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 meant to get this up a few days ago but... I've been lazy.

Anyways, here they are:
http://www.baldandscreaming.com/news/battle-for-salvation-2010-results/

Congrats to Simon Leen (Renaissance Man) and Mike Brandt (Tournament Champion) for taking home the top honors of the day.

Danny, any chance to see what armies where played in the gold bracket?

I want to know which ones did the best.

Bobby (the TO) wants to release army lists of everyone in the Gold brackets so that's the next project I think. From the top of my head, the armies were:

Mike Brandt: Mech IG (9 Chimeras, Al'Raheem, 3 Vendettas)
Andrew Sutton: Mixed mech SW
Steven Chase: Loganwing SW (tons of missiles)
Dan Matulich: Mech IG (2 Manticores, 3 Vendettas, 7 Chimeras)
Kelvin Ramos: Loganwing SW (12 Thunderwolves)
Alex Fennell: LR Blood Angels (3 LR, 2x Terminators, Mephiston)
Simon Leen: Witch Hunters (Immolators)
Bill McFadden: Orks (corrected)

Danny Internets wrote:
Bill McFadden: Mech IG (I think?)

I played Orks.

Ah, that's right, now I remember. The game was all the way on the other side of the room which is probably why I didn't really take notice.

Congratz to Mike for coming out as top dog.

Thanks Reecius.

Blackmoor - my list was as follows:

Straken + 2 Melta + Banner + Medic + Astro + Carapace + 2 Bodyguard + Chimera (all Chimeras HHF)

Brother Captain w/ Hood

Al'Rahem w/ 2 Melta, Chimera
2 x Guard Squads w/ 1 Melta, Chimera

5 x Vet Squads w/ 3 Melta, Chimera

3 x Solo Vendetta


Alex Fennel's list was:

2 x LRR w/ EA/MM/Searchlight
2 x TLLC Razorback w/ Searchlight
Godhammer w/ EA/MM/Searchlight

3 x 5-Man ASM w/ Melta, Meltabombs

2 x SHP

1 x Assault Terms w/ 2 LC, 3 TH/SS
1 x Assault Terms w/ 1 LC, 4 TH/SS

Mephiston


The Ork list - Bill McFadden ... was

Warboss w/ PK, EA
Big Mek w/ KFF

10-man Nob Squad w/ differentiation and various equipment, + painboy, but no cybork or ea ... these guys had a reinforced ram wagon

2 x Slugga squad in Trukk

2 x Deffrolla wagons
2 x Big boy squads for them, don't remember if shoota or slugga

3 x 5-man Loota squads

Gretchin squad

2 x Rokkit Buggies

2 x solo rokkit buzzsaw deffkoptas

Maybe another odds and ends thing or two

Stelek's list is easy to find on his blog


Simon Leen's Sisters of Battle was ...

Palatine w/ Book, bombs (I think bombs)
+ 5 Celestians w/ 2 Melta, Immolator

3 x 5 Celestians w/ 2 Melta, Immolator

3 x 5 Dominions w/ 3 Flamers, Superior, Immolator

3 x 5 IST w/ 2 Melta

3 x Heavy Support Immolator

3 x Autocannon Guard Squad w/ Chimera + HK Missile
1 x PCS w/ 4 Flamer, Chimera


Also, as a note, since this used NOVA format, it had two separate tournaments in one - the Renaissance Man / Best Overall track, and the Tournament Champion / Best General track. The results shown are default Tourney Champ track; the Ren Man track was won by Simon Leen's SOB, I came in 2nd ... the rest are on one of those tabs at Danny's link.

No kill points in this tournament?

It was modified KP's. Only 5 possible. Chosen either by the opponent or the player. I can't remember which one. But they did at least give a nod to them.

As much as I hated KP's at first, I have come around to them. i really think they are necessary for game balance. MSU armies are clearly mathematically dominant, KP's help to mitigate that.

As always I dislike that comment; my own success in tournaments has always been with armies over 15 KP or more ... not b/c I MSU (hello, I have a 481 point unit in my own list) ... never hampered or harried by someone with too few to properly throw his weight around target-wise, honestly ... again, perhaps it causes some players to lower their KP total, but not all of us require its absence to win with or without an MSU-component to our builds.

That said, it's a losing argument for either side to attempt to "prove" anything ... either way, some nod to them seems to be required for the sake of throwing a bone, if nothing else (depending on your opinion).

