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 a firm believer in what MVBrandt is saying. KP reduction strategies are generally bad decisions, and over the long haul, there is almost no difference between victors in VP vs. KP matches.
KP aren't a balancing mechanism, though people think they are. VP don't correct for the inequity of KP, even though people think they do.
Removing KP as a possibilty from the matrix of mission objectives has some benefits and some costs, though most that are commonly discussed from both sides are the product of insufficient data.

I am a firm believer that heavy use of VP as a mission scoring criteria generates no appreciable change in the outcomes, creates significantly greater chance of scoring error by players, and increases the time it takes for rounds to progress. As such, I tend to use only minimal VP calculations in tournament design.

I also believe that KP calculation is prone to significant error and many less travelled players find them unfair (though my data, just as MVBrandt's, indicates that a variation between KP and VP winners is the exception, not the rule).

In short, VP and KP both have flaws as mission conditions for timed tournament play. I like either for secondary / tertiary objectives, but either as a primary goal encourages "mean" play (stomping the other guy completely) and introduces the possibility of substantial and important error into the primary objective, which I find best avoided.

I voted hybrid, because there isn't any functional difference in them overall.

Sidstyler wrote:Well, according to KP, my gun drones that come free with all my vehicles that I can't get rid of

Last time I checked, the only vehicle you can't remove the drones from is the Piranha. Not to mention that Tau are a quite outdated codex, and using one of their niche rules as a basis for saying KP are broken is akin to claiming that 5th ed assault rules are broken because Necrons are screwed by them.

Also, I love how the same people who are complaining about the NOVA using VP instead of KP and how they're supposedly rebalancing the game (they aren't...and if they are it's for the better), are likely the same people who praise events like Adepticon, BoLScon, etc. which are infamous for rewriting core rules of the game for no real reason with their "FAQs", writing missions that favor certain armies over others, introducing comp or even ban lists of all things, etc. You guys haven't been playing "real" 40k for a long time, why is following the rules so important all of a sudden?

I think this is more a case of the people who are so loudly praising NOVA are the same ones who complained about how Adepticon, and BoLScon weren't playing 40k because of the rules changes. Personally, I think that any TO is free to do whatever they think is best for their event. But you can't slam one event for not being 40k, and then go on to laud another without acknowledging that it, too, isn't actually playing 40k.


@jon.wolf:

Okay, so there is no functional difference between KP and VP. I'm not saying you're right, but for the sake of follow-on discussion, I'll assume you're right enough. That said, if KP and VP are functionally equivalent and it doesn't matter which one is used, what is the compelling argument for moving away from the basic rules published in the book? Surely in absence of solid evidence that something doesn't work we should strive to hold as close to the published rules as possible. If the evidence is that VP isn't significantly different from KP, why not just use KP, on the off chance that maybe, just maybe, the game designers did know what they were doing?

Last time I checked, the only vehicle you can't remove the drones from is the Piranha.

Wrong. I don't have the option of just not taking drones, I have to use gun drones, or I have to pay 20 points to swap them out for something that won't screw me over on KP.

So you're basically telling me to get around KP, something that wasn't even a thought when my codex was designed, by paying even more points for already overpriced vehicles. That's fair and balanced alright.

Not to mention that Tau are a quite outdated codex, and using one of their niche rules as a basis for saying KP are broken is akin to claiming that 5th ed assault rules are broken because Necrons are screwed by them.

I used Tau as an example because that's what I'm most familiar with, I'll let people who play the other armies speak up for their own bs. Needless to say Tau aren't the only ones screwed and I think you know that.

That said, if KP and VP are functionally equivalent and it doesn't matter which one is used, what is the compelling argument for moving away from the basic rules published in the book?

Because of old, outdated armies like mine that get screwed? Isn't that always the excuse TOs give for changing the rules, to even the playing field?

