Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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