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.

Reading through just about every list build critique, a common comment made in regards to unit choices quite often has a phrase like "that unit is horrible, it will mever make its points back". My question is, why does it matter if a unit makes its points back?

It seems like 40k is being treated like an amped up version of chess, that each units rules and points correspond to your opponents, and the one winning is the one making the better point trade (i.e. losing a queen to a pawn is a bad situation, but taking the queen with a pawn is a good one).

My argument is the variable that seems to be ignored, and thats tactics. Yeah, using my 300 point squad of infiltrating chosen with 5 plasma guns to kill your 200 point daemon prince first turn isnt an even point trade, but so what? Got rid of a serious threat, and hindered your tactics as a result. Maybe that daemon prince had a mace that could wreck face, or had an item that allowed deepstrike troops to not scatter. You get the idea.

So what does the dakka community think. If a unit doesn't "make its points back", but provides a tactical resource, is it really worthless?

It's a very basic, beginner ideal that any player that understands tactics will look past. Newer, and poor players will take this idea to heart, but most savvy players understand there is much more to a unit's usefulness.

It's a good judge of a unit's quality, but only if you apply it correctly. If a unit dedicate entirely to killing stuff can't make its points back you're probably overpaying for it and a cheaper and more efficient unit would be better, and you'd better not make very many of those trades or you're going to lose the game. However, if you apply it to scoring units it obviously fails. A blob of guardsmen on an objective might not ever kill enough to make their points back, but that's not a very relevant complaint when they win the game for you by doing it. Similarly, a Rhino will probably never even come close to killing its points, but its job is to haul a unit around, not kill stuff.

I know its not perfect ofc, but its a nice benchmark...
If every unit killed its own worth +1 then you would win.

I always use 'makes its points back' as a more general guideline rather than strictly meaning that unit kills its points value or more in enemy units.

If all my haywyches squad does all game is claim an objective on the last turn and score me the VPs for it, then I'll consider it having made its points back. It's hard to quantify a unit whether or not a unit whose job is to be a distraction or whose job is to camp objectives makes their points back, but yeah.

If a unit can't make it's points back, the it needs to do something else instead. Usually that means taking an objective, or conserving points. Sometime it means presenting a dedicated threat.

Aipoch wrote:
My question is, why does it matter if a unit makes its points back?

It doesn't, really. All you need to do is win the game. Most games are based around objectives (although 6e might have changed this? I don't think so though), ergo, what's most important is taking and holding them, or at least contesting them-- not killing the enemy.

 Kaldor wrote:
If a unit can't make it's points back, the it needs to do something else instead. Usually that means taking an objective, or conserving points. Sometime it means presenting a dedicated threat.

Other times, it could simply be "tie up the enemy so they don't kill THEIR worth in points".

But yeah, everything should be there for a reason if you want the list to be competitive.

I take some that don't. I use them for objectives, or as distractions or meat-shields. And it all depends on the battle too, you could have a heavy point tank and roll 1's during shooting phase and it gets destroyed next turn or something.

My concern for something making it's points back is when it's a fairly general killy unit, something that should by all accounts kill it's own points worth in most situations. A prime example of a unit I never worry about making it's points back is cultists, those buggers are there as a distraction or objective holder, if that is all they do, I'm ok with their performance

This stopped being a useful measure when 5th ed arrived, and victory points were no longer the primary means of determining who wins the game. I'm happy for you to kill my stuff at a 2/1 ratio, if at the same time I establish position to hold more objectives than you do at game end.

Cheap scoring units like cultists or grots, and transports like Rhinos, are classic examples of units which provide utility more important than just killing stuff.

Making its points back is irrelevant without that being part of the victory conditions.

You want a unit that is efficient at helping you win the scenerio objective. Nothing more.


This game also has a fair amount of Rock/Paper/Scissors inside it. A single Grey Knight Strike Marine with a Halberd is 25 points. Can he kill 25 points of Ork Boyz in melee? No, he'll kill 1 before they others do him in. Shooting? Perhaps, if he avoids melee.

