Im one of thouse liking almost all rumored 5th Ed changes and hoping for a good implementation. The single thing that irks me is Kill points or whatever its called, where one unit grants 3 points while another grants 1(!).

I mean double victory points for the opponents commander as a secondary objective is nice, but this too much. I fear it leads to extremely onedimensional army lists.

it's probably going to be the escalation of 5th ed.

i can't count the number of times i've read the words "that's an effective army as long as you don't roll escalation" in armylist threads.

i think this is going to be the same which probably isn't a good thing.

How do you think will these one-dimensional army lists look like?

Greets
Schepp himself

I'd be willing to partially agree with you. But i'd have to partially disagree too.

It's a bit more of a radical change than we are all expecting. Some armies seem very comfortable with this change, while others just don't seem to interface with that rule at all.

Vanilla space marine can just take it in stride. Troops are worth 1 and they are scoring, fine. We'll take some of those. Their speedier and killier options are worth 2 a piece. Fair enough, for the extra versatility, they have to pay the price. Their high quality independent characters carry the steep price tag of 3kp. Find a resilient unit tuck him in and don't worry too much about losing the points.

Imperial guard? Every optional unit in the HQ platoon is worth 3 points? So 3 points for my sentinel? 3 points for my 6 man heavy weapons team, 3 points for my demo team? 3 points for the command squad and 3 points for the chimera they rode in on too? Certain choices in the imperial guard codex are just completely ruined by this new rule.

I don't mind hard, killy ICs to cough up "bonus" kp. But mandatory units of wimps like command squads will now just be unarmed permanently screened liabilities until IG gets a new book.

However, I did like the system as it was implemented in Warmahcine. in warmachine however they were more careful about setting the VP value. Game developers could make something points-expensive, but VP cheap. Or something points-cheap but VP expensive. With a ridiculous arbitrary implementation, you have a Hive tyrant with 3 tyrant guard worth the same KP as a Junior Officer and 4 naked guardsmen.

I am happy as a clam for a KP system. One with less arbitrary points settings would be a new tool to balance units, a tool that can be used in conjunction with the FOC and with points costs.

I'm sure after all armies are up to 5th edition codecies it'll all be fine. I'm sure my great-grandchildren will love that.

Shep wrote:
I'm sure after all armies are up to 5th edition codecies it'll all be fine. I'm sure my great-grandchildren will love that.

that really sums up the problem in a nut shell. at no point in time are all the different army books in sync with the rules. and they never will be.

It'll probably discourage people from taking things like Land Speeders as three units of one, rather than as a single squadron. Likely see less suicidal Autarchs and Tau Commanders going solo tank hunting and the like, given they'd be worth so many points.

It sucks rocks because I can field an effective, ork, sisters, necron army that can give up a total of 7 kill points. Other armies will be lucky to field a minimum of 12 points and still be effective. Its just too damn one sided and not balanced at all across all the codexs.

Excellent point, Jayden.

My old 120 Sisters of Battle army (from the CA book, not the crap that Hoare made) would be a real pita to deal with if I converted every model to bolter fun.

Sad thing is, that worthless special character would actually be good. So long as she kept coming back, no KP's.

Ah, KP denial armies. I'm so not looking forward to it.

i doubt that KP denial will be a good thing to build around. it's only in play one out of three games. you'll need to plan for it, but building a list that can win the other two missions seems slightly more important.

You can deny KPs and build for the other missions.

I like to call it "GW says use troops and this time they mean it" missions.

I think if it's used without the force org chart that currentl exists it could be interesting.

OU have the choice of either going for powerfull units which can't hold objectives and if killed will give away lots of points, or go for grunts who can claim objectives and don't give man away.

For instance i played a couple of games over this last week using m new list of bezerkers, noise marines and CSM's in rhino's with a pair of oblits a vindicator and a DP + raptors. So that gives me 3 scoring units, and i give away 12ish points iirc.

one game was against BA's 2 10 man assault squads, 1 5 man vet squads, some DC, a drea, 2 speeders dante + lemartes. So he's onl got 2 scoring and gives awa about 15-18! see what happens if ou load up on characters and single speeders!

The other game was against eldar - 3 tricked out falcons, 2 dA squads some harlis and 2vipers + farseer. Now that has 2 objective grabbers, but gives up again 15-18.

ou can pla powerfull lists, but ou'll give awa a lot it seems!

Kill points are part of a good idea. Simply the victory conditions so that you dont have to toal up unit values.

However its simplified by a good deal of hand waving by GW. with a tweak here and there it could be a good rule, but it has to run the gauntlet of illiterate monkeys and retards that infest the design studio.

I think the Force Org chart is a much worse idea then KP's, and the Force Org has been around for a while now!

KPs is a bad idea for a number of reasons, first of which is the differences between the utilities troops can get, for example, the newer marine dex's (Blood Angels, Dark Angels) offer the combat squads system, and presumably vanilla marines will end up with it too, With it, marines can pay for a single troops choice of 10 marines, 5 of which are with a heavy weapon and are 4 ablative wounds for it, The other 5 are a sergeant and a special weapon soldier who are coming forward to put all their wargear to good use. No points for eliminating the 5 guys who are standing in my face blasting me with rapid fire bolters and plasma and threatening with a powerfist unless I can also kill the 5 guys in heavy cover somewhere.

The alternative to this is that each combat unit counts as it's own unit so I get twice as many killpoints for the squad, Which also begs the question, do we stop using transports because they are also a free KP, Drop a dreadnaught in a Drop Pod and it's 2 free Kill Points for your open topped, AR 12, immobile transport.

Then on the flip side, there's the armies that can deny points while still being valid, once again I tend to look to marines, The broad range of weapon options on each troop choice means they can massively deny KP without having to sacrifice too much potential.

Then there's things like Gaunts who, taking spinegaunts as an example, can get a full squad of 32 on the board for a mere 160 points. These are of equal value under Kill points to the 20 man Chaos Space marine squad which is footslogging across the board for 300 points without any upgrades.

There's potential, but the way it's looking at the moment, it's a laughable system.

The answer here is more a methodology issue--

GW needs to start releasing codexes online, for free or next to nothing (5.00), and playtesting them in the community, and releasing them on a frequent basis.

There is absolutely no excuse for every single codex not getting an update the moment a new edition comes out. Seriously. That's the kind of crap we as players/customers should not be standing for.

If you release a new edition, release a set of errata for every army in the edition and do it within a month or two of a new edition coming out.

Maaaan does it piss me off when I think about it. such lazy crap. It also forces them to balance the new edition in light of old army lists, which is CRAP!

Having played in PP tournaments where the VP system is near identicle to the KP system, I have to say I hate the idea. IMHO it is the worse thing about PP tournaments and leads to some really lame ass games. Infact i think they dropped winning by VPs in the more recent steamroller rules (could be wrong though).

Longshot wrote:GW needs to start releasing codexes online, for free or next to nothing (5.00), and playtesting them in the community, and releasing them on a frequent basis.

Didn't they do this for Warhammer Fantasy Battles, thousands of years ago?

Ihavenoavatar wrote:

Longshot wrote:GW needs to start releasing codexes online, for free or next to nothing (5.00), and playtesting them in the community, and releasing them on a frequent basis.

Didn't they do this for Warhammer Fantasy Battles, thousands of years ago?

Ravening hordes?

All in all, I like the idea. I think you should get a bonuse for taking out the enemy HQ and the elite / heavy units over killing the troops. Victory points did a bit of this since Hq/elite/heavy units tended to be more expensive but now I think that the extra weight is a good thing. On the flip side, some of the ramifications of it really suck. As many have already stated, IG is totaly screwed. They can't take tough units and they can only get certain things in big blocks from HQ slots so they have an insane amount of kill points on the table.

