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 just finished a 750pt battle with a friend. I was playing Orks and he Ultramarines. The game ended after turn 3 because I had already scored more points than he felt he could have possibly achieved and therein lies my confusion. We were playing a mission from the Battle Missions book: "Surprise Attack" under the Space Marines section. The victory conditions for this state"At the end of the game each player receives 3 kill points for each enemy HQ unit that has been completely destroyed, 1 kill point for each Troop unit and dedicated transport unit completely destroyed, and 2 kill points for each other unit that has been completely destroyed. The player with the highest total kill points wins."

My Ork army consisted of the following:
Old Zogwart (HQ worth 3 points), 30 Boyz (Troop worth 1 point), 19 Gretchin w/Runtherd (Troop worth 1 point), 3 Nobs (Elite worth 2 points), 2 Warbuggies (Fast Attack worth 2 points)

This means that my opponent could ever only get 9 points if he killed every single model I have on the table.

His army consisted of the following:
1 Captain (HQ worth 3 points), 5 man Command Squad (HQ worth 3 points), 1 Chaplain (HQ worth 3 points), 5 man Vanguard Veteran Squad (Fast Attack worth 2 points), 5 man Scout Squad (Troop worth 1 point), 5 man Tactical Squad (Troop worth 1 point)

This means I can potentially get 13 points if I kill all his models on the table.

It seems seriously out of balance. By the end of Turn 1 Zogwart had turned his Chaplain into a squig who subsequently died the very next shooting phase giving me 3 points. My opponent wiped out my Gretchin giving him 1 point. On Turn 2 I had wiped out his 5 man Veteran Squad for 2 more points. Then on turn 3, Zogwart got off "Frazzle" on his main HQ Squad which consisted of both the Captain (3 pts) and the 5 man Command Squad (3 pts.) The captain was joined to the unit at the time. Frazzle instantly killed everybody in that squad except for the Captain.

So by Turn 3 I already had 8 points, my opponent conceded on the grounds he could never get enough points to beat me after that. I didn't feel good about winning because I agree that the points seemed skewed in my favor from the start.

Are we misinterpreting this arrangement of points? It seems that a meta-gamer would just build his army in such a way as to always minimize the number of victory points his army will give to the enemy. We had friends who would play like this under 2ed rules and we always hated that, it just wasn't fun to play against those people. I was hoping by 5ed (I haven't really played in the last 10 years) this would have been fixed and a better points/scoring system in place but it seems like it always did, skewed to "mob" players like Tyranids, Orks or Imperials while penalizing Space Marines.

With this system it seems you often hit a turn where there is no point in continuing the battle as the other player already has more points then you could possibly achieve. If I had hit 9 points there would be no reason for my opponent to continue fighting. It's very one-sided.

I thought one of the victory conditions was that you could massacre the opponent in order to win?

So if he wiped you out you would lose.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I thought one of the victory conditions was that you could massacre the opponent in order to win?

So if he wiped you out you would lose.

The Wipeout! rule only applies to standard missions.

Whether the Battle Missions could be considered "standard" missions is anyone's guess...

So what you're saying is, you feel that you won because he made a terrible list for a mission you played? There's a reason dumping 50% of your points into HQ and almost nothing into troops is a bad idea.

My gaming group makes its lists and then we roll for the mission. If you made a weak army like your friend did, you probably will loose, and if you made a well rounded army then you should have less problems. In short, his list sucked even for standard games.

Your mistake was going into Battle Missions expecting a good game. After all, it's a non-competitive, 'for fun' book. It's made for people with a high alcohol/blood content.

Additionally consider that some point ranges favour certain armies, most armies become balanced around the 1,5k mark. But yes, filling out your HQ before thinking about the rest of your army is not wise.

Your friend made a poor list for the mission you played first of all. Secondly, you would still have lost if he could table you before the end of the last turn.

You opponent had a poor list. This is why the KP scoring system totally sucks (try playing Tau at it). But your opponent should have picked a more rounded list. Imagine you had been playing a standard objective mission you'd have had to kill just 10 guys to prevent him from possibly winning without tabling you.

