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.

Juvieus Kaine wrote:...Not disregarding everybody's thoughts on balancing MSU's, but if this was the case why are there so many lists that are razorback spam or equivalent of? Not exactly balance since it appears the codex itself has a bigger impact than KP's.

Well think of it this way, Kill Points generally only show up in 1 of 3 games. Razorback spam - for example - is bringing 6 scoring units most times which does help in the objective games. Also while having a high amount of potential Kill Points there is no guarantee that you are going to be giving them all up, the game is just going to be a bit more of a challenge. In a case like this you gain quite a few advantages from MSU such as more targets, lots of firepower in separate units and a good number of scoring units to hold objectives. The downside of being more vulnerable in 1/3 of your games is a trade off and for many folks an acceptable one at that. Just my thoughts so take from it what you will.

Cheers,
~Volkan

I think it is unfair that if your opponents maximum number of KP is, say 3, and me as a tau player would have many more.

So that kinda gives them a better chance of winning.
:/

That's why I just love my crons on KP missions... I have 8 KPs, all tough as hell, while my friends usually field up to 15KP... So much fun

But again, I think it helps balancing...

XV8-Ownage! wrote:I think it is unfair that if your opponents maximum number of KP is, say 3, and me as a tau player would have many more.

So that kinda gives them a better chance of winning.
:/

But, if you're opponent has 3 KPs, then he can only shoot 3 things a turn, and assault 3 things a turn (assuming you didn't bunch everyone together to allow multi-assaults).

That means that, even after he's killed a few units, you still have a lot of stuff on the table to try to destroy all of his units. With the firepower available as the Tau, that shouldn't be too difficult against an army with only a few units.

We just generally play annihalation. ALL ENEMYS MUST DIE. Takes awhile, but fun. Of course, horde armys often have an advantage here.

It is not enough that I suceed, all others must fail. It is not enought that I survive, all otthers must die- Mogul Kamir.

I'm pretty sure that there is somem other part to all that.

somerandomdude wrote:

XV8-Ownage! wrote:I think it is unfair that if your opponents maximum number of KP is, say 3, and me as a tau player would have many more.

So that kinda gives them a better chance of winning.
:/

But, if you're opponent has 3 KPs, then he can only shoot 3 things a turn, and assault 3 things a turn (assuming you didn't bunch everyone together to allow multi-assaults)

And, as mentioned, how does he anticipate winning seize ground missions?

KP are totally broken and imbalance more than they balance.

Unless forces have equal KP at the start there's always a handicap, regardless of what one thinks about balance otherwise.

It's in-elegant, poorly executed and arbitrary.

At a minimum surviving units should grant points to their side as well, but really it should be judged by a ratio of what each side lost percentage wise.

KP1 Survived / KP1 Starting
vs
KP2 Survived / KP2 Starting

This at least would make both sides equal in any engagement and still preserve the concept.

Easily one of the worst parts of 5th.

Augustus wrote:KP are totally broken and imbalance more than they balance.

Unless forces have equal KP at the start there's always a handicap, regardless of what one thinks about balance otherwise.

What, like the guy with only 2 scoring units has a handicap against the guy with 6 scoring units in the two other missions?

Augustus wrote:It's in-elegant

This is agree with, but it is needed, and it does the job it was designed for decently

It seems to be very hard to design a more elegant solution, I havn't seen one good substitute for KP's

Oh, no.... Dawn of war is worst 5th edition part

Has anyone else tried the Battle Missions that mix up the KP's?

I think there are a few out there.
Such as offering 1 KP for troops/DT's, 3 KP for a HQ, and 2 KP for everything else.

I think the bad part of KP is the fact its one KP for everything. Giving differing units differing KP's would help and still be simple.
Weather you allocate extra KP's based on FOC slot of points value is my question.

Ailaros wrote:

somerandomdude wrote:

XV8-Ownage! wrote:I think it is unfair that if your opponents maximum number of KP is, say 3, and me as a tau player would have many more.

So that kinda gives them a better chance of winning.
:/

But, if you're opponent has 3 KPs, then he can only shoot 3 things a turn, and assault 3 things a turn (assuming you didn't bunch everyone together to allow multi-assaults)

And, as mentioned, how does he anticipate winning seize ground missions?

Because, silly, in normal games, KP are not found in a seize ground game.

But that's the point! If you have lots of MSU (and usually it's troops) you will stand better in objective games but will have problem in KP games... If you have 3 KP, then you will have upper hand in KP games, but will suck in objectives!