What really needs to happen is a ravening hordes style multi codex to bring everyone up to date with the new rules or maybe just a chapter approved book to update some of the codexes that are really old and don't work with the new system. One way or another, they really need something to make a lot of the old armies playable again since the new rules really throw a monkey wrench into a lot of them.

I play a lot of WM/Hordes, and it's just like their VP system. Like all systems, it has its pros and cons. Yes, there will be KP denial armies, but I don't think they'll work as well as VP denial in WM.

I like that they are separating the points value from the kill points. I think they needed to do that a long time ago. Rhinos shouldn't have been 35/50 points for every army - they gave different armies more or less. Great for armies that want to close, not as valuable to armies that want to hangback. So, for say Space Wolves, maybe the rhino is more points since it gives them more utility (they need to get closer) than say vanilla SM who can sit back and let you come to them. But, the rhino is just as easy to kill for both armies, so it's fair to give it the same VP/KP (which, yes, I realize a rhino doesn't have any, but this is just an example).

People will always figure out a way to abuse/work around any scoring system.

My current Hybrid Tau list, which I never got cries of cheese on, comes in at 30 kill points.

How can you even compete with a list that only brings 10 or so kill points to the table.

All they gotta do is wipe out a few crisis suits, drop a hammerhead and pirahna and already its probably impossible for me to get a win.

Keep in mind Kill Points are only used if you draw on mission objectives.

Keep in mind Kill Points are only used if you draw on mission objectives.

That's Victory Points, Kill Points are the mission objective for Total Annihilation (read: one third of the games you will play)

So, I'm thinking of starting a deathwing army...

there also things we don't know yet. for instance if a force org slot includes multiple units that deploy separately the opponent may get points for each unit or they may only score points once by killing all of them. the former would make guard unplayable, the latter would make them unbeatable.

i really hope it's the former though. hopefully guard will get a dex soon after dark eldar. the idea of hiding one unit out of a slot full to deny KP sounds like it would make for really irritating games.

This rule also really punishes stealthy armies. JSJ units, infiltrators, etc. will all be hurt by large squad sizes, or give up tons of Kill Points if you go with (tactically) optimal smaller squads. I'm wondering if Planetstrike might incorporate something to counter this condition.

Either way, my 3-elf jetbike squads are going to get rolled into 6-elf squads. I'm not happy about that, as splitting fire and casualties was really nice.

You just have to keep one of them alive to count as scoring or giving away killpoints. And if you have enough other scoring units, you don't have to count on some jetbikes to claim the objective. Killpoints are another topic, but if they are so much more effective in two units of three, I would still go by that unit number.

Greets
Schepp himself

Ideally GW should have specific rules for each army, although I know that is rather unrealistic to expect. I think the real winners of the current kill point rules would be the necrons. around 70 warriors + 1 lord with rez orb and phylactry = 10 kill points. With that many warriors and the gauss rules of being able to hurt anything on a 6 an all warrior necron army could get pretty stupid. Add in run rules for a side order of ridiculous. These rules are not final though so nobody should get up-in-arms over any of this until we see something on paper, preferably signed in blood.

Har, Har!
Think of 150 best-equipped Ork-Boys and a biker-boss in your points-sector.
--->8 KP!

FuzzyOrb wrote:Har, Har!
Think of 150 best-equipped Ork-Boys and a biker-boss in your points-sector.
--->8 KP!

Totally off-topic but the 6 big units of boys and a biker boss have some SERIOUS blind spots in 5th edition. 3 leman russes screened by a medium-sized fearless conscript unit seem like a pretty unfavorable matchup. 3 monoliths corner to corner in front of some hiding warriors, with 10 man scarab units lining the sides might not be that fun either. I'm sure there are a ton more armor 14 template based lists that would encourage an ork player to spend more points on "elite" or "support".

But i cannot deny that the current implementation of kill points is totally sloppy and not really all that balanced and usable in its current form.

the problem with amalgamating several smaller units into one larger one is that you loose scoring units. you have to keep as many troops as possible for the other 2/3s of the missions. it will lead to the end of the days of individual obliterators or land speeders though.

You can't hide warriors behind monoliths can you?

We can only hope GW is reading these forums.

What might work would be something like this:

HQ: KPs= 4x(points/100)
Troops: KPs= 2x(points/100)
Everything else: KPs= 3x(points/100)

round to the nearest whole number.

But, y'know, it's probably too complicated for my 10 year old brother, so lets scrap it. So how about something like this instead:

HQ: 5KPs
Troops:3KPs
Everything else: 4KPs

Even the second option would be vastly superior to what the leek is. The problem is really in the disparity between troops and everything else, but to really have it work, it'll need to be based on points as well somehow.

-Leo037

biztheclown wrote:You can't hide warriors behind monoliths can you?

you can hide from assault, but you're right about monoliths not blocking line of sight.

and an all warrior army won't work, not even in total annihilation. unsupported warriors just sort of sit around waiting to die against any serious list.

++Original Post Deleted++

I've seen a number of your recent posts Nurglitch where you're taking a tone similar to that of Stelek. Do you have anything to add, or do you just want to make fun of people?

Please tell me if I'm reading you wrong.

BYE

Oh, yeah, and OT post... umm... Kill points are the suck.

Yeah.

That'll do.

BYE

H.B.M.C.: If it is true that I've been coming across like Stelek, then I am ashamed. I was (and still am) sick of the meme that all you need to play this game is a "serious [army] list", as if terrain, the mission, and the quality of the player didn't matter. But if I am expressing this disapproval of over-simplifying the game, another objectionable habit of Stelek's, then I should do so in a constructive manner. Consider the post deleted and my apologies offered.

I concur that KP could be a valuable addition to the game, if implemented on their own. I have the same notion about "scoring units". I think the fact that scoring unit status is tied to unit type, and KP to force org slot (wtf?)is a needless sacrifice of granularity. That is, each unit should have a KP stat. This could be in the back of the 5th ed book, like the unit type chart in the existing BGB.

40kenthusiast: Now there is a good idea.

Kill points as described in the 5th edition pdf are dumb although the idea can be good if units are given individual kill points values. The emphasis on troops isn't fair to all armies since some armies have better troop choices.

I just don't see the need for the KP system. It inherently favours certain armies (Orks) and gives a major disadvantage to others (Guard).

I mean, I don't agree with the 5th Ed mission set up to start with - the Troops = Scoring thing is possibly the worst idea since Target Priority for 4th Ed was invented, especially when you can have the same unit within the same army occupying two different areas of the FOC (BA Troops Assault Squads and FA Assault Squads) yet one is scoring and the other isn't - but the Kill Point idea just seems... lame? Lacking?

I mean, Victory Points are in there. Even if they keep their idiotic scoring system with Troops only (shouldn't it be 'Infantry' only, including Jump Infantry... God they're morons at that company...), why not for the Annihilation Objective just use VP's. There's no way to unbalance VP's (Super-Points Denial Falcons aside), and you don't have to invent a new system like the idiotic Kill Points that may not work.

Whoever said that Kill Points would be this edition's Escalation is correct...

BYE

The better thing for scoring should be that anything with a WS that is not an IC scores...

The whole point is to try and get people to use more Troops, right? Then just change how the FO chart works. Something like only being able to have X number of non-Troop selections per number of Troops.

Power Lists also tend to take the single best thing and stack it as much as possible. Carnifexes and Falcons and Monoliths come to mind. Maybe make it so first non-Troop selection you make has a normal cost. Each one same non-Troop selection you make has a % higher cost. Example, first Monolith costs the 250, second one maybe 300, and a third 350. Something that encourages you to diversify your list more.

biztheclown wrote:You can't hide warriors behind monoliths can you?

