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 think it's a good idea to give both methods a whirl.

I believe what GW was trying to do with KP's was move away from VP's, which your idea indirectly moves back towards.

I guess we should get them to tell us if the assumption is true.

All I know now is KP's are bad for not just IG, but many armies.

Here's the thing. I think the one third Kill Points/standard mission thing is for "pick up games". It is a balancing act meant to make you choose between excellence at scoring/contesting and excellence at denying KP.

Other systems SHOULD be in place for competitive events, disclosed beforehand. This seems like a good one for playtesting.

I don't think they put KP's in for friendly games. They are inherently an unfriendly game element.

I believe GW wants the tournament scene to change drastically, and this is their square peg for the round hole...

I like this idea. It's a little fiddly, but no more so than VP (what the hell was the problem was that after all?).

One solution to the IG problem for KPs is to simply treat them like any other army: let them take larger squads! Simply put, let platoon squads merge at the beginning of the game (like opposite Combat Squads) into one big squad. It's only 1 KP, but it'll suck once HtH hits....

I don't see what's wrong with the method of counting the points value of destroyed models.

That is simple, reasonably balanced against combat power, works for all armies without bias and doesn't need counters or extra paperwork.

Though if KPs must be used, Stelek's idea is good.

Great Ideas, I really like the Yakfaces Idea of the most expencive units get the KP assigned to it, it makes things much less fiddly. Good Job on this thread Stelek.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't see what's wrong with the method of counting the points value of destroyed models.

That is simple, reasonably balanced against combat power, works for all armies without bias and doesn't need counters or extra paperwork.

The problem is that a lot of players can't do simple math with large numbers or division without inadvertant errors that may masquerade for blatant cheating. So VPs are out of the question.

OTOH, KPs are small math, so it reduces errors and opportunities to cheat.

ROFL @ JohnHwangDD.

Yes, simple math seems 'confuzerizer' for alot of people, which is embarrassing when they should have a AB list in hand before they go.

I know I love when people bring in little scribble sheets and expect me to buy it as their list...and I table them but only 520 points of stuff actually died. lol

Yup. It's amazing how "half points" mutates into "no points", people forget to "carry the 1", and whole units just "disappear"...

I once got 1400 VPs in a 1000pt game. Neither the kid I was playing, or his dad stood next to him, glaring at me beating his son, had bothered to go to the trouble of writing an army list or doing any maths it seems. Still, tabled him. 3rd edition Speed Freeks were ace....

Anyway, I still like VPs, it's a good, fair system. But, like others have said, it does leave a lot of room for 'creative' maths.

I like the proposal Stelek, and with Yak's amendment especially. I hope people at GW take note, and immediatley publish an errata sheet with this on. I also hope for a pony, a sweet factory and a solid gold crapper. Let's see which I get first.

pony. I'll mail it out tomorrow! pm me your addy.

I think Stelek has made a very good proposal but it isn't for such a big problem. I don't see Kill Points being a problem if they are only 2 games out of 5(though I would prefer 1 or 0 myself). If someone wants to make a list that is abusive 40% of the time... well that's just great and I hope everyone does it right now. KP abuse lists would only be unbalanced if your friends/gaming club always insist on KPs to determine victory.

The only good thing I can think about KPs is they are a refreshing change from Victory Points. VPs were clunky and difficult to count on the fly. KPs are so much more streamlined that once I realized they were only 1 out of 3 objectives I welcomed them(no longer). Still though, they need to be marginalized on the tournament circuit.

I think what GW was going for was having a set of objectives and deployment zones that check and balance each other. Personally I don't think GW has created that in 5th. It would probably require having a set of FO charts and a grouping of units to select from. Sounds cool but way too complicated for a GW game.

... its a shame GW didn't say "for every choice on the FOC is x KP" rather then every unit
still would be better for big units but alot better then what we have now

@WC_Brian:

The reason I think it's a major problem is, it is a rather big flaw in the game.

40k is in the right now, along with GW. They need to be able to change things for the better without waiting for a new release.

Reason? There is alot of competition out there doing well, taking more market share from GW every year. If there is nothing MAJOR to complain about, maybe that will stop.

Maybe.

Tri wrote:... its a shame GW didn't say "for every choice on the FOC is x KP" rather then every unit
still would be better for big units but alot better then what we have now

That would work better since each FOC slot tends to be worth roughly about 100 to 200 points, so you don't get these anomalies with tiny, worthless units being the same value as Marneus Calgar.

Well I like Yak's addition, which is you go by points cost down, better than every FOC is a KP--since that's what we have now really with only a few exceptions.

oh i'm not against your idea or Yak's, they sounds good.

