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.

Now, I don't know the exact points and numbers here, but I am imagining SM in drop pods being pretty tasty for killing vastly more KP than they are worth with little effort. I am thinking of dropping a pod next to say a Devastator squad, or behind a tank, popping it with plasma/meltas, and netting 2 KPs as the drop troops are gunned down next turn.

That might well go away with the SM redux, but then Drop Troop Guard might work really well for the same idea, the bonus being you get a few platoons for 1 KP.

Ravenous D wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:It seems clear to me that you'd have to destroy the entire Force Organization slot (or force all units selected from it) to gain a kill point.

That's right, you'd need to destroy or break an entire Imperial Guard Infantry Platoon to get one measly kill-point.

Gah, that's even worse, just take 3 maxed out infantry platoons and an HQ, the max your army will give out is 6.

Huh? "Worse"?

That's exactly how it *should* work, because it balances things properly. If the IG are fielded in proper numbers, it should be very difficult to pull KP from Guard.

Guard *should* be hugely resilient from a numbers standpoint, counting by Platoons rather than individuals or squads. If you can't wipe an entire Platoon, against the sheer majesty of the Guard, it just doesn't matter.

Sure, from a fluff perspective...However, from a game-balance perspective, KP's throw the game out of whack.

It would be different if every army was more uniform and had quality troops. But thats just so boring

As far as guard goes, Netting one KP for every platoon seems balanced to me. It rewards you for taking lots of troops, and makes you think twice about loading up on tanks, though troop only objectives did that on it's own.

gdurant wrote:It rewards you for taking lots of troops, and makes you think twice about loading up on tanks, though troop only objectives did that on it's own.

No, it rewards you for taking max size platoons. Which is something different and silly.

Why are maximum sized platoons silly?

Well, if you need to kill all 6 (or seven) squads to score, the IG player can simply hide a remnant squad deep in the back of the DZ, and spread the rest of the platoon far and wide, mixed with another platoon. Keeping 2 infantry men alive can prevent any points gained from killing 600+ pts worth of platoon.

there's also the unbalance inherent in an IG player getting to claim an objective in other missions with a single squad, while denying KPs unless an entire platoon is wiped.

Unfortunatly, IG don't have any way of making squads bigger or appreciably more resiliant, unlike most other armies. IG's thing is to simply be able to take more squads, which was also a blessing and a curse. If these rumors are accurate (or retained, I suppose), then it'll be even more wacky, with IG squads swarming objectives in some missions, while falling like wheat in others.

I can't imagine them keeping KPs as proposed, as it's simply incredibly unbalancing.

The pdf suggests that you have to either eliminate or break the 'unit', and that you can force morale checks by forcing retreating troops to retreat through other units. Hence leaving the remnant squad in the back, supposing of course that the player has nothing that can attack the backfield of the deployment zone, is unlikely to preserve the squad in the advent of a player trying to destroy or break all of the Imperial Guard squads to the fore.

The additional problem is how the player with the maximized platoons gets around to killing stuff. Obviously there's all those lasguns, but the real killing power of the Imperial Guard is not in the Troops selection.

Kill-points seem well-balanced to me. I'd rather see the play-testing results though, before I'm quoted on that. It would be a shame for a perfectly good game mechanic to be pre-judged by a bunch of armchair generals.

It is silly since Guard have troop choices of multiple independent units. It doesn’t particularly matter how the independent units are purchased for how the game is played. In my opinion, the same number of units with the same number of guns and costing the same number of points should be worth the same number of KP regardless of how they are interchangeably organized through the platoon system.

For example, you have 3 infantry platoon command squads and 12 infantry squads arranged so that 2 platoons have 5 squads each and 1 platoon has only 2 squads. Shouldn’t you take 3 platoons with 4 infantry squads each? Should it matter how the independent units are configured when it has no impact on gameplay beyond the KP system?

As for Guard Troops units not doing the bulk of the killing, we must have very different experiences.

