PDA

View Full Version : How to fix kill-point complaining.



Sir_Lunchalot
13-11-2009, 13:03
After seeing yet another "kill points suck" thread, I thought of a way to make kill points less annoying. For the record, as a player who's used Guard for years, I've spent my fair share of hating kill points, but I've warmed to them. Anyways, the idea is this: multiple objectives. Not as in two or three points to control, but two or three victory conditions.

I got the idea from a tournament I was in last weekend (and on a side note, thank you to whoever at Conquest Calgary decided to give me this lovely cold) where all the missions had primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives. getting only primary was a minor win, get the secondary it's major, get all three and it's a massacre. Why don't we do this in normal games? Use kill points, objectives and table quarters, and randomize the objective priority. I think it would make for a better game.

Xelloss
13-11-2009, 13:21
The idea is good, but is better done with VP, as armies can be good in all three current victory conditions, and others can be bad with all of them.

KP is so much flawed we would better use our time trying to improve VP system instead of trying to get a half-backed KP-derivated one...

Deetwo
13-11-2009, 13:39
The problem with victory points in 5th edition is that they simply don't offer a meaningful counterweight to objective missions. VPs work best as a partial victory condition.. Which is pretty apparent now, comparing how list building and gameplay has evolved from 3rd and 4th to 5th edition (in general terms.. outliers like 6KP nob biker orks are not an indication of overall balance)

Annihilation change back to VPs would mean also the objective missions would need to be overhauled.

Hellgore
13-11-2009, 13:42
As I said in the other "I hate KP"-thread:

Use the 5x5-Mission: 5 Objectives and 5 nominated units that count as KP. That's at the same time easy and complex enough for really good and satisfying games. Only the Setup is rolled for. Just a minor tweak of the official rules, but tactically demanding and interesting.

Vaktathi
13-11-2009, 13:42
After seeing yet another "kill points suck" thread, I thought of a way to make kill points less annoying. For the record, as a player who's used Guard for years, I've spent my fair share of hating kill points, but I've warmed to them. Anyways, the idea is this: multiple objectives. Not as in two or three points to control, but two or three victory conditions.

I got the idea from a tournament I was in last weekend (and on a side note, thank you to whoever at Conquest Calgary decided to give me this lovely cold) where all the missions had primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives. getting only primary was a minor win, get the secondary it's major, get all three and it's a massacre. Why don't we do this in normal games? Use kill points, objectives and table quarters, and randomize the objective priority. I think it would make for a better game.

It still doesn't solve the problem that KP's are inherently divorced from the reality of the game, they take no no account of what a unit is actually worth, it's capabilities, staying power, etc. You can have the exact same combination of models in many cases be worth multiple different KP values.

They just don't make any sense, and really aren't any counterbalance to the supposed advantage that KP heavy armies are supposed to have in objective games. We really don't see people having issues with objective missions, it's KP's that continue reoccuring as a source of frustration with the current rules.

Whitehorn
13-11-2009, 13:50
We're experimenting with cascading objectives - a bit like Planetstrike. If you are drawn on objectives, you compare kill points to find the winner.

big squig
13-11-2009, 13:55
The best method is to drop them and VP from the game entirely.

Though, the objective holding/contesting rules could use some work too. The only well written part about objectives is making only troops scoring.

JHZ
13-11-2009, 13:57
How to fix complaining? Duct tape. (http://www.captainsquid.com/go/duct_tape.jpg)

Deetwo
13-11-2009, 13:57
We really don't see people having issues with objective missions, it's KP's that continue reoccuring as a source of frustration with the current rules.

Really? During tournaments I've been to, the scenario people seem to resent the most is capture&control.

Brother Enok
13-11-2009, 13:59
We're experimenting with cascading objectives - a bit like Planetstrike. If you are drawn on objectives, you compare kill points to find the winner.

This is an oustanding Idear. I think I'll suggest this to my regular opponents, only swap KP for VP.

HsojVvad
13-11-2009, 14:00
Ok, playing my first game tomorrow, so I don't have any experiance in playing games. Is KP really that bad? Is it because when ever anyone makes an army they make the army for objective based missions and not KP missions?

Please don't shoot me, I just don't understand since I never played a real game yet.

Vaktathi
13-11-2009, 14:01
Really? During tournaments I've been to, the scenario people seem to resent the most is capture&control.
to clarify, in relation to the supposed balance element of KP's to some advantage that armies with lots of KP's have.

C&C, as compared to SG, is probably the mission where the above issue is minimized.

C&C just is too easy to end up as a draw, although in terms of overall balance, it's probably the best one, hence why it often ends in draws. It's very difficult to attain a massive advantage in this mission.


Ok, playing my first game tomorrow, so I don't have any experiance in playing games. Is KP really that bad? Is it because when ever anyone makes an army they make the army for objective based missions and not KP missions?

Please don't shoot me, I just don't understand since I never played a real game yet. KP's are an awkward mechanic because you can win even if you really should lose.

Take an IG army with 23 KP's at 2000pts against a Space Marine army with 14. The IG army may lose 10 of those KP's, but still be mostly intact and capable of fighting. The SM army might lose 9 and be broken. The SM army will have lost the great majority of it's strength, models, and units, while the IG army still has the majority of its fighting strength left. However because the only thing measured is destruction of discrete elements of maneuver (units) as opposed to the *actual* proportion of the enemies force, the SM army would win even though it inflicted less damage on the IG army and took far more damage itself.

MVBrandt
13-11-2009, 14:02
Victory Points work great. We use 'em. Kill points are ... as stated well already ... utterly divorced from reality.

A rhino is not and will never be worth a land raider, and a million other analogous problems exist.

I watched a friend of mine utterly pound the crap out of a demons player last night with his orks, but the demons player killed all his trukks ... and none of them until after they'd delivered their boyz to assaults. That made enough of a difference for the demons player to win, despite having only 3 horrors left alive, out of his original ~40 horrors, 3 demon princes, lord of change, fateweaver, fiends, flamers.

The more units a game encourages being fielded, the more tactical it becomes. 20 units vs. 20 units is inherently open to far more depth than 10 vs 10.

I will wait for the obligatory retardedly bad gamers posting things like "NU UH KILL POINTZ IS ONLY BAD IF U CAN'T BILD GUD LIZTS."

Gaargod
13-11-2009, 14:03
Actually, we do get people complaining about objectives - more or less that it often comes down to a turn 5 turboboost/flat out to grab/contest objectives. However, with random game lengths, this isn't as big a problem as could be.

However yes, kill points is the one that comes up the most. Obviously, the only real answer for kill point style missions is a complete and total add up of all points (as in, VP) killed, accounting for each individual model and their gear. However, that's not going to happen any time soon, as it goes against the whole 'easy play' thing GW are introducing.

@Hellegore: doesn't that just result in people picking their hardest units as KPs? I know i would - meaning that some armies (i.e. TH/SS termies in a land raider with Lysander or someone as 3 KPs) have an advantageas their hard to get KPs are harder than everyone else's. Mix of objectives and KPs isn't a bad idea tho...


Realistically, i think they should a) increase the number of missions, meaning there's a little less reliance on 2/3 objectives (maybe a 'assassinate a HQ mission', etc) and b) change kill points to victory points.



Edit: Wow. Ninja'd. A lot.

HsojVvad
13-11-2009, 14:15
A rhino is not and will never be worth a land raider, and a million other comparable issues.



I would have to disagree with you there. Put it this way, if you are in Afganistan or any country where you are fighting a stronger opponent, you don't care if it's a "land raider" or "rhino". (take these examples for what ever equivilent to real life tank is today) To you, it's a tank and you destroyed it.

You think the Taliban goes, "ah darn, we destroyed a rhino instead of a land raider". Hell no, they are happy at destroying anything and flaunt it on tv of what they did. They don't care that one is more VP than the other. To them it's a KP. Just like if they shoot down a drone, helicopter or airplane. It's the same, to them. They shot something down and it boosts their morale when they do.

So a rhino or land raider,to them gives the same boost in morale so it would be the same KP for them, while the US would say it's VP, because one costs more than the other.

So if you guys are really that upset about kill points, make yourself the USA, and you do all the calculations in VP, and let the other player play KP. This way he can say he one in KP and you won in VP. This just shows how people are upset at loosing in KP missions. Are you really that bothered in loosing? Maybe you just don't know how to play KP missions. Maybe you don't know how to make an army for KP missions.

Take the war in Afghanistan again. The Allies play VP missions, and the Taliban play KP missions. By going by 5th edtion rules, the Taliban are still around because they do KP mode, while the Allies are still stuck in VP mode.

Not saying this is how it's real life, just trying to get KP in perspective. Yes it's unbalnaced. Yets it's not fair for some armies. Yes most people hate it, and if you don't like it, don't play it. If you can do a better job, then do it. GW says to change the rules as you see fit.

Hellgore
13-11-2009, 14:20
@Hellegore: doesn't that just result in people picking their hardest units as KPs? I know i would - meaning that some armies (i.e. TH/SS termies in a land raider with Lysander or someone as 3 KPs) have an advantageas their hard to get KPs are harder than everyone else's. Mix of objectives and KPs isn't a bad idea tho...


No, you nominate the units of your opponent you think you can kill. And your opponent does the same with 5 of your units. You then try to keep them alive while killing the others :)
It's quite tricky in the first place to choose which units are best suited for KP, as you have to consider that you have to take more objectives than your opponent and that you sometimes need to concentrate fire on tough and dangerous units, while ignoring actually easy-to-kill units for example like landspeeders.
Also, to capture objectives is managed slightly different:

Still, only troops can truely capture. But every other unit can support this, while enemy units add up in order to contest/capture. Every unit counts as 1 point, while troops count as 2 points.
So you need two units of say landspeeders in order to contest an objective held by a chaos-sm-squad (I had that in my last game).
So, no easy last turn rush for contest. You have to plan far more and act tactically as well as strategically sophisticated.
We had so far really great and tricky games with this mission and will continue playing 40k this way.

Vaktathi
13-11-2009, 14:20
I would have to disagree with you there. Put it this way, if you are in Afganistan or any country where you are fighting a stronger opponent, you don't care if it's a "land raider" or "rhino". (take these examples for what ever equivilent to real life tank is today) To you, it's a tank and you destroyed it. I'm sure they care a whole hell of a lot if they kill an Abrams as opposed to a Humvee. Or a Blackhawk as opposed to a Globalhawk.

There's a huge difference there and a 250pt land raider should not be equated equally with a 35pt Rhino.



Take the war in Afghanistan again. The Allies play VP missions, and the Taliban play KP missions. By going by 5th edtion rules, the Taliban are still around because they do KP mode, while the Allies are still stuck in VP mode. Actually, if anything, I'd say it's the other way around. "we're killing so many of them, why haven't we won yet"? with the crowd fighting for VP's making a greater impact by destroying targets of much higher value and utility.

HsojVvad
13-11-2009, 14:24
However yes, kill points is the one that comes up the most. Obviously, the only real answer for kill point style missions is a complete and total add up of all points (as in, VP) killed, accounting for each individual model and their gear. However, that's not going to happen any time soon, as it goes against the whole 'easy play' thing GW are introducing.



Actually VP is very very unbalanced. By going by VP, that means everything is equal. We know that a 10 point Hormagaunt is not the same a 10 point SM, or what ever the prices are. (we can't say individual point costs so I made them up.)

Is a DA SM equal in points to a UM SM? Is a BA SM equal to a SW SM? Is a Tau troop equal to a Ork troop? No they are not. So since the point costs for a say a 20 point mini for Tau is not equale for a 20 point model for Orks. So how is that fair then? People who say VP is better is wrong, because that is an unbalanced system as well. Basically both systems need an overhaul but to say one is better or one is worse is wrong.

How can a Tyraid gaunt cost almost 10 points with fleet, (wich when it was costed, all it did was give it an extra D6 movement instead of firing) and a SM wich gets run for free now, is the same? The tryanids were costed for 4th edtion, while SM is costed for 5th edtion. How is that fair in VP? It's not, since the SM gets more units because they are cheaper, so they have more Attacks then. Example again DA vs UM. in a 2000 point game, and equivilen units, DA has 2000 points while the UM have 2150 points. How is that fair in VP?

Again, I have never played a real game yet, so I am only going by what I read on paper.

Brimstone
13-11-2009, 14:24
A quantity of spam removed please don't do it again.

The Warseer Inquisition

Xelloss
13-11-2009, 14:33
GW says to change the rules as you see fit.
Objection ! (sorry, I couldn't help it). This is a flagrant case of Oberoni fallacy : Stating a rule can be changed doesn't excuse a bad design in the first place.

incarna
13-11-2009, 14:33
Here are my optional rules I hope to use during an upcoming tournament.

Kill Point Variation 1:

Each player must provide a number of kill point markers equal to the point value of the game divided by 100 rounded down. Thus, each player must provide 15 markers in a 1500 point game or 18 markers in an 1850 point game.

After deployment before the first turn starting with the player who deployed LAST players must assign all their kill point markers to units within their army.

A unit may not have more kill point markers assigned to it than its point value divided by 100 rounded up +1. Thus a 365 point unit may have up to 5 kill points assigned to it; 365 / 100 = 3.65 rounded up = 4 +1 = 5. A 50 point unit may have up to 2 kill points assigned to it; 50 / 100 = .5 rounded up = 1 + 1 = 2.

Dedicated transports count as individual units for the purpose of assigning kill points.

Kill point markers are merely tabletop representations of value. Do not measure range to or from kill point markers.

Players earn kill points by destroying units. A player who destroys a unit that had one kill point assigned to it earns one kill point. Likewise, a player who destroys a unit that had four kill points assigned to it earns four kill points.

Units that, for whatever reason, do not enter play by the end of the game, count as being destroyed by the opposing player.

Kill Point Variation 2:

Rules for kill point variation 2 are identical to those of kill point variation 1 with the exception that players assign kill points to their opponents units.

------------------------------

I think this creates a nice compromise between kill points and victory points and adds a second level of strategy to the game. Players must consider how they should most strategically assign kill points to protect them but to not minimize how effective expensive units will be.

HsojVvad
13-11-2009, 14:33
I'm sure they care a whole hell of a lot if they kill an Abrams as opposed to a Humvee. Or a Blackhawk as opposed to a Globalhawk.

There's a huge difference there and a 250pt land raider should not be equated equally with a 35pt Rhino.

Put when they air it on TV, it's the same, the population dosn't care if it's an Abrams or a Humvee, it is destroyed, so it's a KP.


Actually, if anything, I'd say it's the other way around. "we're killing so many of them, why haven't we won yet"? with the crowd fighting for VP's making a greater impact by destroying targets of much higher value and utility.

Hmmm, not shure what you mean. As you said, " we are killing so many of them, why havn't we won yet?" We havn't won yet because that was only 2 KP while we lost 2 tanks wich is 2 KP. As we can see, we did more damage to them, while we lost very little, and we still are tied. WTF? So since we all like realism here, KP seems to be doing what wars in Real Life do. It's not black and white, it's muddied, and life and war is not fair. Since we are playing a War game, it's not fair either.

Maybe we have to adpat better in KP games. Yes I know for some armies it is very hard, so just play the game and have fun.

HsojVvad
13-11-2009, 14:37
Here are my optional rules I hope to use during an upcoming tournament.

Kill Point Variation 1:

Kill Point Variation 2:



------------------------------

I think this creates a nice compromise between kill points and victory points and adds a second level of strategy to the game. Players must consider how they should most strategically assign kill points to protect them but to not minimize how effective expensive units will be.

I like it. It sounds very promising. Have you ever tried it?

Vaktathi
13-11-2009, 14:38
Put when they air it on TV, it's the same, the population dosn't care if it's an Abrams or a Humvee, it is destroyed, so it's a KP.
totally unrelated to the battlefield situation which is all we care about in the 40k game.




Hmmm, not shure what you mean. As you said, " we are killing so many of them, why havn't we won yet?" We havn't won yet because that was only 2 KP while we lost 2 tanks wich is 2 KP. As we can see, we did more damage to them, while we lost very little, and we still are tied. WTF? So since we all like realism here, KP seems to be doing what wars in Real Life do. It's not black and white, it's muddied, and life and war is not fair. Since we are playing a War game, it's not fair either. We kill a lot of them. We rack up the KP's and almost all engagements end up heavily in favor of foreign forces in terms of kill counts. But our stuff is so expensive and so valuable that even minor losses affect us more than heavy human losses have a result on them.



Maybe we have to adpat better in KP games. Yes I know for some armies it is very hard, so just play the game and have fun.That's basically what we do now, but we still have a right to complain about an issue we think needs to be looked at.

incarna
13-11-2009, 14:43
I like it. It sounds very promising. Have you ever tried it?

I have not. I hope to try it out next friday and then impliment it into an upcoming tournament.

HsojVvad
13-11-2009, 14:45
Objection ! (sorry, I couldn't help it). This is a flagrant case of Oberoni fallacy : Stating a rule can be changed doesn't excuse a bad design in the first place.

Oh I agree with you. :D

Bunnahabhain
13-11-2009, 16:51
Errr...Kill them all and let God (of your choice) sort them out...Well it deals with the complaints.

Any value system which gives unequal values to armies of the same points values is fundamentally flawed as a general system- it's fine for special scenarios.

Personally, I favour the survivor points system as the best way to fix KPs. It's quick and simple, works, and is well enough balanced to see us through until 6th ed, which will have all the codexs and rulebook written together, and playtesting, proofreading and I've started daydreaming again, haven't I...

Badger[Fr]
13-11-2009, 16:58
Look, it's another "Are KP broken?" thread! I had my fair share of these, so I won't argue about it, but I recently remarked that, ironically, most (valid, I must admit) criticisms towards KP apply to objective missions as well: they take no account of what an unit is actually worth, they needlessly favour certain builds, they make no sense in terms of background, and they fail to represent accurately the reality of the game.

The old 2nd Edition rules were a clever compromise between KP and VP. Sometime, I might give them a try...

Cheeslord
13-11-2009, 17:03
How about we take a lesson from Worms;- after the last turn the water level rises until everyone drowns, to the player with a unit on the highest platform is a winner! For added realism play your battle in a large fishtank so you can use real water to represent this(:))

Bloodknight
13-11-2009, 17:16
The old 2nd Edition rules were a clever compromise between KP and VP. Sometime, I might give them a try..

Not clever enough, though. I remember people trying to build their units to be as close as possible to 199 points because units gave another VP every full 100 points...I think Carnifexes basically all were 199 points..

Tymell
13-11-2009, 17:19
Get rid of 'em.

That about wraps it up, really.

I don't really see the point in going to great lengths to try to salvage something from an idea that was very bad from the off. Just scrap it.

MVBrandt
13-11-2009, 17:21
I don't know, they went from imperfect but solid VP to really crappy KP. Maybe if they scrap KP, they'll wind up doing MORALE POINTS.


You get a point only if your opponent seems upset that you killed the unit.

Badger[Fr]
13-11-2009, 17:26
Not clever enough, though. I remember people trying to build their units to be as close as possible to 199 points because units gave another VP every full 100 points...I think Carnifexes basically all were 199 points..
Indeed, but this is an unavoidable drawback of any system with discrete steps.

ehlijen
13-11-2009, 17:35
Why is kill points being removed from 'reality' bad and objective points being the same not?

Objectives don't care about how many points the unit holding it is worth. A single grot can achieve as much as a full size terminator unit in objective missions. Why should that be different in kill point missions?

I like where the game is right now: People are actually using their high cost units to do risky things whereas before that would have been 'feeding the enemy VPs'. The 40k missions we play are meant to be desperate, heroic fights. Throwing a 400 point unit into certain doom just to hold an objective for a turn longer is what this game is meant to be about.

KPs aren't VP replacements. They are just different objectives, and as both the marine and guard codices have shown, armies are recieving ways to deal with it (ie more options when it comes to setting unit sizes).

Bran Dawri
13-11-2009, 17:36
So make units a KP for every fraction of 100 pts, ie 0-100 pts = 1KP, 101-200 = 2KP, etc.
Seems to me to be the fairest compromise between KP (which suck) and VP (which I never had a problem with, but GW apparently does).

CthulhuDalek
13-11-2009, 17:43
Badger makes a very good point. Objectives missions skew the point value of units a great deal.

Why can't my 200-400 point unit of Uber-hard terminators capture an objective, when your minimum grot squad can? Obviously, this is because termies are elites from the technical standpoint, but is it fair?

Why can your single grot/guardsmen who continues to go to ground behind a rock, on the opposite side of the field, capture an objective just as effectively(well he's ideally more prone to dying!), compared to a full squad of plague marines?

Your response is -- "Well they pay the points for their effectiveness on the battlefield!" So a 6 pt ork boy should be 3-4 times worse at capturing an objective than a marine/plague marine right? So shouldn't a plague marine unit have an objective capturing value of 3, in comparison to an ork boy?

No. The actual points of the model already determine its value to the game. This really is similar with killpoints. The main issue with killpoints are the anomalies. Things like spore mines and tau drones etc/armies which were not designed with kill points in mind.

People complain about guard for killpoints, but guard seem to do smashingly well anyway. Who cares if you get 50 point guardsmen(So that's 40 guardsmen equal to 5 terminators?), they may be 4 killpoints, but they have a pretty good chance of taking out the termies with rate of fire. Pretty much the ONLY thing that kills my terminators with any form of assurance is a lot of lasgun fire.

I think there are better ways than killpoints AND objectives, both. However, for now killpoints and objectives, both being about as abstract at representing a unit's capability for victory -- have worked pretty nicely.

Also, as has been mentioned in the other threads: I'd be tempted to min/max a lot more with my army list. I almost NEVER ask myself the "will this make its points back" question anymore. I do ask "will this kill off enemy units."

It seems, as well, that people just don't understand the concept of completely destroying each unit. They shoot what looks nice one turn, then the next, without putting target priority on the damaged unit.

An interesting new missions system might be a combination of altered objectives, table quarters, nominating certain units in the enemy army for assassination, some form of killpoints and a COMPLETE meatgrinder.

Meatgrinder*revised*: The game continues until one side has been completely destroyed. As soon as one player has no units left in play, and no units being held in reserve, the game ends and victory goes to the other player. If by some chance of fate both players are wiped out -- that's a draw.

EDIT: Ninja'd by ehlijen on some portions!

Deetwo
13-11-2009, 17:45
So make units a KP for every fraction of 100 pts, ie 0-100 pts = 1KP, 101-200 = 2KP, etc.
Seems to me to be the fairest compromise between KP (which suck) and VP (which I never had a problem with, but GW apparently does).

And units that cost flat hundreds suddenly become a liability?
Quite nonsensical, absurd even if you ask me.

Calculating victory points mid-game (and especially asking your opponent what his units cost) was a bit of a drag, they really took away from the fluidity of the game.

505
13-11-2009, 18:10
you want to stop kp sucks threads one of thw things must happen

1) get rid of it

2) make some other supeor aweful rule that everyone complains about it instead (say anything in power armor does not count as a killpoint)

I think number 2 would be more fun to watch :D

Cosmic_Girl
13-11-2009, 18:14
Hi,

I've seen something similar to what the original poster suggests. Each game is both Kill points and objectives, but depending on which the dominant objective is, changes the weighting of each, i.e. In a kill point mission each kill point is worth 2 or 3 times the amount of victory points as an objective is worth and vice versa in an objective mission. Means that Guard or Tau which typically give up a lot of KP's easily can push for objectives and avoid the enemy for a last turn objective grab and pull a win from a KP mission, and armies like Berserker themed Chaos or Nids can try to table you for the win in Objective based games.

Not an ideal solution, but all in all really like the new objectives and Guard players and Tau can't have it all their way in every game. BTW I play Tau, so abolishing KP games would probably help my win ratio.

C-girl.

JHZ
13-11-2009, 18:17
Badger makes a very good point. Objectives missions skew the point value of units a great deal.

Why can't my 200-400 point unit of Uber-hard terminators capture an objective, when your minimum grot squad can? Obviously, this is because termies are elites from the technical standpoint, but is it fair?
That's about the same as asking why blessing heavy bolter rounds makes them suddenly more effective against speeding bikes, how a daemon can survive a nuclear blast, but a single psycannon bolt can kill it, or why Guard is the only army in the universe to actually use radio communication with its troops.

Game machanices aren't always 100% accurate, but it's more about the idea. Special troops aren't usually intended for a job normal infantry is. Even though me being in a light infantry unit got the same basic training as everyone else, I didn't get much training in digging into positions, protecting areas, patrolling and so forth. It was not my place to do such things. I'm to sneak behind enemy lines, disrupt their supplies and keep track of their movements. My job is not to take a position and hold it against all odds.

Terminators can stand on the objective and deny it from the enemy, but they cannot capture it the same way normal troops could. It's not about standing at the marker and waiting for the timer to reach zero. The game might end, but technically the battle rages on even after that. Your battle was just one small piece in a much larger conflict, and actually capturing and holding strategic positions is more than just walking over them.

And it also encourages more standard troops to take part in games, as with real life, rather than everyone taking minimum Troops and then stocking up with super units.


Why can your single grot/guardsmen who continues to go to ground behind a rock, on the opposite side of the field, capture an objective just as effectively(well he's ideally more prone to dying!), compared to a full squad of plague marines?
Because he's awesome, that's why.

