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.

In another You Make Da Call thread about Sanguinary Priests see:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/289805.page

I named the following differences between Sanguinary Priests and Wolf Gaurd.

"Going back to the diffs between this and Wolf Guard. Each of the models are independant characters - always.
Such that they could form a unit in the ways that ICs can but could split off any time they wanted.

Also because ICs are seperate units they each count for a Kill Point sadly.

Wolf Guard that split off and join units do not gain the IC special rule and so are not unique units. Don't give an additional kill point, cannot be singled out in CC and must remain with that unit till the end of the game.

Unless anyone knows differently, think this one covers the differences."

It however raises a few questions about kill points and wolf guard that are interesting.

The space wolf player has placed a wolf guard in a unit. If you kill all of a unit bar the wolf guard does that unit count as destroyed granting you a kill point or would you have to kill the wolf guard as well to get the kill point.

Also

If you had a wolf guard unit and you placed them all into squads does the kill point for that wolf guard squad simply not exist any more or would you have to kill the wolf guard in the squads as well to get the kill point.
This could count even if you had a part squad of wolf guard left, would you have to kill all the wolf guard in each of the squard to get the Kill Point.

I think RAW would be that the kill point doesn't exist if you split them all into squads as kill points are given on a per unit basis and you no longer have a unit.
As for killing the wolf guard in squads, because they count as part of the squard entirely (not IC) then you would have to kill them aswell to get the kill point.

Though I might imagine this leaves the system a bit open for abuse.

ceorron wrote:The grey knight player has placed a wolf guard in a unit. If you kill all of a unit bar the wolf guard does that unit count as destroyed granting you a kill point or would you have to kill the wolf guard as well to get the kill point.

The Wolf Guard is, for all game purposes, a part of the unit. So him remaining alive is no different to any other member of the unit remaining alive.

If you had a wolf guard unit and you placed them all into squads does the kill point for that wolf guard squad simply not exist any more or would you have to kill the wolf guard in the squads as well to get the kill point.

The answer is more or less the same as above. If you farm out all of the wolf guard to other units, you no longer have a wolf guard unit to be destroyed. So there is no kill point for them.

This could count even if you had a part squad of wolf guard left, would you have to kill all the wolf guard in each of the squard to get the Kill Point.

If you still had some wolf guard forming a squad, then that squad is one unit, and the wolf guard who have been attached out are part of the units they have been sent to. So you would receive a KP for the wolf guard unit once it is destroyed. You don't need to destroy all of the other wolf guard who are not a part of the unit.


So yes, pretty much what you suggested on all counts.

Though I might imagine this leaves the system a bit open for abuse.

That's the KP system in a nutshell, really. It's a ridiculous idea from the get-go.

insaniak has it spot on.

WOlf Guard are not a KP, Priests are, and the KP system needs work, no doubt.

I disagree about the KP system needing work.

Wolf Guard become part of the unit they join for the length of the game, where as sangy priests can join other units any time they please. "oh noes, that assault squad that started with 10 members+ a priest just got battlecannoned down to 2+ priest? time for him to join the assault squad right next to him to keep the albative wounds"

Yeah I don't see why this is even a question the OP seems to have it right, Insaniak is as usual pretty clear in explaining why.

+1 on the KP system needing work (why oh why didn't they just stick to VPs for the annihilation mission). It is just laughable that for instance a Rhino is as valuable as killing Marneas Calgar a high lord of terra, or that taking down a Piranha is twice as valuable as either. It literally doesn't make any sense and really helps small elite armies whilst totally stuffing the middle ground armies that have small squad sizes (Tau for instance). Horrible system that is needlessly over simplified.

Because VPs dont do JACK to balance out objective based missions, where MSU troops is the best force?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because VPs dont do JACK to balance out objective based missions, where MSU troops is the best force?

True, but KP are too unbalanced with regards to some armies. The Good Case in point is the Phirana.

What I would like to see is a variable value points system.
HQ Unit that takes a FoC Slot: 3 Points
HQ Unit that doesn't (eg. Command Squad): 2 Points
Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support: 2 Points
Troops: 1 Point
Dedicated Transport (Regardless of FoC slot): 1 Point
Anything else (Extra Grubbins like Drones): 0 Points.

