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'm posting this out of a sense of curiosity in whether other people are as bothered about this as I get.

I joined 40k back in 3rd edition, and back then, games that didn't possess specific objectives tended to fall back on the victory point method for determining the victor. This system is a lot different now, to how it was then. These days, a victory point as I understand comes from the complete destruction of a squad, character or vehicle, whereas under the old system, the actual point value of the models killed were used to determine who had destroyed more of the opposing force. For example, if you killed three ordinary terminators, you got 3x40pts= 120. Simple right?

Now my chagrin at the new system stems from how poorly this seems to depict and decide the outcome of engagements. For example, imagine a game where I kill 4/5 models in three enemy marine combat squads, but lose a complete five man eldar pathfinder squad doing so.

Under the old system, the outcome is that my enemy would have 120pts from the value of my dead squad. I would likely have 12x16= 192pts from the marines killed; more if they included heavy weapon or sergeant troopers. To me, this made sense; victory in these cases was awarded to the side who had killed a higher proportion of the enemy's force. Logical.

Under the current victory point system, in this example my opponent has gained 1 victory point from the dead eldar squad. I on the other hand, have nothing. I've killed 12 marines to five eldar; a higher proportion of my enemy's army, but in victory point terms, I get nothing and the marines have the game.

Then there's the way this tends to affect gameplay. I can stomach the way objective games encourage players to swoop on positions at the last turn... it's at least vaguely conceivable that they'll have been trying to wear down the enemy in the previous phase of the battle before doing so, but in games that revolve around victory points; designed purely to determine who has killed more of the enemy, it encourages purely illogical gameplay choices. For example, our marine player might decide to try and transport the surviving members of those three combat squads in rhinos, removing them from the battle not because they're wounded or the battle is over, but because their player is now trying to avoid giving his opponent mythical victory points. This makes no sense in our interpretation of a scifi battle. In role play terms, the eldar side will already be buoyed by killing such a high count of troops; and seeing the marines run should be a boon to the eldar's cause, not something that means the marines win.

The same goes for any other like for like example; the combat squad that dies after killing 50 tyranid gaunts. As long as some of their broods survive, no victory points awarded... despite the inevitable chunk that's taken out of the tyranid player's force.

Does anyone else consider this bloody silly?

All I would suggest is that in friendly games you suggest to your opponent that you try using the old VP system?

I do understand where youre coming from though.

I'm actually thinking it's logical to put those surviving three marines in the rhino. In the system you're proposing, you would, say, get the hell out of cover, run towards the enemy and try to kill as much as you can by rapid-firing them.
In other words: Two-third of our squad just got killed, so lets do a suicide charge! derp.
War is the art of preservation. The soldiers that survive today, will annoy your opponent tomorrow.

bahzakhain wrote:

War is the art of preservation. The soldiers that survive today, will annoy your opponent tomorrow.

This sentence belongs in someone's sig

Thougt it would made a good sig right after I posted it... shoot me