You can't secure a site if there's enemies about. A single guy with a gun can halt an entire army. At least for a moment.


People complain about guard for killpoints, but guard seem to do smashingly well anyway. Who cares if you get 50 point guardsmen(So that's 40 guardsmen equal to 5 terminators?), they may be 4 killpoints, but they have a pretty good chance of taking out the termies with rate of fire. Pretty much the ONLY thing that kills my terminators with any form of assurance is a lot of lasgun fire.
Just to point out, that a Guard platoon can merge into one unit, making it into a single 50 model unit, worth 1 kill point (+ the command squad). It's like Combat Squad in reverse, and obviously intended for KP missions so that having 140 Guardsmen won't give your opponent 14 KPs.

Cosmic_Girl
13-11-2009, 18:18
Sorry to double post, but the other idea I've heard is to allow each player to assign a given number of KP's to certain units in their army, e.g. each player gets 2 KP's per 500 pts to allocate to certain units, so each army gives up the same number of KP's.

C-girl.

HsojVvad
13-11-2009, 18:37
Why is kill points being removed from 'reality' bad and objective points being the same not?

Objectives don't care about how many points the unit holding it is worth. A single grot can achieve as much as a full size terminator unit in objective missions. Why should that be different in kill point missions?

I like where the game is right now: People are actually using their high cost units to do risky things whereas before that would have been 'feeding the enemy VPs'. The 40k missions we play are meant to be desperate, heroic fights. Throwing a 400 point unit into certain doom just to hold an objective for a turn longer is what this game is meant to be about.

KPs aren't VP replacements. They are just different objectives, and as both the marine and guard codices have shown, armies are recieving ways to deal with it (ie more options when it comes to setting unit sizes).

Very well said.

Eldoriath
13-11-2009, 18:56
The big difference in objective missions is that the units worth is not considered for holding an objective, it doesn't hhave to be worth at least X amount of points. But annihilation is about destryoing the enemies resources (infantry, vehicles and stuff). So it shouldn't matter equally much if you kill 10 imperial guards out of 100 as if you kill 10 space marines out of 30. Destroying something easily replacable isn't a victory, it's quite irrelevant unless you destroy high quantities of it.

It's kinda like burning a lot of grass in the enemy country. It will make some damage in the form of crops I guess, but actually destroying their factories will make a difference. Destroying a sky-scraper does much more damage then three suburb houses both financially and in human lives.

So what you destroy does make a big difference. Is the destruction of the twin-towers 9/11 equal to bombing some houses in Irak? I bet no one will say that it's more worth bombing those houses, or even close to equal.

pom134
13-11-2009, 20:32
I don't understand all this talk of "build your army for KP." To me on of the biggest parts of the game is you DON'T know what kind of game you'll be playing before you make your list. KPs were invented to stop people from maxing out on minimum troop squads to take objectives. So now you can't build for EITHER mission and you have to build for both. Don't tell me to build for a KP mission when I don't know what type of mission I'm playing.

Deetwo
13-11-2009, 20:43
Don't tell me to build for a KP mission when I don't know what type of mission I'm playing.

That's not the point.. You should build a force that is balanced enough to take into account both objectives and kill points.
Having to think in two kinds of completely opposing efficiency in armybuilding was a very healthy change for gameplay.

HsojVvad
13-11-2009, 21:52
Don't tell me to build for a KP mission when I don't know what type of mission I'm playing.

Not shure who you are saying that too, but if it's at me, I am not telling you to build for missions on KP. You are correct you do not know what mission you are playing, but it seems, most people on the forums seem to be building missions for Objectives and not KP. As Deetoo has said, we should be building a balanced army for both types, not just one.

That is where most of us fail, we are not able to build an army that is good at both types of missions. I havn't seen on post on how to make an balanced army. Most army builds I read are for Objectives, and not KP. So instead of complaing and crying about KP, we should be getting together and help each other making a balanced force.

Jackmojo
13-11-2009, 22:21
The reward for killing off more expensive units occurs right then during the game; you've eliminated a large chunk of their army, is another benefit to braking powerful units really necessary?

I'd also point out for all the 'VPs are super balanced' crowd that they had their own set of issues (i.e. 3 terminators being worth ~100vp and 16 orks being worth ~80, that's hardly equality) given that GW stance has always been that point don't translate from one army book to another.

Scenrio wise, my preference would be for a mission that works like the old 2nd edition epic default game type with both objectives (which were worth VPs) and Victory points (or KP now) where the game ends when one person has a high enough total at the end of a game turn, not randomly, so you could prevent the game from ending by making sure to seize an enemy held objective on your turn to put him back below the victory threshold.

Jack

CthulhuDalek
13-11-2009, 22:32
That's about the same as asking why blessing heavy bolter rounds makes them suddenly more effective against speeding bikes, how a daemon can survive a nuclear blast, but a single psycannon bolt can kill it, or why Guard is the only army in the universe to actually use radio communication with its troops.
Yeah but it really comes down to fluff versus game mechanics. I understand the EXCUSES GW uses for why troops do it, and I think that from a game balance perspective it is actually useful. But the thing is... it's just as much of an abstraction as KP is, and as such it's on the same level, for me. One Grot would not "in RL" or even within the fluff, be better at capturing objectives than a terminator. Or even let's compare scoring units -- A tactical squad should be better at capturing objectives than gretchin, so shouldn't they be worth more "objective points"? No -- their ability to capture that objective is related to their points value and them being troops.

In that vain, a unit's ability to give or take enemy killpoints is reflected by it's point cost -- the number of killpoints it gives is reflected by its status as a unit.

Game machanices aren't always 100% accurate, but it's more about the idea. Special troops aren't usually intended for a job normal infantry is. Even though me being in a light infantry unit got the same basic training as everyone else, I didn't get much training in digging into positions, protecting areas, patrolling and so forth. It was not my place to do such things. I'm to sneak behind enemy lines, disrupt their supplies and keep track of their movements. My job is not to take a position and hold it against all odds.

Terminators can stand on the objective and deny it from the enemy, but they cannot capture it the same way normal troops could. It's not about standing at the marker and waiting for the timer to reach zero. The game might end, but technically the battle rages on even after that. Your battle was just one small piece in a much larger conflict, and actually capturing and holding strategic positions is more than just walking over them.
I understand this. However, theoretically every army plays a little differently. My commander may use unorthodox tactics, sending wave after wave of guardsmen to thin out the enemy line, and contest their objectives, while using battletanks to sit back and secure positions -- not saying this should be the case, but not every army functions the same. More on this in my next response.


And it also encourages more standard troops to take part in games, as with real life, rather than everyone taking minimum Troops and then stocking up with super units.
However, like you said -- from a game mechanic point of view troops being scoring makes more sense than everything being scoring as it helps to balance the game.

Just to point out, that a Guard platoon can merge into one unit, making it into a single 50 model unit, worth 1 kill point (+ the command squad). It's like Combat Squad in reverse, and obviously intended for KP missions so that having 140 Guardsmen won't give your opponent 14 KPs.
Doesn't that just support my point? Guardsmen wouldnt need to become a big-**** platoon if killpoints didn't exist -- it would be tactically more efficient for them to be a few smaller units EXCEPT in killpoints. Also, I could be wrong but I thought only two squads could join together to make a 20 man unit? Also with this in mind... what armies exactly do poorly with killpoints? Sounds like... Tau and occasionally tyranids. Nids are screwed up for more reasons than killpoints and as thus are getting a new codex anyway! Daemonhunters and witch hunters are also old, but I haven't heard anyone crying about killpoints with them either.



My responses in red.

:D

Vaktathi
13-11-2009, 22:45
The reward for killing off more expensive units occurs right then during the game; you've eliminated a large chunk of their army, is another benefit to braking powerful units really necessary? Yes, If I've just taken out the heart of my enemies army, that should reflect in the totalling of the victory calculation.




I'd also point out for all the 'VPs are super balanced' crowd that they had their own set of issues (i.e. 3 terminators being worth ~100vp and 16 orks being worth ~80, that's hardly equality) given that GW stance has always been that point don't translate from one army book to another. Both players start off on the same footing at least there, and points attempt to make a reasonable a reality of their worth as possible. Equating a 400pt+ 10 strong terminator unit to a 60pt 6man IG special weapons unit makes far and away less sense.



Why is kill points being removed from 'reality' bad and objective points being the same not? Because in objectives at least it can make sense. Nobody can consider and objective secure if an enemy is right on it with your forces as well. In a battle of annihilation, killing the chaff but leaving the wheat should not enable one to win the battle if your opponent gutted your army.



Objectives don't care about how many points the unit holding it is worth. A single grot can achieve as much as a full size terminator unit in objective missions. Why should that be different in kill point missions? See above.




I like where the game is right now: People are actually using their high cost units to do risky things whereas before that would have been 'feeding the enemy VPs'. The 40k missions we play are meant to be desperate, heroic fights. Throwing a 400 point unit into certain doom just to hold an objective for a turn longer is what this game is meant to be about. I agree in this sense, I just don't think that a 400pt terminator unit should be valued just as much as that single grot in a mission that theoretically should be about destroying your enemy and keeping your own force intact. That doesn't reflect the situation on the table in any way.



KPs aren't VP replacements. They are just different objectives, and as both the marine and guard codices have shown, armies are recieving ways to deal with it (ie more options when it comes to setting unit sizes).Except they are, as most events have dropped VP's since they don't appear in the basic mission types. Even if they are included as an optional, back of the book rule that can be used, people just too often are stuck in the mentality of only using the basics for anything. Same issue with Imperial Armour use.

LKHERO
13-11-2009, 22:47
I think the game is fine. Just house rule it if you need to if you feel you need it.

CthulhuDalek
13-11-2009, 22:55
Yes, If I've just taken out the heart of my enemies army, that should reflect in the totalling of the victory calculation.


Both players start off on the same footing at least there, and points attempt to make a reasonable a reality of their worth as possible. Equating a 400pt+ 10 strong terminator unit to a 60pt 6man IG special weapons unit makes far and away less sense.


Because in objectives at least it can make sense. Nobody can consider and objective secure if an enemy is right on it with your forces as well. In a battle of annihilation, killing the chaff but leaving the wheat should not enable one to win the battle if your opponent gutted your army.


If I was in terminator armor, standing on a hill and I saw a single grot looking at me.. I would step on him. The rules for contesting objectives *work* and they are semi-logical -- just about as logical as "If I kill a unit I get a point for it." There is no caveat to grabbing objectives -- "If the unit holding an objective costs X points more than the contender they capture it."

Objectives are basically everything or nothing. You're either a troop or not. Whether you're a gretchin or a wolfguard in TDA you are on exactly the same footing. This is acceptable to you... why is it unacceptable when it comes to killpoints?

Also, a 60 man special weapon team can take out a landraider(with luck of course!) does that mean that the special weapons team should cost more than the landraider in killpoints? Not the best example of course. Replace the special weapon team with MM long fangs.

And if you've taken out the heart of the enemy army -- surely they will not be able to inflict as many casualties on you as if they were alive?

Vaktathi
13-11-2009, 23:03
If I was in terminator armor, standing on a hill and I saw a single grot looking at me.. I would step on him. The rules for contesting objectives *work* and they are semi-logical -- just about as logical as "If I kill a unit I get a point for it." There is no caveat to grabbing objectives -- "If the unit holding an objective costs X points more than the contender they capture it."

Objectives are basically everything or nothing. You're either a troop or not. Whether you're a gretchin or a wolfguard in TDA you are on exactly the same footing. This is acceptable to you... why is it unacceptable when it comes to killpoints? It's not entirely acceptable to me, I think it does need some changing (personally I'd like to see Elites as scoring as these generally consist of unit that both in a fluff sense and game sense have historically been objective nabbers), but in general it still works and makes more sense than KP's does, and forces a much more meaningful metagame balance change than KP's do.



Also, a 60 man special weapon team can take out a landraider(with luck of course!) does that mean that the special weapons team should cost more than the landraider in killpoints? Not the best example of course. Replace the special weapon team with MM long fangs. They have to get within reach of the land raider, while the LR can fire with impunity from twice the range at them. The MM long fangs are also grossly overkill against many other units like rhinos, chimeras, sentinels, predators, etc. As an average balance measure, I don't have too much of a problem with these situations.



And if you've taken out the heart of the enemy army -- surely they will not be able to inflict as many casualties on you as if they were alive?True, but they might only need to inflict a few. If I'm sitting at 23 KP's and they are sitting at 8 (I've run into this) they only need to destroy a relatively small portion of my army before I have to inflict more damage on them than is possible within the turn limits to win. If they kill 3 chimeras and 3 infantry squads, that's a relatively small portion of my force at 2000pts. If I kill both nob biker units and both warbosses, and the loota squad, but didn't quite get to the three Gunz batteries in the back, I've just lost, even after trashing that army.

Occulto
13-11-2009, 23:07
Ok, playing my first game tomorrow, so I don't have any experiance in playing games. Is KP really that bad? Is it because when ever anyone makes an army they make the army for objective based missions and not KP missions?

Please don't shoot me, I just don't understand since I never played a real game yet.

If you're playing your first game, you'll have more to think about than the inherent balance of a mission. :p

Whether KPs are bad or not is a personal preference. Some people (quite vocally) loathe them, others think they're a good mechanic.

It's best to make up your own mind, than go into your first game with a head filled with forum "wisdom". :D

EmperorEternalXIX
13-11-2009, 23:23
I got the idea from a tournament I was in last weekend (and on a side note, thank you to whoever at Conquest Calgary decided to give me this lovely cold) where all the missions had primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives. getting only primary was a minor win, get the secondary it's major, get all three and it's a massacre. Why don't we do this in normal games? Use kill points, objectives and table quarters, and randomize the objective priority. I think it would make for a better game. The reason why this is a bad idea is because it is irrelevant. Minor? Major? Massacre? Who cares. I won, you didn't. I would stop counting the wins at every time that I came to the conclusion I won. I'm not doing math to up my bragging rights, sorry.




I'm sure they care a whole hell of a lot if they kill an Abrams as opposed to a Humvee. Or a Blackhawk as opposed to a Globalhawk.

There's a huge difference there and a 250pt land raider should not be equated equally with a 35pt Rhino. Yeah. I know. When I worked at the newspaper I had to do many stories which involved the Arab forces pausing to calculate how many millions of dollars worth of stuff they destroyed that day so they could see if it counted or not...


KP's are an awkward mechanic because you can win even if you really should lose. Yeah, and that never happens when a Valkyrie soars across the board the turn it arrives from reserves at the end of the game, drops a squad of guys on an objective and contests/wins. That is totally realistic, right? I'm sure that everyday we para-drop guys into firefights in Afghanistan next to a statue and the bad guys give up and go home when the "War Time Limit" bell goes off, right?

Sorry. Victory Points are stupid. Even if I agreed that kill points WERE stupid (which I don't), that a guy is more worthwhile to kill because of the hat he's wearing is quite possibly the dumbest idea in all of 40k (and possibly, all human reality).

Vaktathi, I only agree with one part of your sentiments: That sometimes an army that has been cut in half counts as "being beaten" by an army that has been much more decimated. There are of course fluff ways to justify this, as with everything (Guard Platoon Leader: "Holy crap those ten guys just killed 70 of my men! I know I have 100 more but I think we'd better get while the getting's good!").

This is an important game mechanic, because otherwise hordes are still at a huge advantage. Also, VP has one majorly huge flaw, and that is the math involved on an individual model level. A huge percentage of us use army builder to make our lists, or some other kind of computer aid...do you know how irritating it is going to be to need a calculator and notebook handy, marking down the worth of each model in turn as the game goes on? Now I know someone will say "oh just put them off to the side," etc...no, I will not. Because it should not be a project, however minimal it may be, to figure out if I won or not.

I know you as a very coherent poster, Vaktathi; surely you can see the problem with one player having to completely destroy 40-60 Guardsmen (and sometimes their transports) to equal the points gained from one lucky demolisher volley into, say, a 10-strong biker Sternguard squad?

It is a lot harder to kill that many crappy guys then it is to kill one squad of powerful ones. I'm sorry, but this is just a fact of the game, and I don't see how people can argue it. Yeah it's easy to kill one squad of guardsmen...assuming you break their transport, and assuming you get into assault range and everything goes favorably. But have you ever tried to fight 10 squads of guardsmen with three tactical squads? You can put 110 Guardsmen in 12 Scoring Units on the table in under the cost of 3 tactical squads in Rhinos. Equipped with decent weaponry the guard will come out to be about equal with the three well-geared tac squads. Who do you think is going to win that fight? This isn't even that unrealistic a Guard setup either, if you are dealing with a platoon horde guy.

I mean, if you want to talk about the worth of points, then let's get real into it. How do you think, for example, those 650ish points of SM would do against 650 points of orks? How about against Space Wolves, even?

I do however agree that armies should maybe have some manner of determining whether or not they are being decimated. But this would still loll the game to one side and favor the horde guys either way.

The game is right now about 60/40 in hordes' favor. Without the KP mission and the liabilities it brings, it would easily be 70/30 or even 80/20. You guard guys amaze me sometimes...how do you lose with twice as many scoring units as everyone else in the game, one of the most offensively capable transports, and the ready availability of a transport that can drop you 24" away without a hitch? The problem is much akin to the 3.5 Chaos guys -- basically, they're dumb.

I'm sorry but a central part of the fluff is handfuls of people making epic stands against impossible odds...I have to tell you, if you all got your wish, the idea of taking expensive elite models over the cheap-o depot ones would be a no-brainer in favor of the cheap-o's. If you want 4th ed back and want illogical games full of conscripts and scouts and naked HQs doing nothing heroic or cool, then by all means, continue the protest. Me? I like 5th and I like Kp -- and I run an SM army with 16 KPs in it, 6 of which land in the enemy lines and die almost every game I play.

These threads always seem predicated on the ideas that KP are unbalanced but to be honest I have never seen a KP match (yes even with the guard) that didn't go pretty logically, or where the numbers were not at least comparable.

It makes me angry that they will probably change this perfectly fine mission type in 6th Edition simply because you all whined about it so much. I have decided to dub this "Assault Cannon's Disease," after the poor "Holy crap I am SO not worth 40 points" Donkey Cannon. May you rest in peace, you perfectly acceptable but scapegoated armament.

IJW
13-11-2009, 23:42
Also, VP has one majorly huge flaw, and that is the math involved on an individual model level. A huge percentage of us use army builder to make our lists, or some other kind of computer aid...do you know how irritating it is going to be to need a calculator and notebook handy, marking down the worth of each model in turn as the game goes on? Now I know someone will say "oh just put them off to the side,"
No, we'll say "VPs are counted per unit, not per model, and then by half the unit regardless of which specific models died". ;)

orlando davion
13-11-2009, 23:42
I really do not think we are going to get agreement here.

I use Salamanders; Orks; Tau; Tyranids; Eldar and Guard (Cadian Shock).

I have played about 100 games of 5th edition; normally at 2,000 points.

All the rules regarding victory conditions are to a degree abstract.

Kill points are simple but do act to balance army building. Two thirds of the time a game is objective based. This gives you an edge if you have a lot of troops.

Guard for example can bring lots of scoring units and have enough units left to attack.

But builds that excel because of lots of troops suffer under kill points. This is clearly the intention of the rule writers.

Changing kill points or only playing objective missions will distort codex balance and point balance.

In general at 2K I try and ensure my kill point total for the army does not exceed 15.

My basic view is that the "kill point problem" does not need to be fixed.

I never calculate victory points (and for a great many games I would have come out on top if they had been calculated) because the actual points value of units does not matter any more.

This is a good thing in my view; under 4th edition certain builds/units were never used because they were deemed too expensive and had the potential to give away too many VP.

Under 5th if you want a small umber army of very expensive models go for it (although I have seen builds with two troop choices really struggle).

In army building I consider objectives; Kill points; Dawn of war deloyment and spearhead.

At the end of the day it is your game and if you are happier with house rules go for it.

Vaktathi
14-11-2009, 00:03
Yeah. I know. When I worked at the newspaper I had to do many stories which involved the Arab forces pausing to calculate how many millions of dollars worth of stuff they destroyed that day so they could see if it counted or not... You don't need an exact dollar value to know that one thing far more valuable, expensive, difficult to replace, and a much greater threat than another.




Yeah, and that never happens when a Valkyrie soars across the board the turn it arrives from reserves at the end of the game, drops a squad of guys on an objective and contests/wins. That is totally realistic, right? I'm sure that everyday we para-drop guys into firefights in Afghanistan next to a statue and the bad guys give up and go home when the "War Time Limit" bell goes off, right? A game has to end sometime. Either way it can still make sense. Here's my example from earlier


We've got 5 beacons across the battlefield, the bombardment satellites in orbit will be overhead in 5 minutes (end of game), whoever is near them at this point can feed them targeting information and destroy large formations of enemy forces elsewhere on the globe for a short period of time.








Sorry. Victory Points are stupid. Even if I agreed that kill points WERE stupid (which I don't), that a guy is more worthwhile to kill because of the hat he's wearing is quite possibly the dumbest idea in all of 40k (and possibly, all human reality). Killing the leader should be worth more than killing the putz. That's reflected quite well in reality. I don't see anything wrong with that. In real life, prioritization of enemy commanders and special equipment is a very real thing.





This is an important game mechanic, because otherwise hordes are still at a huge advantage. Hordes or high KP count armies? They aren't necessarily the same thing. It's easy to fit over 200 orks into same amount of KP's a normal space marine army would have, still be dead killy, and still have 5 or 6 scoring units.


Also, VP has one majorly huge flaw, and that is the math involved on an individual model level. A huge percentage of us use army builder to make our lists, or some other kind of computer aid...do you know how irritating it is going to be to need a calculator and notebook handy, marking down the worth of each model in turn as the game goes on? Now I know someone will say "oh just put them off to the side," etc...no, I will not. Because it should not be a project, however minimal it may be, to figure out if I won or not. It's irritating to some people sure, but a cell phone calculator will usually suffice and it's usually only needed if the game is close, otherwise it's pretty easy to ballpark.



I know you as a very coherent poster, Vaktathi; surely you can see the problem with one player having to completely destroy 40-60 Guardsmen (and sometimes their transports) to equal the points gained from one lucky demolisher volley into, say, a 10-strong biker Sternguard squad? That would require quite a lucky demolisher cannon shot however into a very compacted sternguard unit that isn't in cover. A situation that won't exist if the SM player knows whats what. Those sternguard also can come in from a drop pod, combat squad, and dump 10 combi meltas into two different leman russ tanks and shut down an IG players heavy artillery in one fell swoop.

In a game strictly between IG and SM's, I can sort of see that, mainly as the Sternguard will generally be grossly overkill against most IG units, but even under VP's, it would be easier to net a greater average of points from the IG units simply by tossing a couple bolter shots each turn at one and breaking it or reducing it to below half than to get the points from the sternguard squad without using heavy artillery.

Still, the value and proportion of both units are similiar to both armies, and that's still the best standard to use. Equating each IG squad on the same level as the Sternguard does not reflect any measure of reality.




It is a lot harder to kill that many crappy guys then it is to kill one squad of powerful ones. I'm sorry, but this is just a fact of the game, and I don't see how people can argue it. Mmm, yes and no. CC and multiple assaults can very quickly remove huge numbers of IG weeny units. Taking a single tac squad into 4 compacted IG units hiding in a woods and running them all down is not something that is outside the realm of possiblity or common probability, I've had it happen to me on multiple occasions.

It's really if you have to sit there and bolter down each unit in sequence that they become harder to kill.


Yeah it's easy to kill one squad of guardsmen...assuming you break their transport, and assuming you get into assault range and everything goes favorably. But have you ever tried to fight 10 squads of guardsmen with three tactical squads? You can put 110 Guardsmen in 12 Scoring Units on the table in under the cost of 3 tactical squads in Rhinos. Equipped with decent weaponry the guard will come out to be about equal with the three well-geared tac squads. Who do you think is going to win that fight? This isn't even that unrealistic a Guard setup either, if you are dealing with a platoon horde guy. The key there is multiple assaults again. You really only need 3 charging marines to, on average. defeat and break a 10man IG infantry squad. If they are footslogging platoons the rhino SM's will have the movement advantage and be able to choose their point of striking and fight on their terms, and the IG units will in all likelyhood be relatively close to each other meaning you can usually get into at least two with each assault.




I mean, if you want to talk about the worth of points, then let's get real into it. How do you think, for example, those 650ish points of SM would do against 650 points of orks? How about against Space Wolves, even?Points costs imbalances again are a matter of implementation, not a fault with the base workings of the system, as they are with KP's. Against the Orks, the ability to better utilize mechanization, combat squads, and ranged capability I think puts them on a decently even footing, especially as you can better concentrate your own assaults against Orks than they can back. The SW's, well, if you can deal with CSM's you can probably deal with them, not pretty, but not too much worse in a relative term either.




I do however agree that armies should maybe have some manner of determining whether or not they are being decimated. But this would still loll the game to one side and favor the horde guys either way. Even if it did (which I'm not entirely convinced it would), the imbalance would be to a lesser degree than KP's do now, and would result in fewer nonsensical incentives, tactical decisions, and game outcomes. Also, just to reiterate, Horde armies aren't necessarily high KP count armies. Orks can fit tons of guys into very small KP counts with lots of scoring units and still be awesome.




