wise, but you have to balance that with the fact that smaller units can hold more objectives, cover wider areas, can slpit fire and that would do away with the need for killpoints all together.

Vaktathi
26-03-2009, 22:58
look, kill points just provide a different tactical challenge to victory points- and in fairness it is easier to keep track of the score with kill points- i found it much more tense than old vp games (especially as unless you're great at maths in your head you won't besure who's winning so can't plan for that)

KIll points, like troops only scoring, pushes a different kind of build an d may be a direct attack on min-maxing that used to be the 'big evil' in 40k. Personally, I don't care either way- and no I don't find kill points hollow victories- I used to really dislike everyone taking even numbered units just because they didn't give away vps that easily (it would be odd numbers with the 5th ed vp rules)

At the end of the day, don't play kill points if you don't like it, some of us enjoy the rather different challenge and its certainly added a differemnt dimension to balancing a list for tournament play

The problem is that the armies aren't built around it. For KP's to be reasonably balanced all armies should have close to the same number of KP's (like in Flames of War where such a system works well, where there are both objectives and KP's in the same mission and showing up with fewer units is almost always a detriment, with most armies having 6 units) which isn't the case. You generally have MEQ armies and Orks with 7-13 (a huge distribution in and of itself), and then IG/Eldar/Tau/Dark Eldar with 14-22. One army showing up with 9 KP's and the other with 21 has a huge chance of a stilted victory. It's kinda like measuring who won a soccer game by counting up who had possession the longest rather than who scored the most goals.

For simple and easy victory tabulation, it works I guess but isn't an accurate representation of annihilation of the enemy force and doesn't really represent who should have won in many cases.


The problems with VP's other than taking the time it took to add it up were not a problem with the underlying concept, merely implementation. KP's on the other hand have a bad underlying concept, they just don't accurately reflect the victor of the battle. Losing 3 guard squads and a Chimera while killing 3 Land Raiders in most peoples book is an IG solid victory, but under KP's is an IG loss, which makes no sense.


This to me is nothing but a gigantic BMC thread. That was a wonderfully constructive post:rolleyes:. And making a BMC post about a BMC thread is any better?

noobzilla
26-03-2009, 23:12
That was a wonderfully constructive post:rolleyes:. And making a BMC post about a BMC thread is any better?

Well I wasn't trying to BMC about it, but I was to state on obvious fact (IMO) :D

Blinder
26-03-2009, 23:14
The only "tactical challenge" kill points provide is when you decide what army you're going to play- VPs, for all their flaws, at least represented a rough % of enemy killed and friendlies preserved. If KPs were "1 KP for every full 10% of the enemy's units killed" I could buy it, but as they are they just punish armies which have to take more "units" to fill out a given points value, and adds an extra fist to the gut for armies with "freebie" or "temporary" units (gun drones and spore mines, both of which are ridiculous and should have been FAQ'd the day the rules came out).

sliganian
27-03-2009, 01:09
The only "tactical challenge" kill points provide is when you decide what army you're going to play- VPs, for all their flaws, at least represented a rough % of enemy killed and friendlies preserved. If KPs were "1 KP for every full 10% of the enemy's units killed" I could buy it, but as they are they just punish armies which have to take more "units" to fill out a given points value, and adds an extra fist to the gut for armies with "freebie" or "temporary" units (gun drones and spore mines, both of which are ridiculous and should have been FAQ'd the day the rules came out).

Interestingly (and perhaps not surprisingly....) Space Marines can work the KP system over better than most via Combat Squads.

Given that a strong build of SM also likely means that one can max on the Combat squad ability, if the game sudden is a Kill Point affair, the SM player simply chooses NOT to Combat Squad.

Example for those still lost:
3*10 Tactical squad divided into Combat Squads = 6 Scoring units in an Objectives Game. Sure, it would equal 6 Kill Points, but they aren't here today are they? Huzzah! My Troops have doubled!

Ooops! A KP Game?

3*10 Tatical Squad NOT Combat Squaded = 3 KP's. Huzzah! I halved the KP's you can get from killing my Troops.

samiens
27-03-2009, 02:41
I can see all the negative points to kill points- for starters they in no way represent annihalating an enemy as has already been stated! That said, i think at a competitive level they do affect the way in which players choose armies and I do think there's a tactical challenge to a kill point game and one that differs from a vp game.