I think the other aspect people are having trouble with is not all HQ, elites and HS are made equal.
Guard have their small fragile command squads which are a lot easier to kill that a chaplain buried in a assault squad or a hive tyrant.
Gretchin guns are way more fragile and less expenisve than a looted wagon with kill kannon and upgrades but they are both worth 3 KP.

They want a system that encourages people to take more troops, troop only objectives do a good job at that. Why do the need to replace victory points?

All in all, I think the kill point system is decent (although not great). For most armies, it encourages you to take troops and to protect your HQ units. I’m ok with this. The only real anomaly with the system is how it works with IG. If each squad gives up kill points, the IG are screwed. If you have to kill a whole platoon to get the kill points for it, it will be impossible to ever get the points out of it since you will have to wipe out (or break) every model in the platoon. If one single model is still alive, no kill points for you. Given that the squads can be scattered around the board, that’s just going to be impossible to accomplish.

The big improvement that I would like to see is something of a more flat point field. The 1/2/3 system is a bit much since HQ are worth 3 times as much as troops. I’d much rather see something like a 2/3/4 so that things are a bit more level.

I wouldn't call it balanced. 70 pt HQ and a 300 pt HQ from the same codex shouldn't be worth the same amount of killpoints.

Why not? Presumably they'd come in armies of equal points value. A 70 point Head Quarters choice would have 230 points of something else backing it up versus a 300 point Head Quarters choice.

If anything this will balance out the differences between Head Quarters choice, since Imperial Guard players and the like won't worry about not having a Command Squad leading their army from the front. A 70 point Head Quarters choice would be 230 less wasted points than a 300 point Head Quarters choice if it hung back to preserve its Kill Points. Conversely the 300 point Head Quarters choice will be hard enough to make it worth risking by leading from the front.

there's still the issue that harder, more points dense armies will give up fewer KPs.

Taking your example above, when the IG army invests that 230 points into other squads, at a minimum it'll be two more KPs from two more troops squads. While sometimes more durable then one uber unit (especially with battle cannon around), the IG player will simply have more KPs on the board then his opponent.

The BP system takes simple approach: small, easily killed squads generally don't give up lots of VP unless they're insanely dangerous. Larger, harder, or more deadly units give up progressively more VPs. thus, an IG player can lose half his men, but if the enemy nearly all, IG win.

Under KPs, if the IG army loses half his men, he's lost the game. Under this system, killing a 20 man crusader squads is the same as killing 5 Pathfinders. Killing the Avatar is the same as killing a Heroic Senior Officer. Yes, point diffuse armies will have more "stuff" backing them up, but at the risk of yet more KPs.

I guess I'm not convinced that the VP system is broken enough to mandate such a sweeping change. Sure, it counterbalances the missiosn where having more scoring units is an advantage, but that makes tournaments and freindly games a fun game of "Read mission to see if you've won or lost." Is this alarmist? Yeah, a little. Should ultra small scoring units get reined in a little? Probably. Should an army with nothing but relatively small scoring units (IG) get thorougly boned in 1/3 of missions? I don't think so.

Polonius: "Points dense" armies will contain fewer units, and having more units is an advantage in Warhammer 40k because more units equals more targets that can be shot at, assaulted, and capture objectives.

Certainly this will give an opponent more opportunity to earn those extra kill points, but it will also give a player the opportunity to annihilate that opponent's force first. As you point out, few but hard units often suffer by comparison to numerous but soft units where ordnance like Battle Cannons are being fielded. Larger, harder, and more powerful units give up kill points more easily than the equivalent in smaller, softer, and less powerful units because they not only give up their own kill points when annihilated, but the kill points that they will not earn.

Think of it this way: A full squad of Chaos Space Marines and three full squads of Imperial Guard are very roughly equivalent, but the Imperial Guard will give up three times the points, right? Wrong, if one squad of Imperial Guard is killed there are two left over to earn more kill points. If the Chaos Space Marine squad is killed, they cannot continue to earn kill points. This works the same under the victory point system which, incidentally, is included to determine the winner when objective-based games are drawn.

