PDA

View Full Version : New Victory Points System



twisted_angel
15-07-2010, 21:18
Just wondering how people are finding the new VP system?

Just finished playing a game and managed to pick up the win all because I had 1 man left from a unit which meant my opponent couldnt claim any VP for it, otherwise had they have killed that 1 man they would have scored a crushing victory over me.

Kugruk
15-07-2010, 21:37
Just wondering how people are finding the new VP system?

Just finished playing a game and managed to pick up the win all because I had 1 man left from a unit which meant my opponent couldnt claim any VP for it, otherwise had they have killed that 1 man they would have scored a crushing victory over me.

It makes sense, but I think its over simplified. In your instance, I don't think a single model left in the unit should deny me points for that unit. Especially if the unit was 15+. Other than that I don't mind them.

twisted_angel
15-07-2010, 21:40
I agree and would be slightly annoyed if the shoe was on the other foot however in competitive tourneys im guessing the case would be no VP :(

Kugruk
15-07-2010, 21:44
I agree and would be slightly annoyed if the shoe was on the other foot however in competitive tourneys im guessing the case would be no VP :(

You would be absolutely right. Just have to start playing accordingly. Going to suck to divert spells and warmachines to units of 2 or 3 guys fleeing instead of actually softening up more pressing targets lol

twisted_angel
15-07-2010, 21:49
lol yeah indeed, or trying to chase 2 guys off of the table only to be flank or rear charged by another unit.. would just get annoying lol

Shimmergloom
15-07-2010, 23:56
The new VP rules are horrid.

Ultimate Life Form
15-07-2010, 23:58
I find this 'win by 100 points' absolutely rubbish; there needs to be a far bigger draw margin. I lost my first real game because my opponent had killed 3 stupid standard bearers.

Odin
16-07-2010, 00:00
This change must have passed me by. What's the big change to VPs?

Ultimate Life Form
16-07-2010, 00:05
It's a draw unless you outscore your opponent by 100, in which case you win (regardless of game size :wtf:).

Have twice as many Victory Points as your opponent and you massacred him.

Also there are some changes to the bonus victory points, mostly meaning you get less for standards and nothing for quarters and so on.

Lord Inquisitor
16-07-2010, 00:12
Odin: perhaps the biggest thing is that there's no half points for below 50%. So you get full VPs for destroying a unit, otherwise nothing.

ULF: the original printing (including my own book) has the Victory conditions being double the opponent's VPs ... I have a couple of friends who have been playing it that way for a while - they had a lot of draws!

Personally, I'm torn - it certainly speeds up working out who won, but it does penalise smaller units more. Particularly deathstars, designed to be hell to actually wipe out, will benefit.

Ah well, at least it's not Kill Points! :shifty:

Odin
16-07-2010, 00:14
Odin: perhaps the biggest thing is that there's no half points for below 50%. So you get full VPs for destroying a unit, otherwise nothing.


Ah, that's what I'd missed!

Not sure how I feel about that... time will tell. Both games I've played so far have been clear massacres so we haven't looked at the VP system in much detail.

belgarath97
16-07-2010, 00:16
The new VP rules are horrid.

Sorry you feel that way... I completely disagree with you. Are they different, requiring a different playstyle? Sure. But horrid, I think not.

As far as a larger draw margin? Why? One of the most anti-climatic things about 7th was fighting tooth and nail, clawing for every point. An at the end of the game it's a draw by 10 points. Ugh :( I much rather it be harder to draw and hve more clearcut winners.

Lordy
16-07-2010, 00:19
Even bigger than the 50% victory points for half units is the fact you don't get ANY points for a unit that is fleeing at the end of the game.
It's either dead or already fled, there are no rules for fleeing units counting towards victory points :(

Odin
16-07-2010, 00:51
Even bigger than the 50% victory points for half units is the fact you don't get ANY points for a unit that is fleeing at the end of the game.
It's either dead or already fled, there are no rules for fleeing units counting towards victory points :(

Another thing I hadn't noticed!

twisted_angel
16-07-2010, 10:55
Even bigger than the 50% victory points for half units is the fact you don't get ANY points for a unit that is fleeing at the end of the game.
It's either dead or already fled, there are no rules for fleeing units counting towards victory points :(

this can be very annoying when on the 6th turn a unit is fleeing and is so close to the table edge that none of your units can get to them and they have already made their last flee move :(

the Goat
16-07-2010, 12:19
Even bigger than the 50% victory points for half units is the fact you don't get ANY points for a unit that is fleeing at the end of the game.
It's either dead or already fled, there are no rules for fleeing units counting towards victory points :(

Agreed. Both of these changes seem like a solution looking for a problem. I never had a problem with the old victory point system. I can agree with adjusting the standard barer and table quarter bonus points (but I think they adjusted too far on both).

