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.

The big one for me, with Tau, is the gun drones on devilfish. I used to always make sure to upgrade to an sms to get rid of the free kp off of the gun drones, now it's not such a worry.

Wel.. I personally love KPs.

It made me lose the Baltimore GT vs Moz... he had 5 kps in his list... i had 20 in round 5.

Mike at Showcase has made his point that he thinks a land raider shouldn't be worth the same as a small grot unit of 10... (A point i hadn't considered until i asked him)

while i see his point, It does feel very rewarding to kill a land raider... I think of KP missions as gorilla warfare. Sometimes you just want to cause damage. Any damage at all can reduce the effectivness of an army.

I have seen one of the biggest issues out there coming up again now that people have stopped using KPs... 2 troop armies of marines who can combat squad




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warmaster wrote:The big one for me, with Tau, is the gun drones on devilfish. I used to always make sure to upgrade to an sms to get rid of the free kp off of the gun drones, now it's not such a worry.

I am sure 99% tau will have the next codex... so yea not too worried for you : )

As a personal modification for the kill points system I like and use the following house rules:

Dedicated Transports chosen from the dedicated transport section do not give kill points. The destinction being that dedicated transports chosen from some other area of your codex (e.g. Heavy Support) do give kill points.

Also someone mentioned objectives and the final turn.
In this case, I'd say all DEDICATED transports cannot contest objectives unless they contain a squad of any kind, as is normal they can claim an objective if they contain a scoring unit that could otherwise claim the objective.

ceorron wrote:As a personal modification for the kill points system I like and use the following house rules:

Dedicated Transports chosen from the dedicated transport section do not give kill points. The destinction being that dedicated transports chosen from some other area of your codex (e.g. Heavy Support) do give kill points.

Also someone mentioned objectives and the final turn.
In this case, I'd say all DEDICATED transports cannot contest objectives unless they contain a squad of any kind, as is normal they can claim an objective if they contain a scoring unit that could otherwise claim the objective.

Actually, this sentiment is the reason for this thread.

Highly mechanized lists are generally accepted to be more competitive than non-mechanized lists. Because of this, why do we want to make a change to the normal rules that takes away one of the few disadvantages that mechanized lists face?

Saldiven wrote:

ceorron wrote:As a personal modification for the kill points system I like and use the following house rules:

Dedicated Transports chosen from the dedicated transport section do not give kill points. The destinction being that dedicated transports chosen from some other area of your codex (e.g. Heavy Support) do give kill points.

Also someone mentioned objectives and the final turn.
In this case, I'd say all DEDICATED transports cannot contest objectives unless they contain a squad of any kind, as is normal they can claim an objective if they contain a scoring unit that could otherwise claim the objective.

Actually, this sentiment is the reason for this thread.

Highly mechanized lists are generally accepted to be more competitive than non-mechanized lists. Because of this, why do we want to make a change to the normal rules that takes away one of the few disadvantages that mechanized lists face?

I realised this so these are the rules I thinks helps square the unbalance that mechanised lists face in kill points games. Why restrict choice, if it can be fair while also allowing mech lists then why not?

So long as it is fair.

I think the rules above do just that.

Saying all dedicated transports don't give kill points would allow players to field Land Raiders and Battlewagons for 'free' which would give mech armies a HUGH advantage in Kill Points games.

While this way it doesn't restrict armies that rely alot on light transports like drop pods, rhinos, trukks and raiders. These armies are just stocked with easy to obtain kill points making it so easy to win against them. While these units couldn't win a game on their own, they are chosen simply because of their transport capacity.

Mech armies often have the advantage in objective based games because they have more units to contest with, because of the extra transports they have, saying dedicated transports can't contest simply levels the playing field. In fact this may push it the other way as now the mech army has paid so many points for units that cannot make a difference to the overall outcome they are however able to get to the objectives quicker as a result of their transports.

Let me know when you start playing 40k

Guess what....If you leave the disadvantage that the mech suffers from in KP games then you don't need to change the rules for objective missions. The game is designed with this balance. All you did is add a home rule that is more complicated but does the same thing while giving mech even more of an advantage.

Hulksmash wrote:Let me know when you start playing 40k

Guess what....If you leave the disadvantage that the mech suffers from in KP games then you don't need to change the rules for objective missions. The game is designed with this balance. All you did is add a home rule that is more complicated but does the same thing while giving mech even more of an advantage.

So you are saying that having mech armies have the uper hand in objective based games and worse off in kill points games makes the games fair?

If this is designed in I highly doubt it. Not wanting to criticise those at games workshop but I think this problem probably wasn't even thought of when the rules were made. I'd rather have both types of games fair for all types of army and I think the extra very mild complexity increase is a very small price for this.

As I said they level the playing field, have a go with these rules yourself. I personally think they would do well to add them to the rules.

I don't know how they design the games. I just play the game they designed. Which your no longer doing. To each his own.

But to the original point yes. Because of the community screaming that kp's are bad and the general dropping of them or modifying of them it means mech is stronger than it's suppose to be. So yes, we are making mech a requirement.

Last time I ran a tournament I just used rule-book missions, but setting up the deployment and number of objectives ahead of time.

I believe I did it something like this:

Pitched Battle, Annihilation
Spearhead, 5 objectives seize ground
Dawn of War, 3 objectives seize ground

I chose not to use capture and control as it has been my experience that it leads to a disproportionate number of draw games.

I had one player tell me that he wished there had been some "fun" missions, but 5-6 players told me that they liked just using rulebook missions.

I realize that basing things on a pure W/L/D record does not work well for larger tournaments, but I think the basic missions could be modified with secondary objectives to give a better points spread.

a recent tourney we had at our store the final mission was a kp/vp mission you got 3 points for every 500 pts of your opponents you killed to a max of 15 for killing 1600+ another 5 for killing all his hq and 10 for killing all there heavys