So, in reading though the total annihilation rules for 5th edition, something occurred to me. The victory conditions for the mission state that at the end of the game, you total up how many kill points you and your opponent scored and whoever has more wins. In the vein of uncovering silly stuff that can go on in what may end up being the next edition of 40k, I was wondering what happens if you get totally annihilated? Well as it is now, if you designed an army that had very few kill points to give up and you fought an army (read IG) that came to the game with a lot of potential kill points, you could very well score more kill points than your entire army is worth. Following that, you could also have you entire army wiped out (not a single model left on the board) and still win the game due to scoring more kill points than your opponent.

Silly huh?

Sure. My 1994 Hyundai car gets totaled crashing into a brand new Porsche which only gets a few dents. The damage on the Porsche is still more.

SAFH/Conservation Marines are the Hyundai and Guardsmen are the Porsche. Every Guardsman is a precious irreplaceable commodity. It makes sense that the Guard could wipe out a Marine strike-force entirely but still lose the battle because they lost a bunch of Infantry Platoons in the process.

Mind you, it does note that dedicated transports are "the same as the unit they are selected with."

It seems clear to me that you'd have to destroy the entire Force Organization slot (or force all units selected from it) to gain a kill point. That's right, you'd need to destroy or break an entire Imperial Guard Infantry Platoon to get one measly kill-point.

Incidentally, anyone ever watch that "Father Ted" episode with the priest that deliberately smashes stuff and then declares it to be shoddily made?

I've killed a few armies to a man and still lost.

Primarily because of the transports = slot KP rule.

Makes for a very boring game if you ask me.

"How many points is that worth?"

"1."

"How many points is that worth?"

"3."

"I'll shoot that."

"Congrats, your army is dead but now you win."

"Thanks, I got mad skillz."

"Yeah."

Asmodai wrote:Sure. My 1994 Hyundai car gets totaled crashing into a brand new Porsche which only gets a few dents. The damage on the Porsche is still more.

SAFH/Conservation Marines are the Hyundai and Guardsmen are the Porsche. Every Guardsman is a precious irreplaceable commodity. It makes sense that the Guard could wipe out a Marine strike-force entirely but still lose the battle because they lost a bunch of Infantry Platoons in the process.

Wow Asmodai, you logic is impecawhatchamacallit. You should work for GW.

All those poor Guardsmen.

Nurglitch wrote:Mind you, it does note that dedicated transports are "the same as the unit they are selected with."

It seems clear to me that you'd have to destroy the entire Force Organization slot (or force all units selected from it) to gain a kill point. That's right, you'd need to destroy or break an entire Imperial Guard Infantry Platoon to get one measly kill-point.

Incidentally, anyone ever watch that "Father Ted" episode with the priest that deliberately smashes stuff and then declares it to be shoddily made?

I do not interpret rules as you.

The pre-release PDF, or at least the version I managed to download, states that :

At the end of the game, each player receives a variable number of ‘kill points’ for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed or is falling back.
(...), and units from the Troops section are worth 1 kill point each.
Dedicated transports are always the same as the unit they are elected with.

So for example, a fully mechanized platoon of guards is worth 1 K.Pt. for each squad and 1 K.Pt. for each Chimera, all taken separately. But a chimera given to HQ is worth 3 K.Pts.


Anyway, I agree that kill points counting is weird.

Nurglitch wrote:Mind you, it does note that dedicated transports are "the same as the unit they are selected with."

It seems clear to me that you'd have to destroy the entire Force Organization slot (or force all units selected from it) to gain a kill point. That's right, you'd need to destroy or break an entire Imperial Guard Infantry Platoon to get one measly kill-point.

Incidentally, anyone ever watch that "Father Ted" episode with the priest that deliberately smashes stuff and then declares it to be shoddily made?

Gah, that's even worse, just take 3 maxed out infantry platoons and an HQ, the max your army will give out is 6.

Ravajaxe: I'm not interpreting the rules, I'm commenting on how they can be applied by reasonable people. Two different things, I'm afraid. It should be interesting to see how the final version turns out, considering that the reference to 'units' results in the sort of problems pointed out by this thread's original poster.

Ravenous D: According to the pdf the missions are rolled for randomly. Taking three full Infantry Platoons and a full HQ choice may work nicely in a Total Annihilation game, also poorly for Recon or Take and Hold. Still, 1/3 ain't bad, right?

3 nobs with a battlewagon => 6 kps? woot.

Hell, I can top that.

8 pathfinders = 3 points.
pathfinder devilfish = 3 points
The unit of 2 gundrones that disembark from devilfish = 3 points

9 KP up for grabs. Totally lame.

How about Ravenwing? Sammael and three full squads with all the toys makes a 1500 army that I believe hits a mighty 6 kill points! For everything!!

As it stands now KP in general just sounds absolutely slowed to me, it just forces people not to use high KP models and field large units. I suppose theyre doing this as a pathetic attempt at killing of min/maxing?

Yes, that is indeed the 'design concept'.

Lots of ways to fix the game, this isn't the way.

Hopefully it will go the way of the dodo or be fixed so it isn't so blatantly bad.

Seems fine to me, particularly since games judged on kill points are mixed in with those games that require players to capture objectives, requiring that players balance their forces so that they can be successful in either.

When you say balance, you mean 'play the way we want or else you can't win and feth you'? That is the message everyone seems to be getting. Maybe GW should note this and correct the problem before people refuse to use GW's gakky scenario system, eh?

Once you play 5th a few times, you'll realize you cannot balance for all 3 missions. So you end up playing whatever you want, and get dicked in 1/3 of your missions.

2/3 for some armies.

Gee, how fun.

When I say 'balance' I mean create a well-rounded army that rewards good game-play. Mind you, the game already does that, but you wouldn't think it by the way people talk. Having played three games using the 5th edition rules floating around, I'm not inclined to jump to premature conclusions. That said I find my Marine force well-balanced for all three missions, particularly when I use them as Blood Angels and employ Combat Squads. But then they were designed to be well-rounded.

What balance? 80 Necron warriors and a lord. Done.

5 scoring unit for the 2/3 of the missions that require objectives, and 7 kill points max for the last 1/3.

Yup, balance.

Looks balanced to me. Assault the Necron Warriors, and mop them up, or simply wipe them out with 25"+ fire. Capture the objectives at your leisure, and the game's in the bag. It'd certainly be interesting to try, rather than just play 'top-trumps' with army lists.

Jayden63 wrote:What balance? 80 Necron warriors and a lord. Done.

5 scoring unit for the 2/3 of the missions that require objectives, and 7 kill points max for the last 1/3.

Yup, balance.

If by done you mean "done making the weakest army list i can possibly make"

warriors without monoliths are MEAT against assault armies. especially under 5th edition rules.

Lots of people are going to make 6 troop choice armies and a single HQ, Lots of them are going to get mauled by people who take 3-4 quality troops choices, and support/attack/elite choices that chew through lightly armed troops choices with ease.