I like them bost honestly, and sometimes we play for both around here, VP or KP. Yeah, I play Dark Eldar and KPs work against me sometimes, but I've yet to lose a battle by KP. I may have 15-25 KP on the board depending on point size, sometimes even more if we play a really large game over 2k points, but at the same time, my opponent usually has enough KP that I can match them blow for blow, and if they concentrate on a bunch of tough, big units or elites mad for a certain reason, that just makes it harder for them to get my KPs because they have lees in the way of shooting/offense for me to tie up/destroy.

VP are nice cause even with all those KPs on the board, I usually don't have a squad that will cost over 200 pts, unless you want to count the total cost along with they transport, which makes it 2 units anyway. So VPs dont really bother me either because, as Dash said earlier, KPs or VPs don't matter once you table your opponent, cause by then you've won anyway!!!!

I think that there is a perfect way to illustrate an example here.

Imperial Guard Platoons.

You have 20 Guardsmen in your platoon. You can chose to deploy them in one of two ways. Either way you deploy them, they cost the same amount of points.

1) 1 20 man unit.
a) you can only shoot or assault 1 target.
b) Your movement is limited by coherency and the fact that moving one model moves the whole unit.
c) One unit can assault you, and tie up all of the models in assault, preventing them from shooting.
d) Less able to take multiple objectives, only 1 scoring unit.
e) 1 Killpoint

2) 2 10 man units.
a) You have greater control over your shooting, with the ability to shoot two targets.
b) You are less limited by coherency, and you can move one unit while shooting heavy weapons with the other.
c) Only half of your models can be tied up by one assault unit.
d) More able to take multiple objectives, you have 2 scoring units.
e) 2 killpoints.

The cost of the models is not the only factor for unit balance; How models are deployed also effects their performance on the battlefield.

MSU has a significant number of advantages. THE ONLY THING THAT IS TRYING TO BALANCE MSU ADVANTAGES IS KILLPOINTS!

Honestly Kill-points are not enough to balance this, as the majority of armies are generally MSU with a transport for another killpoint.

As I recall, there was a huge hubub during 40k 'Ard Boys last year because of one mission where everything that could move 12" in a single phase was worth 3 killpoints. Everyone was talking about how to charge their list for this one mission to try an limit their killpoints. Then most people realized that you needed an MSU/Trasport heavy list to win any of the other missions, so people took armies with 25+ Killpoints (fo that one mission) and just dealt with the handicap.

People who think KP was somehow invented with the purpose of forward balancing unit types presented in codexes that weren't even released yet, or really anyone who thinks the ''thought process'' behind KPs was anything more elaborate than "Hey this would be a totally Xtreme way to shake up battle resolution and now I'm going to go back to writing fluff instead of playtesting" is giving GW a hilarious amount of credit.

Like suddenly KP sprang from their heads as this awesome meta system that was invented to perfectly balance everything across multiple battles. These are the guys that can't write units that are balanced across their own codex, not Nostradamus clones, or people who even care to playtest at all.

svendrex wrote:I think that there is a perfect way to illustrate an example here.

Imperial Guard Platoons.

You have 20 Guardsmen in your platoon. You can chose to deploy them in one of two ways. Either way you deploy them, they cost the same amount of points.

1) 1 20 man unit.
a) you can only shoot or assault 1 target.
b) Your movement is limited by coherency and the fact that moving one model moves the whole unit.
c) One unit can assault you, and tie up all of the models in assault, preventing them from shooting.
d) Less able to take multiple objectives, only 1 scoring unit.
e) 1 Killpoint

2) 2 10 man units.
a) You have greater control over your shooting, with the ability to shoot two targets.
b) You are less limited by coherency, and you can move one unit while shooting heavy weapons with the other.
c) Only half of your models can be tied up by one assault unit.
d) More able to take multiple objectives, you have 2 scoring units.
e) 2 killpoints.

The cost of the models is not the only factor for unit balance; How models are deployed also effects their performance on the battlefield.

MSU has a significant number of advantages. THE ONLY THING THAT IS TRYING TO BALANCE MSU ADVANTAGES IS KILLPOINTS!

Honestly Kill-points are not enough to balance this, as the majority of armies are generally MSU with a transport for another killpoint.

As I recall, there was a huge hubub during 40k 'Ard Boys last year because of one mission where everything that could move 12" in a single phase was worth 3 killpoints. Everyone was talking about how to charge their list for this one mission to try an limit their killpoints. Then most people realized that you needed an MSU/Trasport heavy list to win any of the other missions, so people took armies with 25+ Killpoints (fo that one mission) and just dealt with the handicap.

