So back in fourth escalation was often derided by people who thought it was a little random that some builds of army (ones with lots of slow, close heavy support or other slow non-infantry units) would be seemingly arbitrarily penalized in whatever proportion of scenarios in which they were played. Intuititively IMHO Kill Points will accomplish the same thing, only against almost the opposite sorts of builds. (basically MSU builds will be screwed about third of the time) Corrections to my information or logic? Thoughts? Invective? Abuse?

Seeing as how GW seems to be trying to get away from MSU and min/max builds I would say that yes this is the case and it is intentional.

Kill Points by itself kind of sucks. I only like it as a balance to the other two missions which reward greater numbers of units by letting them capture more objectives.

wight_widow wrote:Kill Points - the new escalation?

Yes. Or rather, another poorly thought out thing that has wide reaching implications.

Hellfury wrote:

wight_widow wrote:Kill Points - the new escalation?

Yes. Or rather, another poorly thought out thing that has wide reaching implications.

ding ding ding ding wiinnaah

Kill points make a good counter point to the objective based missions.

Overall I don't think it's too bad (certainly doesn't seem as detrimental as Escalation was).

There are some points that are irritating, like the DF giving two kill points because it has drones ... but those sort of things can be addressed by the FAQs (which irritatingly mentioned VPs but not KPs).

Now that i have fully digested 5th ed. It really is amazingly smooth running, well thought out, good gaming system. I have my quibbles.

By far, the biggest beef i have is kill points.

I am totally fine with introducing the concept of kill points to army books that have kill point friendly units and non friendly units. Orks are a great example, their trukk boy units are really poor in an annihilation, but they have the option of running an 8kp list that is totally powerful. So then it becomes a balancing factor. They can choose to be good at KPs or not. Eldar, Tau, marines, chaos marines, necrons, nids... all of these armies have the option to build sturdy, robust lists that don't cough up KP easily, and are competitive. All of them have options that are not KP friendly, but that's just a choice you make. Want that rhino? It may cost you more than 35 points..

But there is a group of armies out there that don't have the "robust" option. Dark Eldar and Imperial Guard come to mind. Dark Eldar are looking to take either tiny little specialist units, raiders, or both. Running 15-20 kill point lists. Imperial Guard is currently falling in on itself under 5th rules. They are finding it hard to kill tanks unless they take drop troops, and they are stuck with these little 5 man command sqauds all over the place. They are racking up some ridiculously easy to get KPs in the realm of 18+.

Both guard and dark eldar are getting new books soon. I am really hoping that both of them are treated with some care in regards to their KP situation.

KP was a mistake, they should have tried harder to encourage large units and discourage MSU, but a little nip and tuck over the next 2 years worth of codexes can go a long way to fixing the mess.

It feels like they were trying to kill 'transport/assault' armies or at least tone them back. I mean for a while during 4th edition, *EVERY* army was basically a fully mobilized army. Assault space marines in rhinos set the bar. EVERYONE guaranteed multiple units in round 1 assaults. I remember some games were basically done by the end of round 2 and it became transports running around the board taking pot shots at each other until the end of the game.

Combine this with "everyone running", and Now you have to think twice about a mechanized army depending on your mission.

Shep wrote:Now that i have fully digested 5th ed. It really is amazingly smooth running, well thought out, good gaming system. I have my quibbles.

By far, the biggest beef i have is kill points.

I am totally fine with introducing the concept of kill points to army books that have kill point friendly units and non friendly units. Orks are a great example, their trukk boy units are really poor in an annihilation, but they have the option of running an 8kp list that is totally powerful. So then it becomes a balancing factor. They can choose to be good at KPs or not. Eldar, Tau, marines, chaos marines, necrons, nids... all of these armies have the option to build sturdy, robust lists that don't cough up KP easily, and are competitive. All of them have options that are not KP friendly, but that's just a choice you make. Want that rhino? It may cost you more than 35 points..

But there is a group of armies out there that don't have the "robust" option. Dark Eldar and Imperial Guard come to mind. Dark Eldar are looking to take either tiny little specialist units, raiders, or both. Running 15-20 kill point lists. Imperial Guard is currently falling in on itself under 5th rules. They are finding it hard to kill tanks unless they take drop troops, and they are stuck with these little 5 man command sqauds all over the place. They are racking up some ridiculously easy to get KPs in the realm of 18+.

Both guard and dark eldar are getting new books soon. I am really hoping that both of them are treated with some care in regards to their KP situation.

KP was a mistake, they should have tried harder to encourage large units and discourage MSU, but a little nip and tuck over the next 2 years worth of codexes can go a long way to fixing the mess.

I second this. I like the balance that it adds for armies with the option of Kill point friendly builds, but clearly there is a problem for DE and IG. I'm hoping that an army redux or FAQ can address these issues (downsizing platoons a bit, then making each platoon a KP? or something of that sort)

nkelsch wrote:It feels like they were trying to kill 'transport/assault' armies or at least tone them back. I mean for a while during 4th edition, *EVERY* army was basically a fully mobilized army. Assault space marines in rhinos set the bar. EVERYONE guaranteed multiple units in round 1 assaults. I remember some games were basically done by the end of round 2 and it became transports running around the board taking pot shots at each other until the end of the game.

Combine this with "everyone running", and Now you have to think twice about a mechanized army depending on your mission.

You obviously haven't played 5E much.

Mech armies are incredibly strong, and if you bring a mech army you aren't worried about KP.

Your opponent should be worried about getting tabled, not trying to get KP.

Stelek wrote:
You obviously haven't played 5E much.

Mech armies are incredibly strong, and if you bring a mech army you aren't worried about KP.

Your opponent should be worried about getting tabled, not trying to get KP.

Considering it has been out for about a month, that is pretty much a given that MOST PEOPLE haven't played 5E much.

I never said it wasn't strong, but it is now not the only game in town, hyrbid lists and alternatives are now competitive. In 3rd and 4th it simply was not feasible to run a 'walking' army that wasn't either HUGE model count or all bikes/jetpacks. Maneuverability was king. Now, footsloggers have options to get around if needed and you can actually take some squads on foot without them being 3 turns behind your first line. I can actually see value in 3 mek units and 3 foot units. Before it felt like *all or nothing* when it came to army speed.

If you want to take a full transport army, you risk high KPs. Seems reasonable to me. Lots of people seem to play ignoring mission objectives and play to 'boardwipe' not to win the mission.

I don't think you played much 4E either.

Guess I'm just always against the grain. Almost all of my armies have always been walking foot armies, and I don't like running hordes (because they're tiresome).

No idea what 3E has to do with anything but my armies haven't really changed much in the last 8 years.

Stelek wrote:I don't think you played much 4E either.

Guess I'm just always against the grain. Almost all of my armies have always been walking foot armies, and I don't like running hordes (because they're tiresome).

No idea what 3E has to do with anything but my armies haven't really changed much in the last 8 years.

I ran GT twice under 4th edition and about 6-8 tournaments a year in 2004-2006. I played 4th edition plenty. During that time, Fully mounted assault marines were the 'thing' and everyone either played a mech army or a 'hug the board edge and shoot marines' armies. You either WERE assault marines or were gunning for them.

I still remember a GT mission that basically gave points for having units in your opponent's deployment zone. Deployment zone was a 4X8 table with us each having an opposing corner with 18" in from the board edge, 2 feet in each direction. I was a fully footslogging army. Statistically it was physically impossible for my units to get to the other end of that 8 foot table in 6 rounds. The best I could do is TIE and that would practically require a boardwipe of my opponent. But that was the risk I took not taking a balanced force.

It seems like that is what high KP armies are going to suffer, and right now, fully mechanized armies are losing their edge extreme mobility (by comparison via running) and are going to have a hard time if a KP based mission pops up.

nkelsch wrote:everyone either played a mech army or a 'hug the board edge and shoot marines' armies. You either WERE assault marines or were gunning for them.

Wow. The only army I ever saw be that predictable was sisters because they were the ONE army that could take APC's effectively. I just never saw APC spam in 4th like I did in 3rd.

