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.

Except that doesn't make kill points a balance for Objectives. All it does is make Kill points a different type of objective game. And it still hurts IG.

IG Player: "Ok, I'll put my KP's on this squishy squad, this squishy squad, and this squishy squad."

Ork Player: "Ok, I'll put mine on this 30 man boyz unit, this unit of Nob Bikes, and this other 30 man boyz unit."

IG Player: :(

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Skinnattittar wrote:How are fewer units less fun?

As I stated before, to me, I have more fun where there are more units on the board and they all can influence the battle. Things that discourage lots of units make the game less fun for me.

Pushing around huge hoards of plain guys isn't what is fun to me.

@ Skyth : I'm not really seeing an articulated agruement? I still don't see how having fewer units, and not all of them have to be "just plain guys," which is a setiment I don't understand as a Guard player, but I easily see everyone of my squads as different and unique when I play them, even though they all have the exact same load out (in the troops section at least). Even when I use them in mob fashion, playing them is much more then just seeing them as "plain" guys.

I'm just saying what I enjoy/don't enjoy...It's subjective and thus not in need of an articulated argument

I'd rather use and face an army with lots of small units, all of which are useful (Not just there to be there). Anything which discourages this makes the game less fun for me (Rules, or Bullying from other players with the 'One Right Way' to play)

Subjective opinions aren't worth jack though? It doesn't explain anything? I just don't see how a bunch of small units is superior to medium or larger units. I do see how they are inferior though, their small size is easy for larger units to flood in shooting and assault, beating them on both fronts, and their small numbers means they will take more leadership tests more often for losing the same number of models as a larger unit. Their only plus is they can get behind smaller bits of cover, but with 5th rules, that doesn't really matter. Essientially, there isn't a logical benefit to small units except you can have a bunch of them and have a ton of different units in an army, which still doesn't help you because you won't have enough of any one combat type to take on how most people build their armies (which, in my experience, isn't with a bunch of different kinds of units), and even if you did, you would have to make sure those units are facing off against their intended targets, and with how setup works in 5th, you only have a 50/50 chance of starting off like that. And depending on reserves the odds are even worse.

Thus 5th edition is less fun.

I totally disagree with you. Mostly because you haven't been able to say anything useful about your "fun" statement, especially since even in 3rd and 4th your idea of "fun" would be less effective then how 5th encourages people to play. The only benefit of more smaller units is saving points on units of expensive guys, but then you just have more units of "plain" guys, who are still less effective. It's pretty much a lose lose situation.

The more units out there (Especially the ones that are effective) the more things that are going on and the more variables in what is going on.

Not to mention that you can destroy smaller units more easily, so that even if you are losing you can feel as if you accomplished something.

Thus I swear by the old standby of the 6 man las/plas marine squad. Besides, 2x 6 man las plas marine squads are more effective than 1x14 man Las/Plas squad. not to mention more fun to play/play against.

Same with 3 squads of 2 Raveners compared to one squad of 6 Raveners. More fun all around due to more things happening on the battlefield, and more ability to accomplish something by destroying a unit.

Wouldn't a small squad going against another small squad be about the same idea as a large squad going against a large squad? And what happens when you run into large squads with your small squads? It seems to me that small squads just generally have a harder time surviving against larger squads.

Perhaps you might be interested in how I prefer to play these days; smaller armies. Lower point values, usually around 800 points, means smaller units, fewer units, and what you take matters (in big battles, specialized units [except for the broken ones] don't usually make a big influence, in my opinion). Since the battles actually move quite quickly (sometimes less than an hour from set up to pack up), if you don't like what is going on you don't have long to wait and you can try out a bunch of different things in that same time frame as a regular 1850pts or more battle.

The biggest difference between small squad vs small squad and large squad vs large squad is that there are more squads on the board in the small squad vs small squad. To me, that makes the small squad vs small squad more fun.

And it isn't a large squad meeting a small squad...It's a large squad meeting a small squad and something else.