The game is right now about 60/40 in hordes' favor. Without the KP mission and the liabilities it brings, it would easily be 70/30 or even 80/20. You guard guys amaze me sometimes...how do you lose with twice as many scoring units as everyone else in the game, one of the most offensively capable transports, and the ready availability of a transport that can drop you 24" away without a hitch? The problem is much akin to the 3.5 Chaos guys -- basically, they're dumb. No, all an enemy has to do is have a few contesting units and some solid objective takers. Having 12 scoring units doesn't mean pants if I can't get to the enemies objective on the other side of the table defended and blocked by nearly their entire force and my opponet just dropped 3 DS'ing units onto my objective and has I have lost any initative in that battle. Likewise for SG, it's hard for those 12 scoring units to mean much if I've got to shift plague marines off a couple objectives while the rest of my opponet's army is concentrated on simply contesting another, leaving me only able to hold one.

You don't need huge tons of units to win a KP game. Mobility and durability can count for just as much if not more.



These threads always seem predicated on the ideas that KP are unbalanced but to be honest I have never seen a KP match (yes even with the guard) that didn't go pretty logically, or where the numbers were not at least comparable. I've seen plenty. True they very often do still go the way they would under VP's or any other system, but when they end awkwardly it never feels right, and it's not all that uncommon.



It makes me angry that they will probably change this perfectly fine mission type in 6th Edition simply because you all whined about it so much. I have decided to dub this "Assault Cannon's Disease," after the poor "Holy crap I am SO not worth 40 points" Donkey Cannon. May you rest in peace, you perfectly acceptable but scapegoated armament.The problem with the assault cannon was that it was more effective at killing Land Raiders and Leman Russ tanks than a lascannon. For what was really an anti-infantry weapon, that was dumb. They went overboard as usual in overbalancing, but it was a bit much. The rending change by itself would have been fine.

Either way, for a mission that is billed as one where destroying your opponent and keeping your own intact can result in a loss for the player that successfully does this, I don't think one can call it fine, it needs an overhaul.

JHZ
14-11-2009, 00:20
But the thing is... it's just as much of an abstraction as KP is, and as such it's on the same level, for me. One Grot would not "in RL" or even within the fluff, be better at capturing objectives than a terminator.
I dunno, dem grots can be pretty sneaky at times.


Or even let's compare scoring units -- A tactical squad should be better at capturing objectives than gretchin, so shouldn't they be worth more "objective points"? No -- their ability to capture that objective is related to their points value and them being troops.
Well technically, if you have a single gretchin and 10 Marines on one objective, no one gets it. It's not that the gretchin is equally valuable to the Marines, but that the objective is not secure. They don't just drop in, lift up a "Mission Accomplished" banner, take some photos and forget the whole thing ever happened, all the while dodging shots from the angry gretchin firing at them. In order to get an objective, you need to secure it. And it is not secure if there are enemies about.


I understand this. However, theoretically every army plays a little differently. My commander may use unorthodox tactics, sending wave after wave of guardsmen to thin out the enemy line, and contest their objectives, while using battletanks to sit back and secure positions -- not saying this should be the case, but not every army functions the same. More on this in my next response.
Even Patton knew that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. They won it by making the other guy die for his country.

Besides, a good commander adapts to the situation. Even the Soviets didn't gain much with sending waves after waves of soldiers to be killed, and they got soldiers to spare, that's for sure. No, a good commander takes into consideration the factors and adapts, and doesn't just rely on the same old plan time and time again. You're free to play as you wish, but don't blame the game or your army for losing.

In objective scenarios you can send as many young men and women to die for the Emperor as you wish, drowning the enemy in your blood, but in KP missions you either adapt and find some other way of dealing with it, or you just try to wipe out the enemy (winning regardless of the victory conditions).


Doesn't that just support my point? Guardsmen wouldnt need to become a big-**** platoon if killpoints didn't exist -- it would be tactically more efficient for them to be a few smaller units EXCEPT in killpoints.
Well, only if you want it to support your point. All I'm saying is that claims IG sucks with KP because of platoons ain't true.


Also, I could be wrong but I thought only two squads could join together to make a 20 man unit?
Well at least my codex says that all infantry squads in a platoon (that's normal 10 man squads), can unite into a single unit. Why do you think Conscripts are useless these days, when for 1pts. increase per model you can have up to 50 models in a single units with better BS, WS, Ld. and weapon options than what the conscripts get.

Occulto
14-11-2009, 00:36
Killing the leader should be worth more than killing the putz. That's reflected quite well in reality. I don't see anything wrong with that. In real life, prioritization of enemy commanders and special equipment is a very real thing.

And it remains so in a KP mission.

If the HQ's worth that much, then presumably it's got the abilities to match. So it's in your best interest to give greater target priority to that HQ, not because it's worth more to the final scoreline - but so you remove those abilities from the table. Remove the Lash that's pulling your units out into the open, stop the Guard HQ from issuing orders, kill the Warboss that's about to chomp through your own army.

Take the Landraider vs Rhino comparison. Even though they're both worth a KP, it's probably in your best interests to target the LR so you remove a more potent threat to your own army. What's the good of earning a KP from the Rhino, if that means the LR's free to kill two of your own units?

With VPs, there's no ambiguity. You target the LR first because it's a bigger threat and it's going to get you more points.

With KPs, there's more decision making involved. You can rack up the cheap KPs, but in doing so, leave yourself in a worse position overall.

Dark_Templar
14-11-2009, 00:40
How to stop kill-point complaining? Shut down the internet and nuke the human race, then hope that apes don't discover 40k.

CthulhuDalek
14-11-2009, 00:43
I dunno, dem grots can be pretty sneaky at times.


In order to get an objective, you need to secure it. And it is not secure if there are enemies about.
Yes, but ten marines are worth more than a single grot, so by the argument against killpoints there should be a way to represent this during killpoints AND objectives. 1 grot is equal to 30 ork boys for the purposes of objectives. That is kind of silly -- but I accept it as a very useful balancing rule -- it still gets on my nerves specifically with grots, but I think it deserves to be there. Like KP.


Even Patton knew that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. They won it by making the other guy die for his country.
Surely, in the grim darkness of the far future, Patton would be a very useful general... unfortunately... he never commanded the tyranids. However I AGREE with what you're saying, but one of the arguments AGAINST killpoints is that "My expendable units are worth just as much as the enemy's valuable units." So... why can your expendable units be better than my valuable units at one thing, and not worse at others?

A grot should be able to capture an objective the same as a marine, in which case they're supposed to be an equal killpoint because the enemy pays different point values for using them in the first place.

OR
A grot should be less significant in terms of capturing objectives AND killpoints should be tiered.

Besides, a good commander adapts to the situation. Even the Soviets didn't gain much with sending waves after waves of soldiers to be killed, and they got soldiers to spare, that's for sure. No, a good commander takes into consideration the factors and adapts, and doesn't just rely on the same old plan time and time again. You're free to play as you wish, but don't blame the game or your army for losing.
A lot of your arguments against my points are what I've been using against the anti-kp crowd... there's no way that the grot would ever be significant enough to throw the marines off an objective, so the only reason it does *in game* is to add balance. Basically no other reason.

In objective scenarios you can send as many young men and women to die for the Emperor as you wish, drowning the enemy in your blood, but in KP missions you either adapt and find some other way of dealing with it, or you just try to wipe out the enemy (winning regardless of the victory conditions).

I know that. That's why I like to play killpoints, because I know how to alter my strategy to win it, and how to write lists that can capture objectives and not lose too many killpoints. It seems people are complaining that sacrificial units (gaunts, and guardsmen) shouldn't be worth the same killpoints as terminators -- but guardsmen have ways to limit this, and tyranids are getting a 5th ed codex!

Well, only if you want it to support your point. All I'm saying is that claims IG sucks with KP because of platoons ain't true.


Well at least my codex says that all infantry squads in a platoon (that's normal 10 man squads), can unite into a single unit. Why do you think Conscripts are useless these days, when for 1pts. increase per model you can have up to 50 models in a single units with better BS, WS, Ld. and weapon options than what the conscripts get.
In that case, guard really have no reason to complain about kill points... at all. Unless they don't want to change their tactics.

Tau do have reasons... inherent with the codex.


My responses are in red.

And sorry I haven't responded to Vaktathi in a while, it seems the discussion moved on, in my absence!

Vaktathi
14-11-2009, 00:43
And it remains so in a KP mission. Not really by itself, only indirectly



If the HQ's worth that much, then presumably it's got the abilities to match. So it's in your best interest to give greater target priority to that HQ, not because it's worth more to the final scoreline - but so you remove those abilities from the table. Remove the Lash that's pulling your units out into the open, stop the Guard HQ from issuing orders, kill the Warboss that's about to chomp through your own army. The same goes for any unit however, however not all HQ's are equal. A 70pt Lord Commissar is not going to bring as much value to any IG army as a 155pt winged Lash Prince will to a CSM army. One costs twice as much and should be worth twice as much for killing it. KP's don't take this into account.




Take the Landraider vs Rhino comparison. Even though they're both worth a KP, it's probably in your best interests to target the LR so you remove a more potent threat to your own army. What's the good of earning a KP from the Rhino, if that means the LR's free to kill two of your own units? Again true, but only to an extent. If it's the difference between sinking multiple units fire into one land raider, or dumping them into several crippled rhinos, the crippled rhinos will likely take precedence as it will likely be easier to destroy three of those than the one land raider, even though combined they make up less than half the points cost of the LR and have very little value left on the battlefield, but for some reason offer triple the reward. I've seen this many times.



With VPs, there's no ambiguity. You target the LR first because it's a bigger threat and it's going to get you more points. You should, I don't see why you shouldn't. The game mechanics encourage the tactically rational avenue with VP's.



With KPs, there's more decision making involved. You can rack up the cheap KPs, but in doing so, leave yourself in a worse position overall.And that's a huge reason why I have a problem with KP's, because there's no reason to add that layer in there. It serves no purpose other than to create more decisions where there really shouldn't be more. The game mechanic should be focused towards highlighting and rewarding the best tactical decisions, not obfuscating them just to add some other layer in, and this is all still based off the assumption that the core idea behind KP's was as a balance factor and not simple easier victory tabulation.

scarletsquig
14-11-2009, 02:02
I don't like kill points because of the metagamey element of optimising KP army lists and killing things like trukks that you normally wouldn't bother with etc.

Feels very unrealistic when one side gets a technical win even though their army is ripped to shreds.

Also, it favours space marines with their more expensive units. Anything that makes space marines more awesome sucks.

catbarf
14-11-2009, 02:28
Actually VP is very very unbalanced. By going by VP, that means everything is equal. We know that a 10 point Hormagaunt is not the same a 10 point SM, or what ever the prices are. (we can't say individual point costs so I made them up.)

Only because the rules aren't balanced. The goal with a points system is to have everything have the same scale of value. If one thing is worth twice as many points, it's worth twice as much on the battlefield, and correspondingly twice as much of a victory when killed.

Cognitave
14-11-2009, 02:35
Also, it favours space marines with their more expensive units.

How do you think the Ultramarines won Macragge? Even though the whole fist company died, they got more KP and the Tyranids lost.

EmperorEternalXIX
14-11-2009, 03:30
Sigged, for relevance. Hehe.

EmperorEternalXIX
14-11-2009, 04:04
Only because the rules aren't balanced. The goal with a points system is to have everything have the same scale of value. If one thing is worth twice as many points, it's worth twice as much on the battlefield, and correspondingly twice as much of a victory when killed. The problem is, this isn't true in real war or the game. The only reason a soldier's value in real life matters when he is killed, is because of how difficult he is to replace. Also, a lot of this is totally subjective and the game simply can't revolve around it; the Tyranids, for example, are obviously weak against mech army lists right now because they have scarce anti-tank. But against a T3 horde army, the Tyranids can excel. How do you measure their worth when they are ultimately better in some situations and worse in others? It's arbitrary, and you can't base victory on a models' points cost. The cost ultimately doesn't matter, other than in how hard a model is to kill or how easily it can kill other things. Points mean nothing besides that.

@Vaktathi: Mostly solid replies from you, but I have to nitpick this one point:


That would require quite a lucky demolisher cannon shot however into a very compacted sternguard unit that isn't in cover. This happens all the time, whenever a Sternguard unit appears via drop pod or with a teleporting Libraring -- two extremely popular means of deploying them. The third -- a Rhino -- also leaves them in just as painful a formation.

All I was getting at with my example is, if you want an elite unit to be treated the same as a cheap unit, it's got to go both ways, not just the way beneficial for the cheap unit. As such, VP is an unacceptable alternative to KP.


Those sternguard also can come in from a drop pod, combat squad, and dump 10 combi meltas into two different leman russ tanks and shut down an IG players heavy artillery in one fell swoop. I really, REALLY wish that two tanks within 12" of each other was all of any guard player's "heavy artillery." Straying from the KP point a bit, look at the logistics of this: You are saying it is perfectly reasonable to commit 300-335 points of Sternguard, gear, and drop pod, split into 3 very easily destroyed kill points, for the price of 2 (assuming the Guard player was a complete waterhead and deployed his tanks ridiculously near each other, and that he took no other heavy support or powerful tanks in his army). I agree with this only because the costs are in the neighborhood of one another depending on gear and variations. But it is still, in terms of KPs, handing 3 easy ones for 2 tough ones. I fail to see where the guard player is at a disadvantage; he will come out of this situation 1 KP richer 9 times out of 10, and both armies will have lost a significant lot of killing power in the process. So it seems about even. Where is the big disadvantage? If anything the guard guy has an advantage, KP wise; the units can't assault out of the pod and are sitting ducks for a severe beating from the entire rest of the army (which will typically include at least one more leman russ, to say the least), and the SM player will be working uphill for the rest of the game, having to beat a 1 KP lead.

I have heard this multiple combat argument before, but I don't know where it comes from. Where I play everything is regulation but no guard player is every foolish enough to put 40 models into a piece of wooded area terrain with no transports. The idea of multiple charges would accomplish almost nothing against the guard armies in my area, subsequently.

If there is to be an alternative to kill points, it can NOT be victory points. It is too favorable to cheap units. I don't know about you all, but I like that the game tries to mirror its fluff. The idea that a million scrubs will win the day over any of the epic heroes of the game's story really bothers me, and I don't want to see it go that way.

@CthulhuDalek: I agree wholeheartedly with all of your remarks above.

DhaosAndy
14-11-2009, 06:00
Personaly I don't think KP are ideal, but they do work. In the sense that they provide an interesting tension in army selection.

If all games where decided on capturing objectives then selection would be much easier, one would simply have to take the maximum possible number of scoring units. There is no tension, because for a given number of points it is always better to have two units rather than one. For example, if we have x points (and supposing all other factors, fire power, armour, mobility, etc are equal) then two five model units will always be better than one ten model unit for any given value of x.

KP's force one to compramise, in the above example, the two five model units will be better value than the single unit of ten in objective based missions, but in KP missions the reverse is true. For all the faults in both KP and objective missions the existance of both has taken the meta game in a direction I like.

ProfessorCurly
14-11-2009, 08:05
How about this then?

In a battle, no matter what it is, killing the enemy command and control is important. So the most expensive commander in each army is the 'General' and thus worth a Kill Point. These guys are important, and hard to replace. If they get committed to the fight, it had better be -darned- important that they be there. Take Macragge; Calgar wasn't bolstering the line on the planet, he was chilling back directing things from the fleet.

A force normally has some objective, a target they are meant to destroy. So each player nominates three units from the other player's army to be his 'targets' (but not the General or most expensive unit).

The reason why the most expensive unit can't be nominated is that unit will be the 'Target of opportunity' and will also be a Kill Point.

But we don't want people always choosing Trukks or easy to kill transports. So we'll add in some Victory Point flavor. In the case of a tie, the person whose kill points were worth more points wins. So if I kill a Land Raider, the Terminators in it, and that chaplain leading them, I win even if you kill three Rhinos. If that chaplain survives though, I lose. That should bring a balance to it I think, between the easy points and the big points. Also, it removes some of the abstract-ness of the situation. It doesn't matter if it is a Rhino or Ragnar Blackmane, your target is your target.

----

But balance to one while ignoring the other, so lets address Objectives. Those last turn rushes are annoying and unrealistic, you can hold an objective while being under attack, and a single grot should not stop a squad of Marines.

So I'll rip off some people and roll it into one.

Firstly, as several people have suggested, a 'point' system for holding objectives.

Only Troops can hold an Objective, but anything can help them hold it.
Anything can contest an objective.

A Troop Choice counts for 2 points
Everything else counts for 1 point.

A Transport carrying a unit counts as whatever is inside. So a Rhino with Tactical Marines inside would be treated as a 'Troop' and so can score and is worth 2 points.
A Transport not carrying a unit counts for 1 point. This is to encourage people to get out of the pill box and fight over the objective. A Troop choice inside a Transport is worth 2 points, a Troop choice with a transport nearby is worth 3. This represents the mutual support that a squad with a transport in support has, while not penalizing them too bad if they stay inside. After all, sometimes you need to push into an objective that is too hot for a dismount & assault.

So a Tactical Squad with a Terminator squad in support is holding an objective with a score of 3 (2 for the Troop Tactical Squad, 1 for the Elite Terminators). It would take an enemy Troop (2 points) plus something else to contest it.

Possibly:

You have to have units on an objective for a full turn to count for anything. Rushing up to an objective is holding it, it is attacking it. Standing there for a turn means the assault is going well and the point is truly contested, or possibly taken.

However, if you have something on the objective for one turn, new arrivals still count. I'll explain:

So if it is turn 5 and you rush the objective, then the game ends... sorry charlie. You weren't there for a turn, all you've done is launched an attack. Unless of course you've physically pushed them off an objective or killed them all, in which case they aren't holding it anymore, obviously.

If the game doesn't end, and you have units at the objective your next turn then you've established a Beachhead. Hmmm... I think an example will explain this better.

Here is what I am hoping this leads to. Say on Turn 4.

Your turn 4:
An elite squad rushes up to the ones guarding an objective. Shooting, assaulting, whatever.

Their turn 4:
They don't manage to quite kill the elite squad you sent to attack.

Your turn 5:
You've had your elite squad on the objective for a turn. Now you run up a squad of Troops. Even though they haven't been on the objective for a turn, since the Elites were, everything counts. I hope that makes sense to other people lol.

----------

Summary:
-Troops are the only ones that can score.
-Other things can help troops score.
-Troops count 2 points to who is holding an objective
-Everything else counts 1 point.
-The person with the most points on the objective is Holding it, so long as they have a Troop choice on it. Otherwise they are contesting it.

Maybe:
-You have to have a unit on an objective for 1 turn for anything to count.

Thoughts?

Darkmatyr
14-11-2009, 08:11
The idea of a grot or a gaunt capturing objectives and being worth the same number of points as a 10man marine squad does make a lot of sense. Lets say to capture an objective, the grot must place a beacon, if he places the beacon he completes the mission. The 10 marines count for nothing so long as that beacon is there. Manage to kill the grot, you also get rid of the beacon. Contesting the objective could be like using a jammer to jam the beacon signal, etc. So in the sense of objective missions, units with one model left and a full unit are equal, size has no part in the objective.

As for KPs personally I dislike them, they don't work. However, the way they have been explained does make sense. Doesn't matter how much a unit is worth, you kill it, it means less units on the field. Those worth more should be target priority, but still count as a single KP because it is still a single unit. And in a overall tactical sense... A force which can defeat hordes of units using very small numbers is a very powerful force strategically.
That said, in cases such as your opponent has some 5 models left compared to half your army, and they still win, there needs to be a middle ground. So perhaps a combination between VPs and KPs?

WLBjork
14-11-2009, 08:12
Even Patton knew that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. They won it by making the other guy die for his country.

Besides, a good commander adapts to the situation. Even the Soviets didn't gain much with sending waves after waves of soldiers to be killed, and they got soldiers to spare, that's for sure. No, a good commander takes into consideration the factors and adapts, and doesn't just rely on the same old plan time and time again. You're free to play as you wish, but don't blame the game or your army for losing.

The Soviets still ended up winning the war though.

To be fair, a part of that was due to Stalin purging a lot of the officers, so that those in command were too green and didn't have the ability to command at first.

Strangely enough, that's why killing enemy officers on the battlefield has been a viable tactic since the employment of the rifle.


The problem with KPs is that it doesn't accept that "quantity has a quality all of it's own".

Jackmojo
14-11-2009, 10:09
The problem with KPs is that it doesn't accept that "quantity has a quality all of it's own".


Not true, as single large units are some of the best at resisting giving up Kill Points, giant fifty man IG infantry blobs and full strength ork mobs are both relatively resilent (especially if they're trying to be defensive, i.e. hugging cover and going to ground when advantageous). The same is true of the much maligned Leman Russ Squadron which is another hard to claim KP.

Jack

Tymell
14-11-2009, 10:41
How do you think the Ultramarines won Macragge? Even though the whole fist company died, they got more KP and the Tyranids lost.

The Ultramarines won Macragge by wiping out the enemy force. But according to the logic of kill points, if the Tyranids had annihilated the Ultramarines, but lost more units in the process, they would have lost.

IJW
14-11-2009, 10:42
According to the logic of KPs (and indeed all current 40k missions), if you wipe out the opposing force you've won regardless... ;)

Tymell
14-11-2009, 10:44
According to the logic of KPs (and indeed all current 40k missions), if you wipe out the opposing force you've won regardless... ;)

That's the end result, but my point is about the core logic of kill points, where success is purely based on how many units you kill.

Avian
14-11-2009, 11:41
Interesting. This makes me think of the game BattleLore, a board game that is at least some way on the road towards a miniature game. In that game, victory is based on the equivalent of Kill Points - each time you kill a unit you get the banner it had and the first guy to collect a set number of KP wins. There are some differences, though:

- The sides (which are predetermined in the basic game) typically have the same (or at least very similar) numbers of units. If one side has 12 units, the other has 11 to 13.

- Victory is typically gained by acquiring half the number of enemy KP, instead of going to the player with the greatest number of KP after a given number of turns.

- Units are typically about equally difficult to destroy.


Initially I didn't like the victory conditions, it seemed to me that what you'd do was to gang up on the units that couldn't fight back very well and squish them. In practice, that's not all that much of a problem, since as stated you usually need to kill about half the enemy army and you can't really do that by just killing wimps. It also seemed very gimmicky to pull out mauled units before the last guy died and thereby preserve KP. This is limited a bit by the mechanics of the game, which means that there aren't that many places to hide units. If a unit starts to get chewed up, the other player will usually do what he or she can to keep the pressure up and wipe it out.



If I was to tinker with the Annihilation scenario, I'd take a lesson from BattleLore and have the first player to claim half (or a third or whatever) the KP of the enemy army be the winner. If this did not happen before a set number of turns, the game would be a draw. This would mean that if you did have a lot of cheap units, the enemy would still be going for them, but he'd need to kill more of them than currently to be able to claim a victory. Thus you would not need to think about artificial thresholds like units costing 199 pts being much better than ones costing 200 pts, and it would be much easier to determined who won.

(2c)

Vaktathi
14-11-2009, 12:08
@Vaktathi: Mostly solid replies from you, but I have to nitpick this one point:

This happens all the time, whenever a Sternguard unit appears via drop pod or with a teleporting Libraring -- two extremely popular means of deploying them. The third -- a Rhino -- also leaves them in just as painful a formation. Yes true in those circumstance it can happen, but at that point you'd be aware of the risk you are taking if you deployed them such with a demolisher cannon in range. You'd be making the calculated risk by choice with the potential consequences fully in mind.

That's a weakness of expensive elite units is that heavy artillery will remove them fairly quickly while hordes can retain more effectiveness, but the elite units withstand small arms fire and assaults far better than the weeny horde units. Even in CC, resolution greatly favors the elite units over horde units generally, with results not taking into account outnumbering or the relative value of casualties inflicted (e.g. killing 3 Kroot in CC while losing 1 terminator is probably in favor of the Kroot in terms of who got the better of the other, but the resolution is in favor of the elite unit). This I don't have so much of a problem with in this instance as resolution mostly makes sense given that seeing a bunch of dudes die and return attacks, even if they kill a more valuable thing, will be seemingly ineffective, although it'd be nice to see some sort of mitigation for massive outnumbering.



All I was getting at with my example is, if you want an elite unit to be treated the same as a cheap unit, it's got to go both ways, not just the way beneficial for the cheap unit. As such, VP is an unacceptable alternative to KP. An elite unit shouldn't be treated the same as a cheap unit. An elite unit should be worth much more if killed and much much harder *to* kill and be much killier in its own right, but it shouldn't be worth *less* than an equivalent value of weenier dudes, just as something like 2 Whirlwinds shouldn't be worth more to an opponent than a Nob Biker unit.




I really, REALLY wish that two tanks within 12" of each other was all of any guard player's "heavy artillery." It's usually not, but it's usually a huge an critical component of it, killing 2 LRBT's before they have a chance to respond on the first turn with a drop podding Sternguard squad is going to leave any IG player hurting a lot. The Sternguard squad will probably die shortly thereafter, granted, but they also have to from the IG players perspective, if ignored, they are capable of causing great havoc.