Escalation just stuck it to transports too easily for anyone to even bother with them in my experience. In fact, I would go so far as to say I never saw a single loyalist marine player ever field a rhino in 4th. Not even noobs. I did see a few nurgle CSMs field a couple rhinos though. Not with any regularity however.

[edit] Whatever. This thread is about KP's and not everyone E-peens and who took what in past editions or who did what in past editions.

Shep wrote:I am totally fine with introducing the concept of kill points to army books that have kill point friendly units and non friendly units. Orks are a great example, their trukk boy units are really poor in an annihilation, but they have the option of running an 8kp list that is totally powerful. So then it becomes a balancing factor. They can choose to be good at KPs or not. Eldar, Tau, marines, chaos marines, necrons, nids... all of these armies have the option to build sturdy, robust lists that don't cough up KP easily, and are competitive. All of them have options that are not KP friendly, but that's just a choice you make. Want that rhino? It may cost you more than 35 points..

But there is a group of armies out there that don't have the "robust" option. ..... Both guard and dark eldar are getting new books soon. I am really hoping that both of them are treated with some care in regards to their KP situation.

Really REALLY good points. Presumably there will be some rule that balances out KPs for Imperial Guard. I can't see how they'd let the current situation continue. All those Rhinos really might cost you more than you bargained for. Why not try out the fancy new 'Running' rules and maybe evolve some NEW tactics with your army? After all, that's part of what these rules updates are for, to force us to think again instead of using the same tactics we used in 4ed.

When you choose your army, you don't know what mission you're gonna get. Of the possible three missions, one rewards you for having lots and lots of squads (Seize Ground), one penalises you (Annihilation & it's Kill Points), and one is largely indifferent, as long as you have a balanced force (Capture & Control). BOTH players are in this situation, and so, when building their list, they can choose what build they're going to favour, and what risks they're willing to take.

KP's aren't unfair (except to Guard players for the time being) - they're just something people are going to have to take into account when building their armies in future. It's the result of a dice roll, and no more of an unfair system than your opponent getting that first turn your Khorne Daemon army were gunning for.

ArbitorIan wrote:KP's aren't unfair (except to Guard players for the time being) - they're just something people are going to have to take into account when building their armies in future. It's the result of a dice roll, and no more of an unfair system than your opponent getting that first turn your Khorne Daemon army were gunning for.

I disagree. KP's are quite unfair as it stands right now. A 40 point unit should not be worth the same KP as a 450 point unit. Its not just guard it screws. Tau with drones on their fish, etc.

[edit: example for clarity]
Wrathguard are a 350+point unit when maxed out. It's dead nuts hard. But a tau drone squad worth 96 points is worth the same KP. You have to dedicate alot of points to remove that wraithguard squad. probably more points than the wraithguard are worth. And what do you get for wiping them off the table? 1 KP.

Its simply too abusable. yeah people will learn how to deal with KP's and thats how they are going to do it. its not fixing the problem, its making yet another problem with a phantom 'pull-the-wool-over-your-eyes' patch.

There was nothing wrong with VP. It reflected what a unit was worth by the points it took to take them. Not perfect, but this KP crap is a backwards step instead of addressing any problems that VP might have had.[/edit]

KP can be fixed though.

Either GW needs to release a FAQ stating what units are worth what kind of KP in a fair way, or drop it all together.

Anything else is negligence on their part.

People cant be expected to play with criminally broken codecies who lose simply by showing up and wait years for GW to fix it in a codex.

I say this to GW:

"FAQ now or STFU!"

I agree that certain codexes are broken in a KP game - but they are in the minority. I would love GW to say, on the Imperial Guard FAQ, that it's a Platoon, not a Squad, that you get the KP for.

However, there are a majority of tried and tested armies that are broken, because they were collected without KPs in mind, and because their owners have been using the same tactics in every game these last few years.

KPs are fair. Yes, a 40 point unit is worth the same as a 450 point one. Those are the rules. Build an army with that in mind. But they apply to both armies, and both players, so they are fair.

Hate to burst your bubble, ArbitorIan, but every GW codex that has vehicles as transports is indeed busted.

Great, so Necrons are fine. Other than the fact that they suck in 5th and won't be coming along to the KP party, everything is just fine.

Another bubble bursted: I am not changing my armies to suit stupidity and gakky game design.

YOU can accept the bs. I won't. I'm a paying customer, and GW can feth itself if they think that 'Escalation Part 2' is going to be accepted for another five fething years.

ArbitorIan wrote:I agree that certain codexes are broken in a KP game - but they are in the minority. I would love GW to say, on the Imperial Guard FAQ, that it's a Platoon, not a Squad, that you get the KP for.

However, there are a majority of tried and tested armies that are broken, because they were collected without KPs in mind, and because their owners have been using the same tactics in every game these last few years.

KPs are fair. Yes, a 40 point unit is worth the same as a 450 point one. Those are the rules. Build an army with that in mind. But they apply to both armies, and both players, so they are fair.

That assertion is bollocks.
Even cursory inspection of the KP rule reveals that it simply wont work with how codices are set up at the moment. How people have collected their armies is only a minor portion of the problem.

Simply assigning a single KP to a unit does not a good rule make. Simply assigning a KP to a portion of a unit does not a good rule make.

KP should reflect how difficult it is to remove its combat effectiveness. And since scoring units are effective until they are removed, then that means there is definitely a flagrant oversight on GW's part.

As I said, GW needs to look a lot longer and harder at the KP rule they introduced and assign a proper figure for certain units. Its not difficult to do.

What we have now is not an effective mechanic in how codices are written currently.

[edit to add quote to where my post was directed at since stelek posted before me.]

Stelek wrote:Hate to burst your bubble, ArbitorIan, but every GW codex that has vehicles as transports is indeed busted.

But a codex is not busted because it's transports have become slightly less of an advantage. I can't restate this enough.

You don't have to take the transport if you don't want to

But if you do take it, you just have to remember that, on a 1 in 3 chance, that transport might become a disadvantageous extra KP.. On another 1 in 3 chance, that transport might prove invaluable in the [edit] Seize Ground mission you just rolled. Fair's fair.

Anyway, I'm not going to go on about this. You know my position.

Besides, I'm not used to arguing FOR Games Workshop.....

What is the "intent" of kill points is?

Is it to replace victory points with a simpler (yet heavily skewed) scoring system.

Is it to penalize players that minimize squad size to maximize units?

Is it to discourage overuse of transports?

Encourage use of overpriced elite units?

All of the Above?

Replacing VP with a simpler system is good. Encouraging max squad size is good but I think there are other mechanisms in the rules that will do this (SM tactical squad rumors, new wound allocation, etc.)

The last two possibilities are too contrived. The fixes to the KP system are so obvious that they must actually want those contrived effects. I can't imagine why.

I think the 'intent' of Kill Points is to provide a counter to the 'Seize Ground' mission. Remember, KPs are only used in the Annihilation mission. They're not a replacement scoring system, just a special rule for 1/3 of the games you play.

Without the Annihilation mission included in the game, 40k would become very troop-heavy. The whole game would become objective-centered. You'd have a massive advantage provided you use lots of transports, lots of squads and lots of troops choices. Armies would start to look the same.

On the other hand, if all missions used KPs, the whole game would become about using a few, elite units. You'd be scared to include lots of troops or lots of transports because of the KPs they offer up.

However, with a 50/50 chance of you getting Annihilation or Seize Ground, you have to take both of these points into account. In my opinion, the only reason KPs & Annihilation are included is to provide balance to the other missions.

I think AT-43 shows how ass backwards GW's idea of KP really are.

In AT-43 the equivalent of 40K's KP is called "VP" which is not to be confused with 40K's idea of VP.

AT-43 is an objective based game.
There are many types of objectives. From controlling an area of terrain to eliminating a squad, eliminating an officer in a unit or eliminating a vehicle. As merely a few examples. Like I said, it is based on the scenario being played, NOT the virtue of how many units you have.