This is the way I see it, as well.

The increased tactical flexibility comes at the cost of having extra points on the board.

KP counter-balance the advantage MSU has in the other missions. I see no problem with it.

Needless departure from points system.

Not making an over-powered crutch utility worthless is hardly a downside of a useful game mechanic, but rather the system at large.

The problem isn't what killpoints do to MSU armies, but what they do to certain models that are killpoint vulnerable (IE, Parasite of mortrex) or things like drop pods (which have minimal offense and are really easy to kill).

Then throw on the bizarre tactics killpoints create (IE, hiding a single model somewhere to avoid letting the opponent get the KP).

On top of that, the sweeping advance rules and the way assaulting a fleeing unit work means that KP favor the game even more heavily towards assaulty armies.

So yeah, KP are good in theory, but the game has serious problems with integrating the rest of its rules with the idea.

I don't have a problem with killpoints, if anything is streamlines figuring out who won in the end. It's true that some army lists can field less KP than others and still be very effective, if not more than yours, but in the end, especially as orks, they can never kill everything you have (in theory)

Don't be afraid to send your guys after easy targets and after killing just a few things and maneuver around. Always run orks in big squads when possible or protect them somehow.

DakkaDakka wrote:

Requia wrote:I like Kill points in theory, they tend to break down because of inadequacies (single models surviving out of 30 model units etc),

Which is more unrealistic? Getting no credit for not killing that last guy, or only getting half credit for killing 29/30 models, as you do in VPs? They're both abstractions. Neither one models the exact damage done with any kind of realism. You're fooling yourself if you think VPs is any better as a system. It's more granular, but it only gives more advantages to MSU. In the entire existence of 3rd and 4th edition, MSU was always, always better. In 5th we have a balance (though it's still tilted toward MSU).

Requia wrote:...and because there are serious problems with integrating the codices into the KP model, even in some of the 5th ed codices (IE, Parasite of Mortrex's ability to spawn single model units, the laughably easy to kill/crappy offense drop pods and spore pods).

Is the parasite's ability mandatory? Is it a significant advantage in objective missions, where those freebie units can contest objectives? Drop pods have a cheap cost for a near-guaranteed delivery system for a unit and for themselves being able to contest objectives. A Rhino tends to survive better, but a Rhino can be stopped in its owner's deployment zone and never deliver the squad to target. Cost/benefit. Advantage/drawback. Balance.

The offensive output of a drop pod or sport pod is near-irrelevant. "Making its points back" was a foolish oversimplification as a way to assess a unit's value in 3rd and 4th, and it's just silly nowadays.

Requia wrote:It goes from balancing the game against MSU, and into making certain things instant lose buttons when KP missions come up.

If your army is an instant-lose button in a KP mission, you have a badly-designed army for 5th edition. People who stick their head in the sand and complain about Kill Points, Cap & Control, or Dawn of War instead of adapting their lists are asking to lose. They are doing it to themselves. As of the time of this response, 23% of respondents to the poll (37 people) do not understand or want to adapt to 5th edition.

Requia wrote:Plus the issues with needing to actually finish off the last grot, lasgun guardsman etc, which further unbalances the game in favor of assaulty armies that can take out a unit instead of just rendering it ineffective.

Try 3rd edition. Assault was king then. 4th gave shooty a new lease on life. 5th is nicely balanced between them. There aren't as many places to hide with true LOS as there were when no one could see across any piece of area terrain.

MikeMcSomething wrote:People who think KP was somehow invented with the purpose of forward balancing unit types presented in codexes that weren't even released yet, or really anyone who thinks the ''thought process'' behind KPs was anything more elaborate than "Hey this would be a totally Xtreme way to shake up battle resolution and now I'm going to go back to writing fluff instead of playtesting" is giving GW a hilarious amount of credit.

People who think that "Hey, MSU is even more ridiculously awesome in objective missions than it was in VPs, and we're making transports cheaper to sell more, so we should do something to give them a drawback" is a complex notion or beyond even the GW guys have no perspective at all. Your exagerrated cynicism would be hilarious, if it weren't sad.

MekanobSamael wrote:Needless departure from points system.

VPs only makes MSU even better. Like in 3rd and 4th editions.

I wonder how many people will still be saying this when GK come out, and are dealing with a 5 kp army that is almost impossible for a non-assault army to completely wipe out a unit?

Meh, we have a small friendly group, and really, we only play objective missions.

I dont like the feel of my army vs your army, as real battles arn't about numbers (except vietnam), they are usually about taking ground, holding factories, power plants and the like.