Also as Pika pointed out the Battle missions are so imbalanced it is not even funny (though still more balanced than 2nd ed).

FlingitNow wrote:You opponent had a poor list. This is why the KP scoring system totally sucks (try playing Tau at it). But your opponent should have picked a more rounded list. Imagine you had been playing a standard objective mission you'd have had to kill just 10 guys to prevent him from possibly winning without tabling you.

Also as Pika pointed out the Battle missions are so imbalanced it is not even funny (though still more balanced than 2nd ed).

I don't think it is that much different from taking an army that only has a couple of minimum sized troops choices into an objective game against an army that is able to field several troops choices easily.

Can there be horrible imbalances between armies in Kill Point games? Of course. But the fact is, you know what the missions are in the battle missions book and you have the capability to design an army to try to maximize your chances.

That Space Marine army is an absolute textbook disaster of creating an army that is going to really struggle to win ANY of the missions in the book, kill point or objective.


So what you should tell your friend is that he needs to take more troops choices and pay attention to how many kill points his list is worth when he's choosing his units. Once he keeps this in mind he should be able to create an army that has a much better chance at completing different mission objectives.

FlingitNow wrote:(though still more balanced than 2nd ed).

2nd ed had the excuse of virus bombs and vortex grenades.

2nd ed had the excuse of virus bombs and vortex grenades.

Virus bombing IG was always fun . You forget of course Cyclone missile launcher and assault cannon armed Wolfguard 12" krak grenade fun .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I don't think it is that much different from taking an army that only has a couple of minimum sized troops choices into an objective game against an army that is able to field several troops choices easily.

I think you misunderstood me that was exactly what I was saying. Had he been playing an objective game you have to kill 10 footsloggers and the game is up.

This was a very poorly put together list.

But I still dislike the way the KP system works and how biased it is against certain army books or certain (often quite balanced or even fluffy) builds. I really don't see why they didn't just stick with VPs for the annihilation mission.

Battle missions though for me is not a great book. It doesn't offer "tactical challenges" it just skews the game with silly special rules. I like the idea of the BM book just not the delivery.

yakface wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:You opponent had a poor list. This is why the KP scoring system totally sucks (try playing Tau at it). But your opponent should have picked a more rounded list. Imagine you had been playing a standard objective mission you'd have had to kill just 10 guys to prevent him from possibly winning without tabling you.

Also as Pika pointed out the Battle missions are so imbalanced it is not even funny (though still more balanced than 2nd ed).

I don't think it is that much different from taking an army that only has a couple of minimum sized troops choices into an objective game against an army that is able to field several troops choices easily.

Can there be horrible imbalances between armies in Kill Point games? Of course. But the fact is, you know what the missions are in the battle missions book and you have the capability to design an army to try to maximize your chances.

That Space Marine army is an absolute textbook disaster of creating an army that is going to really struggle to win ANY of the missions in the book, kill point or objective.


So what you should tell your friend is that he needs to take more troops choices and pay attention to how many kill points his list is worth when he's choosing his units. Once he keeps this in mind he should be able to create an army that has a much better chance at completing different mission objectives.

QFT.

Thanks for all the input. We are playing "Just for fun" really and wanted to do something other than a straight-up annihilation from the rulebook. We made our armies before ever even opening the BM book so neither of us had any idea what to expect. Neither of us had any clue how scoring would work. So each of us really just built a 750pt army we thought would be fun.

You guys have me curious now though. What kind of Ultramarine spread would you build for 750pts keeping the idea of KP in mind? Was it the 5 man command squad that was a bad idea? I ask because I have a Dark Angels army I haven't used yet (not since 2ed anyway) and this will be something I myself would have to consider.

And if you don't like the BM book, what missions do you play then beyond the 3 standard missions in the rulebook which can get boring after a while?

More Troops, more scoring, really. Those are the key things. He invested way too much in pricey HQs which are usually going to underperform.

Well the Ork motto is Boyz before toyz, but I think that can apply to SM as well.