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.

Agreed!

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I don't understand why Annihilation didn't make kill points more ratio/percentage based. If a guard army has 18 kill points and I kill 6 but my Salamanders only have 8 kill points and get 4 killed, then to my mind that shouldn't be a win for the Sallies they lost 50% of their KPs while the guard only lost 33%! Seems like an easy fix with math that's not too hard (even for Alessio)

Because maths are hard, obviously. You can't make a percentage with your fingers.

(I would love to see this as the kill point solution; I'm more complaining about the oversimplification of some of the rules).

If that math is too hard, then how about JohnHwangDD's suggestion of adding the remaining KPs of YOUR army to the KP you achieved from killing guys. I'm sure IG would love that.

JohnHwangDD wrote:All Annihilation needs to do to fix things is to add each players remaining KPs to the KPs that they score.

Its an interesting proposal. Its very similar if only worded differently than Chaplaingrabthar's suggested fix to KP. They are essentially identical.
Lets look at Chaplaingrabthar's situation just as an example of how it might work.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I don't understand why Annihilation didn't make kill points more ratio/percentage based. If a guard army has 18 kill points and I kill 6 but my Salamanders only have 8 kill points and get 4 killed, then to my mind that shouldn't be a win for the Sallies they lost 50% of their KPs while the guard only lost 33%!

Starting KP:
IG = 18
Salamanders = 8

KP claimed + KP denied to opponent:
IG = 4 + 12
Salamanders = 6 + 4

Total Score for each army at the end of the game:
IG = 16
Salamanders = 10

If each army kills half of the opposing army then it is still a draw (13 KP each) even though the Salamander player got more KP. But Because there is still a lot of KP that the IG player has denied the Salamander player, it is a draw.

On cursory inspection, it seems to be a reasonable idea, if not perfect. Reminiscent of 3rd/4th ed style of VP, but without the hassle of calculating exact numbers.

I really really like it. Simple yet effective. It needs playtesting of course, but I think Chaplaingrabthar's idea is a winner (I give JohnHwangDD credit for wording it a bit better though).

This thread has been really constructive. Double-plus good.

[edit: Upon thinking about this further, this makes a reasonable middle ground to IG's KP problem. On the one hand at the 'ard boyz tourney, each platoon was worth 1 KP, and normal rules say that each squad is 1KP. Neither really works as one was too powerful and the other too weak. If this fix was used I honestly beleive that IG would be challenging to defeat but not overly so.]

Epic used to have very straight forward combined VPs which you might like to cry.

Essentially, every unit was worth so many VPs depending on it's cost, as per pretty much every other game. However, the onus was on capturing objectives, which were worth 5VPs.

Now, and this is the bit I really liked, rather than playing to a set turn limit (though you might have done this as well, I can't remember 100%) there was a target VP total. This was checked at the end of every turn (like LotR, it was a single shared player turn) and as soon as one player hit it, they were declared the winner. As the point rose, so did the target, but if memory serves the number of objectives always remained the same. Oh, and a draw was achieved if both armies passed the benchmark, with bragging rights going to he furthest past.

To my mind, this created a very dynamic and enjoyable game. You found yourself thinking ahead, looking for poorly held Objectives you could wrest in your favour, and of course which enemy units you could reduce to breaking point, thus bagging more VPs. I remember more than once my brother and I were both dancing around the VP target for turns on end, never quite able to lock it down.

Now, this might not port directly over to 40k, not least because of the differing turn system, but I believe it could really make a difference. All that needs doing is the playtesting of various methods of when to count them up etc.

I would highly reccomend retaining the Scoring rules currently out there (non-vehicle troops only, all others may contest). The main boon here is that if the target totals can be set right, both players wind up with a fair crack of the whip. Horde armies should have no problem hogging the objective VPs, whilst the more Elite armies would need to concern themselves more with cleansing whole sections of enemy troops with surgical strikes.

Never quite knowing *When* the game is going to come to and end is extremely rewarding in itself, as you simply cannot afford to fritter away your resources!

Hellfury wrote:This thread has been really constructive. Double-plus good.

Seconded! Well done.

Hellfury wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:All Annihilation needs to do to fix things is to add each players remaining KPs to the KPs that they score.

Its an interesting proposal. Its very similar if only worded differently than Chaplaingrabthar's suggested fix to KP. They are essentially identical.

[SNIP]

On cursory inspection, it seems to be a reasonable idea, if not perfect. Reminiscent of 3rd/4th ed style of VP, but without the hassle of calculating exact numbers.

