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.

Polonius wrote:I think one cool rule would be to allow command squads to combine with the squads under them.

TBH, I really don't think we need 55+ model unit blobs.

And besides how would that work in Dawn of War with KPs? "You only have 21 models on the board? I just put down 140 in the Command Blob and 2 Troops Blobs. Shooting? OK, my Command Squad fires 7 Lascannons and 6 Autocannon at your unit... The Troops Blobs fire 6 Lascannon and 6 Autocannon at your other Troops... I'm up 2-0 on KPs, you're down both Troops. Are we having fun, yet?"
____

Polonius wrote:Certainly an easy fix for IG would simply be to have all squads count as 1/2 a kill point, but that leaves a rule in the IG codex for what'll probably be 5 years, meaning 6th edition may or may not reference an obsolete rule.

As much as some people would like it not to be the case, I strongly suspect that 40k will keep Kill Points as a key simplifying differentiator from WFB VPs, just as 40k will keeps the FOC as a differentiator from the WFB "choosing an army".

Plus, it's a minor deterrent against the kinds of MSU armies that GW greatly dislikes.
____

Shep wrote:camo netting could very well be.. "vehicle counts as obscured until it moves"

I could see that. Certainly, 20 pts is way too much just for +1 to cover saves.

Shep wrote:field artillery.

I think Guard would get 0-2 Artillery Pieces that attach to the Command Squad, each with 3 crewmen.

Shep wrote:ogryns. FNP, eternal warrior, T5.

I think for them, a DRASTIC points reduction is in order.

IMO, T5 would be the easiest fix, as it's simply a statline fix, although it kind of converts Ogryns into a lesser Monstrous Creature.

OTOH, if they were dropped to under 15 pts, they'd be playable.

Shep wrote:ratlings.

I still think Artillery Spotters is the best special rule for these little guys, due to the high potential synergy making them playable...

Shep wrote:storm troopers.

I also think these will be good, and likely the only unit that can buy Valks.

Shep wrote:kill points.

or show me a really well thought out way to address the 30 kill point to 5 kill point matchup between drop guard and nob bikers.

I'm hoping for 1/2 KP per Platoon unit, without any ICs in the entire army. I'd settle for Command Squads = 1 KP, all other squads = 2nd KP. That way, it's easy to get the first KP by killing the Command, but hard to get the remaining KP.

If Guard can take 2 Specials per Drop unit, then that's 60 Plasma Guns or Flamers - not a terrible matchup for Guard...

Shep wrote:leman russ squadrons.

I'm hoping for Russ, Demolisher, Hellhound, and Basilisk Squadrons of 1-3 models. It'd really open up the army design options considerably. And with all the Cover Saves, it wouldn't be broken, either.
___

ShumaGorath wrote:Kill points were likely meant as a measure to prevent minmaxing, and were probably designed to contrast with the increased focus on multiple units caused by the multiple objective scenario.

That, and breaking from the WFB mold, along with simplifying scoring conditions - it's almost impossible to cheat your opponent out of KPs.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Plus, it's a minor deterrent against the kinds of MSU armies that GW greatly dislikes.

Only problem, is (to me) the game is more fun with the more units that are out there.

(Moderation mode)

Gentlemen this thread has received several reports. Please refrain from personal attacks or disciplinary action will be taken.

skyth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Plus, it's a minor deterrent against the kinds of MSU armies that GW greatly dislikes.

Only problem, is (to me) the game is more fun with the more units that are out there.

I believe that MSU that is being talked about is along the lines of 3 individual raveners rather than a squad of 3 (I used to do this all the time). In fourth edition if you could take a 1 to anything choice there was no real reason to go above 1 per squad as long as you had force org spots to burn. This made it so that shots couldn't carry into the next even if you were running them in a pack. It also made them immune to squad morale and failed combats. In previous editions the larger your squad was the more you were at a disadvantage, there was simply no reason to take large squads. Even the obvious answer of squad morale was too easy to simply ignore or get around with special rulings.

Kill points aren't bad as a concept, the are needed as a balancing scale with other scenarios in the game. The problem is certain codexes are built very poorly to deal with them, something that will largely be rectified in the coming guard codex.

I agree with Shummy. They are to balance out taking lots of units which is an advantage in objective based missions. I agree that some armies (IG and DE especially) get hosed by KP's but I hope that the new codexes balance this out.

I don't see them breaking the basic rules of KP's by saying that IG platoons are 1/2 KP's. I see something more along the lines of each platoon gets smaller and the whole thing counts for a KP (but with a restriction like must stay within 6" of the Command squad or something).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I could definitely see a change to require 6" unit-to-unit coherency, but it would really cause players to howl over the Heavy weapons...

