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.

KPs dont suck hard, as they balance out the other two missions by giving a disadvantage to taking minmax troops allowance. VPs does not and cnanot balance out the other mission types

Why doesn't VPs balance out the other 2 options? Having VPs count for annihilation instead of KPs would acheive everything the KP system does but also do so in a balanced way rather than punishing certain armies (i.e. Tau) whilst making others have a huge advantage (IG blobbed squads and Tank squadrons)...

It makes deathstar units better and just totally stuffs over certain armies and choices.

Because VPs do not make min/max a disadvantage, which is important as min/max is an advantage in the other 2/3rds of missions?

In fact, for VPs lots of small units is much much better than fewer bigger ones. 4th ed taught you this, surely? Theres a reason people only took 6man las/plas

Objective games encourage lots of units of troops (well, scoring units), so in order to avoid a repeat of the min/maxed lists of 4th ed you have KP - which makes lots of troop units a disadvantage.

Balance, you see. And the other thing is that KP is still a balanced game, even with everyone complaining about their 19KP DE armies...

Edit: in fact you said it yourself without realising - KP makes "death star" units better, whereas objective missions make death star units worse. DO you not see the point youre missing?

And they dont entirely "stuff up" certain units, it is just another element to weigh up - I still see pirahna squadrons used as they are great in 2/3rd of the missions you will ever play, and you do realise "reserves" exists in all standard missions? Like everythig in this game yu have to decide if a unit is worth it - and playng to the missions is *definitely* somethng that should be considered.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because VPs do not make min/max a disadvantage, which is important as min/max is an advantage in the other 2/3rds of missions?

In fact, for VPs lots of small units is much much better than fewer bigger ones. 4th ed taught you this, surely? Theres a reason people only took 6man las/plas
.

i'm not sure how it's better for small units. having a 5 man squad means you have a chance of running off the board and NEVER regrouping with only 3 casualties (obviously ATSKNF is an exception); that is the downside and the natural balance to small but numerous squads. VP work because you lose exactly what the unit is worth in points. it's ridiculous that 2 drones that disattach from a tau devilfish are worth as many killpoints as 10 terminators with all the fixings. seriously, 24pts (two drones) vs 600+ points (10 SW terminators with TH/SS) but each is 1 KP? there is no justification that makes that scenario reasonable.

Deathstar units are awesome in Objective games anyway in annihilation they literally have no down side! 1kp for a nigh unstoppable wall of death or 1 KP for a peice of wargear...

I'm fine with drones counting as a KP as long as extra Armour on a tank counts as a KP and storm bolters and whatever wargear they have including what comes as standard (searchlight, weapons)... Though granted some peices of wargear are better than others so we'll attach a value to them lets use the points system to make sure it is balanced...

VPs doesn't necessarilly help or encourage min/max armies. They worked in 4th ed because they ALSO had to claim objectives. And if people are min-maxing their troops choices I'm fine with that. Where as there is no benefit to doing that in a VP scenario or the objective scenario for anythign that isn't scoring.

Saying you don't want min-maxing for some reason is all fine and well except for some armies that are literally forced to do so. The old IG codex for example and the current Tau codex, forces you to take lots of small units because the unit sizes are small and all the vehicles count as 2KPs. So it is fine for Space Marines and the armies that have 5th ed codexes. But why force EVERYONE to play as Space Marines and claim that is balanced?

Huh?

4th ed was only VPs. 4th ed was entirely about min maxing. You didnt play much then did you? 4th ed *had no objectives* it was a straight kill them all, with variations - but all based off VP. And guess what? minmax won the day. every time. It is *much* harder to kill 6 units that it is to neutralise 3 units.

Death star units are NOT awesome in objective games - becuase you have les spoints for other troops choices, meaning you have less abilty to take multiple objectives. 1 tac marine takes an objective as well as 10.

I dont think you understnad what minmaxing means. It has no relation to the maximum unit size, but about taking the minimum number of troops to achieve the maximum firepower - which is why i said 6 man las/plas was a good example of min max. And in objective gmaes that is all you would take, if there was no downside - which is that in annihilation missions you now have more KPs.

The main reason being that troops, barring some notable exceptions, dont do the major part of an armies killing - this is why in 4th ed you had lots of 2x5man scuot squads with the rest of the army full of killy things.

4th ed was only VPs. 4th ed was entirely about min maxing. You didnt play much then did you? 4th ed *had no objectives* it was a straight kill them all, with variations - but all based off VP. And guess what? minmax won the day. every time. It is *much* harder to kill 6 units that it is to neutralise 3 units.

Wrong it did have objectives and holding Objectives also got you VPs not just killing your opponent.

Death star units are NOT awesome in objective games - becuase you have les spoints for other troops choices, meaning you have less abilty to take multiple objectives. 1 tac marine takes an objective as well as 10.

Tournament results would suggest otherwise. death star units are still awesome in objective games if they are mobile.

I dont think you understnad what minmaxing means. It has no relation to the maximum unit size, but about taking the minimum number of troops to achieve the maximum firepower - which is why i said 6 man las/plas was a good example of min max. And in objective gmaes that is all you would take, if there was no downside - which is that in annihilation missions you now have more KPs.

There is a down side it means in objective games you will have fewer troops if you min-max the troops choices, though granted possibly more options. But I don't see how min maxing works with most armies outside of Space Mariones you seem to only be considering what works and is balanced for SMs not Tau, Tyranids, Eldar, Orks etc...

The main reason being that troops, barring some notable exceptions, dont do the major part of an armies killing - this is why in 4th ed you had lots of 2x5man scuot squads with the rest of the army full of killy things.

Yes and that still won;t happen as you still have 2/3 of mission relying on troops. Army composition will still be roughly the same except certain armies wouldn't be insta-screwed. Again all you points seem to pertain to making the game balanced for SMs and nothing to do with the other armies. I bet you not a single Ork, Tyranid or Tau army ever consisted of just 2 troops choices of 5 scouts. Yet you claim this was ever present...

No, I said "there were variations" but they were STILL based on VPs. And most tournaments were straight up kill em all.

Look, if I give an example of one race, it is simoply that - an example.

How about this for a typical 4th ed Eldar army: 2 units of DA in waveserpents, min size. 3xfalcon with harlies, anything else you have. That is a min / max army.

How about this for an example fo the typical nid big bug list: 2 medium sized units of stealers, 6 fexes and a flyrant

Your constant cries of "min maxing was SM only" are getting tiring.

Oh - and name a deathstar unit that is mobile that *isn't* nob bikers. which do very poorly at tournaments as everyone counters them - they had 4 months in the sun. One reasino you dont see deathstar boyz is lack of mobiltiy - instead you have boyz in BW so only 20.

You also keep stating "armies are isnta-screwed", yet I have countered every point. Your arguments are tired and one dimensional.