Don't skimmers block LOS in 5th ed?

I just got around to reading my 5th ed pdf, and I am glad I found this thread. Sorry for the threadnomancy

KPs are a horrendous idea in the way GW seems to want to institute them.

They are aping other companies rules, without making them work as well as the other companies uses them.

Is it possible for them to actually put in a days work and come up with something not only original, but something that actually works?

I think the game devs are overpaid idiots. Fire the lot and hire people who know what the hell they are doing. Starting with Jervis.

If this is what I have to look forward to in the next edition, then...I guess I am going to save alot of money.

Hellfury wrote:I just got around to reading my 5th ed pdf, and I am glad I found this thread. Sorry for the threadnomancy

KPs are a horrendous idea in the way GW seems to want to institute them.

They are aping other companies rules, without making them work as well as the other companies uses them.

Is it possible for them to actually put in a days work and come up with something not only original, but something that actually works?

I think the game devs are overpaid idiots. Fire the lot and hire people who know what the hell they are doing. Starting with Jervis.

If this is what I have to look forward to in the next edition, then...I guess I am going to save alot of money.

Agree. Sadly this has been presented time and again, without result.

I do think Phil Kelly does a good job as a codex writer though.

I love the idea of KPs.

It will be good for the game.

How?

How?

HOW??

We played kill point missions at Adepticon and they were a lot of fun. They are very tactical and interesting games. Weighing the risk vs. reward of moving units around added a whole new level to the game.

Also, take a look at Redbeards army:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210454.page

He had:
1 kannons
1 kannons
1 kannons
5 kommandos w/ rokkit
5 kommandos w/ rokkit
5 kommandos
dethkopta
dethkopta
dethkopta w/ buzzsaw

What kill points stops you from doing is spamming small units. This weekend I played Godzillas that all had 1 ravager for each FA slot. It is a pain to kill and kill points stops them from showing up. Now with kill points, you do not want to spam small squads because they are valuable points for your opponents.

Obversely, armies like IG are at a real disadvantage because of KP.

HQ units are worth 3 KP. IG get severely punished if they take special weapons teams, sentinels, etc. Not to mention all of the KP harvested from individual squads within a troops platoon...

I am not saying that KP is a bad idea, but again, they way they are instituting it isn't making the game any better in the face of the rules for 5th that we know about. It needs some major refinement.

KP points for HQ, troops, etc straight across the board isnt a good idea. They should make KP on a unit by unit basis.

For a rough example:

Raveners (1-3) worth 4 KP
Imperial guard PLATOON (3-7 units) worth 4 KP (this makes guard players make the most of their platoons, but gives them some freedom)
Necron scarabs (1-10) 3 KP
Lesser deamons (1-10) 2 KP (because they suck )
etc.

Basically, the KP score would be added to the respective profile.

I think that "maths challenged" 12 year olds can find those entries.

Blackmoor wrote:We played kill point missions at Adepticon and they were a lot of fun. They are very tactical and interesting games. Weighing the risk vs. reward of moving units around added a whole new level to the game.

Also, take a look at Redbeards army:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210454.page

He had:
1 kannons
1 kannons
1 kannons
5 kommandos w/ rokkit
5 kommandos w/ rokkit
5 kommandos
dethkopta
dethkopta
dethkopta w/ buzzsaw

What kill points stops you from doing is spamming small units. This weekend I played Godzillas that all had 1 ravager for each FA slot. It is a pain to kill and kill points stops them from showing up. Now with kill points, you do not want to spam small squads because they are valuable points for your opponents.

I think the problems that KP solve are outweighed by the problems that it will bring to the table.

As an Ork player, I have little incentive to field anything but more and more Troops. I could field Storm Boyz, or Lootas, or, Kanz, but why bother when I can just take more Troops for about the same cost.

Meanwhile an IG player, with their late 3rd Ed codex gets screwed so hard by the system that it's not even funny.

Actually all KPs do is require you to play the same army as everybody else.

It makes 40k quite boring.

"How DARE you take a single ravener!"

"Here is your punishment, loser!"

Yeah, great concept.

The way it works in AT-43 is the way it SHOULD work in 40k, where each mission itself gives different values for different kinds of units.

That, sadly, seems to be too 'complicated'.

It's funny Blackmoor speaks of strategy and tactics, then applauds when they are restricted.

Guess if it hurts his opponents and not him, he's all for it.

A common thread amongst those that like the new KP system. Or rather, the AT-43 VP system GW's ripped off the KP system from.

If only they'd just stolen it straight across instead of f*cking it up with GW concepts. Oh well.

Stelek wrote:Or rather, the AT-43 VP system GW's ripped off the KP system from.

Off topic here, but the GW KP and the AT-43 VP work a bit differently than that.

40K rewards you KP for killing a high KP value unit, while AT-43 rewards you VP for meeting primary mission objectives (which can be elimination of units, but is more commonly capture and control of objectives).

Which reminds we of why I dropped 40K in the first place.... (looks at sig)

Damn my sense of curiosity in the 5th ed stuff. That'll teach me.

Stelek wrote:Actually all KPs do is require you to play the same army as everybody else.

It makes 40k quite boring.

"How DARE you take a single ravener!"

"Here is your punishment, loser!"

Yeah, great concept.

The way it works in AT-43 is the way it SHOULD work in 40k, where each mission itself gives different values for different kinds of units.

That, sadly, seems to be too 'complicated'.

It's funny Blackmoor speaks of strategy and tactics, then applauds when they are restricted.

Guess if it hurts his opponents and not him, he's all for it.

A common thread amongst those that like the new KP system. Or rather, the AT-43 VP system GW's ripped off the KP system from.

If only they'd just stolen it straight across instead of f*cking it up with GW concepts. Oh well.

I don't think Blackmoor is all for it because it hurts other people and not him. If I've read his posts right, I'm sure the armies he owns benefit from exactly the thing he's looking to see eliminated:

Using the FOC system to your advantage.

I believe his goal is to see the advantage of "Take 3 slots of 1 Ravenor instead of one unit of 3" eliminated. This is true for Speeders, Vypers, Deff Koptas, etc.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I don't think Blackmoor is all for it because it hurts other people and not him. If I've read his posts right, I'm sure the armies he owns benefit from exactly the thing he's looking to see eliminated:

Using the FOC system to your advantage.

I believe his goal is to see the advantage of "Take 3 slots of 1 Ravenor instead of one unit of 3" eliminated. This is true for Speeders, Vypers, Deff Koptas, etc.

I agree.

Which brings us to the root of the problem, it isnt KP that is the issue, but how the FOC is handled. It just doesn't function in a balanced manner, obviously. GW adding rules such as KP is GW basically admitting the FOC doesn't work.

Deal with how the FOC is handled instead of dinking around with yet more unnecessary rules such as KP.

[edit]

That brings me to a much more eloquent system in how they deal with the FOC. And that is AT-43.

In AT-43, you have what is called a "platoon pattern".

In that pattern, you have 5 variable unit choices to take inside that platoon. You must fill all 5 of those slots with units before you can start another platoon. It keeps spam to a bare minimum.

It is quite ingenious in how well it works.

Hellfury wrote:
I agree.

Which brings us to the root of the problem, it isnt KP that is the issue, but how the FOC is handled. It just doesn't function in a balanced manner, obviously. GW adding rules such as KP is GW basically admitting the FOC doesn't work.

Deal with how the FOC is handled instead of dinking around with yet more unnecessary rules such as KP.