The equivalences you've identified between hard and soft units with regard to kill points are true only insofar as we ignore how kill points are earned: by the performance of a unit over a number of turns in a game. A unit can have an indirect but very important effect on kill points by preventing units from breaking, like the Avatar, such that its Force Organization slot kill points are only part of the story.

The problem with victory points is that they encourage an annoying tit-for-tat strategizing by which people talk about units "earning their points back". Kill points put the focus on the synergy between units to control and win the game, rather than simply on the killing power of units.

An army with nothing but relatively small and soft scoring units may get thoroughly "boned" in a third of all missions, but the Imperial Guard will not. The Imperial Guard are also numerous and hard-hitting, mixing numerous relatively small and soft scoring units with hard and hard-hitting non-scoring units. Not to mention long-ranged.

Besides, if you want large units just take Conscripts.

Actually Nurglitch, what Kill points does is stupify the game even further.

Instead of having to count victory points, now we count kill points.

Gee are we still trying to get units to earn their points back?

Yes, you are. The name and not the nature is all that has changed.

Actualy, it looks like Nurglitch may have a valid point here (for once ). Units that are killed give up their kill points and also stop earning kill points. So while the small cheep squads can give up more kill points than large expensive ones, they also continue to earn kill points for longer durrations. While this may not always come out in the wash, it is a valid point. Also keep in mind that with the removal of the "Last Man Standing" rule from 5th edition, if you get a squad reduced to 1 or 2 members, it's not difficult to run behind other units in the area and hide from the enemy, thus denying them the kill points for that unit. But in order to do this, you have to have other units in the area to hide behind so it will be easier for armies with cheep troops to acomplish.

That's what it looks like to me: A ham fisted and poorly thought out system that is supposed to take any difficult maths from the end of a game of warhammer. The problem is that it's going to encourage certain list builds over others, on a broad scale.

I'll wait to see it in action, but I prefer victory points. It seems to me that HQ, Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support were already balanced by only being able to take limited numbers.

I see the arument: one squad, of say, Chaos Space Marines might kill one squad of IG, get wiped, so both sides get one KP while the other two IG squads keep killing.

It's a good theory, except for the times when the squad is able to kill multiple IG squads. Or even better, the IG lose 1 squad but only kill 9 of the 10 CSMs?

the arugment that's being used to prop up KPs doesn't vary from how VPs are earned today: killing enemy units while keeping your own alive. What's changed isn't how good IG squads are at killing, but how rewarding the exchange is for more elite armies.

Under VPs, a squad of Chaos Space Marines must kill over two squads of IG, or somehow prevent them from shooting, to be a fair exchange in an annhilation mission. Every IG squad not wiped out is still shooting, and earning and retaing VPs.

Under KPs, everything is the same, except for the fact that the CSMs have less pressure to wipe out a ton of IG.

That's not even getting to those force multipliers that can effect multiple IG squads: Large squads multicharging, Fear of Darkness, Psychic Choir & Dakkafexes, tank shock, etc.

Additionally, KPs reduce the fear of losing high point cost units. You can't be casual with, say, a large squad of bikers, because it's a large investment. Given the limited # of KPs they give up, now any unit can be used as a sacrifice unit if it is the least useful unit. Now, the cost in terms of amount of the army are the same, but the amount of objective points given up (which is all KPs are, objectives) is now manageable.

Think of it this way: if you played a normal, 4th edition VP game, except replaced the actual VP value of each unit with an "average" of all units in that FOC across all codices, would the game still be balanced? If I pay 95 pts for an IG las/plas squad, but you get 200 VPs for killing it, would that be fair? What if I only got 200 VPs for killing your full Crusader squad?

I don't think it's radicallly unbalanced, but barring some playtesting, I can't see how it's totally fair.

Polonius:

It would certainly help to know when a Chaos Space Marine squad might kill multiple Imperial Guard squads, and at what frequency. In particular it would be more accurate to determine what rate at which the units in an Imperial Guard army can kill or break units in a Chaos Space Marine army and vice versa. After all it may be the case that taking on Chaos Space Marine squads with Imperial Guard squads and expecting to win whether by kill points or by victory points is a dumb idea and that the strategic problem for the Imperial Guard is how to kill the Chaos Space Marines before the Chaos Space Marines can kill enough Imperial Guard. Hence it would not be fair to reward players for simply taking either bigger or small units, but for using those units in a tactically sophisticated way. It's fair because it rewards the people who apply their skill to solving the strategic dilemma of having enough troops to capture objectives but not so many as to give away kill points, but it's not "totally fair" because it will give an advantage to players with that experience.

