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.

Suppose Kill Points were scored as follows:
+2 KP per HQ unit destroyed
+1 KP per Elite / Fast / Heavy unit destroyed
+4 KP if *ALL* Troops destroyed
+3 KP if *ALL* Dedicated Transports destroyed

For the most part, this is still 1 KP per unit, with a few tweaks:
- HQ is worth more
- Troops are all-or-nothing. Numbers of Troops trade equally well against large blocks of Troops, as KPs are "safe" as long as some Troops remain. Small total Troop counts are penalized.
- Dedicated Transports are all-or-nothing. Mechanized forces are not penalized unduly for their relative fragility.

Recall, the goals of 5th Edition were to:
- increase importance of Troops
- increase mobility
- decrease reliance on Heavy / Fast / Elite / HQ
- reduce min/max army building in favor of "Fluffy" armies

For the Objectives Missions, GW did a pretty good job of this:
- only Troops are Scoring
- reduced cost of Dedicated Transports in newer Codices

But for Kill Points Scenarios, GW kind of dropped the ball.
- players are penalized (1 KP/unit) for taking Troops
- players are penalized (1 KP/unit) for taking Transports
IOW, in KPs, GW penalizes players for following the primary goals.

So the above proposal tries to remove the some of the penalties of taking Troops and Transports, while still having a balanced risk.

OTOH, the builds you mention that are penalized for taking Troops and Transports in a KP mission are rewarded for doing so in an objective-grabbing mission. I'd say that since (based on the basic missions outlined) they seem to be pointing at a 2-to-1 ratio of objectives-to-KPs, they've set up a pretty nice system. If you go gung-ho on numbers of Troops and numbers of dedicated transports, you have a big leg up on objective missions and a disadvantage at KPs. If you go the other way, it's opposite. Rather than create a system where they only reward Troop-and-transport spam with all missions, which will lead to the same types of armies over and over again and will reward some codices more than others, they've given a variety. Some types of armies will be stronger in some games, other types in others. They've "encouraged" the Troops-and-Transports thing enough by having 2/3 of the missions cater to them and only 1/3 be a problem. Seems like it's a pretty good system of encouraging a certain type of list without essentially shoving it down our throats.

Some issues spring to mind with your modified KPs system. One big one is dedicated transports... let's say my static Tau army wants some markerlight support in the form of Pathfinders. Well, they have to take Devilfish, so a squad of Pathfinders suddenly introduces a floating buffet of 3 KPs in their one dedicated transport. What's the answer? Change up the entire army to take lots of Devilfish to mitigate this? Or just don't field that unit? Neither seems very ideal. I don't think blanket values for certain selections are the way to go, regardless of how you approach it. It'll always hurt someone. The way KPs are right now is pretty decent, as the only consideration is the absolute number of units in the army. Yeah, it hurts up IG, but I'd imagine that'll be addressed in their forthcoming codex.

Honestly, if you really want a system of "modified KPs" that doesn't penalize Troops and Transports or does something else to even things out, they already have a system for that. It's VPs. Troops are generally cheap, dedicated transports are generally cheap, HQ are generally expensive, it all works out to mostly what you're trying to do. I say if people really have that much of a problem with the way KPs work, feel free to run KPs missions as VPs at your LGSs. See if it feels more balanced that way. It might be an easier solution than trying to hash out some new brand of KPs.

sirisaacnuton wrote:Rather than create a system where they only reward Troop-and-transport spam with all missions, which will lead to the same types of armies over and over again and will reward some codices more than others, they've given a variety.

I prefer a scoring / measurement system where the design biases are simple and obvious. Right now, the system is largely anti-Transport, because Transports are the easiest source of KPs.

sirisaacnuton wrote:Some issues spring to mind with your modified KPs system. One big one is dedicated transports... let's say my static Tau army wants some markerlight support in the form of Pathfinders. Well, they have to take Devilfish, so a squad of Pathfinders suddenly introduces a floating buffet of 3 KPs in their one dedicated transport. What's the answer? Change up the entire army to take lots of Devilfish to mitigate this? Or just don't field that unit?

GW will tell the Tau player to buy and field lots more Devilfish, in the same way that all of those SM players with 6-man Las/Plas are going to buy and field lots more Bolter Marines. If the Tau player shelves the Pathfinders, he needs to spend the points on something else, such as a brand new Scoring unit of Kroot or Warriors. Either way, GW wins.

If the single-Devilfish Tau players get screwed, too bad. It's still playable, just less competitive. And worst case, he simply hides the Devilfish behind the Railheads.

The idea that global rules should be sensitive certain armies or specific builds shouldn't matter. The game overall benefits, and GW's pocketbook increases as players retool for the new edition.

sirisaacnuton wrote:I don't think blanket values for certain selections are the way to go, regardless of how you approach it. It'll always hurt someone.