That same GK has a very good chance to kill a Carnifex many times his point cost. Its all about the rock/paper/scissors nature of the game. Except there are thousands of variables and many are combinations of each other.

I would say that you dont have to kill anything to make back a units points. For example if my Fenrisian wolves take a bunch of shots for my longfang pack. Then I would say they made back their points. If they tie up a costly unit for a turn or two then they I consider them making back their points. In both of those cases they dont need to kill anything and they will still have made their points back.

Peregrine wrote:If a unit dedicate entirely to killing stuff can't make its points back you're probably overpaying for it and a cheaper and more efficient unit would be better.

This, mostly.

Plus, it's still not a terrible thing to think of in general, even with scoring units. A 30-man guard blob with 3 lascannons is going to do more damage than a 40-man guard blob. As they're both pretty good at holding objectives, it's useful to compare the two by damage.

Just because a unit is scoring doesn't mean it ceases to be a unit that can kill stuff. Of course, making back its points is technically irrelevant most games (though not on purge), but it's still a useful metric to consider.

People should stop using "kill their points worth" and "make their points back" interchangeably. A unit can make its points back without killing a single unit. A rhino makes its points back by getting the unit inside it where they needed to be when they are needed. Some squads such as warp spawn makes their points back just by being shot at. Wyches often make their points back just by tanking an enemy deathstar. They don't have to kill a single model in it.

Indeed. If a unit is supposed to die, dying is what makes its points back.

In the case of support units (like rhinos) I usually lump them with the squad they are escorting in the "how does it perform" sweepstakes.

While yes there are some things in the game that will be useful and not terribly offensive (termagaunt output from tervigons for instance) how many of them are there really in 40k? If its not able to do much except blanket tarpit (survive) or score (or transport such) then its usually dead weight.

If your army goes out of its way to devise units that have no way of making the other person die for their country then you probably struggle. 1 maybe 2 units in each book max arent designed to kill the enemy, and not every one of them are worth taking.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Making its points back is irrelevant without that being part of the victory conditions.

You want a unit that is efficient at helping you win the scenerio objective. Nothing more.

Just one problem: most of the time the best way to win the scenario objective is to spend the first 4-5 turns killing the enemy as efficiently as possible, then put token scoring units on the objectives against minimal opposition. Since objectives are worthless until the game ends it's very easy to ignore them until the last turn while you cripple your opponent to the point where your victory becomes inevitable.

 Mannahnin wrote:
This stopped being a useful measure when 5th ed arrived, and victory points were no longer the primary means of determining who wins the game. I'm happy for you to kill my stuff at a 2/1 ratio, if at the same time I establish position to hold more objectives than you do at game end.

The problem is that if you get out-killed 2:1 early in the game by the time you reach the later turns you're out-gunned by a huge margin and your few surviving units are probably going to get wiped off the objectives. All that position you gained early doesn't count for much when, thanks to that early-turn killing advantage, I can throw twice the point value in units at each of your objective holders, use my decisive superiority in surviving units to claim all of my objectives and put you in a situation where you have to hold every single one of yours just to get a draw, etc.

 TheCaptain wrote:
It's a very basic, beginner ideal that any player that understands tactics will look past. Newer, and poor players will take this idea to heart, but most savvy players understand there is much more to a unit's usefulness.

Wow, that's such are arrogant post that it even offends an Ultramarine player. Maybe you just have a very unsophisticated understanding of the term being used. I've never seen anyone say "kill its points back", but I've oft seen and used "make its points back" or "taken down its points and then some".

A unit like the Brass Scorpion either needs to tie down half the battlefield or literally make its points back. Where as Pedro can make his points back and never fire a shot. It all comes down to the net effect of fielding a unit being greater than the investment in points sacrificed to bring it into play. It's a perfectly solid way of evaluating a unit, for those savvy enough to grasp the nuances of the concept.