That would make the "main dudes" of an army a more valuable target just like they should be.

I think to some armies that take cheep HQ units, I think unfair. Great if your MEQ which are dead hard, terrible if your imperial guard or orks where your HQ is often basic in the extreem.

If we want a system that is based on the value of the unit to the army that is simpler than working out than VPs then, I think it should be based on the points that unit cost the army.

I personally didn't like the idea that VPs put forward that you got half the points for killing over half the unit. Full units must be destoryed.

I think units should give 1 KP for every 50pts that unit is worth rounding up.

Then you can add from that for perticular types as the senario dictates. For example HQ +2 kill points, Heavy Support +1 kill points.

This is simpler and is based on the very very simple premis that you a unit is worth what you pay for them points wise. This is why VP is good and KP is bad and would be a simple question between players i.e. "How much is that unit worth in kill points"

Except it ignores the utility that Troops have in the other two games, and doesnt reward taking larger squads of Troops very well - when the entire point is that 6 units of MSU troops are best for taking objectives.

Any proposed system *must* balance out the Objectives missions.

Ceorron, you've essentially put forward the VP system from 2nd Ed (it was 1 VP per 100 points but near enough). I certainly think something based around VPs is the only fair way to have an annihilation mission given how different some of the armies are put together, some lists physically require MSU so having a system that punishes this type of build is unfair to those armies.

I really don't see the big issue with MSU armies.

...because the point of the different types of mission is that one army archetype (MSU) shouldnt have an advantage in all of them?

One of the design notes on 5th was to get people using larger units (and more units) of troops - whcih both KP and Objectives provide.

I can see how objectives makes people take more units of troops.

In the standard objectives based mission you have 5 objectives maximum. Which means anyone looking to get a great victory over anyone is going to take 5 troops.

In a small points game this would mean 5 of the smallest troop types you can find. Fine

But in larger games the force organisation chart is what should make players take larger squads. You already have the need for 5 troops. 1 more and then you will need to bulk out those units, or improve them in some way, to ensure their survival.

In addition all units seem cheeper, meaning in any game you are always going to try to fill your points.

Except Troops arent often the "best" units in your army at killing the enemy - which is why in 4th ed you mainly saw min troops, max Elites etc.

Which is exactly what GW wanted to get rid of, and so introduced the "troops can claim objectives, anyone else contests" rule, making Troops more valuable.

Kill Points stops you taking MSU of troops as a default by penalising you for having lots of units. MSU troops would mean you had more points for, generally, more killy stuff - and what is it tghat GW wanted to avoid? MSU!

Kill Points stops you taking MSU of troops as a default by penalising you for having lots of units.

That's fine if certain armies aren't forced down the MSU path.

MSU troops would mean you had more points for, generally, more killy stuff - and what is it tghat GW wanted to avoid? MSU!

They wanted to redress army balance and get people to take plenty of troops. MSU troops in smallish games is still most of your points whilst MSU troops in larger games simply won't survive. I also like the way the army lists are in general forcing you down the full squad size route with various special rules or o[ptions only viable/available in larger squads which redresses the MSU troops option (which I still don't think is bad).

As is the system punishes certain army types unfairly whilst allowing other armies to max out on min troops choices and still work very well *cough*DAVU*cough*. KP only hurts certain armies and certain army types wihtout really punishing min-max lists of other armies...

It needs redressing one way or another. Personally I like VPs, something along the lines of Gwar!'s Unit type KPs rules is another option. But as is it just sucks IMO.

Oddly enough both ig and de, which have a LOT of kill points actually tend to do very well at kp.

VP does nothing to counter objective games, and just because YOU like msu isn't massively important - the game designers don't.the current codexes are just further proof

nosferatu1001 wrote:Oddly enough both ig and de, which have a LOT of kill points actually tend to do very well at kp.

VP does nothing to counter objective games, and just because YOU like msu isn't massively important - the game designers don't.the current codexes are just further proof

+1.

The current system does lend itself to large and expensive troop choices. It's an obvious counter-balance to min-maxed FOC filling choices that will abuse the objective missions.