I'm Just saying that the current KP system would work better against the FOC, then the units. As IG wouldn't be stuffed as badly

... but who knows Next IG codex
IG Special Rules
In Formation KP are only give out if Officer is killed, as to be honest most guards men are going to die sooner or later and are easily replaced.

well that sort of thing any way

Another possibility for balancing the whole thing out would be to count up the number of kill points in each army. Assuming that the number is not equal then take the difference in the number of kill points then assign that difference of kill points to the army that had less kill points.

The player of the army with less kill points goes first and assigns a second kill point to one of his units, then his opponent would assign an extra kill point to one of his his units. Continue until both armies have an equal number of killpoints. Don't assign third killpoints until everything has two and so on.

Alternatively, just assign the difference starting with the most expensive unit working down until both are equal again.

I kind of like players assigning the kill points because it is like betting.

A potential problem is keeping up with which squads are worth multiple kill points, but that is inherent in any of these fixes I guess. anyway the numbers are even and everything is worth something.

Stelek wrote:@WC_Brian:

The reason I think it's a major problem is, it is a rather big flaw in the game.

40k is in the right now, along with GW. They need to be able to change things for the better without waiting for a new release.

Reason? There is alot of competition out there doing well, taking more market share from GW every year. If there is nothing MAJOR to complain about, maybe that will stop.

Maybe.

It is one of 3 objectives in the rulebook, it isn't the only objective. If it were the only way to win it would be a big flaw. Victory Points favored certain races and no one wanted to change that. MEQ, Orks, Zilla and Mech held their VPs very well. If a race is bad at KP, Quarters and other objective grabbing it is in big trouble regardless of what you do to KP.

It's cool that you want GW to do better but I don't think the game is going anywhere anytime soon. Even if GW goes out of business someone will either buy it or the players will create rules like Bell of Lost Souls or FAQs like Adepticon. The indy GTs will still go off, the models will still be sold on Ebay. Regardless though, GW will not issue errata to their brand new rulebook, especially if it isn't a simple and elegant change.

Seemed simple and elegant to the rest of us.

You in a bad mood, just being negative or what?

ptlangley wrote:Another possibility for balancing the whole thing out would be to count up the number of kill points in each army. Assuming that the number is not equal then take the difference in the number of kill points then assign that difference of kill points to the army that had less kill points.

The player of the army with less kill points goes first and assigns a second kill point to one of his units, then his opponent would assign an extra kill point to one of his his units. Continue until both armies have an equal number of killpoints. Don't assign third killpoints until everything has two and so on.

Alternatively, just assign the difference starting with the most expensive unit working down until both are equal again.

I kind of like players assigning the kill points because it is like betting.

A potential problem is keeping up with which squads are worth multiple kill points, but that is inherent in any of these fixes I guess. anyway the numbers are even and everything is worth something.

This is a fun idea, however the virtue of kill points is supposed to be they are simple to use, and complications like this are not in the spirit.

My opinion is that 40K is not inherently a simple game, it does not attract or cater for stupid people, and players should expect to deal with a bit of complication in furtherance of a fun, balanced game.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The problem is that a lot of players can't do simple math with large numbers or division without inadvertant errors that may masquerade for blatant cheating. So VPs are out of the question.

We've been doing it since 3rd John. It's really not that difficult.

BYE

Kilkrazy wrote:
This is a fun idea, however the virtue of kill points is supposed to be they are simple to use, and complications like this are not in the spirit.

My opinion is that 40K is not inherently a simple game, it does not attract or cater for stupid people, and players should expect to deal with a bit of complication in furtherance of a fun, balanced game.

A "bidding/betting" step would eat up time/add complication. The idea of applying the difference in KP to the highest point value units working down would be very easy though. If you had well written army list with points then it could even wait till after the battle (much like VP were typically done in V4, although much easier to count ones and twos rather than actual points spent). The assumption is that if you have fewer squads they are more effective and/or tougher and thus worth more KP. The benefit is still that both sides end up with equal amounts on the battlefield and that every unit is worth something. If one army is tabled then they will definitely lose.

I think that would potentially close the gap between IG armies and everyone else, or any other combination of many cheap units vs few elite units. There are still some areas that need some work. Tau tank gun drones, cheap transports(<50pts) should just not count for KPs, they should be lumped in with the units they are purchased for but they do not have to be destroyed to get the KP for the unit. Rubberband Swooping Hawks punch a big hole in the turn sequence and I don't see any way for a unit that can attack but cannot be attacked to fit nicely into any VP or KP system.

It actually hadn't occurred to me that KP is "better" than VP, because it allows you to calculate them on the fly during the battle rather then wait till afterward to total it up. I guess I always keep a running vp tally in my head anyway.

Here's a test. Play some games by the normal KP rules, but at the end also calculate the winner by the ratio method and the 6 priciest method. Then lets hear the details of some games that went different ways under the different methods.

Stelek wrote:I don't think they put KP's in for friendly games. They are inherently an unfriendly game element.

I believe GW wants the tournament scene to change drastically, and this is their square peg for the round hole...