At the end of the game turn, whoever attains an objective gains the predetermined amount of VP for its accomplishment. (usually 1 VP)

That said, each scenario also has different amounts of VP to be earned before a 'cease fire' is attained.

As one example, the scenario 'hold the position' states that "the game ends when one player reaches 10VP. If both players reach the number at the same time, the one who controls the primary objective wins. If none of them controls more primary objectives than the other, the game goes on until one of them does."

Its actually quite amazing how such a young company as Rackham can learn from the mistakes of other game companies...even before other game companies make that mistake. And yet the same game companies that they learn from still cant learn from their own mistakes by avoiding the common adage of "Keep it simple, stupid!"

KISS is a concept GW thinks they grasp.

Ergo the Dark Angel debacle.

Sadly, they are about 200 yards off target yet still firing for effect.

Genius.

ArbitorIan wrote:You'd have a massive advantage provided you use lots of transports, lots of squads and lots of troops choices.

Kill points aside, I would like to see the game go this way. Everyone maxing out on troops in transports and then adding a couple of elite/FA/HS choices rather than the typical 4E army with minimum troops and maxing out everything else. I like all the non-troop units, they have all the cool gear, but it makes sense that an army that is short of troops should provide a more significant challenge to play and win with. I guess it is a good thing I don't get to write rules.

Who cares if it's balanced by another mission.

1 in 3 I win, 1 in 3 I lose, determined by the mission roll. That doesn't make for a fun game. What it is is bad game design.

Losing because of the mission instead of how you played is a sign of bad game design (Like the before mentioned GT mission, or the possibility of designing an army that cannot actually win a game in non-KP missions).

Of course, I'm one of the people that think the more units being used (On both sides), the more fun the game is going to be, so I encourage min-maxing to gain the most number of units out there.

skyth wrote

Who cares if it's balanced by another mission.

1 in 3 I win, 1 in 3 I lose, determined by the mission roll. That doesn't make for a fun game. What it is is bad game design.

The problem with this is that it only applies if your army is optimised to one particular mission.

What GW is trying to do is prevent min/maxing of armies - an 'optimised' army is now one which is tactically flexible, capable of achieving different types of objectives.

I don't think that KP's are perfect by any means - and I agree that IG have disproportionate problems (at least until they get their new codex) - but a lot of the discussion around this smacks of:

"My uber-kill-death-army which pwned all before it in 4th ed now loses a lot when this new mission is played. The new mission MUST therefore be the worst rule EVER WRITTEN!
What? You want me to change my army list/tactics? How dare you!. ... etc......"


Now, as I say, I don't think GW have necessarily created a great mission system, but its what we're playing, so lets look back at what and how we play and adjust accordingly.

An optimised, tournament winning list needs to be able to win (or at least be strongly competetive) in all 9 mission variants. This means that different choices and tactics are required. Hopefully, it will mean the top tables have more diversity than the usual Nidzilla/Trifalcon/etc that we all got used to in 4th.

And surely that's a good thing?

Chimera_Calvin you should read the op, before you fanboi rage.

erm, Stelek, did you actually read my post? Or did you just assume that because my position was not utter hatred and contempt for GW that it was obviously wrong?

First, I am not a fanboy (or 'boi' as Americans seem determined to spell it). As a former GW employee I have more than my fair share of gripes with the company, but I do still like to play the games.

Second, where is the rage, exactly? I put forward my own personal view. I argued my points and explained my thoughts. I admit I derided some of the debate on this subject - but you may note I used a ' ' to indicate it was not entirely serious.

Third, my post was partly a reply to skyth, but also covered the points raised in the OP and, indeed agreed with them.


I therefore have to ask, what's the problem?

Chimera_Calvin wrote:I therefore have to ask, what's the problem?

There isn't one, but you have to remember that Stelek is a skilled ad hominemist (if one can be such a thing), as such belittling or insulting you is as good as defeating your argument in his books. I assume that's how he wins games of 40K - crosses to the other side of the table and sucker punches his opponent - BAM! 20-0! You just got tabled!

BYE

Chimera_Calvin wrote:erm, Stelek, did you actually read my post?
I therefore have to ask, what's the problem?

So many.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:The problem with this is that it only applies if your army is optimised to one particular mission.

You mean 2/3 of the missions versus 1/3.

You cannot be successful in both missions.

Idiots with 180 Ork armies thinking otherwise, notwithstanding. Next.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:What GW is trying to do is prevent min/maxing of armies - an 'optimised' army is now one which is tactically flexible, capable of achieving different types of objectives.

They have failed. Next.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:I don't think that KP's are perfect by any means - and I agree that IG have disproportionate problems (at least until they get their new codex) - but a lot of the discussion around this smacks of:

"My uber-kill-death-army which pwned all before it in 4th ed now loses a lot when this new mission is played. The new mission MUST therefore be the worst rule EVER WRITTEN!
What? You want me to change my army list/tactics? How dare you!. ... etc......"

Actually it's more like this. I bought an army. I don't have to change it for friendly play, because people don't play this mission. In tournament play, I do have to change it. Another BROKEN PROMISE. Next.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:Now, as I say, I don't think GW have necessarily created a great mission system, but its what we're playing, so lets look back at what and how we play and adjust accordingly.

So you aren't a fanboi, but we should just accept the gak they've given us and be happy? You sound just like the escalation apologists. "It's not OUR fault nor GW's fault that your army does not work in this part of the game system, and we are going to continue forcing this gakky mission down your throat for five years. And feth you and the whining horse you rode in on." Next.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:An optimised, tournament winning list needs to be able to win (or at least be strongly competetive) in all 9 mission variants. This means that different choices and tactics are required. Hopefully, it will mean the top tables have more diversity than the usual Nidzilla/Trifalcon/etc that we all got used to in 4th.

There are THREE missions. THREE. Deployment zones does not make for NINE MISSIONS.

The rules took care of that.

Oh and for the record, in the last five years of going to GT's I have played in a grand total of EIGHT of them. I saw trifalcon only LAST year, when the Eldar Codex was new; and all the fething GT scrubs couldn't figure out how to beat it. I saw nidzilla THREE years ago, again when the build was new; and again all the GT scrubs couldn't figure out how to beat it.

Last year, Nidzilla's ass was sitting on the back tables. Two years ago, the Eldar were sitting on the back tables.

That's how this game goes. You change the Codexes to make the armies viable not the game system.

I've steamrollered both lists run by many so-called 'top table' players and put them on the back tables with a massacre.

So to finish off, the problem is you ARE defending GW. "Well they fethed up but it's ok, we'll all be good sports about it won't we?"

No, we bloody well won't. They need to fix this bs before it ruins 5 years of fething tournaments.

You disagree? Fine, we'll make a special table just for you to play on and all it will be is the KP mission.

Oh, and EVERY army has problems with KP's. It's a dumbed down worthless idea that should never have gone to print but GW felt they had to get a new edition out before other game systems took even more market share away from them.

Please note it isn't working. You should read threads across the internet before you mention how KP's are just fine.

Been a month. It's despised.

Please note that I don't disagree with Stelek in this instance, I just like having fun with him.



BYE

Hellfury wrote:Wrathguard are a 350+point unit when maxed out. It's dead nuts hard. But a tau drone squad worth 96 points is worth the same KP. You have to dedicate alot of points to remove that wraithguard squad. probably more points than the wraithguard are worth. And what do you get for wiping them off the table? 1 KP.

Let me preface this with the fact that I don't mind the KP mission the way it is, but I can see the point made above.

Here's a quick idea. For every 100 points, rounded up, that unit is worth 1 KP when completely wiped out. Nothing at half, nothing at 2/3, full when wiped out.

If you go with a system like that Lormax, might as well go with VP's.

Which was deemed too confuzerizering for us dummies.

Maybe a "Victory Points for Dummies" book could come with every Space Marine purchase over 500$?

Stelek,

Would you say it's really a problem with kill points, or a lack of variety when it comes to missions? 3 missions really is pretty bland. Introducing primary and secondary objectives into the game worth a certain amount of points, as well as giving points for killing things, could spice things up a bit.

