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.

Squadrons is the only function I think we can point to and definitively say there's a difference. Especially as NOVA scored it, with each vehicle counted separately for VP purposes-- without KP, there's absolutely no reason (barring FOC considerations) to run a squadron.

Landspeeders in particular come to mind, but Leman Russes, Valkyries, maybe Kans (I still ran 3, but that was really the theme of the list, so...).

In 'normal' games, I usually see people running two units of two speeders- at the NOVA, the two lists I faced with Speeders had them all as individual units. Yes, yes, small sample, anecdotal, etc... But, I think it's a safe assumption to say that VP over KP removes a lot of the incentive for running squadrons.

I much prefer victory points it seems more fair to me. That way IG can't pull their blob squad shenanigans. SM aren't penalized for using combat squads and tau devilfish aren't worth double because of our gun drones.

I mean I know an IG player who can run a 3 KP list, so if he kills at least 3 of your units you can only win by tabling him.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:I much prefer victory points it seems more fair to me. That way IG can't pull their blob squad shenanigans. SM aren't penalized for using combat squads and tau devilfish aren't worth double because of our gun drones.

I mean I know an IG player who can run a 3 KP list, so if he kills at least 3 of your units you can only win by tabling him.

blob shenanigans? it's the entire purpose of the rule to make up for the KP-apoloza that the IG codex is. as for your "IG player who can run a 3 KP list", do you and your friends only play 250pt-500pt games? because thats the limit you'd need to have to run a 3 KP list with the ig (two vet squads and any HQ choice). if you want to play anything over that point total, you'll need significantly more KP. has your friend actually read the codex?

As for comparing the Adepticon to Nova on KP averages...Didn't the Space Wolf and Blood Angels codexes get released after Adepticon, thus changing the Meta (And those books tend to be the ones that use high-KP armies)?

The new Space Wolves codex was legal at AdeptiCon 2010.

skyth wrote:As for comparing the Adepticon to Nova on KP averages...Didn't the Space Wolf and Blood Angels codexes get released after Adepticon, thus changing the Meta (And those books tend to be the ones that use high-KP armies)?

space pups were last october or so (way before) but the BA were around adepticon... i don't recall if it was a little before or after.

warboss wrote:

Shas'O Dorian wrote:I much prefer victory points it seems more fair to me. That way IG can't pull their blob squad shenanigans. SM aren't penalized for using combat squads and tau devilfish aren't worth double because of our gun drones.

I mean I know an IG player who can run a 3 KP list, so if he kills at least 3 of your units you can only win by tabling him.

blob shenanigans? it's the entire purpose of the rule to make up for the KP-apoloza that the IG codex is. as for your "IG player who can run a 3 KP list", do you and your friends only play 250pt-500pt games? because thats the limit you'd need to have to run a 3 KP list with the ig (two vet squads and any HQ choice). if you want to play anything over that point total, you'll need significantly more KP. has your friend actually read the codex?

Irrelevant, as Guard barely broke .500 at the Open, and didn't even crack the Top 8.

MVBrandt wrote:

warboss wrote:

Shas'O Dorian wrote:I much prefer victory points it seems more fair to me. That way IG can't pull their blob squad shenanigans. SM aren't penalized for using combat squads and tau devilfish aren't worth double because of our gun drones.

I mean I know an IG player who can run a 3 KP list, so if he kills at least 3 of your units you can only win by tabling him.

blob shenanigans? it's the entire purpose of the rule to make up for the KP-apoloza that the IG codex is. as for your "IG player who can run a 3 KP list", do you and your friends only play 250pt-500pt games? because thats the limit you'd need to have to run a 3 KP list with the ig (two vet squads and any HQ choice). if you want to play anything over that point total, you'll need significantly more KP. has your friend actually read the codex?

Irrelevant, as Guard barely broke .500 at the Open, and didn't even crack the Top 8.

its irrelevant that his friend is either blatantly wrong in how he calculates his army or is possibly cheating in 1/3 of normal games? i'm sorry to break this to you but not everything in this thread revolves around you and the nova open; the post was clearly directed at shas'o dorian.

MVBrandt wrote:MSU is by usual definition the spamming of multiple small units. Stelek's list from the NOVA Open was MSU, for example.

Distributing points into numerous combat effective threats is typically a good idea. Spamming as many min-size units as possible is not always a good idea. Encouraging new players to take large, unwieldy and points-intensive units is a BAD idea.

Arguing extremes is never a good idea. However, you state that taking large units is a BAD idea, which implies that taking smaller units is a good idea. I agree that it may not always be smartest to take as many min-sized units as possible, but in general it seems to be the better solution for most armies. This maximizes specials, which maximizes killing ability. As you and others have previously noted, MSU's also have better mobility than LU armies.