Straying from the KP point a bit, look at the logistics of this: You are saying it is perfectly reasonable to commit 300-335 points of Sternguard, gear, and drop pod, split into 3 very easily destroyed kill points, for the price of 2 (assuming the Guard player was a complete waterhead and deployed his tanks ridiculously near each other, and that he took no other heavy support or powerful tanks in his army). They don't need to be right next to each other, if the tanks are say 16" away from each other, that's not exactly super close, and still allows for combat squaded Sternguard to get within that magic 6" melta range of each. For killing 2 tanks that will likely range in price from a minimum of say 150pts with no upgrades to well over 250 with a more expensive variant loaded to the gills, I'd say that's generally a fair trade, especially as the SM player will essentially have the flow of initiative in their hands at that point from the outset, forcing the IG player to react and defend instead of go on the offensive.



I agree with this only because the costs are in the neighborhood of one another depending on gear and variations. But it is still, in terms of KPs, handing 3 easy ones for 2 tough ones. I fail to see where the guard player is at a disadvantage; he will come out of this situation 1 KP richer 9 times out of 10, and both armies will have lost a significant lot of killing power in the process. So it seems about even. Where is the big disadvantage? If anything the guard guy has an advantage, KP wise; the units can't assault out of the pod and are sitting ducks for a severe beating from the entire rest of the army (which will typically include at least one more leman russ, to say the least), and the SM player will be working uphill for the rest of the game, having to beat a 1 KP lead. In such a situation, the SM's should have an advantage there, where the KP system won't reflect this. In this situation, the SM player will have just killed two very important lynchpin units of the IG players army and now has 10 SM's that are capable of defeating every unit in their army in the middle of their lines. That SM unit likely will get shot to pieces true, because if it doesn't it's going to continue to kill things that are valuable without too much difficulty. I think this is again another good example of where KP's fail at taking into the realistic situation of the game into account simply for counting discrete units killed, rather than their relative value. If a 360pt powerfist/ 10 combi melta Sternguard unit pods in and kills 2 leman russ tanks that cost about as much, by any reasonable standard that should be an equal tradeoff even if all the sternguard and their pod are killed. The two forces should be about tied at that point, not in the IG's favor with the extra KP for the pod.




I have heard this multiple combat argument before, but I don't know where it comes from. Where I play everything is regulation but no guard player is every foolish enough to put 40 models into a piece of wooded area terrain with no transports. Ruins are usually the big culprit with their multiple levels to stack stuff. This has hurt me many time and I've exploited this many times against various opponents to great extent. Alternatively, when playing a tank horde, it's often entirely possible for a charging unit to hit two or even three tanks at a time with a powerfist and a load of krak grenades, that my opponents all too often neglect to take advantage of.




If there is to be an alternative to kill points, it can NOT be victory points. It is too favorable to cheap units. Hrm, I don't really think so, it's disfavorable to very expensive units I think, but not to most reasonably priced units, and most of the issues people have with the previous VP system are related to its implementation, which could all be fiddled with, rather than the underlying mechanics that plague KP's.


I don't know about you all, but I like that the game tries to mirror its fluff. The idea that a million scrubs will win the day over any of the epic heroes of the game's story really bothers me, and I don't want to see it go that way. That really doesn't bother me at all and is usually how most epic heroes meet their eventual epic demise. Propping up "elite"-ish units just because the idea of them being overwhelmed by mundane opponents is somehow distasteful is not a good balance mechanic and does not make for fun games. If the game was going to play that way, SM's should never lose to anyone, and Eldar would never lose to anyone but SM's.

I also very much personally enjoy the irony when the normal human troops crush their overconfident and arrogant opponents (from a purely Imperial Guard perspective of course) beneath their boots, be it the Farseers of the Eldar, the Captains of the Astartes, the Warlords of the Chaos Space Marines, the Masters of the Daemonic Legions, or the Mechano-Lych lords of the Necrons. Too many armies play the Epic Hero card, I play some of them, but it's nice some times to see the grunts win out, even if they almost never do in BL books and the like.

Bunnahabhain
14-11-2009, 13:34
To be fair:
The great hero 'fill in the blank' was caught in the open by the artillery barrage/ missle launcher team/platoons fire, and killed instantly, but the attack carried on, with the new objective of recovering their sacred armour.
would make for a rather short book....

catbarf
14-11-2009, 13:58
The problem is, this isn't true in real war or the game. The only reason a soldier's value in real life matters when he is killed, is because of how difficult he is to replace. Also, a lot of this is totally subjective and the game simply can't revolve around it; the Tyranids, for example, are obviously weak against mech army lists right now because they have scarce anti-tank. But against a T3 horde army, the Tyranids can excel. How do you measure their worth when they are ultimately better in some situations and worse in others? It's arbitrary, and you can't base victory on a models' points cost. The cost ultimately doesn't matter, other than in how hard a model is to kill or how easily it can kill other things. Points mean nothing besides that.

Equal points value does not mean that two units are empirically equal in all situations, it means that in the macrocosm of the game they have equivalent value, which may vary from situation to situation. The game is designed to be fun, not be realistic, and it makes sense to have the degree of victory be based on how much of the other army you destroyed.

If you destroy 3/4 of the army (points-wise), then you get 3/4 of the possible VPs. Right now it's possible to lose far more of your resources and still win the battle, and for a game that's more about big explosions and epic battles than realism, that's idiotic.

CthulhuDalek
14-11-2009, 21:16
@CthulhuDalek: I agree wholeheartedly with all of your remarks above.

Thank you, sir!

Your post is very valuable as well!

EDIT@Professor Curly--
"Summary:
-Troops are the only ones that can score.
-Other things can help troops score.
-Troops count 2 points to who is holding an objective
-Everything else counts 1 point.
-The person with the most points on the objective is Holding it, so long as they have a Troop choice on it. Otherwise they are contesting it.

Maybe:
-You have to have a unit on an objective for 1 turn for anything to count.

Thoughts?"

I like all of these ideas except for the "maybe." Most of the last-turn-swoop-in units will already be in a disadvantage for not being troops, or that most objectives will be guarded anyway.

Cognitave
15-11-2009, 03:18
I figured this could be solved by making each model worth 10% (don't round, decimals are numbers too!) of it's point cost.

So if a unit of 10 assault terminators gets obliterated (no pun intended), the opposing player would get 40 points for the unit. If you killed an Avatar of Khaine, you get 15.5 kill points. In a 1500 point game, you get X/150 (where X = your score).

The amount of their army you destroy should equal the amount of Kill Points you get for the mission. Marine players will have to obstruct line of sight rather than just sliding their models across the table and yelling "POWAR ARMUR", and horde players will need to find and use every piece of cover available.


...but GW would never do this, it puts Space Marines on an equal playing field as other armies...

fwacho
15-11-2009, 07:21
I figured this could be solved by making each model worth 10% (don't round, decimals are numbers too!) of it's point cost.

So if a unit of 10 assault terminators gets obliterated (no pun intended), the opposing player would get 40 points for the unit. If you killed an Avatar of Khaine, you get 15.5 kill points. In a 1500 point game, you get X/150 (where X = your score).

The amount of their army you destroy should equal the amount of Kill Points you get for the mission. Marine players will have to obstruct line of sight rather than just sliding their models across the table and yelling "POWAR ARMUR", and horde players will need to find and use every piece of cover available.


not a bad idea

around here tourney organizers are very creative.

Objectives / quarter control are usually 50%-75% of two mission and 25 % of a third
Kill points are 25% of two mission and 50% of a third
Killing HQ's or most expensive units tends to make up a 25% points shift for all three

I've seen it where an opponent names 3 of thier units as the kill point units then extra points are possible for killing HQ and/or highest point cost unit. which forces some interesting choices.

One store allows each person to bring two lists. (Generally one for KP heavy missions and one for objective ) of course some people just bring anti-MEQ and anti-GEQ. the peopel show their opponents both thier lists then secretly choose one as thier choice for the mission.


Honestly, I like kill points. It forces people to count the cost of going mechanized and helps keep it from being over powered. at 1500 points guard and orks can run lists with very few kill points. Just need to run larger squads. I can get my tau down 7 KP's at 1500 pts. I generally get my guard down to 11.

WLBjork
15-11-2009, 08:54
Not true, as single large units are some of the best at resisting giving up Kill Points, giant fifty man IG infantry blobs and full strength ork mobs are both relatively resilent (especially if they're trying to be defensive, i.e. hugging cover and going to ground when advantageous). The same is true of the much maligned Leman Russ Squadron which is another hard to claim KP.

Jack

Oh the old "build the army to keep KPs low" argument.

I don't do that. Indeed, a lot of people don't want to do that - because it's forcing you to build your army in a certain way.

At the scale of game we are playing, the basic unit of manoeuvre for Guard, Marines etc. is the 10-man/2-3 tank section (or even individual tanks).

50-man platoons/4-5 tank troops are better suited to Epic.


Also, multi-vehicle units aren't as tough as you seem to think, due to the fact that immobilised = wrecked. As a result, even glancing hits (except those from AP- weapons) have a small, but significant, chance of destroying vehicles outright.

As a result, vehicles are more resiliant as individuals than as a part of a multi-vehicle unit.



In fact, to be frank that's another absudity of the KP system. Kill 2 vehicles out of a 3 vehicle unit, score = 0. Kill 2 vehicles out of 3 individuals, score = 2.

VPs at least gives some credit for crippling the unit..

CthulhuDalek
15-11-2009, 17:39
Oh the old "build the army to keep KPs low" argument.

I don't do that. Indeed, a lot of people don't want to do that - because it's forcing you to build your army in a certain way.
Having a FOC also does this. Having troops capture objectives does this. Where's your point?

At the scale of game we are playing, the basic unit of manoeuvre for Guard, Marines etc. is the 10-man/2-3 tank section (or even individual tanks).And even then, guard and marines ALL have ways of increasing and decreasing their killpoints value. So in killpoints your 20-30 man platoons can become 20-30 man individual units.

50-man platoons/4-5 tank troops are better suited to Epic.
That's all opinion. I'm sure lots of guard players field more guardsmen than that and even that many tanks.

In fact, to be frank that's another absudity of the KP system. Kill 2 vehicles out of a 3 vehicle unit, score = 0. Kill 2 vehicles out of 3 individuals, score = 2.

VPs at least gives some credit for crippling the unit..

Having the vehicles individually means each one is more survivable than if it were in a squadron, they also have more tactical flexibility(Can cover more ground, shoot separate units, or combine fire if they want). The killpoints reflect *that* advantage.

catbarf
15-11-2009, 19:25
Having the vehicles individually means each one is more survivable than if it were in a squadron, they also have more tactical flexibility(Can cover more ground, shoot separate units, or combine fire if they want). The killpoints reflect *that* advantage.

The advantage of squadroning is that they take up one slot on the FOC. The disadvantages are as you listed. Differing KP values are an abstract and arbitrary method of penalizing a deployment with enough of a disadvantage as is.

AngryAngel
16-11-2009, 01:21
I don't think I've ever actually complained about a game rule. Why ? Because its the rule, i've said they make little sense, but I plan around them. If you don't like them, don't play the game. Just because some people refuse to build lists keeping KP's in mind doesn't make them flawed. If I refuse to place troops in my lists aside from bare minimum its no ones fault but my own I struggle to take or hold objectives. I choose to take no transports, its only my fault I can't get around the board quickly enough.

KP's and VP's are both flawed systems to be sure. However with the amount of whinning about them you'd think they make the game completely crazy, which they don't.

So ya don't like them, fine. The system has been out for awhile. don't use it if ya don't like it. Plenty of us get along fine with it. If you don't want the game system telling you how to make your lists, then don't let it. However don't be surprised when it bites you in the butt.

How to fix KP complaining ? You can't, people love to complain and whine about everything. Only way for the complaining to stop is for a new edition to come out and they can find something else to find fault with. I am sure it won't take long after, or even before its release for that to happen.

Vaktathi
16-11-2009, 01:41
If you don't like them, don't play the game. Just because some people refuse to build lists keeping KP's in mind doesn't make them flawed. It does however when you can lose after accomplishing exactly what the mission describes as securing victory. Gutting an opponents army and leaving it broken can still lead to a loss even with a relatively intact force, when the entire point of the mission as described and portrayed is to do just that. Objective missions describe and portray themselves exactly as how they play out, and victory goes to whomever accomplishes what the mission describes.

In annihilation, it's described as "Some battles are fought with only one goal - find your enemy, crush him utterly, and take away his means to mount further resistance". You can do this quite well, while the enemy fails to do this, and still lose.

That is the problem with KP's.

Zanzibarthefirst
16-11-2009, 01:47
Generally i'd prefer VP over KP but obviously KP is a lot easier to work out. If VP was simply take the units that gave up KP and add their value to find out how many Vp you have then that woudl be great but if you're having to work out half victory points for this unit and that unit etc... is can all get a bit complicated when all you really want to do if find out who won the game

AngryAngel
16-11-2009, 02:02
Does that happen every time the game is played ? It surely doesn't happen every time to me. I'm not sitting here saying KP's are the best thing in warhammer since space marines ( or guard if you would rather ) I'm just saying bellyaching about it isn't going to change it. The best way to deal with it, in my mind is to plan for it as one of the mission types.

Build lists with it in mind, as opposed to be moan its unfairness. I'm sure we'll have something even more questionable next edition. Vaktahi, I respect your stance on the matter. I just don't see it as as much of a problem. Generally most all the games I've seen and been a part of that were KP, have gone more logically. The one who won was either clearly in command of the situation, or was at least in the better position at the end of the game. Heck I played one with guard last night that I won by 2 point.

Only things I lost was Marbo, one drop pod ( was a team game ). We killed however, Kharn, tri las pred and a 10 man squad of zerkers and a 10 man Thousand sons squad. We had range on the chaos and while we had a squad on the ropes of sternguard, we were well lined up for another 3 KP's if the game didn't end when it did.

I think these dramatic failures in KP's are more the exception then the rule. Though if you have stories of your own games where the KP issue has been such a big issue. Please tell me of them if they are more then say one or two. I'd love to hear about them. Perhaps I've just seen or been part of the exception games.

Occulto
16-11-2009, 02:14
Perhaps I've just seen or been part of the exception games.

I sincerely doubt that. :D

Vaktathi
16-11-2009, 02:16
A very good example was watching a Tau vs Eldar game a couple months ago. The Eldar army was composed mostly of Wraithguard/Wraithlords with warlocks for Conceal, Eldrad and Yriel, plus a couple other things. The Inyanden army was reduced to just about 5 models on the table IIRC with no capability to mount any sort of resistance left, but did have Eldrad and a couple Wraithguard left, while the Tau army, while having taken some damage, still had the majority of its force intact and had the game continued to the next turn likely would have tabled the remaining Eldar. However because the Tau player had about 16 KP's with probably at least 10 still on the table, to the Eldar's 7 or 8, with IIRC 3 remaining on the table, the Tau player lost.

A game against Eldar yesterday with my IG became very close. He only killed a 3 chimeras and and about 15 infantry (3 KP's worth) I managed to kill a wraithlord, a falcon, 2 wave serpents, Feugan, a 10 strong unit of Fire Dragons and a full Dire Avenger unit, and crippled a Fire Prism and most of a 10 strong Warp Spiders unit. I managed to barely win by 1 KP, but had only lost 375pts of my force, where he had lost about 1500pts of his force, or about 4x what I lost. Even if he'd killed twice what he had, I'd still have outkilled him 2-1 in terms of force strength, but I'd have lost on KP's hardcore.

DhaosAndy
16-11-2009, 02:58
Vaktathi: "A game against Eldar yesterday with my IG became very close. He only killed a 3 chimeras and and about 15 infantry (3 KP's worth) I managed to kill a wraithlord, a falcon, 2 wave serpents, Feugan, a 10 strong unit of Fire Dragons and a full Dire Avenger unit, and crippled a Fire Prism and most of a 10 strong Warp Spiders unit. I managed to barely win by 1 KP, but had only lost 375pts of my force, where he had lost about 1500pts of his force, or about 4x what I lost. Even if he'd killed twice what he had, I'd still have outkilled him 2-1 in terms of force strength, but I'd have lost on KP's hardcore."

Your example illustrates why, for all their short comings, KP work as a mechanic. Had you been playing an objective mission (especialy 3+ objectives) you would have been at an advantage, since you rolled a KP mission he had the advantage. Swings and roundabouts.

Occulto
16-11-2009, 03:02
Your example illustrates why, for all their short comings, KP work as a mechanic. Had you been playing an objective mission (especialy 3+ objectives) you would have been at an advantage, since you rolled a KP mission he had the advantage. Swings and roundabouts.

Over the last few days, I've discovered that (contrary to all personal experience) fielding more units does not give an advantage in objective missions. :eyebrows:

Vaktathi
16-11-2009, 03:08
Your example illustrates why, for all their short comings, KP work as a mechanic. Had you been playing an objective mission (especialy 3+ objectives) you would have been at an advantage, since you rolled a KP mission he had the advantage. Swings and roundabouts.

Again however, that's a very shaky assertion. In C&C, # of units means very little and can generally be discounted right out.

In SG, He had far more mobility and capability to dance around terrain and hide and zoom to objectives and contest than I did. With 3 objectives, holding one and then skimmer-jetboosting contesting 2 works very well and would not have been difficult, for 4 it probably would have been about even as it's harder to contest that way (although he also wasn't *lacking* for scoring units, bringing 4 to the board), with an advantage to me had we played 5 objectives just to try and cover everything. It helps, but being maneuverable and hard to kill work just as well if not better in many cases.


So then only really 1/3 times in 1 mission, maybe 2/3 in one mission if you want to go with 4 objectives. With C&C unit count isn't what's going to decide it, durability and maneuverability above all are important in that. The ability to hold on objective and contest or seize the other is what matters.

Either way, KP's still work out to be a hamfisted balance mechanic (of which it was designed as an afterthought to easier victory tabulation anyway) that can often innaccurately attribute victory to the army that shouldn't be winning.


Over the last few days, I've discovered that (contrary to all personal experience) fielding more units does not give an advantage in objective missions. Numbers are good, but being able to take hits and rapidly move across the board can be just as important if not more so than simply having large numbers of units.

Occulto
16-11-2009, 03:44
Numbers are good, but being able to take hits and rapidly move across the board can be just as important if not more so than simply having large numbers of units.

I don't disagree. However, I'll maintain an army with the greater numbers has an advantage in objective missions. When you dig more deeply and look at specific matchups and tactical ability, then that may change. But overall, if I had to, I'd bet on greater numbers for objective missions every time.

In a lot of cases, being able to rapidly move across the board means transports, which puts said armies at a disadvantage in KP missions.

toxic_wisdom
16-11-2009, 03:52
"...Ok, playing my first game tomorrow, so I don't have any experiance in playing games. Is KP really that bad? Is it because when ever anyone makes an army they make the army for objective based missions and not KP missions?.."

No, Kill Points are not bad at all... I cannot see the problem with them. If you're playing this type of mission simply focus (ranged and/or assault) on a single unit until it is eliminated - meanwhile, keep your losses at a minimum.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of seeing the "KPs Suck" threads - and more tired of opponents asking if we can reroll the objective when Annihilation is the result (oh, I don't like this one... whah ! whah ! whah ! ). Rather than try to find a way to "fix" them I believe players should concentrate and how to play them - fact is, we're all stuck with it (one third of the time) until Sixth Edition comes along.

On a personal note: I rarely even worry about the objectives of a given mission... I concentrate on wiping the opposition out first, then objective if it presents itself second.

IMHO lists should be built "all comers" style - meaning you should be able to handle any opposing army in any objective/deployment, including pickup games and tournament games.

CthulhuDalek
16-11-2009, 03:55
The advantage of squadroning is that they take up one slot on the FOC. The disadvantages are as you listed. Differing KP values are an abstract and arbitrary method of penalizing a deployment with enough of a disadvantage as is.

You don't think it's an advantage to be able to fire at more than one target, not suffer hits that another vehicle in your squadron has taken, not becoming destroyed on an immobilized result? You are now presenting your opponent with 3 times as many targets instead of one big one.

FOC advantage is balanced by the negative rules for Squadrons.
Tactical Advantage is balanced by KP.

This also applies, to an extent, to transports and their respective units.

Occulto
16-11-2009, 03:55
Quite frankly, I'm tired of seeing the "KPs Suck" threads - and more tired of opponents asking if we can reroll the objective when Annihilation is the result (oh, I don't like this one... whah ! whah ! whah ! ). Rather than try to find a way to "fix" them I believe players should concentrate and how to play them - fact is, we're all stuck with it (one third of the time) until Sixth Edition comes along.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to play something different. In fact, I'd rather people got out of the mindset that the standard missions are the only ones in 5th ed.

I have a problem when people want to screw with the balance. Substituting VPs for KPs simply means there's no downside to an army that spams objective grabbers.

Anyone else remember in 4th ed when some players steadfastly refused to touch Escalation? Strangely enough, most of those players seemed to be those hardest hit by Escalation. :rolleyes:

"So you don't like Escalation eh?"

"Nope."

"What you bringing?"

"Nidzilla."

"I see..."

Vaktathi
16-11-2009, 04:08
I don't disagree.

In a lot of cases, being able to rapidly move across the board means transports, which puts said armies at a disadvantage in KP missions. ;)
With many armies the transports points would only be used for more dudes (like IG, Tau, Eldar) where the KP count really wouldn't change due to relatively similar costs between the transport and the infantry (the alternative would be to just buy more guys). Some simply also won't even function well without transports period (eldar unless they want to go jetbike or Wraithguard based, Dark Eldar, Tau to an extent, etc) as their units are just too fragile to try and footslog it and can't expand them to huge squads of 20/30 and aren't cheap enough to throw out in large numbers to begin with.

The ones who actually suffer from that more than anyone are SM's with their 35pt transports and 200pt units, and with Drop Pods that really don't do anything once they come in, but their KP counts aren't drastically inflated either. My CSM's would go from 13 to 9 KP's, large in a comparative sense but relatively minor when compared to my 24 KP IG army a the same points level, that would have about the same KP count either way mechanized or not since the points would then be spend on more infantry and different tanks.

Either way, many armies won't notice a KP difference if they take transports or not (unless they decide to spend all those points on expensive and inefficient upgrades) or their KP count is low enough that it usually won't matter anyway most of the time (SM's) The only army where I think that is a consideration is Orks, who can either take 12 guys in a trukk for speed with 2 KP's or have 30 guys on foot with 1 KP, which the KP's fail to take into account the greater capability of that 30 Ork mob to sustain casualties, enter into multiple assaults, defeat enemy units, or spread out to claim/contest multiple objectives etc. They only take into account the extra trukk and its speed ability.


Even with transports as an extra KP, an Eldar army with 4 wave serpents and 4 10 strong Dire Avenger units will still probably have a much easier time in objective missions than an IG army using 16 footslogging scoring units from 4 platoons with double the KP's as the Eldar will be harder to kill, much faster, and easier to re-deploy and able to tank shock units off of objectives, and reserve-denial will work amazingly well at keeping them alive for as long as possible. The eldar in that case would have half the KP's, but be better at objective nabbing as well in almost every sense. The IG army however will have an advantage in firepower and ranged attack capability. In this sense, I fail to see how KP's act as a balance measure, and that's not exactly an uncommon scenario.


Anyone else remember in 4th ed when some players steadfastly refused to touch Escalation? Strangely enough, most of those players seemed to be those hardest hit by Escalation.

"So you don't like Escalation eh?"

"Nope."

"What you bringing?"

"Nidzilla."

"I see..." Escalation was dumb because you could start Devestators, Havocs, Dark Reapers, Oblitertors and Terminators on the field and in well entrenched positions, but not a Chimera, jump infantry or a Pirhana. It was described as patrols encountering each other and then the larger forcing coming in, but the forces most likely to be on patrol (the fast speedy units) had to be held off the board while many of the heavy units were already on. It too made little sense, and all too often simply was just not fun to play.

I'm also not seeing quite the connection between escalation and KP's here, only where Transports are concerned. Nidzilla isn't exactly known for huge KP counts.

AngryAngel
16-11-2009, 04:17
I do remember that quite clearly Occulto. Your a man of wisdom, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Occulto
16-11-2009, 04:37
In this sense, I fail to see how KP's act as a balance measure, and that's not exactly an uncommon scenario.

I give up.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.


Escalation was dumb because you could start Devestators, Havocs, Dark Reapers, Oblitertors and Terminators on the field, but not a Chimera, jump infantry or a Pirhana. It was described as patrols encountering each other and then the larger forcing coming in, but the forces most likely to be on patrol (the fast speedy units) had to be held off the board. It too made little sense, and all too often simply was just not fun to play.

I remember one tournament I ran where I used escalation in a couple of missions. I was walking around and saw some guy having the time of his life. When I walked up to see what was happening, he turned to me and thanked me because the gaming group he'd joined had decided that Escalation was s***, and so refused to play it.

The saddest thing was, this was towards the end of 4th ed, and he was only getting his first Escalation games. He absolutely loved it.

Fun is a mindset, not some irrefutable measure.


I'm also not seeing quite the connection between escalation and KP's here, only where Transports are concerned. Nidzilla isn't exactly known for huge KP counts.

