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.

Hello everyone, just wanted to discuss this a little bit and see what everyone thought about the victory point system in 8th ediont for IMO I feel that it needs to go back to the way it was in 7th. What inspired me to post this was earlier today I played a friend of mine who has barely started Bretonnians in a game and in the end he had 3 shot up units of knights of the realm ( two of them had only two modesl in them), only x3 grail knights and had lost one mage and his three pegasus knights. Now I lost a total of 16 dryads and two great eagles and thanks to the VP system the game was a draw....now I dont mind drawing @ all but even my friend was surprised that he got full victory points for only having two models. Now I personally feel that the old edition was better (you get half victory points if your unit is under or @ half strength) and dont know why GW changed it @ all. What are your guys thoughts on this, should it be changed? Why or why not? Just curious

I've often wondered why you just don't get the points value for every model you kill. So you killed 21 of my Halberdiers, you get 105 points. Seems simple enough.

Maybe you could grant fractions of a point for characters and multiwound troops that you took some wounds off.

I like 8th ed VP. With new massive unit sizes going for half is time consuming and can be done with one spell. You have to work to get your points now, no more hit run and dance.

I think it would be better if they were fixed. You would have to clear up a couple things though.

for example...

Vampire Counts zombies should be all based on their starting size. If you started out with 20 and now have 32 you don't gain more victory points, victory points are all based on the units starting size.

If you kill a character's mount you probably shouldn't get any victory points until the character is dead.


I actually don't like the new victory point system. It's discouraging me to get Salamanders, Chameleons, Terradons, all because they will just die and give the enemy victory points. It's better for me just to get more Saurus. I realize Lizardmen can pull off pretty much any list in their book, but against these tougher teams every victory point counts.

(I also realize that I shouldn't NOT get chameleons, etc. It's just discouraging me to get them over beefer options.)

Chameleons and Terradons fall under the category of maenuver control. They aren't there to kill stuff directly, but to harrass and redirect enemy movement into the areas you want them to go, so your combat blocks can kill them. Salamaders are fire support; if they weaken a big unit enough so that your combat block can smash it, they've done their job.

It's not always about earning your points back on a per-unit basis, but about getting more points back with the heavy hitters than you loose when they kill the small stuff. If loosing a 100 point unit like one of these units allows you to smash a 500 point unit, you're ahead of the game.

God forbid you adapt your tactics to a new sistem...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vulcan wrote:If loosing a 100 point unit like one of these units allows you to smash a 500 point unit, you're ahead of the game.

Nailed it.

I personally think VPs for victory should be percentage/ratio-based on the pts-value of the game. Keep it the way it is, but instead of just having the 100 pt draw-area, make it %-based on the match pts that are agreed to. I'm thinking a 10% gap.

I.e. if it's a 2500 pt match and you're 274 pts ahead on VP, you win. But if you're only 247, then it's a draw.

Isn't a HUGE fix, but I like it better than the 100pt gap regardless of game size (ever play 2500pts and "lose" by 104 pts? I have.). Now, there'd have to be some minimum pt values on the lists, to make it fair - i.e. people will say "well I started at 2496 and you had 2500 even!" Although, not sure that'd be that big of a deal to players...?

One thing I do hate about it all is the "Dead or Fled" idea. If I DO weaken down a unit, smash them in close combat, they have only 2 guys left, but I fail ONE roll of pursuit and they rally at the edge of the board! I did all the tactical work, I mashed the army, but 1 or 2 rolls snatched 500+ points (or whatever) from me? That I don't like. That's why I would love a percentage point, or at LEAST a "you killed half" points system. All I get in that scenario is a 25 point standard, if they even took one.

While I do like the focus on combat in this edition, I think it's great, but this problem is my ONE major problem with this edition. Because it adds that extra bit of random has SUCH a massive effect. A failed charge because of dice is nasty, but can be planned against. Poor magic dice? That atleast makes sense, magic is fickle and can also be planned accordingly. But a failed pursuit? One that cost you a MASSIVE amount of points, potentially. Especially since a 100+ point difference can mean winning or drawing, or even losing? Yeah, that blows. I COULD plan ahead, but only way I could think to do that is to dedicate more units to the assault to either wipe them out completely, or have extra chance of running them down. And then I've dedicated another valuable unit to a battle that I should have won, giving my opponent a great board advantage.

-shrug- Officially I can't do a thing though. I'm sure I can get a few games in with my friends with a "better" system. But for the system as a whole? Eh, oh well. I like ranting though. :3