Jayden63 wrote:What balance? 80 Necron warriors and a lord. Done.

5 scoring unit for the 2/3 of the missions that require objectives, and 7 kill points max for the last 1/3.

Yup, balance.

Nope not balance, fodder for my dark reapers...or better: AP3 ordnance!
Mhhhh...bunched up necron warriors!

Greets
Schepp himself

I eagerly await the day they get rid of Phase Out so I can take LESS warriors. As is I feel like I'm required to cram in as many as I can to beef up my Necron count.

Schepp himself wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:What balance? 80 Necron warriors and a lord. Done.

5 scoring unit for the 2/3 of the missions that require objectives, and 7 kill points max for the last 1/3.

Yup, balance.

Nope not balance, fodder for my dark reapers...or better: AP3 ordnance!
Mhhhh...bunched up necron warriors!

Greets
Schepp himself

I'm not picking on you specifically, I just needed to quote someone who had this line of thought. Your missing the point. I wont be playing against you. I'll be playing the mission objectives. How can you win in total annihilation when I spend my first three turns killing 8 Kp of fast attack and heavy support. How can you win in the other missions when all I do is concentrate on killing your 2-3 troops, and keep only one unit safe to make a last turn objective grab. See the problem?

Usually there's another player involved in a game. Unless you're solo-gaming, then it's easy to play the mission objectives. I have a 60-0-0 w/t/l record when I'm solo-gaming.

Your still missing the point. What are you going to do? Hide all your FA, HS, HQ, and Elites all game. All I brought are troops. All I have to do is kill more KP in expensive fast attack and elite than I brought and I auto win at the end of the game. It doesn't matter if I am wiped out to the man as long as I somehow take 8 KP out with me. In some armies thats just 3 units.

Thats the point. Some armies can do this. Others have no chance.

I don't play in a bubble. I play on the table. We already know how to take out important enemy units, everybody does. Now its just a matter of choosing different units to take out. I'll happily sacrifice a troop unit if I know I'll take one of your HS with me. Its a better trade.

Thanks to this, 40K has really developed a rock/paper/sissors feeling. Even more so than before.

Unfortunately Jayden, you are missing the point.

Gone are the days of well thought out, tactical discussion supported by facts and numbers.

To be a Dakkite now is to be one of many, drowned out beneath the screaming wail of the "I CAN PLAY BETTERICON". In the grim darkness of the vast present, there is only blatant, unverifiable, sweeping generalizations.

Have you noticed lately that certain people don't post here anymore? Have you looked at the tactics forums? When was the last time anyone had a meaningful discussion about the effectiveness of said unit, that didn't involve, "Well I don't have any trouble with them and if they work for you, go for it." While its nice to pat ourselves on the back and play nice from time to time, it really doesn't get us anywhere trying to advance our knowledge of the game.

Maybe this recent stagnation has to do with the 4th edition rules being at the end of their era, and people are just waiting for 5th with bated breath. Maybe there is another reason too.

The point is, Jayden, you lost the argument the moment you hit the "Post Reply" button. You cannot argue with "Any army can beat the Lash."

I always thought tactics was about how to use a unit effectively, rather than which units are effective (which is strategy). Could be wrong though.

Incidentally I would like to hear how an all Troops army kills more kill-points worth of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support than it is itself worth. I could do with the tactical edification, apparently.

If your interpretation of whole Guard infantry platoons being worth 1 KP is correct, upwards of 500pts being worth 1 KP is one way to have 5-7 KP in an entire army. I'm fairly certain they would be able to kill some combination of units worth as many KP before 100-200 Guardsmen are wiped out in detail.

If your interpretation is wrong, the previously mentioned Necron warrior list would have a fantastically easy time getting 8+ KP from any assembly of Guard.

[Edit] Rereading your post, that is probably not what you wanted. However, I do believe it accurately represents how boned someone is going to get. The KP system doesn’t work at all for Guard, and it doesn’t work well for many other armies.

Nids get lucky with Zoanthropes though... a unit of them count as 2kp, but they can be deployed without coherency and act independently. Buy three Zoanthropes, spread them across the field in deployment & the enemy has to get ALL THREE of them for the 2 KP.

Other armies have similar working units I believe also.

I'm curious how the game designers (i.e., M.Sc.'s in English Literature) will justify the KP system.

Has the KP system been confirmed? I know that the leaked PDF is rather out of date, so do we have a more recent quality source on this rumor?

Now, I don't know the exact points and numbers here, but I am imagining SM in drop pods being pretty tasty for killing vastly more KP than they are worth with little effort. I am thinking of dropping a pod next to say a Devastator squad, or behind a tank, popping it with plasma/meltas, and netting 2 KPs as the drop troops are gunned down next turn.

That might well go away with the SM redux, but then Drop Troop Guard might work really well for the same idea, the bonus being you get a few platoons for 1 KP.

Ravenous D wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:It seems clear to me that you'd have to destroy the entire Force Organization slot (or force all units selected from it) to gain a kill point.

That's right, you'd need to destroy or break an entire Imperial Guard Infantry Platoon to get one measly kill-point.

Gah, that's even worse, just take 3 maxed out infantry platoons and an HQ, the max your army will give out is 6.

Huh? "Worse"?

That's exactly how it *should* work, because it balances things properly. If the IG are fielded in proper numbers, it should be very difficult to pull KP from Guard.

Guard *should* be hugely resilient from a numbers standpoint, counting by Platoons rather than individuals or squads. If you can't wipe an entire Platoon, against the sheer majesty of the Guard, it just doesn't matter.

Sure, from a fluff perspective...However, from a game-balance perspective, KP's throw the game out of whack.

It would be different if every army was more uniform and had quality troops. But thats just so boring

As far as guard goes, Netting one KP for every platoon seems balanced to me. It rewards you for taking lots of troops, and makes you think twice about loading up on tanks, though troop only objectives did that on it's own.

gdurant wrote:It rewards you for taking lots of troops, and makes you think twice about loading up on tanks, though troop only objectives did that on it's own.

No, it rewards you for taking max size platoons. Which is something different and silly.

Why are maximum sized platoons silly?

Well, if you need to kill all 6 (or seven) squads to score, the IG player can simply hide a remnant squad deep in the back of the DZ, and spread the rest of the platoon far and wide, mixed with another platoon. Keeping 2 infantry men alive can prevent any points gained from killing 600+ pts worth of platoon.

there's also the unbalance inherent in an IG player getting to claim an objective in other missions with a single squad, while denying KPs unless an entire platoon is wiped.

Unfortunatly, IG don't have any way of making squads bigger or appreciably more resiliant, unlike most other armies. IG's thing is to simply be able to take more squads, which was also a blessing and a curse. If these rumors are accurate (or retained, I suppose), then it'll be even more wacky, with IG squads swarming objectives in some missions, while falling like wheat in others.

