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.

Eh, I always thought pods should have tank shock, or a splat! rule for them. Why they can't land on enemy units is just weird.

Drop pods are still very good when used properly. I don't compete in national tournaments, so I can't intelligently speak on their value at that level, but I know that locally they are effective.

2 pods of sternguard - 5 w/ combi meltas combat squadded in each pod and an ironclad with a heavy flamer and melta hitting on the first turn are never something to laugh at.

I do not worry about the kill point - if they are dedicating resources to killing my pod, they are not shooting at something much more dangerous.

@ Shep: I think the problem is that you said KPs were a "perfect" counterbalance. I think it's a more elegant solution than we saw at first, but to claim it's perfect is a tall claim. If nothing else, it required one complete codex re-write (IG) and a fairly major shift in tactics by another codex (tau) to be remotely balanced for those armies, and the less said about Dark Eldar, the better (although we can't stick KPs with that bill).

I would instead argue that GW had a plan with KPs, and they cut down on light, annoying units with low costs, as well as limiting the objective grabbing power of MSU armies.

The problem is that in game play, Kill Points lead to odd and unsatisfying results. Sure it balances the meta game and blah blah blah, but every time a KP heavy army takes the piss out of KP light army and still loses, there is going to be animosity towards the mission.

As for drop pods, I don't think they're dead. If the point of the OP is that all drop pod armies won't be winning big tournaments, I say "welcome to 2005", a time when pretty much all the top players knew how to deal with pods.

In casual and low level tournament play, all pods are still viable thanks to Pedro (scoring Sternguard) and the shift in many environments to eliminate KPs, or minimize them as secondary objectives.

As a boost to a standard list, pods still provide some sizzle. 150pts for a highly accurate Multimelta and/or heavy flamer is simply a good deal, and Ironclads are amazing units that can tear up an entire battle line. Sternguard, of course, are expensive but amazingly good.

Polonius wrote:@ Shep: ...
The problem is that in game play, Kill Points lead to odd and unsatisfying results. Sure it balances the meta game and blah blah blah, but every time a KP heavy army takes the piss out of KP light army and still loses, there is going to be animosity towards the mission.

Well spoken sir. I salute your even handed succinct writing and I concur.

Polonius wrote:@ Shep: I think the problem is that you said KPs were a "perfect" counterbalance. I think it's a more elegant solution than we saw at first, but to claim it's perfect is a tall claim. If nothing else, it required one complete codex re-write (IG) and a fairly major shift in tactics by another codex (tau) to be remotely balanced for those armies, and the less said about Dark Eldar, the better (although we can't stick KPs with that bill).

Well said. Perfect was a terrible word for me to choose as it is unachievable in game design, period.

Polonius wrote:The problem is that in game play, Kill Points lead to odd and unsatisfying results. Sure it balances the meta game and blah blah blah, but every time a KP heavy army takes the piss out of KP light army and still loses, there is going to be animosity towards the mission.

That's interesting, because I felt some animosity to MSU when I nearly tabled a Tau army in a capture and control. When his two empty devilfish arrived at my objective and I had enough fire power to kill both of his fish, but not quite enough to kill the two units of two gun drones that fell off of the dead fish, he was able to block my home objective with them, forcing a tie. I would classify that game as an odd and unsatisfying result. And I lost the win because of a "KP weak unit". That very reason was why it was a good vehicle to have in an objective mission.

It's all a matter of perspective, and selective memory. BTW, that actually happened to me about two months ago, its not a 'what if' scenario.

Shep wrote:

Polonius wrote:The problem is that in game play, Kill Points lead to odd and unsatisfying results. Sure it balances the meta game and blah blah blah, but every time a KP heavy army takes the piss out of KP light army and still loses, there is going to be animosity towards the mission.

That's interesting, because I felt some animosity to MSU when I nearly tabled a Tau army in a capture and control. When his two empty devilfish arrived at my objective and I had enough fire power to kill both of his fish, but not quite enough to kill the two units of two gun drones that fell off of the dead fish, he was able to block my home objective with them, forcing a tie. I would classify that game as an odd and unsatisfying result. And I lost the win because of a "KP weak unit". That very reason was why it was a good vehicle to have in an objective mission.

It's all a matter of perspective, and selective memory. BTW, that actually happened to me about two months ago, its not a 'what if' scenario.

That's a very good point, and one that isn't brought up often enough. I would rebut, however. In KP missions, small units don't really have any advantage compared to the larger, more durable units. Sure you can split fire more discretely and thus waste fewer shots, but if we sit down to play and I have 15KPs and you have 10, you have nearly every advantage.

Conversely, when we play an objective mission, while I have 15 different elements that can claim or contest, and you have 10, each of yours tends to be tougher or more durable (at least in theory). I'd never argue that I don't have the advantage there, but having one big tough brick of a unit to grab an objective is sometimes better than having three light units. '

Anyway, I think the 5th edition missions are elegant and work fine enough, but I genuinely preferred the basic idea of the 4th edition missions. They weren't perfect (who misses alpha mission? Recon? Escalation????) but the combination of Kill and objective VPs made each mission about two things: killing more than you lose, and accomplishing the missions. That's another argument for another time, but Escalation killed mechanized armies for an entire edition, and while MSU armies could be annoying, their complete invalidation under KPs is a bit of a bummer, IMO.