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And besides how would that work in Dawn of War with KPs? "You only have 21 models on the board? I just put down 140 in the Command Blob and 2 Troops Blobs. Shooting? OK, my Command Squad fires 7 Lascannons and 6 Autocannon at your unit... The Troops Blobs fire 6 Lascannon and 6 Autocannon at your other Troops... I'm up 2-0 on KPs, you're down both Troops. Are we having fun, yet?"

BTW, if an IG player places more than a CHQ squad and 2 infantry squads (or an infantry squad and chimera, etc.), then they kindly need to reread the deployment rules for DoW. It's 2 units from your troops choices, not 2 Force Org slots. The caption at the bottom of page 93 even illustrates that.

Edit: My bad. Thanks Janthkin. Apologies, John.

ubermosher wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And besides how would that work in Dawn of War with KPs? "You only have 21 models on the board? I just put down 140 in the Command Blob and 2 Troops Blobs. Shooting? OK, my Command Squad fires 7 Lascannons and 6 Autocannon at your unit... The Troops Blobs fire 6 Lascannon and 6 Autocannon at your other Troops... I'm up 2-0 on KPs, you're down both Troops. Are we having fun, yet?"

BTW, if an IG player places more than a CHQ squad and 2 infantry squads (or an infantry squad and chimera, etc.), then they kindly need to reread the deployment rules for DoW. It's 2 units from your troops choices, not 2 Force Org slots. The caption at the bottom of page 93 even illustrates that.

You missed the preceding discussion - JHDD is discussing one approach to "fixing" IG KPs, which would be to use something like Combat Squads for entire platoons.

Thanks, Janthkin.

Reposting:

That, and breaking from the WFB mold, along with simplifying scoring conditions - it's almost impossible to cheat your opponent out of KPs.

And how exactly does one 'cheat' an opponent out of VP's any differently to 'cheating' an opponent out of KP's?

I have to assume that DD means 'points denial' when he says 'cheat', which a fantastic example of reframing the issue and vilifying those who like VP's at the same time - excellent job their Jonnyboy, you sure debate (dishonestly) like a pro - but I do not see how points denial is any different under a KP system.

Actually, I do see a difference. In a VP system, points deinal has you denying the unit's worth to the enemy. In a VP system, everything is equal (which is stupid - why is a 20-man Chosen Terminator worth the same as a 20-man unit of Grots?), but you can still keep KP's away from your opponent using the exact same methods we used to deny VP's.

So, I ask again (to someone brave enough to read my posts perhaps):

And how exactly does one 'cheat' an opponent out of VP's any differently to 'cheating' an opponent out of KP's?

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Reposting:So, I ask again (to someone brave enough to read my posts perhaps):

And how exactly does one 'cheat' an opponent out of VP's any differently to 'cheating' an opponent out of KP's?

BYE

Well, it's easier to "cheat" an opponent out of KP's than it is with VP's, as you can simply have fewer of them to begin with. So that's different, it's harder under a VP system.

Though I suppose you could bring a 1,000 point army to a 2,000 point battle under a VP system, but that's not the usual strategy.

So you're saying it is easier to cheat KP's than VP's. And Jonny says that it is "almost impossible to cheat your opponent out of KPs".

Of course you can't both be right? My money's on Pariah.

BYE

ShumaGorath wrote:

skyth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Plus, it's a minor deterrent against the kinds of MSU armies that GW greatly dislikes.

Only problem, is (to me) the game is more fun with the more units that are out there.

I believe that MSU that is being talked about is along the lines of 3 individual raveners rather than a squad of 3 (I used to do this all the time). In fourth edition if you could take a 1 to anything choice there was no real reason to go above 1 per squad as long as you had force org spots to burn. This made it so that shots couldn't carry into the next even if you were running them in a pack. It also made them immune to squad morale and failed combats. In previous editions the larger your squad was the more you were at a disadvantage, there was simply no reason to take large squads. Even the obvious answer of squad morale was too easy to simply ignore or get around with special rulings.

Kill points aren't bad as a concept, the are needed as a balancing scale with other scenarios in the game. The problem is certain codexes are built very poorly to deal with them, something that will largely be rectified in the coming guard codex.

Actually, that's what I was refering to when I said it makes the game more fun (to me) to have more units on the board. Kill points both make the game less fun and unbalanced, as armies with good troops (See Orks and Chaos) can get away with having low-KP armies whereas other armies need other units to do the heavy lifting. Having multiple weak units isn't significantly better at controling/contesting objectives compared to how much they are handicapped by KP's.