I can't imagine them keeping KPs as proposed, as it's simply incredibly unbalancing.

The pdf suggests that you have to either eliminate or break the 'unit', and that you can force morale checks by forcing retreating troops to retreat through other units. Hence leaving the remnant squad in the back, supposing of course that the player has nothing that can attack the backfield of the deployment zone, is unlikely to preserve the squad in the advent of a player trying to destroy or break all of the Imperial Guard squads to the fore.

The additional problem is how the player with the maximized platoons gets around to killing stuff. Obviously there's all those lasguns, but the real killing power of the Imperial Guard is not in the Troops selection.

Kill-points seem well-balanced to me. I'd rather see the play-testing results though, before I'm quoted on that. It would be a shame for a perfectly good game mechanic to be pre-judged by a bunch of armchair generals.

It is silly since Guard have troop choices of multiple independent units. It doesn’t particularly matter how the independent units are purchased for how the game is played. In my opinion, the same number of units with the same number of guns and costing the same number of points should be worth the same number of KP regardless of how they are interchangeably organized through the platoon system.

For example, you have 3 infantry platoon command squads and 12 infantry squads arranged so that 2 platoons have 5 squads each and 1 platoon has only 2 squads. Shouldn’t you take 3 platoons with 4 infantry squads each? Should it matter how the independent units are configured when it has no impact on gameplay beyond the KP system?

As for Guard Troops units not doing the bulk of the killing, we must have very different experiences.

I think the other aspect people are having trouble with is not all HQ, elites and HS are made equal.
Guard have their small fragile command squads which are a lot easier to kill that a chaplain buried in a assault squad or a hive tyrant.
Gretchin guns are way more fragile and less expenisve than a looted wagon with kill kannon and upgrades but they are both worth 3 KP.

They want a system that encourages people to take more troops, troop only objectives do a good job at that. Why do the need to replace victory points?

All in all, I think the kill point system is decent (although not great). For most armies, it encourages you to take troops and to protect your HQ units. I’m ok with this. The only real anomaly with the system is how it works with IG. If each squad gives up kill points, the IG are screwed. If you have to kill a whole platoon to get the kill points for it, it will be impossible to ever get the points out of it since you will have to wipe out (or break) every model in the platoon. If one single model is still alive, no kill points for you. Given that the squads can be scattered around the board, that’s just going to be impossible to accomplish.

The big improvement that I would like to see is something of a more flat point field. The 1/2/3 system is a bit much since HQ are worth 3 times as much as troops. I’d much rather see something like a 2/3/4 so that things are a bit more level.

I wouldn't call it balanced. 70 pt HQ and a 300 pt HQ from the same codex shouldn't be worth the same amount of killpoints.

Why not? Presumably they'd come in armies of equal points value. A 70 point Head Quarters choice would have 230 points of something else backing it up versus a 300 point Head Quarters choice.

If anything this will balance out the differences between Head Quarters choice, since Imperial Guard players and the like won't worry about not having a Command Squad leading their army from the front. A 70 point Head Quarters choice would be 230 less wasted points than a 300 point Head Quarters choice if it hung back to preserve its Kill Points. Conversely the 300 point Head Quarters choice will be hard enough to make it worth risking by leading from the front.

there's still the issue that harder, more points dense armies will give up fewer KPs.

Taking your example above, when the IG army invests that 230 points into other squads, at a minimum it'll be two more KPs from two more troops squads. While sometimes more durable then one uber unit (especially with battle cannon around), the IG player will simply have more KPs on the board then his opponent.

The BP system takes simple approach: small, easily killed squads generally don't give up lots of VP unless they're insanely dangerous. Larger, harder, or more deadly units give up progressively more VPs. thus, an IG player can lose half his men, but if the enemy nearly all, IG win.

Under KPs, if the IG army loses half his men, he's lost the game. Under this system, killing a 20 man crusader squads is the same as killing 5 Pathfinders. Killing the Avatar is the same as killing a Heroic Senior Officer. Yes, point diffuse armies will have more "stuff" backing them up, but at the risk of yet more KPs.

I guess I'm not convinced that the VP system is broken enough to mandate such a sweeping change. Sure, it counterbalances the missiosn where having more scoring units is an advantage, but that makes tournaments and freindly games a fun game of "Read mission to see if you've won or lost." Is this alarmist? Yeah, a little. Should ultra small scoring units get reined in a little? Probably. Should an army with nothing but relatively small scoring units (IG) get thorougly boned in 1/3 of missions? I don't think so.

Polonius: "Points dense" armies will contain fewer units, and having more units is an advantage in Warhammer 40k because more units equals more targets that can be shot at, assaulted, and capture objectives.

Certainly this will give an opponent more opportunity to earn those extra kill points, but it will also give a player the opportunity to annihilate that opponent's force first. As you point out, few but hard units often suffer by comparison to numerous but soft units where ordnance like Battle Cannons are being fielded. Larger, harder, and more powerful units give up kill points more easily than the equivalent in smaller, softer, and less powerful units because they not only give up their own kill points when annihilated, but the kill points that they will not earn.

Think of it this way: A full squad of Chaos Space Marines and three full squads of Imperial Guard are very roughly equivalent, but the Imperial Guard will give up three times the points, right? Wrong, if one squad of Imperial Guard is killed there are two left over to earn more kill points. If the Chaos Space Marine squad is killed, they cannot continue to earn kill points. This works the same under the victory point system which, incidentally, is included to determine the winner when objective-based games are drawn.

The equivalences you've identified between hard and soft units with regard to kill points are true only insofar as we ignore how kill points are earned: by the performance of a unit over a number of turns in a game. A unit can have an indirect but very important effect on kill points by preventing units from breaking, like the Avatar, such that its Force Organization slot kill points are only part of the story.

The problem with victory points is that they encourage an annoying tit-for-tat strategizing by which people talk about units "earning their points back". Kill points put the focus on the synergy between units to control and win the game, rather than simply on the killing power of units.

An army with nothing but relatively small and soft scoring units may get thoroughly "boned" in a third of all missions, but the Imperial Guard will not. The Imperial Guard are also numerous and hard-hitting, mixing numerous relatively small and soft scoring units with hard and hard-hitting non-scoring units. Not to mention long-ranged.

Besides, if you want large units just take Conscripts.

Actually Nurglitch, what Kill points does is stupify the game even further.

Instead of having to count victory points, now we count kill points.

Gee are we still trying to get units to earn their points back?

Yes, you are. The name and not the nature is all that has changed.

Actualy, it looks like Nurglitch may have a valid point here (for once ). Units that are killed give up their kill points and also stop earning kill points. So while the small cheep squads can give up more kill points than large expensive ones, they also continue to earn kill points for longer durrations. While this may not always come out in the wash, it is a valid point. Also keep in mind that with the removal of the "Last Man Standing" rule from 5th edition, if you get a squad reduced to 1 or 2 members, it's not difficult to run behind other units in the area and hide from the enemy, thus denying them the kill points for that unit. But in order to do this, you have to have other units in the area to hide behind so it will be easier for armies with cheep troops to acomplish.