The other thing with all last minute objective grabs is that with random game length, most of the time you're not sure if the game will really end, making it a matter of rolling the dice as well. KPs add up all game, and are inured from that aspect of the game. Also, not to be snotty, but if you nearly tabled him, how did you not control at least one of the two objectives? He contested yours, but you never got a unit into his backfield? My point being, there are more and easier ways to work around objective missions against MSU than there when playing KPs with an MSU force.

Shep wrote:...
That's interesting, because I felt some animosity to MSU when I nearly tabled a Tau army in a capture and control. When his two empty devilfish arrived at my objective and I had enough fire power to kill both of his fish, but not quite enough to kill the two units of two gun drones that fell off of the dead fish, he was able to block my home objective with them, forcing a tie. I would classify that game as an odd and unsatisfying result. And I lost the win because of a "KP weak unit". That very reason was why it was a good vehicle to have in an objective mission.

It's all a matter of perspective, and selective memory. BTW, that actually happened to me about two months ago, its not a 'what if' scenario.

I see what you did there. I agree completely about your comments in the obj taking situation. I'd like to ad to my prior comments if I might. IMO a drop pod should not be a KP, but furthermore, I do not think empty transports (or drones from them) should be able to even contest either.

The staying power is in the leg infantry, and the game is creating wierd problems with transoprts (sometimes empty and weaponless) having as much contesting power as troops... Which leads to another issue on KP vs Scoring unit number. Since the begining of the book, I have thought that whoever has the MOST units in 3 inches of an objective ought to control it! I have seen so many situations where a single unit, often an empty rhino or a weaponless wavserpent etc. contested an objective from multiple scoring units. Looking at the board and other table elements, that just isn't right. A point I think you are hitting on in your example and I absolutely agree with!

Having the most units in range of the objective simply brings us back to MSU. Two Grot survivors from seperate squads that the 'Nidz didn't have time to eat yet would then claim an objective which was held by a full squad of Genestealers or the like. Unlikely, but it would happen in a game and then we'd be on the other side of the fence arguing for points. We have to look at the direction the game is going in, which is simplification of game results (Despite the fact that it has failed spectacularly in many spots. Gun Drones, I'm looking at you). We then have three choices:

Cheer / Mourn the passing of the old editions (or still play them, even)

Play the game as intended now / Just change it now via house rules

Look forward to whatever we get in the next edition / Call & E-mail GW and let them know what kind of product you want them to make, they might just listen (Don't get your hopes up if you mention Squats though)

Don't get me wrong, I would love it if transports didn't count as kill points. It would make my Speed Freaks' day, actually, to stop giving up points for their rides. But where do you draw the line? Does a heavy support choice Crusader not count as a Kill Point? What if it's a dedicated transport, does that count for a Point? How about my Battlewagons? Trukks? Drop Pods? In the end, somebody's not going to be happy that their unit gives up a point and something of the same class from another list doesn't, unless we make them all count for points, and the same thing goes for objective grabbing. The only difference is in the latest edition we have a clear line for control -- Only infantry troop choices may capture objectives -- which makes perfect sense. But if I blow something up that was driving towards me, shooting at me, or delivering things that shoot at me, and you tell me I don't get anything for blowing it up because it didn't fall in to category X, Y, or Z, then I don't think I want to be playing that game.

Well, what if scoring and KP value were properties that varied from unit to unit and army to army?

I suppose that is just purely academic.

What you're suggesting requires re-releasing every codex concurrently with the next edition rulebook. GW's money tree (that mysteriously grows plastic that turns into money) would go into a growth spurt for a couple months and then suddenly fall over dead. Purely academic indeed.

Augustus wrote:Well, what if scoring and KP value were properties that varied from unit to unit and army to army?

I suppose that is just purely academic.

One thing you are touching on that GW can do, (although not retroactively) is to make certain units not worth a KP as long as they were also balanced out by an inability to contest an objective.

Like for instance, Phil could say that dark eldar raiders did not forfeit a KP when killed, but an empty raider next to an objective would not contest it.

Could call it a "designed to be expendable" rule.

As long as GW controlled the amount of units that could have this rule, and those units were not spammable, then it could be functional.

The rule falls completely apart if that unit was 20 points and there was no real limitation to taking them. Now we have players saturating the board with them, using them to muck up charge and moving lanes, initiating charges with them to force defender reaction moves, or doing other un-fun things.

Well sure, but considered in context I think that would be a great rule for dedicated transports under 200 points in practice.

Academicly speaking.

An interesting idea that someone brought up to me. Everybook has generic "transport" entries. IE there is a special box that has the wave serpent transport, and it can only ever be bought as a unit transport never on it's own.