Actually, you've made all my points already so I don't know why I'm even posting.

I will add that, I do find it extremely funny that the game's poster boys - who get their codex designed in concert with the newest rule edition, the first release in every cycle and who have their own built in rules mechanic to allow them to operate at maximum efficiency in KP or Objective missions aren't on top.

I'm not sure how we got onto the problem that is KP and MSU.

The system I put forward still in a way is not good for multiple small units builds.

Simply because as I said you only get the Kill Points for the unit once it is fully destroy. A unit worth alot of points is likely to be allot hard to kill than a unit that is not.

However the system is fairier with KP as a derivative of the points for a squad as a large points unit will give the correct number of kill points related to the difficulty it would take to kill a squad like that.

So the problem would still remain if we kept KP as they are. In order to keep KP your saying in real battle terms my grot mob is worth the same as Marneus Calgar?

Because your system is simply VP under a differrent name?

Tip: if VPs dont balance objective missions then a aystem which is a mathematical derivation of VPs also doesnt work.

And yes: A mob of TROOP GROTZ is worth FAR more than Marneus - in Objective missions.

In 1/3rd of the missions it is worth less. Stop taking missions in isolation...

Oddly enough both ig and de, which have a LOT of kill points actually tend to do very well at kp.

VP does nothing to counter objective games, and just because YOU like msu isn't massively important - the game designers don't.the current codexes are just further proof

IG can mute the KP system with blob squads whilst SM get combat squads to go the other way. So certain armies care nought for the KP "balance". I'm not fond of MSU nor am I particularly against it. But if you force certain armies to do it (i.e. Tau) and then penalise them for doing so that seems some what unfair.

It would be like say having the SW army list force you to take at least 3 HQs and then have a mission where whoever kills the most HQs wins. the SW player is now always at a huge disadvantage because his list forces him to do something the mission penalise him for doing. That to me iseems something that should be avoided more than worrying about people using a full FoC...

In this eddition Tau suffer from alot of stuff KP's arent all that high on the list anyway.

Sorry, you seem to have a different definition of "MSU" to anyone else.

Are Tau FORCED to use MSU? er, No. 12FW is not "MSU" (by definition...) AND you only need to take one unit of them - so you can take large units of kroot if you want. Or will your complaint now be that this is still MSU?

Blob squads only take care of the troops, and do nothing for the vehicles - so you sacrifice mobility (which generally keeps you from being killed in the first place...) to gain a large wound soak.

Again with the strawman arguments - since you have raised this hypothetical mission where HQs are penalised, how about raising the hypothetical that in the other 2/3rds of games HQs are actively encouraged? Otherwise you arent com[aring like with like now, are you?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sorry, you seem to have a different definition of "MSU" to anyone else.

Are Tau FORCED to use MSU? er, No. 12FW is not "MSU" (by definition...) AND you only need to take one unit of them - so you can take large units of kroot if you want. Or will your complaint now be that this is still MSU?

Are they forced to use MSU, no. Would some players like to be able to use them with MSU without being brutally penalised by the Kill Points system. For some time I have been toying around with the idea of starting a speed freaks army but I know for 1/3 of the games I play i'll be at a disadvantage because of the kill points system. I think their are alot of players like this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Blob squads only take care of the troops, and do nothing for the vehicles - so you sacrifice mobility (which generally keeps you from being killed in the first place...) to gain a large wound soak.

Yes giving imperial gaurd and space mariens a way to cheat the system.

Allowing space marines the advantage of taking fewer troops then other armies allowing more to be spent on heavy support ect but still having enough scoring units to take all the possible objectives. Imperial Guard one big hard to kill expencive unit in KP games lots of cheap desposible ones in objective based games. This is basically MSU without having to show it on your roster, or impact on you FOC. Again i'm all for army variety but don't have any problem with this or MSU.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Again with the strawman arguments - since you have raised this hypothetical mission where HQs are penalised, how about raising the hypothetical that in the other 2/3rds of games HQs are actively encouraged? Otherwise you arent com[aring like with like now, are you?