Looking back over what I just typed, did I just describe AT-43's way of doing things?

Lormax wrote:3 missions really is pretty bland.

Welcome to 5th Ed.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lormax wrote:3 missions really is pretty bland.

Welcome to 5th Ed.

BYE

I have to agree. This is actually one of my biggest disappointments with 5th ed so far, the absolute lack of mission variety.

I mean, one of the missions, Annihilation, didn't really even need an entry in the book. Can't any game be played with a simple "Kill 'em All" theme, without a lot of instruction?

The other two seem like variations on each other.

Bland is a pretty good description. I had really hoped for better.

On the one hand, Stelek has a good point(!). If we, the players, don't like a rule that they've put out, then instead of whining about it on internet forums we should be proactive and actually email the company. We let them know exactly why we feel that the mission has problems, and suggest alternatives to fix it.

On the other hand, this is pretty much what happened with Escalation - it seriously boned some armies, and so people had to change the way they played their lists. Aside from internet whining, I doubt there was much direct feedback. In any case, it took GW several years and a new edition to remove the rule. I suspect that KP will not be going away until 6E, whenever that will be.

If that's the case, then by all means contact GW and let them know the mistake they made, but let's also deal with the reality - if you want to play 40K in a competitive situation, you need to take KP into account when building an army, whether we like it or not. It WILL come up in missions at RTTs and GTs. This means changing the way we build armies, and perhaps changing the types of armies we use.

Edit: Also, while the original three missions might be bland, take a look at pages 266-273 in the rulebook. There's some interesting variant missions with unusual victory conditions and situations. Haven't played any yet but they look like they could be fun and a nice change of pace.

H.B.M.C. wrote:But you have to remember that ****** is a skilled ad hominemist (if one can be such a thing), as such belittling or insulting you is as good as defeating your argument in his books. I assume that's how he wins games of 40K - crosses to the other side of the table and sucker punches his opponent - BAM! 20-0! You just got tabled!

I think I might have found something humourus to put in my sig

As an actual response I couldn't see what was so confuddleing aboot VP's and why the change was needed.

Dragging out the old saw again - and maybe sort of ironically because I am the OP - GW rules changes don't have to affect anything outside of tournaments and games played in their stores. They're not going to send the wargaming Stasi after you if you don't use their products as marketed. If you do give GW rules the heave-ho in your day-to-day gaming, I say welcome to the club Stelek.

I like the kill points victory conditions. It is a nice balance to maximizing the force org. chart to try and contest objectives from the other two victory conditions.

You can look at a 350pt Wraithgurd squad and a 96pt Tau Drone squad. Yes they are both worth 1 kp and in kp conditions the wraithguard are a better bang for the buck, however you can get 3 Drone squads for the price of 1 Wraithguard squad and in any objective based mission the 3 drone squads are more bang for the buck that 1 wraithguard squad.

It is really a nice way to prevent everyone from taking min sized units to fill in the force org. chart.

DarthDiggler wrote:I like the kill points victory conditions. It is a nice balance to maximizing the force org. chart to try and contest objectives from the other two victory conditions..

I think all of us like the concept, even the bitterest of the bitter.

"Encouraging" players to combine their 3 land speeders into one unit is great. It speeds games up. Encouraging players to play with 3 units of 12 infantry rather than 6 units of 6 also speeds the game up. It minimizes the number of funky special weapons options, highlights the strength of the basic non-upgraded model, and is an easier to approach game for new players.

I can't speak for everyone, but it is a safe bet that we all want that encouragement. As you say, kill points are the Yin to to the Yang of "capture" type missions.

The devil is in the details unfortunately. It wasn't tested with all of the codexes in mind ( or if it was, there was callous disregard for some of their customers), it wasn't all that well thought out, and it does NOT effect all armies equally. Different races have different playstyle 'personalities'. Many of these personalities perform naturally well in a fragile MSU state.

Those armies "as we say in america" are boned!

Escalation sucked because it worked to disadvantage units that were already pretty crappy to begin with, like melee fexes and tanks. But the overall idea of changing missions conditions a fair bit to encourage flexible playing lists is pretty sound.

At this point, there’s only one marginal army that’s really hurt by VPs, the IG, and while it sucks for them, the answer isn’t to move to samey, repetitive scenarios. The answer is to make IG a solid army with greater flexibility.

Also, having a scoring system that that demands no more than counting up dead units and having no triple digit addition of VPs is great when a game ends at two in the morning and everyone is more than a little drunk.

VP's sucked. It took too much time to calculate. I think the KP concept was great just poorly implemented.

Our club has been talking about combining KPs and mission objective in the same game for tournies.

Either along the lines of Primary and secondary objectives or something like a loot counter is equal to 3 KPs. Total Kps wins.

Pete

Pdeflorio wrote:VP's sucked. It took too much time to calculate. I think the KP concept was great just poorly implemented.

Dunno how long it took you to add up the points value of things still on the table, but with the paper your army list is on, a pencil and a $0.99 pocket calculator, it took about 2 minutes to figure out. Just how long did it really take? That just blows me away

Seriously, other than Pdeflorio, and my main man Jonny-Boy, who actually found VP's difficult or confusing to work out?

Seriously? If you can work out an army list, you can work out Victory Points.

BYE

Basic math = fail.

Isn't it more:

Fail at basic math = Joh... no... can't say that. I'll get in trouble. I'll start again.


Isn't it more:

Fail at basic math = Epic fail at 40K.

BYE

lol. you guys are dicks. I work in Finance!

In all seriousness though VPs really slowed down tournaments. It's less about the time and more about breaking down army lists. Everyone uses different formats. Some programs include the transport in the total, some include the character in the retinue, blah blah blah. 5th ed would probably be a little better because their is no more half credit but anyway....

My point is that we are talking about a game where the game designers are reluctant to add in negative modifiers. Having to do math at the end of the game to see who wins makes no sense under that premise.

KPs are clean and easy, and they keep people from min maxing. Otherwise we'd all be playing 30 scoring daemon units and a Nurgle bike squad.

I think including transports as KPs was an error, but I also think non walker vehicles shouldn't have been able to contest objectives either.

From a tourny perspective we will probably run missions with a blend of victory conditions based in VPs and mission objective. This is probably what they shoudl have done in the first place.

Pete

I'm curious - do any of you think the Kill Points concept would work if the rules had specified that kill points are only awarded for scoring units? This seems like it would be better if the mission type was really intended to disprut the tendency to maximize scoring unit counts for the objective missions. I haven't finished my army or played a game yet, so I don't have a great sense of how this would affect it. Reading through the guard and marine codicies, though, it seems like the armies would tend to be closer to equal in these terms, and would have more flexibility to build forces that strike a balance between having too few scoring units or too many kill points.

The fact that transports are counted as a KP is really irritating for Speed Freaks and Dark Eldar. It basically means you're gonna auto lose most annihilation games.
I really like Stelek and Yakface's proposed solution, I'm going to see if my gaming group will go with it. (Unfortunately a couple of them are pretty big fanboys at times.)

Mort wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lormax wrote:3 missions really is pretty bland.

Welcome to 5th Ed.

BYE

I have to agree. This is actually one of my biggest disappointments with 5th ed so far, the absolute lack of mission variety.

I mean, one of the missions, Annihilation, didn't really even need an entry in the book. Can't any game be played with a simple "Kill 'em All" theme, without a lot of instruction?

The other two seem like variations on each other.

Bland is a pretty good description. I had really hoped for better.

Exactly. Which is why I feel that fixing this issue starts with the missions and not with KPs. After you make the missions all objective based, then KP become a non issue as KP wouldn't even be present any more, at least not in their current incarnation.

Pdeflorio wrote:VP's sucked. It took too much time to calculate. I think the KP concept was great just poorly implemented.

Our club has been talking about combining KPs and mission objective in the same game for tournies.