That's what it looks like to me: A ham fisted and poorly thought out system that is supposed to take any difficult maths from the end of a game of warhammer. The problem is that it's going to encourage certain list builds over others, on a broad scale.

I'll wait to see it in action, but I prefer victory points. It seems to me that HQ, Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support were already balanced by only being able to take limited numbers.

I see the arument: one squad, of say, Chaos Space Marines might kill one squad of IG, get wiped, so both sides get one KP while the other two IG squads keep killing.

It's a good theory, except for the times when the squad is able to kill multiple IG squads. Or even better, the IG lose 1 squad but only kill 9 of the 10 CSMs?

the arugment that's being used to prop up KPs doesn't vary from how VPs are earned today: killing enemy units while keeping your own alive. What's changed isn't how good IG squads are at killing, but how rewarding the exchange is for more elite armies.

Under VPs, a squad of Chaos Space Marines must kill over two squads of IG, or somehow prevent them from shooting, to be a fair exchange in an annhilation mission. Every IG squad not wiped out is still shooting, and earning and retaing VPs.

Under KPs, everything is the same, except for the fact that the CSMs have less pressure to wipe out a ton of IG.

That's not even getting to those force multipliers that can effect multiple IG squads: Large squads multicharging, Fear of Darkness, Psychic Choir & Dakkafexes, tank shock, etc.

Additionally, KPs reduce the fear of losing high point cost units. You can't be casual with, say, a large squad of bikers, because it's a large investment. Given the limited # of KPs they give up, now any unit can be used as a sacrifice unit if it is the least useful unit. Now, the cost in terms of amount of the army are the same, but the amount of objective points given up (which is all KPs are, objectives) is now manageable.

Think of it this way: if you played a normal, 4th edition VP game, except replaced the actual VP value of each unit with an "average" of all units in that FOC across all codices, would the game still be balanced? If I pay 95 pts for an IG las/plas squad, but you get 200 VPs for killing it, would that be fair? What if I only got 200 VPs for killing your full Crusader squad?

I don't think it's radicallly unbalanced, but barring some playtesting, I can't see how it's totally fair.

Polonius:

It would certainly help to know when a Chaos Space Marine squad might kill multiple Imperial Guard squads, and at what frequency. In particular it would be more accurate to determine what rate at which the units in an Imperial Guard army can kill or break units in a Chaos Space Marine army and vice versa. After all it may be the case that taking on Chaos Space Marine squads with Imperial Guard squads and expecting to win whether by kill points or by victory points is a dumb idea and that the strategic problem for the Imperial Guard is how to kill the Chaos Space Marines before the Chaos Space Marines can kill enough Imperial Guard. Hence it would not be fair to reward players for simply taking either bigger or small units, but for using those units in a tactically sophisticated way. It's fair because it rewards the people who apply their skill to solving the strategic dilemma of having enough troops to capture objectives but not so many as to give away kill points, but it's not "totally fair" because it will give an advantage to players with that experience.

The problem for Games Workshop will be, I think, to convince players used to prejudging all things Warhammer 40k that it is fair before those players poison the well and the community convinces itself that kill points aren't fair before they ever become an official rule.

Kill points will be alot easier earned for some combinations then others, that much is clear. For game balance two things of equal value often are pretty equal in what you get for it, with some exceptions. But if one of those 2 are worth 3 times the points it will be bad for someone.

Other then that, you can still phase out necrons so that sound like a pretty bad choice. But sure, there are nasty combinations that have very very low value in KP and whats worse is that most of those combinations consists of resilient troops that are excellent at capturing objectives in the other 2 missons.. win-win situation.

All this changes is the ballpark tho, the game is still the same.. at the moment people still run point denial vs point earned armies.

Have we decided if Guard squads or Guard platoons give kill-points? I think it is absurd either way, but the relevance of recent posts depends on the conclusion. Most imply squads give them way.

Show of hands?

WaltF4 wrote:Have we decided if Guard squads or Guard platoons give kill-points? I think it is absurd either way, but the relevance of recent posts depends on the conclusion. Most imply squads give them way.

Show of hands?

According to the leaked pdf, it is units...which would be squads. The talk of platoons was just hypothetical. Although since the pdf isn't official and still subject to change, I guess the rest of the talk is hypothetical too, just less so.

I think the KP system will change the game but not break it. What really surprises me is that they kept the victory points as a tie breaker for objective missions, this can easily come up in a recon mission. So now you have to plan to two different points counting systems.

For IG I think each squad counts, considering dedicated transports specifically contribute seperate KP I think the intent is clear that each unit in a FOC gives KP. Not to mention the current RAW says "unit".

Which means IG are totally screwed though until they get a new book. Small squishy squads give up too much KP too easily. Anything beyond mortar squads in the HQ platoon is a risky idea at 3 KP each.

They aren't totally screwed. Cover saves are improved, they have access to many Troop units for capturing objectives, and they have access to some of the heavier weaponry in the game.

According to that wording, each guard squad will give 1 KP. "Units from the troops section". Each squad is 1 unit, nobody would argue that. And while the whole platoon is 1 "troop", each squad was chosen from an entry in the troops section, so each is a unit from the troops section.

Transports are dealt with, and that sucks that a devilfish for pathfinders and a devilfish for firewarriors are worth different values, but I don't believe the gundrones will be worth anything - while they do separate and form a unit, they themselves weren't selected from anything - essentially they just came with the transport you selected, and you need to down that to get the kp.

Transports are dealt with, and that sucks that a devilfish for pathfinders and a devilfish for firewarriors are worth different values, but I don't believe the gundrones will be worth anything - while they do separate and form a unit, they themselves weren't selected from anything - essentially they just came with the transport you selected, and you need to down that to get the kp.

So you're saying that if a Tau player unloads his gundrones first turn and hides them for the whole game, then even if the 'fish dies, no kps are earned? It's the same double edged sword as IG platoons, unless the drones just aren't worth anything --which is probably the way it'll get played.

-Leo037

No, I'm saying if the fish dies you get the kps and who cares about the drones.

If they did the opposite, hid the devilfish and flew the drones all about, I believe they're worth nothing - and grats, he managed to get a "free" "unit", for all the good that 2 gundrones are going to do.

The best use for those free gun drones is forcing priority checks on the enemy. Nothing more annoying than being forced to divert an entire squad's firepower into two lowly drones.

Drones off of pirahnas can be really annoying as well. S5 against side armor is nothing to sneeze at. With one more turn of movement its S5 vs rear armor. They can't be ignored. Two little gun drones that pretty much have to be dealt with.

Keep in mind that 40k generally starts with the base case of 1 unit = 1 FOC slot. It is likely that the draft KP rules under discussion didn't consider Combat Squads or Platoons at all.