-Ryan

willowdark
16-07-2010, 14:35
Sorry you feel that way... I completely disagree with you. Are they different, requiring a different playstyle? Sure. But horrid, I think not.

As far as a larger draw margin? Why? One of the most anti-climatic things about 7th was fighting tooth and nail, clawing for every point. An at the end of the game it's a draw by 10 points. Ugh :( I much rather it be harder to draw and hve more clearcut winners.

I certainly agree with this, but I think it should be addressed by the scenario.

I think the primarly role of a scenario should be to resolve a draw. A win based on points should always be a win, then only in the case of a draw should objectives be factored in to see which side, if either, achieved some small measure of victory over the other.

Tae
16-07-2010, 16:50
I certainly agree with this, but I think it should be addressed by the scenario.

I think the primarly role of a scenario should be to resolve a draw. A win based on points should always be a win, then only in the case of a draw should objectives be factored in to see which side, if either, achieved some small measure of victory over the other.

I actually see it the other way round. Whoever wins the scenario wins the game, unless it's a draw and then it should be whoever killed the most (i.e. VPs).

Leth Shyish'phak
16-07-2010, 17:06
I like the new victory point system so far.

I've played three games, one was a draw (I had 85 points more than him... so close. :cries: Was a fun game though. :) ) and the other two were clear massacres (one of them was ~1700 points to me, ~800 to him).

From what I've seen, games in 8th edition tend to either be very close and end in draws or one player is the clear winner, so I don't mind the new changes. Since points are much harder to get now, I think 100 points to win is fine.

YTY
16-07-2010, 17:23
It's just against common sense.

For example I take a 800 point unit of 60 elite troops. You kill 59 of them but the last one escapes and you gain no victory points. Rubbish, I say. One or two guys would be useless, and so would be the unit.

What about the 100 point rule then? I could understand it if it was a 750 points game. But in a 4000 point game? You're kidding me. "I had 2800 points and he had 2700 points. I win!!!". Sucks.

We might just play 7th instead. Or maybe switch to 8th and use the old VPs. The same thing we did with 40k when the "kill points" came in. The saddest thing is that GW is oversimplifying the rules for kids. I remember when I started the game 11 years old and it was the complex rules which - in addition to the models - made me love this game.

willowdark
16-07-2010, 17:30
I think the 100pt draw window is balanced out by the fact that banners only give 25 points and you can't claim table quarters anymore.

And if you take Legendary Battles as an example, GW has never really viewed VPs as a good way to resolve larger games.

Punjoke
16-07-2010, 22:55
One of the things that really annoyed me about 7th edition was how easy it was for a game to end in a draw. I'm going to estimate that a good more than half of the 7th edition games I played ended in draws.

Laton
16-07-2010, 23:16
I think it makes sense that a victory point difference of 100 points means a victory.
Just look what one has to achieve more to be 100 points ahead of one's opponent.
Kill their general
capture 4 standards
have your unit champions kill 2 enemy characters
kill one unit worth 100 points or more

To me, those are things which can make a draw a close victory (maybe not game-wise, but 'fluff'-wise).

Idle Scholar
16-07-2010, 23:26
The cynic in me says it's just dumbing down for those who found mental arithmetic hard :(

Gaargod
17-07-2010, 02:33
The cynic in me says it's just dumbing down for those who found mental arithmetic hard :(

He's bloody right too!

I'm gonna be honest - people used to (and still will) use calculators to work out how many VPs they got. But now it's '100pts difference, win!'

It doesn't make a lot of sense. If it was, say, 10-15% of total vctory points, that they would (300pts is a fair margain of victory at 2k).