Either along the lines of Primary and secondary objectives or something like a loot counter is equal to 3 KPs. Total Kps wins.

Pete

Pete, I would like to introduce you to this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/216087.page

You will find that you and I share the same basic thought here.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Seriously, other than Pdeflorio, and my main man Jonny-Boy, who actually found VP's difficult or confusing to work out?

Seriously? If you can work out an army list, you can work out Victory Points.

BYE

I said it above. The game ends at two in the morning and you’re drunk, you really don’t want to crank out the pocket calculator to figure out who won.

Also, victory points were a bitch to calculate turn by turn. Coming in to the last turn or two it can make for a more interesting game if you know you’re a point or two up or down, giving you the option to adjust your strategies to protect your lead or steal victory. With the old system you needed your opponent’s list and a minute to sit down and add up a string of triple digit numbers, often resulting in ‘great game... who won?’ situations. With KPs you know where you’re at each turn.

So what you're saying is, SOMEONE is too stupid or lazy to be bothered with complicated VP's, and instead a system you can count on your bloody fingers is best.

Please people stop playing 40k.

It appears it's a serious threat to the brainpan.

Hellfury: I was getting to it. lol

sebster wrote:Also, victory points were a bitch to calculate turn by turn. Coming in to the last turn or two it can make for a more interesting game if you know you’re a point or two up or down, giving you the option to adjust your strategies to protect your lead or steal victory. With the old system you needed your opponent’s list and a minute to sit down and add up a string of triple digit numbers, often resulting in ‘great game... who won?’ situations. With KPs you know where you’re at each turn.

I have to say this is the best argument in favor of KP I have yet seen. it still doesnt make KP good, but I can see the merit.

@Stelek, I would edit your last comment if I was you.

Hellfury wrote:

sebster wrote:Also, victory points were a bitch to calculate turn by turn. Coming in to the last turn or two it can make for a more interesting game if you know you’re a point or two up or down, giving you the option to adjust your strategies to protect your lead or steal victory. With the old system you needed your opponent’s list and a minute to sit down and add up a string of triple digit numbers, often resulting in ‘great game... who won?’ situations. With KPs you know where you’re at each turn.

I have to say this is the best argument in favor of KP I have yet seen. it still doesnt make KP good, but I can see the merit.

Actually this is exactly how VP's worked, for those with the ability to count in their head.

GW declared this miraculous ability to be 'unsporting' and replaced it with 1.

No more complicated 328 + 172 + 59 + 231...and I need to not lose this 175 else he'll win...

Now it's 1 + 1 + 1 + 2...and I need to not lose this 1 else he'll win...

Utter crap if you ask me.

Kill Points - the new escalation? In that my gaming group won't be using it either? Yes. We got tired of KPs during "Beta Testing". Done.

As for the lack of missions in 5th, that is exactly the GW plan. Future expansions will give us options.

Likely Future releases:
Combat Patrol: Reloaded
Mighty Empires (40k version)
Kill Teams: Reloaded (Also known as Quasi-Necromunda 40k)
Apocalypse: Re-Reloaded

Stelek wrote:So what you're saying is, SOMEONE is too stupid or lazy to be bothered with complicated VP's, and instead a system you can count on your bloody fingers is best.

Please people stop playing 40k.

It appears it's a serious threat to the brainpan.

Stelek,


Please remember that not everyone plays 40K for the same reasons you do and there is absolutely no reason to ever start insulting others just because they disagree with you.


While I have absolutely no trouble calculating Victory Points, I can also recognize that this process takes a fair amount of time at the end of the game and, especially when you don't have access to your opponent's army list and/or aren't particularly familiar with their codex, it can be hard mid-game to figure out exactly where both sides stand (which can be both a positive or negative trait depending on your preference).

The point is, a simple elegant game mechanic is always better than one that takes more time and effort to achieve essentially the same thing.

I don't think Kill Points as they stand are a replacement for Victory Points but that doesn't necessarily mean that the idea of replacing Victory Points with something more elegant is a stupid one.

Stelek wrote:So what you're saying is, SOMEONE is too stupid or lazy to be bothered with complicated VP's, and instead a system you can count on your bloody fingers is best.

Please people stop playing 40k.

It appears it's a serious threat to the brainpan.

Hellfury: I was getting to it. lol

Meh. There's a difference between what you can do and what you want to do after the game is over, especially if its late and you're drunk, which is fairly typical for most 40K games around these parts.

And then there's the folk who aren't as capable with their basic maths, either because they're a bit younger or they just aren't that good at maths. Remember 40K is the maintstream minis game, or at least as mainstream as minis games get.

Stelek wrote:Actually this is exactly how VP's worked, for those with the ability to count in their head.

GW declared this miraculous ability to be 'unsporting' and replaced it with 1.

No more complicated 328 + 172 + 59 + 231...and I need to not lose this 175 else he'll win...

Now it's 1 + 1 + 1 + 2...and I need to not lose this 1 else he'll win...

Utter crap if you ask me.

Assuming you know off hand the points values of each opposing unit, remembering how many models were in the unit, remembering what upgrades were in there, which a silly thing to assume about 98% of 40K players.

Stelek wrote:

Actually this is exactly how VP's worked, for those with the ability to count in their head.

GW declared this miraculous ability to be 'unsporting' and replaced it with 1.

No more complicated 328 + 172 + 59 + 231...and I need to not lose this 175 else he'll win...

Now it's 1 + 1 + 1 + 2...and I need to not lose this 1 else he'll win...

Utter crap if you ask me.

It isn't "exactly" how VP's worked, if it was, it would be the same.

The biggest difference is that the game becomes more accessible. I think, because you've played at the tourney level for so long, you completely forget that there are those of us that are playing with friends we are introducing to the hobby. Maybe you have the time to bang off 3 lists a day, at work and can recognize what a units point value is, at a glance. My brother and my friends that play when they roll into town don't. Most don't.

It certainly isn't *just* about adding numbers; it's knowing the points value of the units on the table and *then* adding those up. That takes a lot of investment in the hobby and you need to own all the codexes or, your opponent willing, have a copy of their list in front of you to keep on top of things during the game.

KP, though not exciting does allow for a much more obvious indicator as to who is winning the game with less number crunching during the game.

I agree whole heartedly with Sebter and Hellfury, it's a game I play with beer and scotch while I smoke my pipe. After a three to five hour stretch where our little movie wraps up I don't want to have to tally up points when I'm not-sober and tired. VP's felt like playing a secondary "Price is Right" with my friends to see whose magic number is higher.

I like your idea for KP and also like the possibility of only scoring troops counting for KP's.

I don't think VP's made the game more fun.

Cheers

sebster wrote:

Stelek wrote:Actually this is exactly how VP's worked, for those with the ability to count in their head.

GW declared this miraculous ability to be 'unsporting' and replaced it with 1.

No more complicated 328 + 172 + 59 + 231...and I need to not lose this 175 else he'll win...

Now it's 1 + 1 + 1 + 2...and I need to not lose this 1 else he'll win...

Utter crap if you ask me.

Assuming you know off hand the points values of each opposing unit, remembering how many models were in the unit, remembering what upgrades were in there, which a silly thing to assume about 98% of 40K players.

My opponents give me army lists, and most of those I do play I know what's in their list and can recreate it without the army list if needed.

kid_happy wrote:

Stelek wrote:

Actually this is exactly how VP's worked, for those with the ability to count in their head.

GW declared this miraculous ability to be 'unsporting' and replaced it with 1.

No more complicated 328 + 172 + 59 + 231...and I need to not lose this 175 else he'll win...

Now it's 1 + 1 + 1 + 2...and I need to not lose this 1 else he'll win...

Utter crap if you ask me.

It isn't "exactly" how VP's worked, if it was, it would be the same.

The biggest difference is that the game becomes more accessible. I think, because you've played at the tourney level for so long, you completely forget that there are those of us that are playing with friends we are introducing to the hobby. Maybe you have the time to bang off 3 lists a day, at work and can recognize what a units point value is, at a glance. My brother and my friends that play when they roll into town don't. Most don't.

