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

So, in reading though the total annihilation rules for 5th edition, something occurred to me. The victory conditions for the mission state that at the end of the game, you total up how many kill points you and your opponent scored and whoever has more wins. In the vein of uncovering silly stuff that can go on in what may end up being the next edition of 40k, I was wondering what happens if you get totally annihilated? Well as it is now, if you designed an army that had very few kill points to give up and you fought an army (read IG) that came to the game with a lot of potential kill points, you could very well score more kill points than your entire army is worth. Following that, you could also have you entire army wiped out (not a single model left on the board) and still win the game due to scoring more kill points than your opponent.

Silly huh?

Sure. My 1994 Hyundai car gets totaled crashing into a brand new Porsche which only gets a few dents. The damage on the Porsche is still more.

SAFH/Conservation Marines are the Hyundai and Guardsmen are the Porsche. Every Guardsman is a precious irreplaceable commodity. It makes sense that the Guard could wipe out a Marine strike-force entirely but still lose the battle because they lost a bunch of Infantry Platoons in the process.

Mind you, it does note that dedicated transports are "the same as the unit they are selected with."

It seems clear to me that you'd have to destroy the entire Force Organization slot (or force all units selected from it) to gain a kill point. That's right, you'd need to destroy or break an entire Imperial Guard Infantry Platoon to get one measly kill-point.

Incidentally, anyone ever watch that "Father Ted" episode with the priest that deliberately smashes stuff and then declares it to be shoddily made?

I've killed a few armies to a man and still lost.

Primarily because of the transports = slot KP rule.

Makes for a very boring game if you ask me.

"How many points is that worth?"

"1."

"How many points is that worth?"

"3."

"I'll shoot that."

"Congrats, your army is dead but now you win."

"Thanks, I got mad skillz."

"Yeah."

Asmodai wrote:Sure. My 1994 Hyundai car gets totaled crashing into a brand new Porsche which only gets a few dents. The damage on the Porsche is still more.

SAFH/Conservation Marines are the Hyundai and Guardsmen are the Porsche. Every Guardsman is a precious irreplaceable commodity. It makes sense that the Guard could wipe out a Marine strike-force entirely but still lose the battle because they lost a bunch of Infantry Platoons in the process.

Wow Asmodai, you logic is impecawhatchamacallit. You should work for GW.

All those poor Guardsmen.

Nurglitch wrote:Mind you, it does note that dedicated transports are "the same as the unit they are selected with."

It seems clear to me that you'd have to destroy the entire Force Organization slot (or force all units selected from it) to gain a kill point. That's right, you'd need to destroy or break an entire Imperial Guard Infantry Platoon to get one measly kill-point.

Incidentally, anyone ever watch that "Father Ted" episode with the priest that deliberately smashes stuff and then declares it to be shoddily made?

I do not interpret rules as you.

The pre-release PDF, or at least the version I managed to download, states that :

At the end of the game, each player receives a variable number of ‘kill points’ for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed or is falling back.
(...), and units from the Troops section are worth 1 kill point each.
Dedicated transports are always the same as the unit they are elected with.

So for example, a fully mechanized platoon of guards is worth 1 K.Pt. for each squad and 1 K.Pt. for each Chimera, all taken separately. But a chimera given to HQ is worth 3 K.Pts.


Anyway, I agree that kill points counting is weird.

Nurglitch wrote:Mind you, it does note that dedicated transports are "the same as the unit they are selected with."

It seems clear to me that you'd have to destroy the entire Force Organization slot (or force all units selected from it) to gain a kill point. That's right, you'd need to destroy or break an entire Imperial Guard Infantry Platoon to get one measly kill-point.

Incidentally, anyone ever watch that "Father Ted" episode with the priest that deliberately smashes stuff and then declares it to be shoddily made?

Gah, that's even worse, just take 3 maxed out infantry platoons and an HQ, the max your army will give out is 6.

Ravajaxe: I'm not interpreting the rules, I'm commenting on how they can be applied by reasonable people. Two different things, I'm afraid. It should be interesting to see how the final version turns out, considering that the reference to 'units' results in the sort of problems pointed out by this thread's original poster.

Ravenous D: According to the pdf the missions are rolled for randomly. Taking three full Infantry Platoons and a full HQ choice may work nicely in a Total Annihilation game, also poorly for Recon or Take and Hold. Still, 1/3 ain't bad, right?

3 nobs with a battlewagon => 6 kps? woot.

Hell, I can top that.

8 pathfinders = 3 points.
pathfinder devilfish = 3 points
The unit of 2 gundrones that disembark from devilfish = 3 points

9 KP up for grabs. Totally lame.

How about Ravenwing? Sammael and three full squads with all the toys makes a 1500 army that I believe hits a mighty 6 kill points! For everything!!

As it stands now KP in general just sounds absolutely slowed to me, it just forces people not to use high KP models and field large units. I suppose theyre doing this as a pathetic attempt at killing of min/maxing?

Yes, that is indeed the 'design concept'.

Lots of ways to fix the game, this isn't the way.

Hopefully it will go the way of the dodo or be fixed so it isn't so blatantly bad.

Seems fine to me, particularly since games judged on kill points are mixed in with those games that require players to capture objectives, requiring that players balance their forces so that they can be successful in either.

When you say balance, you mean 'play the way we want or else you can't win and feth you'? That is the message everyone seems to be getting. Maybe GW should note this and correct the problem before people refuse to use GW's gakky scenario system, eh?

Once you play 5th a few times, you'll realize you cannot balance for all 3 missions. So you end up playing whatever you want, and get dicked in 1/3 of your missions.

2/3 for some armies.

Gee, how fun.