Eh, I disagree on the proving part. It has been proven that multiple units are more than double as effective as a single unit. I forget the fella's law, but it states that two tanks is 4 times as effective as two. Twice the firepower, twice the durability.

MSU armies still take the day as it stands, however, I believe that to be more due to the fact that there are more powerful high KP lists than low KP lists. Nob Bikers can still make it happen, but one run in with a PBS or a smart mech player that just tank shocks them all game and their odds drop dramatically.

I think dropping KPs would only make the disparity between MSU armies and low unit count armies even more dramatic. There would very few reasons outside of army special rules not to max out units which would give a tremendous advantage to armies with the ability to take large amount of units.

As always I dislike that comment; my own success in tournaments has always been with armies over 15 KP or more ... not b/c I MSU (hello, I have a 481 point unit in my own list) ... never hampered or harried by someone with too few to properly throw his weight around target-wise, honestly ... again, perhaps it causes some players to lower their KP total, but not all of us require its absence to win with or without an MSU-component to our builds.

This is the experience that has always mirrored my own. My own armies are mostly high KP and I find that low KP armies are almost always at a severe disadvantage against me because they can only target so many units per turn. It almost always seems that I can take out the priority targets before they can and then it's just a matter of dancing around the remainder while expanding my lead. In the end it feels like MSU still gains way more than it loses even in KP missions.

Reecius wrote:Eh, I disagree on the proving part. It has been proven that multiple units are more than double as effective as a single unit. I forget the fella's law, but it states that two tanks is 4 times as effective as two. Twice the firepower, twice the durability.

MSU armies still take the day as it stands, however, I believe that to be more due to the fact that there are more powerful high KP lists than low KP lists. Nob Bikers can still make it happen, but one run in with a PBS or a smart mech player that just tank shocks them all game and their odds drop dramatically.

I think dropping KPs would only make the disparity between MSU armies and low unit count armies even more dramatic. There would very few reasons outside of army special rules not to max out units which would give a tremendous advantage to armies with the ability to take large amount of units.

I think the point is KP doesn't actually deter it really, especially on a "by-codex" level ... want to build the best DH list you can at present with allies/etc.? You'll have inducted guard, extra cheapo chimeras and a ton of KP. Even Orks have what IMO is a far stronger build than nob bikers regardless of mission (except perhaps KP, heh ) in the 26 Vehicle list, which is a 22-24 KP depending on variant.

Danny hits it as well, and I'll echo it ... frankly, pure MSU is often BAD, but a lot of the stronger codices are going to often run higher in the MSU department among winning lists one way or another. There are some who'll argue that KP's presence deters this, but I'm more moved by the argument that it encourages variety (in terms of # of kp's fielded per army, if you call that variety) across the entirety of a large tourney field; it doesn't necessarily cause variety in list basics. KP or not, "competitive" SW players are still going to take tri-fang lists with at least some razorback support ... because it's GOOD. Will they be more inclined to take a TWC deathstar vs. smaller TWC units if KP are there? Maybe ... but is that really a material difference?

*shrug* It seems like much ado about nothing, which perhaps applies to both sides; that realization may have something to do with why the next NOVA will probably include a variant KP mission, at the least "win by x"

The 5th Edition Codexes are being written with Kill Points in mind.

Removing the downside of min-maxing with 5th Ed armies is having a negative effect, in my opinion.

I was saying the same thing, that MSU units are still the best regardless of mission parameters. Even that asinine Ard Boys round 1 mission didn't stop my 26 KP Wolves from winning the game.

The fact is, as Danny said, that math shows us that having more units then our opponent can hit in a turn means that we will put out more firepower per turn than he can hope to stop.

It makes the gap between minmaxed armies and smaller, elite armies even bigger, unless those elite armies are indelibly resilient.

What's the best solution? I don't know. VPs still doesn't work that well as, despite being even in terms of points awarded, MSU still has the big advantage in that each successful kill yields so few points.

Perhaps some kind of hybrid of the two would be best. I would have to really think about it to propose anything, but in the end, KPs is what we have this edition.

Also, I agree that Nob Bikers aren't the ork's best build, they are just the most obvious example of a powerful, low KP army. The lowest KP army, actually. They can field legally field 4 at 2K, although 5 to 6 is more common.