I agree, this NOT a friendly game mission and meant to change the build meta for a tourney.

The only weakness that I have seen talked about elsewhere with the 'Pick Top 6' KP's mission outlined here is that it doesn't address Unit Spamming as an advantage from a tourney perspective

I can still see this as another mission used alongside with a standard KP mission in a Tourney.

I am not convinced that Unit Spamming and Cheap Kill Point Units do not have huge weaknesses or advantages yet.

In the case of Unit Spamming advantage - Big Units can claim more than one objective but can be pulled off of objectives with throw away bum rushing units and can be Tank Shocked by Vehicle Spam. But eliminating smaller units before they reach you and carrying anti-vehicle weapons that can death and glory Tank Spam are feasible counters.

The Cheap Kill Points Unit disadvantage - Can be mitigated by starting them in reserve and castling/avoiding contact with the enemy when they do arrive.

Over time, hardened Tourney experience will really weed out these potential flaws and any new strategies that are truly feasible to counter these perceived issues.

Stelek wrote:Seemed simple and elegant to the rest of us.

You in a bad mood, just being negative or what?

I don't get it, I just do my best to be objective and realistic and people are like "what's wrong bro?"

Maybe some of you guys cannot take any form of criticism.

Did the WDs have anything to say on the introduction of KP? I missed the release issue... It seems to me they didn't spend as much time thinking about it as we have here - it's probably all they're thinking about now. 'Creative mathematics' aside, the rules were pretty clear in 4th regarding VP, and the people who do it properly (and put a tiny jot of effort into their list) don't generally take a long time to add it up. Saying it was to speed up gameplay is one thing, and you can see they've worked on that, but I still don't think a couple of extra minutes after the game has ended makes a load of difference.

I like the idea of an equal number of KP to be distributed, but it's a bit like objectives - nothing wrong with that, except that maybe they should be thought of like in WHFB - the old bonus for capturing standards sort of idea. Except this isn't a bonus system, there're missions based on it, and some armies are just boned. Reworking it this way makes it just another objective mission... force organisation is one way to look at it, but yes, IG will love that.

My marines don't really care though... they're pretty balanced in this respect... hey, come to think of it, whenever I see photos of GW guys playtesting, marines are almost always involved. Conspiracy?

Agreeance with spiff - not great if you want to play a fun spammer list, so just re-roll it for casual games if it;s an obvious disadvantage. In tourney perspective, it addresses greenskins/certain IG builds. Still, being defaulted to lose 1-6 games to balance up a tourney...

Why not play exclusively with victory points instead? Page 300 of the new rule book has them in there. If something is broke don't use it (KP's). If something isn't broke don't fix it (VP's).

Victory points are included in the book specifically to help with tournaments and tie breaking. I don't quite understand the hubbub about the problem. Alot of people have made a deal about KP's but their is a built in solution that everyones already familiar with.

aka_mythos wrote:Why not play exclusively with victory points instead? Page 300 of the new rule book has them in there. If something is broke don't use it (KP's). If something isn't broke don't fix it (VP's).

Victory points are included in the book specifically to help with tournaments and tie breaking. I don't quite understand the hubbub about the problem. Alot of people have made a deal about KP's but their is a built in solution that everyones already familiar with.

I think it is because alot of people fear playing people who have no balanced sense of creativity. Some people refuse to play anything other than what is force fed to them. Not every person who plays this game understands that GW track record for balance or playability is rather questionable at times.

I agree that the KP system is pants. Its the one glaringly obvious thing in the 5th ed rulebook that stands out as crap.

VP's will probably go back to being default use sometime in the near future, if GW cant be bothered to balance some obvious issues such as IG and KP.

But if forced to use KP's, then I think Stelek's idea has more merit than any suggestion I have seen so far. Even after considering how IG could abuse this.

Every army can abuse this nearly equally. Eldar placing KP on wraithguard units for instance.

It is still a damned sight better than every minuscule thing coughing up a KP though.

@ aka_mythos: I think you misunderstand. If objective missions and KP missions (aka mobile objectives you can kill to 'score') are balanced equally (they are not) there wouldn't be anyone complaining (and being listened to).

VP's don't help balance out KP's versus normal objective missions, where 2 or 2-5 on the one hand versus 5-27 on the other...it is inherently NOT balanced, and cannot be made so by using VP's, which is for deciding DRAWS and is also flawed in it's own way. See, one KP might be 200 points in my list, but 400 in yours. If we score "even" on KP's and fall back to VP's, don't you win if you scored more VP's despite the nominal value of our armies being the same (in KP's) but nowhere near close (in terms of VP's)?

Is the game more "fun" when you snipe a single sarge in the back with a lascannon because you (the player) have omniscience and "know" you can ignore the 2 full squads of marines in front of you because the "win" is in the back with that lone sarge?

I don't know many players that claim this.