I agree that logically it makes no sense in the example of an IG kill point defeat that was given above, except in the abstract medium of the game where it has its own internal (though quite probably flawed logic)

My personal opinion, as I'm wading in anyway lol, is that its a heavy handed answer to a problem posed by VPs. Its different, but just as VPs benefitted some compositions, KPs benefit various compositions. I'm not really an advocate of the way it worked in 4th- where so often objectives were ignored because they weren't worth enough and the majority of the game was simply a shoot/stab them up fest with a mad dash at the end. That said, I can't think of a non-abusable way of making this kind of mission- maybe it should have been taken out altogether?

Either way, I don't find kill point victories cheap as they require skills and tactics to win that is based on the victory conditions. Some armies find it easier its true, but then some armies are more likely to trigger the wipe out victory and some hold objectives easily while some struggle. If the balance of which armies could do which things was fairer (i.e. if Tau were good at taking objectives the fact that they crap KPs wouldn't be a big issue) then Kps might not be seen as so bad.

noobzor
27-03-2009, 04:19
Well, I see no reason to complain, as there is no way to get rid of KPs.

Plus I think it is OK, as I never really care who wins. Just look at my dismal record. I am playing last chancers. My HQ and 2 troops gives up 4-8 KPs depending on how I deploy them.

I think KPs could use an overhaul for the more strange situations (tau drones, spoer mines) and possible be weighed based on category, like the 5th edition rumors had it as. HQ was worth 3, Elites and Fast and Heavy 2, troops 1 (I think). This would have been better. Of course, there still is the problem of Guard HQ's giving up waaaay too many KPs...

ehlijen
27-03-2009, 04:47
;3410931']What about the new wound allocation system? Or increasing standard squad sizes (no more 5-man SM Tactical Squads)?

The sad truth is that KP do not balance objectives-based games. A Plague Marine squad or an Ork mob excel at holding objectives, yet are worth only one miserable KP.

How does wound allocation affect sentinel squadrons? Or obliterators? Or Necrons? Or tyranids? Even Tau crisis suits aren't that worried (their squads were never big to begin with).

Abusing MSU is using several small identical units (obliterators and crisis suits are the most infamous for this, but far from the only ones) in much the same way as you'd use one larger unit. Except no wounds spill over and you save the points for target locks.

I didn't say KP balance objective missions, I said they balance the inherent superiority of two small units over one big one. Wound allocation has helped, but there are still enough units that don't care about that. Restricting access to heavies has helped, but combat squads has mostly negated that once again. Sure I need 10 to take a LC, but with combat squads I can still MSU spam.

Also: KP are not meant to be a replacement for VP. They are meant to be a different kind of objective. Why is it that an army that looses all but one squad but still wins an objective mission 1-0 is seen as herioc, whereas an army that has one squad left but wins a KP mission by one point is seen as not really being the winner?

Imperius
27-03-2009, 05:04
I don't like kill points, because I have no clue what they are! But what I do to see if I get a 'moral' victory, is see if my units kill more points than they are worth.

IE a squad of Imperial Guardsmen for 71 Points killing 74 Points of Orks before being slaughtered.

LordofWar1986
27-03-2009, 05:09
There is a simple solution to playing in a game where you know KP's are going to be used, don't take so many for your opponent to stack up against you :p.

If you can't control if it's used or not, prepare for the worst then, like I always do :).

RichBlake
27-03-2009, 05:13
I don't like kill points, because I have no clue what they are! But what I do to see if I get a 'moral' victory, is see if my units kill more points than they are worth.

IE a squad of Imperial Guardsmen for 71 Points killing 74 Points of Orks before being slaughtered.

Thats not a particularly good way of judging it.

I played a game of Daemonhunters vs Imperial Guard once, my Callidus Assassin moved his conscript meatshield together by 6" at the start of the game allowing my terminators to go through the gap they left and when the assassin herself appeared she kept using her neural shredder to stun the demolisher so it couldn't fire.

She didn't kill anyone but the demolisher couldn't wipe out my termies and she made a gap with her special rule. Was she useless?

I judge moral victories by how the game went and who won and why. Since that is entirely subjective then you cannot use maths to figure it out. There are plenty of games I have drawn or won that I didn't deserve to, plenty more when lady luck has just shown how much she hates me and I didn't deserve to lose.

Ideally the winner would be declared by who actually played the game best, but that would involve a judge, plus it would take away from the "game" side of the game.

LordofWar1986
27-03-2009, 05:18
I played a game of Daemonhunters vs Imperial Guard once, my Callidus Assassin moved his conscript meatshield together by 6" at the start of the game allowing my terminators to go through the gap they left and when the assassin herself appeared she kept using her neural shredder to stun the demolisher so it couldn't fire.

Now that is some good use of tactics there RickBlake, I tip my hat to you :) I would have never thought of doing that if I used that assassin.

To the OP: Sorry to get off topic, I had to say that.