I don't get why this is a big deal. The VP/KP switch is the only departure from the main rules, but that alone is apparently game breaking enough that it has people debating in threads like this one. People don't have a problem with comp, banning special characters, etc., but using the superior VP system over bs KP is where we draw the line. You can change anything else you want but KP must remain or your event loses all credibility.

But yeah, that's just how I see it. Of course I'm no fan of KP, because not only does it make no sense but it really makes it hard for me to play with my outdated army, my only army, which GW has apparently forgotten about. But mostly I just don't understand what the point is of assigning everything a value with the points system, and then turning around and saying everything is worth 1 point no matter what. The only reason I can see them doing this is to make things easier to calculate after the battle, but I refuse to accept that VP was just that damn complicated that this had to be done.

Maybe Jervis's kid was having too much trouble adding everything up.

Sidstyler wrote:
I used Tau as an example because that's what I'm most familiar with, I'll let people who play the other armies speak up for their own bs. Needless to say Tau aren't the only ones screwed and I think you know that.

Take any pre-5th ed codex and anyone who plays it can tell you a rule in 5th that screws them in some way. This isn't a valid argument for changing the rules on a per-tournament basis, it's a valid reason to hope your codex gets updated sooner than later. No one makes you take those drones, as you pointed out, you could pay points to trade them in for a SMS system. You could simply not take the vehicle in the first place, it's not like tau transports are priced competitively in 5th ed anyway.

@ redbeard - Both KP and VP are presented in the book as scoring options. I use both. Moving away from the scoring options presented in the rules allows for different aspects of performance to be emphasized, as well as focusing attention of different components of the force org chart. In the basic BRB missions, killing troops equals victory. There are some nuances, but basically winning is about eliminating all enemy troops choices (not necessarily true in one game, but over the course of a tournament, the winners will have killed all or almost all enemy scoring units most of the time). Generating different mission parameters can alter this basic truth and cause players to think of the battlefield from a different perspective; being successful in handling changes is part of being a good general, in my book.

jon.wolf wrote:I'm a firm believer in what MVBrandt is saying. KP reduction strategies are generally bad decisions, and over the long haul, there is almost no difference between victors in VP vs. KP matches.
KP aren't a balancing mechanism, though people think they are. VP don't correct for the inequity of KP, even though people think they do.

Agreed with most of this although I'm not sure about saying there isn't a difference between VP and KP matches. From where I'm sitting dedicated transports are good enough as it is and using VP over KP removes their only drawback. From where I'm sitting death-star units probably aren't used enough (seer council and nob bikers and bloodcrushers) and using VP over KP only helps reinforce that.

I am a firm believer that heavy use of VP as a mission scoring criteria generates no appreciable change in the outcomes, creates significantly greater chance of scoring error by players, and increases the time it takes for rounds to progress. As such, I tend to use only minimal VP calculations in tournament design.

This. Unless VP's are proven to be a better option I don't see the point in introducing added complexity to results. I also don't see any reason to remove KP's from an environment when the popular armies are only going to be served better by VP's and the less popular armies harmed by them.

And then of course there is that whole KP's are in the rulebook argument. I like following the rulebook too.

You're one of the few then.

VP all the way. KP's were a ridiculous hamfisted reaction to people having to do mafs.

I've seen too many games of "Annihilation" where to person who lost far more of their army actually won the game, probably close to 1 in 3. The mission type is described as destroying more of an enemy than they destroy of you. If I kill two Land Raiders and a Terminator Squad, and you kill 4 Rhino's, victory should not go to you.

Likewise, losing a Gun Drone unit off a Devilfish should not be worth as much as killing Abaddon or a Marneus Calgar.

Simple destruction of distinct elements of maneuver is a meaningless measure of victory, there's no value attached to a KP. VP's problem was implementation, however at least VP represented a proportion of the enemies force and a more realistic measure of their defeat as opposed to KP's. I can kill off 10 KP's of an enemy and lose 6 and one can have no idea what that actually means in terms of how badly each respective army has been hurt. My 6 lost KP's may only be 1/4 of my army or it may mean I've been almost tabled In a 2000pt game, who knows? if I say I scored 1200 VP's and my opponent scored 700, everyone knows exactly what that means.