It certainly isn't *just* about adding numbers; it's knowing the points value of the units on the table and *then* adding those up. That takes a lot of investment in the hobby and you need to own all the codexes or, your opponent willing, have a copy of their list in front of you to keep on top of things during the game.

KP, though not exciting does allow for a much more obvious indicator as to who is winning the game with less number crunching during the game.

I agree whole heartedly with Sebter and Hellfury, it's a game I play with beer and scotch while I smoke my pipe. After a three to five hour stretch where our little movie wraps up I don't want to have to tally up points when I'm not-sober and tired. VP's felt like playing a secondary "Price is Right" with my friends to see whose magic number is higher.

I like your idea for KP and also like the possibility of only scoring troops counting for KP's.

I don't think VP's made the game more fun.

Cheers

Ok, it feels the same to me.

You are correct, and I do own all the Codexes/armies.

You are correct on playing at tournaments has hardened my heart to the "fun" game the Brits play.

I believe it's Apocalypse, and I don't really get excited thinking about how to sweep my armies off the table with the broom (which is a 3' x 4" template that autohits and is Strength D, and generally goes across 2 feet of table before it's removed from the game)....but isn't Apocalpyse in itself a huge investment, just into one army instead of five?

I can have fun with my friends in lots of ways, but the broomsweep that is Apocalypse isn't it.

You seem to play at your house, I play at a store (usually) and thus my ability to smoke or drink (which as a rule I do not) is limited due to the laws in my country.

It's a totally different environment, the US. We are raised in a totally different culture than you or the Brits.

Alot of people call it WAAC syndrome. Thing is, I have the most fun losing.

Last ten years at the GT have been very boring and frustrating.

So I've been trying to make better players by sharing what I know, and bringing a totally ass list.

Maybe I'll have fun for once.

All that said--I don't think KP missions are 'fun' in tournaments (and are pointless when playing with your friends, or should be if you aren't a weenie).

That's my primary concern right now.

My friends and I can choose to ignore a bad rule GW made up.

Except at GW events where it's enforced.

If it was really no problem, there wouldn't be people all over the globe complaining about how stupid it is.

In friendly play, they don't use it.

In competitive play, they want it removed.

I hope this long explanation makes sense.

How about assigning points based on an (admitedly arbitrary) scale system.

So units worth between 1-50 points = 1 point, 51-100 = 2 points, and so on.

This means that it affects all armies in the same way, and you can word it out using your fingers (when drunk at 2am in the morning) without needing a calculator.


Now, if you're doing that, then the old 'why not just have VP's' comes back into it, you have to remember that this is a compromise.

VP's (for some of us) are too complicated, take too long to work out and - the only valid criticism I've heard so far - can slow down tournaments.

KP's are insultingly simplistic, assign a single digit to every unit regardless of its abilities. It tries to make everything equal in a system where there is no equality. The KP system is so fething stupid that I simply cannot believe GW came up... wait... wait... it's GW. Who am I kidding. They come up with good ideas by accident. Bad ideas are par for the course.

So, as a middle ground, a system that does assign single digit values, but its based on the cost of the unit. You don't have to work out whether you got 352 points form this Marine squad, added to the 123 from the Chaplain, and oh wait I killed two Rhinos, so they're 30 points each, but one of them had Extra Armour, so that's 30 and 45.

You just have your army list. You know in advance whether what your units are worth, they're all worth single digits (to be 10 points you'd need a 500 point unit), simple to work out. No fractions or rounding or anything. You can do it while passed out, high on ice at 2am on a Tuesday. Easy.

2nd Ed had a system symilar to this, although it was a little more complex in its construction and they way you did it during the game. I also assume this is what Jervis based the KP system on, but managed to feth it up in the typical GW ham-fisted way they do everything these days.



Or, as another alternative, take every points value you've got, divide by 10, round up to nearest 10.

156 point Marine unit? 15.6 = 16 points. Easy.


It's not hard, and there is plenty of room to find a middle ground between the "complicated" VP system and the idiotic KP system.

BYE

...and everybody will min-max their lists to have that unit cost 150 instead of 151 so it just gives away 1 kp!

anyway, i totally agree with stelek: KP aren't fun, and i just don't play them

and if you're bored by the two other missions: http://uk.games-workshop.com/warhammer40000/rules%2Dof%2Dengagement/1/

From what I can see, KP remains quite a heated debate, but only between the people who don't like it and the people who absolutely hate it with every fibre of their being!

We had our first 5E tournament here in WA last weekend, and sure enough KP were featured in one of the scenarios. The effect was quite devastating for some armies who were not optimised for it (and of course the Guard who don't have much choice lol), with the result that some games featured armies with up to TWENTY potential KP playing against opponents with 4.

For the record, I still enjoyed the game despite it being my sole loss of the tournie, but didn't enjoy the scoring system.

Its not something I expect us to play here in friendly games, but Stelek is quite correct it is likely to be mandatory at tournaments and therefore some friendly games will have to be invested/squandered in practising for it.

20 Kill Points? Other than guard, what army is running 20 kill points? (I should probably ask what points value was the tourney run at).

For the 1750 list I'm running in BA, I have 10.

DE could easily have 20 KP in 1850

Those raiders are a nice KP gimme to your opponents.

If DE stick to the 4th Ed mindset, sure. There's other stuff in the army...

Stelek wrote:

sebster wrote:

Stelek wrote:Actually this is exactly how VP's worked, for those with the ability to count in their head.

GW declared this miraculous ability to be 'unsporting' and replaced it with 1.

No more complicated 328 + 172 + 59 + 231...and I need to not lose this 175 else he'll win...

Now it's 1 + 1 + 1 + 2...and I need to not lose this 1 else he'll win...

Utter crap if you ask me.

Assuming you know off hand the points values of each opposing unit, remembering how many models were in the unit, remembering what upgrades were in there, which a silly thing to assume about 98% of 40K players.

My opponents give me army lists, and most of those I do play I know what's in their list and can recreate it without the army list if needed.

Yes, Stelek, but the point is that YOU are not 98% of 40k players. Most people play games occasionally, for FUN. It's a game. It's meant to be fun. It's not an international sporting event. You seem to play games very seriously, and very competitively. So you are not the majority of gamers.

I would agree that most players don't know the ins and outs of every army. I don't, and I've been playing for ages. I'd hardly expect a new player to know what his OWN army is worth without a calculator and a codex, let a long someone else's! Many people didn't want to have to calculate VPs at the end of a game. Hell, I didn't. It wasn't a fun part of the game - "let's add up all the figures and see who won". It should be quite obvious who won. And if it's not a fun part of the game, it should go.

See, the thing is, if we honestly WERE all just interested in fun games, there would be NO traffic on this forum except for the modelling section. Just showing up to post here undermines the argument of anyone who claims that fun is their only objective - reasonably, it's possible for casual players to go back to Rogue Trader or use pure homebrew if they don't want to deal with this stuff.

Lormax wrote:If DE stick to the 4th Ed mindset, sure. There's other stuff in the army...

...that isn't nearly as effective.

Other stuff in a DE army?

Like...what?

There's almost no list the DE can field that doesn't involve Raiders.

sebster wrote:
At this point, there’s only one marginal army that’s really hurt by VPs, the IG, and while it sucks for them, the answer isn’t to move to samey, repetitive scenarios. The answer is to make IG a solid army with greater flexibility.
.

Any fully mechanized army gets screwed by KPs as well. My Tau with detachable gun drone D-fish really hate it. My speed freek orks with av10 open topped trukks and buggies hates it. When you get a chaos list with a grand total of 9 KPs vs my 17 in my ork list, it really makes life difficult for us to even want to show up.

Stelek wrote:Other stuff in a DE army?

Like...what?

There's almost no list the DE can field that doesn't involve Raiders.

Either way, thats a 3rd ed codex that should be updated in less than a year. I'm not surprised that GW isn't too worried about the issue, it'll be fixed soon.

Lormax wrote:

Stelek wrote:Other stuff in a DE army?