Where as Pedro can make his points back and never fire a shot. It all comes down to the net effect of fielding a unit being greater than the investment in points sacrificed to bring it into play. It's a perfectly solid way of evaluating a unit, for those savvy enough to grasp the nuances of the concept.

I think folks are retroactively redefining the term to mean something else. "Make its points back", IME, has always been understood to be synonymous with "kill its points cost worth of stuff."

The definition you're using sounds like whether something is "worth its points". Which certainly doesn't depend on how much it kills. Just figuring out whether a given unit helps you win the game to a degree greater than whatever else you could take for the same points/force org slot. Opportunity cost.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I'm happy for you to kill my stuff at a 2/1 ratio, if at the same time I establish position to hold more objectives than you do at game end.

The problem is that if you get out-killed 2:1 early in the game by the time you reach the later turns you're out-gunned by a huge margin and your few surviving units are probably going to get wiped off the objectives. All that position you gained early doesn't count for much when, thanks to that early-turn killing advantage, I can throw twice the point value in units at each of your objective holders, use my decisive superiority in surviving units to claim all of my objectives and put you in a situation where you have to hold every single one of yours just to get a draw, etc.

You appear to have misread what I wrote, despite quoting it. Let me repeat the part you apparently missed: "...at game end."

I'm not saying killing stuff isn't useful, or disagreeing that if you sustain excessive damage early, it will remove or cripple your ability to achieve and maintain control over objectives. I'm making the point that the objectives are what you need; killing stuff is merely a means to an end. And if I can sustain much more damage than my enemy (in terms of pre-6th ed style victory points) WHILE still holding more objectives at game end, I still win. This is actually a pretty common situation for me, when playing against armies built around a death star, for example. I'm perfectly happy to sustain substantially more points' worth of damage if I can get the win. And I usually do. Even if I take a lot of damage early, and a thousand point unit of paladins never takes a wound, I can still easily win the game if all of my opponent's cheap henchman scoring units are dead, and I have a couple of scoring units of my own left.

 Mannahnin wrote:
You appear to have misread what I wrote, despite quoting it. Let me repeat the part you apparently missed: "...at game end."

And my point is that your chances of holding objectives at the end of the game go down considerably if you're willing to take losses at a 2:1 ratio earlier in the game. Your endgame plans don't matter if you're outgunned 2:1 going into turn 4-5, you're just going to be wiped off your objectives and have no hope of claiming/contesting your opponent's objectives.

This is actually a pretty common situation for me, when playing against armies built around a death star, for example.

This is the problem with your strategy: it only works against bad lists (and yes, a death star list is a bad list). Against an opponent who doesn't tie up all of their points in a single overkill death star a 2:1 kill ratio means you're going to be lucky to avoid getting tabled.

 TheCaptain wrote:
It's a very basic, beginner ideal that any player that understands tactics will look past. Newer, and poor players will take this idea to heart, but most savvy players understand there is much more to a unit's usefulness.

Actually it was a very valid point... back in 4th edition where it mattered. Kill Points made it a fallacy.

Its a simplifying tool; take ADL for example, that can be costly, but it needn't always kill something to be worthwhile.

i always assume that if a unit does what i wanted of it, then it made its points worth.

best example i can give comes from 4th ed where i used to have a vindicare in my daemonhunters army....... not for dealing with HQ characters (what he should be doing), not for vehicle hunting (what i tend to use him for now) but for knocking out special weapons to stop them shooting me or taking out powerfists to stop a dreadnought getting taken down.

never "killed his points", was near always "worth his points"


of course nowadays the sheer volume of stuff my opponents throw at him keeps my army alive so he still makes his points

Peregrine wrote:most of the time the best way to win the scenario objective is to spend the first 4-5 turns killing the enemy as efficiently as possible, then put token scoring units on the objectives against minimal opposition.

Exactly. Then add to this purge, which is literally about killing, relic, which is basically a one-objective game that's almost entirely about killing (I don't think I've ever seen the relic moved more than a couple of inches), and emperor's will, which is like the old command and control, and you get half your missions where killing stuff early on is really, really important.