I like the idea of each KP being worth a certain number of VP. VP being given for objectives and table corners and such.

That way it would be something like:
50pts for each KP
100pts for each corner you control
100pts for each objective

Surtur wrote:I like the idea of each KP being worth a certain number of VP. VP being given for objectives and table corners and such.

That way it would be something like:
50pts for each KP
100pts for each corner you control
100pts for each objective

The problem becomes that one army will still have a greater scoring potential. A Tau army with 20 KP's or an IG army with 22 simply won't have the ability to attain as high a score as an opponent with say, 13 KP's like a CSM army. The CSM army will will be able to rack up a higher score with a smaller portion of the enemy army destroyed.

Before playing 5e, I thought Annihilation would be terrible for Imperial Guard. I have found through play that Annihilation, especially Spearhead Annihilation, is the best mission for Imperial Guard - especially against KP "optimized" armies.

A force with few distinct elements will be forced to waste firepower killing that last squad member or disabled Chimera, whereas the high KP Imperial Guard force can kill units off completely with a very economical use of force.

A 22 KP IG army is at a significant advantage over a 13 KP CSM army in Annihilation, and actually has a harder time in Objective missions, where the CSM player's unit quality can do him much more good, and where closing with the enemy is unfortunately required of a bunch of guys in tee shirts.

Vaktathi wrote:VP all the way. KP's were a ridiculous hamfisted reaction to people having to do mafs.

I've seen too many games of "Annihilation" where to person who lost far more of their army actually won the game, probably close to 1 in 3. The mission type is described as destroying more of an enemy than they destroy of you. If I kill two Land Raiders and a Terminator Squad, and you kill 4 Rhino's, victory should not go to you.

Likewise, losing a Gun Drone unit off a Devilfish should not be worth as much as killing Abaddon or a Marneus Calgar.

Simple destruction of distinct elements of maneuver is a meaningless measure of victory, there's no value attached to a KP. VP's problem was implementation, however at least VP represented a proportion of the enemies force and a more realistic measure of their defeat as opposed to KP's. I can kill off 10 KP's of an enemy and lose 6 and one can have no idea what that actually means in terms of how badly each respective army has been hurt. My 6 lost KP's may only be 1/4 of my army or it may mean I've been almost tabled In a 2000pt game, who knows? if I say I scored 1200 VP's and my opponent scored 700, everyone knows exactly what that means.

Preach on brother.

Clearly VPs result in MSU builds. VP may be superior to KP for competitive play but let's not pretend dropping KP for VP has no effect on the meta-game!

KP missions are an integral part of the balance of army design. To say KP style armies are inferior and thus KP should not be used is elitest to one type of army design. An all bike SM army will have minimal KP's and will wreck every 22 kp imperial guard army ever brought onto the table top.

I also agree that VP's do nothing but reward dedicated transports and MSU style lists. If that's the way you want to play then fine, but it is not 5e 40k.

DarthDiggler wrote:KP missions are an integral part of the balance of army design. To say KP style armies are inferior and thus KP should not be used is elitest to one type of army design. An all bike SM army will have minimal KP's and will wreck every 22 kp imperial guard army ever brought onto the table top.

I also agree that VP's do nothing but reward dedicated transports and MSU style lists. If that's the way you want to play then fine, but it is not 5e 40k.

Can we all accept not all codexes can use MSUs? Not everyone plays space marines with 3+ saves and zero leadership issues. Some of us have to take larger units because of our codex design.

VP to KP is a massive swing in the metagame for some codexes to. Again, not everyone plays space marines. Nobs who are highly efficient and can be used with reckless abandon under KPs become a massive liability and a huge payoff for opponents.