[edit]

That brings me to a much more eloquent system in how they deal with the FOC. And that is AT-43.

In AT-43, you have what is called a "platoon pattern".

In that pattern, you have 5 variable unit choices to take inside that platoon. You must fill all 5 of those slots with units before you can start another platoon. It keeps spam to a bare minimum.

It is quite ingenious in how well it works.

It's not so much the FOC, but a facet of how well MSU (Multiple Small Units, for the uninitiated) works in GW's games. MSU is more of a WHFB thing, at least in terms of an army style, but what we're talking about is really just an abuse of the fact that if you have more "units" than your opponent then you are at an advantage because of the UGO IGO system and the fact that 99% of the time a single unit in the game can effectively only hurt one other enemy unit in a given turn.

Aye I really like the AT-43 platoon system.

I think GW doesn't really "get it". I think they believe they can steal one part of rackhams game and slap it with some GW mud and it'll stick.

Sadly, the rackham game is designed around each core concept from the ground up and so it works.

What GW is doing is just taking what they like (because it's not like anyone else can design a better game, and that's evidenced by GW's total dominance of the miniatures market HEY WAIT A MINUTE) and ignoring the rest without really grasping it.

They've been in GW land too long, I guess, where new things don't take well and wholesale changes "just isn't done".

Voodoo Boyz wrote:It's not so much the FOC, but a facet of how well MSU (Multiple Small Units, for the uninitiated) works in GW's games. MSU is more of a WHFB thing, at least in terms of an army style, but what we're talking about is really just an abuse of the fact that if you have more "units" than your opponent then you are at an advantage because of the UGO IGO system and the fact that 99% of the time a single unit in the game can effectively only hurt one other enemy unit in a given turn.

I see your point.

Singular targets for any certain unit is indeed contributing to the problem of that sort of out-maneuvering advantage.

I am sitting here scratching my head on this, and I still think that the rough shod fix such as what GW proposed for KP isn't going to cut it.

I vehemently insist that it should be on a unit by unit basis (not all units are created equal, point for point), not based on what area of the FOC the unit derives from.

Hellfury wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:It's not so much the FOC, but a facet of how well MSU (Multiple Small Units, for the uninitiated) works in GW's games. MSU is more of a WHFB thing, at least in terms of an army style, but what we're talking about is really just an abuse of the fact that if you have more "units" than your opponent then you are at an advantage because of the UGO IGO system and the fact that 99% of the time a single unit in the game can effectively only hurt one other enemy unit in a given turn.

I see your point.

Singular targets for any certain unit is indeed contributing to the problem of that sort of out-maneuvering advantage.

I am sitting here scratching my head on this, and I still think that the rough shod fix such as what GW proposed for KP isn't going to cut it.

I vehemently insist that it should be on a unit by unit basis (not all units are created equal, point for point), not based on what area of the FOC the unit derives from.

I still think that KP is a very stupid idea and that it creates a lot more problems than it solves. A whole lot of that is all over the 5th Ed Leaked Rules though, so I'm just hoping that things got tweaked a lot for the final release this summer.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

I still think that KP is a very stupid idea and that it creates a lot more problems than it solves. A whole lot of that is all over the 5th Ed Leaked Rules though, so I'm just hoping that things got tweaked a lot for the final release this summer.

Exactly. There is always a chance things can be tweaked or changed before the final release. Even if they aren't there's no reason that the accompanying 5th edition codex FAQs can't set special KP rules in place for certain codices (like IG platoons). Even if that doesn't happen there's no reason that forthcoming codices can't start to incorporate specific KP rules in them.

And even if all that fails there's no reason why players and tournament organizers won't just abandon or change rules they don't like. Escalation hoses Godzilla armies pretty bad yet how often do you see Escalation used in tournaments (not often).

Besides, KPs aren't even used in every mission so it isn't like you *have* to build your armies around KPs. Again, Escalation hoses Godzilla armies pretty well yet even in tournaments that use it for some missions (like Adepticon), it isn't enough to stop people from brining an army that is affected by it.


Before I start lighting a fire to the funeral pyre of 5th edition I'd like to actually read the finished rules and play some games.

FearPeteySodes wrote:

Ihavenoavatar wrote:

Longshot wrote:GW needs to start releasing codexes online, for free or next to nothing (5.00), and playtesting them in the community, and releasing them on a frequent basis.

Didn't they do this for Warhammer Fantasy Battles, thousands of years ago?

Ravening hordes?

Ravening Hordes was released to kick off 6th Edition, since the changes in the rules were pretty radical, and none of the 5th edition books would really work with it.

Ravening Hordes lists were either incredibly weak or grossly and obviously over the top - there was no balance. It didn't back away from 'hero hammer' enough in some lists - and the demon list was nigh unbeatable unless one deliberately built it to lose.

Back to the topic at hand - Kill Points and only troops are scoring are good ideas. Is the implementation effective? We have to wait for the real rule book, right?

I wish similar rules were in fantasy - they are not.

yakface wrote:
Exactly. There is always a chance things can be tweaked or changed before the final release. Even if they aren't there's no reason that the accompanying 5th edition codex FAQs can't set special KP rules in place for certain codices (like IG platoons). Even if that doesn't happen there's no reason that forthcoming codices can't start to incorporate specific KP rules in them.

And even if all that fails there's no reason why players and tournament organizers won't just abandon or change rules they don't like. Escalation hoses Godzilla armies pretty bad yet how often do you see Escalation used in tournaments (not often).

Besides, KPs aren't even used in every mission so it isn't like you *have* to build your armies around KPs. Again, Escalation hoses Godzilla armies pretty well yet even in tournaments that use it for some missions (like Adepticon), it isn't enough to stop people from brining an army that is affected by it.


Before I start lighting a fire to the funeral pyre of 5th edition I'd like to actually read the finished rules and play some games.

Well I'm hoping that a lot gets changed for release from the PDF. I for one am not lighting the funeral pyre of 5th ed.

And you're absolutely right, just because KP are there you guys have to remember that it's nothing more than a mission. It's not a core rule, it's a scenario that does not have to be used, and probably won't be at most 40k tournaments.

Honestly I think KP is probably the least of our problems from 5th Ed, the biggest being that "only Troops Score". If they re-jig that, and maybe the LOS rules, we generally should be looking at a very good improvement to the system. I know personally that I'd prefer it over what we've got in 4th Edition now anyway. Personally, I've been spending 95% of my gaming time playing WHFB and Warmachine instead of 40k becasue I'm just tired of how 4th Ed works and the armies that come out of the codex's as a result.

Complaining that a new 5th edition rule will negatively impact a 3rd edition codex is silly. Better to build solid rules and release a new codex than cripple yourself trying to maintain backward compatability.

Democratus wrote:Complaining that a new 5th edition rule will negatively impact a 3rd edition codex is silly. Better to build solid rules and release a new codex than cripple yourself trying to maintain backward compatability.

Preach on brother. The problem is that GW doesn't agree. Back in 3rd edition where they had base army lists in the rule book, things worked out fairly well. It wasn't till codexes started comming out (and really it wasn't the main codexes so much as the sub codexes) that the game started to break down. Unfortunately for us, GW isn't going to restart the codexes. They are going to leave them all in place and just keep moving forward maintaining the illusion that the old ones they haven't updated are still good to go (the 3rd ed dark eldar and space wolves, both still the most current codex, spring to mind). This combined with their glacial codex release schedule means that they are going to continue to cripple themselves trying to maintain backwards compatability (sort of). *sigh*

Democratus, I agree totally. . . when it comes to solid rules. KPs in the form we know it in is not a solid rule.

