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.

Easy question:

Do wrecked/destroyed dedicated transports count as a kill point? The argument is that it does not take up a Troops slot to take transports, thus, it should not count as a kill point. A buddy of mine who plays Orks feels that their paper Trukks shouldn't really count as a kill point since they are so easy to blow up.

On a side:

Kill points really do favor certain army setups over other types of army setups doesn't it? Sort of silly if you ask me. Would much rather just do VP always instead of KP.

Is the trukk a unit? If so it is a KP. You don't get KPs for choices you get them for units.

Yes dedicated transports give up KPs.

Your Ork buddy thinks he has it bad, a Tau Piranha gives up 2 KPs and is not noticeably harder to kill that the Trukk.

Yes KPs favours non-MSU armies. Which would be fine if all armies had the same ability to field MSU and Non-MSU builds...

Kurce wrote:Easy question:

Do wrecked/destroyed dedicated transports count as a kill point? The argument is that it does not take up a Troops slot to take transports, thus, it should not count as a kill point. A buddy of mine who plays Orks feels that their paper Trukks shouldn't really count as a kill point since they are so easy to blow up.

On a side:

Kill points really do favor certain army setups over other types of army setups doesn't it? Sort of silly if you ask me. Would much rather just do VP always instead of KP.

They are each a kill point.

As to your comment about favoring certain armies, in a lot of tournament builds players will try and limit kill points to reduce the kill point liablity in a list.

Check out the BRB, pg 92 under "Multiple Unit Choices".

There is a difference between "Units" and "FOC slots".

Tell your Ork buddy that 30-man fearless Boyz mobs shouldn't really count for holding objectives since they are so hard to kill...

Yes, they count as kill points.

Don't like it - too bad. Rules are as rules are. Play by the rules or sit it out until they change (if ever).
I'm not fond of the Bleeding angels getting vindicators that can move 12" and still fire or Deep striking land raiders that DON'T leave smoking holes in the ground, but there's little I can do about it.

a KP is any single unit, if you take marines and combat squads, they are now 2 units and 2 kill points. If they had a Razorback the unit is now worth 3 kill points

Kurce wrote:The argument is that it does not take up a Troops slot to take transports, thus, it should not count as a kill point.

Aye... and an IG infantry platoon should only be a single KP too, it's a single FOC slot and they're T3. But the fact is that it might contain 14 different squads and 6 Chimera transports which all are individual units. This is a lot of scoring units for normal missions, a huge liability in KP missions.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Check out the BRB, pg 92 under "Multiple Unit Choices".

There is a difference between "Units" and "FOC slots".

Tell your Ork buddy that 30-man fearless Boyz mobs shouldn't really count for holding objectives since they are so hard to kill...

That's what I was going to say!

Kurce, as Spetulhu indicated and others hinted, the point of KPs is to counterbalance the objective missions. An army with lots of cheap units is strong in the objective missions, as it can move all over the place and hold or contest a ton of objectives; having more units to keep doing it with when some die. However that same army gives up KPs easily in an Annihilation mission. The point being to encourage players to moderate their lists and make them well-rounded.

Mannahnin wrote: An army with lots of cheap units is strong in the objective missions, as it can move all over the place and hold or contest a ton of objectives; having more units to keep doing it with when some die. However that same army gives up KPs easily in an Annihilation mission. The point being to encourage players to moderate their lists and make them well-rounded.

Exactly. If KPs were switched to VPs then codexes that are able to generate lots of cheap units will have a huge advantage.

Which was the trend in 4th ed - you maxed the numbers of certain units out because gaining VPs gets proportionaly harder the more units you have on the board, mainly as a consequence of 1 unit = 1 target (for shooting)

Yes.

It just worked out badly for Tau, due to certain factors.

I am confident that GW will address this in the next codex, shortly before 6th edition changes the rules again.

I want to thank SlaveToDorkness for posting the page reference and where to find this.

this has come up several times and no one has been able to give a page reference and i have not been able to find it myself.

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes.

It just worked out badly for Tau, due to certain factors.

I am confident that GW will address this in the next codex, shortly before 6th edition changes the rules again.

Hopefully

yeah. well just to talk about the battle of KP to VP as mentioned in the OP, i see VP as being a better way to work out who wins in an annhiliation match.
If you don't know how VP would work in this scenario pretty much everytime you kill a unit you get as many VP as how many points the unit is worth.
e.g. A unit of, lets say, 10 Kabalite warriors with no Sybarite (everybody usualy would take one but lets say not) but with a Dark Lance comes to 115 points so once that unit had all been destroyed the opposing player (the player who had destroyed that unit) would get 115 points. This is much fairer because in games each side is equal in points so the work out on VP is much fairer. Instead of using KP which is an unfair advanatage to Grey Knights or Black Templars or anybody who has units with high cost so they can take fewer units in a game, compared to horde armies like Tyranids and Orks who have low cost units and can take lots of units ina a game..

My view on that battle of KP v VP.

VP does not discourage min/max and MSU, in fact it reinforces it.

That's why KP is in there, to balance the 2/3rd of objective missions.

sorry i don't relay understand that comemnt. Could you explain what you mean. I am saying for annhiliation games that VP would be a fairer way to record who wins.

Nos is saying that in 2 out of 3 missions MSU's are desireable, but in annhiliation MSU hurts you.

It is a balance issue.

Detonator wrote:sorry i don't relay understand that comemnt. Could you explain what you mean. I am saying for annhiliation games that VP would be a fairer way to record who wins.

If Victory Points remained in use, there would be absolutely zero downside for just spamming small units and transports. In objectives, I've got a lot of Troops choices to run around and hold objectives, while in annhilation...eh they're cheap, so I don't care if they die.

With killpoints those same swarm of small units turns into a liability. For each thin skinned transport you kill, you get one killpoint, and it can get to the point that my only hope of victory is to utterly wipe you out. In which case, I might want to avoid just taking pure MSUs army in favor of taking a few more durable units which--while not as good in objectives--will be much better for me in annhilation.

saramin wrote:I want to thank SlaveToDorkness for posting the page reference and where to find this.

this has come up several times and no one has been able to give a page reference and i have not been able to find it myself.

No problem. Happens all the time.