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.

Alright - time for an epiphany.

5th edition came out with its three deployments and three mission types. It was a really great concept which provided for many different types of games "out of the box".

But then we, the player community, complained about "Kill Points". Why should a unit of 19 grots be worth the same as a Land Raider when the final accounting for the game is done? "That doesn't make any sense" some cried. "It's just stupid!" others complained.

So we, on our own, decided to break it. The gaming community as a collective whole has decided to ignore that rule and instead use "victory points". You see it in normal games. You see it in tournaments.

But what effect has this had on the game as a whole. Was ignoring the Kill Point rule a good or bad thing?

To answer that you need to think about the reason for the rule. Very few people think about the "why" behind the rules. WHY would GW add, what appears on the surface, such an idiotic rule?

Look at the missions. One mission is to claim multiple objectives. One is to hold your own while claiming another. Another is to kill more enemy units than your enemy kills. All three missions are driving you to build an army with the following parameters:

1 - You army needs to be able to claim objectives. You need troops. You need troops to back up your troops. You need the ability to change other units into troops, as you see more and more in the new codexes.

2 - You need to be able to get in there and contest objectives. You need "deathstar" and fast units to do this. Clearing an objective isn't good enough. You need to clear it and ensure your opponent can't jump on it in the last turn.

3 - You need to ensure that your army isn't spammed with small units, ICs, vehicles, etc., so you don't lose Kill Points.

Think about it for a couple of minutes. Most people think that GW made up the Kill Point rules because they just had a bit too much to drink. Or perhaps it was a bad joke.

No, Kill Points was an effort to balance the game. Remember, they know what is in the pipeline for future codexes. They knew that there were going to be some really cheap builds that spammed different units. They knew that they planned on dropping the cost of transports across the board.

Look at the first codexes to drop after 5E: Space Marines and Imperial Guard. Both codexes allowed for the manipulation of their army for Kill Point purposes: combat squads (SM) and combined squads (IG). This was to provide a HUGE advantage IF you selected a certain unit. So, obviously, they designed those armies to be built around those units.

Everyone loves to hate GW for the mech spam and MSU spam lists, but in reality, that is something that WE, the players, created by ignoring the Kill Point rule and using Victory Points instead. The missions were designed to force the meta-game in a certain direction, to provide more balanced lists and prevent the “new codex is king” concept.

But because we broke the rules, the game becomes “unbalanced” and people complain that GW doesn’t know how to balance a game.

Don’t get me wrong – I think that is a good thing. I enjoy the idea that I never know what I am going to face on the table. There is really no possible way to make an “all-purpose” army anymore because there are just too many variations for builds in each codex. I love the “new codex is king” concept because it forces better tactics from everyone (here’s a hint: no codex is king – they can all be beaten). I think the chaotic nature of the game is what makes it interesting. I actually love the fact that there are simply some armies I cannot beat with a certain build I have. And the opposite is true. There are some armies and builds that simply can’t touch me. THAT forces change in tactics and builds, which makes the whole experience more dynamic.

“Competitive” players may disagree because they see it as being unbalanced. It is difficult to play a game in a competitive format when the rules are constantly in flux. It would be like playing chess, but every turn your pawns have a different rule. How can you play that competitively?

It forces players to become experienced with their army, and that takes years. The “pick the latest and play” gamers really struggle. Yes, there are exceptions, such as those who have played way too many games and no longer see the army but see the units, stats, and abilities only (mechanical players, imho).

So, overall, I think it is a good thing. It annoys me when players pour the hate onto GW, but it is a good thing that WE took control of the game.

I must have missed the part where everyone uses VPs rather than KPs, or where KPs are in any way an effective balancing mechanic for MSU. Maybe this is just one of those weird US things.

The obvious point of the KPs was to make it more simple than VPs, though I agree it is a pretty stupid attempt at dumbing it down. Would have made more sense if they went with 1KP = 100 points, rounded up to the nearest 100. So a landraider would be 3KPs. But this means no matter what everything would be worth at least 1KP, thereby balancing MSUs and the giant units more.