As for the way you play...If you like it, I hope you keep playing that way ^_^. I know the way that I enjoy playing the game, but cannot do that any longer because of the new rules and the perponderance of bullies that pile on you that you're a bad person if you like playing the way I do.

Do what HBMC was talking about: Bring back Victory Points.

I think kill points are fine. As everyone has noted before, they counter-balance the number of units you have.

The existence of Imperial Guard don't negate the system. They will be fixed soon, so that shouldn't be brought up.

However, the Annihilation argument is a little bit silly. Everyone complains about how their army of solo-slotted units and smaller units are punished. Everyone knows the only reason people take solo land speeders and the like is to get around multiple weapons in enemy units. I'd rather present 3x1 land speeders than 1x3 land speeders against units, so they have to waste fire power to finish them off.

That is a trade off in itself, never mind the fact you can fire one of them, and then wait to see what needs to be hit next.

It's essentially min-maxing the FoC, the very thing the game is trying to get away from. Wasn't it great to be able to take a million units of minimum models just for their special weapons, and spam them? Wasn't it great when Cannons and plasma could be taken with 5 guys?

That's the point with kill points. They would rather see a game where larger units are supported than 20 units of 5 whatever.

And if your army is based on attrition, barely winning with a million weenie units, how about you change your strategy and try to win the god damned game for one mission? It's only 1/3, and I believe it exposes flaws in army builds if they can't handle the fact it's still a war game and occasionally you will have to put some terminators on the field instead of scouts.

Defiler wrote: Everyone knows the only reason people take solo land speeders and the like is to get around multiple weapons in enemy units.

Nice to know that you know everyone. The reason I do it is because it's more fun to have more units on the board, especially ones that can influence the game.

That's the point with kill points. They would rather see a game where larger units are supported than 20 units of 5 whatever.

I wouldn't. 20 units of 5 whatever generally are more fun to play and play against than larger units. But there's only one 'right' way to have fun with the game, I know... [/sarcasm]

Skyth, we get that you like having lots and lots of units on the board. Saying it over and over in a discussion about an answer to Kill Points doesn't really add anything. This thread has now degenerated into you saying "I like lots of small units!" and others saying, "I like fewer, bigger units!" I was a fan of the "Great Taste!"/"Less Filling!" beer commercials back in the day, but they are not really relevant to this discussion.

By the way all of you, "Subjective Opinion" is redundant. An opinion, by definition, is subjective.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

If people are going to post that basically, anyone who doesn't like playing with large units is a bad person, then I will have to voice the other side of the equation.

That's not how it started. You came in and said that you didn't like KP because you like playing with lots of small units. That doesn't really address any issues with KP at all and is just a personal preference.

Then people started asking you why and the thread degenerated from there.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Actually, it does adress the issues with kill points - That they make the game less fun because they discourage playing armies with lots of small units.

I also did make a suggestion to 'fix' kill points in my post also, but I started getting attacked because I like playing a way that is discouraged by kill points.

Let's see, what was that first post again? Oh yeah:

skyth wrote:Kill points are not in any way, shape, or form a balancing act for the objective missions. Especially when you have troops-only scoring.

Plus, at least to me, the more useful units out there, the more fun the game is. The new trend towards less, larger squads of the blandest units in the codex (Troops) combined with pillbox vehilces make the new edition a major fail for me (So much so that I refuse to play 5th edition)

The only viable fix to kill points is to have both players agree to build thier army to a certain point total and a certain kill point total (And to not count created units such as spore mines/spawn as giving kill points)

We've already addressed the first part. Since any unit can contest, it doesn't really matter that only troops score.

Second part is opinion and irrelevant to the topic of "HOW TO FIX KP'S". I could argue that for some armies, the troops are some of the more interesting choices in the codex (Dark Angels and Chaos Marines for example).

I disagree that the "only viable" fix is to have both players build to a kill points total because that is impractical. If I play Deathwing, I CAN'T build an army with an equal number of Kill points to an IG army. And in an objective game with 5 objectives, I can only score 3 of them with my troops but he has enough troops to score all 5 so he has a potential advantage in objective games.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

skyth wrote:If people are going to post that basically, anyone who doesn't like playing with large units is a bad person, then I will have to voice the other side of the equation.

