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.

You can't hide warriors behind monoliths can you?

We can only hope GW is reading these forums.

What might work would be something like this:

HQ: KPs= 4x(points/100)
Troops: KPs= 2x(points/100)
Everything else: KPs= 3x(points/100)

round to the nearest whole number.

But, y'know, it's probably too complicated for my 10 year old brother, so lets scrap it. So how about something like this instead:

HQ: 5KPs
Troops:3KPs
Everything else: 4KPs

Even the second option would be vastly superior to what the leek is. The problem is really in the disparity between troops and everything else, but to really have it work, it'll need to be based on points as well somehow.

-Leo037

biztheclown wrote:You can't hide warriors behind monoliths can you?

you can hide from assault, but you're right about monoliths not blocking line of sight.

and an all warrior army won't work, not even in total annihilation. unsupported warriors just sort of sit around waiting to die against any serious list.

++Original Post Deleted++

I've seen a number of your recent posts Nurglitch where you're taking a tone similar to that of Stelek. Do you have anything to add, or do you just want to make fun of people?

Please tell me if I'm reading you wrong.

BYE

Oh, yeah, and OT post... umm... Kill points are the suck.

Yeah.

That'll do.

BYE

H.B.M.C.: If it is true that I've been coming across like Stelek, then I am ashamed. I was (and still am) sick of the meme that all you need to play this game is a "serious [army] list", as if terrain, the mission, and the quality of the player didn't matter. But if I am expressing this disapproval of over-simplifying the game, another objectionable habit of Stelek's, then I should do so in a constructive manner. Consider the post deleted and my apologies offered.

I concur that KP could be a valuable addition to the game, if implemented on their own. I have the same notion about "scoring units". I think the fact that scoring unit status is tied to unit type, and KP to force org slot (wtf?)is a needless sacrifice of granularity. That is, each unit should have a KP stat. This could be in the back of the 5th ed book, like the unit type chart in the existing BGB.

40kenthusiast: Now there is a good idea.

Kill points as described in the 5th edition pdf are dumb although the idea can be good if units are given individual kill points values. The emphasis on troops isn't fair to all armies since some armies have better troop choices.

I just don't see the need for the KP system. It inherently favours certain armies (Orks) and gives a major disadvantage to others (Guard).

I mean, I don't agree with the 5th Ed mission set up to start with - the Troops = Scoring thing is possibly the worst idea since Target Priority for 4th Ed was invented, especially when you can have the same unit within the same army occupying two different areas of the FOC (BA Troops Assault Squads and FA Assault Squads) yet one is scoring and the other isn't - but the Kill Point idea just seems... lame? Lacking?

I mean, Victory Points are in there. Even if they keep their idiotic scoring system with Troops only (shouldn't it be 'Infantry' only, including Jump Infantry... God they're morons at that company...), why not for the Annihilation Objective just use VP's. There's no way to unbalance VP's (Super-Points Denial Falcons aside), and you don't have to invent a new system like the idiotic Kill Points that may not work.

Whoever said that Kill Points would be this edition's Escalation is correct...

BYE

The better thing for scoring should be that anything with a WS that is not an IC scores...

The whole point is to try and get people to use more Troops, right? Then just change how the FO chart works. Something like only being able to have X number of non-Troop selections per number of Troops.

Power Lists also tend to take the single best thing and stack it as much as possible. Carnifexes and Falcons and Monoliths come to mind. Maybe make it so first non-Troop selection you make has a normal cost. Each one same non-Troop selection you make has a % higher cost. Example, first Monolith costs the 250, second one maybe 300, and a third 350. Something that encourages you to diversify your list more.

biztheclown wrote:You can't hide warriors behind monoliths can you?

Don't skimmers block LOS in 5th ed?

I just got around to reading my 5th ed pdf, and I am glad I found this thread. Sorry for the threadnomancy

KPs are a horrendous idea in the way GW seems to want to institute them.

They are aping other companies rules, without making them work as well as the other companies uses them.

Is it possible for them to actually put in a days work and come up with something not only original, but something that actually works?

I think the game devs are overpaid idiots. Fire the lot and hire people who know what the hell they are doing. Starting with Jervis.

If this is what I have to look forward to in the next edition, then...I guess I am going to save alot of money.

Hellfury wrote:I just got around to reading my 5th ed pdf, and I am glad I found this thread. Sorry for the threadnomancy

KPs are a horrendous idea in the way GW seems to want to institute them.

They are aping other companies rules, without making them work as well as the other companies uses them.

Is it possible for them to actually put in a days work and come up with something not only original, but something that actually works?

I think the game devs are overpaid idiots. Fire the lot and hire people who know what the hell they are doing. Starting with Jervis.

If this is what I have to look forward to in the next edition, then...I guess I am going to save alot of money.

Agree. Sadly this has been presented time and again, without result.

I do think Phil Kelly does a good job as a codex writer though.

I love the idea of KPs.

It will be good for the game.

How?

How?

HOW??

We played kill point missions at Adepticon and they were a lot of fun. They are very tactical and interesting games. Weighing the risk vs. reward of moving units around added a whole new level to the game.