I really really like it. Simple yet effective. It needs playtesting of course, but I think Chaplaingrabthar's idea is a winner (I give JohnHwangDD credit for wording it a bit better though).

Functionally and math-wise, they are identical, as the total number of KP is the same for each player.

Mechanically, the difference is that mine doesn't require any math skills whatsoever. All I require is the basic ability to count, whereas the notion of ratios requires division and comparison of fractions.

The biggest difference is that you can calculate KP advantage by cursory inspection. For example, after deployment, IG are up a whopping 18-8, so the Sallies have some serious work to do. They knock off 6, losing 4, which isn't a very impressive performance. So the can see at the end the score is going to be 16-10. Now, if they had cleared half of the IG stuff, and a cost of half of theirs (9 for 4), then it would be 4 killed +9 saved vs 9 killed +4 saved = 13-13 tie.

I don't think any playtesting is needed, but you're welcome to do it.

I guess I'm just too used to math not being hard.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I don't think any playtesting is needed.

I fully agree, but then again it is still worth doing. Don't want to fall into the trap that GW has by saying "It looks good enough! Let's call it a day!".

After all, Vulkan looked pretty balanced on paper, and it seems that it wasn't playtested as rigorously as it could have or should have been.

Are you out of your Vulkan mind?

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I guess I'm just too used to math not being hard.

Well, I guess it is subjective, but I find that the simpler solution is often far more elegant.

Or, using an acronym that the military has used for a long long time, KISS.

No, not...



But rather...

"K.I.S.S." (Keep it simple, stupid!)

Augustus wrote:Are you out of your Vulkan mind?

Don't bother to wear a tinfoil beanie, Dr. Mcoy.



And like any other time where LOLCATZ are used, thus I kill this thread.

Not Knights in Satan's Service? :p

Hellfury wrote:

yakface wrote:Just last weekend I played an Apocalypse game using the suggestions in Apocalypse reload that sound very, very similar to the AT-43 mission concept Hellfury is describing.

Basically, you check to see which objectives are held at the end of each game turn, and each objective held is worth one point equal to the turn you're capturing it on.

So an objective held on Turn 1 is worth 1 Point, but an objective held on Turn 7 is worth 7 points.

I am obviously biased, but I like how that rewards players not only during the game, but it trumps AT-43 by making the values a cumulative upkeep. It rewards early game control, but it also allows a bit of strategy late game by giving points to objective snipers as well for an all out kill fest to hopefully gain an advantage.

It still can turn into a kill fest. We spent most of the game fighting around 2 or 3 specific Objectives(mostly thanks to bottle necks). However, it does keep you thinking about the objectives more than just killing the enemy army.

Also, Yakface kicked my butt.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

yakface wrote:an objective held on Turn 1 is worth 1 Point, but an objective held on Turn 7 is worth 7 points.

The only thing that potentially concerns me about it is it gives the player who goes 2nd a tremendous advantage

Keep in mind, in Apoc, you often start close with a tremendous amount of heavy firepower on the board. So going first can be a strong advantage if your army can take advantage of momentum.

We were playing at 3k each, so it wasn't too much more firepower than 2-2.5k. The situation would most definitely be different in larger size games, but the combination of Assets a team would use may help even things out, too.

Apologies for destroying thread.

Heh.

I think I will propose the fixes outlined here to the missions to my gaming group and see how it works!

One thing I just thought of that might help the KP idea.

Squads that are reduced to below 50% or are falling back, while not counting as a KP for the opponent, also no longer count as a KP for you.

So my tyranid gaunt squad that started out as 32 models but reduced to 10 doesn't score me or you a KP. You still cannot ignore the unit during the game though as a non entity because...it can still damage you.

This prevents people who have one model left in a unit (or whatever other pathetic number the squad was reduced to) and hiding that unit to deny the opponent the kill point and being able to claim it towards the final total themselves.

Not very sporting to see a full mob of boys reduced to 1 boy and then be able to claim it as a remaining KP when he is hiding behind a rock on the farthest corner of the board.

I think vehicles shouldn't be included in that simply because they can be taken out in a single shot, even though some vehicles are harder to kill than others.

Not so sure about vehicles squadrons though. I would assume they wouldn't be exempt from the rule by the fact that they are a squad.

@Hellfury: Those are excellent examples of tweaks that probably would require playtesting to evaluate, because now you are testing the definition of a KP.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Hellfury: Those are excellent examples of tweaks that probably would require playtesting to evaluate, because now you are testing the definition of a KP.

The definition of a KP was actually lost and changed when the person could count their own units towards calculating victory.

