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.

ok to avoid a rather long and painful story from a tourney this weekend, i had this happen to me:

im playing an IG player, he has a large "platoon" as a troop choice. this includes 3 heavy weapon team "units" 2 large infantry units, a command unit, and another squad in a chimera.

now i killed all of these things except the chimera and its occupants, and was told i will not receive any KPs for the "platoon" because its a single troops choice.

now i see 8 Kps, and got 6 of them. im being told its only 1. i lost the match by 2 KPs. when i asked the TO on how hes ruling it this way i was told: "THATS HOW ARD BOYZ RULES IT!!!".......

is this correct? if so so be it, if not i want to bring it to their attention for future references. thanks

Ard Boyz has scored like that in the past, but that event makes no bones about using alternative scoring rules. If the tournament is supposed to be using the standard scoring rules then you are correct and should have won by a landslide. Kill Points go by units, not slots.

thanks thats what my understanding was too

IMO KP's need to be redone, guard have such a disadvantage because a guardsmen squad is so god damn easy to kill for 1 Kp while a marine squad is worth the same KP's but is so much harder to kill.

Compare that to a terminator squad for 1KP, its rather silly that a SWS or HWS with 6 T3 models should count the same for killing it. KP are the worst system I have seen for winning and losing a game and penalize armies like the IG.

I would much prefer a kill point system where the points you get are the exact amount of points said unit cost to purchase.

Use the victory points rules instead, they're printed in the book somewhere.

Kazerkinelite wrote:guard have such a disadvantage because a guardsmen squad is so god damn easy to kill for 1 Kp while a marine squad is worth the same KP's but is so much harder to kill.

But only one in three standard scenarios use KP. That same IG force that should have lost by a landslide has a massive advantage in the number of scoring troops units in the other two scenarios.

Kazerkinelite wrote:IMO KP's need to be redone, guard have such a disadvantage because a guardsmen squad is so god damn easy to kill for 1 Kp while a marine squad is worth the same KP's but is so much harder to kill.

And yet, as a Guard player, Kill Points are my favorite scenario. Stand and shoot, Shoot some more, Kill them all. Wow, guess what Guard are good at..........?

Odly enough KP whining seems to mainly be around Guard and DE, and boith armies do very well in KP missions.

As has been said before: a min max approach is ideal for objective missions (max troops, min spent on them) but is a disadvantage in KP games. VPs do *not* give this disadvantage.

zachwho wrote:ok to avoid a rather long and painful story from a tourney this weekend, i had this happen to me:

im playing an IG player, he has a large "platoon" as a troop choice. this includes 3 heavy weapon team "units" 2 large infantry units, a command unit, and another squad in a chimera.

now i killed all of these things except the chimera and its occupants, and was told i will not receive any KPs for the "platoon" because its a single troops choice.

while a tourny organizer can make up whatever kooky KP rules they like, you are correct in your initial assessment of the KP. EVERY single thing that CAN (not must, or should, or is.. just can) move and fire separately is a kill point barring any special rules in the codex. the only break IG players get is that they can blob their platoon infantry squads (only the infantry squads, not any others in the same platoon) up into less units to save on killpoints (kind of the opposite of combat squads for marines).

I believe Kp should be redone, for the better of any army, and as for guard units each seperate unit counts as a kp. such as the platoon command is one, the two stacks of guards is another 2 so on and so forth.

KP Were introduced because Victory Points favors MSU Minmax armies.

With KP, people who try that are Nerfed on 1/3 of missions, but still have an advantage on 1/3 of them and a HUGE advantage on the other 1/3.

How is fantasy's version of victory conditions and should 40k borrow anything from it or already has?

Fantasy uses VP, with bonus points for holding table quarters, capturing standards and killing the opposing General.

In other words, 4th ed 40k victory conditions. Oh, and in about 5 months 8th ed will be out, and the victory conditions WILL change.

Or 5th ed if you want, since 5th ed does have the Victory Point rules in the rulebook...............

Only in the "big" rulebook, and only as optional rules - i think they suggest them in the event fo a draw.

zachwho you got hosed.

Killpoints can make things tough for DE and Guard, but I think both of their codices balance well anyways with the rest of the game, after all, if you just table them then it doesn't matter that they have less killpoints in their army than you.

I don't understand why people don't like kill points? Is it because you only make armies for 2/3 of the missions? If you want to have less kill points don't make your army so big, that is part of the challenge. Is it unbalanced for some races? Yes, but then I am shure they benift when playing the other missions, but those are the rules, so we have to live with it for now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Only in the "big" rulebook, and only as optional rules - i think they suggest them in the event fo a draw.

It's also in the AOBR book as 'Moral Victory' for if you lose, but decimated the field.

Well damn I never noticed in the big book of slaying that there was actually the option to do it more then one way, and that's what she said before anyone gets the idea, nudge nudge.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Only in the "big" rulebook, and only as optional rules - i think they suggest them in the event fo a draw.