When I play at a tourney that uses both, while I get a boost for KP missions I have to play through the pain on a VP mission. But orks are in the minority and don't apparently have the political clout like marine players to cry until whole formats are turned on their head.

nkelsch wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:KP missions are an integral part of the balance of army design. To say KP style armies are inferior and thus KP should not be used is elitest to one type of army design. An all bike SM army will have minimal KP's and will wreck every 22 kp imperial guard army ever brought onto the table top.

I also agree that VP's do nothing but reward dedicated transports and MSU style lists. If that's the way you want to play then fine, but it is not 5e 40k.

Can we all accept not all codexes can use MSUs? Not everyone plays space marines with 3+ saves and zero leadership issues. Some of us have to take larger units because of our codex design.

VP to KP is a massive swing in the metagame for some codexes to. Again, not everyone plays space marines. Nobs who are highly efficient and can be used with reckless abandon under KPs become a massive liability and a huge payoff for opponents.

When I play at a tourney that uses both, while I get a boost for KP missions I have to play through the pain on a VP mission. But orks are in the minority and don't apparently have the political clout like marine players to cry until whole formats are turned on their head.

Well said nkelsch. I'm surprised GW hasn't errata-dropped KP altogether so every MEQ player would spend a few hundred quid on dedicated transports. Something to look forward to in 6th edition!

In a non-confrontational way, which codices are actually helped by taking big large units as a general rule?

Nob squads are pretty ... bad, especially in the "s8 everywhere" metagame of today, and in the world of psyker battle squads.

I'm trying to figure out, while we figure the rest out, what codices are actually "better" if they minimize KP. Ork armies with giant boyz mobs on foot and nobz or nob bikers just get run over these days ...

MVBrandt wrote:

Nob squads are pretty ... bad, especially in the "s8 everywhere" metagame of today, and in the world of psyker battle squads.

Ork armies with giant boyz mobs on foot and nobz or nob bikers just get run over these days ...

It seems to me your basic argument is that certain builds aren't good enough so we should change the rules to make them less effective. Just because you think the list isn't good enough, doesn't mean it isn't or that KP should be removed the list hampered more.

The fact that a close to 600pt eldar seer council has the same value as a transport vehicle and a small squad is not justified.

1 seer council 1 Eldrad mech-Dar Lists at 2k are amazing in KP games. As in game breaking amazing. Fortune d moving fast gravtanks + 10man seer council is ridiculous.

MVBrandt wrote:In a non-confrontational way,

I'm trying to figure out, while we figure the rest out, what codices are actually "better" if they minimize KP.

A sm bike army will have troop units of 8 bikes + attack bike for over 300pt. They will turbo in front of an IG gun line and proceed to wreck 2-4 vehicles in a glorious turn of death. Those vehicles may or may not be of equal or more VP value, but the IG player just lost more KP. Times this by 3 and the IG player can lose seven 55pt vehicles (385 vp's) while the bike player loses 3 kp's (900+ vp's) This all doesn't happen in one turn and the IG player will have to concentrate copious amounts of fire to bring those 3 bike units down by turn 3-4. The rest of the bike army hides or boosts around for 1-2 turns until the game is over.

The bike army wins 7kp's to 3kp's when we play by the rulebook, but loses 900vp's to 385vp's when we make stuff up. I mean make stuff up because the rulebook only includes VP's as a condition to break ties, not be a primary objective. The rulebook says vp's are only a tiebreaker.

So you're suggesting that an army that literally suicides, completely dying while only knocking a few guys out of their rides, is a good army and should be encouraged? Or that those are good tactics? Or even fun (turbo, roll cover save dice, roll melta dice, wee)? Or even fluffy (marines suiciding to kill a few tanks?)?


Also, to your first post, I wasn't making an argument - I was asking what kp-starved lists are walking all over people today thanks to the KP mission (as opposed to hoping for 1-2 presuming equivalent field skill with an "easy" win hiijacking the KP mission)?