Funny, a little anecdote, the toughest matchup I pulled with my missile wolves in a KP missions was Crons! Three monoliths and a C'Tan, maxed destroyers. I only won because he didn't play well. All he had to do was pop a few Razorbacks then hide and the game was his. I suppose that that is a good example of how KP's can level the playing field, although I don't think it is representative of the hobby as a whole.

The problem with KPs is that there is no way to make them fair and balanced for everyone. With VPs everyone has 2000 and everyone has to kill the same amount of stuff.

With KPs, you can run into that 5 KP army and need to table them for the win. While all the other people play 15 KP armies and just need to outplay their opponent. Meaning people win and lose matchups based on what they are playing/playing against.

This would be fine for a truly swiss style tournament where there are 6-8 rounds, and the top 8 play off afterwards. (like MTG) however in 40k, since there are so few games you need to be able to win each one based on player skill and not rock/paper/scissors. Meaning missions need to be standard for everyone. KPs don't allow this because there is such a variable number of them from list to list.

Honestly, MSU would win either way. Its just some of them would get screwed along the way. 1 mission out of 5 isn't suddenly going to make taking 3-4 super units good.

I agree MSU armies are better using the maths and kill points do help reverse that trend. The problem with kill points is that the system was not balanced for all armies. Tau suffer from this by a great amount, counting transports as separate kill points also hurts.

I personally don't see the problem with the MSU armies and it's rise again in the meta game. I've usually run much higher KP armies then my opponents on just about every game. If a normal KP mission come up, then I have to go for a complete tabling of my opponent to win.

5 KP is not a 'bone' - it's a complete misunderstanding of how KP work to balance the game.

You know, good players win, and bad players don't. Mike, I'm sure your experiences with not worrying about KP are partially due to the fact that you're an excellent player. That doesn't address the metagame, it addresses your performance.

KP are necessary, IMHO, to prevent the devolution of the metagame into an excess of MSU armies. And it's not about the top players, it's about the average players. The top players win, and that's not going to change either way.

Where the difference lies is the number of rocket-spam lists that everyone else at the event has to fight through. And the diversity of the field, which I think is a good thing. And, really, keeping the tournament scene about 5e 40k, not someone's twist on what they think it should be. We make our lists based on 5e rules, we plan our strategies based on 5e rules. KP denial is a valid approach to take (and it might not be an optimal approach, but it is a valid approach - and that's not the discussion here), and throwing KP missions out the window takes that away.

Redbeard wrote: And, really, keeping the tournament scene about 5e 40k, not someone's twist on what they think it should be. We make our lists based on 5e rules, we plan our strategies based on 5e rules.

Don't you play in the chicago area?


Again, I don't see how having 1-2 KP missions balances anything. Okay, now your crappy 5 KP army wins 2 games and then loses 5 in all the other missions. Changing a single mission type isn't suddenly going to turn non MSU armies into awesome armies. They are still going to get beat in most other games or by good generals in KP missions. KP missions like the 3rd mission of ard boyz are just basically a get unlucky and lose with your MSU army by pulling the wrong opponent during the wrong mission. That is the problem with KPs. It can just be an auto lose for certain lists. Which is bad when we only play 5-7 rounds at a tournament.

CptZach wrote:
Don't you play in the chicago area?

I do, how is that relevant?

Again, I don't see how having 1-2 KP missions balances anything. Okay, now your crappy 5 KP army wins 2 games and then loses 5 in all the other missions.

Well, you're making two assumptions here. First, that my low KP army is crappy, and second that I lose my other games

Changing a single mission type isn't suddenly going to turn non MSU armies into awesome armies. They are still going to get beat in most other games or by good generals in KP missions. KP missions like the 3rd mission of ard boyz are just basically a get unlucky and lose with your MSU army by pulling the wrong opponent during the wrong mission. That is the problem with KPs. It can just be an auto lose for certain lists. Which is bad when we only play 5-7 rounds at a tournament.

A very strong argument can be made that if your list has an 'auto-lose' in one of the three missions in the 5E rulebook, then perhaps it is your list that is crappy...

You're taking this discussion to a very different place than the good players. MVBrandt, Danny, and others, are taking the stance that removing KP is okay because the good players still win in spite of their disadvantage in those games. Now you're saying that they're bad because people do lose KP games. One can deduce that either A) you're not a good player who can win in spite of this disadvantage, B) Brandt and Danny and the other established players are lying and they lose their KP missions, or C) that your stance is flawed.

Redbeard wrote:5 KP is not a 'bone' - it's a complete misunderstanding of how KP work to balance the game.