When I say 'balance' I mean create a well-rounded army that rewards good game-play. Mind you, the game already does that, but you wouldn't think it by the way people talk. Having played three games using the 5th edition rules floating around, I'm not inclined to jump to premature conclusions. That said I find my Marine force well-balanced for all three missions, particularly when I use them as Blood Angels and employ Combat Squads. But then they were designed to be well-rounded.

What balance? 80 Necron warriors and a lord. Done.

5 scoring unit for the 2/3 of the missions that require objectives, and 7 kill points max for the last 1/3.

Yup, balance.

Looks balanced to me. Assault the Necron Warriors, and mop them up, or simply wipe them out with 25"+ fire. Capture the objectives at your leisure, and the game's in the bag. It'd certainly be interesting to try, rather than just play 'top-trumps' with army lists.

Jayden63 wrote:What balance? 80 Necron warriors and a lord. Done.

5 scoring unit for the 2/3 of the missions that require objectives, and 7 kill points max for the last 1/3.

Yup, balance.

If by done you mean "done making the weakest army list i can possibly make"

warriors without monoliths are MEAT against assault armies. especially under 5th edition rules.

Lots of people are going to make 6 troop choice armies and a single HQ, Lots of them are going to get mauled by people who take 3-4 quality troops choices, and support/attack/elite choices that chew through lightly armed troops choices with ease.

Jayden63 wrote:What balance? 80 Necron warriors and a lord. Done.

5 scoring unit for the 2/3 of the missions that require objectives, and 7 kill points max for the last 1/3.

Yup, balance.

Nope not balance, fodder for my dark reapers...or better: AP3 ordnance!
Mhhhh...bunched up necron warriors!

Greets
Schepp himself

I eagerly await the day they get rid of Phase Out so I can take LESS warriors. As is I feel like I'm required to cram in as many as I can to beef up my Necron count.

Schepp himself wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:What balance? 80 Necron warriors and a lord. Done.

5 scoring unit for the 2/3 of the missions that require objectives, and 7 kill points max for the last 1/3.

Yup, balance.

Nope not balance, fodder for my dark reapers...or better: AP3 ordnance!
Mhhhh...bunched up necron warriors!

Greets
Schepp himself

I'm not picking on you specifically, I just needed to quote someone who had this line of thought. Your missing the point. I wont be playing against you. I'll be playing the mission objectives. How can you win in total annihilation when I spend my first three turns killing 8 Kp of fast attack and heavy support. How can you win in the other missions when all I do is concentrate on killing your 2-3 troops, and keep only one unit safe to make a last turn objective grab. See the problem?

Usually there's another player involved in a game. Unless you're solo-gaming, then it's easy to play the mission objectives. I have a 60-0-0 w/t/l record when I'm solo-gaming.

Your still missing the point. What are you going to do? Hide all your FA, HS, HQ, and Elites all game. All I brought are troops. All I have to do is kill more KP in expensive fast attack and elite than I brought and I auto win at the end of the game. It doesn't matter if I am wiped out to the man as long as I somehow take 8 KP out with me. In some armies thats just 3 units.

Thats the point. Some armies can do this. Others have no chance.

I don't play in a bubble. I play on the table. We already know how to take out important enemy units, everybody does. Now its just a matter of choosing different units to take out. I'll happily sacrifice a troop unit if I know I'll take one of your HS with me. Its a better trade.

Thanks to this, 40K has really developed a rock/paper/sissors feeling. Even more so than before.

Unfortunately Jayden, you are missing the point.

Gone are the days of well thought out, tactical discussion supported by facts and numbers.

To be a Dakkite now is to be one of many, drowned out beneath the screaming wail of the "I CAN PLAY BETTERICON". In the grim darkness of the vast present, there is only blatant, unverifiable, sweeping generalizations.

Have you noticed lately that certain people don't post here anymore? Have you looked at the tactics forums? When was the last time anyone had a meaningful discussion about the effectiveness of said unit, that didn't involve, "Well I don't have any trouble with them and if they work for you, go for it." While its nice to pat ourselves on the back and play nice from time to time, it really doesn't get us anywhere trying to advance our knowledge of the game.

Maybe this recent stagnation has to do with the 4th edition rules being at the end of their era, and people are just waiting for 5th with bated breath. Maybe there is another reason too.

The point is, Jayden, you lost the argument the moment you hit the "Post Reply" button. You cannot argue with "Any army can beat the Lash."

I always thought tactics was about how to use a unit effectively, rather than which units are effective (which is strategy). Could be wrong though.

Incidentally I would like to hear how an all Troops army kills more kill-points worth of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support than it is itself worth. I could do with the tactical edification, apparently.

If your interpretation of whole Guard infantry platoons being worth 1 KP is correct, upwards of 500pts being worth 1 KP is one way to have 5-7 KP in an entire army. I'm fairly certain they would be able to kill some combination of units worth as many KP before 100-200 Guardsmen are wiped out in detail.

If your interpretation is wrong, the previously mentioned Necron warrior list would have a fantastically easy time getting 8+ KP from any assembly of Guard.

[Edit] Rereading your post, that is probably not what you wanted. However, I do believe it accurately represents how boned someone is going to get. The KP system doesn’t work at all for Guard, and it doesn’t work well for many other armies.

Nids get lucky with Zoanthropes though... a unit of them count as 2kp, but they can be deployed without coherency and act independently. Buy three Zoanthropes, spread them across the field in deployment & the enemy has to get ALL THREE of them for the 2 KP.

Other armies have similar working units I believe also.

I'm curious how the game designers (i.e., M.Sc.'s in English Literature) will justify the KP system.

Has the KP system been confirmed? I know that the leaked PDF is rather out of date, so do we have a more recent quality source on this rumor?