I mean, this is why I'm putting meltaguns and lascannons in my troops choices now. They are only useful as scoring units at the end of the game, so they need killing power to be useful for the rest of it.

For example, has anyone played the card game Dominion? In this case, scoring units are like victory point cards. Yes, the only way you determine who wins is by who has the most victory points at the end, but they're also dead-weight until the end, which actually makes it HARDER to get more victory points. The best cards in the game are ones that are victory points AND something else that can still be useful.

I belive the 'only take units that make thier points back' is simply refering to the varying level of cost effectivness of units in 40k.
Eg poor internal and external ballance.

As the game of 40k has more strategic focus than most other games, and far less balance that most other game too.
It means unit selection in 40k has a much higher impact on the outcome of the game , compared to other games.

Hence the fluffy -competative divide between players.

 Lobukia wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
It's a very basic, beginner ideal that any player that understands tactics will look past. Newer, and poor players will take this idea to heart, but most savvy players understand there is much more to a unit's usefulness.

Wow, that's such are arrogant post that it even offends an Ultramarine player. Maybe you just have a very unsophisticated understanding of the term being used. I've never seen anyone say "kill its points back", but I've oft seen and used "make its points back" or "taken down its points and then some".

A unit like the Brass Scorpion either needs to tie down half the battlefield or literally make its points back. Where as Pedro can make his points back and never fire a shot. It all comes down to the net effect of fielding a unit being greater than the investment in points sacrificed to bring it into play. It's a perfectly solid way of evaluating a unit, for those savvy enough to grasp the nuances of the concept.

"You're so arrogant. Let me repeat what you said as my own idea, though."

Golly, thanks guy Considering what I said has been parroted the entire thread, I think the arrogance was warranted.

I look at it this way:

Both Myself and my opponent have X number of points. I take a close combat unit, cost Y. I assume that it will kill Z points before either being destroyed in turn, or for the game to end.

Thus, for everything else, I have basically X-Y points.

My opponent has X-Z points.

If X-Y>X-Z, I have more points than my opponent to do everything else with. This means that Y<Z. Likewise, if Y=Z, I am no better or worse off than my opponent. If Y>Z, I have actually hurt myself by taking this unit.

Of course, things are more complicated. One must factor in non-combat transports (just roll into squad cost), defensive benefits (count points saved buy the benefit), psychological value (if they kill A, then they aren't killing B), and scoring. Also consider that some units will die before they make combat.

What am I saying? Basically, "make its points back" is a shorthand for killyness in a vacuum, but is not the only thing people need to consider.

Yeah, good *points* all around.

Seriously, a practical example of why points is a bad indicator: my Defiler rarely kills anything in a game, firing his battle cannon from the opposite side of the board. Either he can't target things because they are tied up in CC, or he's shooting at tanks with the hope something is going to blow up.

Invariably, my opponents send something to go get him because they hate blast markers. This may mean I have Thunderwolves charging across the board, TH/SS Termies deep striking out of the way, or something else that otherwise should be going after my main battle force.

I don't mind losing my Defiler as long as a) he pulls valuable units from my opponent's army away from the rest of the action and b) he does enough minor damage to harass things from across the board. I don't look to him to win games so much as make them easier to play.

 Peregrine wrote:
And my point is that your chances of holding objectives at the end of the game go down considerably if you're willing to take losses at a 2:1 ratio earlier in the game. Your endgame plans don't matter if you're outgunned 2:1 going into turn 4-5, you're just going to be wiped off your objectives and have no hope of claiming/contesting your opponent's objectives.

You still seem to be misreading the comment and missing the point. I described a relatively extreme case exemplifying the point I was making relative to the thread; which is that old-style Victory Points do not win you the game in and of themselves, and it’s been two editions since they did. 2/1 casualties (in terms of unit costs) is simply an extreme example, albeit one which can and does really occur on occasion.

This is actually a pretty common situation for me, when playing against armies built around a death star, for example.