Like...what?

There's almost no list the DE can field that doesn't involve Raiders.

Either way, thats a 3rd ed codex that should be updated in less than a year. I'm not surprised that GW isn't too worried about the issue, it'll be fixed soon.

Lormax, you have such a sweet sense of fair play and how everything will be better soon.

New to the game?

H.B.M.C. wrote:How about assigning points based on an (admitedly arbitrary) scale system.

So units worth between 1-50 points = 1 point, 51-100 = 2 points, and so on.
BYE

No. noooonononoo. OH no, no, just.....no.

Do you REMEMBER the old chaos codex? How AMAZINGLY CONFUSED people were about the daemon prince thing?

"50 points or less and you are a chaos lord. More than 50, you are a daemon prince"

"But what if I have 51?"

"THEN YOU'RE A FREAKING DAEMON PRINCE YOU SCRUB!"

"You can have up to 100 points of daemonic wargear, and 150 in total"

"I have 105 in daemonic, is that ok?" "NO!"

"Well what's daemonic, then? I'm confused."

"Well, everything here, here, and anything from these sections is daemonic."

".........But what's daemonic? Is THIS daemonic?" "Yes, it's in one of those lists." "Oh. What about THAT, is that daemonic too?"

"YES IT IS YOU LITTLE CRETIN!"



Games Workshop:
"Woah guys, woah, things are getting a bit....complicated here. Hang on a second, I'm going to go back into my restroom and pull out something to use as a new codex, be right back."


Not to derail the thread with a new CSM codex rant, point is that something as "clear-cut" as 1-150=1, 151-300=2 etc doesn't actually end up being as simple as you think. In fact it can be downright disastrous, and codexes have died because of it.

The problem is that everyone here is looking for a perfect system, but there isn't one. Things like transports muddle it all up. Could you make it so dedicated transports don't give kp? Sure you could! But then that Inquisitor's Landraider doesn't count, and everyone's mad. Aside from assigning certain units special rules [Landraiders always give kp, drones off the devilfish don't] there's no blanket system that will work perfectly.

Accepting that we won't have a perfect system, let's think of how we can fix the one we have to be an acceptable one, but keep in mind that for every way you balance it you imbalance it too. Want to make dedicated transports non-kp-giving? BAM marines are all mechanized again, and [edit] Eldar players spam tiny units in grav tanks with deadly weapons because now the bulk of their hitting power doesn't give up points, and they've still got fast carts to send scoring units at objectives in the other scenarios.

Fixing guard is the first step. Problem is I don't think making it 1 kp per platoon is the answer. Now you have to kill some 65 models [in a fully maxed out platoon] to get a single, 1, kp. In a large game featuring mostly infantry guard, you're going to have to work your tail off through a hailstorm of fire just to get a grand total of like 5 KP. While to some that sounds like what they're currently doing with orks or space marines, trust me 220 guardsmen with 4+ cover saves will be a lot nastier, especially since any close combat unit to hit that line will be wiped out the turn after it hits combat due to that OTHER dumb 5th edition rule, no consolodating into fresh units.

Stelek wrote:

Lormax wrote:

Stelek wrote:Other stuff in a DE army?

Like...what?

There's almost no list the DE can field that doesn't involve Raiders.

Either way, thats a 3rd ed codex that should be updated in less than a year. I'm not surprised that GW isn't too worried about the issue, it'll be fixed soon.

Lormax, you have such a sweet sense of fair play and how everything will be better soon.

New to the game?

I'm just sayin, IG codex and DE codex are both slated to be released soon. Would you, as GW, work your butt off to be sure that a couple armies, that you'll be updating shortly anyway, aren't nerfed during the change-over?

I don't agree with everything they do, nor do I stand by KP 100%. I'm just sayin I understand why they aren't doing anything about it right this second.

To touch on Spellbounds idea a couple posts up, transports under 100 points don't give up KP, the others do?

Lormax wrote:To touch on Spellbounds idea a couple posts up, transports under 100 points don't give up KP, the others do?

Eldar player Bob: "Wah, I'm the only army with no transports under 100 points, why are you trying to screw me?"

Ahem, Land Raider

Lormax wrote:I'm just sayin, IG codex and DE codex are both slated to be released soon. Would you, as GW, work your butt off to be sure that a couple armies, that you'll be updating shortly anyway, aren't nerfed during the change-over?

So players with armies that don't work properly in the new edition should just man up?

Yes, if I was GW I'd take the 10 minutes to fix their fething game so everyone who paid for an army has a useable one.

It's called customer service.

"Oh sorry, your 2007 car isn't compatible with the oil we produced this year. Oh and don't forget our handy feth Off sticker, you can put it anywhere you want as you push that baby home."

Yeah. Good call.

Lormax wrote:I don't agree with everything they do, nor do I stand by KP 100%. I'm just sayin I understand why they aren't doing anything about it right this second.

Dude, they've been doing that for years. Maybe if the company completely fails, you'll grasp why it's unacceptable.

Spellbound wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:How about assigning points based on an (admitedly arbitrary) scale system.

So units worth between 1-50 points = 1 point, 51-100 = 2 points, and so on.
BYE

No. noooonononoo. OH no, no, just.....no.

Do you REMEMBER the old chaos codex? How AMAZINGLY CONFUSED people were about the daemon prince thing?

"50 points or less and you are a chaos lord. More than 50, you are a daemon prince"

"But what if I have 51?"

"THEN YOU'RE A FREAKING DAEMON PRINCE YOU SCRUB!"

"You can have up to 100 points of daemonic wargear, and 150 in total"

"I have 105 in daemonic, is that ok?" "NO!"

"Well what's daemonic, then? I'm confused."

"Well, everything here, here, and anything from these sections is daemonic."

".........But what's daemonic? Is THIS daemonic?" "Yes, it's in one of those lists." "Oh. What about THAT, is that daemonic too?"

"YES IT IS YOU LITTLE CRETIN!"



Games Workshop:
"Woah guys, woah, things are getting a bit....complicated here. Hang on a second, I'm going to go back into my restroom and pull out something to use as a new codex, be right back."

ahhh this whole post made my morning sooo much better. My coffee covered keyboard thanks you.

Spellbound wrote:

Lormax wrote:To touch on Spellbounds idea a couple posts up, transports under 100 points don't give up KP, the others do?

Eldar player Bob: "Wah, I'm the only army with no transports under 100 points, why are you trying to screw me?"

are you trying to get me fired?

Lormax wrote:20 Kill Points? Other than guard, what army is running 20 kill points? (I should probably ask what points value was the tourney run at).

For the 1750 list I'm running in BA, I have 10.

Uh, the 1750 list I'm taking to the LVGT has: 12 Vehicles, 9 Units, and an IC... that's 22 KP.

Did you count your retinue with IC as the ever-fun double KP?

I know I am going to have a ball with mine.

Hell I have 10 KP in just my 2 HQ and 3 Elite slots.

8 more in my troops. Does that stupid JO in my guard platoon count as an IC + retinue? I think so.

So that's what, 19 KP? Neat.

Lormax wrote:Ahem, Land Raider

Didn't say they were the only ones with transports over 100, said they were the only one without transports under 100. Marines can take a rhino instead.

Spellbound wrote:H.B.M.C. wrote:How about assigning points based on an (admitedly arbitrary) scale system.

So units worth between 1-50 points = 1 point, 51-100 = 2 points, and so on.
BYE

My Tau devilfish is 85 points nekkid. Add two seeker missiles to it and suddenly it gives up a KP because it is now holding two missiles that have nothing to do with the transport in any way shape or form.

Hmm.. that still doesn't even begin to address the detachable gundrone issue.

wight_widow wrote:See, the thing is, if we honestly WERE all just interested in fun games, there would be NO traffic on this forum except for the modelling section. Just showing up to post here undermines the argument of anyone who claims that fun is their only objective - reasonably, it's possible for casual players to go back to Rogue Trader or use pure homebrew if they don't want to deal with this stuff.