Also, take a look at Redbeards army:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210454.page

He had:
1 kannons
1 kannons
1 kannons
5 kommandos w/ rokkit
5 kommandos w/ rokkit
5 kommandos
dethkopta
dethkopta
dethkopta w/ buzzsaw

What kill points stops you from doing is spamming small units. This weekend I played Godzillas that all had 1 ravager for each FA slot. It is a pain to kill and kill points stops them from showing up. Now with kill points, you do not want to spam small squads because they are valuable points for your opponents.

Obversely, armies like IG are at a real disadvantage because of KP.

HQ units are worth 3 KP. IG get severely punished if they take special weapons teams, sentinels, etc. Not to mention all of the KP harvested from individual squads within a troops platoon...

I am not saying that KP is a bad idea, but again, they way they are instituting it isn't making the game any better in the face of the rules for 5th that we know about. It needs some major refinement.

KP points for HQ, troops, etc straight across the board isnt a good idea. They should make KP on a unit by unit basis.

For a rough example:

Raveners (1-3) worth 4 KP
Imperial guard PLATOON (3-7 units) worth 4 KP (this makes guard players make the most of their platoons, but gives them some freedom)
Necron scarabs (1-10) 3 KP
Lesser deamons (1-10) 2 KP (because they suck )
etc.

Basically, the KP score would be added to the respective profile.

I think that "maths challenged" 12 year olds can find those entries.

Blackmoor wrote:We played kill point missions at Adepticon and they were a lot of fun. They are very tactical and interesting games. Weighing the risk vs. reward of moving units around added a whole new level to the game.

Also, take a look at Redbeards army:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210454.page

He had:
1 kannons
1 kannons
1 kannons
5 kommandos w/ rokkit
5 kommandos w/ rokkit
5 kommandos
dethkopta
dethkopta
dethkopta w/ buzzsaw

What kill points stops you from doing is spamming small units. This weekend I played Godzillas that all had 1 ravager for each FA slot. It is a pain to kill and kill points stops them from showing up. Now with kill points, you do not want to spam small squads because they are valuable points for your opponents.

I think the problems that KP solve are outweighed by the problems that it will bring to the table.

As an Ork player, I have little incentive to field anything but more and more Troops. I could field Storm Boyz, or Lootas, or, Kanz, but why bother when I can just take more Troops for about the same cost.

Meanwhile an IG player, with their late 3rd Ed codex gets screwed so hard by the system that it's not even funny.

Actually all KPs do is require you to play the same army as everybody else.

It makes 40k quite boring.

"How DARE you take a single ravener!"

"Here is your punishment, loser!"

Yeah, great concept.

The way it works in AT-43 is the way it SHOULD work in 40k, where each mission itself gives different values for different kinds of units.

That, sadly, seems to be too 'complicated'.

It's funny Blackmoor speaks of strategy and tactics, then applauds when they are restricted.

Guess if it hurts his opponents and not him, he's all for it.

A common thread amongst those that like the new KP system. Or rather, the AT-43 VP system GW's ripped off the KP system from.

If only they'd just stolen it straight across instead of f*cking it up with GW concepts. Oh well.

Stelek wrote:Or rather, the AT-43 VP system GW's ripped off the KP system from.

Off topic here, but the GW KP and the AT-43 VP work a bit differently than that.

40K rewards you KP for killing a high KP value unit, while AT-43 rewards you VP for meeting primary mission objectives (which can be elimination of units, but is more commonly capture and control of objectives).

Which reminds we of why I dropped 40K in the first place.... (looks at sig)

Damn my sense of curiosity in the 5th ed stuff. That'll teach me.

Stelek wrote:Actually all KPs do is require you to play the same army as everybody else.

It makes 40k quite boring.

"How DARE you take a single ravener!"

"Here is your punishment, loser!"

Yeah, great concept.

The way it works in AT-43 is the way it SHOULD work in 40k, where each mission itself gives different values for different kinds of units.

That, sadly, seems to be too 'complicated'.

It's funny Blackmoor speaks of strategy and tactics, then applauds when they are restricted.

Guess if it hurts his opponents and not him, he's all for it.

A common thread amongst those that like the new KP system. Or rather, the AT-43 VP system GW's ripped off the KP system from.

If only they'd just stolen it straight across instead of f*cking it up with GW concepts. Oh well.

I don't think Blackmoor is all for it because it hurts other people and not him. If I've read his posts right, I'm sure the armies he owns benefit from exactly the thing he's looking to see eliminated:

Using the FOC system to your advantage.

I believe his goal is to see the advantage of "Take 3 slots of 1 Ravenor instead of one unit of 3" eliminated. This is true for Speeders, Vypers, Deff Koptas, etc.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I don't think Blackmoor is all for it because it hurts other people and not him. If I've read his posts right, I'm sure the armies he owns benefit from exactly the thing he's looking to see eliminated:

Using the FOC system to your advantage.

I believe his goal is to see the advantage of "Take 3 slots of 1 Ravenor instead of one unit of 3" eliminated. This is true for Speeders, Vypers, Deff Koptas, etc.

I agree.