If there are some serious builds that are awesome and are the ONLY good builds a codex can come up with that fail without kill points, that's a serious argument for them. If it's random trips land raider CSM lists that get slaughtered in non-KP missions and have no material bearing on tournament results ... well, not so hot, and certainly not an argument for it *at the competitive tournament level* ... note that I'm an ADVOCATE of Kill Points in casual events, leagues, pick-up gaming, etc.

MvBrandt,
Are you suggesting that eliminating KPs does not affect the metagame?

I'm not necessarily suggesting anything, I keep asking questions.

I want to know how KP affects competitive tournament play in a material way.

There's a statement of "it balances the game!" that's tossed about, but never adequately proven/defended (namely, that lower KP armies are BOTH more prevalent and somehow more successful at tournaments BECAUSE of the KP mission).

If they are only more prevalent because of it, but not more successful, than KP actively harms players who bring fewer KP and then do poorly b/c of it. If KP makes them more successful is also important as well ... that's to say, that you also have to prove the KP mission is what's causing lower KP armies to be successful (i.e. Redbeard referenced a tourney win with 9 kp earlier; the thesis basically states here that without the KP mission he would have lost, and/or brought a different list altogether).

Savvy? I've provided statistics, etc., but the return commentary is typically just "it's really important for balancing and preventing MSU," without much in terms of facts or proof statements.

Another reiiteration that I advocate KP usage in league play, and casual play with friends, etc.; I think it is materially harmful to weaker players in tournaments b/c its inclusion as a mission encourages those who don't know better to foolishly optimize for it, when lists are either "Good" or "bad" for all missions on merits that have nothing to do with KP (and so, lists like Redbeard's quoted successful one are good lists WITHOUT KP as a mission, and so KP isn't why they are succeeding, or being brought).

Recognizing that Kill Points are indeed part of the 40K experience, I firmly believe there are ways to incorporate them into 40K tournament gaming.

The 'problem' with KP in events like the NOVA, or even the PST/Battle Points system used in the Championships at AdeptiCon, is that KP become a definitive game ending objective. To use KPs in the NOVA's system, with it hierarchical system of tiebreaks, results in the game ending based on KPs. Given that the NOVA system (with its emphasis on mobility to claim table quarters and objectives + Victory Points) definitely leans towards one style of play, you can see why Mike has steered clear of KPs within the structure of his system. Using KPs as a Primary objective in a PST mission means that the game is heavily weighted in favor of a KP result, or forces certain types of armies to play for the draw. This also forces you to devote a second mission to something non-KP oriented in order to balance the mission load.

While the PST/Battle Points system makes it easier to include KPs over time, it still gives the player little choice in those particular missions (W/L vs. BP argument aside). This has been a topic of discussion since the beginning of the year in regards to reworking the 2011 AdeptiCon 40K Championships. In the end we want to be as true to the rulebook as possible, add an additional element or two to make the missions not so 2D and give players the tactical tools to make choices as the game progresses. The draft rules (which is really like v. 12) should be out this coming Friday, and I will be compiling an article for the AdeptiCon Dev Blog (also launching this Friday) that address the process and theory behind the new format. Looking forward to hearing what people think.

MVBrandt wrote:So you're suggesting that an army that literally suicides, completely dying while only knocking a few guys out of their rides, is a good army and should be encouraged? Or that those are good tactics? Or even fun (turbo, roll cover save dice, roll melta dice, wee)? Or even fluffy (marines suiciding to kill a few tanks?)?

The SM force wins by playing the mission (KP), and should win. Similarly, an Eldar grav tank army that tank shocks it's way onto objectives in the bottom of the last turn (often as dictated by time, rather than random game length) wins by playing the mission.

Fun is relative; facing mech IG with Tyranids on a fairly open table is rarely my perfect idea of fun, and it's when you really have to focus on playing the mission. It seems strange to worry about fluff at this late date.

In general, Tyranids, Kan-wall Orks, Horde Orks, Nob Biker orks, Jetbike Council Eldar, and foot BAs/Templar can make better use of fewer, larger units.

