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 I noticed in the "Best and Worst Rules" thread that quite a lot of people were nominating killpoints as one of the worst rules.

When 5th came out I remember much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how stupid this rule was and how it would ruin the game.

Now at first glance I hated it too, but over time I've come to actually quite like killpoints and I'd like to argue why.

Simply it is about balance and reducing the power of MSU (Multiple Small Units)

MSU is simply the smart thing to do in 40k. Taking as many small units as slots allow gives significant advantages over taking a larger unit.

Lets give, for example a unit of lootaz. Say I have the pts to field 15 lootaz but I have all 3 elite slots open. Taking my lootaz as 3 units of 5 gives me the following advantages

1. I may fire at 3 different targets in the shooting phase. If necessary I can fire them all at 1 unit for the same firepower as together or I can spread them out to deal with more units.

2. simlarly I may assault 3 different units or combine them in an assault (not that you would with lootaz).

3. In contrast the enemy now requires 3 different units to deal with all 15 lootaz. Were they all together a demolisher shell or a unit of DA could potentially kill all 15. Now they may only kill a maximum of 5. This principle also applies in assault (unless they're deployed close enough to be multi-assaulted)

4. I have 3 different units that can contest, and if they were troops (they aren't but they're just being a general example), score. more scoring units for the same points opens up a whole host of tactical options.

5. If I fail a leadership test then I will only lose 5 models, not 15.

6. Being able to move them independently opens up tactical options i.e. covering more of the field of fire, advancing 5 whilst keeping 10 in support. Also smaller squads move more efficiently than large ones and are less affected by difficult terrain.

7. Smaller squads are easier to hide and deploy in cover.

8. Something odball. In the lootaz case multiple squads will average out my D3 for shots more so I'm less prone to bad luck there. I realise this is only true for lootaz so I include it in the something odball category a misc benefit that being many small squads might have for one unit that it doesn't for others i.e. access to more special weapons (=][= stormtroopers) or more faith pts (sisters).

and the disadvantages of splitting them up

1. You need to kill less models to trigger a leadership test

2. something odball i.e. sisters need big squads for faith checks, orks need it for fearless

3.1 reserve roll to enter play

4. +2 killpoints.


MSU usually gives you massive advantages just by oferring more tactical options and more units that can score/contest. If given sufficient slots and barring any oddball considerations you should always MSU as a preference.

Ah, except for killpoints.

Killpoints is the balancing rule that keeps MSU in check. In 2 missions having 18-20 different units on the field is a positive advantage. In the 3rd mission it is a disadvantage. So people must construct lists to minimise Killpoints whilst still having sufficient numbers of scoring units.


"but it hurts mech armies disproportionately"

Oh boo hoo, cry me a river. Mech benefits from better mobility, enhanced survivability and in some cases enhanced firepower. The trade off in killpoints and reduced bodies on the table is more than fair considering Mech is undeniably the most powerful way to build in 5th. You have twice the units that can contest, you suffer twice the killpoints.


Killpoints are the great balancer, putting a limit on MSU and Mech which are the most obviously pwoerful ways to build by giving them both a disadvantage.

Victory Points doesn't do this. Whilst victory points is a better (i.e. more accurate) measure of "who killed the most stuff" it doesn't balance strong armies for the other two missions in the same way KP's do.

Victory points can balance the multiple small units by building in a command cost.

WRG Ancients did this by charging a flat 25 points per irregular unit, and 10 points per regular unit. This encourages irregular armies to take larger units, which makes them less manoeuvrable, which is historically true.

Similarly, the new 5e codexes charge a built-in command cost in at least some units, by building in a sergeant who costs more points than a regular trooper.

IMO both systems have good points and bad points, and could be improved by implementing them more cleverly. The problem with VPs is just that they were imposed as a 'one size fits all' solution, which while simple, isn't perfect.

I agree entirely with the OP. Without kill points, it would be flat-out better to take more and smaller units. (barring a few things like orks or IG blob squads accompanied by commissars, where large size fixes morale issues). More flexible in movement and shooting, more ways to obscure enemy shooting and block enemy charges, and small units make enemy super-units like ordnance platforms less dangerous. KPs provide a pretty good balance. They're not perfect - some things like Lictors/Zoanthropes are still hurt pretty badly by KPs, but for ordinary squads/vehicles/MCs, it's a pretty fair rule.