There's no point sending in a force to kill a bunch of the enemy and then leave (except modern fights, but they arn't wars like in the olden days, they're just punitive measurements).

Anyways, if someone was consistently designing an army to take advantage of that (eg the much mentioned MSU) then we would call them names, poke fun at their sexuality, and possibly physically slap them!

What I'd like is more interesting objectives. Did anyone play Epic 2nd ed? Remember the differnt types of objective you got in that (take and hold, bunker, cleanse, capture etc). It would be mint to try out 40k with the scoring system that Epic 2nd ed. had.

In fact, im going to do that right now!

Shivan Reaper wrote:I wonder how many people will still be saying this when GK come out, and are dealing with a 5 kp army that is almost impossible for a non-assault army to completely wipe out a unit?

What would I do? I'd take great joy knowing that this list, being 5 units, couldn't possibly compete in seize ground or capture and control.

Man, it's like whenever people look at kill points distainedly, they COMPLETELY forget about the other two missions.

Shivan Reaper wrote:I wonder how many people will still be saying this when GK come out, and are dealing with a 5 kp army that is almost impossible for a non-assault army to completely wipe out a unit?

I don't think the GK are going to be something that a shooty army can't take out easily. Granted, they might not be as easy to take out shooting as others, but they are not going to be easy for a pure assault army to take out either, especially if filled with 2 wound Termies and Monstrous Creatures.

The 5 kp army will be dealt with just like us Dark Eldar were dealt with when our new codex came out.... people will earn adapt and overcome, or they will continually lose and whine. At least thats the way it usually works.

40k has the great advantage of being flexible enough to to have a slew of different kinds of mission and still yet be fun...

Mixing the KP and Seize ground victory conditions makes for great fun and is a great balance between KP and objective grabbing....

Better yet, use battle missions, cities of death, etc. as inspirations to make new missions...locally we are playing a league type of campaign where missions are released weakly..great fun as the missions have been varied and funky....

After all, the missions as listed in the rulebook are not the endpoint of playing 40K...

FOXDIE wrote:

svendrex wrote:(IG Example)...THE ONLY THING THAT IS TRYING TO BALANCE MSU ADVANTAGES IS KILLPOINTS!

That is just blatantly wrong, actually what balances that is the fact IG are poor troops, with melee and morale vulnerability, and they are easy to kill, and therefore cheaper. It's glaringly obvious.

In point of fact the KP thing actually hurts IG more because they are cheaper and usually fight at a disadvantage with more KP in their armies! Have you two even played this game? It's actually the reverse of this example KP isn't a balance to the IG Blob! It's the other way round, where the blob is to help the low quality IG army have a way to even compete in the broken KP system and it was obviously grafted into the rules as such in the 5th edition publication cycle where it was new for the first time ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:Man, it's like whenever people look at kill points distainedly, they COMPLETELY forget about the other two missions.

So, its ok for reasonably designed armies to be egregiously handicapped in either 1/3 or 2/3s of the missions?

I think it's more absurd to call the lopsided system (kp vs scoring) balanced.

What all the KP fans forget is that High KP armies typically don't really have an advantage in the other 2 missions because there plethora of units are (low quality) easy to kill. Points balances that out, KP handicap is double indemnity for these armies!

Furthermore there are entire armies now of low KP counts with high power units that (sometimes ALL) score, a disturbing pattern that began with Ork Nob Bikers and continued into other codices where they passed out scoring status to units that shouldn't have them:

Nob Bikes
Sternguard
Belial Terminators
Loganwing
Blood Angels

dayve110 wrote:Has anyone else tried the Battle Missions that mix up the KP's?

Yes, but they have same basic problem as normal killpoints...massive inequality between Codices. Take a lone Piranha, with the integral Drone unit. Both are KP units, both are Fast attack...so this one ~70 point Piranha is worth 4 Kill points! By contrast, Orks can take 600 points of Nob Bikers as troops, so they are 1 Kill point. Woo hoo...

As for the Kill points in general...I don't like playing Annihilation. It's pretty daft mission and sometimes leads to absurd situations. OTOH, I do see the merit of the KP system as a balancing force. Most wargames don't have internal "checks" on unit size. Either the systems favour large, massive Deathstar units for their killing power, or they favour multiple small units for flexibility. The problem is acute particularly in historical games, which imitate real life OOB, but can't imitate real life C&C, so the unit organization won't work as in real life. KP system is a partial fix for that problem. It's very crude, but there is no denying that it works to at least some degree.