The real questions are:
1. Is some version of KPs preferable to VPs?
2. If so, how should KPs work?

I think that the basic concept of KPs are generally better than VPs. Counting and adding VPs and half VPs opens the door to more issues for the math-challenged. It's not too uncommon to have errors in tallying VPs, somebody forgetting to divide halves or screwing up "carry" of 100VPs. And that makes VPs a lot easier to cheat. On the other hand, it's a lot easier for the opponent to calculate the enemy KPs by inspection, as they KP values are small and easily determined.

Now as for details, GW uses 2 KPs for most units, 1 KP for Troops, and 3 KPs for HQs.

There's nothing wrong with this, as Troops *should* be more expendable, and HQs more protected. This encourages players to field Troops, which fits the theme of 5th Edition.

Putting a bull's eye on the forehead of the HQ is also a good thing, as it makes herohammer play a little bit riskier, and encourages HQs to function more as commanders supporting.

lumping an entire FOC choice together as a single entity for KP purposes seems to be reasonable. It keeps the total KP count down, and pays good attention to the FOC concept. It further encourages players to take larger units over MSU, so there is a nice design decision to be made between fielding Squadrons vs individuals - individually, 3 Landspeeders risk 6 KP, but they can affect 3 areas of the board.

Finally, putting this all together, with HQs worth 3KP, Troops worth 1KP, it is interesting and elegant that each section of the FOC is has the same number of KPs:
- 2 HQs @ 3KP = 6KP
- 3 Elite @ 2KP = 6KP
- 6 Troop @ 1KP = 6KP
- 3 Fast @ 2KP = 6KP
- 3 Heavy @ 2KP = 6KP
Nice!

Overall, it appears to me that 5th Edition is trying very hard to force the player to make more decisions that have risks and costs. These decisions are compositional, strategic, and tactical. So I think this is good.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Overall, it appears to me that 5th Edition is trying very hard to force the player to make more decisions that have risks and costs. These decisions are compositional, strategic, and tactical. So I think this is good.

Overall, GW is trying hard to force people to only use the armies that have the very best troops (Orks and Marines-Especially drop podders) as troops are the best unit to take in the new edition. Hardly more decisions there.

skyth wrote:
Overall, GW is trying hard to force people to only use the armies that have the very best troops (Orks and Marines-Especially drop podders) as troops are the best unit to take in the new edition. Hardly more decisions there.

I doubt that they are making those rules specificaly for that purpose, but that appears to be the effect the rules will have. The problem with rewarding people for taking troops is that some armies have significantly better troops than others. Lets look at marines vs guardians vs orcs vs basic IG squads. 2 of those troop units are really good and 2 are not. Can you tell which is which? Heck, other than the marines, the other 3 are also almost the same point cost but very definately not the same level of power.

While kill points will shift the way armies are made, I don't think it will bring more balance, it will just shift the weight in a different direction.

@skyth: aside from the fact that Troops are ordinary, slow, and non-killy, yeah, they're great.

@Phoenix: Marines will be good from Combat Squads and Razorbacks; Guard Platoons will be very good from sheer numbers of scoring units and resilience vs KPs. Orks will have bulk numbers on their side. Overpriced and fragile Guardians suck, of course, which is why Eldar aren't ever going to take them. Thankfully, Eldar can take Jetbikes which are fast and tough.

The fact that some Troops choices are "better" doesn't really make that much difference. But moving away from Herohammer and Heavyhammer is a good thing.

Depends on the army John. Yes, they are ordinary, which is why I despise troop-based comp. But there are some good troops out there...

Tactical Squads (If we lose the 6 man las/plas to the combat squads, it's a little hit, but in a Drop Pod, they are one of the best units out there).

Genestealers (Slow, non-killy...Hardly)

Ork Boys (Hardly slow, and hardly non-killy)

Plague Marines in Rhinos will be pretty nasty in the new edition.

But I will agree that Troops are 'ordinary'. Boring to play with and against most troop-heavy armies.

If GW wanted you to take more troops then just make the troop selection a min 3 instead of 2. That alone would shift some armies around and well, not bother others. It would just be more fair to those armies that are not all ready troop heavy to begin with.

It seems to me that such as system as the 5th edition pdf proposes for missions requires people not to increase their troop selection, but face a decision about what risks they're willing to take. If they take lots of troops to capture objectives or deny kill-points, they may not have the hitting power to capture those objectives with or to accrue kill-points with, and conversely without enough troops to capture objects and deny kill-points they're going to be playing with a glass hammer. I like it.

Some troops are good at capturing objectives and accruing kill points...Some are not. The new system just skews the balance in favor of certain armies and army types.

If GW changed the FOC to require 3+ Troops, then that would make many armies illegal due to only having 2 Troops. Making Troops more valuable is better, as 2-Troop armies stay valid, but just become less effective.

So, some Troop-class units are better than others, so what? Usually they're more expensive as well, and embedded in different armies with different sorts of supporting units. It's good that some armies will be faced with different decisions about composition - it means there's variety.

Less variety you mean, as everyone just switches to the most efficient troops-based armies out there, with troops generally representing the blandest unit in the codex.

Nope, I mean that different armies offer players a different set of strategic and tactical choices. Some armies will not be considered 'most efficient' with its Troops choices maximized, and some will be.

Among those players of armies that will be popularly considered most efficient with maximized troops, you'll get the usual risk-adverse herd proclaiming both their own tactical genius in fielding Troop heavy armies and promoting that as the only 'competitive' or 'viable' way to play the game. You'll also get the usual risk-takers and obstinate grognards who either don't give a damn about what is popularly considered 'competitive' or 'viable', or will find beyond that narrow blinkered viewpoint something to take advantage of (i.e. something involving risk and tactical skill, rather than a 'no-brainer' list and luck).

Amongst the players of armies that will not be popularly considered most efficient with maximized troops, you'll find something of the opposite, except the risk-adverse will complain about their 'nerfed' armies and GW's conspiracy against...and here's me fishing around in my "Oh Noes, Nerf!" randomizer hat...Necrons, Tau, and Eldar. Naturally these people won't learn: they're too busy dumping their models on the table and expecting to just roll dice so that their spiffy 'competitive' new army list cribbed off the 'net does all the work against players of equally indifferent skills (all the while complaining that Warhammer 40k isn't tactical and it's all about lists....). They won't take risks, and they especially won't risk the terrible loss of face that comes with trying non-obvious combinations and tactics that might actually educate them about the game that they claim to be experts at because they win lots of games in small ponds.

I'm certainly expecting people to switch to "the most efficient troops-based armies", or at least the ones that they think are "the most efficient". Most people who play this game are sheep like that. They read some posts by blowhards on the 'net and count their chickens before they've hatched. It would be amusing except the tedium of it is boring and it gets in the way of interesting discussion about learning how to solve tactical problems on the table-top. By all means complain that you'll be forced to take troops, "the blandest unit in the codex". It's just that it would be more interesting to talk about solving the tactical problems faced by interesting armies and the ways they can face them.