As for give up with the single mission thinking. Yes I would like to think that each of the mission types balance each other and they do in most cases. But when playing at certain torniments one system is used in exclusion of the rest. So you should really stop thinking using multiple mission types and focus on getting all missions balanced, for every army, all the time. Ideally.

I'd be happy to go back to VPs but clearly it was shunned for some reason, i'm assuming because of its complexity compared to the simpler KP. What I suggested was a halfway house that gives the simplicity of KP with the relation to the real value of the unit in game terms, that still doesn't benefit MSU player IMO.

So I think along with a few others that army/player variety and rule fairness more important than we hate MSU.

ceorron wrote:Are they forced to use MSU, no. Would some players like to be able to use them with MSU without being brutally penalised by the Kill Points system. For some time I have been toying around with the idea of starting a speed freaks army but I know for 1/3 of the games I play i'll be at a disadvantage because of the kill points system. I think their are alot of players like this.

And in 2/3rd of the games you will have a MASSIVE advantage in that you will have highly mobile scoring troops.

So for 1/3rd of the time you will be at a disadvantage (not an insurmountable one, i have 3 friends who got to UK GT Final with speedfreeks) and 2/3rd of the time you will have an advantage. Meaning you have a balance - in fact it could be argued KP arent enough, 2 mission types should use them so you have 50% of the time you will be at a disadvantage for your *choice* to have a great advantage in other games...

ceorron wrote:Yes giving imperial gaurd and space mariens a way to cheat the system.

Allowing space marines the advantage of taking fewer troops then other armies allowing more to be spent on heavy support ect but still having enough scoring units to take all the possible objectives. Imperial Guard one big hard to kill expencive unit in KP games lots of cheap desposible ones in objective based games. This is basically MSU without having to show it on your roster, or impact on you FOC. Again i'm all for army variety but don't have any problem with this or MSU.

So you're saying that 5 marines *not* in a vehicle are difficult to kill? YOu realise that the unit can only take one transport, right? You have nothing fast that can go grab the objective off the 5 man, there from the start of the game, unit?

thats not the mission fault, but your list not being flexible enough.

ceorron wrote:As for give up with the single mission thinking. Yes I would like to think that each of the mission types balance each other and they do in most cases. But when playing at certain torniments one system is used in exclusion of the rest.

Then educate the tournaments to not do that. Or, in fact - why complain? If it is a KP only tournament you dont have to worry about objectives meaning you can have min troops, max harder to kill stuff. Same as 4th ed.

ceorron wrote:So you should really stop thinking using multiple mission types and focus on getting all missions balanced, for every army, all the time. Ideally.

except with random mission generation and 2/3rd of the mission being Objective based you *Need* to balance out the advantage an all comers list has in 2/3rd of the game if they take max troops. Explain how you do that without using something like KP, which punish you for taking more units?

ceorron wrote:I'd be happy to go back to VPs but clearly it was shunned for some reason, i'm assuming because of its complexity compared to the simpler KP. What I suggested was a halfway house that gives the simplicity of KP with the relation to the real value of the unit in game terms, that still doesn't benefit MSU player IMO.

Absolutely not the reason, as has already been shown, repeatedly. They even include VPs in the rulebook in the event of ties.

VPs, and any system based off VPs, CANNOT balance objective games as they dont punish you for taking lots of units - as was shown in 4th ed you have less to lose by removing eggs in basket situation, hence MSU.

ceorron wrote:So I think along with a few others that army/player variety and rule fairness more important than we hate MSU.

And the rules ARE fair = the armies that have a disadvantage in *1* in every *3* games have an advantage in *2* of *3* games. THAT is balanced. THAT is fair - VPs, and systems based off them, do NOTHING to balance the adfvantages gained in an objective game from having msu troops.

The KP system isn't that broken - it only needs a few tweaks. Last year's 'ard boyz made a number of good changes, the biggest being the exclusion of units generated during the game (so no KPs for pirahna drones, fired spore mines, bolt of change spawn, etc).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And in 2/3rd of the games you will have a MASSIVE advantage in that you will have highly mobile scoring troops.