The way it is now it tried to balance it too much with MSUs not really such a great idea now, but with most deathstars worth 2KPs if they include an IC.

Generally I still end up using KPs, but I like the objective based missions better as it adds in a tiny bit of tactics to the game rather than the usual "hurdurr big unit smash everything he brave". Not that such simplistic tactics are unstoppable.

WAAAGHAKI wrote:The gaming community as a collective whole has decided to ignore that rule and instead use "victory points".

I think you'll find that's a fairly substantial exaggeration...

I only started in 5th so maybe I'm a bad example, but I've actually never played a game using VP.

WAAAGHAKI wrote:
Think about it for a couple of minutes. Most people think that GW made up the Kill Point rules because they just had a bit too much to drink. Or perhaps it was a bad joke.

You seem to be grossly overestimating how representative your own gaming community is of the community at large.

I don't know if 'most people' understand this, but one of the big goals of KP was moving away from the spam/min-maxing that grew to be so prevalent in 4th edition. Marine lists with as many asscannons as they could possibly fit by loading up on landpseeders and minimum sized termie squads, spamming 5 man las/plas tac squads. Eldar starcannon spam. IG suicide drop vets, where you were spending less than 100 points for eight DSing plasma shots, who cares if they die next turn? Kill Points altered the dynamic of the game, where if you pursued that type of strategy, in 1/3 games, you're actually risking something of value. Having a DS go bad and losing ~100 points of IG didn't mean as much in terms of VP, especially when your list was full of similar units so the VP you've surrendered adds up slowly, but if you've filled your list with fragile, or low model units in a KP game, that's a choice that actually has a signifigant downside to it.

I havn't been to many tournaments, but those i have been to use Kill Points.

I think your initial premise is flawed. While victory points does still have a following, kill points is far more common. Secondly, when you can build a 30 KP IG army that will wipe a 10-20 KP army off the table, KP doesn't really matter.

Also, GW DOES break the game. Remember last year's 'ard Boyz when vehicles and jump units cost 3 KP in the last match? That goes beyond attempted rebalancing into outright comp.

Portugal Jones wrote:

WAAAGHAKI wrote:
Think about it for a couple of minutes. Most people think that GW made up the Kill Point rules because they just had a bit too much to drink. Or perhaps it was a bad joke.

You seem to be grossly overestimating how representative your own gaming community is of the community at large.

I don't know if 'most people' understand this, but one of the big goals of KP was moving away from the spam/min-maxing that grew to be so prevalent in 4th edition. Marine lists with as many asscannons as they could possibly fit by loading up on landpseeders and minimum sized termie squads, spamming 5 man las/plas tac squads. Eldar starcannon spam. IG suicide drop vets, where you were spending less than 100 points for eight DSing plasma shots, who cares if they die next turn? Kill Points altered the dynamic of the game, where if you pursued that type of strategy, in 1/3 games, you're actually risking something of value. Having a DS go bad and losing ~100 points of IG didn't mean as much in terms of VP, especially when your list was full of similar units so the VP you've surrendered adds up slowly, but if you've filled your list with fragile, or low model units in a KP game, that's a choice that actually has a signifigant downside to it.

Great explanation. I never really got why they moved from VPs to KPs. Its conception was always a bit confusing to me.

-MightyG

Every tournament ive ever been to will include KP at some point, and most use VPs as a tiebreaker - they dont decide who wins the individual game but the tournament as a whol.e

So the initial premise is wrong, basically.

I think the wargaming community (like any other community) work in far more complex way, especially of thinking.

I don't play any tournament, because I can't stand competition. I love 40k for the universe and I actually play "stories" more than only game but I am still very interested by rules, statistics and tactics. (And I think, and hope, we are not the only gaming group like this, here). And so we have never used VP since the transition to the 5th edition.

I like your analysis, particularly about the rationale for KP !
But beware of too much generalization and simplification.