Exactly. It'll always hurt someone. I'm proposing we drop the hammer on min Troops first, then perhaps Transports.

So perhaps, it should be 5 pts for ALL Troops, 2 pts for ALL Dedicated Transports, but that's just tweaking vs the overall concept.

sirisaacnuton wrote:Yeah, it hurts up IG, but I'd imagine that'll be addressed in their forthcoming codex.

I sure hope this would be the case, as you'd like to see large IG Platoons on the field. But as-is, Mech Guard are a non-starter.

sirisaacnuton wrote:Honestly, if you really want a system of "modified KPs" that doesn't penalize Troops and Transports or does something else to even things out, they already have a system for that. It's VPs.

VPs have a fundamental problems with hidden numbers. KPs can be calculated at a glance - there's no guesswork involved. If I kill that Veteran unit, I get a KP. If I kill that Hellhound, I get a KP. Very simple, very clear. You can make very clear tactical decisions on how to capture or protect KPs.

And VPs also have maths problems, because people make mistakes in counting and calculating simple math. Determining half strength for half-points. Adding properly. It should be simple, but often isn't.

I don't like the concept of kill points as they are now because kill points does not take into account the points value and toughness of a unit. You get the same kill point for killing an easy to kill 40 pt 8 gaunt squad as you get for killing a hard to kill 400 pt Wraithguard or Terminator Squad. A small elite army with tough hard units gives up less kill points then a swarm army with lots of units and mechanized gets worse as you give up more kill points for transports.

I think Kill points should be awarded 1 per 0-100 pt unit 2 kill points for 101-200 pt unit, etc. I guess you can keep the HQ counting as double for a reward for killing leaders. All troops kill bonus sounds good too. Yeah there is more math involved but there is no half points and the math is simpler then victory points and it takes into account expensive units.

My opinion is that KPs are presented in the book are broken, for the reasons we are familiar with.

A number of different systems have been proposed for alleviating the problems, however they all add complication.

I prefer the points value system to all the alternative KP fixes so far presented.

If VPs could be quickly counted on a man's appendages (maximum 21), then they'd be fine. But people often make mistakes counting VPs, and those mistakes are very hard for an opponent to catch, especially if they don't know the details of an army.

KPs fundamentally change that because the opponent is always aware of how many KPs are available, and how many KPs have been scored. There is no way to cheat an opponent out of a KP.

IMO, KPs would be OK if they were 1 per FOC slot, although people seem to be uncomfortable with that for some reason.

My proposal here is kind of an "extreme" version of the 1 per FOC slot.

Oh, well.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If VPs could be quickly counted on a man's appendages (maximum 21),

Ha!

JohnHwangDD wrote:
IMO, KPs would be OK if they were 1 per FOC slot, although people seem to be uncomfortable with that for some reason.

My proposal here is kind of an "extreme" version of the 1 per FOC slot.

Well this still has the same problems as the regular KP, but in the other way. Do you have to kill all the guys in all 4-5 Guard squads to get 1 KP for that FOC slot? Do you have to shoot down the Banshees' Wave Serpent after they're all dead to get the point? Do you get no benefit at all for killing Death Company?

No matter how you slice it, Kill Points just really can't be made balanced. But the way they do it now, the balance goes against armies that have a ton of small, expendable squads, who have an advantage in objective missions. So at least the imbalance swings it back the other way to balance things out. If it was 1 pt per FOC slot, then that combat-squadded Marine squad and their Rhino could control/contest 3 objectives in and objective game AND still only be 1 KP (even if they don't combine back into one squad). At least the ones most penalized by this system have some of the most advantage in the other missions, and vice versa. No sense in doubly-rewarding certain armies and doubly-hurting others.

That's kind of the point, and really, just to stir discussion on different potential approaches.

IMO, it would be easier to kill 55 Guardsmen than 20 Nurgle Terminators to score the KP.

Also, I think the Wave Serpent is a Dedicated Transport, and therefore not part of the FOC - that is why I score all Dedicated Transport separately.

Death Company and Lesser Daemons don't score KPs. They're suicide squads.


Actually, the point was specifically to double (or triple) benefit certain types of armies (Troops heavy), and triple-penalize certain types of armies ("min-max").

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this in 6th Edition. GW probably figured that we weren't ready for this big of a change.

I think that for every point killed, the player should get a kill point. Since the system is so drastically different from kill points, we should call it something else. How about "Victory Points?"

On a serious note, next time I get a 5th edition game going with my Grey Knights and someone else's guard... I'll give your system a try, I'm sure he won't mind.

Our FLGS has the following house rule:

Each unit is worth <armypoints value>/# of units in army
It keeps the kill point idea a bit, but also balances the system