So for 1/3rd of the time you will be at a disadvantage (not an insurmountable one, i have 3 friends who got to UK GT Final with speedfreeks) and 2/3rd of the time you will have an advantage. Meaning you have a balance - in fact it could be argued KP arent enough, 2 mission types should use them so you have 50% of the time you will be at a disadvantage for your *choice* to have a great advantage in other games...

I think you are over playing the advantage that Mech and MSU gives an army. Yeah you have flexibility and speed but you have payed the points for that. If you are saying that vehicles are better than the points you pay for them then maybe transport vehicles should go up in points if they provide such an unfair advantage.

Remember it should be the points system and the FOC that balances games.

Whether I have the advantage or not matters not to me i'm looking for all games to be made fairer, but if this means altering both the objective missions and the KP then that should be done.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you're saying that 5 marines *not* in a vehicle are difficult to kill? YOu realise that the unit can only take one transport, right? You have nothing fast that can go grab the objective off the 5 man, there from the start of the game, unit?

thats not the mission fault, but your list not being flexible enough.

MSU can be done by any army. Some armies more than other because they have been given rules that allow them to do that, again as I said I have no problems with this.

Remember when you use the rules you don't have 5 marines, you still have 10 and used correctly you will be able to ensure both units survive. The great advantage of combat squads is that you can get MSU without any loss of combat ability. So 5 marines arn't tough to kill but 10 in 2 squads are harder than 10 in one squad, with or without the singular transport between the two squads.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Then educate the tournaments to not do that. Or, in fact - why complain? If it is a KP only tournament you dont have to worry about objectives meaning you can have min troops, max harder to kill stuff. Same as 4th ed.

You could have that again people like to use the armies they want to use why not allow them to?

nosferatu1001 wrote:except with random mission generation and 2/3rd of the mission being Objective based you *Need* to balance out the advantage an all comers list has in 2/3rd of the game if they take max troops. Explain how you do that without using something like KP, which punish you for taking more units?

Again with the MSU hating, my point is you don't need to punish people that want to do MSU. As I and you pointed out 2 lots of 5 marines is about the same as one lot of 10 marines. It is the points system that levels this problem and I think it does it well. The advantage that MSU have is minimal in my experience. Mech is different, they do have an advantage as they get more units to contest with and more mobility.

ceorron wrote:I think you are over playing the advantage that Mech and MSU gives an army. Yeah you have flexibility and speed but you have payed the points for that. If you are saying that vehicles are better than the points you pay for them then maybe transport vehicles should go up in points if they provide such an unfair advantage.

Sorry, by simply stating this you have lost the argument - 5th ed is ALL about mech and the speed that brings. You dont seem to understand that basic fact - manouverability is ESSENTIAL in 5th ed. It is an Objective based game in 2/3rd of the time, and if you want to *win* you have to get somewhere fast, and be able to react.

Vehicles dont provide an "unfair" advantage, as every army has some means to be manouverable (jump infantry, teleport, beasts, unusual deployment) - vehicles are just short hand for "getting you places quickly"

ceorron wrote:Remember it should be the points system and the FOC that balances games.

Why cant the missions balance each other? Why is a triumvirate (points, FOC, missions) giving more variety in the types of effective lists be possible? Why this obsession that only 2 things can possibly be used to balance games?

ceorron wrote:Whether I have the advantage or not matters not to me i'm looking for all games to be made fairer, but if this means altering both the objective missions and the KP then that should be done.

And all games *are* fairer, you just *dont like* KP and think that VP, which is demonmstrably unable to balance Objective games, should replace it. So you are looking to UNBALANCE the game in favour of armies that excel at Objectives.

And armies that excel at objective games will feature max, MSU troops. As you have the most flexibiilty and most redundancy. Some things are so self evident.....

ceorron wrote:MSU can be done by any army. Some armies more than other because they have been given rules that allow them to do that, again as I said I have no problems with this.

And I didnt argue they couldnt - I was just pointing out your "they get to cheat the system!!" argument was heavily flawed.

ceorron wrote:Remember when you use the rules you don't have 5 marines, you still have 10 and used correctly you will be able to ensure both units survive. The great advantage of combat squads is that you can get MSU without any loss of combat ability. So 5 marines arn't tough to kill but 10 in 2 squads are harder than 10 in one squad, with or without the singular transport between the two squads.