The main problem with Kill points is that its not fair along all fronts.

I can create an 1850 very competitive ork nob biker army that has 5 total KPs in it. I have yet to see a 1500 point Tau/SOB army produce less than 12 KPs.

Some armies can create very viable lists and have very few units. My currents SW army has 600 points tied up in two KPs. The Tau devilfish alone at 85 points gives up 2 points.

That is why people complain about kill points. Its just unbalanced across all armies.

As far as it hurting mech, it sucks when your only reliable options that pretend to be fast are big Daemony HQs with wings that will die every game, or the millions of little Hummers that will get popped and screw your kill points every game. That's a problem with the Chaos Dex, not KP, though

I like KPs, and I run mech CSM. All you have to do is save one model from a squad, and people go for the easy KPs while your hard stuff ravages their army.

I like kill points better than VP, in the old editions, lots of units didn't get taken because they gave up vp, small cheap las plas units were the only way. in 5th edition i'm seeing units tht never saw the light of day. any army can lower kill points, people just don't want to admit balance is give and take.

KP needs to be removed. Why 10 Gretchin are worth as much as 10 Chosen Terminators will never make any sense.

I Rate KP's highly - a real balancer, and requires some tactical decisions to be made when writing lists. Thats what makes the game fun!

Anyone who would call KP's "balanced" or a "balancer" doesn't know the definition of the word "balanced".

Apologies for disagreeing HBMC, but by 'balance' I mean in the sense that I now need to consider the fragility and purpose of my units and troops. A mass of small unit may be great at spamming objectives for holding and contesting, but will get you absolutely reamed in a KP battle.

So, not knowing what battle I shall be facing, I choose a force that is 'balanced' - meaning able to succeed at all options.

I was in now way implying that a min squad of gretchin equated to a 10 man termi squad, but thats VP thinking.

Dont get me wrong, I do like VP battles as well, they are simply different tactical games to KP battles - and I love variety in my games!

HBMC, thanks, I believe I have seen the word used before and am fairly familiar with its use. Sometimes when people disagree with you about a game of toy soldiers, it is due to a difference in their experiences, it doesn't always mean that they're too stupid to understand why you're right!

I think that some very small units, in pre-5th edition codexes, like the tau drones that come with their tanks, make KPs very difficult to work with. But I think that these things will get fixed soon enough. Example: IG were pretty screwed for KPs before their new codex. Didn't officers and their 4-man retinues count as seperate KPs? Well guess what, now the extremely outrageous stuff has been fixed. IG still tend to have quite a lot of KPs - that's what you get for the flexibility and durability of fielding loads and loads of cheap units.

I think things like Tau drones will get fixed by their new codexes. I know that'll take a while, but essentially people are complaining about KPs when they should be complaining about a slow release schedule. If GW took the sensible step of reviewing their codexes after a new edition of the rules, and rapidly released updated codexes that were exactly the same with some point fixes/rules clarifications/changes to units that would be overpowered or overcosted, then we'd all be a lot happier.

I think that if you look at KPs and the newer codexes (SM, Orks, IG, etc) does anyone look at the 35-point rhinos, or any other cheap, versatile unit, and think 'oh no, I can't take that, it will give me more KPs'? Of course not, it's just an associated cost to having versatility in your army.

As for the logical disconnect between gretchin and terminators being worth the same amount, it's an abstraction. Like, say the cover you're in stopping bullets (but not the same bullets that your armour can stop) or my fire dragons standing within arm's reach of a stationary tank that fills 150 degrees of their vision, and having a 2/3 chance to hit it.

Kill Points are the result of lazy rules writers, much like RAW and Codex Trumps.

Yeah, but is it a necessary abstraction? Points are an abstraction, should we say that 10 gretchin cost the same points as 10 terminators?