Man, that was cathartic. Also, here's a comic:

http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20080227.html

skyth wrote:Less variety you mean, as everyone just switches to the most efficient troops-based armies out there, with troops generally representing the blandest unit in the codex.

Who has the time and can afford to do that?

Don't get me wrong, I'll be fielding more Troops, but the idea that I'd dump any of my armies, after spending much effort to collect, build, and paint them is kind of silly. Because I'd be right back at the start, so I'd have to do it all over again. And quite frankly, I just don't have the time or inclination to do that. Plus, with GW raising prices and limiting discounts, it's just not worth it.

No, I'll just put my less competitive armies on the shelf, and take them down when they get buffed again. Or when I feel like actually having fun.

You will also have people ignoring that the game isn’t particularly well balanced, and that some choices are bad no matter what you try.

Nurglitch wrote:It seems to me that such as system as the 5th edition pdf proposes for missions requires people not to increase their troop selection, but face a decision about what risks they're willing to take. If they take lots of troops to capture objectives or deny kill-points, they may not have the hitting power to capture those objectives with or to accrue kill-points with, and conversely without enough troops to capture objects and deny kill-points they're going to be playing with a glass hammer. I like it.

You are associating troops with units that are not good at killing or getting on objectives. This is not the case for all armies. Likewise, some armies have troops that are not good at holding objectives or hiding KP. The KP system attempts to normalize the value of unlike things. If 40k actually was just Marines running at each other, then the KP system would make more sense.

I'm not talking about all armies, I'm talking about what's going on within armies. Troops are within armies, so it's rather silly to compare them across armies without comparing what they're competing with for points in those armies. Sure, some army's Troops are better than other army's Troops at killing things and getting on objectives, so what? Are they better at killing things than some unit occupying another non-Troop Force Organization Chart slot? Are they better at capturing objectives than some unit occupying another non-Troop Force Organization Chart slot? Are they cheaper, more numerous, or have better special rules than their competitors? If not, then players will still be motivated to choose non-Troops even when they have not filled out an army's Troops choices. This motivation will exist because there are HQ, Elite, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support choices that, despite not being Troops, are better at supporting Troops than other Troops are!

People dumping their current armies in favour of all Troop armies will be in for a disappointment.

Right now armies seem to be Troops supporting HQs, Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support choices. The emphasis on Troops turns that around and back to the way it should be: you choose your army around supporting your Troops and enabling them to carry out their mission, and your decision is balancing the Troops with the supporting elements of your army.

[EDIT]: Post removed due to being largely a rant. Grumble...

JohnHwangDD wrote:If GW changed the FOC to require 3+ Troops, then that would make many armies illegal due to only having 2 Troops. Making Troops more valuable is better, as 2-Troop armies stay valid, but just become less effective.

Umm... You misunderstand. Just like now where a minimum army comp is 1 HQ slot and 2 troop slots. Change it to 1 HQ choice and 3 troop slots. It just means Necrons (for example) will have to take 3 units of warriors and a Lord. Its doesn't matter how many different choices there are.

Huh? I think I understand, and that maybe *you* misunderstand?

I am fully aware that requiring a 3rd minimum Troop slot would mean that armies have at least 3 Troops. That should be "obvious".

My only point is that doing so only makes Troops more of a "burden" because in many armies, they're still objectively the worst way to spend points. So minimum Troops / maximum non-Troops remains attractive.

However, the 5th Edition approach of making Troops have strategic value (non-Troops cannot score) and lower risk (only 1 KP for a Troops slot vs 2+ KP for non-Troops) is a superior balancing mechanism.

From a comp standpoint, requiring only 2 Troops, but making them valuable is a preferred approach. The player can continue to play with their existing army, even if it has only 2 Troops. They aren't required to change (or buy) anything. The choice to change remains with the player.

Nurglitch wrote: The emphasis on Troops turns that around and back to the way it should be: you choose your army around supporting your Troops and enabling them to carry out their mission, and your decision is balancing the Troops with the supporting elements of your army.

Actually, that's not the way it 'should' be...

skyth wrote:

Nurglitch wrote: The emphasis on Troops turns that around and back to the way it should be: you choose your army around supporting your Troops and enabling them to carry out their mission, and your decision is balancing the Troops with the supporting elements of your army.

Actually, that's not the way it 'should' be...

This, of course, goes into a whole separate debate on whether the tabletop game should reflect what would most commonly be seen battlewise as far as the fluff goes, or just make it an open, free-form wargame.

Most real armies have a standard troop type. For example, a US infantry company is mostly made up of regular infantry squads led by platoon HQs. There are some specialty sections that assist (MG teams, mortars, AT, attachments from Battalion, etc), but the bulk of the unit is regular troops.

Unfortunately, as was mentioned above, many army lists have crap for troop choices, or at least the troop options aren't as good as the rest of the army list. Look at most competitive Tau lists...they have the bare minimum for firewarriors and/or kroot, because the main units in the army are either ineffective or have no synergy with the rest of the list. If you think the changes to troop-heavy lists will make the game boring because all the armies will look the same, take a look at the current game situation. There's not a lot of variety, at least not if you're looking for competitive armies.

I think the 5th edition proposed solution is actually pretty interesting. It lets players keep their all specialty army lists if they want, and they may be much more effective if they're fighting mostly troop-heavy armies, but there is a new risk involved. Obviously the best answer would be to make army troop choices worth taking, but that would require rewriting most codexes out there, and that would take years. This simple rule lets armies of both types (troop heavy and competitive) compete more fairly while not forcing anyone to change through some heavy-handed, arbitrary rule change (like an extra troop force org chart requirement). A fairly elegant solution, as far a GW is concerned.

I wonder if this is meant to somehow make it easier for casual players, who may focus more on troop choices, to compete against optimized lists? If so, why? I've often read about the large, stay-at-home player base that doesn't care about super clear-cut rules and such...are they coming out to tournaments more and complaining about the list discrepancies? Does GW plan on trying to promote new tournaments to draw these players out? Either they expect more interaction between hard-core and casual gamers, or someone at GW is just trying to get the game closer to his vision of 40K representing the fluff of the universe.

It promotes more sales of basic troops.

Take orks for example. If I want to run a KOS style list with 4 trukk mobs, I only have to spend $88 for four boxes and I have 4 full squads.

If I want to run 4 squads of 30 though, I'm looking at $264. Granted that's for a horde army, but if the change gets long time players to cough up the money for a few more boxes of basic troopers, GW sees a bit more money that wouldn't normally be seen.

I doubt I'll ever run a true ork horde. I like my trukks a bit to much. Manuverability is still vitally important to the game reading through the pdf. If some of those objectives are on the other side of the table, you'd better have some way of getting there - hopefully somewhat intact (even if it's just one trooper as long as he isn't fleeing) they can capture it.