Actually I think people have been pointing out the tactical superiority of larger units over smaller units, more then saying that not liking them is wrong or that not liking small units is wrong.

Skyth, if you want to make a strong arguement as to why people should be using lots of small units you have to have more evidence, theories, or data than just "well I like playing with small units!" Because just about everyone likes playing 40k with something or other, but we all don't play with the same armies! So that means there are advantages and disadvantages to doing things one way or another compared to something else, different risks and gambles, some that others don't want and others that people do want.

Basically, GW isn't going to get rid of or modify KPs just because Skyth doesn't like playing with large units.

Ozymandias wrote:Let's see, what was that first post again? Oh yeah:

skyth wrote:Kill points are not in any way, shape, or form a balancing act for the objective missions. Especially when you have troops-only scoring.

Plus, at least to me, the more useful units out there, the more fun the game is. The new trend towards less, larger squads of the blandest units in the codex (Troops) combined with pillbox vehilces make the new edition a major fail for me (So much so that I refuse to play 5th edition)

The only viable fix to kill points is to have both players agree to build thier army to a certain point total and a certain kill point total (And to not count created units such as spore mines/spawn as giving kill points)

Second part is opinion and irrelevant to the topic of "HOW TO FIX KP'S". I could argue that for some armies, the troops are some of the more interesting choices in the codex (Dark Angels and Chaos Marines for example).

Actually, I guess the fix there would be don't use them as they make the game less fun. Chaos troops are decent...DA on the other hand...blah.

I disagree that the "only viable" fix is to have both players build to a kill points total because that is impractical. If I play Deathwing, I CAN'T build an army with an equal number of Kill points to an IG army. And in an objective game with 5 objectives, I can only score 3 of them with my troops but he has enough troops to score all 5 so he has a potential advantage in objective games.

First off, there is no Codexeathwing...So you could match KP's by taking other stuff. Second off...

Ozymandias wrote:Since any unit can contest, it doesn't really matter that only troops score.

Plus having a more guard squads that can't move and shoot effectively and fall dead if someone looks at them compared to a deathwing squads is a ludicrous argument for kill points being needed to balance the game against armies that have more scoring units in objective missions.

Skinnattittar wrote:

skyth wrote:If people are going to post that basically, anyone who doesn't like playing with large units is a bad person, then I will have to voice the other side of the equation.

Actually I think people have been pointing out the tactical superiority of larger units over smaller units, more then saying that not liking them is wrong or that not liking small units is wrong.

Actually Defiler was basically trolling with that implied statement.

Basically, GW isn't going to get rid of or modify KPs just because Skyth doesn't like playing with large units.

I don't expect GW to change it for me. However, if I'm going to play anyone in 40k, it won't be using kill points, strength 4 defensive weapons, or troops-only scoring.

skyth wrote:
Nice to know that you know everyone. The reason I do it is because it's more fun to have more units on the board, especially ones that can influence the game.

That's exactly what I said.

More units that can influence the game... that's min-maxing theory. Why does anyone take single land speeders instead of 3 in a group? So that when enemy attention is turned to them, only one unit has the potential to be destroyed. That's simple tempo theory. If the enemy's units aren't operating at full capacity and yours are, you are at an advantage. It's also maximizing the use of your FoC which is a great strategy.

Almost too good. And that's why the kill point system was put into play.

The other reason for multiple solo units, usually with "game influencing" weapons like multi melta's and the like is so that you can have more working parts in your army and so that you can fire one, then survey the damage, and assess the proper target next. Believe me, I understand why someone would do that and I simply called it out. You didn't refute it at all...

I wouldn't. 20 units of 5 whatever generally are more fun to play and play against than larger units. But there's only one 'right' way to have fun with the game, I know... [/sarcasm]

I was simply mentioning what the game designers wanted in their game, not what was right or wrong.

Seems like you have a chip on your shoulder and are displaying some misdirected hostility.