So 5 marines in one unit arent easier to beat than 10 marines? Really?

10 marines in a rhino are IMMUNE to <S5 weapons. Entirely unkillable, no matter how many shots you fire. (assuming the SM player isnt a moron here...) Take 5 of those models outside the transport, and suddenly all that S4 weaponry that cant hurt the rhino will now have atarget. That can die.

So you are wrong, hideously so. Instant proof that they are easier to kill as two units than 1, and that took me 5 minutes.

A unit of 5 is also far easier to force saves on special weapons, powerfist sarge, etc.

ceorron wrote:You could have that again people like to use the armies they want to use why not allow them to?

Another strawman argument. You are not restricted from taking those armies, they will just fare less well as they dont reflect the gaming environment in use. Sorry, should people be barred from making more efgfective lists? Or are you saying you can design a mission type (singular) which is entirely balanced across all army books, such that no build will have an advantage over another?

Good luck in that. The random mission type, with an imbalanc in favour of objectives, is far fairer to differing unit builds than the annihilation style mission of almost every 4th ed game.

ceorron wrote:Again with the MSU hating, my point is you don't need to punish people that want to do MSU. As I and you pointed out 2 lots of 5 marines is about the same as one lot of 10 marines. It is the points system that levels this problem and I think it does it well. The advantage that MSU have is minimal in my experience. Mech is different, they do have an advantage as they get more units to contest with and more mobility.

sigh.

People who take MSU are having HUGE advantage in 2/3rd of the game. If you dont provide a counter to this, then you end up with 4th ed - when MSU was king. Your experience is either very different to the rest of everyone in 4th ed, or you havent played a DE army with MSU wytches / warriors.

I pointed out that 2 lots of 5 marines is far easier to kill than 1 unit of 10, with both having transports. >

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sorry, by simply stating this you have lost the argument - 5th ed is ALL about mech and the speed that brings. You dont seem to understand that basic fact - manouverability is ESSENTIAL in 5th ed. It is an Objective based game in 2/3rd of the time, and if you want to *win* you have to get somewhere fast, and be able to react.

Vehicles dont provide an "unfair" advantage, as every army has some means to be manouverable (jump infantry, teleport, beasts, unusual deployment) - vehicles are just short hand for "getting you places quickly"

5th ed has turned out that way and yes I am aware of this.

However it is not beyond you to realise that basic troops have feet too and can move without the aid of a transport, and guess what you will have more of them because you haven't bought a transport. So when you finally do get to the objective you will have the points to ensure that the enemy is suitably killed off and objective stollen from them. There are enough turns in a game for nearly all movement a unit needs with or without a transport (or any other means of getting to the objective faster - no need to state the obvoise we all play the game).

nosferatu1001 wrote:Why cant the missions balance each other? Why is a triumvirate (points, FOC, missions) giving more variety in the types of effective lists be possible? Why this obsession that only 2 things can possibly be used to balance games?

Simply bacause you are saying what is right and wrong. No MSU, Mech is king etc. People are unhappy to be told what they should use and what works. If we wanted to play games with objectives only we can without having to worry about talloring our lists for this. If we wanted to do KP only we could and we would be certain our army wasn't at a disadvantage because it was a MSU build or had lots of transports. Do you understand?

nosferatu1001 wrote:And all games *are* fairer, you just *dont like* KP and think that VP, which is demonmstrably unable to balance Objective games, should replace it. So you are looking to UNBALANCE the game in favour of armies that excel at Objectives.

And armies that excel at objective games will feature max, MSU troops. As you have the most flexibiilty and most redundancy. Some things are so self evident.....

I don't think objectives games need much balancing out that points or FOC doesn't do already. I have an issue with KP that I have already mentioned. It doesn't reward player for killing proportional to the value of the unit. Hence being unfair - and as I don't think objective missions need much balancing then I think KP are unnessasary.

As I have said all armies are pretty much equal when it comes to objective mission so long as you bring enough troops for all objectives.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And I didnt argue they couldnt - I was just pointing out your "they get to cheat the system!!" argument was heavily flawed.