MVBrandt wrote:I'm not necessarily suggesting anything, I keep asking questions.

I want to know how KP affects competitive tournament play in a material way.

*snip*

Savvy? I've provided statistics, etc., but the return commentary is typically just "it's really important for balancing and preventing MSU," without much in terms of facts or proof statements.

while hardly scientific, i've tried calculating the KP in the first page of pics on the adepticon 2010 40k championship gallery. the first mission in adepticon this year had KP as the primary objective (but not the only one) and they weren't used in the rest of the missions IIRC; if people didn't tailor their armies, there shouldn't be a significant difference. obviously, i don't have access to the army list so i've had to make assumptions. in general, those assumptions have been made generally IN FAVOR of more killpoints using common army types (if i see 3 razorbacks and 15 marines in front, i assume 6 KP with 3 transports and 3 squads of 5... two IG sentinels as separate killpoints). there's always the chance i'm off by a killpoint but here's what i found.

11, 13, 23, 9,
skip, 12, 11, skip
11, 15, 12, 18
8, 12, 12, 9

skipped 5th pic (repeat of the 1st)
skipped 9th pic (some parts of army off pic)

http://www.adepticon.org/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=11317

i get an average of 12.57 killpoints and it's probably a bit less than that due to assumptions i made in favor of extra KP. you seem pretty set with your decision that KP don't solve anything with statistical analysis involving n=1 sample size of tournies you've run (leagues don't really compare; people are willing to try out stuff in leagues they wouldn't in tournies). if you're serious about the validity of your statistics, take the time and compare the KP to what you can calculate from the adepticon pics (every few days i'll try and calculate another page myself and post it here). kill points DO affect what people bring to a tourney. you claim that it doesn't affect who wins and i'll take your claim at face value but ask you a separate question. are you running the tournament for just the final four players or all those who paid to attend? if it doesn't change the top 4 or so armies' composition, does everyone play against one of those 4 players every round or do they play against the other 26-116 people attending? KP according to you may not change the winners according to your own observations but they definitely increase the types of armies people bring overall. listen, you're obviously free to invent whatever scoring system you want for your tourney as the organizer and i'm sure you'll have repeat attendees from the overwhelmingly positive reviews of the tourney posted here... but saying that removing KP doesn't have an effect on what armies are brought and the builds they use isn't true.

saying that removing KP doesn't have an effect on what armies are brought and the builds they use isn't true.

I never claimed that

Red_Lives wrote:The fact that a close to 600pt eldar seer council has the same value as a transport vehicle and a small squad is not justified.

1 seer council 1 Eldrad mech-Dar Lists at 2k are amazing in KP games. As in game breaking amazing. Fortune d moving fast gravtanks + 10man seer council is ridiculous.

Considering armies like these are not often found in top 8's of competitive tournament play I'm not sure if that's even a problem.

What is found are armies that are hurt by KP: Multiple MSU spam with lots of dedicated transports. Why you would have a rule at a tournament that only makes those armies stronger doesn't make any sense to me.

I want to know how KP affects competitive tournament play in a material way.

The question you should ask is how using VP instead of KP does. The answer is that it hurts low unit count armies with death stars. I'm not going to make a claim that KP's exist to prevent MSU because you and I both know MSU is good anyway and people are going to run armies like that despite any drawbacks from KP missions. However, if you abolish them completely and then turn around and use VP's instead you're really sticking it to every opposite army type: Low KP count armies, and armies that run expensive units/models. Expensive MC's (Tyranid MC's, Daemon Princes), expensive Vehicles (Land Raiders), expensive model units (Nob Bikerz, Bloodcrushers, Seer Council) are all punished under a system that uses VP's instead of KP's.

I don't want to follow the logic that wet sidewalks cause rain here but in the top 8 of the nova armies with death-stars were basically non-existant. Would we have seen a nob biker or seer council or LR heavy vulkan or CSM if you had used KP over VP? I don't know. But you certainly didn't help those armies chances with the ruleset.