Smaller, faster units still have a place.

Might shelve the tau for a while though. While I take 2 10 man squads in fish, they are generally scarificial to a point (rarely do they finish a game on the table). I would probably have to change the whole flavor of the army to make it viable - adding in a couple of kroot units, which means changing the supporting suits and tanks also.

But the problem is, those specialty armies will go away if you want to win. There is no chance in hell of my 30 KP tau army (using just two troop choices) ever winning against an Ork, Guard, SOB, or Necron army that brings 5-6 troops to the table and only 10 KPs. It doesn't matter what sinerio or mission we are playing. All the other guy has to do is concentrate on my two units of firewarriors (24 models, 240 points of force) for the objective missions or take down three or so my elite, HS, or FA choices... of which there are 9 to choose from.

My only chance of winning in objective missions is to somehow obliterate all of his troop choices (probably 1250 - 1500 points worth vs my 240) as well and hope I end up with more more VPs for the tiebreaker. However in annilation I can't ever win. ever. He only needs to kill 7 models out of my army. 7 to guarentee a win.

So is this a fault of my army design, my play style, or GW shoehorning the direction my army has to go into?

6 10 man marines will out kill and out last 6 12 man firewarrior squads any day of the week. No matter what other back up units you bring. Horde troop heavy armies don't need manuverability when they only have to kill 7 models to guarentee a victory. You have 6 turns to do it it, and the tables aren't that big. KPs and troop only scoring units will only be balanced when each codex has troop choices of equal power. And that will never happen.

I agree - which is why the tau will probably sit on the shelf.

So is this a fault of my army design, my play style, or GW shoehorning the direction my army has to go into?

Mostly the last - especially for some armies (like suit heavy tau). To make that army viable under KP rules, you'd have to make crisis suits troops. Which I don't ever see happening. I think KP are a horrible idea.

That's the spirit: crumple as soon as you imagine a challenge! Don't actually take the risk of losing (oh, the shame of it), stick that army on the shelf where it won't embarrass you!

LOL. No, mostly the tau will be sitting on the shelf because I'm bored with them. Losing? I've had my ass handed to me many times while playing with tau.

Nah, the orks are out to play again. Now that I finally have new stuff for them, I'll probably play them exclusively until I need a change of pace again. Besides, they'll still be a challenge with small squads in trukks. Trying to keep 12 man cc orientened squads alive can be challenging enough... ;D

The other thing that I’ve been noticing with the new rules is that they favor hard, mobile, short ranged / hand to hand troops over soft, static, long ranged ones. Troops are almost a non-factor in kill point games since they give up so few kill points. So as long as you are not losing squads in droves, you’re fine. However, in objective missions, you have to get your troops to the objectives and keep them alive there. This is going to shift not only the purpose of troops, but which ones are taken. I’ll use eldar as an example since they have a wide variety of troop choices. Guardians are not going to be very useful. This is due to the fact that while they may be able to get to an objective in a reasonable amount of time, they are way too frail to hold it. Rangers / pathfinders are also not going to be very useful. While they have some decent shooting power, they lose it if they start moving. And while they are tough as nails at range (assuming they are in cover), they drop like flys if they get assaulted, so they can't really move up too close to the enemy. The only purpose I can see for them is to hold your own objective in missions where one objective starts in your deployment zone. Jet bikes and dire avengers will both see an increase in use since both are fast (assuming the avengers are in a serpent), both are fairly hard (3+ saves for the bikes and shimmer shield for the avengers), and both are short ranged units. I think this sort of change in the role of troops is going to seriously cut down on the diversity of troops you see on the field since the role of troops is going to be capturing objectives. Marine scout sniper squads will be a thing of the past. So will las plas squads (at least the 6 man versions). There will be even less reasons to take guardians (if that’s possible) and fire warriors without a devil fish will be completely unheard of.

FW's with an ethereal camped on objectives near/in their deployment zone will be hard to dislodge. Especially if they are in cover. With kroot on the forward edges to threaten counter-assualt/reclaim you could potentially end up with a pretty good firebase.

skyth wrote:

Nurglitch wrote: The emphasis on Troops turns that around and back to the way it should be: you choose your army around supporting your Troops and enabling them to carry out their mission, and your decision is balancing the Troops with the supporting elements of your army.

Actually, that's not the way it 'should' be...

Really? If one pretends there is some kind of correlation between Fluff and comp, then one must defer to the Fluff of lots of Troops. For example, the SM OOB is based on the Battle Company, with fully-mechanized Combat Squads, equal numbers of Assault and Devastators, and one Tactical squad per Assault / Devastator squad.

If a SM army varies in any significance from the SM OOB, then it fails to be a "proper" SM army.

Grimaldi wrote:I think the 5th edition proposed solution is actually pretty interesting. ... A fairly elegant solution, as far a GW is concerned.

I wonder if this is meant to somehow make it easier for casual players, who may focus more on troop choices, to compete against optimized lists? If so, why? I've often read about the large, stay-at-home player base that doesn't care about super clear-cut rules and such...are they coming out to tournaments more and complaining about the list discrepancies?

Totally agreed. The new, Troops-oriented games will be more plausible.

It's GW recognizing that casual (i.e. "normal") players are the overwhelming majority (polls show 90% "friendlies", and I think this is understates considerably), so the game really should cater to them - NOT the lunatic tournament-playing fringe. Building in lots of tournament-oriented crap adds no value to the vast majority of players.

If tournament 40k looks more like normal gaming, then perhaps, more of them will come out and be more active.

Jayden63 wrote:So is this a fault of my army design, my play style, or GW shoehorning the direction my army has to go into?

6 10 man marines will out kill and out last 6 12 man firewarrior squads any day of the week.

YES!, yes, and no.

Are those Fire-Warrior squads in full-defensive Transports? If so, those Marines are in for a tougher job.

Phoenix wrote:The other thing that I’ve been noticing with the new rules is that they favor hard, mobile, short ranged / hand to hand troops over soft, static, long ranged ones. Troops are almost a non-factor in kill point games since they give up so few kill points. So as long as you are not losing squads in droves, you’re fine. However, in objective missions, you have to get your troops to the objectives and keep them alive there. This is going to shift not only the purpose of troops, but which ones are taken. I’ll use eldar as an example since they have a wide variety of troop choices. Guardians are not going to be very useful. This is due to the fact that while they may be able to get to an objective in a reasonable amount of time, they are way too frail to hold it. Rangers / pathfinders are also not going to be very useful. While they have some decent shooting power, they lose it if they start moving. And while they are tough as nails at range (assuming they are in cover), they drop like flys if they get assaulted, so they can't really move up too close to the enemy. The only purpose I can see for them is to hold your own objective in missions where one objective starts in your deployment zone. Jet bikes and dire avengers will both see an increase in use since both are fast (assuming the avengers are in a serpent), both are fairly hard (3+ saves for the bikes and shimmer shield for the avengers), and both are short ranged units. I think this sort of change in the role of troops is going to seriously cut down on the diversity of troops you see on the field since the role of troops is going to be capturing objectives. Marine scout sniper squads will be a thing of the past. So will las plas squads (at least the 6 man versions). There will be even less reasons to take guardians (if that’s possible) and fire warriors without a devil fish will be completely unheard of.