I said they could cheat the system i.e. taking 3 troop choices when that have 6. I didn't say the players were cheating in any way.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So 5 marines in one unit arent easier to beat than 10 marines? Really?

10 marines in a rhino are IMMUNE to <S5 weapons. Entirely unkillable, no matter how many shots you fire. (assuming the SM player isnt a moron here...) Take 5 of those models outside the transport, and suddenly all that S4 weaponry that cant hurt the rhino will now have atarget. That can die.

So you are wrong, hideously so. Instant proof that they are easier to kill as two units than 1, and that took me 5 minutes.

A unit of 5 is also far easier to force saves on special weapons, powerfist sarge, etc.

I'm not sure your even reading what I put now.

When you split a ten man unit you get 2 squads of 5 men. I.e. you have no loss in numbers, you have no loss off effectiveness. What you gain is far more than what you loss.

I don't know how your using your space marine combat squads but it sounds wrong to me.

You can keep you heavy weapon still while still advancing at the enemy with your assault weapon/CC equiped sargent.
You have an extra unit to hold another objective.
You have half a unit that will not get tied up in CC when the other does.

When used together, in unison, two squads are more effective than one large squad or have you forgotten why MSU have an advantage over large units.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Another strawman argument. You are not restricted from taking those armies, they will just fare less well as they dont reflect the gaming environment in use. Sorry, should people be barred from making more efgfective lists? Or are you saying you can design a mission type (singular) which is entirely balanced across all army books, such that no build will have an advantage over another?

Good luck in that. The random mission type, with an imbalanc in favour of objectives, is far fairer to differing unit builds than the annihilation style mission of almost every 4th ed game.

They shouldn't be bared from making more effective lists but they shouldn't be forced to either. Yes that is what i'm suggesting. The rules suggestions I made could deffinitely help in that. Yes objectives, i'd say, are certainly fairer in differing builds than annihilation.

ceorron wrote:However it is not beyond you to realise that basic troops have feet too and can move without the aid of a transport, and guess what you will have more of them because you haven't bought a transport. So when you finally do get to the objective you will have the points to ensure that the enemy is suitably killed off and objective stollen from them. There are enough turns in a game for nearly all movement a unit needs with or without a transport (or any other means of getting to the objective faster - no need to state the obvoise we all play the game).

Lol,, tried advancing 5 marines into a tau gun line? Did that work out well?

A basic rhino is about 5% of the cost of a full tactical squad, yet (as I've shown and you entirely ignored, while hilariously claiming I wasnt reading your spiel) provides 100% protection from S4 or less guns. 5%. You pay roughly as much to put a powerfist on the sergeant.

ceorron wrote:Simply bacause you are saying what is right and wrong. No MSU, Mech is king etc. People are unhappy to be told what they should use and what works. If we wanted to play games with objectives only we can without having to worry about talloring our lists for this. If we wanted to do KP only we could and we would be certain our army wasn't at a disadvantage because it was a MSU build or had lots of transports. Do you understand?

Yes I do understand, I think you have shown you dont.

yes, Mech is king. If you disagree, then you're playing a very different meta to 99% of all players out there. If you play lists as Objective only, all the time, then people WILL play lists that are more effective at those games - why wouldnt they? Or are you going to tell them they cant? Oh sorry, apparnelty *I'm* telling people they "cant" use certain things, sorry I forgot your strawman argument to that effect!

I am also NOT saying you CANNOT take MSU - do you understand this? I am saying *IF* you take MSU, which gives you an Advantage in 2/3rds of ALL games, you will have a DISADVANTAGE in 1/3rd of the games. That is called *balance* - the superior choice in 66% of games will have a disadvantage sometimes. Oh woe is me! However can you cope!

If you dont think MSU was 4th ed meta, tri holo falcon says you're wrong. min las plas marines says youre wrong. JSJ Tau says you're wrong. 7 TMC says you're wrong. Want me to carry on?

ceorron wrote:I don't think objectives games need much balancing out that points or FOC doesn't do already.