This is the problem with your strategy: it only works against bad lists (and yes, a death star list is a bad list). Against an opponent who doesn't tie up all of their points in a single overkill death star a 2:1 kill ratio means you're going to be lucky to avoid getting tabled.

You’re going to pretend for the sake of argument that my STRATEGY is to suffer 200% the casualties of my opponent, and then lecture me on bad lists? That would be offensive if it wasn’t so risable. Yes, death stars have clear weaknesses. One of them being the one I’m illustrating- that a good player can often reliably counter them and defeat the army without needing to kill the death star. Back when victory points were actually how you won the game, death stars were more popular and more powerful. Like the Ulthwe Seer Council list which used to run around the top tables of the UK GT back in 3rd ed and early 4th, which was comprised of two 40pt 5 man Guardian squads and a 1400+pt giant HQ unit of Farseers and Warlocks.

Sustaining double the casualties of one’s opponent is not a strategy. Positioning yourself and your opponent’s units so as to win the game on objectives, even if that includes feeding your opponent your most expensive units and not killing his most expensive stuff, is the basic principle of a winning strategy. It’s a realignment of priorities that works reliably, and has worked for as long as there have been missions which aren’t won by pre-6th –style VPs. Whether that be the 5/6 of missions which are centered on objectives in 6th, the 2/3 of missions which were in 5th, or missions like Cleanse, Across Enemy Lines, and Night Fight in older editions.

Again, my point was merely that being in the winning position at game end is the goal, and that total damage done (as expressed in VPs) by each side up to that point is not the primary determining factor of winning position. Thus illustrating that whether a given unit can or will reliably kill its cost in enemy stuff is a bad yardstick for its utility, as it does not take into account factors like durability and maneuverability which frequently make a unit a valuable tool for winning the game.

 Mannahnin wrote:
You still seem to be misreading the comment and missing the point. I described a relatively extreme case exemplifying the point I was making relative to the thread; which is that old-style Victory Points do not win you the game in and of themselves, and it’s been two editions since they did. 2/1 casualties (in terms of unit costs) is simply an extreme example, albeit one which can and does really occur on occasion.

Then it's a bad example, since it sets up a situation where winning on the objectives simply isn't a realistic option and all that matters is the extreme example. If you want a relevant scenario, try something more like 1.1:1, where you're still getting out-killed but not by such an absurd ratio that you have no hope of fighting back.

You’re going to pretend for the sake of argument that my STRATEGY is to suffer 200% the casualties of my opponent, and then lecture me on bad lists? That would be offensive if it wasn’t so risable. Yes, death stars have clear weaknesses. One of them being the one I’m illustrating- that a good player can often reliably counter them and defeat the army without needing to kill the death star. Back when victory points were actually how you won the game, death stars were more popular and more powerful. Like the Ulthwe Seer Council list which used to run around the top tables of the UK GT back in 3rd ed and early 4th, which was comprised of two 40pt 5 man Guardian squads and a 1400+pt giant HQ unit of Farseers and Warlocks.

I don't really see what your point is here. Who cares what was a good strategy in 3rd edition? In 6th edition a one-dimensional death star list is a terrible list, so it's not really very useful to consider scenarios involving one. And that's what your hypothetical "get killed 2:1 and still win" scenario depends on, your opponent bringing a terrible list that allows you to use that kind of strategy against it.

Again, my point was merely that being in the winning position at game end is the goal, and that total damage done (as expressed in VPs) by each side up to that point is not the primary determining factor of winning position. Thus illustrating that whether a given unit can or will reliably kill its cost in enemy stuff is a bad yardstick for its utility, as it does not take into account factors like durability and maneuverability which frequently make a unit a valuable tool for winning the game.

Except it IS the primary determining factor in who wins, because the person who kills the most tends to have a decisive advantage in winning the objective game as a result of out-killing the opponent. If you bring a list of nothing but units that consistently kill more than their point value you are very likely to win the game, simply because once you make those trades you will have an army left and your opponent won't.

And no, it's not the ONLY standard to judge a unit by, but it's still a very relevant one that applies to the majority of the units in 40k.