The only way KP's would be somewhat valid would be if both players agreed to build thier armies to a set number of points and to a set number of kill points.

H.B.M.C. wrote:So you're saying it is easier to cheat KP's than VP's. And Jonny says that it is "almost impossible to cheat your opponent out of KPs".

Of course you can't both be right? My money's on Pariah.

BYE

Mine too. If you think it's not possible to cheat your opponent out of KP's, then check out Moz's battle report.

It's actually very easy to keep KPs safe. The annihilation games I've played have seen weakened squads running away from the enemy, ripper swarms spending entire battles picnicing behind bunkers, and always the frantic "ohcraphehaslesskpsthanme" calculation at the start.

Playing a KP game as IG feels *very* "unGuardy".

Instead of trying to wear your opponent down through attrition, throwing squads to their death. You end up holding back, and running away when you get threatened.

IG is just so bloated in KP that you have to guard your Guard, which to me is not that fun :(

Uhh....for me, 40k is not that fun, hence my current obsession with Fantasy.

I'm just hoping that Guard become killy enough that we can simply table our opponents and not worry about KPs.

Just you wait, Guard plasma guns will go up to 25 points a piece and have Gets Hot! on a result of 1 or 2 to hit. Grenade launchers will become Krak: S6 ap4 blast , Frag : S4 ap5 large blast and come free with ten men. Also Guard missile launchers will be heavy2, autocannons will go up by ten points in cost, and priests will get preferred enemy and 4 eviscerator attacks but stay at t3 and 2W, with an option to buy flack armor for 15 points.

On the KP issue, I just had a game a few weeks ago where my buddy hid the last Chaos Chosen from a squad in a landraider for the last turns of the game. The bloody thing would not explode, so the kill point was denied. He also had significantly fewer KPs than my marines due to taking expensive things like the landraider instead of lots of dreads etc. From the get go I was disadvantaged, not that it made the game less fun between friends, but it turned what was largely a slaughter for me (I had a huge number of units left to his 3) into a very near thing.

Back to IG rumors, do you think a permenant +1 to cover saves would not be worth 20 points? Even if it got it all the time? (no cover becomes 6+, etc.) It might depend on the board you play on and the terrain that can block 50% of a vehicle, but geting a 3+ cover save on a AV14 Russ sounds pretty daunting to crack. Like a marine without the AP or massed small arms fire vulnerability.

I dunno. Camo improves survivabilty by 17%, but does nothing for firepower or mobility. So it's worth 5 to 10%, which would be 10-15 pts.

I would be okay with 10 points. 15 is a little high, extra armor costs this much and I've yet to see it taken widely. If it's something like, vehicle counts as obscured if it doesn 't move, then I'd would expect 15 points would work.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm just hoping that Guard become killy enough that we can simply table our opponents and not worry about KPs.

So should we take your lack of answer as a concession, that you can 'cheat' an opponent out of KP's just as you could VP's?

BYE

I'm pretty sure that's the best you can hope for, H.B.M.C.

Shep wrote:field artillery. Orks have artillery units, eldar have artillery units, space marines have artillery units... it would be an absolute travesty if guard doesn't end up getting an artillery unit. It's not very characterful for space marines and eldar to dig in and set up artillery positions. And that is such an iconic guard thing to do.

So? White Scars can get artillery and fortify defenses. Iron Warriors can't. Go figure.

I really don't want to get involved in this KP vs VP discussion. I am fine with both systems. I prefer VP however. That being said I thought about H.B.M.C.'s question about KP and VP denial. I have an answer or at least a theory. I could care less by the way.

KP denial is easy to do. Hide a small unit like 40pt unit. While attacking with the 500pt unit. One obviously takes longer to kill and has more killy power. So you put your best units forward and hide the weak, often small and easy to hide, units. So you end up with what plays like a normal game for the most part.

VP denial is not AS easy to do, but not hard either. As the point is to hide a expensive unit from death. However this is pretty much the reverse tatic of KP denial. Your large squad and expensive squad often have harder times hiding and even if they do the weaker (less expensive) units are doing the fighting for them. So if your opponent is doing this to you you simply hit him with everything and he gets killed badly, in theory. So it would tend to be a mix of tatics here that pretty much make for a normal game. Yes there are always exceptions but I just don't see the vast majority of people abusing either system.