Also in the small book, page 108................
Sometimes a mission ends in a draw, whether it be on objectives, kill points, or other victory conditions in missions of your own design. While most gamers will be happy to know that on this occasion they were equally matched, more competitive players may like to have a ‘tiebreaker’ to determine which side has done marginally better. Alternatively, you might have inflicted so much damage on the enemy army that you would like to be able to claim at least a moral victory!
This may also be useful in tournaments, where the organisers need a better spread of results among the players, so some finer degrees of victory may be useful. To cover these situations, players may agree to calculate
victory points (VPs). VPs are gained by inflicting damage on enemy units, as follows.

SO sure, you don't have to use them, but point being, they are included in the 5th ed rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:I don't understand why people don't like kill points? Is it because you only make armies for 2/3 of the missions? If you want to have less kill points don't make your army so big, that is part of the challenge. Is it unbalanced for some races? Yes, but then I am shure they benift when playing the other missions, but those are the rules, so we have to live with it for now.

Mostly because a 30 point unit (say three ratling snipers) is worth the same as a 250 point Land Raider under KP victory conditions. I find the lack of balance somewhat offputting.

Excpet, as has been repeatedly stated, the purpose of KPs is to balance the Objective missions.

VPs does not balance the objective missions. Cannot, and does not.

He asked why people (I read that as some people, not all people) don't like KPs. I answered. Didn't say that there wasn't a reason behind it. Course, as Troops heavy IG (two 35-man plattons baseline) you would think I'd do well at objectives, yet for me it's the opposite. Too long as an IG gunline player, I suppose.

...rules are rules and I don't know why some people claim it's 'unfair', 'unfair' is much like the situations above where I'm sure it was not sutiably stated in the tounament directive/rules that they were using this system of KP scoring which deviates hugely from the rulebook a suitable follow-up questiong would be do all them count as one unit for DoW???

Basically in your situation I would have stood my ground been 'TFG' and asked where in the little bit of paper I signed was the clause removing the RaW if there wasn't one etc politely ask if you could have that game rescored/money back.

Too often I've been in situations based around similar situations later to find out the two people happen to know each other, play as the same store - hell even that their in a relationship.

Basically I feel your situation reeks of something untoward and I'm very curious just how many KP that Chimera and squad were worth or for that matter did any of your DT count as a KP?

zachwho wrote:ok to avoid a rather long and painful story from a tourney this weekend, i had this happen to me:

im playing an IG player, he has a large "platoon" as a troop choice. this includes 3 heavy weapon team "units" 2 large infantry units, a command unit, and another squad in a chimera.

now i killed all of these things except the chimera and its occupants, and was told i will not receive any KPs for the "platoon" because its a single troops choice.

now i see 8 Kps, and got 6 of them. im being told its only 1. i lost the match by 2 KPs. when i asked the TO on how hes ruling it this way i was told: "THATS HOW ARD BOYZ RULES IT!!!".......

is this correct? if so so be it, if not i want to bring it to their attention for future references. thanks

Im looking for the page now, but what it says is each unit is treated as a separate unit for scoring purposes once deployment is completed.

I prefer Victory Points to kill points. 5 IG dudes with lasguns doesn't equal a 10-man terminator squad in my book. Killing the terminators SHOULD be worth more.

For objective games, you'd only use victory points as a tie-break if both sides control the same number of objectives.

For annihilation games, if you destroy more points than your opponent, you win.

I'm not sure why that doesn't make sense or isn't fair. Could someone elaborate? Maybe I'm missing something.


Edit: To the original poster, you got hosed. If a tournament organizer wants to change how kill points work (follow Ard Boys example), then he needs to tell everyone that before the tournament.

kronk wrote:I prefer Victory Points to kill points. 5 IG dudes with lasguns doesn't equal a 10-man terminator squad in my book. Killing the terminators SHOULD be worth more.

For objective games, you'd only use victory points as a tie-break if both sides control the same number of objectives.

For annihilation games, if you destroy more points than your opponent, you win.

I'm not sure why that doesn't make sense or isn't fair. Could someone elaborate? Maybe I'm missing something.


Edit: To the original poster, you got hosed. If a tournament organizer wants to change how kill points work (follow Ard Boys example), then he needs to tell everyone that before the tournament.

It becomes unfair when you play objective missions and you have one squad of scoring space marines that cost you 200pts, and he has four squads of scoring infantry that cost him 50pts each. If you remove kill points the game goes back to favouring multiple small units, just like it was in 4th, and what GW was trying to move away from. Also if you didnt have KP mech would dominate even more because you really dont get many VP for killing a cheap transport, despite the large amount of firepower it takes. KP are one of the few situations where there is obvious method to GWs madness.

^ what he said.

How is it fair that a 30 point unit of ratlings can score as many objectives as a 250 pt unit of Terminators? It's a balance, armies that have lots of small units may do poorly in 1/3 of the missions and conversely armies with few units may do poorly in 2/3 of the missions.

Howzabout this:

3 Warriors, all with deathspitters, one with BS.
SM player kills one deathspitter warrior.
He has 35 VP.