It was no longer Kill Points, it was Victory Points.

Furthermore, playing one game with the changed KP formula of:
"At the end of the Annihilation mission, calculate victory by adding the number of Kill Points acquired to the number of Kill Points you have denied to your opponent (in other words, what you have remaining in your army)."

...against one ork player tonight revealed that this rule needs to be tweaked.

The reason it needed to be tweaked was because we thought if this rule was going to be good, we need to figure out how to break it.

Camping with a lonely ork and claiming KP/VP/whatever you want to call it certainly is a way to break the proposed change to KP that you and Chapliangrabthar made.

See? Playtesting even a sure fired thing can reveal many holes. This whole came up within the first 20 minutes against a competent opponent.

[edit]

I still think this is a great idea to be explored. But IMO, the failings of both KP and VP can be fixed by finding the common ground each share, and where they can compliment each other.

Excellent to see you trying it out Hellfury, and yes the camping Ork is an issue with that system. As it is with GW's regular system, it's just not as big of our swing without the Hwang-ian change.

@Hellfury: That isn't a "break" or a "hole" - it's a question of personal preferences.

I prefer that KP count to the last model. Either it's dead (opponent KP), or it's not (my KP).

Very simple, in the same way that only Troops are Scoring, and Scoring counts to the last model. Either there is a Scoring model, or there isn't.

@JohnHwangDD: It is however, something of an exploit. Although I kind of agree with your preferences.


Edit: My BBCode skill suck.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Hellfury: That isn't a "break" or a "hole" - it's a question of personal preferences.

I prefer that KP count to the last model. Either it's dead (opponent KP), or it's not (my KP).

Very simple, in the same way that only Troops are Scoring, and Scoring counts to the last model. Either there is a Scoring model, or there isn't.

No, it most certainly is a hole. If you can exploit it then it is a hole, or a void in the rules. I do agree however that it is also a preference as well.

After watching Neal Cauley exploit this rule like this with his two nobs biker squads at the ard' boyz, it made me furious that it would still be counted as scoring and deny the opponent KP. I know that in order to play the game and to know the rules, and in order to win you have to bend the rules in your own favor by exploiting them to some degree.
But really Neal Cauley's example just really smacks of bad form all around and could be prevented with an addendum.

I beleive there has to be a balance there is the player is to count his own troops for purposes of calculating victory with this new idea.
I also beleive that it is considerably more balanced by not allowing either player to score KP on a squad that is falling back or is reduced to below 50%. It worked and made sense in 3rd-4th ed, it could still make sense now.

Basically what I am saying is that if I am willing to try out reasonable ideas and give them feedback, I think it would be just as reasonable to expect that the feedback was also tried out before it got discarded due to "what people prefer".

There are a lot of great ideas in this thread, but without any playtesting, then this thread is nothing more than a nicer version of mental masturbation that everyone expects from online forums.
Until you test out hypothesis, you cannot have a theory.

That said, I wouldn't change how 5th ed has allowed a single model to be scoring, but I do beleive that this proposed KP idea needs to be tweaked a bit. Just because the unit can score doesn't necessarily mean that KP can be gleaned from it.

Maybe we need a bit of a new term, I think for kill points you should get them if a squad is combat ineffective.

For example:
Combat Ineffective means:
Unit's at or under under 1/3 of their total unit strength
Characters at 50% or less wounds
Monstrous Creaters at 50% or less wounds
Vehicles immobilized and have no weapons

That would stop the I hid my one dude to deny kp scenario's.

@Hellfury: that's OK, but I just don't see it that way, so it's definitely a personal preferences issue.

You obviously want something more akin to 3E / 4E VPs. I want something that is dead simple and crystal clear. I *like* that my KP are consistent with Scoring. There really is no middle ground for compromise here, because we are working towards opposed goals.

But let's talk about "exploit". Is it really an exploit when both players can clearly see what is happening at all times and there is no possible trickery about what's going on?

Because in the VP world, I've had SM and CSM squads <50% disengage and deny me those last few VPs as well. Again totally against Fluff for SM / CSM to be cowering behind cover for multiple turns. But that's what the rule preserves.

Anyhow, Neal Cauley isn't what would make me furious about Ard Boyz. It's that some jerk managed to cheat his way to the top and was given prizes. *That* is a cause for legitimate outrage, whereas Neal was simply playing smart.

The balance point is arbitrary, as is the notion that KPs should be scored in a finer-grained fashion. Just as GW decreed that KPs would only be scored for destroyed units, or any of a host of other judgement points.

____

As for mental masturbation - of course that's what this is