My conclusion is that they are not much different. KP still has the flaw that some armies have fewer and some have a ton. This is the inherent problem. I like the stelek-casper-????? kill point system. It seems to even the playing field.

Just my 2 cents...

Sha1emade wrote:I really don't want to get involved in this KP vs VP discussion. I am fine with both systems. I prefer VP however. That being said I thought about H.B.M.C.'s question about KP and VP denial. I have an answer or at least a theory. I could care less by the way.

KP denial is easy to do. Hide a small unit like 40pt unit. While attacking with the 500pt unit. One obviously takes longer to kill and has more killy power. So you put your best units forward and hide the weak, often small and easy to hide, units. So you end up with what plays like a normal game for the most part.

VP denial is not AS easy to do, but not hard either. As the point is to hide a expensive unit from death. However this is pretty much the reverse tatic of KP denial. Your large squad and expensive squad often have harder times hiding and even if they do the weaker (less expensive) units are doing the fighting for them. So if your opponent is doing this to you you simply hit him with everything and he gets killed badly, in theory. So it would tend to be a mix of tatics here that pretty much make for a normal game. Yes there are always exceptions but I just don't see the vast majority of people abusing either system.

My conclusion is that they are not much different. KP still has the flaw that some armies have fewer and some have a ton. This is the inherent problem. I like the stelek-casper-????? kill point system. It seems to even the playing field.

Just my 2 cents...

VP denial, at least in 40k & WHFB terms, involves taking extremely hard to kill units, and adding additional points to them to reduce the points available for your opponent to get, unless they manage to crack the super-unit. (See, over the the WHFB Tactics forum, the discussion of "Death Star" units.) Under 4e, 3 Eldar Falcons loaded with Fire Dragons made for good VP-denial choices: they were very hard to actually kill, and protected a significant chunk of the army's points, while still being useful.

VP denial, at least in 40k & WHFB terms, involves taking extremely hard to kill units, and adding additional points to them to reduce the points available for your opponent to get, unless they manage to crack the super-unit. (See, over the the WHFB Tactics forum, the discussion of "Death Star" units.) Under 4e, 3 Eldar Falcons loaded with Fire Dragons made for good VP-denial choices: they were very hard to actually kill, and protected a significant chunk of the army's points, while still being useful.

But isn't this something you might do anyway just to be effective in normal non KP or VP games? That unit and others like it are usually part of a persons list anyway. I was thinking more on the tactics of denial more then the list building aspect of it.

Sha1emade wrote:

VP denial, at least in 40k & WHFB terms, involves taking extremely hard to kill units, and adding additional points to them to reduce the points available for your opponent to get, unless they manage to crack the super-unit. (See, over the the WHFB Tactics forum, the discussion of "Death Star" units.) Under 4e, 3 Eldar Falcons loaded with Fire Dragons made for good VP-denial choices: they were very hard to actually kill, and protected a significant chunk of the army's points, while still being useful.

But isn't this something you might do anyway just to be effective in normal non KP or VP games? That unit and others like it are usually part of a persons list anyway. I was thinking more on the tactics of denial more then the list building aspect of it.

Again, I'll direct you to the "Death Star" thread in WHFB Tactics. The metagame consideration of "how do I keep my opponent from claiming VPs?" creates the strategy. In, say, a purely objective-based mission, "Death Star" units are much less optimal. (In 4e 40k, the best example was probably the uber-Seer Council, where a single 20+ strong mob of Warlocks with rerollable 4+ invulnerable saves & rerollable ld 10 protected points. But for objectives other than VP, it wasn't an optimal unit.) And, as usual, some lists are much better at VP denial than others.

To return the conversation to 40k & 5e, the problem here is that some armies cope with KP scenarios, in conjunction with objective scenarios, much better than others. In particular, Orks do very well in either (30-boy mobs are a single KP, lead to a low total KP count, and can claim quite a few objectives); Space Marines get Combat Squad rules to actually change the number of units they field, depending on which scenario comes up.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Shep wrote:field artillery. Orks have artillery units, eldar have artillery units, space marines have artillery units... it would be an absolute travesty if guard doesn't end up getting an artillery unit. It's not very characterful for space marines and eldar to dig in and set up artillery positions. And that is such an iconic guard thing to do.

So? White Scars can get artillery and fortify defenses. Iron Warriors can't. Go figure.

If there were ever an army to play as 'counts as' space marines. Iron warriors are them. I have scoured the GT rules for 'counts as' and the space marine and chaos space marine section in the GT rule packet.

Looks perfectly legal to me to play your iron warriors as space marines.

Not that it has anything to do with IG.