Which brings us to the root of the problem, it isnt KP that is the issue, but how the FOC is handled. It just doesn't function in a balanced manner, obviously. GW adding rules such as KP is GW basically admitting the FOC doesn't work.

Deal with how the FOC is handled instead of dinking around with yet more unnecessary rules such as KP.

[edit]

That brings me to a much more eloquent system in how they deal with the FOC. And that is AT-43.

In AT-43, you have what is called a "platoon pattern".

In that pattern, you have 5 variable unit choices to take inside that platoon. You must fill all 5 of those slots with units before you can start another platoon. It keeps spam to a bare minimum.

It is quite ingenious in how well it works.

Hellfury wrote:
I agree.

Which brings us to the root of the problem, it isnt KP that is the issue, but how the FOC is handled. It just doesn't function in a balanced manner, obviously. GW adding rules such as KP is GW basically admitting the FOC doesn't work.

Deal with how the FOC is handled instead of dinking around with yet more unnecessary rules such as KP.

[edit]

That brings me to a much more eloquent system in how they deal with the FOC. And that is AT-43.

In AT-43, you have what is called a "platoon pattern".

In that pattern, you have 5 variable unit choices to take inside that platoon. You must fill all 5 of those slots with units before you can start another platoon. It keeps spam to a bare minimum.

It is quite ingenious in how well it works.

It's not so much the FOC, but a facet of how well MSU (Multiple Small Units, for the uninitiated) works in GW's games. MSU is more of a WHFB thing, at least in terms of an army style, but what we're talking about is really just an abuse of the fact that if you have more "units" than your opponent then you are at an advantage because of the UGO IGO system and the fact that 99% of the time a single unit in the game can effectively only hurt one other enemy unit in a given turn.

Aye I really like the AT-43 platoon system.

I think GW doesn't really "get it". I think they believe they can steal one part of rackhams game and slap it with some GW mud and it'll stick.

Sadly, the rackham game is designed around each core concept from the ground up and so it works.

What GW is doing is just taking what they like (because it's not like anyone else can design a better game, and that's evidenced by GW's total dominance of the miniatures market HEY WAIT A MINUTE) and ignoring the rest without really grasping it.

They've been in GW land too long, I guess, where new things don't take well and wholesale changes "just isn't done".

Voodoo Boyz wrote:It's not so much the FOC, but a facet of how well MSU (Multiple Small Units, for the uninitiated) works in GW's games. MSU is more of a WHFB thing, at least in terms of an army style, but what we're talking about is really just an abuse of the fact that if you have more "units" than your opponent then you are at an advantage because of the UGO IGO system and the fact that 99% of the time a single unit in the game can effectively only hurt one other enemy unit in a given turn.

I see your point.

Singular targets for any certain unit is indeed contributing to the problem of that sort of out-maneuvering advantage.

I am sitting here scratching my head on this, and I still think that the rough shod fix such as what GW proposed for KP isn't going to cut it.

I vehemently insist that it should be on a unit by unit basis (not all units are created equal, point for point), not based on what area of the FOC the unit derives from.

Hellfury wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:It's not so much the FOC, but a facet of how well MSU (Multiple Small Units, for the uninitiated) works in GW's games. MSU is more of a WHFB thing, at least in terms of an army style, but what we're talking about is really just an abuse of the fact that if you have more "units" than your opponent then you are at an advantage because of the UGO IGO system and the fact that 99% of the time a single unit in the game can effectively only hurt one other enemy unit in a given turn.

I see your point.

Singular targets for any certain unit is indeed contributing to the problem of that sort of out-maneuvering advantage.

I am sitting here scratching my head on this, and I still think that the rough shod fix such as what GW proposed for KP isn't going to cut it.

I vehemently insist that it should be on a unit by unit basis (not all units are created equal, point for point), not based on what area of the FOC the unit derives from.

I still think that KP is a very stupid idea and that it creates a lot more problems than it solves. A whole lot of that is all over the 5th Ed Leaked Rules though, so I'm just hoping that things got tweaked a lot for the final release this summer.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

I still think that KP is a very stupid idea and that it creates a lot more problems than it solves. A whole lot of that is all over the 5th Ed Leaked Rules though, so I'm just hoping that things got tweaked a lot for the final release this summer.

Exactly. There is always a chance things can be tweaked or changed before the final release. Even if they aren't there's no reason that the accompanying 5th edition codex FAQs can't set special KP rules in place for certain codices (like IG platoons). Even if that doesn't happen there's no reason that forthcoming codices can't start to incorporate specific KP rules in them.

And even if all that fails there's no reason why players and tournament organizers won't just abandon or change rules they don't like. Escalation hoses Godzilla armies pretty bad yet how often do you see Escalation used in tournaments (not often).

Besides, KPs aren't even used in every mission so it isn't like you *have* to build your armies around KPs. Again, Escalation hoses Godzilla armies pretty well yet even in tournaments that use it for some missions (like Adepticon), it isn't enough to stop people from brining an army that is affected by it.


Before I start lighting a fire to the funeral pyre of 5th edition I'd like to actually read the finished rules and play some games.