I think if you make everything in a transport entry, not worth a kp and unable to contest or score it provides some interesting possibilities. I haven't gone through the rundown yet, but it's an interesting theory. I have a feeling that if you do this though, you make mech armies even tougher because then you have to pop the vehicle to get to the squishy squad inside. I think you would have to insert another rule called something like "secure the area" and not let people control or contest an objective from inside a vehicle.

Lascannon toting Razorback, Disruption podding Devilfish, Battlewagon with killkannon, Lance toting Raiders... There's a lot of mean stuff that can be a dedicated transport for under 200 points, and maybe with the exception of the Raider I would expect any of it to have a permanent presence if it wanted to park somewhere (AKA should probably contest at minimum).

Ratbarf wrote:Eh, I always thought pods should have tank shock, or a splat! rule for them. Why they can't land on enemy units is just weird.

QFT

As far as the argument that KP is unrealistic, its about as realistic as a Wave Serpent moving flat out and screeching to a halt on top of an objective, a buzzer going off, the fighting stopping, and the Wave Serpent somehow achieves control of the objective. Its a game mechanic. We're playing a game. ITS NOT REAL LIFE.

Now for drop pods - they are pretty far from useless. They are one of the only ways to get a unit with strong offensive power - think Sternguard - into place intact and ready to kill a tank or enemy high value target. They dont have the weakness of deep strike in that they are not destroyed if they land on something. The trade off for this is that they are vulnerable once they land. If you only analyze them from a purely anecdotal viewpoint and youre assuming they land in the middle of your entire army and you have nothing else to shoot at, well then yes theyre an easy KP. but in the reality of 40k, things arent always so simple. Drop pods have their place.

"splat rule," i love it!

Do i hear a new home rule

Well there are laready rules for ramming and for tank shock, so, with a caveat that you can't intentionally aim for firendly or enemy units, I don't see what else would be necesary...

Even if you can't aim for enemy units under this hypothetical new rule, you could still put it directly between 3 or 4 units and hope for a scatter. It seems about as legitimate as the WHFB stone thrower trick of aiming at a tree in front of you that blocks your line of sight, and guessing 3 feet extra to hit something on the other side.

And this is why the store I play at refuses to play Kill Points, it's such a terrible, imbalanced concept. Doesn't make sense how a land raider yields the same amount of benefits when destroyed as much as a 5 man tactical squad :S

Zoot wrote:And this is why the store I play at refuses to play Kill Points, it's such a terrible, imbalanced concept. Doesn't make sense how a land raider yields the same amount of benefits when destroyed as much as a 5 man tactical squad :S

Did you even read the discussion in this thread at all?

Shep wrote:

Zoot wrote:And this is why the store I play at refuses to play Kill Points, it's such a terrible, imbalanced concept. Doesn't make sense how a land raider yields the same amount of benefits when destroyed as much as a 5 man tactical squad :S

Did you even read the discussion in this thread at all?

What is "NO?" I'll go with Warhammer 40k rules for $500 Alex.

asugradinwa wrote:What is "NO?" I'll go with Warhammer 40k rules for $500 Alex.

-- -- Cheesy sound effects that would be suitable "pew pew"s from Gauss rifles -- --

You've found our first Daily Double!

Place your wager....

The answer... "This should count as a kill point for destroying it."

Danny Internets wrote:

Malecus wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:
...killing the 30th member of a 30 Ork squad giving points towards winning the game when member #1-29 gave nothing is somehow better?

Well, yes, actually, it is better. It simplifies the accounting side of the game so that you don't have to remember (or ask time and time again) if that was the squad that started with 20 boyz and the 10th is worth victory 85 points or if it was the 30 boy squad that the 15th is worth 115 victory points. The entire squad is worth 1 kill point. Less math and memory, more dice and tactics. But that's not what this thread is about. I apologize for the temporary hijacking.

You're really trying to justify kill points on the grounds that basic counting and arithmetic are too taxing? Really?

It makes perfectly good sense.

G

Shep don't unsubscribe. K?

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Shep don't unsubscribe. K?

G

haha (moves hand slowly away from mouse button)

I don't mind Kill points the way it is. It has helped me & it has hurt me. Just ask Skkipper about our game at the Seattle Heart of Fire Tournament where half of my army is still alive and he is down to about 10 models and he wins the game.

However, I LOVED what the So Cal Slaughter in Space Tournament did. They made you round killpoints down if it was a troop unit & Up if it was any other type. So my full tac Squad was only worth 1 Kill point, yet Vulkan was worth 2. It made for some very different tactical choices, and my "Uber unit" of Vulkan, assault terminators, and a redeemer went from being worth 3 kill points to being worth 7.

Drop pods are dead because they are too easy to counter.
Dawn of war: Give them first turn.
Any imperial force: Ally in Mystics.
Any force: Hold Everything in reserve (you already will be doing this with genestealer heavy lists, Position relay Tau, and some jetbike eldar builds) or castle up in a corner (If the pod scatters off table you don't stop!)

You also still have to have 1/2 of your drop pod force in reserve. Due to all these factors I doubt I'll be using a drop pod heavy force unless it is just for fun.

Of course I tend to have the worst luck with my drop pods, so I might be biased.