Hey Phoenix, I'm gonna wade back into this thread, which has turned epic...

I've been busy testing 5th, and i've been looking mostly at tyranids and onwards. All of the black codecies are too far gone to really be worthy of discussion. Witchhunters, space wolves and dark eldar will be on life-support until they get re-issued, but IG and demonhunters are just broken.

So from tyranids on to orks. Things have been looking good in testing for making adaptations. I agree with some of the generalities you are throwing around, but I also feel the need to temper them with a less 'reactionary' voice.

My testing group has been slowly changing the structure of all the different armies and proxy armies to spend well over 50% on troops. Popular support units are no longer being fielded in duplicate and triplicate. It seems to seamlessly grow that way. In the objective grab missions, troops take such an increase of attention from your opponent that lone hammerheads, single loota squads, 2man obliterator units, striking scorpions, etc. are more survivable through their lack of scoring status. the new difficult decision in our games has become, take the shots at the warwalker unit? Or start working on removing scoring units immediately.

With a new emphasis on 4-6 large effective troop units, a lot of different unforseen meta-game shifts have popped up. i just flatly disagree with your assessment of guardians. in both of the objective games, at least one objective will be either in your deployment zone or placed just a fraction of an inch outside of the zone. That means that every army can field a static firebase with no fear of it being a non-factor. With eldar's new enforced focus on troops, firebases become more important. Avatar-guardian combos seem to be doing pretty well in testing. you can't really look under the hood for the effect these rules are going to have on the game. You have to climb in and go for a spin to see what these changes bring. I know you are one of the ones out there testing so, I'm not accusing you of pure theory-hammering. When you are playing take and hold, and you've got X troop type pushing towards your objective, dire avengers are great sometimes, but sometimes its 2 or 3 rhinos you need to pop. And thats when the eldar missile launcher comes up. With less harlies, less fire dragons, less warlock spears, less falcons etc. As an eldar player, a troop with access to a 'heavy' weapon becomes vitally important. Playing 4th edition eldar lists under 5th rules was working at first. But now that opponents have slipped into 1k+ points of troops and just playing to objectives, you need to play the troop game. And eldar need tank killing in their troop game.

As to firewarriors in a devilfish. Sure, but was there a reason to take them in preference to kroot now? unless that reason was a devilfish. That maybe a true statement, but not really a new 5th edition thing. As far as i've seen, i'd go as far as to say is there any reason to not take a space marine or chaos space marine unit and not buy them a rhino in 5th?

Nids are "taking" with gaunts and genstealers and "holding" with 'without number' gaunts. they seem to be more focused on assault in the few games that we've run with them. With less tanks to bust, and less reasons to bust tanks, it doesn't seem as grim for them as the internet seems to think.

Templars are taking and holding with their only troop choice just fine. land raiders, drop pods and slogging seems to work well for these guys. in ascending order of effectiveness.

Tau, haven't played many with tau, kroot infiltrating up flanks really puts pressure on the shooty armies. mobility armies that empty their backfield to redeploy also have to come back around to get the kroot. Firewarriors in devilfish finally have the targets that they've been waiting 2 years to shoot at. No one is playing warskimmer 40k anymore, so everyone has troops on the table or lightly armored transports/bikes, that means double tapping str5 finally has something to go after. Jetpack markerlights firing on the move has made firewarriors (and really everything with BS3) more deadly. Tau leadership may be an issue, it hasn't come up yet. but the sample set is way too low to speak with any confidence about it.

Eldar, talked about them a little, avatar guardian pathfinder bases with dire avenger "takers" seem to be working, pick your favorite units that aren't troops, spend 800 points on them, and realize that until "total devastation" that they probably aren't going to be taking nearly the same amount of fire as they did in 4th.

Dark Angels. haven't got to them yet, But with tons of troop options and being marines, i would assume that no one who plays dark angles would be unhappy with rumored 5th ed rules. 'Combat squad' seems on paper to be the premier 5th ed rule. Playing Kill Points? 10 man units... Playing objectives? Ok lets double my scoring units.

Chaos.. Well, plague marines are the new falcons... that is all

orks... playing a ton of speed freaks with orks.. A nasty good 5th edition army. Their troops rule. Been planning to do some more focused testing with eldar versus orks in the coming weeks. The eldar list will really need to get re-imagined. Broken down and built from the ground up. Popping trukks as early as possible, using cover to go first in assault, fearlessness and good counter charge will all be required. falcon spam, heavy jetbike usage, lots of aspect warriors all seem like terrible ideas when thinking about answering orks and taking objectives under 5th ed random game length and troop scoring rules. I imagine a popped trukk from a wave serpent or guardian fired missile/lance followed by a bladestorm will be a very simple one-two punch that won't be hard to affect. A combo from 2 troop units. Slogging orks will probably be eating guardian fired eldar missile mini-pies. I can't IMAGINE a blast marker not killing some orks in a 30 man mob under the new blast marker rules. Save those missile blasts for last. Might even get some pinned ork mobs especially after a bladestorm. Should give the avengers time to reload or re-embark. shimmershield/bladestorm to stuff the survivors of the turn 1 and 2 shooting, followed by any half decent counter-assault. Now I'm going off to theory-land, I'll just play a couple games this weekend with these matchups and come back and report. You just gotta keep in mind that 40-60% of objectives in all games are going to be right on your doorstep if you want them to be.

This thread cracks me up.

Totally.

Shep: Good to hear about someone's experiences in this matter. I've only played five games using the 5th edition rules, but I think that you've touched on two good points, them being (1) That the increased value of Troops changes their threat priority, and (2) the location of objectives matters!

Eldar Guardians, for example, are good for capturing backfield objectives and holding them since they are cheap and have access to long ranged weapons, leaving shorter ranged but harder hitting Troops like Dire Avengers free to go capture objectives further away from the deployment zone. Likewise ground-pounding Fire Warrior Teams have the range and firepower to reach out and touch at a discount compared to Fire Warrior Teams with Devilfish Transports.

It's too easy on the Internet, where there isn't a table in front of you, to ignore the importance of position in Warhammer 40k and focus strictly on lists in a vacuum. It's also too easy to mistake hyperbole for the sober assessment of facts, but that's another story. If you have the time and energy it would be cool to see a battle report where two games get played: one annihilation mission and one capture mission, both using the same forces. In particular commentary from both players about why they chose their forces and what they might change about them given the experience - basically what I'd assume GW will publish in White Dwarf to publicize the new edition but without the 'sell'.