No, because no-one would take gretchin and everyone would take terminators! I think it's a workable abstraction. Personally, I didn't mind victory points, I think it doesn't take that long to add up points when you have your army list right there. I admit that GW probably did switch to KPs so that little 10-year old kids wouldn't have to hurt their delicate fingers using a calculator. But hey, it works pretty well IMO, it has the benefit of simplicity. And as I said, KPs give a balance between the objective matches (where lots of seperate units are definitely an advantage) and annihilation matches.

I actually dont think its an abstraction, but simply a different way of winning/losing.

You wipe out a unit of gretchin = 1 KP.
You wipe out a unit of termies = 1 KP.

Doesnt mean that GW considers them 'pretty much the same'. But in a KP battle, they are tactically equally as important to take down - so you target the gretchin, for quick easy KPs. In a VP battle, you could almost ignore the gretchin early on as too cheap to worry about wasting a round of shooting on.

Its no different to losing most of your units but still winning for remembering to take/defend the objectives. Your tactics have won you the game - they are different for different battles.

I find the 'I hate this deployment/scenario etc' threads a bit odd, as they just present different tactical challenges, that you dont know you will face in advance, resulting in a well rounded or 'balanced' list.

ph34r wrote:Yeah, but is it a necessary abstraction? Points are an abstraction, should we say that 10 gretchin cost the same points as 10 terminators?

Before a game it is no problem

When a game is coming in to the last turn or two it is a good thing to know if you're a point or two up or a few points down, as this will determine whether you should go all out to claim a few more points or play more conservatively. With KPs this can be done by quickly counting up the units you've lost and the units you've killed. But with VPs you need to know the points values of multiple units, and then perform triple digit addition for your army and their's.

The end result was that in any game that is remotely close players had no idea who was actually winning or losing, limiting tactical play. Increasing detail can produce information overload, resulting in a poorer tactical environment.

Not to say that KPs are ideal. I think you can keep the elegance of KPs while still recognising that some units are more valuable than others. Keep the core system of 1 unit = 1 KP, but specify certain elite, very rare units as being worth 2 or even 3 KP, and make other disposable junk units like gretchen and conscripts worth no KPs at all. If only because that would encourage people to treat their incredibly precious, ultra-high quality troops with a little care, while treating conscipts and gretchen with no care at all. Which would produce another layer of tactical consideration, and be pretty funny at times.

The end result was that in any game that is remotely close players had no idea who was actually winning or losing, limiting tactical play. Increasing detail can produce information overload, resulting in a poorer tactical environment.

I think it is the opposite. With VPs you didn't know you had the game totally won (by turn 4 sometimes with KPs) and continued to play and try and eliminate the enemy. With such an easy easy way of figuring out who's winning, it takes away from the battle. I have had lots of opponents quit a game becasue the y added up the KP margin and realized they couldn't possibly make it back. How fun is that?!

Like if you know you're down by a point and start blasting away at Rhinos instead of a frothing mob of Berzerkers right in front of you. It makes you do things that are sometimes ludicrous.

Well... it doesn't matter that the zerkers are in front of you at the bottom of turn 7...
For everything else, it depends...
I'd gladly bag an easy KP from killing the Rhino and taking the charge from zerkers with my Plague Marines.

Kill Points seem like a poor rule to me. Though they supposedly have a balancing effect, and theory indicates that they would reduce the number of MSU style lists out there, I haven't seen it. This recent BoLS post describes, in part, how nobody changes their list for Kill Points purposes, and that seems to match my experience as well. Overall I think Kill Points are a failed attempt at best and they are one of very few things that I hope will change in a potential 6th Edition.

I like Kill Points. Outside of its obvious effect on balancing MSU armies against armies with fewer units it also adds another "cost" outside of points value to units. I think Rhinos right now are incredibly cheap, points wise, for what they do but the extra cost of them being an additional KP adds a bit of balance to their overall cost to the army.

This secondary cost to a unit makes it possible to price transports so that they can be cheap enough to take while still having a downside.

Of course there are still some silly issues, such as drones and spore mines, but that is less of an issue with Kill Points and more of an issue with how books are updated and supported when edition changes happen.

I would like to see a mission system similar to War of the Ring, however, and it's something I've played a bit with friends.

