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.

Kill points, in my opinion, is one of two things I find wrong in what has become my favorite edition of the game I have played thus far. (Split charging is the other).

The problem with Kill Points is that it is too unforgiving. There is no way to have a truely "even" game, one person will have more kill points then the other and instantly be at a disadvantage.

The goal of this system is two fold; first to put most army lists on an even footing, second maintain a simplistic system.

I tried to address some issues people are having with them. A lot of people like how simple the system is but most prefer the old method of Victory Points.

So here is how I proposed calculating Kill Points:

Find the cost of a unit and follow this formula:

0 - 100 = 1 KP
101 - 200 = 2 KP
201 - 300 = 3 KP
301 - 400 = 4 KP
401 - 500 = 5 KP
501 - 600 = 6 KP
601 - 700 = 7 KP
701 - 800 = 8 KP
801 - 900 = 9 KP
901 - 1000 = 10 KP

Basically, if it is a separate unit you follow the chart above. But the same conditions apply though, you have to wipe the unit in order to get the points.

This system I think balances the amount of KPs lost by "suicidal" units (like IG drop Veterans) whilst painting a big bulls eye on big super units. Are Nob Bikers worth it is instead of counting as 2 or 3 kill points, they count as 10?

And the simplicity is still there

What do you think?

Doesn't this fight against the main thing about Kps? That there won't be armies that have multiple small units.

Also, this encourages players to have 100pt, 200pt, ect... units, and hurts players that have 101pt, 201pt, ect... units. The different of one point determines an entire kill point. Sorry, but I think this idea is fail.

Kill points are fine, its just that people have learn to design their armies with kill points in mind. The only army that has a legitimate gripe against kill points is IG, and hopefully the new codex will address that. There are advantages to having several small units as opposed to larger units and kill points is designed to counter-act that. If you want to build an army that can give up a lot of kill points, that is something you will have to live with and not necessarily a fault in the kill point system. The whole point of the mission is to encourage people to make lists that contain fewer but larger units. No more space marines using all three FA choices for 3 land speeders. You can still do such things and it won't hurt you in 2/3 of the missions, but you have to be prepared for that 1/3 chance. There are still some flaws in the KP system, such as spore mines and gun drones from vehicles, but those are minor issues that can be changed and not inherent flaws with the KP system.

Any system that encourages people to play less fun armies is flawed. The 3 seperate land speeders is more fun than the one squadron of 3 speeders.

Really the only way to fix it is to bring back victory points.

Or you could combine your theory and victory points and just add up the total killed (like victory points) and then apply your chart to convert it to kill points. Granted, it seems like more like victory points in the end, but really isn't that what was better?

anticitizen013 wrote:Really the only way to fix it is to bring back victory points.

Or you could combine your theory and victory points and just add up the total killed (like victory points) and then apply your chart to convert it to kill points. Granted, it seems like more like victory points in the end, but really isn't that what was better?

This creates another issue itself. The way the standard missions are structured 2/3 missions give a huge advantage to armies with multiple small units. If you have twice as many scoring units as i do im likely to have a problem winning objective based missions. KP missions are the balance to counter this. Now if you have twice as many units as i do you are the one with the problem.

As stated before, the only army that this really effects are IG, but that will be fixed in their new codex. Appart from that all you have to do is build your armies in a different way and KP wont be a problem.

You know, what you propose is very similar to how things were scored in 2E. However, in 2E, KPs were rounded to the nearest 100, so:
0-49 = NO KP
50-149 = 1 KP
150-249 = 2 KPs
etc.

Some people would Characters of up to 49 pts to deny points...

I kind of like this idea.. my impression of KP was that they were put in place to simplify the victory point system from 4ed. If that were the true goal of it, 5ed's KP system is a gross over simplification as a 10-man unit of terminators could easily burn through 5 KP worth of guard while only costing 1 KP themselves. In this system, kitted out 10 man termi squads would cost 5 KP and would make them a high priority target. It would also even the field out for bike squads, who're already at a disadvantage due to small squad sizes..

I don't like the idea that much because people can (and will) build an army with many units close to the 100 (200, 300 etc) point mark as possible to basically metagame.

Also the idea that people just need to learn to build their armies around kill points doesn't feel right to me. Many armies can take squads of 20 models if they want, but it doesn't change the fact that some armies are just going to have inherently less kill points that others, Grey knights for example.

I agree with people who say that we just need to bring VP back. Its seems to be the only system that can fairly judge a victory. In fact the 5th edition rule book actually includes the victory point rules (many people don't realise this) its just an additional "if you want to try it this way" kinda thing hidden in the back of the book (pg 300).

Having more kill points means you have more things that can contest or capture. Armies with less kill points will be at an advantage for annhilation, but more strategically limited when it comes to the other two missions.

Unfortunately armies with less kill points do not tend to be more strategically limited when it comes to the other two missions. Certain armies can have 4-6 large, difficult to kill, effective in assault troops choices and be set - plenty flexible to contest or control all points, and give up few kill points. Maybe this is a problem with Kill Points + only troops can control + some codexes have much better troops...but that still makes it a problem with KPs because the other two things are not going away.

The suggestion here is a fine one but it's still close enough to VPs that I don't see why you wouldn't just go with VPs. You'll have people gaming the system otherwise to make their units 195 points or something whatever you make the cutoff at.

Those of you who claim that lots of KPs gives an advantage for objective mission aren't thinking the whole thing through. An army with lots of units can probably (at least for one turn) claim all the objectives on the board, but as long as a single enemy unit can contest an objective held by 5 units of the MSU army, there's no actual advantage in having all those units.
Change the objective capturing to take the number of units sitting on the X into account and I'll agree with you without reservation. For example, 3 IG infantry squads > (1 ork mob + trukk), IG controls the objective.

JourneyPsycheOut wrote:Having more kill points means you have more things that can contest or capture. Armies with less kill points will be at an advantage for annhilation, but more strategically limited when it comes to the other two missions.

Even if that were true it is a terrible design philosophy in my opinion. Basically a dice roll at the start of the game can determine whether you have a massive advantage or a massive disadvantage. Regardless of what mission you roll all armies should have a fairly equal chance at success.

NeoMaul, you are right. That's why when you design and army you take both ability to capture/contest objectives and Kill Points into account. Doing that will give you a decent chance at success no matter what.

Except for the huge exception of IG, every army can both limit KP's and still retain an advantage in objective games. We all hope that with the new IG codex the KP issue will go away.

What I don't like about Mahu's proposal is that it does nothing to punish MSU so does nothing to counter the advantage that MSU have in objective games. What he's doing is 2nd ed Victory points which just opens up a new game of making units 199 points instead of 200.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

i have a better way to solve it all.
screw KP's and bring back VP's :K