Nor does it differentiate between tiny tiny victories of 110pt to almost massacres of 1000pts to 510pts.




Saying this, its kinda nice they played around with the old bonus system though. Always was a bit insane for a player to have like 700pts in standards and table quarters (again, regardless of game size)...

scarletsquig
17-07-2010, 10:46
I really like the new VP rules. My reasons?

- I think the margin was too wide under 6th/7th... the vast majority of games I played ended up as draw or minor victory, both somewhat indecisive and boring results... when I play a game I prefer to have a decisive win/lose result. It's just more fun to have a game with a winner and a loser. Same applies to games of checkers and tic-tac-toe.. getting draw results the majority of the time is just "meh".

- I think it makes close games more exciting since there's a real "win" up for grabs rather than the dull sounding draw or minor victory of 6th /7th, which to me just read like "you won but you still kinda sucked" and puts a bit of a damper on the victory.

- Standards are now thankfully only 25 points, 100 was way too high. Also, with table quarters I didn't like games being won purely because some weedy unit of gobbos did nothing but sit in their deployment zone all game.

- Takes less time to calculate. No 50% to figure out, simply jot up the cost of whole destroyed units. At the end of a game I do not feel like spending ages sorting out the winner, usually need the time to pack up or move on to get another game in.

It's just another one of 8th editions "make stuff take less time" improvements IMO rather than "dumbing it down so that retarded kiddies don't have to do maths", as some have suggested here.

I do agree that units fleeing at the end of the game should count towards VP though, that seems like an oversight.

Gorbad Ironclaw
17-07-2010, 13:00
Nor does it differentiate between tiny tiny victories of 110pt to almost massacres of 1000pts to 510pts.

Does it need to? I just don't really see it being an issue. I mean if it's a friendly game you know if you won big or small without a table to tell you so just by looking at the table/VP difference. The only place the degree of victory really makes any difference is in a tournament setting and most tournaments seem to have there own victory point system anyway or are at least easily able to put on in the rulespack.

rtunian
17-07-2010, 13:41
i like the 100 point differential. the old 300 point differential for 2k-3k games was alright, but as has been mentioned, that often caused draws. while that was a nice metaphor for war (no one actually wins), it wasn't that thrilling in terms of game play. so i like the 100 point differential

i dislike the "no points for fleeing units at the end of the game". when the battle is over, anyone who is running away should be counted just like anyone who had already run away. i don't see why they turned that off, other than to bring the scores closer together, and make that 100 point differential a tad harder to attain.

similarly, i dislike the "no points for half units" change. i think that units which are reduced to less than 10% of their starting size, that started at 20+ models, or that are reduced to 1 model (if it started with 6-19 models), should grant full victory points. they should not be removed as destroyed when they pass the threshhold, but they will give vp. this would be because after the battle is over, those couple survivers of that unit will be placed into another unit, as their old unit is effectively gone. units that start with 1-5 models wouldn't be affected by this.

Cherrystone
17-07-2010, 18:00
i like the 100 point differential. the old 300 point differential for 2k-3k games was alright, but as has been mentioned, that often caused draws. while that was a nice metaphor for war (no one actually wins), it wasn't that thrilling in terms of game play. so i like the 100 point differential

i dislike the "no points for fleeing units at the end of the game". when the battle is over, anyone who is running away should be counted just like anyone who had already run away. i don't see why they turned that off, other than to bring the scores closer together, and make that 100 point differential a tad harder to attain.

similarly, i dislike the "no points for half units" change. i think that units which are reduced to less than 10% of their starting size, that started at 20+ models, or that are reduced to 1 model (if it started with 6-19 models), should grant full victory points. they should not be removed as destroyed when they pass the threshhold, but they will give vp. this would be because after the battle is over, those couple survivers of that unit will be placed into another unit, as their old unit is effectively gone. units that start with 1-5 models wouldn't be affected by this.

I like that idea, that might be a new houserule, ta.

Lord Inquisitor
17-07-2010, 18:59
On "units fleeing at the end of the game".

I'm surprised there's no "units fleeing at the end of the game count as destroyed" clause. There is in 40K (although it's tucked away from the victory condition rules). However, I can't find it, so maybe it isn't the case anymore.