Funny thing is, Phoenix, that DE are more than good to go. They're a killer list in 4th. Maybe 5th will change that, but it won't really have anything to do with age.

As I said since some of the 5th edition stuff leaked, they need to be solving army comp "issues" by addressing them at the org chart and codex level. But their hands are tied there, so they're trying to back into the solution with stuff like this.

Weren't they trying to make 40K less of an army-building exercise? LOL.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Meanwhile an IG player, with their late 3rd Ed codex gets screwed so hard by the system that it's not even funny.

Amen to this. The IG list has always been weak, and the changes in the ruleset make it consistently weaker and weaker. It's long ago ceased to be fun to play IG, which in itself should be a flaw worth repairing.

Blackmoor wrote:We played kill point missions at Adepticon and they were a lot of fun. They are very tactical and interesting games. Weighing the risk vs. reward of moving units around added a whole new level to the game.

Also, take a look at Redbeards army:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210454.page

He had:
1 kannons
1 kannons
1 kannons
5 kommandos w/ rokkit
5 kommandos w/ rokkit
5 kommandos
dethkopta
dethkopta
dethkopta w/ buzzsaw

What kill points stops you from doing is spamming small units. This weekend I played Godzillas that all had 1 ravager for each FA slot. It is a pain to kill and kill points stops them from showing up. Now with kill points, you do not want to spam small squads because they are valuable points for your opponents.

Ahh, but there's no reason to spam these units in 5th. I spammed the small units because I know adepticon is all about the objectives. Kommandos and koptas and even kannons are simply there to be a scoring unit. And, also, to 'win' deployment - I deploy three kannons while you deploy all your heavies, so I can react a little more with the mass of my army.

But 5th changes both of those things. The koptas, kommandos and kannons aren't troops, so they're not objective takers, so they'll probably be cut. And, 5th has the whole "you deploy everything, then your opponent deploys everything", so having a full org chart in order to get the last 'reaction' doesn't mean anything either.

Instead, I'll have 6x30 boyz, and make up points with more boyz (either lootas or stormboyz) to get to 2000, and still not give up much in the way of victory points.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Funny thing is, Phoenix, that DE are more than good to go. They're a killer list in 4th. Maybe 5th will change that, but it won't really have anything to do with age.

The thing is, they really are not. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they can't field powerful lists. What I'm saying is that with the current state of things (both the main rules and their codex) they only have like 4 units in the book that are worth fielding. They are really boaring and have very few options for different builds with the list. Necrons are kind of in the same boat. What they need is a rewrite of their codex to give them more options and to be a more diverse army.

gorgon wrote:As I said since some of the 5th edition stuff leaked, they need to be solving army comp "issues" by addressing them at the org chart and codex level. But their hands are tied there, so they're trying to back into the solution with stuff like this.

Weren't they trying to make 40K less of an army-building exercise? LOL.

Here is something I heard from local buddy who went to adepticon for the phil kelly seminar.
"Kelly said was that the Force Org chart was the biggest design mistake GW made with 40k, but they're stuck with it now, since removing it would mean invalidating every army book. (Not sure I agree with that. Just FAQ it and get to it when the new book comes out. Of course, we're still waiting for the Ogre Kingdoms FAQ...)"

What I dont get is why they just dont add the new way to handle FOC in the FAQ's they have ready for 5th edition that they give out for all armies like they did at the beginning of 4th ed.

This is all assumption, but it seems to me that Jervis has a lot more control over how the rules are written than I previously guessed at. I feel that Phil Kelly writes good and interesting rules for the most part, and Jervis is a pratt.

But it seems that Jervis is going to get his way. I wouldn't hold out hope that KP's aren't going to make it in the 5th ed release or even be changed, as it is coming out in july. Everything right now is pretty much set in stone.

Yay...5th ed. *yawn*

Redbeard wrote:Ahh, but there's no reason to spam these units in 5th. I spammed the small units because I know adepticon is all about the objectives. Kommandos and koptas and even kannons are simply there to be a scoring unit. And, also, to 'win' deployment - I deploy three kannons while you deploy all your heavies, so I can react a little more with the mass of my army.

But 5th changes both of those things. The koptas, kommandos and kannons aren't troops, so they're not objective takers, so they'll probably be cut. And, 5th has the whole "you deploy everything, then your opponent deploys everything", so having a full org chart in order to get the last 'reaction' doesn't mean anything either.

Instead, I'll have 6x30 boyz, and make up points with more boyz (either lootas or stormboyz) to get to 2000, and still not give up much in the way of victory points.

A bit off topic, but Kannons dont score in 4th as they are artillery IIRC.

As for Kill points, its just a new dynamic to the the game. Instead of complaining about them, we should be trying to figure out how to utilize them best.
They are only supposed to be 1/3 games, so unless someone is hyperfocused on them, then it shouldnt be an issue, especialy since a list that concentrates on them soley will do poorly in the other missions. KPs will woek out well I believe. They will force a differant way of thinking and playing as Blackmoor said. I welcome them and the change that they will bring.

Darkness wrote:
A bit off topic, but Kannons dont score in 4th as they are artillery IIRC.

The table on page 85 disagrees with you.

As for Kill points, its just a new dynamic to the the game. Instead of complaining about them, we should be trying to figure out how to utilize them best.

By playing armies where the best units you can field are the troops. Like ork boyz. But, then again, having only troops being allowed to hold objectives already does this.

They are only supposed to be 1/3 games, so unless someone is hyperfocused on them, then it shouldnt be an issue, especialy since a list that concentrates on them soley will do poorly in the other missions.

Why so? If I concentrate solely on KP, then I'm bringing a lot of troops. And, that means I'll do well in other missions as I won't be saddled with non-objective-holding units.


I think in a "balanced force" the difference between getting more KPs for killing your opponent's elites/HQs/etc and having to kill troops to prevent your opponent from winning objectives will play out. But, in a tournament setting, we all know how often you see balanced forces. It's going to be all about having better troops than your opponent. That way you both get the objectives, while denying him KPs.

All we can do is wait and see.

Darkness wrote:
A bit off topic, but Kannons dont score in 4th as they are artillery IIRC.

As for Kill points, its just a new dynamic to the the game. Instead of complaining about them, we should be trying to figure out how to utilize them best.
They are only supposed to be 1/3 games, so unless someone is hyperfocused on them, then it shouldnt be an issue, especialy since a list that concentrates on them soley will do poorly in the other missions. KPs will woek out well I believe. They will force a differant way of thinking and playing as Blackmoor said. I welcome them and the change that they will bring.

I agree with the fact that people will figure out how to "game" KPs. What I don't think will happen is that everybody will now field fun and diverse lists. I think that what we're going to see is a dramatic increase in Troop spam: 180 boys, 72 strong stealer shock, Alaitoc sniper hordes, Necron Phalanx etc. Yes, KPs will get rid of single Raverners and Deff Koptas, but it might also see the elimination of Ravenors and Deff koptas in any form. It will also hurt armies that rely on transports (extra KP) and armies that can't take large and/or durable units of troops (tau, IG, DE) because a similar number of point yeilds far more KP from an IG army. There is also the issue that some armies can operate well and diversly within 1 HQ and 6 troops (IG, Orks, SM, Chaos, nids) while others rely heavily on other elements of the FOC for combat roles like anti-tank, close combat, speed, etc (Tau, Eldar, Witchhunters,)

The shame here is that there is a good nugget of insight at the bottom of this rule: that a squad of troops can hold an objective better then a light speeder. In fairly standard form, the cut went too deep.

Now, as our benevolent overlord pointed out, this is just a mission rule that mind end up marginalized, like escalation in 4th and Nightfight in 3rd.