So, there is a strong incentive to take MSU type armies. Kill Points are one way to help balance out the inbalance described above. My question is then, how do Victory Points address the described imbalance? According to the underlying theme of the rules, points are supposed to be a way to balance army lists. However, it seems to me that you have described a way in which the points are unbalanced and favor MSU, and are arguing against a victory condition that disfavors MSU.

MVBrandt wrote:You'll also want to look into the top finishers at Adepticon, i.e. the guys who lost none of their games, and the KP totals there. The heart of my own thesis, based on a great deal of collected data (not ... pictures), is that KP has little to no influence on top table results, but encourages less experienced players to eschew decisions that would benefit them in 2/3 the book missions for decisions that at most benefit them in 1/3 the book missions.

When a particular component of the rules harms newer players and has no impact on the final top scoring averages, I don't see it as a positive ... more importantly, it's an opinion that is widely shared - I very rarely do ANYTHING based purely off bullish ego and personal belief.

I don't think that looking at the top players or the bottom players is how KP versus VP should be evaluated. You should look at the middle bracket. Top players, as you yourself have mentioned, are likely to do well regardless of the victory condition. Bottom players are new or unexperienced and will make mistakes other than those purely related to KP/VP. IMO it is in the middle bracket that you will find players with enough experience not to make significant mistakes but who's victory may be influenced by KP vs VP.

If you take a player that will always win, then victory condition doesn't matter. If you take a player that will always lose, then victory condition doesn't matter.

Now, I'm an ork player and would love to run a Green Horde army, as it's a thematically correct ork army. Unfortunately, as I see it, all of the horde armies (Orks w/ lots of boyz, Nids with lots of gaunts, IG with lots of blob, etc) are at a disadvantage for all of the mission types except KP. VP favors MSU due to the greater killing power. Objectives and Table Quarters favor MSU due to the increased mobility. I would love to see one of the top players take a horde army and win a major tournament, but I don't see it happening.

From an ideal standpoint, army points should be equal. From a realistic standpoint, they are not. As you know there is an imbalance, wouldn't you think it is better to try to address the imbalance, rather than selecting missions that push players into a certain build type?

You know, I was threatened with suspension for speaking my mind in the Adepticon feedback thread, which was inevitably locked for that very thing, because I didn't actually attend and they didn't really want any criticism...I guess the thread title was deceiving.

I'm just saying, it was clearly established there that you have no right to speak ill of an event unless you wasted your valuable time and money attending it anyway, despite having no desire to go. And we have people in here admitting they didn't go because of the KP/VP issue, that are insisting that Mike change the rules of his tournament to suit them.

Ha. Let's just add that to the insane conspiracy theories being floated by some out there...if you want I can send you all the missions in advance so you can dominate the event...or better yet, just pretend like you came, lie about it repeatedly, and then you can bash us all you want!

1. That thread isn't locked.
2. We (AdeptiCon) have zero saying in what Dakka Mods do, nor do we care. We welcome all positive and constructive feedback - REGARDLESS of the source. What we do ignore is loud-mouthed braggarts who want, no NEED, everything to be about them. The hobby is much bigger than that. The AdeptiCon staff responses to you are measured and polite.
3. We get it - you HATE the INAT and you wouldn't be caught dead at our lame event. I am accepting of that viewpoint.

Sidstyler wrote:I'm just saying, it was clearly established there that you have no right to speak ill of an event unless you wasted your valuable time and money attending it anyway, despite having no desire to go. And we have people in here admitting they didn't go because of the KP/VP issue, that are insisting that Mike change the rules of his tournament to suit them.

Why are you trying to derail a nice, polite debate about the (general) merits of KPs vs VPs in a tournament setting, by dragging in baggage about other tournaments?

This thread is called "Kill points or victory points." Nothing in the OP limits it to "Feedback on the Nova Open," so many of us who didn't attend the Nova have felt free to participate.

Sidstyler wrote:You know, I was threatened with suspension for speaking my mind in the Adepticon feedback thread, which was inevitably locked for that very thing, because I didn't actually attend and they didn't really want any criticism...I guess the thread title was deceiving.

No you weren't. There was a general moderator note in the thread about trolling. You did not receive a personal warning. The thread was not locked. It's still open now. Everyone can speak their mind, within the boundaries of the forum rules, which include being polite and not trolling.

Sidstyler wrote:I'm just saying, it was clearly established there that you have no right to speak ill of an event unless you wasted your valuable time and money attending it anyway, despite having no desire to go. And we have people in here admitting they didn't go because of the KP/VP issue, that are insisting that Mike change the rules of his tournament to suit them.