Basically you do 5 objectives with there being 1 "home" objective for each army. At the end of the game you score up objectives, with capturing a "home" objective being worth 3 points, other objectives worth 2 points, and Kill Points worth 1 point. I think mixing the missions like this could create more varied army lists while still bringing balance between taking a squad of 3 Land Speeders or 3 instances of 1 Land Speeder each.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:I think it is the opposite. With VPs you didn't know you had the game totally won (by turn 4 sometimes with KPs) and continued to play and try and eliminate the enemy. With such an easy easy way of figuring out who's winning, it takes away from the battle. I have had lots of opponents quit a game becasue the y added up the KP margin and realized they couldn't possibly make it back. How fun is that?!

Someone bailing on a game because they realised they cannot win is being a jackass for entirely personal reasons. If someone was down 2 sets to love in tennis and walked off the court, no-one would say 'that'd never happen if the score was harder to figure out'.

But in tennis, it is more exciting when it reaches the end because everyone knows the score, and they know how much is riding on each point. Similarly, their are more interesting choices and there is more excitement on offer when you actually know the state of the game with KPs.

Like if you know you're down by a point and start blasting away at Rhinos instead of a frothing mob of Berzerkers right in front of you. It makes you do things that are sometimes ludicrous.

Under any points system you'll get people sniping at easy, non-threatening targets late in the game. Stopping that would require a vastly more sophisticated system than 40K has ever attempted, or that it's fanbase would ever accept.

But at least with KPs you can tell if you're up by two points you're better off focussing your fire on wiping the Bezerkers to stop your opponent scoring any more points in his last turn by charging a couple of your units. Or alternately if you're down by two points you figure you've got to target the two rhinos to get ahead in the count, and then hope you somehow survive the Bezerker charge. Considerations that are only possible if you know the scores.

I am 100% in agreement with IBHtE and sebster. KPs are kind of funny on the face of them, but do a pretty good job balancing army design for KP v. Objective missions. Most of the problems with them are really a consequence of codices which just weren't designed to take them into account.

I like Sebster's idea of a possible tweak. Warmachine is closer to this. A given unit is worth a fixed, single-digit number of VPs, which is separate from its cost to take in the army.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Anyone who would call KP's "balanced" or a "balancer" doesn't know the definition of the word "balanced".

Perhaps rather than making piffy comments HBMC you would care to grace us mere mortals with your divine wisdom in the form of an actual argument.

KP's seem balanced to me because they take an army system that is very strong in two missions (MSU) and making it very weak in another mission.

That to me seems like balance.

Now, I'm only an English teacher but perhaps you care to enlighten me as to what the definition of "balanced" is and why this isn't so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jayden63 wrote:The main problem with Kill points is that its not fair along all fronts.

I can create an 1850 very competitive ork nob biker army that has 5 total KPs in it. I have yet to see a 1500 point Tau/SOB army produce less than 12 KPs.

Some armies can create very viable lists and have very few units. My currents SW army has 600 points tied up in two KPs. The Tau devilfish alone at 85 points gives up 2 points.

That is why people complain about kill points. Its just unbalanced across all armies.

Whilst I agree with this surely that is more of a codex specific problem than a problem with the rule itself? i.e. the devilfish giving an extra KP for drones could easily be fixed by saying that drones do not count for KP's in the next Tau codex.

GW have already demonstrated that they're aware of KP issues and have taken moves to fix them in recent codecii (eg IG blob squads) and even to play around with them and their game effects (Lone Wolves who give up a KP if NOT killed).

Also don't forget that having more units than your opponent is always an advantage even in a KP game. If your 5KP Ork army went up against a 12KP Sisters then whilst you have a scenario advantage the sisters have all the tactical advantages of having more units than you.

And how competitive would your list really be in the other 2 scenarios with a maximum of 3 scoring units? I'm guessing your 5KP orks is warboss, warboss, nob bikers, nob bikers and boyz? Kill, pin or tie up the nob bikers and the 1 boyz squad and you are completely out of the game.


People never object to the fact that some armies have an inbuilt advantage in the first two missions because they have more contesting/scoring units, why do they object to KP's?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:KP needs to be removed. Why 10 Gretchin are worth as much as 10 Chosen Terminators will never make any sense.

They aren't. That's why 10 grots cost 30pts and 10 terminators cost 420pts.