Hellfury wrote:Here is something I heard from local buddy who went to adepticon for the phil kelly seminar.
"Kelly said was that the Force Org chart was the biggest design mistake GW made with 40k, but they're stuck with it now, since removing it would mean invalidating every army book. (Not sure I agree with that. Just FAQ it and get to it when the new book comes out. Of course, we're still waiting for the Ogre Kingdoms FAQ...)"

Funny enough, I really like the Force Org chart. I sang praises to the game designers when I read the 3rd edition rules and learned about the force org chart. It meant that the days of filling up 25% (or more) of your army points with infantry units (anything that wasn’t a vehicle or a character) were over. So you would no longer see every marine army consist of nothing but characters, tanks, devastators, and terminators. Eldar armies would field infantry units other than dark reapers, swooping hawks and warp spiders (hawks and spiders were really good under 2nd edition rules). When you take away the force org chart, that’s what you end up with. Now with the current rules, there are a wider range of units that are viable rather than the more limited scope of 2nd edition but do you really want to go back to that style of army building? From my observations of 3rd edition, the most broken armies were usually the ones that were sub codexes that changed where units fell in the force org chart. Things like the Kraft World eldar codex.

While the force org system as it stands may not be perfect, there needs to be some sort of governing force to control the composition of armies. If there isn’t, people will just take the most broken combinations of stuff each codex allows. While that is sort of the case now, it will get even worse if you can just take whatever you want from the codex. There need to be limits on things because how fun it is to fight all terminator armies all the time like back in the 2nd edition days?

I think really all that needs to be done to bring everything in line is to make sure every army has a very good and viable troop choice. Right now most have some decent choices but armies like marines, orcs, and dark eldar have vastly superior troop choices when compared to some of the other codexes.

The last few points have made allusions to the top 5th edition armies being made entirely of good troops.

My play experience has been that elites/heavy support/fast attack truly excel at killing troops. they are shockingly good at it. And troops can rarely kill support and elites at a fast enough rate to save their own demise.

With all due respect to the many good players who post here (not meant to be patronizing) 6x30 shoota boys with 2 KFFs is NOT a "good" ork list. I'm not saying that because i don't like the ork models, I'm not saying that because I took out a calculator and pushed some buttons...

I'm saying that because i've been playing all of my games with the 5th edition rumors for the last 3 months, I've played dozens of games, and i've actually tried to win multiple 5th edition scenarios with that army. that army matches up well with any pre-5th edition tooled anti-marine vp denial list. But no one in my gaming group plays with that type of list in 5th. Six strength 8 hits per turn spread across 6 feet of table can not be considered anti-tank in 5th edition. Blast weapons have changed dramatically in effect. Falcons are still good, leman russes will be a plague. People can and will deploy and maneuver to deny you assault for much longer than you might think, or they will present you with undesirable units for you to assault.

This is just one example, and I'm jumping on it a little too hard. i don't think anyone who mentions this list would truly play it. But without any form of speed (be it from stormboys or kommandos) or any form of turn 1 or turn 2 influence (from lootas or big guns), your opponent will completely control the first 3 turns of the game. A 72 genestealer army was also mentioned. I know it was hyperbolic, in an effort to stimulate discussion. But that army is bad on so many levels in 5th edition. All of the drawbacks of the ork version, with only 72 troops instead of 180.

I felt like I had to say something about fears of "troop centric" armies having a huge leg up on other types of armies. With some minor exceptions, armies that do not rely on troops primarily are also generally VERY good at killing troops, and in most cases have a maneuverability that far exceeds a "troop spam" army. these are factors that fall out of the scope of theoryhammer until you've played some games. I've lost games with 180 scoring models, I've won recon games with 4 and 5 objectives with 2 combat squadded tactical marine units.

However, having said all that, I still do not think kill points, in the version of the rumors that I have, is acceptable. Good in concept, poor in execution. For all of the reasons you all mentioned.

Shep, can you explain to me what you think makes a unit "good at killing troops"? As far as I can see, most troops are not actually much easier to kill than selections from anywhere else in the chart. For the points, Stormtroopers (as if anyone uses them. . .) die as easily as Guardsmen, Termies as easily as Tac Marines, Aspect Warriors as easily as Guardians.

And FYI, Redbeard brought pretty much the 6x30 boy army to Adepticon and took 6th with it. This is under 4th ed rules, of course, but the 5th ed rules, on balance, don't seem to be a nerf to such an army.

Phoenix wrote:While the force org system as it stands may not be perfect, there needs to be some sort of governing force to control the composition of armies.

I agree, I just feel that it is flawed enough to look into again.

When discussions such as this arise about KP's, it feels very much like admission from GW that the FOC isnt what it should be. Indeed it seems true.

How to fix it?

I dont know because the rule is fundamental enough to warrant a closer look at the rest of the rules to make it work and not just the FOC portion.

Shep, I disagree, at least about the orks, and at the risk of going off-topic, I playtested many many different configurations before I settled on running a pure horde at adepticon.

Orks don't have good anti-tank options in this edition. The good zzap gun is gone. Burnas no longer get extra pen dice. Tankbustas no longer have the tankhunter skill, so are reduced to S8 rokkits themselves. You can hope for luck with a zzap gun or the shokk attack gun - but apart from those, you're limited to S8 or lower, or powerklaws.

And, lootas and stormboyz aren't the answer. Lootas can't take a nob, so no bosspole, and they run very easily. A little early long-range fire will see the lootas gone. Stormboyz outpace the forcefield, are a smaller mob than boyz, cost twice as much, and are no better once they get there - one counter charge typically sees them run. Sure, running the pure horde gives up "control" of the game early - although I'd say that exerting pressure on your opponent is a form of control. But, when it comes down to it, a leman russ kills lootas and stormboyz as easily as it kills normal boyz, and you get less than half as many of them for it to kill.

In 4th ed, this was enough for me to cut the stormboyz and lootas from my list - and that's with lootas and stormboyz able to take objectives and not give up double-points when killed. Why do you think that 5th ed will make the boyz less viable?

Playing against a horde ork army in the team tournament, with witchhunters/guard, including a russ, some shooty inquisitors and a couple of chimeras, at 2000 points, we were able to drop approximately 30 orks a turn (without a forcefield effect). That's putting all the firepower from a 2000 point army into them. With a forcefield, that drops to about 20, meaning in a six turn game, you can kill 120 boyz. (And, that number was about the average from the games I played in the gladiator too) If all you bring to the table is 120 boyz (because you spend more on stormboyz and lootas), I've wiped you. If you bring 180, you have two full mobs left to take objectives or engage my firing line.

So, yeah, I think that KPs force non-mechanized ork players even more towards the "more boyz, less toyz" approach. And I think you'll see this in a number of other armies too. Sisters, I think, have really good troops, to the point where a sisters player can cut everything except big mobs of power-armour wearing girls.

Redbeard, how well do you think your army will fare against a mechanized assault army? A mechanized (meaning mobile, not guard bunkers er I mean 'tanks') shooty force?

Personally, I don't really think much of going without mobility. I've never had a problem taking my Seer Council + Farseer + Autarch + Shining Spears into 30 Orks and wiping them to a man. I think my Tau can take 180 boyz, but I'm not sure if they can in 5th edition where you can run to make up the fact you are spread out (so me refusing a flank doesn't work that well). I know I can zap the crap out of you though, and the two kroot units I added really help once what's left gets close.
Will I win a KP mission? Not if you kill anything. So KP's are flawed there. Will I win an objective mission? No, but I can tie if I can beat you off and keep mine.