While my first reaction was "that's silly!" ... after thinking about it a bit more, maybe it isn't. Typically a unit that's fleeing at the end of turn 6 has a good chance of rallying and being fighting fit if you were to continue to turn 7 or 8. So if it hasn't fled off the board, perhaps it makes sense that it shouldn't count as destroyed?

Particularly in tournament games where a time limit has stopped the game, say, at the end of turn 5, it can be very galling that your general's deathstar is fleeing and counts as destroyed, considering that he's almost certain to rally next turn.

The one exception I would say would be units that are under 25% and fleeing - since they're almost certain not to rally. I'd be tempted to houserule that units under 25% and fleeing at the end of the game counts as destroyed.

So yeah, after my initial knee-jerk reaction, maybe this isn't such a bad thing? If you want a fleeing unit to count as destroyed, then maybe you should have run it down? :p

Dungeon_Lawyer
17-07-2010, 23:05
The new VP rules are horrid.

Yup---but Im seeing and reading about quite a lot of blowout victories. Usually by turn 2 the winner is obvious...

@ Lord Inquistor---Their is just too much stuff in the edition that needs to be "house ruled" already...

yabbadabba
17-07-2010, 23:09
The saddest thing is that GW is oversimplifying the rules for kids. I remember when I started the game 11 years old and it was the complex rules which - in addition to the models - made me love this game. The saddest thing is all these experienced gamers unable to define their own winning conditions.

It is simple. So change it.

Dungeon_Lawyer
17-07-2010, 23:13
The saddest thing is all these experienced gamers unable to define their own winning conditions.

It is simple. So change it.

Oh ok another situation where 'house rules" are needed, byt he time we are done with all of these house rules you are going to be stuck playing in your own house with the same bunch of people, cause if you play someone outside your regualr gaming group they will have compeletly different "house rules" and thus an entirely different flow approach to the game....

Great:rolleyes:

yabbadabba
17-07-2010, 23:27
Oh ok another situation where 'house rules" are needed, byt he time we are done with all of these house rules you are going to be stuck playing in your own house with the same bunch of people, cause if you play someone outside your regualr gaming group they will have compeletly different "house rules" and thus an entirely different flow approach to the game....Great:rolleyes: Utter tripe. You have a set of rules to play random games with, so you have nothing to complain about there. Now why not take a bit of creativity on board and take the game in the direction you want, instead of relying on GW to mind read everyone and come up with your ideal game custom made for you? Short of declaring that if you score more vp's than your opponent you win, GW couldn't make it more clear who has won. That is their intention. If you want more than that, maybe you shouldn't have bought the game in the first place as it obviously wasn't fit for purpose. Or, you can accept that how GW views the game is different to yours, and if you want your game you are going to have to change the rules. Its that simple.

Duke Georgal
18-07-2010, 05:54
It's a draw unless you outscore your opponent by 100, in which case you win.

Have twice as many Victory Points as your opponent and you massacred him.

So, in a 2,250 point game we play all six turns. I score 145 points and my opponent score 300. He gets a massacre even though we both still have 90% of our armies intact? Crazy.


You don't get ANY points for a unit that is fleeing at the end of the game. It's either dead or already fled.

That makes sense to me. A unit fleeing at the end of the game has survived the battle and will be back to fight another day, and more battle-hardened as well. No victory points should be awarded.


I never had a problem with the old victory point system.

As well, I never had a problem with the 7th edition VP system. It was a solid formula.

Drtyrm
18-07-2010, 06:03
I doubt there will be very many 8th edition games where the damage inflicted will be so minute. That's like he killed one block and I killed one unit of fast cav.

LordBadgash
18-07-2010, 06:15
I think units that are fleeing, but unable to rally due to being below 25% of their original number SHOULD count towards victory points.

Also, Units of 10 or more models that ends the game below 25%, regardless of wether or not they are fleeing, should be awarded 50% of their victory points.

Stumpy
18-07-2010, 07:00
Let's just house-rule the entire game to make it playable. That wasn't sarcasm, this mound of paper has a bunch of glaring flaws, every one of them intentional.