Oh you mean in terms of the scenario objective?

I could equally argue that it makes no sense than my 10 grots can control and objective and the terminators can only contest it. Or that my grots can contest an objective at all. I mean look at them. They're grots, given another turn those 10 terminators will easily kill them, they just got lucky the game ended. It makes no sense whatsoever that they're able to contest. Clearly the only solution is that the side with the higher number of victory points around an objective controls it. That is the only thing that makes "sense".

Except then you create a situation where small elite armies have an inbuilt advantage over hordes or MSU. Where troops don't matter anymore but rather the army with the right balance of high pts per model and enough units to be flexible is at an advantage (i.e. marines) and this is not balanced out by the victory points condition of the other mission. I believe we called this 3rd edition?

I could equally argue that it makes no sense than my 10 grots can control and objective and the terminators can only contest it.

And I'd be along side you arguing the exact same thing.

I guess my ire with missions in 5th Ed isn't about KP at all, but 5th Ed missions in general. Poorly conceived, limiting, and full of inconsistencies like KP and the Troops only score nonsense. It's lazy writing.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

I could equally argue that it makes no sense than my 10 grots can control and objective and the terminators can only contest it.

And I'd be along side you arguing the exact same thing.

I guess my ire with missions in 5th Ed isn't about KP at all, but 5th Ed missions in general. Poorly conceived, limiting, and full of inconsistencies like KP and the Troops only score nonsense. It's lazy writing.

Well I'd disagree with you there. I think 5th ed has had the most fun, tense and exciting mission system of any version of 40K I've played.

A few more missions in the book would have been nice but I have a bunch of homebrew missions my gaming group bust out when we tire of the main 3. We still keep going back to the book though. The new missions are just so much more tense than any previously used in the game.

I remember 3rd and to a lesser extent 4th edition where VP's applied and the game largely revolved around "line up and kill things" with the ocassional "line up and kill things followed by turn 6 dash into all the table quarters. Now with random game length and more limited ways to win movement and placement and risky tactics like making a dash for an objective hoping the game will end or hiding a useful unit to deny a KP have entered the game. It just seems much more fun to me.

I'll give you an example, a tournament game wherein after suffering a humiliating drubbing in the 3rd turn that saw me lose a third of my force whilst my opponent had most of his untouched. I decided to play for the draw and the game was filled with desperate moves as I flung all manner of troops and units at his and my objective. I used my lootaz in an assault so that they'd be near enough the objective. He had to desperately unload on a single mad doc going to ground in cover with pretty much the whole of his army to prevent me contesting his own objective. In the end a single bike contested his objective, he controlled mine and the bike and an immobilised trukk was all that remained of my army turning what could have been a massacre into a minor victory. I lost that game but it was really fun. I never stopped playing right till the end and at no stage in the battle before the end was the overall victor clear.

But if using victory points that bad 3rd turn would have just completely removed my ability to challenge him. Because my forces were so reduced he could have afforded to ignore anything near both objectives as he had VP totals of 3 or 4 times greater controlling them and I could have done nothing to turn this around as my offensive power was greatly reduced.

Out of curiosity how often do you actually play the main missions? I'm aware that your group uses home made 40K rules but you must have played the rulebook missions at least a few times in order to cultivate an opinion of them. Because lazy writing or not I think you can only appreciate if they're a decent basis for a game if you use them, otherwise you're just theorising.

I'd still like to hear your arguement about how KP's fail to balance MSU armies as well.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:Well I'd disagree with you there. I think 5th ed has had the most fun, tense and exciting mission system of any version of 40K I've played.

And you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:A few more missions in the book would have been nice but I have a bunch of homebrew missions...

Just so we're clear - you had to make more missions to make it more interesting? Right?

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:I remember 3rd and to a lesser extent 4th edition where VP's applied and the game largely revolved around "line up and kill things" with the ocassional "line up and kill things followed by turn 6 dash into all the table quarters. Now with random game length and more limited ways to win movement and placement and risky tactics like making a dash for an objective hoping the game will end or hiding a useful unit to deny a KP have entered the game. It just seems much more fun to me.