And, again, MSU has no drawbacks in an objective only Meta, as it allows you to (generally, not true for all armies) concentrate on non-troops who are more killy. Meaning you are more likely to wipe the opponent out and / or wipe their troops so you win. One mission type g'tees this style of play, 2 mission victory conditions means it becomes a gamble.

ceorron wrote:I have an issue with KP that I have already mentioned. It doesn't reward player for killing proportional to the value of the unit. Hence being unfair - and as I don't think objective missions need much balancing then I think KP are unnessasary.

Except, as I have shown, one based on VPs (as your system is) re-emphasises MSU. In exactly the same way it did in 4th ed. And which was exactly what they wanted to get rid of in 5th ed.

Propose a different system, fine - just accept the criticism when your system repeats the mistakes of 4th ed. Mistakes they specificaly tried to engineer out of 5th ed.

ceorron wrote:As I have said all armies are pretty much equal when it comes to objective mission so long as you bring enough troops for all objectives.

Um, not really. Plague marines are stupidly better at holding (not taking necessarily taking, but no worse) objectives than a tact squad.

ceorron wrote:I said they could cheat the system i.e. taking 3 troop choices when that have 6. I didn't say the players were cheating in any way.

Reread what I wrote, and what you quoted. I stated the exact same thing - so you are again using strawman arguments. Stop it.

ceorron wrote:I'm not sure your even reading what I put now.

Pot. Kettle.

ceorron wrote:When you split a ten man unit you get 2 squads of 5 men. I.e. you have no loss in numbers, you have no loss off effectiveness. What you gain is far more than what you loss.

Wrong, reread what I wrote. Taken in isolation a squad of 10 in a rhino is IMMUNE TO S4 or less weaponry. Entirely, 100%, not going to get killed by it. Got that?

You have a loss in effectiveness in keeping sarge/special/heavy alive, as wound allocation onto them from shooting is more likely with fewer models.

It is far easier to kill the pfist sarge before he strikes if there are only 5 men in the squad. 8 bezerkers will do that every time.

So, that is *3* ways you are wrong in your assertion, all in the space of 2 minutes.

please read and refute, rather than spouting generalisations. again.

ceorron wrote:I don't know how your using your space marine combat squads but it sounds wrong to me.

Refute specifics instead of adding lousy generalities.

ceorron wrote:You can keep you heavy weapon still while still advancing at the enemy with your assault weapon/CC equiped sargent.

Um, I already said that. I also explained how that made them vulnerable in a way that is impossible with all 10 in a vehicle, whcih you ignored.

ceorron wrote:You have an extra unit to hold another objective.

And, as I mentionedf above, one that can be shot at by all the S4 weaponry that cant hurt the rhino. or that can be tank shocked off the objective. and is only 5 man so that one HW is easier (far far far) to kill off early.

ceorron wrote:You have half a unit that will not get tied up in CC when the other does.

True, but that has rendered your 5 man squad far less effective at dealing with CC, meanin ghtat 5 man unit is far more likely to die before dealing, potentially, ANY damage.

ceorron wrote:When used together, in unison, two squads are more effective than one large squad or have you forgotten why MSU have an advantage over large units.

No, have you forgotten that you can only have one transport between the two, which is why CS *isnt* really cheating the system?

1 10 man CS unit is FAR more vulnerable than 2 5 man units, simply because you can protect the 2 actual 5 man units better.

ceorron wrote:They shouldn't be bared from making more effective lists but they shouldn't be forced to either. Yes that is what i'm suggesting. The rules suggestions I made could deffinitely help in that. Yes objectives, i'd say, are certainly fairer in differing builds than annihilation.

And NOBODY is FORCING you to make more effective units! Who said ANYTHING about forcing people to take certain choices?

When you write a 5th ed list do you get forced to take squadrons not seperate units because of kill points? NO! it is a tactical decision where you weigh up the 2 games where seperate units are better (more flexible, less vulnerable damage chart) vs the one where you have 3KP and not 1.

Yet another strawman argument from you - not a single person has claimed you are forced into doing certain things, only that IF you want a more effective game then there ARE more effective choices.

Same as there were in 4th ed, and same as there will be in 6th ed and beyond. Certain units WILL be more effective for the game types.

A basic rhino is about 5% of the cost of a full tactical squad

Nos I have to admit I am very curious as to what upgrades you take on your tac squads that make them cost 700 points?