I'll spell it out to you. :p

Both are/were randomly occuring mission special rules that some people decided sucked, and steadfastly refused to play.

Vaktathi
16-11-2009, 05:12
I give up.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Allrighty.



I remember one tournament I ran where I used escalation in a couple of missions. I was walking around and saw some guy having the time of his life. When I walked up to see what was happening, he turned to me and thanked me because the gaming group he'd joined had decided that Escalation was s***, and so refused to play it.

The saddest thing was, this was towards the end of 4th ed, and he was only getting his first Escalation games. He absolutely loved it.
Eh, if he liked it, he liked it, and that's all that matters to him and his experience. I didn't like it because it made no sense within the context of its description and was very highly unbalanced, especially given the deathtrap nature of mechanized armies in 4th that weren't skimmer based. It didn't make one bit of difference to my CSM army that could start everything on the board, but my IG army had to come in piecemeal and eat it :(




Fun is a mindset, not some irrefutable measure.

True, however I believe that the controversy surrounding both KP's and Escalation shows that there are significant numbers of people that have/had a problem with these mechanics, and that as a result don't translate to fun games for many.



I'll spell it out to you. :p

Both are/were randomly occuring mission special rules that some people decided sucked, and steadfastly refused to play.From the way it read it seemed like you were stating that those armies that had a hard time with KP's were the same ones as those that didn't like Annihilation, if I read this wrong, I apologize. I never refused to play either, however I think neither mechanic accurately portrays what it's supposed to, which critically undermines its purpose, hence why you see the issues with them.

mattschuur
16-11-2009, 05:57
I always find it interesting in these threads when those defending Kill points as valid always refer to deficiencies in other missions to illustrate their point, which is illogical. Are there flaws in objective missions? Sure, but this isn't about objective missions and they are "not" connected to kill points much like a Hammers deficiencies are not comparable to a saw's. They both ,construction tools and 40k mission scenario's, are part of a bigger picture but must be looked at unto themselves, not together.

The same arguments that are used to run down VP's can easily be used to counter the Kill point scenario. VP's don't give you the points for killing 9 of 10 marines, only as if you killed 5! Well Kill points gives you nothing for killing 9 marines, effectively making that 1 last guy worth the whole squad. At least in victory points all that hard work is given some compensation. Advantage victory point.

Victory points doesn't take into account the fact that two 10 point models in different armies can be totally different when it comes to survivability. Well, the same can be said for Kill point. Kill point doesn't take into account that a 35 point trukk is much easier to kill than a 35 point rhino. yet irrelevant to their different levels of survivability they are worth the same kill point. Push, neither system is more or less worse than the other.

Victory point forces players to tailor their lists to take advantage of the system The fact is in victory point games, no matter how many units you have or what your squad sizes are, you still have a potential 1,500 or 1,850 or whatever point level your playing at to give up. Thus the points available for each player is equal. Kill point however, forces similar tailoring tactics to limit the amount of points your opponent has to kill, meaning no matter what point level your playing the fact that you took fewer squads that are harder to kill gives you an advantage. Seriously, if you have 1 kill point left from a 7 KP army and your opponent had 15 kill points and has 8 left, why should you win? You have 1 squad left he has 7. The percentage of your army that is dead is far greater than your opponents and yet you supposedly won the annihilation battle.

Army organization should have nothing to do with victory conditions. Let's say you have 100 soldiers for each side in a battle. Side A has them in squads of 10 and Side B has squads of 5. Now lets say that Side A has only 1 squad of 10 left after the battle, taking 90 casualties. Side B, who started with 20 squads, has 10 squads left, suffering 50 casualties. Kill point says that Side A, which suffered 90% casualites won, while the side that had only 50 casualties lost. Now, how does this make sense? Victory point says that if each soldier is worth 10 points (for an even battle of 1,000 points each side), Side B gained 900 victory points while Side A only got 500. This far and away better shows which side took a beating and which side didn't.

Now lets say Side A only lost half their victory points for each squad, giving Side B 500 points. Side B still lost half their squads completely, again giving up 500 points. In VP, with each side losing roughly the same number of models, a draw is much more realistic than the Kill point alternative which says Side A whooped the crap out of Side B, winning 10-0. Again, makes no sense when each side inflicted roughly the same number of casualties.

Matt Schuur

Occulto
16-11-2009, 05:58
Eh, if he liked it, he liked it, and that's all that matters to him and his experience. I didn't like it because it made no sense within the context of its description and was very highly unbalanced, especially given the deathtrap nature of mechanized armies in 4th that weren't skimmer based. It didn't make one bit of difference to my CSM army that could start everything on the board, but my IG army had to come in piecemeal and eat it :(

Descriptions not matching reality in a GW publication? Say it ain't so!!!

I maintain in 40K, the important thing is not the result, it's the experience getting to said result. When players refuse to play anything because they think it's unbalanced, the game gets stale very quickly. (Because the number of truly balanced missions etc are quite limited)

Players need to accept that occasionally their army might have to push s*** uphill to win. But that's not limited just KPs or Escalation. I reckon if you ask anyone, they'll be able to list off a bunch of missions that they would rather not play because their list is unsuited.

For instance, I know you champion VPs as being more balanced - but straight up VPs annihilation missions were one of the reasons my RW were shelved for so long. They were simply horrible in anything that involved a war of attrition (which VPs tended to produce).


True, however I believe that the controversy surrounding both KP's and Escalation shows that there are significant numbers of people that have/had a problem with these mechanics, and that as a result don't translate to fun games for many.

Like I said, I had difficulty holding much sympathy for people who refused to play escalation because it made their Eldar Flying Circus, Nidzilla, IW or IG Pie-Plate-List-Of-Doom less obscene on the table. (ie armies that needed nerfing a bit)

The thing I found with Escalation, is that instead of adapting - you'd get players of certain armies who'd refuse to even attempt a mission using it.

You'd hear: "oh, I'd have to keep all my MCs off the table, I can't possibly play that, let's roll for something else."

Ironically, the players who had more cause to feel hard done by, were generally the ones who cheerfully racked up their models and did their best to overcome the hurdles.


From the way it read it seemed like you were stating that those armies that had a hard time with KP's were the same ones as those that didn't like Annihilation, if I read this wrong, I apologize. I never refused to play either, however I think neither mechanic accurately portrays what it's supposed to, which critically undermines its purpose, hence why you see the issues with them.

No probs.

Deetwo
16-11-2009, 07:27
I always find it interesting in these threads when those defending Kill points as valid always refer to deficiencies in other missions to illustrate their point, which is illogical. Are there flaws in objective missions? Sure, but this isn't about objective missions and they are "not" connected to kill points much like a Hammers deficiencies are not comparable to a saw's. They both ,construction tools and 40k mission scenario's, are part of a bigger picture but must be looked at unto themselves, not together.

Well, this is only true if you actually know what scenario you are going to play before writing your armylist. Since the mission generation is random, players basically have to take into account all of them.
This is why we need to look at KPs as 1/3 of a whole rather than separate.

If we only had objectives low unit count armies would inherently be at a disadvantage, where now there's choices to be made.
Do you take an army that excels in KP denial or an army that has enough redundancy of socring units to reliably take multiple objectives?
Or maybe try to find a balance between the two extremes, so they can do well in both kinds of scenario.

Vaktathi
16-11-2009, 08:11
Descriptions not matching reality in a GW publication? Say it ain't so!!! When the result is directly contradictory, that's a problem. GW's consistency is putting these things out has nothing to do with it, it's still an issue.




I maintain in 40K, the important thing is not the result, it's the experience getting to said result. When players refuse to play anything because they think it's unbalanced, the game gets stale very quickly. (Because the number of truly balanced missions etc are quite limited) Things needn't be perfectly balanced, there can and should be some randomness in there that throws things off (like the multiple objectives in Seize ground makes a world of difference between 3 and 5 objectives) however there shouldn't be anything that results in a directly contradictory victory condition or a scenario that plays nothing like how it is described, or that is simply crippling for some army builds, for no reason other than just to throw a wrench in the works.



Players need to accept that occasionally their army might have to push s*** uphill to win. But that's not limited just KPs or Escalation. I reckon if you ask anyone, they'll be able to list off a bunch of missions that they would rather not play because their list is unsuited. Uphill battles are fine, I don't have a problem with an uphill battle necessarily, but when they take what should be the strength of an army, applied to where it should be best applied, and make it a liability, I think it's silly. If playing a battle of annihilation, what value is there in simply the raw number of discrete elements of maneuver destroyed without a value attached? VP's reflected the value of an enemy unit destroyed and gave as realistic a reflection of the actual situation on the game table as is possible, KP's do not. Additionally, it's not just some lists but entire *armies* that have problems with KP's, and I just haven't seen a solid reason as to why. I've seen the scoring unit spam idea put forth, but that is countered by mobility and durability which has far less of a downside but is just as good if not better.

If large numbers of units were a liability in another circumstance, say a mission like the following

"Infection"
"-nominate three models in the army to carry the "Z" wargear. Whenever a model with "z" wargear manages to get a hit, either through close combat or shooting with the "Z" wargear on an enemy unit, it infects it with a nano-virus. Whichever army can infect the largest number of enemy units for subsequent infection of recovery forces wins. "

If the mission were something vaguely like that, I'd be ok with it, as it would make sense to a degree and be much more workable. It wouldn't be turning a battle of attrition against armies that are supposed to be all about battles of attrition, but still have some sort of bias in favor of small elite armies.




For instance, I know you champion VPs as being more balanced - but straight up VPs annihilation missions were one of the reasons my RW were shelved for so long. They were simply horrible in anything that involved a war of attrition (which VPs tended to produce). However, I never said VP's, especially in their last implementation, were perfect by any means, just much better than KP's at reflecting who generally won a battle of annihilation, and still allowed for reasonable margin for ties. Now however we have the opposite and contradictory issue that the RW army faced of the Attrition based armies being the ones that have trouble winning the battles of attrition. KP's, more than anything else, just to my mind, seem like a crutch, a handicap.

I can see the point with regards to the Ravenwing army, and it's a good one, however I feel that's more a problem with the core of the list and it being a very specialized force rather than with VP's, although it might be with their implementation in *all* mission's in 4th. A war of attrition is also exactly what sort of battle that force *would* be worst at. Wars of maneuver and battles of objectives is what an RW army should be excellent at, which I think is what the core list has a problem with in regards to the Troops Only scoring requirement and not being able to fit sufficient long lasting stuff into Troops slots. Had the 4E objectives (Recon, table quarters, etc) been done as they are in 5th (where you just need one guy from a unit to hold an objective), I think that issue of every game turning into a war of attrition. I can live with the value of a unit not being important to holding an objective, that can make sense in an abstract sense, but a battle of annihilation where the armies that rely on attrition...lose the wars of attrition, is just too awkward.




Like I said, I had difficulty holding much sympathy for people who refused to play escalation because it made their Eldar Flying Circus, Nidzilla, IW or IG Pie-Plate-List-Of-Doom less obscene on the table. (ie armies that needed nerfing a bit) IW really didn't have a problem with escalation, I could start all 9 Oblits on the board plus my havocs and wait for my predators to come in without having to worry about it too much. IG "pie-plate-o-doom" was a pretty craptastic army under 4th, I played it, it was rather poor, as the entire army was built around 3 LRBT's (for a grand total of...3 pie plates, less than what IW's could field and on par with what every SM list could field) that were (again, with 4E vehicle mechanics) rather easy to pop even from afar, with horrifically overcosted transports that were useless as transports (pen'd a transport? Unit disembarks. killed it? Auto-pinned) and infantry that got one chance to shoot before something got into the line and consolidated up it forever eating a unit or two every assault phase. I've never heard anyone say that IG in 4th ed needed nerfing.




The thing I found with Escalation, is that instead of adapting - you'd get players of certain armies who'd refuse to even attempt a mission using it. Some armies could adapt very well. Eldar for instance with Autarchs. In fact it worked beautifully for them, especially if they were going 2nd, and such is still used today very well in Eldar Riposte lists.

Others just really couldn't adapt very well. Hence why you'd see people not wanting to play it. It really hurt the people who built their armies with a theme and fluff in mind than the players who cared only about efficiency, as they would easily just come up with a totally different army build.

Occulto
16-11-2009, 10:03
When the result is directly contradictory, that's a problem. GW's consistency is putting these things out has nothing to do with it, it's still an issue.

I think the semantics behind the mission name or how it's described is pretty irrelevant.

Besides, Annihilation in it's simplest form is: "Kill as many of the other guys as possible." KPs still reward you for killing more of the enemy. Your issue, is that it doesn't reward you for killing more points of the enemy.


or that is simply crippling for some army builds, for no reason other than just to throw a wrench in the works.

And yet that's happened again and again in all editions without generating nearly the same levels of complaints. Some armies perform incredibly poorly in VP harvests, footslogging armies really struggled in Blitz and Recon and probably the most unbalanced was an Alpha level Seek and Destroy. The player with the most scoring units left at the end of the game was the winner. That was grossly in favour of armies that hemorrhaged MSUs.


I've seen the scoring unit spam idea put forth, but that is countered by mobility and durability which has far less of a downside but is just as good if not better.

In your opinion. I believe mobility and durability are factors, but basic number of scoring units still favour the army with more. Again, agree to disagree.


but still have some sort of bias in favor of small elite armies.

Let's say you've got 10 units and I've got 5. Wouldn't that mean that it's nigh on impossible for you to win. You can only score a maximum of 5 infections whereas all I have to do is infect 6 and it's auto-win to me.

I don't think that qualifies as "some sort of bias" - that's heavily favourable to smaller elite armies! :eek:


I can see the point with regards to the Ravenwing army, and it's a good one, however I feel that's more a problem with the core of the list and it being a very specialized force rather than with VP's, although it might be with their implementation in *all* mission's in 4th.

If you'll recall 1/3 of missions in 4th ed didn't use VPs. (Alpha level) Then again, there were a heap of people who didn't want to play Alpha because they'd spent a heap of points to buy Infiltration or they really wanted to deepstrike their terminators. :rolleyes:

The problem with VPs in the other level missions was that a player could play the mission yet still lose when the scores were totalled. I hold one Loot counter, you hold none, but you still win because you've killing enough of my army. I've played the mission, you've just thumped the crap out of me.


I can live with the value of a unit not being important to holding an objective, that can make sense in an abstract sense, but a battle of annihilation where the armies that rely on attrition...lose the wars of attrition, is just too awkward.

If the point value of a unit is irrelevant in 2/3 of the missions, it should be irrelevant in all missions. It's only fair.

Besides, as someone else mentioned on here, KP has the side effect of allowing players to not be too precious with their expensive forces. I want to see expensive units getting stuck in, not cowering at the back of the board because one player's decided to play VP denial.


IW really didn't have a problem with escalation, I could start all 9 Oblits on the board plus my havocs and wait for my predators to come in without having to worry about it too much.

The IW pie plate army certainly suffered! Basilisk, defilers, vindicator all starting off the table then coming on piecemeal. :p


IG "pie-plate-o-doom" was a pretty craptastic army under 4th, I played it, it was rather poor, as the entire army was built around 3 LRBT's (for a grand total of...3 pie plates, less than what IW's could field and on par with what every SM list could field) that were (again, with 4E vehicle mechanics) rather easy to pop even from afar, with horrifically overcosted transports that were useless as transports (pen'd a transport? Unit disembarks. killed it? Auto-pinned) and infantry that got one chance to shoot before something got into the line and consolidated up it forever eating a unit or two every assault phase. I've never heard anyone say that IG in 4th ed needed nerfing.

That may have been the case, (I still hated facing 3 pie plates from turn one) but why should I make the concession to my opponent: "it's OK, we won't play Escalation because it makes your army even harder to play." :wtf:

I don't like the idea of any player who refuses to play any mission simply because it makes their life harder - whether that's no KPs because they reckon they've got too many units, no Dawn of War because they didn't buy any searchlights, or refusing to play an objective mission because they didn't take enough scoring units.

That kind of veto ends up with some kind of bidding war where players have to negotiate which mission isn't going to be too difficult. After all, it's only fair that if you don't want to play KPs, then I should be able to pick a mission I don't want to play.


Some armies could adapt very well. Eldar for instance with Autarchs. In fact it worked beautifully for them, especially if they were going 2nd, and such is still used today very well in Eldar Riposte lists.

Yet still not the same as seeing 3 falcons line up from turn one. There was still a chance that reserve rolls would go poorly for the Eldar, meaning they had to rely on other things than a bunch of nigh-on unkillable tanks. Besides, if a player knew he was going to refuse to play Escalation, why bother with the Autarch?

I'm not saying Escalation made these armies unplayable. But players would refuse to play it because they had the perception. The very thought of not having everything on the table from the start was too much to bear, which penalised those players who'd made concessions writing their lists. I know I used to consider how Escalation would affect me when choosing what to take.


Others just really couldn't adapt very well. Hence why you'd see people not wanting to play it. It really hurt the people who built their armies with a theme and fluff in mind than the players who cared only about efficiency, as they would easily just come up with a totally different army build.

Which applied to any mission. A lot of themed armies were hurt more than the efficiency junkies who just went: "I'll go for the biggest, nastiest combos in an effort to wipe you off the table." As I said before, in 4th ed it was possible to completely ignore the mission and concentrate on blowing stuff up. That was hardly conducive to taking armies like RW.

Hellgore
16-11-2009, 11:54
How about this then?

In a battle, no matter what it is, killing the enemy command and control is important. So the most expensive commander in each army is the 'General' and thus worth a Kill Point. These guys are important, and hard to replace. If they get committed to the fight, it had better be -darned- important that they be there. Take Macragge; Calgar wasn't bolstering the line on the planet, he was chilling back directing things from the fleet.

A force normally has some objective, a target they are meant to destroy. So each player nominates three units from the other player's army to be his 'targets' (but not the General or most expensive unit).

The reason why the most expensive unit can't be nominated is that unit will be the 'Target of opportunity' and will also be a Kill Point.

But we don't want people always choosing Trukks or easy to kill transports. So we'll add in some Victory Point flavor. In the case of a tie, the person whose kill points were worth more points wins. So if I kill a Land Raider, the Terminators in it, and that chaplain leading them, I win even if you kill three Rhinos. If that chaplain survives though, I lose. That should bring a balance to it I think, between the easy points and the big points. Also, it removes some of the abstract-ness of the situation. It doesn't matter if it is a Rhino or Ragnar Blackmane, your target is your target.

----

But balance to one while ignoring the other, so lets address Objectives. Those last turn rushes are annoying and unrealistic, you can hold an objective while being under attack, and a single grot should not stop a squad of Marines.

So I'll rip off some people and roll it into one.

Firstly, as several people have suggested, a 'point' system for holding objectives.

Only Troops can hold an Objective, but anything can help them hold it.
Anything can contest an objective.

A Troop Choice counts for 2 points
Everything else counts for 1 point.

A Transport carrying a unit counts as whatever is inside. So a Rhino with Tactical Marines inside would be treated as a 'Troop' and so can score and is worth 2 points.
A Transport not carrying a unit counts for 1 point. This is to encourage people to get out of the pill box and fight over the objective. A Troop choice inside a Transport is worth 2 points, a Troop choice with a transport nearby is worth 3. This represents the mutual support that a squad with a transport in support has, while not penalizing them too bad if they stay inside. After all, sometimes you need to push into an objective that is too hot for a dismount & assault.

So a Tactical Squad with a Terminator squad in support is holding an objective with a score of 3 (2 for the Troop Tactical Squad, 1 for the Elite Terminators). It would take an enemy Troop (2 points) plus something else to contest it.

Possibly:

You have to have units on an objective for a full turn to count for anything. Rushing up to an objective is holding it, it is attacking it. Standing there for a turn means the assault is going well and the point is truly contested, or possibly taken.

However, if you have something on the objective for one turn, new arrivals still count. I'll explain:

So if it is turn 5 and you rush the objective, then the game ends... sorry charlie. You weren't there for a turn, all you've done is launched an attack. Unless of course you've physically pushed them off an objective or killed them all, in which case they aren't holding it anymore, obviously.

If the game doesn't end, and you have units at the objective your next turn then you've established a Beachhead. Hmmm... I think an example will explain this better.

Here is what I am hoping this leads to. Say on Turn 4.

Your turn 4:
An elite squad rushes up to the ones guarding an objective. Shooting, assaulting, whatever.

Their turn 4:
They don't manage to quite kill the elite squad you sent to attack.

Your turn 5:
You've had your elite squad on the objective for a turn. Now you run up a squad of Troops. Even though they haven't been on the objective for a turn, since the Elites were, everything counts. I hope that makes sense to other people lol.

----------

Summary:
-Troops are the only ones that can score.
-Other things can help troops score.
-Troops count 2 points to who is holding an objective
-Everything else counts 1 point.
-The person with the most points on the objective is Holding it, so long as they have a Troop choice on it. Otherwise they are contesting it.

Maybe:
-You have to have a unit on an objective for 1 turn for anything to count.

Thoughts?

Important is imo to connect KP and Objectives. So both of them have to be taken into account and none solely decides over victory or defeat.
It's called "Stelek"-Mission, although I know he is not really liked anywhere in the webs, his idea IS good.

Have a look yourself, and don't be too ignorant because you just don't like Stelek.

http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2009/11/tournament-rules-1.html
http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2009/11/tournament-rules-2.html

It's worth a try. We in our club had - as already mentioned - some really good and tactically demanding games with this mission and we will keep it for regular play as long as we don't want to play fluff-scenarios.

Y'he Sha'is
16-11-2009, 12:54
I played a few (4) games this weekend using both Tau and SMs lists at the LGS, and we played a 2 games of Annihilation, and 1 of each of the other missions.

I mention this because we played two Annihilation games where only the units that could claim objectives in other missions were worth a KP. This was done in an attempt to balance the advantage of many units being able to claim objectives (the LGS feels it's an advantage, which I agree with), with the necessity of maintaining a tight army list. It actually was quite a fun game for both the SMs (who I lost with against CSM) and the Tau (who I won with against IG).

It strangely had a feel of an objective mission, with a twist. Fluff-wise I can't explain why it would work, but the game seemed to be fun for all sides, even the troop heavy IG player.

What do you guys think of this idea? It seemed to work well in a pretty competative & fun environment.

Deetwo
16-11-2009, 13:43
It strangely had a feel of an objective mission, with a twist. Fluff-wise I can't explain why it would work, but the game seemed to be fun for all sides, even the troop heavy IG player.

I think that is a good idea actually. You could also play it so that you get a "kill" point for every surviving scoring unit you have, that way it's much easier to come up with fluff reasons and the mechanic makes logical sense (if such a thing is needed).
But I think this might have the side effect of making transports for your scoring units practically mandatory, as a unit is MUCH harder to kill that way.

don_mondo
16-11-2009, 13:44
Besides, Annihilation in it's simplest form is: "Kill as many of the other guys as possible." KPs still reward you for killing more of the enemy.


Not really. It rewards you for killing more of the opponent's distinct units, not "more of the enemy". If I kill two of your rhinos and you kill my one 50-man merged IG platoon with 5 heavy weapons, 5 special weapons, commissar(s), etc etc, who has killed "more of the enemy"?

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with playing Annihilation. It's actually the easiest scenario for IG to win (IMO). But is it "fair and balanced"? No, not in my opinion.

Skyth
16-11-2009, 14:16
I will say I hated Escallation, even when it was to my advantage (Mech Swordwind with an Autarch leader). The reason I don't like it was the whole 'I may or may not be able to play with my toys' feeling.

Count de Monet
16-11-2009, 14:32
I played a few (4) games this weekend using both Tau and SMs lists at the LGS, and we played a 2 games of Annihilation, and 1 of each of the other missions.

I mention this because we played two Annihilation games where only the units that could claim objectives in other missions were worth a KP. This was done in an attempt to balance the advantage of many units being able to claim objectives (the LGS feels it's an advantage, which I agree with), with the necessity of maintaining a tight army list. It actually was quite a fun game for both the SMs (who I lost with against CSM) and the Tau (who I won with against IG).

It strangely had a feel of an objective mission, with a twist. Fluff-wise I can't explain why it would work, but the game seemed to be fun for all sides, even the troop heavy IG player.

What do you guys think of this idea? It seemed to work well in a pretty competative & fun environment.

It can be a fun change of pace, but I don't think it's a good long-term balancing factor. Would certainly give it a try though. :)

IMO the issue with that is that scoring units aren't the only ones that are vital in an objective mission-contesting units are almost as useful. You only need one scoring unit to win, plus depending on where the enemy is and the # of objectives, 0-4 contesting units. If you made this the standard, I'd think you'd see people move back towards minimum troop lists, load up on the support and in KP games keep the troops in reserve as long as possible to avoid them being available as targets. :(

What I DO think is needed is (in the absence of GW doing so in a reasonable fashion) for each group to come to an overall house-rule decision as to which of those "expendable" type units shouldn't count for a KP OR for contesting objectives. I'm fine for drones, spore mines, created spawn and such not being worth any KP, but then they shouldn't be able to contest in the other missions either. Go through the various books with a special focus on the "doesn't provide VP" and "never count as scoring" type units.

