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.

I've been seeing a lot about Kill Points and have even let myself get sucked into bashing the system. I Just wanted to step back and try to look at solutions from a different point of view.

KPs hurt in a third of the missions. What if you build to be strong in the other two-thirds? Could that be a Tourny winning strategy?

Is it that KPs are that overpowering? Or is it poor tournament structure where ties are determined by *Win big=massacre & Little win=tie instead* of victory points(which is suggested in the BRB)?



I'd appreciate any thoughts, Thanks



*Edited out KP as tie breaker comment as it was used in only a single small local tournament and therefor not helpful to the topic.

KPs were probably meant as a method to balance the other two missions which are linked to the sheer number of squads you're capable of fielding (more scoring/contensting units means more chances to score and contest). I think the real problem is the mission with two bases, in its place should have been a system not linked to troop scoring ability or the number of units on the table. That way KPs would have really only been an issue in a third of games, just as having mass numbers of squads would have been an issue in a third. How the twin bases got through the system baffles me, it's just asinine and is virtually impossible for many armies to deal with.

As for tourney tie breakers, I've never been in one that utilized KPs for tie breaking. Usually multiple rounds and the big win/massacre/little win/tie system breaks up the places enough to determine who wins. Ties really are only unacceptable in elimination matches, which have been less and less common ever since fifth came out in my experience.

Could you give more in depth description of How the twin base mission is a problem in your point of view.

Its the mission that almost always ends up as a tie for me.

KP missions are more fun to play than the mission with 2 objectives. The latter almost always ends with a tie.
At the GT final, GW decided to use VPs as a secondary score for determining a (proper) ranking.

focusedfire wrote:Is it that KPs are that overpowering? Or is it poor tournament structure where ties are determined by KPs(Not suggested anywhere in the Big Rule Book) instead of victory points(what is suggested in the BRB)?

If this is happening, it most definitely is poor tournament structure.

I'm one of the few who don't mind kill points, but they should not be in more than 1/3 of the games.

(If the two objective mission is decided by kill points in case of tie, it's essentially another kill point mission, as all you have to do is squat on your own objective to win by kill points.)

I personaly wonder exactly how high they were when they decided to use the killpoint system. That piece of gak makes 2nd edtion 40k/4th edition fantasy victory point system look balanced as that system is vagualy based on points value.

just wondering, really

So, tournaments aren't really using that as a tie break system. A couple of players I know were complaining about a small local tourny where they decided ties in that manner.


I don't know if I should edit the original post or just ask everyone to ingnore the KP as tie breaker comment and ask instead if a tie should be just a tie and a win is a win without the big win/massacre small win/tie.


Is it ok with everyyone if I edit the original post?

There done.

So is it viable to build for two thirds of the missions if your completly boned on the other third by the nature of your army?