I disagree. I think playing for fun also means playing fair games. The rules are very much part of the hobby (as is the modelling) and the problem with playing past or homebrew versions of the game is finding players to play those rulesets with (for the record I have *no* desire to go back to RT or 2ed). Nice to play pick up games at the FLGS where being on the same page is important.

Trust me, casual players get bothered by glaringly unfair rules or broken units.

KP doesn't seem fair for certain armies (IG and apparently DE).

Yakface's KP ratio is a great idea.

Stelek has a wonderful substitute that I'm likely to introduce, in my area.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/215251.page

I like it because it is a natural fit for the other missions that have 2-5 objectives, as well.

I really think RTT and GT tournies will be using missions not seen in the BGB and adopting more reasonable missions.

wight_widow wrote:See, the thing is, if we honestly WERE all just interested in fun games, there would be NO traffic on this forum except for the modelling section. Just showing up to post here undermines the argument of anyone who claims that fun is their only objective - reasonably, it's possible for casual players to go back to Rogue Trader or use pure homebrew if they don't want to deal with this stuff.

Except 'fun games' doesn't mean 'games played with no tactical consideration at all'. It means that we don't spend time learning the exact points cost of a chaos space marine tactical squad with 10 guys, aspiring champion with powerfist and standard of khorne. It means we don't mind if a game produces a few screwy moments if it allows us to keep track of the score as the game continues.

Jayden63 wrote:

sebster wrote:
At this point, there’s only one marginal army that’s really hurt by VPs, the IG, and while it sucks for them, the answer isn’t to move to samey, repetitive scenarios. The answer is to make IG a solid army with greater flexibility.
.

Any fully mechanized army gets screwed by KPs as well. My Tau with detachable gun drone D-fish really hate it. My speed freek orks with av10 open topped trukks and buggies hates it. When you get a chaos list with a grand total of 9 KPs vs my 17 in my ork list, it really makes life difficult for us to even want to show up.

You've assumed the only alternative list possible is a mechanised list. I hope that 'list full of ground pounding squads' and 'list full of mechanised squads' isn't the complete range of possible IG armies in the next codex. Forget balance and KP problems that codex would have a far greater problem; it'd be boring.

Stelek wrote:My opponents give me army lists, and most of those I do play I know what's in their list and can recreate it without the army list if needed.

The old system worked better for me and my preferred style of play therefore it is utterly superior to the new system in all ways, and anyone who like the new system must be an idiot incapable of basic maths.

Nothing narcissistic going on at all here people, not at all.

Seb, you're a gamer like the rest of us.

If you can't do basic math, you fail at the hobby.

[No I don't mean you personally, I mean any gamer that finds it too confusing to do simple math in their head on the fly. Being drunk is not a good enough reason that my gameplay should be affected. Drink less, go to college, get a calculator and a pen...I mean really.]

It's that simple.

Sometimes TOO simple really is bad.

KP's are an example of this kind of oversimplification taken to the extreme.

sebster wrote:

Stelek wrote:My opponents give me army lists, and most of those I do play I know what's in their list and can recreate it without the army list if needed.

The old system worked better for me and my preferred style of play therefore it is utterly superior to the new system in all ways, and anyone who like the new system must be an idiot incapable of basic maths.

Nothing narcissistic going on at all here people, not at all.

Actually Seb, for whatever it's worth...

I have always ignored peoples armor saves, cover saves, it meant nothing to me.

I never favored blasts, ordnance, or flamers.

It's always been (since 3rd edition came out) how many shots or CC attacks can I get?

5 BAZILLION? Why yes, I'll take THAT unit then.

My personal play style is the way all of you will soon be playing.

You go for the largest number of hits you can, and who cares if they have a 2+/3+/4+/5+?

I never have.

You shouldn't either.

AP? Meaningless.

Blasts? Meaningless.

50 shots? Meaning.

I'm just here to roll dice, and make you roll dice.

If you aren't here to do the same, you're going to have one hell of a time beating my armies.

Oh and for the record, I've never been one to take torrent of fire units like War Walkers with Scatter Lasers.

I run other kinds of units. I've posted enough lists, you should know what they are like.

Narcissist? Sure. How about you? You post just to save a tree, or what?

Stelek wrote:My personal play style is the way all of you will soon be playing.

Congratulations. You have officially reached a level of self-parody no one at this board - not even Drew Riggo - has ever managed to achieve. Well done. I applaud your effots.


Can we get some sort of trophy made for Stelek? A comment like his above simply must be etched in brass somewhere.



But to back off a bit, Stelek, your playing style is basically using the law of averages as best you can. News flash. That's how you win at 40K - it's a dice based system so being 'good' at it can only go so far as the dice are on nobody's side. So you do what you can to 'stack the deck' in your favour. One of the easiest wasy to do this is to use the law of averages to your advantage. The more dice you roll, the more dice they have to roll. This isn't rocket surgery. It's probability 101. You're not a pioneer. You're just loud.

BYE

Stelek… again, it isn’t that people can’t do triple digit addition. That’s your invention, and one you keep returning to whenever the line of conversation ends up in a place you can’t respond to. So stop bringing it up.

People don’t like being unable to calculate VPs each turn. This isn’t necessarily their inability to do math, but them not knowing the exact unit count, upgrades and points costs of every unit they’ve killed. It really sucks to get to the end and have a ‘great game… who won?’ situation.

While people can be capable of doing the addition necessary with victory points, a lot of people just don’t want to. This can often be the result of games ending late at night, or when the players have already had a bit to drink, or people being a lot less enthusiastic for maths at the end of a game than at the start.



It’s also likely you don’t understand the meaning of the word narcissist, you seem to be assuming narcissism seems to have some relation to altruism or some other tree saving something or other. It means you hold an excess of preoccupation, to the point where you might conclude that because something is important to you it is, or should, be important to everyone else.

I never really worried about counting points turn by turn. I knew "vaguely" what things cost - I don't know the points value of everything but I know 10 marines is about 170 points - 200 with a veteran sergeant. 5 terminators will be about 240 points, 10 guardsmen is about 75, transports are 50-100, battle tanks are about 150, independent characters are about 150. But I generally just went by what was on the table.

10 terminators? I could care less how many points they're worth, all I know is they are a massive threat to my army with lots of firepower and deadly close combat ability, so they've got to die! Luckily for me, doing what I knew I needed to do anyway results in me getting lots of vps. Pretty much, anytime you eliminate a big threat to your army you're bound to also get lots of VPs for it [except for Last Chancers squads with 5 meltaguns for cheap or something], so just play normally and let game balance [deadly unit = high vp] sort it out.

Spellbound wrote:I never really worried about counting points turn by turn. I knew "vaguely" what things cost - I don't know the points value of everything but I know 10 marines is about 170 points - 200 with a veteran sergeant. 5 terminators will be about 240 points, 10 guardsmen is about 75, transports are 50-100, battle tanks are about 150, independent characters are about 150. But I generally just went by what was on the table.

10 terminators? I could care less how many points they're worth, all I know is they are a massive threat to my army with lots of firepower and deadly close combat ability, so they've got to die! Luckily for me, doing what I knew I needed to do anyway results in me getting lots of vps. Pretty much, anytime you eliminate a big threat to your army you're bound to also get lots of VPs for it [except for Last Chancers squads with 5 meltaguns for cheap or something], so just play normally and let game balance [deadly unit = high vp] sort it out.

Nah, you’ve missed the point. It isn’t about prioritising what needs killing, but knowing where the scores are with a turn or two left to play.

So you’ve killed his terminators, his assault marines and chaplain, killed one six man las plas and brought the other under half strength, and are holding one of the three objectives. He’s killed your leman russ tank, wiped three IG squads with las plas, and brought you melta gun squad under half strength, and is holding two objectives. Are you winning or losing, and by how much? It’s good to know how much you’re winning by in order to know what you can risk in order to steal another objective, and whether you need to steal an objective at all. It wasn’t very practical to keep a running track of the score in the old system.

Thanks Seb. Articulated it perfectly.