5th edition is really different, but I don't like the force org chart and I don't like KPs. If KP's become pure VP's and earn 1 point each (ignoring transports) towards a total required to win, well, it'd be much better. The force org chart is way better than the 25% rule, but then again--you could make unique armies by taking allies from almost anywhere.

We've come full circle sadly, in the 5th is how Jervis would have done 3rd. Andy Chambers is laughing up his sleeve over at Blizzard, and if you don't know which designer is considered successful...Jervis is considered a failure through and through. Nice guy to talk to, but he's making some really crap decisions. Has been for years now. I can only hope GW gets some balls and releases him soon. It's not like 5th edition is going to be crazy good. It's a little bit different, but it's not going to sell like Jervis has been telling the new CEO it will.

Wellp, back to my Red Marines. Maybe I'll paint them Blue. Blue is Better, right?

Tegeus I think units are good at killing troops when they have either a higher concentration of special and or heavy weaponry, superior range, or ordnance/blast weapons. It isn't that these units are "harder to kill" on their statline, it is that they have longer range, which is an invisible element to theory hammer but it means that they can do most of their shooting to a troop unit which generally has a 24" range before the troop unit can retaliate.

For some of your examples. Stormtroopers are an absolutely terrible unit. For imperial guard a better example would be hellhounds or leman russes. Terminators are an interesting point. I don't believe that they die as easily as marines, but I know what you are trying to say, but how about a whirlwind, how about predator destructors? And aspect warriors are one case in an eldar army. What about falcons or harlequins, do they die as easily as troops?

As for your reference to redbeards army. I want to stress that I'm not attacking anyones ability to play here. I'd like to hear how many 3x whirlwind armies, 3x pred destro armies with 3x techmarines he faced, or 3x leman russ guard armies. Although in a vacuum, the 180 ork army gets better in 5th, its the very core changes to 5th that are making other armies take the tools needed to put out the light infantry wounds on a much more productive level. 4th edition is falcon and harlequin kill, its 40 marines with lash kill, its 7 monstrous creature kill. How are people supposed to bring enough firepower to a tourney to kill a godzilla list and also kill 180 orks. Adepticon was the coming out party for the orks. I wasn't there so I have to assume that people weren't bringing armies that are designed to kill troops.

In my many games of playtesting our groups army composition has changed. 4+ cover for marines (3+ when they take cover) has changed what weapons are good at killing them. the new blast template rules help that. a 4 lascannon dev squad kills 1.12 marines if they didn't take cover, 2 predators which cost less points, more than double that number with 2.9. Sure there is other context, like the survivability of these units etc, etc, but the bottom line is, the anti-infantry multishot weapons are now better at killing marines than the anti-tank ap3-, thanks to the multitude of 4+ cover saves, and the take cover rule. This will affect the orks adversely. If because of mission parameters I can be assured that taking dedicated anti-infantry support will be effective, then I'm going to take it. Incendiary castellan is going to go right through that cover save and a hit or low scatter is going to kill 6-8 orks. A battery of those is going to kill over 20 orks in a kff. Can you spend 255 points on troops that can do that?

@ redbeard. You are right on your points about anti-tank. In 5th edition this sounds crazy, but lootas and stormboys actually gain survivability, because your opponent will shoot at troops in perference to support if his game plan involves winning through objectives and not through VPs. I off that stormboys are my anti-tank of choice. With their ability to run, your opponent has really one chance to shoot at them, you can land in the open but with a piece of area terrain in between them and your enemy, and you'll get a 4+ cover save anyway. On the next turn, with a good jump roll, you'll be behind their vehicles available for a charge on their rear armor. If they are placing their butts against the table edge, take the side armor. Remember that the skimmer obscure save is a cover now, which you can't take in an assault. You know that stormboys are amazingly fast, since you've playtested with them. Now imagine getting to run on turns you don't plan to charge.

Lootas don't have a bosspole, and do run very easily. but they don't really get shot at as much, and they are also getting 4+ cover saves now. I've been playing or watching a lot of mech eldar tooled for 5th edition versus ork hordes. If you can't bring down armor 12 skimmers with shooting, then you are going to get cheesily tank shocked away from the tiny 3" scoring range of an objective, by a troop choice in a wave serpent or falcon.

I think I answered why that list gets weaker in 5th in my opinion. As to 120 ork army. i don't advocate that. my stormboy and loota having list is 150 orks, and it has a KFF too. It uses 'true' cover more effectively than yours. Doesn't have as much trouble against skimmer armies as yours does, and can chase down fast opponents easier than yours does. Run seemingly helps the assault horde but if you can't charge afterwards because you burned your waaagh, then the shooty units that you are trying to pin down can run away from you, sometimes setting enough distance to resume firing at you. Also keep in mind that with the new deployment rules. if you go first you are deloying blind, and probably table to table spread. When your opponent deplys in a refused flank hes going to cut 60 boys out of the equation for longer than 3 turns. If those flanking boys happen to be in jump packs, or happen to have 48" rang guns, you are immune to the refused flank deployment.

Sisters can probably take just sisters, but this is totally different than orks. Outside of seraphim, canoness and exorcist, the rest of their army list is unusable. Sisters also have mobility and top notch tank killing in their troops units, which footslogging boys just don't have.

Some armies are going to be heavy troop, some aren't. But there are plenty of reasons for everyone to take support. And if you have good support in 4th, its going to be good in 5th. Yes, that includes falcons...


Kill points strengthen your argument however. Yo could say something like. With a 9 or 10 KP army, all yo have to do is kill 3 support units and you've got a win. Well, i can't comment to that. Kill Points is so broken and untenable that I don't think it merits discussion. If I'm wrong and it went to print as is. Then I'll still hate it and i won't build an army that can't move and can't kill anything, just to win 33% of pickup games which will likely never appear in a tourney. Hopefully this last paragraph ties our discussion back in to the OP enough

Shep:

Tegeus I think units are good at killing troops when they have either a higher concentration of special and or heavy weaponry, superior range, or ordnance/blast weapons. It isn't that these units are "harder to kill" on their statline, it is that they have longer range, which is an invisible element to theory hammer but it means that they can do most of their shooting to a troop unit which generally has a 24" range before the troop unit can retaliate.

For some of your examples. Stormtroopers are an absolutely terrible unit. For imperial guard a better example would be hellhounds or leman russes. Terminators are an interesting point. I don't believe that they die as easily as marines, but I know what you are trying to say, but how about a whirlwind, how about predator destructors? And aspect warriors are one case in an eldar army. What about falcons or harlequins, do they die as easily as troops?

I think I did unconsciously cherry-pick my examples. My bad.

Still, I would say that Hellhounds and Russes currently kill troops about as easily as many (but not all) troops kill Hellhounds and Russes. Between Marine las/plas and a Hellhound or Russ, I know which side I'd bet on (assuming the Marines spread out and deploy in cover). Harlies die more easily to stealers (Troops) or Wyches (can be Troops) than vice versa, Termies die more easily to Pathfinders than vice versa, etc.

The point I'm making--and I don't think I made it clear in my previous post, sorry--is that some Troops kill things in the other slots more effectively than those things can kill them back. On balance, I'm simply not convinced that most Elites/FA/HQ/HS kill Troops more efficiently than Troops kill them. If that were the case, IG armies would never work, yet they do.

Maybe the experience of playing games will decide the issue...