Vaktathi
17-11-2009, 07:45
I think the semantics behind the mission name or how it's described is pretty irrelevant. I don't, because that sets the tone and the mindset for how it should play. Wouldn't you be somewhat puzzled and annoyed if Seize Ground, described as a battle about recovering bits from the battlefield, was really all about killing the enemy commander instead?



Besides, Annihilation in it's simplest form is: "Kill as many of the other guys as possible." KPs still reward you for killing more of the enemy. Your issue, is that it doesn't reward you for killing more points of the enemy. The problem is you *can* kill more of the enemy, in every way *but* unit count, and still lose. I can kill far more models, I can kill far more of their force proportionally, I can leave them gutted and broken and still lose with an intact force. They way it measures killing more of the enemy is relatively meaningless is the problem.

You can have to relatively equal KP armies even, one destroys 3 rhino's and an assault squad, the other kills 2 land raiders and a terminator squad, I see no reason why the army that killed the much scarier, hardier, killier, and shootier stuff should lose in that situation. A much larger proportion of the enemies force was destroyed, a critical part crushed, but they simply killed fewer discrete units, and so lost. That makes very little sense.




And yet that's happened again and again in all editions without generating nearly the same levels of complaints. Some armies perform incredibly poorly in VP harvests, footslogging armies really struggled in Blitz and Recon and probably the most unbalanced was an Alpha level Seek and Destroy. The player with the most scoring units left at the end of the game was the winner. That was grossly in favour of armies that hemorrhaged MSUs. Yet footslogging armies in 4th generally did far better as well. I did have a problem with some of these missions as they were pretty stilted, especially with the amount of Infiltrating units available to some armies or Eldar Skimmerspam.

That said, just these missions still took what was strong about an army and promoted it, rather than intentionally taking what should be an army in its perfect element and making its strength a liability.




In your opinion. I believe mobility and durability are factors, but basic number of scoring units still favour the army with more. Again, agree to disagree. Sure, but I think this only extends so far. Having 14 units versus having 21 units isn't going to make a huge difference in objective games, even with the lower count of 14 KP's you should have *more* than enough to capture and contest what you need to in order to win, and if your units are hardier and more manueverable, you've got an advantage over the army

There's definitely a diminishing returns threshold that raw unit count hits, and most armies easily meet this with a relatively mediocre KP count (~13/14 for 2k, ~11-13 for 1750, ~9-11 for 1500) while the high KP armies don't see the same benefit from having the bajillion units in terms of ability to contest and score (sure they can do it a bit better, but not so *much* better that it justified the massive KP nerf)




Let's say you've got 10 units and I've got 5. Wouldn't that mean that it's nigh on impossible for you to win. You can only score a maximum of 5 infections whereas all I have to do is infect 6 and it's auto-win to me. Same principle yes, but makes much more sense within the context of the mission (more infected=greater chance of infection of recovery forces) and plays differently, and isn't necessarily tied to unit destruction, so entirely different tactics become open. Looking back at it, not a great example, but I think does get the gist of what I wanted to get across.



I don't think that qualifies as "some sort of bias" - that's heavily favourable to smaller elite armies! :eek: Just as KP's already are, but in a slightly different way. Still not perfect by any means, it was something I came up with off the top of my head in about 3 minutes to show something that could be used without making the attrition based armies bad at battles of attrition.




If you'll recall 1/3 of missions in 4th ed didn't use VPs. (Alpha level) Then again, there were a heap of people who didn't want to play Alpha because they'd spent a heap of points to buy Infiltration or they really wanted to deepstrike their terminators. :rolleyes: Couldn't Termi's deep strike regardless? Either way, I didn't like it because it removed too many special abilities and deployment options and line up and go at it games, and there were many units that really relied on those abilities (not talking about spending 300pts to infiltrate the whole army but certain units) that made them rather worthless otherwise, and that's never fun. But I never really played an army that relied on infiltrate or deep strike either, my CSM's were footsloggers in 4th with only rare deep striking, and my IG didn't DS/Infiltrate/Scout/etc.



The problem with VPs in the other level missions was that a player could play the mission yet still lose when the scores were totalled. I hold one Loot counter, you hold none, but you still win because you've killing enough of my army. I've played the mission, you've just thumped the crap out of me. Personally, I'm glad they got rid of VP's for objective games, as it encourages players to be much more aggressive, and gives the impression that ones entire force is expendable save for whats needed to secure the objectives, which in turn lends itself much more to the flavor of the grim dark future of the 41st millenium. I'm totally with you on that.




If the point value of a unit is irrelevant in 2/3 of the missions, it should be irrelevant in all missions. It's only fair. Not if the mission is about destroying the enemy force, at that point it becomes the most realistic measure of accomplishing this.



Besides, as someone else mentioned on here, KP has the side effect of allowing players to not be too precious with their expensive forces. I want to see expensive units getting stuck in, not cowering at the back of the board because one player's decided to play VP denial. If their big expensive unit is doing that then its not up there wreaking havoc and killing my units, which I'm fine with. Additionally with TLoS, it's much harder to hide such units like it was in 4th with area terrain where you could plop them where nobody could ever see them. If they want to sit that 680pt nob biker unit at the back of the board to avoid it giving up VP's, I'll just give it the cover save (which won't matter) and shoot it to death over several turns.






The IW pie plate army certainly suffered! Basilisk, defilers, vindicator all starting off the table then coming on piecemeal. :p Only if the IW army was utilizing all of that, then of course yes to an extent, but all those Oblits still started on the board.




That may have been the case, (I still hated facing 3 pie plates from turn one) but why should I make the concession to my opponent: "it's OK, we won't play Escalation because it makes your army even harder to play." :wtf: Because playing escalation really meant there probably wouldn't be any challenge in defeating that army at all and you might as well chalk up a win and go to the next mission. If there's little challenge in it and it's not going to be fun, why force it?

Either way, IG pieplate was infinitely less scary in 4E, without TLoS, using the old blast rules, and far less access to a smaller variety of them (compared with now) on weaker platforms, 4E IG wasn't anywhere near as nasty as 5E IG. Hell, any SM army could bring the same number of pieplates in 4E. It works far better now than it ever did before.





I don't like the idea of any player who refuses to play any mission simply because it makes their life harder - whether that's no KPs because they reckon they've got too many units, no Dawn of War because they didn't buy any searchlights, or refusing to play an objective mission because they didn't take enough scoring units. I'll agree to a point. If they can look at a mission, and look at their opponents army, and both players can tell it's going to be horrifically one sided, there's little fun to be had. If it's just *harder* well, yeah then it might suck but whatever. I haven't refused a game for any of these reasons, but I do feel that KP's really are awkward, and opponents often feel the same way, so we do reroll on occaision.



That kind of veto ends up with some kind of bidding war where players have to negotiate which mission isn't going to be too difficult. After all, it's only fair that if you don't want to play KPs, then I should be able to pick a mission I don't want to play. If someone seriously doesn't want to, yes, that's fair to say there's another mission that you don't want to play. That's all between your and your opponent.




Yet still not the same as seeing 3 falcons line up from turn one. If anything, I'd see it as being even more powerful, because you were denying an opponent at least one shooting phase against you that they would otherwise get even if you went first.


There was still a chance that reserve rolls would go poorly for the Eldar True, but Eldar skimmer superiority in 4th also meant that this wasn't very threatening


and meaning they had to rely on other things than a bunch of nigh-on unkillable tanks. All too often it would be nothing but units in skimmertanks, and anything that wasn't could be much more reasonably hidden than it can now. There's a reason Mech Eldar dominated the crap out of the last year of 4th edition.


Besides, if a player knew he was going to refuse to play Escalation, why bother with the Autarch? Well, I guess they wouldn't, but any decent Eldar player would see that Escalation could be *very* easily turned to their advantage with very little downside given the 4E rules. I don't see why they'd refuse to play it.




I'm not saying Escalation made these armies unplayable. But players would refuse to play it because they had the perception. The very thought of not having everything on the table from the start was too much to bear, which penalised those players who'd made concessions writing their lists. I know I used to consider how Escalation would affect me when choosing what to take. I think in some cases it *did* make some armies unplayable, as they'd rumble on piecemeal and get destroyed one by one, mainly any army that wasn't skimmer based that relied on transports. It wasn't just difficult, but sometimes would basically have to rely on a braindead opponent with terrible dice luck in order to have a chance at winning, which is never fun. Was this exaggerated to some extent? Probably, but not so much in other cases. I built my first IG army as a theme force, and it never won an escalation mission, it just couldn't do it coming in by 2's and 3's against enemy AT fire under 4th. My CSM's (much more competitive army, under both codex's) never had a problem with Escalation, so I didn't mind playing it with them even if I did have to leave my predators off the board.




Which applied to any mission. Not quite to the same degree, as Escalation was really severe in what could and could not be taken, and jut played out really awkwardly.

"Oh look, my 9 oblits and 2 havoc squads start on the board waiting for your IG tank army to come on piecemeal a couple units at a time as we destroy everything that rolls on as it appears." That happened a lot. Or "oh look, turn 2 you're stuff is just coming on and we've already got a huge number of CC dudes up to your line, hope you didn't want to shoot at anything after turn 3 because it's all going to be locked and consolidated into right after it comes on".


A lot of themed armies were hurt more than the efficiency junkies who just went: "I'll go for the biggest, nastiest combos in an effort to wipe you off the table." As I said before, in 4th ed it was possible to completely ignore the mission and concentrate on blowing stuff up. That was hardly conducive to taking armies like RW.True, but I don't think KP's help that out any less, the biggest thing I think was simply removing VP's from objective missions. Had they just kept VP's for annihilation, and changed a few things, they'd remain a fine mechanic.

Occulto
17-11-2009, 09:47
Mate, you're going to have to forgive me for not going through and responding to each individual response - it's been a long day. :angel:

I have no problem with calling a game if it develops into the situation where it becomes so one sided as to be pointless, but at least make that decision on more than a gut feeling and some theory-hammer that's been brewed up on a forum.

With Escalation, sometimes units could come on piecemeal, but sometimes they came on in the 2nd turn. Not only that, it meant any unit arriving from reserve could pick the best positions to come on. There's no way to know that in advance, just by looking at the rulebook.

Refusing to play a mission, IMHO is basically a player conceding before a single model hits the table. It reminds me of playing against people who want to stop playing because their uber-unit happened to die before it could do anything. (I think we've all played someone like that...) :mad:

I think the biggest issue I had with players deciding which missions they do and don't play, is that they say: "I don't believe I can win, therefore there's no way I'm going to have fun." In doing so, they deny themselves the opportunity to beat the odds, or even just have a glorious last stand where they have a damn good time losing.

Things are rarely as clear cut as forums would suggest.

Last Friday I played a game using Chaos against my regular Tau opponent (we're halfway through a best of 5 series... which'll probably be extended to best of 13 the way we're going at the moment) and lost. What mission did we play? KPs.

Now using nothing more than the arguments thrown round in these KP threads, I had the upper hand - as numerically he had more units. Ergo it should have been a win to me and the fact I lost indicates I'm a tactical idiot. Right?

Wrong. (And until the last couple of turns the whole game was resting on a knife-edge so I couldn't have been that idiotic)

Looking at more than just the mission, there were a lot more factors at play than a simple equation like "you've got more units than me".

First of all, he knocked out my Rhinos leaving my Bezerkers footslogging across open ground. This gave him time to shoot them, without copping much in return. They did eventually get into combat but the squad they hit, simply held them up long enough for the rest of his army to get out of assault range. Then the firepower descended upon the red armored psychopaths and Khorne got his skulls - unfortunately they were human skulls. :D

My opponent used LOS blocking terrain to hide his suits, devilfish and drones which made it impossible to grab those KPs. Once he knocked out my obliterators, there wasn't much that could touch his devilfish even if they'd been out in the open. The only other AT firepower I had was out of range on the other side of the table (and that was just stunning a hammerhead turn after turn).

In summary, although the straight up KP equation favored me - when you look at an actual game rather than sterile theory-hammer - the numerical advantage was counteracted by his tactics, mobility and shooting. This meant that his army could stay out of reach of my most potent units, deny me enough KPs while racking up enough of his own to pull off the win.

He played well, exploited my weaknesses and most importantly we had a blast playing the game.

The thing is, in all that rambling, I'm trying to illustrate the sorts of things that happen in every game. After the game, you realise that the terrain gave one guy an advantage, while the army matchup favored the other guy. It turns out the mission favored the first, but when you factor in the luck of the second guy it equalled out.

There are so many factors that go into every game that I think it's impossible to look at something like the mission in isolation and predict with any certainty, that it's going to make the game not worth playing.

What I find frustrating about these arguments, is that all the stuff like terrain, tactics, army-matchups and so on, are just being ignored when they have just as much effect on the result as who's got the most units.

I don't know whether I'm playing 40K wrong, but just I don't see these games where someone pops a couple of transports and that's game over. More often one person has a slight advantage which is counteracted by disadvantages in other parts of the game.

I'm not trying to be a Devil's Advocate. My experiences just don't reconcile with half the stuff people are saying.

lanrak
17-11-2009, 10:19
Hi all.
I dont want to go into great detail, but just point out a few things.

Kill points is an non-sensical and abstract mechanism applied to a game with nonsensical and abstract development as a whole.

Therfore it may seem to some as 'acceptable'.

'Just play for fun..' does NOT give the developers the right NOT to take game play issues seriously :mad:.

If you want to introduce narative based missions ,(which 40k is best suited for.)

Then simply make all games decided by 'objective points' dependant on randomly determined mission cards!

Have cards for Attack Defence games where players decide to be the attacker or defender and take appropriate cards.

And seperate cards for meeting engagments.Where players take mission cards from the same deck.

Niether player knows what the opponents mission is, or do they know before hand what thier mission will be, just if they are attacker-defender or meeting .

Eg.
Slow the advance,
1,point for every enemy unit that is still in thier table half at the end of the game.

Break out ,
1 point for every freindly unit in the enemy deployment zone at the end of the game.

Take and hold.
1 point for every objective marker held at the end of the game.

Disruption.
1 point for every enemy HQ or fast attack unit destroyed.

Breech defence.
I point for every HQ of Heavy support unit destroyed.

Etc.About 20+ cards in total , to make game play as diverse and interesting as possible.

This results in players takeing more balanced armies to have a chance at winning at wider range of objectives.
And the games are far more varied and diverse, not to mention more FUN!

This puts the focus back on ENJOYMENT of PLAYING , rather than the vapid W/L/D.:eek:

TTFN
Lanrak.

Vaktathi
17-11-2009, 10:21
Mate, you're going to have to forgive me for not going through and responding to each individual response - it's been a long day. :angel: :D it took me a while to get around to responding to your points, I don't always expect an answer to each one of mine, I'm just sort of OCD about making my own replies as complete as possible.



I have no problem with calling a game if it develops into the situation where it becomes so one sided as to be pointless, but at least make that decision on more than a gut feeling and some theory-hammer that's been brewed up on a forum. True to an extent, however there are games, especially back in 4th, where it wasn't exactly hard to see the expected outcome before anything hit the table. It didn't happen all the time, but it happens enough that both players realize and choose a different mission. I've done this when realizing either an opponent or myself was just going to get butchered without a decent ability to reply short of horrifically awful dice luck.

Like Breakout against mech eldar with star engines. Turn 1, Eldar win. Or Meatgrinder where one has to table an opponent while the other guy just has to keep 1 model left alive and the guys got 220 orks.




With Escalation, sometimes units could come on piecemeal, but sometimes they came on in the 2nd turn. Not only that, it meant any unit arriving from reserve could pick the best positions to come on. There's no way to know that in advance, just by looking at the rulebook. All true, however this still often meant the enemy was already in good positions and advancing on objectives while you had to hide and wait for more stuff to come on. It wasn't always a disaster, but had the most potential to be of any game type, hence when people wanted to play a relatively balanced game match, they avoided it.



Refusing to play a mission, IMHO is basically a player conceding before a single model hits the table. It reminds me of playing against people who want to stop playing because their uber-unit happened to die before it could do anything. (I think we've all played someone like that...) :mad: Eh, there's a difference, if it's like one of the examples I used above, I can see just going to a different mission. It happens and won't really be much fun for one or both players. If they are just ********, that's different. I don't like the KP mechanic, I think it is highly flawed, but when it comes up, it comes up and we play it unless both of us just don't like it.




I think the biggest issue I had with players deciding which missions they do and don't play, is that they say: "I don't believe I can win, therefore there's no way I'm going to have fun." In doing so, they deny themselves the opportunity to beat the odds, or even just have a glorious last stand where they have a damn good time losing. That depends on the player and the mindset they are in and comfort level with opponent. If I'm playing with a good friend whom I've played a million times and we don't give a **** who wins or loses or if I'm 1/4th of an inch out of assault range or not, then I'm fine playing a losing game and getting my ass kicked. If I'm playing someone unfamiliar or I'm not entire comfortable with, I'm probably not going to have as fun a time and will want to play on a more level playing field.



Last Friday I played a game using Chaos against my regular Tau opponent (we're halfway through a best of 5 series... which'll probably be extended to best of 13 the way we're going at the moment) and lost. What mission did we play? KPs.

Now using nothing more than the arguments thrown round in these KP threads, I had the upper hand - as numerically he had more units. Ergo it should have been a win to me and the fact I lost indicates I'm a tactical idiot. Right?

Wrong. (Although some might disagree)

Looking at more than just the mission, there were a lot more factors at play than a simple equation like "you've got more units than me".

First of all, he knocked out my Rhinos leaving my Bezerkers footslogging across open ground. This gave him time to shoot them, without copping much in return. They did eventually get into combat but the squad they hit, simply held them up long enough for the rest of his army to get out of assault range. Then the firepower descended upon the red armored psychopaths and Khorne got his skulls - unfortunately they were human skulls. :D

My opponent used LOS blocking terrain to hide his suits, devilfish and drones which made it impossible to grab those KPs. Once he knocked out my obliterators, there wasn't much that could touch his devilfish even if they'd been out in the open. The only other AT firepower I had was out of range on the other side of the table (and that was just stunning a hammerhead turn after turn).

In summary, although the straight up KP equation favored me - when you look at an actual game rather than sterile theory-hammer - the numerical advantage was counteracted by his mobility and shooting. This meant that his army could stay out of reach of my most potent units, deny me enough KPs while racking up enough of his own to pull off the win. In doing so however he also probably killed a much large proportion of your force than you did of his, and thus nothing is wrong with this outcome. Having more doesn't mean you'll auto-lose, but it does mean you are more vulnerable to nonsensical losses.

It's possible win with more KP's on the table, but it does generally pose a significant disadvantage that really has no place in being there. I played a 32 KP IG army composed of nothing but mech platoons and still beat my opponent (for future reference, footslogging guardians and wraithguard across a guard gunline without taking advantage of LoS blocking terrain is a bad idea:p). However I'd also had games with 20 KP's where I lost a couple chimeras, an infantry squad, a platoon command squad and a russ and lost because all I killed were the two nob biker squads, 2 warbosses almost killed off a loota unit, immobilized two trukks and only had 2 Boyz units left with less than 10 guys in each that were starting to drop, even though that was the overwhelmingly vast majority of my opponents army and I only walked away with 4 KP's despite killing ~1600pts of his 1750pt army to my ~340pts out of 1750pts.

Results like that are just not really encouraging for future play when it's like "well, even if I kill off both big units, as long as he kills a couple chimeras or infantry squads, it's a losing game for me". Granted it's a relatively extreme example of one abuseable list, but it does show a massive weakness in the KP mechanic.





The thing is, in all that rambling, I'm trying to illustrate the sorts of things that happen in every game. After the game, you realise that the terrain gave one guy an advantage, while the army matchup favored the other guy. It turns out the mission favored the first, but when you factor in the luck of the second guy it equalled out.


There are so many factors that go into every game that I think it's impossible to look at something like the mission in isolation and predict with any certainty, that it's going to make the game not worth playing. Stuff like that is all understandable, and when it's give-take like that it works out fine, but there are just some times when you can look at a board, the mission, and the two armies and realize it's probably going to be more fun for both players to reroll the mission, again bringing up some of the old 4E missions like Breakout with mech eldar or meatgrinder against Orks (or really anything)

EmperorEternalXIX
18-11-2009, 07:37
Uphill battles are fine, I don't have a problem with an uphill battle necessarily, but when they take what should be the strength of an army, applied to where it should be best applied, and make it a liability, I think it's silly. It is not a liability to outnumber someone three to one. At best the other guy is only going to be able to hurt -- not KILL, just hurt, and maaaayyybe kill with some luck -- 1/3 of your army, mathematically speaking.

This is why I contend the point that I do: I have never seen a guard game (the quintessential KP crybabies out there) go this incredibly unfair direction. Just because it is possible doesn't mean it needs to be considered as a balancing point on which to hinge everything. After all a Land Raider can die in one shot on the first turn...does that mean it should cost 20 points?


Stuff like that is all understandable, and when it's give-take like that it works out fine, but there are just some times when you can look at a board, the mission, and the two armies and realize it's probably going to be more fun for both players to reroll the mission, again bringing up some of the old 4E missions like Breakout with mech eldar or meatgrinder against Orks (or really anything) This hasn't happened to me, or anyone in our group, since 4th edition. To us, the rules are the rules...and the rules say you roll for a mission and do it (unless you previously agree to something, anyway). What you say here about just taking a glance at the board, the two armies and the mission...you guys need to learn to set up a board and write a real list, if this is the case where you play.

This problem ultimately stems from the plague of ******** who blindly believe that GW's game is unplayably horrible and that clearly they could do much better, and so they modify the meta game locally to what they see as being "correct." I'm sure there are people out there who want all infantry armies who think the vehicle damage table is too forgiving; people out there who feel the space marines are too mortal relative to their fluff and give them all re-rollable armor saves. It is all relative, and ultimately


It's possible win with more KP's on the table, but it does generally pose a significant disadvantage that really has no place in being there. I played a 32 KP IG army composed of nothing but mech platoons and still beat my opponent (for future reference, footslogging guardians and wraithguard across a guard gunline without taking advantage of LoS blocking terrain is a bad idea). However I'd also had games with 20 KP's where I lost a couple chimeras, an infantry squad, a platoon command squad and a russ and lost because all I killed were the two nob biker squads, 2 warbosses almost killed off a loota unit, immobilized two trukks and only had 2 Boyz units left with less than 10 guys in each that were starting to drop, even though that was the overwhelmingly vast majority of my opponents army and I only walked away with 4 KP's despite killing ~1600pts of his 1750pt army to my ~340pts out of 1750pts. If you take so many models that you have no place to hide or defend them all, and you lose, I think this mission does exactly what it's intended to -- prevent you from taking insanely unfair lists that could easily dismantle any opponent in an objective game. You know, like having 32 units in a game where most armies obeying the force org have only about 20 tops.

Look at your example. The other guy blasted a huge amount of stuff out of your army. Just because it is insanely undercosted so you tank-porn guard fans go buy more does not mean you didn't get merc'ed.

Kill points is fine. Your logic is especially flawed, Vaktathi. This is what attrition armies should be best at. Well the way the game is structured right now, attrition//horde/volume armies are very difficult to fight and even harder to decisively disable.

Just my last game an opponent had a unit of guardsmen on each of three objectives, each went to ground and received 3+ cover saves from everything I dished out at them (which, when you compare my 10-minute space marine shooting phase, to the 40-minute guard shooting phase, wasn't much, relatively speaking...and I play the infamous "Best of" SM list). The guard army was completely unhampered by having these 30 men incapacitated, and the rest of the army bludgeoned me horribly while I feebly tried to bolter these "easily killed" guardsmen out of the upper ruin floors.

Sorry to Vaktathi and those who share your mindset...but with the 3+ and 4+ cover saves so readily available, if you can't keep these guys alive the fault is with your playing, not with the game's rules (and I say that as respectfully as I can, mind you. I'm not here to contend who is a better player than whom. It just boggles my mind that people can find this mission so broken when the very armies "hamstrung" by it can win it even more easily than the elite armies).

Vaktathi
18-11-2009, 09:20
It is not a liability to outnumber someone three to one. At best the other guy is only going to be able to hurt -- not KILL, just hurt, and maaaayyybe kill with some luck -- 1/3 of your army, mathematically speaking. I don't see how that's true at all. I've played plenty of games where I've outnumbered my opponent quite a bit, but they've been able to kill much more of my army in almost every sense. Between more accurate weapons fire, greater CC potential and multiple assaults, and their greater durability, I've played games where an elite army opponent has had no problem defeating much more of my "hordy" army through durability and mobility. Likewise, utilizing my CSM's and Eldar, I've not found it anywhere near impossible it defeate opponents that outnumber me 2-1 in every way. If you're Space Marines are only managing a 1-1 kill ratio against Guardsmen, something is wrong.


KP's just sound like a crutch than anything else. If you're big tough unit can't manage to kill more than one enemy unit that's far easier to kill off, I think the problem lies elsewhere, and does not necessitate making armies that should be good at attrition battles bad at them.




If you take so many models that you have no place to hide or defend them all, and you lose, I think this mission does exactly what it's intended to -- prevent you from taking insanely unfair lists that could easily dismantle any opponent in an objective game. You know, like having 32 units in a game where most armies obeying the force org have only about 20 tops.
Even if this *is* true (which I don't buy that simply having a larger number of units is going to allow you to make some invincible murder army), KP's still promote awkward tactical decisions and arrive at nonsensical game outcomes.