I would rather strongly disagree that deathstars are harmed, at least not beyond their current limitations (i.e. nob bikers and seer councils are both readily and easily dealt with, despite people hoping they'll help in KP missions and investing hundreds of points in them).

Also, the winner still ran a 250+ point TWC w/ fenrisian squad attachment, Njal, and his grey hunter squads mostly had 9 models in them w/ only 2 min-squads+razors ... hardly MSU. #2 ran Mephiston. #4 ran a nob squad, a 15-man burna squad, and ghazkull. Three deathstarish investments, frankly.

The top 8 also contained another army w/ Mephiston, large wolf guard untis w/ terminators, blood crushers and fateweaver, etc. Only ONE army was really true MSU w/out any material strongpoint units, Stelek's at #3, and he lost his first game of the finals to an army with 7 fewer KP.

Good armies are good armies, and same can be said for good generals. The only impact KP has on a tournament is encouraging people who know no better to take weaker armies and *hope* to win the KP mission while getting crushed in the other missions.

Those who know better and possess the skill do well regardless of the mission (And take fewer or more KP as it suits them).

My opinion (opinion!) and that of many others (the vast majority who took the time to add input and thus influence the NOVA's format) is that KP harms newbs, just as comp does, and simply gives those who effectively play the system a *different* consideration from KP.

If there's an influence from the metagame, it's that even our most widely successful local tourney players who bring nob bikers, bloodcrushers, seer council, etc. are routinely crushed in the KP and other book missions that we routinely play, b/c - as you state - some level of MSU is typically superior to investing enormous VP into one-off hammer units. That said, as the top 8 you quote relatively proves, some level of deathstarring and not MSU'ing still does well even in a KP-less situation, presuming the person piloting these lists knows what they're doing.

But do quote the armies that were in the top 8 a little more appropriately, no? Dash's list being the best example, at 6-1 and #4.

MVBrandt wrote:

My opinion (opinion!) and that of many others (the vast majority who took the time to add input and thus influence the NOVA's format) is that KP harms newbs, just as comp does, and simply gives those who effectively play the system a *different* consideration from KP.

I'm not really sure why people think this. Is it because newbs try to make low KP lists to avoid the KP problem? Well that's poor list design and newbs will succumb to that anyway. I could make a compelling argument that VP's harm newbs more because they have no idea what anything costs outside of their own army and will make poor target decisions because of that. Or even worse they will just get cheated out of VP's at the end of the game when their opponent "forgets" what certain units cost and gives them bad data for VP calculations.

If there's an influence from the metagame, it's that even our most widely successful local tourney players who bring nob bikers, bloodcrushers, seer council, etc. are routinely crushed in the KP and other book missions that we routinely play, b/c - as you state - some level of MSU is typically superior to investing enormous VP into one-off hammer units. That said, as the top 8 you quote relatively proves, some level of deathstarring and not MSU'ing still does well even in a KP-less situation, presuming the person piloting these lists knows what they're doing.

But do quote the armies that were in the top 8 a little more appropriately, no? Dash's list being the best example, at 6-1 and #4.

Chumbalaya had 2 units above 150 points, Sam had 4, Stelek and Mark Ferek had 1. Tony had 2. None of those guys had units worth more than 300 in their lists. Nothing close to a Seer Council or Maxed Bloodcrushers or Nob Bikerz. Dash had 2 large (not massive) units around 300 points but I think Dash did well in spite of his list not because of it. I'll have to take another look at the BA lists but nothing is sticking out here as a large 500+ point unit in any of these lists and there are very few in the 200 range.

Even with my assertions that VP's are problematic, and I believe they are, I'm not seeing the more important point: A compelling reason why KP's are bad. We both agree they don't really hurt MSU. They are easy to calculate, far more easy than VP and IMO more newb friendly. So what's the problem here? If they are the default and they aren't broken then why are we fixing it?