KP denial is a valid approach to take (and it might not be an optimal approach, but it is a valid approach - and that's not the discussion here), and throwing KP missions out the window takes that away.

Both are QFT

Its not that your army is auto lose. Its that because of your opponent your army becomes table or auto lose. (sorry, clarifying from my earlier argument)

If it was your list that auto lost certain games that would be fine. Or even when your list auto loses to certain armies.

But when it becomes auto lose because you get the wrong opponent during the wrong mission. It becomes a problem.

Again, the problem with it, is that it is not balanced across all armies. There is no set number of killpoints you need to get to win. In the other missions, there is a set number that is equal for all players.

Objectives, Capture and Hold, VPs, your opponents list cannot change any of these. They are static.

KPs are not static, which is what the problem is. There is no way to build/plan for KPs because it is not a static mission. You don't know what the mission will be like until you see your opponents list.

Basically my main point is that you need static missions. And that the mission itself should changed based on your opponents list. Your playing should, but not the mission.

The problem with kill point missions is that they create lopsided (And thus unfun) matchups. Objective missions don't really do that...Units in smaller KP armies tend to be more resilient than in larger KP armies, and thus can hold or contest objectives easier than a the other army, so it balances.

CptZach wrote:
Again, the problem with it, is that it is not balanced across all armies. There is no set number of killpoints you need to get to win. In the other missions, there is a set number that is equal for all players.

But the armies themselves are different. Capture and Control is always two objectives. But compare (for sake of argument) foot guard versus foot orks, where both drop 1k on troops. Orks probably have 4 units capable of taking or holding the objectives. The guard list has four times that.

KPs are not static, which is what the problem is. There is no way to build/plan for KPs because it is not a static mission. You don't know what the mission will be like until you see your opponents list.

No plan survives contact with the enemy? You know, that's part of being a good player. And part of making a good list. You have to plan for how you're going to deal with KP missions. You have to plan for how you're going to deal with KP missions against low KP armies. That's part of 5th edition. "But it's hard" isn't an answer. The low scoring unit armies have to plan how they're going to capture or deny five objectives, afterall.

Its not a "but its hard" argument.

Its that the mission is of different difficulty for different players solely because of the list their opponent takes. (the mission, not the game)

In objectives you always need to control 1 and contest 4. Your opponent can make the game harder by having a better list or tuning it for objective missions. However he can't add difficulty to the mission. (like adding more objectives or taking some away)

To Timmah's point here ... KP is akin to you getting one objective to place on the board for every Scoring Unit you bring.

It's a rather silly mission, and gets sillier with the random draw at a tournament.

The bigger challenges and discussions should not be about the "dust and diamonds in a dollar store" hilarity of what KP represents and its issues in a tournament setting (IMO), but its merits or place as "part of the roolz" in regard to whether it should or shouldn't be a component of your average tournament.

Also, Redbeard, while I appreciate the compliments about my skill as a gamer ... the same argument applies to your own intelligence and skill as a gamer and arguer/internet-wordsmith. Without statistics and facts to back up a material argument, we'll invariably wind up in the round-about that always arises from the KP vs. no-KP argument, wouldn't you agree?

CptZach wrote:
Its that the mission is of different difficulty for different players solely because of the list their opponent takes. (the mission, not the game)

Every mission has a different difficulty due to what your opponent is running. You have to roll with it. Are you trying to tell me that playing a 5 objective mission against an opponent with 2 5-man scout squads is the same as playing it against someone with 8 scoring units riding in chimeras?

Kill Points are a core element of 5th edition mission design. You're arguing to exclude them because they make it hard on people who didn't design good 5th ed lists - where the definition of a good 5th ed list is one that can compete in all three 5th ed mission types.

Losing them makes the game easier. An easier game is not as good for testing the skill of the players as a difficult game. War is easer than Poker. No one cares about the world series of war. Checkers is easier than Chess. No one cares about Checkers Grandmasters. Kill Points make list design more interesting. They open up strategies other than spamming the most glass cannons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:
Also, Redbeard, while I appreciate the compliments about my skill as a gamer ... the same argument applies to your own intelligence and skill as a gamer and arguer/internet-wordsmith. Without statistics and facts to back up a material argument, we'll invariably wind up in the round-about that always arises from the KP vs. no-KP argument, wouldn't you agree?