Even between identical armies, you can get really dumb game outcomes, lets look at my CSM's for example. If one player kills all 4 rhino's and the Daemon Prince (280pts total), but the other kills both 6 strong Terminator squads, a 2 man Obliterator unit, and a full 10 man CSM unit (800pts total), why does the player that killed the rhino's win? The other clearly killed far more important units and a much greater proportion of the enemy force, model count, scoring units, etc.

Without any relation to actual value, KP's end up just being an awkward mechanic that don't accurately reflect how the battle of annihilation actually went. It's no better than simply measuring model killed.




Look at your example. The other guy blasted a huge amount of stuff out of your army. Just because it is insanely undercosted so you tank-porn guard fans go buy more does not mean you didn't get merc'ed. He killed 2 chimeras, 15 T3 5+sv Ld7/8 infantry, and a Leman Russ, I don't see how that is a "huge" amount of stuff. 2 AV12 vehicles with AV10 side armor and damage mitigation potential aside from smoke launchers isn't all that amazing when you've got a monstrous loota squad with 15 autocannons. Likewise, the Infantry are pathetically easy to kill in almost every way, and the LRBT really doesn't like powerklaws to rear armor 10 on a turn 2 charge.


I'm not seeing what's so "huge" about these losses or why they are so undercosted, which would be another matter entirely for a different thread. Please leave the "tank porn" comments out, one could make such comments of any army and they don't add anything to the conversation.




Kill points is fine. Your logic is especially flawed, Vaktathi. This is what attrition armies should be best at. Well the way the game is structured right now, attrition//horde/volume armies are very difficult to fight and even harder to decisively disable. Only really if you are relying almost entirely on shooting. What may take 2 rounds of shooting to kill will be gone instantly in CC along with 2 other units that won't need shooting at.



Just my last game an opponent had a unit of guardsmen on each of three objectives, each went to ground and received 3+ cover saves from everything I dished out at them (which, when you compare my 10-minute space marine shooting phase, to the 40-minute guard shooting phase, wasn't much, relatively speaking...and I play the infamous "Best of" SM list). No idea what that SM list is :/

Either way trying to outshoot an IG army with SM's just sounds like a poor idea. Just like IG trying to out CC SM's.


The guard army was completely unhampered by having these 30 men incapacitated, and the rest of the army bludgeoned me horribly while I feebly tried to bolter these "easily killed" guardsmen out of the upper ruin floors. That would be the problem when you are trying to bolter them out. instead of having spent the turns sitting there shooting bolters, moving up (and into contesting/scoring range) and assaulting would have been far more productive I imagine.

Sir_Turalyon
19-11-2009, 13:22
Just close these threads as soon as they open, on the grounds of subject alredy being discussed to death. Here, problem solved :D .

Skyth
19-11-2009, 13:45
I'd rather there be more of the threads. Just like the ones about the Chaos Codex. This much discontent shows GW that they screwed up.

Sir_Turalyon
19-11-2009, 14:17
As if GW cared. Especially as malcontents whining that game has been changed and now sucks are older then Warseer, probably as old as Portent. Changes in game are fuct of life, so are people not liking changes; the same rants poping up every two weeks in brand new threads are problem that can be actualy adressed, especially as these threads bring nothing new.

Only way to convince GW they screwed up is stop buying their products, which most of us aren't going to do.

EmperorEternalXIX
21-11-2009, 05:06
As an aside to the whining in this thread, I have something pretty alien to Warseer. A suggestion.

A friend and I worked this out. You make each unit worth the amount of KP it's worth, by how many hundreds of points it cost. It's a KP/VP hybrid that's still fast and simple to do, and takes into account the unit's worth.

This is of course horribly unbalanced, just like victory points were, but seeing as everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, it's much faster than doing complex math to figure out the exact points of what you killed (only to end up in an inevitable draw...god VP was ****).

Jackmojo
21-11-2009, 08:43
Kill Points are the first system in 40k that provides a disincentive to many small units. Given the inherent advantage some armies could have without paying any points for, derived from the unit to unit based interactions provided for in the rules, there was never any reason to avoid it until now.

I, for one, am glad they finally found a way to discourage this sort of game-y tactic, and I've seen as many games where the loser felt like they should have won in either of the objective missions as in annihilation.

Jack

Vaktathi
21-11-2009, 08:50
However at the same time it punishes armies and builds that just inherently have small cheap units whether they want to or not, and are even full 10 model strong units. If I want to build an IG vets army, my troops, tops (lumping tons of absolutely ridiculous and expensive upgrades) will cost maybe 200pts each? If I take them like any normal sane player would take them (weapon upgrades, a couple squad options, maybe carapace or demolitions?) they'll cost 100-150. With transport (unless one wants them to be relatively useless and exceedingly easy to kill) make that 150-200. If I buy 4 of those that's 8 KP's in 600-800pts. So, you've got an average amount of scoring units, but only maybe 30-40% of your points spent and are already at as many KP's as some builds are at twice or more those points.

Or you end up with something like Tau where their basic mechanized troop choice is 3 KP's, with the two T3 4+sv Gun Drones worth a KP.

Jackmojo
21-11-2009, 10:07
Its no mystery or surprise that some missions favor certain armies and army build types over others, not every army is going to excel at all missions and Annihilation is as much about protecting whatever fragile kill Points your army brings as it is about breaking the other guys. Its not as if the IG list as a whole doesn't have other options and ways to make hard to kill units.

Plus Kill Points helps work against the otherwise endless mechanized trend 5th otherwise pushes towards.



Or you end up with something like Tau where their basic mechanized troop choice is 3 KP's, with the two T3 4+sv Gun Drones worth a KP.

Not gonna argue here, Tau have all sorts of issues in 5th this is only one of the more obvious, but part of the reason they suffer on Kill Points is precisely because they were built to abuse multiple small units.

Jack

Skyth
21-11-2009, 14:58
All this talk about 'protecting your fragile kill points' basically boils down, if you want to win, don't play with part of your army...Not the best mission design.

EmperorEternalXIX
21-11-2009, 19:38
There's a lot more to it than that. When I watch a KP mission the players involved tend to make a lot of stupid decisions.

When my team and I play Gears of War 2 online, we mostly play modes that we can respawn in such as Guardian. Sometimes we change it up to Execution, and our people say, "It's time to learn the value of life, guys."

40K has this same issue, there is no penalty for sending your men imminently to their death 2/3 of the time and people still play this way. I constantly see people making stupid decisions in KP missions. Guard players advance (because normally they outnumber the guy 3-1 and the losses are negligible because they have 9 million scoring units); Space Marine players drop pod in and split into combat squads to give away 3 KPs; Ork players just push forward and an MC or Walker scores an easy sweep on them; guys get out of transports bunched up for ordnance fodder just to get off some sweet double tap on a target they are unlikely to finish off.

The examples are endless. For example, mech Tau...why the hell would you ever detach the drones from your ship, especially if you just disembarked to shoot? I see this all the time. Then the guy throws up his arms and yells fifth is broken like the sky is falling.

I harbor a special hatred for the Tau players out there. They have been crybabying and shelving armies since 5th edition hit. I know one guy who shelved his army because he modeled a lot of his guys as kneeling, and they couldn't shoot out of a popular ruin we had. Nobody was willing to force him to play it that way especially since their rifles stuck out of the windows fine mostly, but he was so furious he shelved his stuff and never looked back.

Because one squad of dudes couldn't spend the game camped in a ruin.

Saying "If you want to win, don't play with part of your army" means KP are broken is foolish. You have to do the same thing to win objective missions -- taking lots of non-troops isn't going to do you any favors there, same as lots of small units in KP isn't.

Ultimately the game is about unit ot unit interaction -- 1 to 1. My guys in Squad A can shoot your guys in Squad B. When you have a million targets, however fragile they may be, you have to understand that it is not easy to kill 10 units just because they are made up of easy to kill models. There has to be SOME disadvantage; after all, mathematically, there are only so many opportunities to shoot your multiple units with my handful of elite ones. It's just a side effect of the game mechanics.

Did you guys know you can run while falling back? This has helped me win many kill point games. Not that I've ever seen any other player try to escape imminent death during KPs. People don't seem to care about the fact that if one guy gets away the point isn't theirs.

Dyrnwyn
22-11-2009, 02:16
The examples are endless. For example, mech Tau...why the hell would you ever detach the drones from your ship, especially if you just disembarked to shoot? I see this all the time. Then the guy throws up his arms and yells fifth is broken like the sky is falling.
To thrown up a screen to prevent the Fire Warriors from being assaulted, which are a more useful KP. Plus, if you don't detatch them then the Fish gets assaulted, hit in rear armor, and will often wreck and the Drones will have to get out and take a pinning test. Either way, you've lost a KP. But this way maybe the Fish or Fire Warriors survive and they are a more valuable strategic asset.


I harbor a special hatred for the Tau players out there. They have been crybabying and shelving armies since 5th edition hit. I know one guy who shelved his army because he modeled a lot of his guys as kneeling, and they couldn't shoot out of a popular ruin we had. Nobody was willing to force him to play it that way especially since their rifles stuck out of the windows fine mostly, but he was so furious he shelved his stuff and never looked back.

Because one squad of dudes couldn't spend the game camped in a ruin.
Sounds like he was doing it in protest. Granted, it seems silly to me, but if you're basing your particular dislike of Tau players on him, well there are more reasons to shelve an army than simply because you don't like the current rules or way they play. I shelved my Tau more because I had never bought alot of the units which are most effective in 5th; Piranha, massed Devilfish, lots of Crisis Suits, etc. In 4th I played Hybrid and my army list was unsuited to 5th. When 5th rolled around I had the option to buy a truckload more units and retool the list to 'fix' the army, or continue building the other two forces I had started that put in a much better showing in 5th; Biker Orks and Daemonhunters. Rather than fix my first army and slow or abandon my other two fledgling armies I chose to shelve the Tau for the time being and continue expanding my later forces.


Saying "If you want to win, don't play with part of your army" means KP are broken is foolish. You have to do the same thing to win objective missions -- taking lots of non-troops isn't going to do you any favors there, same as lots of small units in KP isn't.
Except if you take lots of non-troops, you can still win objective missions by pushing enemies off of objectives while holding one of your own. Having 2 Troops and maxed other slots isn't as big a handicap in objectives games as having 20 KP to the enemy's 10.



Ultimately the game is about unit ot unit interaction -- 1 to 1. My guys in Squad A can shoot your guys in Squad B. When you have a million targets, however fragile they may be, you have to understand that it is not easy to kill 10 units just because they are made up of easy to kill models. There has to be SOME disadvantage; after all, mathematically, there are only so many opportunities to shoot your multiple units with my handful of elite ones. It's just a side effect of the game mechanics.
No, but quick moving hammer unit can kill one of those 10 units every turn, more or less. Their elite nature is an advantage in a scenario that demands enemy squads be completely eliminated to claim a KP or remove their scoring/contesting status. Oh they'll lose models as they hop from unit to unit, and they may even die entirely, but if they've claimed 5 squads by games end, they've won the game. The self same squad can single-handedly clear an objective in objective games, where the limited number of objectives makes having 10 weenie squads to one elite no real advantage unless there are fewer objectives than elite squads. Difficult, when there are a maximum of 5 and an average of 3 in objective games.


Did you guys know you can run while falling back? This has helped me win many kill point games. Not that I've ever seen any other player try to escape imminent death during KPs. People don't seem to care about the fact that if one guy gets away the point isn't theirs.
Has that been FAQ'd without my knowledge? Insofar as I know, a squad which has fallen back beyond the table's edge counts as destroyed for the purposes of KP. Or are you speaking of merely falling back out of range?

Vaktathi
22-11-2009, 05:25
The examples are endless. For example, mech Tau...why the hell would you ever detach the drones from your ship, especially if you just disembarked to shoot? I see this all the time. Then the guy throws up his arms and yells fifth is broken like the sky is falling. Sometimes you have no choice, the craft is destroyed. 4+ save notwithstanding, an AV12/11/10 tank isn't *that* hard to kill.



I harbor a special hatred for the Tau players out there. They have been crybabying and shelving armies since 5th edition hit. I know one guy who shelved his army because he modeled a lot of his guys as kneeling, and they couldn't shoot out of a popular ruin we had. Nobody was willing to force him to play it that way especially since their rifles stuck out of the windows fine mostly, but he was so furious he shelved his stuff and never looked back.

Because one squad of dudes couldn't spend the game camped in a ruin. What does this have to do with the KP issue?



Saying "If you want to win, don't play with part of your army" means KP are broken is foolish. You have to do the same thing to win objective missions -- taking lots of non-troops isn't going to do you any favors there, same as lots of small units in KP isn't. And some armies just inherently always did, currently do, and always will have a larger number of discrete units and have been built around this since 40k first came out. By itself this inherently undermines the credibility of using KP's as a reasonable measure of victory determination. It might be interesting to know who killed more discrete units, but ultimately it really means nothing and results in bass ackwards tactical decisions and awkward gameplay.




Ultimately the game is about unit ot unit interaction -- 1 to 1. My guys in Squad A can shoot your guys in Squad B. When you have a million targets, however fragile they may be, you have to understand that it is not easy to kill 10 units just because they are made up of easy to kill models. There has to be SOME disadvantage; What, you mean besides the fat that say, while IG outnumber SM's, they have lower leadership, lower BS, lower WS, lower T, lower S, lower Init, a worse save, worse guns, no krak grenades and don't have ATSKNF?

In this context, KP's sound more and more like a crutch.




after all, mathematically, there are only so many opportunities to shoot your multiple units with my handful of elite ones. It's just a side effect of the game mechanics. Shooting yes, however it should take far fewer instances of shooting to kill smaller units, and the assault phase allows one to make contact with multiple enemy units and destroy several in one phase that way.

Cognitave
22-11-2009, 05:53
What, you mean besides the fat that say, while IG outnumber SM's, they have lower leadership, lower BS, lower WS, lower T, lower S, lower Init, a worse save, worse guns, no krak grenades and don't have ATSKNF?

In this context, KP's sound more and more like a crutch.


Bingo. That's exactly what I think KP currently are. Some bloke at GW made a huge brain-fart in deciding how to balance 5th edition, not even realizing that the same system used to build armies can easily be used in calculating their destruction.

But the current system makes no sense. Sure, you can twist and contort it to try to create some wretched abomination of an explanation for how it works, but in all essence, it's just borked from the get-go. Instead of just assigning a certain KP value to a unit, just make it a blanket portion (or whole) of their point cost. It'll avoid future mess-ups and edition curves, while point costs are already a pre-existing problem that can be managed easier (unless you're the 'crons...) and broken less.

DhaosAndy
23-11-2009, 04:27
You do realise that one could simply turn this whole argument on it's head and say that objective missions are unfair because they disadvantage my relatively small number of elite units.

Skyth
23-11-2009, 04:35
And they would be wrong. Smaller KP armies are not at a major disadvantage in objective missions.

Vaktathi
23-11-2009, 04:35
You do realise that one could simply turn this whole argument on it's head and say that objective missions are unfair because they disadvantage my relatively small number of elite units.

We've looked at that actually. For C&C, it's a non issue due to the small number of objectives that even small unit count armies can compete without disadvantage, likewise for Seize Ground with only 3 objectives this still holds true, it's really only for 5 objective SA missions, and perhaps 4 objective ones where the Unit count balance is very large, that this really becomes an issue, and less so the higher points you play. At 2k, most armies will average 12-15 KP's, and that will be plenty for just about anything, largely mitigating or negating the advantage a 22 KP IG army may have for instance.

There's also the argument of Durability and Mobility (having 6 tough and fast units is better than having 12 weeny and slow units) that also goes along in with that whole shtick.

Cognitave
23-11-2009, 04:45
@Dhaos: A drawback of having elite units is low numbers. Part of fielding an elite army is using them efficiently. This doesn't mean standing on a hill and shooting downward, like on the codex covers. Marines are tactically deployed to combat zones, being of incredible value to the Imperium. How does it even make an ounce of sense that Imperial "Untold Billions" Guard casualties are worth the same as Space Marine casualties? Especially since the death of 12 marines and a terminator is considered "heavy casualties" (p. 37 of the Space Marine codex), whereas an Imperial Guard general would likely cackle at the thought of guardsmen speed bumps.

EmperorEternalXIX
23-11-2009, 05:51
And they would be wrong. Smaller KP armies are not at a major disadvantage in objective missions. How can you not have an advantage outnumbering your enemies' units two to one in an objective mission when all you have to do is stand one lone model near the objective to completely shut down the capture of it for your opponent? It is utterly IMPOSSIBLE to argue this, especially since one can only shoot so many things in a game. In a five turn game if you somehow had 6 small units on each objective, the enemy wouldn't even be able to attempt to target them all. Of course this does not happen often or at all, really, but my point is it is POSSIBLE. What advantage do elite armies have other than the enemy

Yet again the game favors horde tactics; simply fling your guys at my elite squad on an objective and hope that when the roll for last turn fails you have one or two models left alive close enough to contest. An elite army cannot even REMOTELY operate that way, and is subsequently at a HUGE disadvantage in objective games.


What, you mean besides the fat that say, while IG outnumber SM's, they have lower leadership, lower BS, lower WS, lower T, lower S, lower Init, a worse save, worse guns, no krak grenades and don't have ATSKNF?

In this context, KP's sound more and more like a crutch. This is the crutch. "We have a million units but our guys are crappier so it's fair." I just watched today as a guard player fielded, in addition to his normal weaponry, a list with 16 plasma gunners. I don't care how crappy the guys are, their plasma gun is just as deadly as anyone else's and if they manage to hit the amount of damage that can be caused is borderline horse hockey.

You can talk all you want about the marine statline; it means nothing to almost anything in the guard army except the lasgun. Your heavy bolter is my heavy bolter; your lascannon is my lascannon; your plasma cannon is my plasma cannon; your battle cannon is my...oh wow I guess we don't have that one, do we? Heh.

Ultimately, my point is, the statlines are less relevant than people want to admit, especially to the guard. The amount of weapons they have that wound on 2's and ignore armor is appalling. Almost every one of your 20+ units will be carrying something that either puts out high rate of fire and easy to wound rolls or something high strength and harsh AP. Practically everything in the book besides a lasgun kills a marine pretty handily. Am I really supposed to believe it should be weighted differently because the guardsmen are a slightly crappier shot?

Also, cover is so worthless to elite MEQ armies it's not even funny. The thing that kills us worst -- high weight of small arms fire forcing us to roll many saves -- is completely unhindered by cover. Leaves us in a pretty tough place.

I know you Guard guys cannot understand the concept but in a Space Marine style elite army there is no "best case solution" to play to. It is a decision made between the least horrible thing to do, instead.

Guard Army: "Let me try to lascannon that Land Raider. Oh, my boatload of cheap lascannons wiffed. Let me try my second squad now. Oh, missed. Guess I'd better try my third squad. Oh missed again. Well I'll fire this one off this Leman Russ. Crap, nothing. Better use my vendetta. OH! BOOM!!!"

Elite Army: "Let me try to lascannon that Leman Russ. Oh, I missed. Umm...do I have another one near here? Yeah, but that squad moved cause I needed the melta guy to get in range. What about this other squad here, they have one. Oh, crap, they are out of range because I only have three troops choices and had to deploy them wide. What about my Predator? Ah crap he was pivoted the wrong way. Oh well." **waits patiently for another battle cannon shot to the face**

The decision making process for an army with craploads of units is almost idiotically simple. Find the thing most likely to work, and do it repeatedly until it does. Everything is a dedicated unit with an obvious role: the Leman Russ is there for anti-infantry; the Vendetta does long-range anti tank. Elite armies have the setup of dying less easily and hitting more consistently, but these two factors are fairly meaningless when you include the idea that they will not be heavily armed because of balance. It doesn't matter how awesome 30 Tactical Marines' BS rating is if they only carry three melta guns.

You may ask what all this has to do with the KP argument, and frankly it is off-topic. But I just wanted to illustrate the HUGE difference in having an army of crappy guys outfitted to repeatedly attempt the same goals as opposed to an army of awesome guys in low numbers spread too thin and equipped to non-committal generalist roles.

I don't care if your guys suck. Ballistic Skill 3 lascannons x12 does not equal Ballistic Skill 4 lascannons x3. The same goes for every weapon. When those BS3 guys have a good roll it becomes a question of rolling to wound and from there, the weapon is the weapon and the guy carrying it is irrelevant.

Relative to KPs, it is important to understand that KP =/= Unit. When the guard field a 20 KP list, it really has less targets; some units are inside transports and so are a single target that can't even be fired upon until the KP for the vehicle is obtained by its destruction. In this regard, you feed KPs to the enemy two by two. It is very different facing a KP situation where there are literally 20 UNITS.


Except if you take lots of non-troops, you can still win objective missions by pushing enemies off of objectives while holding one of your own. Having 2 Troops and maxed other slots isn't as big a handicap in objectives games as having 20 KP to the enemy's 10. And you don't find that a little stupid? "We desperately need these three objectives enough to start a brutal war over them...but don't worry...we really only need one, as long as the other guy doesn't take more than us." That is not a good criteria for a victory at all. And even if you were being sound in your logic here, you neglect that some armies can field 10-15 scoring units in 2 troop choices and some can only field 6 in 6 troop choices.

In any real warfare, fantasy or otherwise, a troops' given value is his boots on the ground in THAT conflict, and nothing else. You don't lose a war by losing more expensive stuff and it costing more to keep up; you lose a war because the guys holding the objectives got killed. It doesn't matter if they are sniper-trained SAS or jungle gym training Iraqi Militia; if more of them die in a given area then the other guys, I'm sure it is a victory. Kill points is important in being the key between this real war concept and Warhammer's gameplay.

Kill points are the only way the game can allow the units to all be so wildly different and still be scored in some common capacity.


Shooting yes, however it should take far fewer instances of shooting to kill smaller units, and the assault phase allows one to make contact with multiple enemy units and destroy several in one phase that way. It is common knowledge that this is not a common enough gameplay occurence for the entire gametype to hinge on it for balance purposes.

There hasn't been a double charge at my club in months; due mostly to capable players' maneuvering.

Vaktathi
23-11-2009, 07:57
How can you not have an advantage outnumbering your enemies' units two to one in an objective mission Because there's diminishing returns on what the extra number of units will gain you in terms of objective nabbing capability. My CSM's and Eldar have 14 each at 2k, my IG I think 22 or 24. Now, that's a large difference in total unit count, but the CSM's and Eldar are harder on average, plus have large numbers of DS'ing and/or outflanking units. Additionally, 14 KP's is sufficient to pretty much block off everything within 3" of 3 or 4 objectives , with 22 the more important factor would be who could get there first and park a transport on it or tank shock something off on the last turn or two. Both lists at that point have more than enough to take whatever will be required.



when all you have to do is stand one lone model near the objective to completely shut down the capture of it for your opponent? Park a rhino on it? Kinda hard to get within 3" now. Then they have to blow you out of the rhino and then you can still spread the unit out enough to cover that same distance, then they have to assault or destroy the unit. It's worked rather well for my CSM's.




It is utterly IMPOSSIBLE to argue this, especially since one can only shoot so many things in a game. In a five turn game if you somehow had 6 small units on each objective, the enemy wouldn't even be able to attempt to target them all. Of course this does not happen often or at all, really, but my point is it is POSSIBLE. What advantage do elite armies have other than the enemy See above.



Yet again the game favors horde tactics; I find very few mechanics blatantly favor horde armies. CC resolution in particular greatly favors Elite armies over horde armies.


simply fling your guys at my elite squad on an objective and hope that when the roll for last turn fails you have one or two models left alive close enough to contest. An elite army cannot even REMOTELY operate that way, and is subsequently at a HUGE disadvantage in objective games. Maybe if you're playing Deathwing with 8 elements of maneuver against an IG horde army. With a reasonably sized list you should have no problems.

Again, this only matters for large numbers of objectives. Remember, you only need one more objective than an opponent. Unit count is practically irrelevant for Capture and Control, I think that's a pretty strong assumption there. For 3point Seize Ground, even the lowest KP army can still take on some of the highest KP lists and not have an issue. You need only hold one and have the enemy hold none. Blast them off one, contest another, hold the last one. I don't find that my CSM's have trouble with that against Imperial Guard at all. It's really only when you get into 5 point SG that it becomes an issue, maybe 4 point if you have a super small army and an opponent has a massive number of units. But at that point you are talking about 1, maybe two variations of one mission, not an entire mission as is the issue with KP's.




This is the crutch. "We have a million units but our guys are crappier so it's fair." I don't see how that's a crutch. Would you rather just have the auto-win and take on guardsmen on a 1-1 basis? How else should such enemies with such inferior stats and basic gear play other than outnumbering their opponents?

Wanting to count SM's as equal to guardsmen, that is a crutch.


I just watched today as a guard player fielded, in addition to his normal weaponry, a list with 16 plasma gunners. I don't care how crappy the guys are, their plasma gun is just as deadly as anyone else's and if they manage to hit the amount of damage that can be caused is borderline horse hockey. They hit less often, they kill themselves twice as often, and have a lower chance of surviving to range and surviving to fire a second time as compared with Space Marines. 16 isn't that many, I've fielded CSM armies with that many. Hell, even under the old IG book, you could fit like 43 plasma guns in 1500 points. I don't remember such complaints then.




