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.

Just wondering what thoughts are on this.

In 5e people will already be taking troops for objectives so there's less of a need to discourage Elite/FA/HS slots. If they are 1 KP it makes it more fair imo since I don't really see how 1000pts of Elites could be 3 times as valuable as 1000pts of Troops. By keeping it 1 KP per slot it just discourages min/maxing squad sizes and force org slots i.e. 3x1 Landspeeders instead of 1x3.

Yep.

Or at least something like 3 for Troops, 4 for most others, 5 for HQ. Or something similar.

And if transports double a unit's KP that they give up as they seem to do (lame!), it would make more sense to do the above 3/4/5 scheme and make transports worth 1 KP.

Wait; that's not how it is? It makes sense from a rules point of view as well as a fluff one...you'd be encouraging large platoons for IG and large MEQ squads as well. As it stands, transports get another kick in the &@))$ as well as combat squads etc. On the other hand, my ravenwing would totally own...

No, It's still stupid if everything is worth 1 KP, because it still doesn't take into account the value of the squad at all.

Why should 10 grey knights worth 275 points be equal to 32 spinegaunts worth 160 points.

What about the unique armies that get to field elites / or fast attacks as troops.

Seriously, it's a terrible system and will remain that way. Smaller more elite forces thrive on hard to kill models, But these hard to kill models are the same ones that are causing your army to be worth less Kill Points than someone elses. When you can slap two armies down opposite eachother with 10 Potential Kill Points difference between them it's not an even match at all.

Savnock wrote:Or at least something like 3 for Troops, 4 for most others, 5 for HQ. Or something similar.

That is a pretty good idea. It does away with the incrementing KP by multiples stupidity.

Drunkspleen wrote:No, It's still stupid if everything is worth 1 KP, because it still doesn't take into account the value of the squad at all.

Why should 10 grey knights worth 275 points be equal to 32 spinegaunts worth 160 points.

What about the unique armies that get to field elites / or fast attacks as troops.

Seriously, it's a terrible system and will remain that way. Smaller more elite forces thrive on hard to kill models, But these hard to kill models are the same ones that are causing your army to be worth less Kill Points than someone elses. When you can slap two armies down opposite eachother with 10 Potential Kill Points difference between them it's not an even match at all.

I gather the rationale for kill points was to discourage min/maxed squads. Moving it towards a points system encourages min/max actually. Unique armies that field elites/fast attacks shouldn't be worth less kill points because those squads are troops imo. The example of 10 GK vs 32 Spinegaunts would show that a competitive Nidzilla list with 2 troops, 3 elites, 3 heavies and 2 hq would be 10 KP in 1500pts. A GK list might be something like 5-7 KP at the same pts level. The GK would therefore have a much needed KP advantage over the Nid list.

I think we have the beginnings of my 5th ed. house rules list, then. It's definitely too early to tell, but if the KP system blows liek we think it will, I'm putting the 3/4/5 and 1 for transports rule up on the FLGS wall the day 5th comes out.