I've heard the game referred to as a game of 4+, where most things just happen on a 4+. I certainly don't consider 3rd Ed flawless, but at least a mission could be balanced as units would be worth what they are worth, and not given arbitrary figures based upon... well... based upon nothing. I have 20 units. You have 15. Our points are equal. In a KP mission my army is worth more because... because arbitrary! My legions of Khornate Chosen Terminators are forced off an objective by your last few remaining Gretchin because... well... because arbitrary!

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:I'll give you an example, a tournament game wherein after suffering a humiliating drubbing in the 3rd turn that saw me lose a third of my force whilst my opponent had most of his untouched. I decided to play for the draw and the game was filled with desperate moves as I flung all manner of troops and units at his and my objective. I used my lootaz in an assault so that they'd be near enough the objective. He had to desperately unload on a single mad doc going to ground in cover with pretty much the whole of his army to prevent me contesting his own objective. In the end a single bike contested his objective, he controlled mine and the bike and an immobilised trukk was all that remained of my army turning what could have been a massacre into a minor victory. I lost that game but it was really fun. I never stopped playing right till the end and at no stage in the battle before the end was the overall victor clear.

You've heard the expression "Anecdotal evidence, isn't", yes?

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:But if using victory points that bad 3rd turn would have just completely removed my ability to challenge him.

I don't disagree. I personally hate Victory Points and believe that all missions should be objective based but, if you have to have a 'points' based measure of victory, then it should be balanced. VP's is a superior ruleset to KP's in this regard. Doesn't make VP's good, but it does make it balanced - I know that when I blow up that Deff Dread it's worth more than those Gretchin I killed earlier, but not as much as my Khornate Terminator unit I lost last turn - rather than all of them having the exact same in-game worth (which is just asinine).

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:Out of curiosity how often do you actually play the main missions? I'm aware that your group uses home made 40K rules but you must have played the rulebook missions at least a few times in order to cultivate an opinion of them. Because lazy writing or not I think you can only appreciate if they're a decent basis for a game if you use them, otherwise you're just theorising.

Enough to know I hate the game.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:I'd still like to hear your arguement about how KP's fail to balance MSU armies as well.

I don't consider MSU armies to be that big a deal. They existed in the previous two editions and it never seemed to come up as a real problem. It's an invented problem. Something that was never an issue, but suddenly now is because... well I can't seem to think why, because it's irrational.

And if everything scores, not just troops, the army who can bring tons of little Troops units isn't always going to be the winner and you won't have the issue where armies that cannot bring small cheap Troops units suffering because everything scores.

Really 3rd and 4th had the problems with quarter grabbing with skimmers. MSU never came into it...

BYE

Arbitrary smarbitrary. It's called game design.

Why do infantry move 6"? Arbitrary.

Why do most infantry weapons shoot 24"? Arbitrary.

Why are troops now the only units that can hold objectives? Arbitrary.

Why are army unit entries organized by FOC slots? Arbitrary.

Singling out KPs as a big problem because they don't reflect the relative value of the units is silly. That's not their intent. They are a check on list building as has already been pointed out.

I agree 100% with bravelybravesirrobin.

The only mission/deployment combination I really don't like in 5th is Dawn of War / Annihilation. Though I think even that would be okay with a tweak or two- if you didn't start rolling random game length until after turn 6, say.

Playing the core nine (functionally) missions a large number of times has generally given me a much better opinion of them then I had at first glance.

MSU army list design was a pure no-brainer in 3rd and 4th editions. If you had two speeders and an open FA slot there was literally no reason to ever group them. You were always better off running them separate. KP (and the new deployment system) have actually given a legitimate incentive to not running an army as much MSU as possible, at all times. It's actually a decision with pros and cons now.

Fetterkey wrote:Overall I think Kill Points are a failed attempt at best and they are one of very few things that I hope will change in a potential 6th Edition.

This doesn't require an edition change, just a new set of missions.

Back when I played 4th, we mostly played with the Rules of Engagement missions (which were, ironically, 3rd edition material iirc) published in WD and then made available as a free PDF download. GW just needs to actually use WD for something useful and publish an "expansion" set of missions.

Also, Capture and Control is a bad mission too -- creates way too many draws.