You can talk all you want about the marine statline; it means nothing to almost anything in the guard army except the lasgun. Your heavy bolter is my heavy bolter; your lascannon is my lascannon; your plasma cannon is my plasma cannon; your battle cannon is my...oh wow I guess we don't have that one, do we? Heh. My heavy bolter hits less often. My heavy bolter wounds your guys less than yours wounds mine. My heavy bolter wound has a 66% chance to be ignored. Your heavy bolter wound goes right through and kills one of my guys, unless he's in cover in which case he's got a 50% chance to save (still lower than your 66%). Yes, the weapon statlines are the same, but their utilization is not, and the IG guns are easier to break/pin/kill/etc.

And no, SM's don't have battlecanons. IG don't have conversion beamers, IG don't have deep striking multimeltas that can be taken on almost everything, IG don't have 2+ save infantry with 3+ invul saves, IG don't have AV13 super-mashy walkers that can deep strike and melta/flamer stuff, etc. They are different armies, they will have different weapons and capabilities. I'm not sitting here whining about my lack of heavy close combat walkers or paucity of Deep Striking capable units.




Ultimately, my point is, the statlines are less relevant than people want to admit, especially to the guard. The amount of weapons they have that wound on 2's and ignore armor is appalling. Almost every one of your 20+ units will be carrying something that either puts out high rate of fire and easy to wound rolls or something high strength and harsh AP. Practically everything in the book besides a lasgun kills a marine pretty handily. Am I really supposed to believe it should be weighted differently because the guardsmen are a slightly crappier shot? Not just a crappier shot, but easier to kill, easier to break, lacking in deployment options, pays just as much or sometimes more than SM's for the same weapons, etc. and have nowhere near the CC capabilities.





Also, cover is so worthless to elite MEQ armies it's not even funny. The thing that kills us worst -- high weight of small arms fire forcing us to roll many saves -- is completely unhindered by cover. Leaves us in a pretty tough place. I've noted that as an issue, and it's one of my prime complaints about cover in 5th, I'd much rather see that as just a BS modifier.

That said, it's still there for stuff like battlecannons, plasma guns, lascannons, krak missiles, etc.




I know you Guard guys cannot understand the concept but in a Space Marine style elite army there is no "best case solution" to play to. It is a decision made between the least horrible thing to do, instead. I do play such armies, I've got a Chaos Space Marine army, an Eldar army, and a Tau army in addition to Imperial Guard, and play against SM's at least once, usually twice or thrice a week. I'm not ignorant as to how they play or what is involved in their list construction.



Guard Army: "Let me try to lascannon that Land Raider. Oh, my boatload of cheap lascannons wiffed. Let me try my second squad now. Oh, missed. Guess I'd better try my third squad. Oh missed again. Well I'll fire this one off this Leman Russ. Crap, nothing. Better use my vendetta. OH! BOOM!!!" Well, yes, in an army that is based entirely around shooting, that's how it would work. Also, assuming 3 squads of lascannon HWT's, a vendetta, and a leman russ, that's at least 600pts trying to take down a 250pt tank.

A poddin'g sternguard squad or DSing oblit squad will do the same job for fewer points with fewer units.



Elite Army: "Let me try to lascannon that Leman Russ. Oh, I missed. Umm...do I have another one near here? Yeah, but that squad moved cause I needed the melta guy to get in range. What about this other squad here, they have one. Oh, crap, they are out of range because I only have three troops choices and had to deploy them wide. What about my Predator? Ah crap he was pivoted the wrong way. Oh well." **waits patiently for another battle cannon shot to the face** Or, you know, use all those bajillion deep strike melta options you have. I've heard those work well.

Yes, situations like that happen, but you've also got more deployment options like Deep Strike to deal with it. Yes, you will come up short sometimes in shooting. The IG army won't as often. The IG army breaks at the first hint of close combat. Our idea of an even match is *Fire Warriors* for christ's sake. That's just the way the two armies are built. One is heavily oriented to outstanding shooting and total crap CC, the other has decent shooting and has some effective CC ability.




The decision making process for an army with craploads of units is almost idiotically simple. Find the thing most likely to work, and do it repeatedly until it does. Everything is a dedicated unit with an obvious role: the Leman Russ is there for anti-infantry; the Vendetta does long-range anti tank. Elite armies have the setup of dying less easily and hitting more consistently, but these two factors are fairly meaningless when you include the idea that they will not be heavily armed because of balance. It doesn't matter how awesome 30 Tactical Marines' BS rating is if they only carry three melta guns. On the flip side, the horde army that is overspecialized can lose a critical component easier as well to concentrated fire. If I lose (or stunned, etc) 3 vendetta's, I've lost my AP2 and long range AT capability. If I've lost my battlecannons, I'm now reliant on BS3 S3/4/5/6 guns with no appreciable AP value for my anti-infantry to combat an opponent who ignores 66% of those wounds. The marine army has no such weakness. Each marine unit can kill any tank that isn't a monolith or land raider, and combat infantry, and fight in CC with a degree of competence. No matter what I throw at it, the Marine unit can answer in some way with at least some degree of effectiveness. Not true of the IG army.





I don't care if your guys suck. Ballistic Skill 3 lascannons x12 does not equal Ballistic Skill 4 lascannons x3. The same goes for every weapon. When those BS3 guys have a good roll it becomes a question of rolling to wound and from there, the weapon is the weapon and the guy carrying it is irrelevant. That's kinda how the armies differ. One is simply going to be flat better at shooting. The other is going to need to get into CC to avoid being shot to death, likewise the shooting army will have to hope to god to kill everything or it will die painfully and swiftly in CC. Just as I'm not going to try to defeat Space Marines in a massed bayonet charge and crumping them in CC with my guardsmen, trying to outshoot Imperial Guard with Space Marines isn't going to work any better.

That said, each of those weapons, while yes the to-wound and AP is identical between the two armies, one is less accurate, easier to break, easier to kill, has no CC ability to speak of, and lacks the ability to deploy by Deep Strike or Outflank by and large.




Relative to KPs, it is important to understand that KP =/= Unit. When the guard field a 20 KP list, it really has less targets; some units are inside transports and so are a single target that can't even be fired upon until the KP for the vehicle is obtained by its destruction. In this regard, you feed KPs to the enemy two by two. It is very different facing a KP situation where there are literally 20 UNITS. Yes, however if anything this further argues against KP's acting as a balance towards high unit count armies, as they aren't fully utilizing all 20 units, as many will be in transports and their actions restricted accordingly.





And you don't find that a little stupid? "We desperately need these three objectives enough to start a brutal war over them...but don't worry...we really only need one, as long as the other guy doesn't take more than us." That is not a good criteria for a victory at all. With objectives, the abstract makes far more sense and is easier to justify.

It's easy to look at such games like this and have them make sense.
"We've got 5 jamming beacons on the field, they can cancel each other out but we need one to be fully operational. For every one the enemy has we require another to cancel it, plus an additional one to ensure jamming is sufficient".

Of course, no one could consider an objective secure and operational with an enemy of any kind almost within arms reach of it, it's compromised and needs to be secured, hence why a nearby enemy can contest it.


And even if you were being sound in your logic here, you neglect that some armies can field 10-15 scoring units in 2 troop choices and some can only field 6 in 6 troop choices. I have not forgotten that, however again, that mass of scoring units in 2 troops choices is generally less capable and less flexible with fewer options and more easily killed compared with their alternatives and equivalents within the book and from other books.




In any real warfare, fantasy or otherwise, a troops' given value is his boots on the ground in THAT conflict, and nothing else. You don't lose a war by losing more expensive stuff and it costing more to keep up; you lose a war because the guys holding the objectives got killed. It doesn't matter if they are sniper-trained SAS or jungle gym training Iraqi Militia; if more of them die in a given area then the other guys, I'm sure it is a victory. Kill points is important in being the key between this real war concept and Warhammer's gameplay. We'd all be speaking German if this was the case. Killing more of an enemy requires a value attached to mean something. German Tigers tanks killed several multiples more of enemy tanks than they produced of tigers, but such losses to the allied forces were miniscule and the Germans ran out of stuff to fight with. Each Tiger or Panther lost was felt hard, while losing 10 T-34's was negligable to the Red Army and they could keep feeding them in while the Germans had no replacements, showing you very well can lose a war by losing valuable resources and troops and being unable to continue fighting. Talk to Japan about that as well(their entire national oil reserves at the end of 1944 were less than what a single US carrier group went through in a month, if you don't think that impacted their ability to fight...)




Kill points are the only way the game can allow the units to all be so wildly different and still be scored in some common capacity. Except it doesn't do this well and results in more issues (illogical unit choices, nonsensical tactical decisions, awkward game outcomes, etc) than had they stayed with VP's.

Even between armies with identical VP counts you often end up with backwards game outcomes because someone killed 4 rhino's while the other dude killed a land raider and two terminator squads and lost.




It is common knowledge that this is not a common enough gameplay occurence for the entire gametype to hinge on it for balance purposes.

There hasn't been a double charge at my club in months; due mostly to capable players' maneuvering.Common knowledge eh? It seems to happen to my IG almost every time I play, I have too many guys and not enough maneuver room to avoid it, and if I've got multiple units in a ruin, they make prime targets.

Hell, I just did it with my CSM's to an SM opponent this week. scouts were hiding behind a rhino, the Tac squad had hopped out to shoot at my CSM's, so I just marched my CSM's right up next the rhino and hit the scouts, rhino, and tac squad with one charge. Won combat by 3, broke the scouts, immobilized the rhino, and stuck the tac squad in another 2 turns before killing it off and the rhino with krak grenades. Huzzah!

It's really not hard to pull off, even if it's just a squad and its transport.

DhaosAndy
23-11-2009, 11:56
So what we have is:-

KP favours low model count elite armies.

Multiple objectives 3 objectives pretty even, 4 favours higher unit count, 5 definately favours high unit count.

2 objectives - pretty even, but elite armies tend to find winning this type mission harder, IMHO.

Idealy one would also have a single objective mission, but that would out and out favour elite armies, so I can see why it wasn't included.

From where I'm standing it looks pretty balanced.

Skyth
23-11-2009, 13:11
When it isn't equal, it isn't balanced. The only mission where a horde has a definite advantage over an elite army is the 5 objective mission. That is 1/9 of the time. The elite has an advantage over the horde 1/3 of the time...3 times as much.

big squig
23-11-2009, 19:05
When it isn't equal, it isn't balanced. The only mission where a horde has a definite advantage over an elite army is the 5 objective mission. That is 1/9 of the time. The elite has an advantage over the horde 1/3 of the time...3 times as much.
That and I'd still argue that the advantage a horde may have in a 5 objective mission still is not equal to the massive disadvantage they have in a KP mission.

DhaosAndy
23-11-2009, 19:54
Every mission has drawbacks for every army, one way or another, 2 objectives = draw, mostly, 3+ objectives, favours numbers (with three itself about level), KP favours small elite forces. There are a lot of people posting here who just want the whole structure to favour the kind of army they like to run, the way they like to play, and the're idea of what is fair and balanced which it seems to me is heavily biased by the former considerations.

Skyth
23-11-2009, 20:27
Nice Ad hominum attack there DhaosAndy...

Dyrnwyn
23-11-2009, 21:43
Every mission has drawbacks for every army, one way or another, 2 objectives = draw, mostly, 3+ objectives, favours numbers (with three itself about level), KP favours small elite forces. There are a lot of people posting here who just want the whole structure to favour the kind of army they like to run, the way they like to play, and the're idea of what is fair and balanced which it seems to me is heavily biased by the former considerations.

So you dismiss the whole issue as pointless and call those who who are participating in the discussion whining crybabies who only want to win. I'm sure that'll diffuse the argument. :rolleyes:

First off, it's been conceded that high KP and Low KP armies have advantages and disadvantages by mission. The issue is still that the advantage of low KP armies in KP missions is much greater than the advantage of high KP armies in objective missions. Inquisitor Lord took a sample of battle reports in the other thread and has demonstrated that there is little to no bias in objective missions and a heavy bias towards low KP armies in KP missions.

Secondly, favor the kind of army they like to run? I think the majority of the prolific posters here run multiple armies and are arguing after seeing the problem from multiple perspectives. I myself run three different armies; Tau Orks and Daemonhunters. My Tau bleed KP's like a hemophiliac in a briar patch, but my Orks and Daemonhunters have KP's in the single digits. I dislike winning KP missions with my Grey Knights and Orks just as much as I dislike losing with my Tau.

Cognitave
23-11-2009, 22:03
Dyrnwyn ninja'd it. =(...

A 3 objective mission is fairly balanced. The bulk of each of the army is focused in one area, so it's the classic quality v. quantity debate. 4 objectives is slightly slanted towards the swarm army, but to say it isn't manageable is a foolish claim. But as it's been said, even the slightest advantage gained by swarm armies in a 5 objective mission doesn't relieve the massive disadvantage they suffer in a Kill Point mission.

Target saturation is a strategy. If you can't deal with it well, Aut disce aut discede, as they say...

chromedog
24-11-2009, 00:47
Fingers in my ears and "lalalalalalala I can't hear you!" seems to work for me. :D

DhaosAndy
24-11-2009, 01:19
Fair enough, bit harsh perhaps, blame the medication ;) I'll concede that Tau do have it rough, KP for vehicle drones is just silly. But you'll excuse me if I tire of guard and ork players, both of whom have builds that minimise the impact of KP available, in the case of guard in particular, have a special rule designed solely for that purpose, constantly complaining about KP :eyebrows: Everybody is constrained, in what they can take in their army, by the demands of the missions and the options in their list. Always have been, always will be.

My point is that you can't just remove KP or modify them to be more like VP, there has to be a downside to taking multiple small units. Chuck out KP and you have to chuck out objective missions, in there current form too.

There are far more annoying issues in 40k, wound allocation and lash to name two.

Skyth
24-11-2009, 01:28
there has to be a downside to taking multiple small units.

Other than the lessened durability, greater points cost, and greater chance of wound allocation taking out specials/etc, there doesn't have to be a downside really.

DhaosAndy
24-11-2009, 02:29
Skyth: "Other than the lessened durability, greater points cost, and greater chance of wound allocation taking out specials/etc, there doesn't have to be a downside really."

1/ Two five man units are more durable than a single ten man unit.

2/ With a few exceptions, models in a unit have the same basic cost. If you count sergents/asp chps, etc then yes they cost more, but you're getting more.

3/ True, there is more chance of losing the special, etc. However, this is counterbalanced by the reduction in fire recieved by individual units because the enemy has to spread his fire more thinly.

Also wound allocation is currently my vote for worst mechanic in 40k :)

So yes, there does have to be a downside.

Skyth
24-11-2009, 02:39
Let's see...You do 2 casaulties to a 10 man squad, and 2 casaulties to a 5 man squad. The 5 man squad fails a morale test and runs off the board.

Plus you can't compare a 10 man squad vs 2 5 man squads. First off, you don't get extra special/heavy weapons any more in most units. If you are comparing, plague marine squads for instance...You have to compare a 14 man squad vs 2 5 man squads. That is where the extra durability comes from.

Occulto
24-11-2009, 03:24
Let's see...You do 2 casaulties to a 10 man squad, and 2 casaulties to a 5 man squad. The 5 man squad fails a morale test and runs off the board.

Correction - they can fail a morale test (provided they're not fearless). It's not guaranteed.

Besides, 2 casualties hasn't reducing that unit below 50%, so there's no guarantee they'll run off the board. They can still regroup.


Plus you can't compare a 10 man squad vs 2 5 man squads. First off, you don't get extra special/heavy weapons any more in most units.

I don't see what extra special/heavy weapons has to do with durability - which was DhaosAndy's point. The numbers of toys in a unit isn't exactly relevant.


If you are comparing, plague marine squads for instance...You have to compare a 14 man squad vs 2 5 man squads. That is where the extra durability comes from.

He said: "two five strong squads are more durable than a 10 man squad" - you're moving the goal posts. :rolleyes:

These threads have just devolved into a series of: "I'll pick a best case scenario to 'prove' my case, and follow up with a worst case scenario to 'disprove' yours."

Skyth
24-11-2009, 04:11
I don't see what extra special/heavy weapons has to do with durability - which was DhaosAndy's point. The numbers of toys in a unit isn't exactly relevant.

He said: "two five strong squads are more durable than a 10 man squad" - you're moving the goal posts. :rolleyes:




The extra specials/heavies have been brought up before as part of the discussions so my point is relevant, besides the point that that is the whole 'problem' with MSU that they have more specials/heavies per army.

And yes, the number of non-basic weapons DOES affect durability because you can get more of the guys with basic weapons if you don't take as many non-basic weapons. More guys = More wounds = More durable units.

Occulto
24-11-2009, 04:48
The extra specials/heavies have been brought up before as part of the discussions so my point is relevant,

Not when directly responding to someone's point.


besides the point that that is the whole 'problem' with MSU that they have more specials/heavies per army.

The whole problem with MSU is that armies which do so have more units capable of holding objectives.

(Besides, if you want to bring up Plague Marines, yes, they can still cram in more weapons using min sized squads.)


And yes, the number of non-basic weapons DOES affect durability because you can get more of the guys with basic weapons if you don't take as many non-basic weapons. More guys = More wounds = More durable units.

Bigger units are more durable than smaller units? Say it ain't so!

But durability is more than just being able to sit there and absorb firepower.

Your unit can throw 10 shots at a 10 strong unit. Now no matter how tough that unit is, you can wipe it out. Agreed?

You unit can throw 10 shots at a 5 strong unit and wipe it out twice as easily. But all the excess shooting is wasted. The other 5 strong unit standing beside it, will not take a single wound.

This is the point.

No matter how fragile or unarmoured that second unit is, it will still be more resilient than the toughest most bad-assed unit in the game because the rule mechanics say: "you can't touch them." Now extrapolate that to an entire army and the more units there are, the more units that are covered by the: "you can't target me" clause each turn.

I've got 5 units to your 20, then in the first turn 15 can't be touched. Let's presume (best case scenario) that I kill 5 of your units, to my 1.

Next turn I've got 4 units left, and you've got 15 overall. I kill another 4 and you kill another one of mine.

Next turn I've got 3 units left, and you've got 11 overall. I'd kill another 4 of yours, but I've only got 3 units, so even in the best case scenario, I'm killing a max of 3 for you.

You see where this is going?

No one's denying there are exceptions like template weapons or multiple assaults. But I suspect a lot of us are fed up with hearing these exceptions being used to prove a point as if they're as easy to do as nominating a target and rolling the dice.

I dunno about you, but my opponent doesn't sit there dribbling like an idiot saying: "I'll just put my units together so you can pie plate multiple units a turn into oblivion." :rolleyes:

Skyth
24-11-2009, 04:55
The likelyhood of serious overkill is about equal of the likelyhood of a failed morale check after few casaulties. which a larger unit wouldn't have to take.

And btw, MSU tactics it is pretty much assumed to do it for the extra upgrades so the point IS valid unless they were specifying non-upgraded units.

DhaosAndy
24-11-2009, 04:59
Skyth: "The extra specials/heavies have been brought up before as part of the discussions so my point is relevant, besides the point that that is the whole 'problem' with MSU that they have more specials/heavies per army."

Yes, they have, but your point just clouds the issue, yes some units can take 2 specials, but they pay extra for the privalage, costing for such is a side issue. So lets take your unit of 14 PM. It is my contention that two units of 7 will always be more useful than a unit of 14 even at the same PV, add in factors like special weapons availability and the comparison just gets worse for the 14 strong unit, the exception is KP missions. In a KP mission the 14 strong unit will have the edge pt/pt because it can only give away a single KP come what may.

Skyth: "And yes, the number of non-basic weapons DOES affect durability because you can get more of the guys with basic weapons if you don't take as many non-basic weapons. More guys = More wounds = More durable units."

Only up to a point, remember that a single unit can only take out 1 unit per turn (multiple charges excepted) so taking out two units requires two units, both in an appropriate position and both suitably equipped.

Skyth
24-11-2009, 05:06
The advantage on multiple units is negligible compared to the penalty they get in Kill Points missions.

Besides the fact that to destroy even a small unit usually requires multiple units firing at it so the whole 'overkill' durability is relatively negligible also. (Example-10 man guard las/plas squads firing on Marines int he open between 12.01 and 24"). It takes an average of 4 full squads firing in one turn to wipe out a 5 man squad. It takes an average of 8 full squads firing in one turn to wipe out a 10 man squad.(3.91 squads and 7.82 squads). Both ways you are wasting firepower through overkill and you need the same exact number of squads on average to kill a 10 man squad or 2 5 man squads in one turn of shooting.

DhaosAndy
24-11-2009, 05:21
Skyth: "The advantage on multiple units is negligible compared to the penalty they get in Kill Points missions."

That statement does not reflect my experience of the game.

Skyth: "It takes an average of 4 full squads firing in one turn to wipe out a 5 man squad. It takes an average of 8 full squads firing in one turn to wipe out a 10 man squad"

Yes, but you can't actually roll 3.5 on a d6 ;) so if he has to throw a fifth squad at the five man unit, our second five man squad now has an advantage that a ten man squad can never enjoy, yes?

In my experience objective games are often won or lost that way.

Cognitave
24-11-2009, 05:34
Yeah, it's quite well accepted. Anecdotes don't make for very good arguments, however. Also refer to Lord Inquisitor's thread on an investigation behind Kill Points. It may not be perfect, but it's not anecdotal either.

But pound for pound, you're getting what you paid for. If a squad of 10 guardsmen and 10 marines got in a shoot-out, just firing back and forth taking their normal saves, take a wild guess who will win. But when it comes to cover, deployment, and such, that's all in your ballpark. That's where the strategy comes in. But the current system punishes armies for what they pay for. The 'guard don't take casualties into consideration until they're in the tens of thousands. Orkz don't even care. So why is wiping out a large proportion of a company of Marines worth the lives of the same amount of guardsmen?

You're punishing armies for what they are, instead of what they do. Part of being an elite force is being elite. The swarm player gets the luxury of not having to worry about that, but you get the superior troops. Rock-paper-scissors (in a figurative sense, not counting the insanity guard is right now...)

Skyth
24-11-2009, 05:38
So someone gets lucky and that proves a huge advantage for having multiple squads? The large squad could have the same exact fluke happen as well where it takes less firepower to take one out. Plus it's just as likely to take only 3 squads to kill the smaller squad rather than 5.

Besides, you are still dealing with almost negligible overkill when you have multiple squads having to shoot to wipe out a single squad regardless of squad size.

Besides, luck can have any game 'won or lost that way'. The number of squads doesn't matter for that so someone getting lucky or unlucky can be safely discounted when you are talking about balance.

Jackmojo
24-11-2009, 08:54
There are several examples of units in various codices whereby single individual models are unequivocally better then buying them as a unit at identical cost: Obliterators, Crisis Suits, and Broadsides are all examples, each can be purchased as singletons, and benefit then from being multiple targets, freely splitting fire and not taking break tests for shooting casualties (which Obliterators don't care about but makes the Tau suits essentially fearless to shooting). In games where a player is not using all his FoC slots he can benefit, at no point cost at all, by fielding any of the above as one man units. Kill Points is the only counter balance to this.

Jack

DhaosAndy
24-11-2009, 10:34
Skyth: "So someone gets lucky and that proves a huge advantage for having multiple squads? The large squad could have the same exact fluke happen as well where it takes less firepower to take one out. Plus it's just as likely to take only 3 squads to kill the smaller squad rather than 5."

All possible results of a d6 roll are equally likely, with multiple dice, the more you roll, the closer to the average you get. The behavior of large numbers of dice is more predictable than that of small numbers. Proportionally one rolls as many sixes as ones in actuality it's an item of note when one does so.

Skyth: "Besides, you are still dealing with almost negligible overkill when you have multiple squads having to shoot to wipe out a single squad regardless of squad size."

Again this is an advantage to having multiple units, greater flexability, Elite armies rarely have the luxory of 4 or 5 units targeting one enemy, if one half of a platoon of guardsmen is lucky enough to beat the average, the other half can target something else.

Skyth: "Besides, luck can have any game 'won or lost that way'. The number of squads doesn't matter for that so someone getting lucky or unlucky can be safely discounted when you are talking about balance."

The more dice you roll, the closer to the average you get, so yes for 'horde' armies luck can be discounted, not so for the smaller elite armies. Rolling fewer dice means the extremes occur more often.

Xelloss
24-11-2009, 10:39
The flaw of these arguments is that the so-called balanced point KP brings have already been balanced by other things, KP's part in relatively small for an huge drawback :
- MSU are being fixed by the need to max out a squad to gain special and heavy weapons. MSU wasn't good because they were small, but because the point was to buy the heavy and special weapons, and keeping the squad cheap because you don't really care about the bolter or lasgun guys ouside of providing ablative wounds.
- single model FOC are balanced by preventing from taking an additional FOC (expecially when one is none and two is one...). The only reason there can be a problem is in small point battles... But then a variable FOC number depending of the size of the battle (like in WHFB) would have been better to solve it.