The problem for Games Workshop will be, I think, to convince players used to prejudging all things Warhammer 40k that it is fair before those players poison the well and the community convinces itself that kill points aren't fair before they ever become an official rule.

Kill points will be alot easier earned for some combinations then others, that much is clear. For game balance two things of equal value often are pretty equal in what you get for it, with some exceptions. But if one of those 2 are worth 3 times the points it will be bad for someone.

Other then that, you can still phase out necrons so that sound like a pretty bad choice. But sure, there are nasty combinations that have very very low value in KP and whats worse is that most of those combinations consists of resilient troops that are excellent at capturing objectives in the other 2 missons.. win-win situation.

All this changes is the ballpark tho, the game is still the same.. at the moment people still run point denial vs point earned armies.

Have we decided if Guard squads or Guard platoons give kill-points? I think it is absurd either way, but the relevance of recent posts depends on the conclusion. Most imply squads give them way.

Show of hands?

WaltF4 wrote:Have we decided if Guard squads or Guard platoons give kill-points? I think it is absurd either way, but the relevance of recent posts depends on the conclusion. Most imply squads give them way.

Show of hands?

According to the leaked pdf, it is units...which would be squads. The talk of platoons was just hypothetical. Although since the pdf isn't official and still subject to change, I guess the rest of the talk is hypothetical too, just less so.

I think the KP system will change the game but not break it. What really surprises me is that they kept the victory points as a tie breaker for objective missions, this can easily come up in a recon mission. So now you have to plan to two different points counting systems.

For IG I think each squad counts, considering dedicated transports specifically contribute seperate KP I think the intent is clear that each unit in a FOC gives KP. Not to mention the current RAW says "unit".

Which means IG are totally screwed though until they get a new book. Small squishy squads give up too much KP too easily. Anything beyond mortar squads in the HQ platoon is a risky idea at 3 KP each.

They aren't totally screwed. Cover saves are improved, they have access to many Troop units for capturing objectives, and they have access to some of the heavier weaponry in the game.

According to that wording, each guard squad will give 1 KP. "Units from the troops section". Each squad is 1 unit, nobody would argue that. And while the whole platoon is 1 "troop", each squad was chosen from an entry in the troops section, so each is a unit from the troops section.

Transports are dealt with, and that sucks that a devilfish for pathfinders and a devilfish for firewarriors are worth different values, but I don't believe the gundrones will be worth anything - while they do separate and form a unit, they themselves weren't selected from anything - essentially they just came with the transport you selected, and you need to down that to get the kp.

Transports are dealt with, and that sucks that a devilfish for pathfinders and a devilfish for firewarriors are worth different values, but I don't believe the gundrones will be worth anything - while they do separate and form a unit, they themselves weren't selected from anything - essentially they just came with the transport you selected, and you need to down that to get the kp.

So you're saying that if a Tau player unloads his gundrones first turn and hides them for the whole game, then even if the 'fish dies, no kps are earned? It's the same double edged sword as IG platoons, unless the drones just aren't worth anything --which is probably the way it'll get played.

-Leo037

No, I'm saying if the fish dies you get the kps and who cares about the drones.

If they did the opposite, hid the devilfish and flew the drones all about, I believe they're worth nothing - and grats, he managed to get a "free" "unit", for all the good that 2 gundrones are going to do.

The best use for those free gun drones is forcing priority checks on the enemy. Nothing more annoying than being forced to divert an entire squad's firepower into two lowly drones.

Drones off of pirahnas can be really annoying as well. S5 against side armor is nothing to sneeze at. With one more turn of movement its S5 vs rear armor. They can't be ignored. Two little gun drones that pretty much have to be dealt with.