Oh, so you accept that argument? Most organizers are primarily interested in feedback from attendees, as those are the people who have the best perspective on what actually went down and what they experienced. That said, Mike has solicited feedback from everyone, though naturally he weighs how much credence he gives any given response based in part on how well they seem to know or understand what they're talking about, and how cogently they make their argument.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/287787.page (Hey, I guess it wasn't locked...but in my defense it did immediately die after all that red text, so it might as well have been.)

Criticizing an event you didn't attend = "trolling". So that means Mike is getting trolled here.

And speaking of which, because my local store is adopting the rules/scenarios now, I don't have to attend Adepticon in order to complain about it, because they came to me. So now if I even want to play in local tournaments I have to put up with their rules, or stay home and never play, the latter of which I think everyone would agree isn't a realistic option after spending so much money on all those toys.

I think I'd better drop it though, at this point I'm just projecting my frustration at my local store at people who can't do anything about it anyway.

MVBrandt wrote:People who have learned to apply extreme skill to handicapped armies like nob bikers and jetseers to compensate for their difficulties in non-KP missions will continue to succeed regardless of the mission, so I'm not really sure that's at stake.

I really think you're bordering on a circular argument here. Armies/units which are given an advantage in KPs (like Nob bikers, jetseers, or Straken IG infantry horde) are not necessarily "handicapped" armies. Though if you remove the 1/3 of missions in which they particularly shine, you are certainly handicapping them.

MVBrandt wrote:At the heart of it, KP is too arbitrary a mission; the book has NUMEROUS missions in it (3 with 9 total variations); tying yourself to one that leaves a TON of players feeling as if it's absurd is foolish if you're running a tournament. Tying yourself to anything in particular is.

I don't see how KP is any more arbitrary than the game ending on a given turn, or the objective missions. As someone else noted, if in Capture & Control when the game ends I have a single Grot holding my objective, with a squad of berserkers six inches away, and you have 20 Thousand Sons holding your objective, it's still a tie. Despite how "realistically" the chaos player would easily win if the game lasted another turn.

A "TON" of players always complain about any change in the rules. Look at any Warhammer Fantasy forum right now to see the angst over True LOS being added to that game. For the most part, people get over it and learn to play the game the way it is now. Sometimes they don't. Over on warhammer.org.uk a bunch of folks are talking about a house ruled LOS system to use instead of the book rules. This really isn't that dissimiliar to what you've done with KPs at your event.

I don't think I've seen you respond yet to another point someone raised (and I apologize if I just missed it): what about the army books which have special rules specifically made for KPs? The big example is Lone Wolves, but they're not the only one. Heck, even the way SM & IG can split or glom their squads/platoons is a special rule clearly intended to give them interesting tactical options particularly in KP missions. By eliminating KPs from your event, you make that Lone Wolf rule meaningless, and you remove a dimension from one of the big special rules SM & IG have.

Sidstyler wrote:And speaking of which, because my local store is adopting the rules/scenarios now, I don't have to attend Adepticon in order to complain about it, because they came to me. So now if I even want to play in local tournaments I have to put up with their rules, or stay home and never play, the latter of which I think everyone would agree isn't a realistic option after spending so much money on all those toys.

Well..I imagine in terms of rules/scenarios you will enjoy the 2011 direction much more (even though it really isn't that much of a departure)...hopefully you can convince them to adapt that instead. Optionally, you can organize an event using whatever rules/scenarios you want - prove that it is a good time and then share the burden of organizing and running an event with others. The local Chicago group has been doing that for 18 months now (using the AdeptiCon format and swapping TOs every month so all have the chance to play). Works fantastically.

The problem with your take...attending AdeptiCon is much, much, much, much more than rules and scenarios and writing off the entire convention (which last year was 99 events strong) over one or two events is short-sighted. Writing off the convention over your disagreements with some rulings in the INAT is even more so.

Sidstyler wrote:http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/287787.page (Hey, I guess it wasn't locked...but in my defense it did immediately die after all that red text, so it might as well have been.)

Criticizing an event you didn't attend = "trolling". So that means Mike is getting trolled here.

Nkelsch and Anaxagoras said that to you. Not a moderator. You chose to go into a thread for feedback on an event and climb on your old hobbyhorse of complaining about the INAT. C99 and Yakface very courteously, and at length, responded to your comments. Another moderator then put up a general warning about trolling, and a request that INAT discussions go in a new thread. You didn't get a personal warning, nor were you threatened with suspension. We allow a lot of very warm discussion here, which is why you have gotten very little moderator correction.