Possibly. But, someone has to wave the banner... My take on it is that, if it makes no tangible difference, then you should include them, because that's what 5e is. They're part of it, and if they actually make no difference, keep them in, it keeps the events true to the game. If they do make a tangible difference in event outcome, that's even more reason to keep them in, because in that case, you're not only getting away from the game design, but you're also skewing the event results because of it.

Redbeard, too many assertions that are not well supported.

As already conceded by you de facto, good list design does not need to reduce KP total to win KP missions, even against very low KP opponents ... not only does the nature of a tournament not guarantee you will even face a lower-KP list, the mission doesn't guarantee a win for such a list either.

Therein lies the point - while you may cause more variety of KP total (and NOT list, which is very important), you're not going to materially impact who wins tournaments or the lists that win them.

As such, KP fails if those results are its intentions (and they aren't, by admission of the people who wrote the rules in the first place - KP was included to make counting up totals easier on players than VP).

The "oh you have to consider KP in list build to win" and "oh it encourages list variety" arguments, and their ilk, are strawmen. They aren't ... true, or at the least aren't supported by evidence. They are at best assertions.

Competitive space wolf players will often take tri-long fang squads and several plasmabacks to score w/ a few grey hunters on board. This build style doesn't change all that materially with or without KP ... Loganwing is roughly similar regardless as well. Some components may become more or less MSU-centric, but the list is going to feel largely the same. There's no variety the results, just choices in how your models are divided ... and I'm not sure that satisfies any of your stated desired goals.

Like I said - without believing statistics where accumulated, and without having them to begin with ... it's an impossible argument b/c it's so steeped in the skills of the arguers, and in the assertions and "beliefs" of those participating.

From my perspective as someone trying to establish and execute as FAIR a system for a tournament as possible, one that eliminates "random" where feasible is important - and herein lies the rub.

One way or another, a tournament's missions should be announced ahead of time. If straight basic KP is one of the missions, how does one prepare? If you do consider it in the build you bring ... will that decision benefit you?

Honestly, the answer is NEVER "yes." It's always, at best, "maybe." Whereas if one of the missions is "5 objectives," and you subsequently make choices for more scoring units based upon it ... guess what ... that choice benefits you by GUARANTEE during the objective mission. The KP decision only variably benefits you, if at all, b/c your choices' benefits are only determined once you have an opponent, and the proportion of value is directly related to the size of your KP differential, not the total # of KP you personally brought.

Same applies to most other missions ASIDE from KP, and I have just as much problem w/ any mission where your planning is basically at the pure whim of random chance; models and painting time cost far too much to subject players to such vagary.

Now, that all said ... some people - for the aforementioned assertion/opinion/lack-of-fact/etc. issue ... well, are very attached to KP; hell, I ran them in my own leagues and tournaments for several years prior to the NOVA (my first event not to feature them). They're not "bad" at all in leagues, either, where the odds of you facing the full field are higher, and your decisions are more apt to guarantee benefit (or punishment) on the KP front. I like them in that format, in fact.

But in a tournament ... a hard sell to prove even with reason and logic that there's actually any of the benefits asserted; as much as the argument could be continued, will it actually achieve a result? Is either side really willing to budge? Malleability is the virtue of the wise; in pursuit of some wisdom we're playtesting yet another compromise permutation - "win-by-#" KP. Still, it's hard to see any of it on the other side ... and the defenses are often thin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT - Redbeard, in reply to your last comment in reply to me ... I think most of the issue with KP is they put too much random variable in play, especially for the lesser and more average players who may unwittingly commit too much to moderating their list in "fear" of them. My concern lies not just with "those who win events b/c they're good at 40k regardless of mission," but the average paying player who deserves the best fair opportunity to prepare for an event. Not everyone is bright enough to prepare for an event with lists that disregard mission for all-around effectiveness, and brightness (or experience) have no bearing (or shouldn't) on the value of a person's hard-earned bucks (spent on models, armies, paints, and tourney fees).

Ah, you make a good point, Mike. I have never changed my list to make it more KP friendly, I have always just played the list I know and either hoped not to pull a good player with a low KP list in those missions or found a way to get around the problem. It has never affected my list building choices.

I still feel that you must have some kind of missions with the annihilation type parameters. Perhaps using a modified KP system would be best, such as those that use 1 KP per 50 or 100 points, rounding up. The puts MSU armies at a disadvantage, slightly, by typically giving up more KP's to compensate for their mathematical advantage in having more unique units on the field. Something along those lines, anyway, that idea is just off the cuff.