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Still, I would say that Hellhounds and Russes currently kill troops about as easily as many (but not all) troops kill Hellhounds and Russes. Between Marine las/plas and a Hellhound or Russ, I know which side I'd bet on (assuming the Marines spread out and deploy in cover). Harlies die more easily to stealers (Troops) or Wyches (can be Troops) than vice versa, Termies die more easily to Pathfinders than vice versa, etc.

yep thats one example where I wouldn't bet against you. Thankfully, in 5th edition, las/plas marines are going to be of the 10 man variety, with 25 point lascannons. For about 200 points, they have decent long range anti-tank. them in cover versus a leman russ in cover would make an interesting exercise. And you've to to spot the 145 point leman russ a 30% margin. Also, I'll take the bet that a leman russ that deployed 50+" away from the marine unit will beat them every time. What if I just trade in a leman russ for 20 points and a basilisk? Harlies don't die easier to stealers if they are in a falcon or if they were supported by dark reapers. Non-troop termies are a tough sell, even for me.. So i won't argue your point about them.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:The point I'm making--and I don't think I made it clear in my previous post, sorry--is that some Troops kill things in the other slots more effectively than those things can kill them back. On balance, I'm simply not convinced that most Elites/FA/HQ/HS kill Troops more efficiently than Troops kill them. If that were the case, IG armies would never work, yet they do.

IG and space marines have good long range heavy weapons. In this they have the virtual speed and early game impact that most other troops don't have. If they have to move (like moving to get the objective) their firepower goes away. If they don't get into cover, or have to leave it to move to an objective, they aren't hard to kill. If you can make an army that has the firepower to compete with a balanced army that is entirely troops, then I have to give it to you, that would be a better army. When you go all troops, you sacrifice some combination of range, speed, wound output, survivability, or anti-tank. Each armies troops miss one of these criteria. Many miss out on multiples. The 180 ork army loses speed, range, and anti-tank. Which is fine, you will still beat many opponents with that list. But opponents that can capitalize on your lack of speed and anti-tank will have an unsurmountable advantage on you. A falcon wave serpent eldar army is going to win all but a kill point game against you, as would a simple 8 las/plas guard army with 3 leman russes and chem-inhalers/close order drill/drop troops.

Some armies have excellent well rounded troops. Those armies don't tend to have any marquis "support" those armies can dedicate more points to troops. You and i can agree on that. some armies don't have good well rounded troops, but rather, very specialized ones. those armies tend to have amazing support. Units like falcons/monoliths/hammerheads/carnifex/leman russ (5th ed. russes) These army books win games in 5th edition. I've seen it happen plenty of times. And they don't win by spamming fire warriors, necron warriors or genestealers, they use their support units.

this is really about kill points. And were kill points to be a substantial feature of 5th edition I would have to agree with you and redbeard. When you play a 9kp army versus a 30kp army, there is a big disadvantage built in there. It isn't "fair". I don't think KP is working as intended, and my hope is that it doesn't exist. In the newest batch of rumors on BoLS, the missions were mentioned and the author did not include a kill points mission but rather a "VP' mission, this could have been due to laxity but my hope was that KP was an abortion.

Nurglitch, my post was based on experience. I'm not imagining that Harlies can't usually take on equal points of stealers or that Termies lose in a shooting match with Pathfinders. 5th ed will not change either of these facts.

I am still reserving judgment on 5th until I can play a few games with my armies and get a feel how it plays. I learned bemoaning about rules before they come out is a foolish thing to do.

I really hope this gets changed, I play speed freek orks, apparently GW want a gakload of boys in each army. And that's it. It makes no sense, I know they want to sell boys boxes, but they've just remade trukks and bikes, don't they fancy selling a few of them and all?

So take a few Battlewagons full of boyz?

I'm not in it for the winning, it's the painting and building side I like more, in small units the detail stands out more. I don't really like the idea of pushing 300 orks across a table either, I know some people do, fair dos, I just hope this gets modified slightly. The KPs seem abitrary and unfair, and really favour some players more than others. I can see Waaaghmageddon (my new name for horde orks, tip your waitress, I'm here all week) becoming the only way people play orks (in the vast majority), it's a valid way, but the variety of orks always appealed to me. I have no right to complaign though, it could be worse, I could play guard

Democratus wrote:Complaining that a new 5th edition rule will negatively impact a 3rd edition codex is silly. Better to build solid rules and release a new codex than cripple yourself trying to maintain backward compatability.

No offense, but we are talking perfect world vs reality.

A new edition and all new codexes at once is HUGE project - and also a HUGE investment. New rules with a 40 page pdf file of basic army list for all species is still a HUGE project - not quite as time consuming, and also less expensive but, in many ways, a big financial risk (player alienation) without as large an upfront investment.

I have to add here - this comment not directed specifically at you Democratus - but most of the complaints about 4th really were not valid. The rules worked, together, an well although a pet tactic (or lack of tactics) might have gotten hurt. I have not read anything about the coming of 5th that makes me regret giving Games Workshop all the money George Bush owed me this year to buy 3 new armies in for me a new game system, just a few months from a new rulebook

P.S. I read on a blog Bell of Lost Souls? that Kill points were out, and troops were the only scoring units, but apparently they were scoring regardless of remaining unit strength. So...should make it interesting come July - I have 5 troop choices already at 1500 eldar and since I can't paint harlies (oh so hideous) may just add a sixth.

Phoenix wrote:

Hellfury wrote:Here is something I heard from local buddy who went to adepticon for the phil kelly seminar.
"Kelly said was that the Force Org chart was the biggest design mistake GW made with 40k, but they're stuck with it now, since removing it would mean invalidating every army book. (Not sure I agree with that. Just FAQ it and get to it when the new book comes out. Of course, we're still waiting for the Ogre Kingdoms FAQ...)"

Funny enough, I really like the Force Org chart.......While the force org system as it stands may not be perfect, there needs to be some sort of governing force to control the composition of armies.

Persactly. Fantasy stopped being "herohammer" when the rule book imposed the core/special/rare composition system. Yeah stuff gets gamed, and yeah some core types "suck" although, I can truthfully say, spearmen got so much better after I actually learned to play better

I suspect it is the same in 40k.

Two points to consider:

1.)
Pushing troops probably aint so bad. Elites etc. only stand out when they are in the minority. So with less elites on both sides the remainders will shine more and have more cannonfodder to feast on. Basicly the exact opposite of the much hated point denial elite armys of 4th.

So while the goal of pushing troops is a good one I think KPs make the game unnecessarily complicated, when the ammount of troops is allready defined by the FoC. One could simply change the FoC to 1 troops choice per 500 points for example.

Or even better provide a few named modifyers to the FoC which people can chose from before army selection, like:

- no dublicates in HQ, Elites, Fast and Support

- max. 1 HQ, Elites, Fast and Support per full 500 points

We recently played with these mods in about 8 tourneys and Ive got to say I love it. It lead to a whole fresh metagame with a lot of choices becoming good, which pretty likely increased sales.

Most of you propably know the different formats in the trading card game Magic the Gathering. Think along thouse lines.

2.)

KPs suffer from Escalation syndrome. Heres a bit general gametheory: People normally enjoy a game when there is a certain element of uncertainty to the very end and at the same time a noticeable effect of the players actions.

This means that games that are mostly decided by pure armylist selection, roll for first turn, or roll for mission are considered boring by most players, because their actions have very little effect on the game for long times.

Obviously game designers should make sure that the game isnt decided by pure listbuilding, which they do with the FoC (still room for improvement, see above), or by first turn (the new rules sound like a simple and smart solution), or by random selection of extremely different Missions.

I think you guys are seeing KPs as the replacement for VPs. VPs are in 5thed to stay... at least in the leaked copy... The way the missions work is you can have a mission based on one of 3 things

1) KP
2) VP
3) Objectives

You randomly figure out what which you will be doing before the game starts. There are also 3 core scenarios with different deployment zones.

My point is KPs is just one of three possible core missions!