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.

jbunny wrote:

BlapBlapBlap wrote:

Kevlar wrote:You don't find it a bit absurd that a 35 point rhino is the equivalent of a 500 point terminator unit in KP missions? I honestly think kill points were the absolute dumbest addition in 5th.

It does, but it stops mech spam and MSU armies in their tracks...

Not it does not. When was the last time you say someone not bring a MSU/ Mech Spam list because of Kill Points? It might make them harder to win that game, but they still bring them. And if you used VP then you would "stop Death Stars in their tracks"

KP are an essential balance to MSU lists. All through 3rd and 4th editions it was ALWAYS better to have more units, to split squadrons into the smallest available increments, and get as many units as possible. Two of 5th edition's improvements are definitely dumping VPs, and adding Kill Points, as for the first time there's actually an advantage some of the time to having fewer, more durable units. While most of the time MSU is STILL better, as it's better in objective games and gives more tactical flexibility, it's nice to have KPs to rein it in a bit.

Essentially, the answer is If you are playing a book mission, you win if you table your opponent regardless of any other factors as defined by the wipeout rule. If you are playing in a tournament with a non-standard mission, then it's at the discretion of the TO and should be clarified before any games are played.

Dok wrote:Essentially, the answer is If you are playing a book mission, you win if you table your opponent regardless of any other factors as defined by the wipeout rule. If you are playing in a tournament with a non-standard mission, then it's at the discretion of the TO and should be clarified before any games are played.

Exactly so. As most tournaments do employ nonstandard missions, especially since they usually have too many players to necessarily determine a single clear winner with the usual number of rounds possible in the time available, this becomes an important factor, and is one which all conscientious TOs take into consideration and include in their rules packets.

DarthSpader wrote:those that dont adapt... die

Are you the Hive Mind lol

Can I sig this?

Squash wrote:Even it's annihilation and you've scored more kill points than the enemy?

and this is exactly why killpoint scoring is absolutely atrocious.

There are lots of scenarios that could be made up that require troops to actually be on the objective at the end of the game to win. Perhaps they are carrying equipment that is needed to extract information or some delicate object. Wiping them out means there is no way for that army to "win" the objective.

Like symmetrical terrain on tables, winning by wipe out may be suited best for determining which army is the "strongest". I would say both take something away from the game. The importance of objectives and varying battlefield conditions bring more tactics into the battle.

OP's question has already been answered numerous times. If your opponent's army is completely destroyed at the end of the game, you win. Yes, technically both players can win a game of WH40k. Any modifications to the rules so that the game works in a tournament format is outside the scope of discussion in YMDC. Arguing about the way tournaments should be run is not on topic and is counter-productive to the purpose of this sub-forum.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

elrabin wrote:OP's question has already been answered numerous times. If your opponent's army is completely destroyed at the end of the game, you win. Yes, technically both players can win a game of WH40k. Any modifications to the rules so that the game works in a tournament format is outside the scope of discussion in YMDC. Arguing about the way tournaments should be run is not on topic and is counter-productive to the purpose of this sub-forum.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

Uhhh...... what??

We can leave the personal attacks out of it please.

Disarray wrote:

Squash wrote:Even it's annihilation and you've scored more kill points than the enemy?

and this is exactly why killpoint scoring is absolutely atrocious.

No, it's not. Precisely because KP missions (by the rules) always allow the player with a higher-KP army to win by wipeout. If a tournament doesn't allow that, and you disagree with them, you're disagreeing with that tournament's rules, not with the KP rules in the rulebook.

Mannahnin wrote:

Disarray wrote:

Squash wrote:Even it's annihilation and you've scored more kill points than the enemy?

and this is exactly why killpoint scoring is absolutely atrocious.

No, it's not. Precisely because KP missions (by the rules) always allow the player with a higher-KP army to win by wipeout. If a tournament doesn't allow that, and you disagree with them, you're disagreeing with that tournament's rules, not with the KP rules in the rulebook.

Somehow I find it less than comforting that to beat some low KP Gray Knight armies in a KP game you may win by tabling them.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Disarray wrote:

Squash wrote:Even it's annihilation and you've scored more kill points than the enemy?

and this is exactly why killpoint scoring is absolutely atrocious.

No, it's not. Precisely because KP missions (by the rules) always allow the player with a higher-KP army to win by wipeout. If a tournament doesn't allow that, and you disagree with them, you're disagreeing with that tournament's rules, not with the KP rules in the rulebook.

Somehow I find it less than comforting that to beat some low KP Gray Knight armies in a KP game you may win by tabling them.

GK are a bad example, because they are so incredibly powerful even with taking a few number of units.

But, just about every army out there is balanced by KP.

Disarray wrote:

elrabin wrote:OP's question has already been answered numerous times. If your opponent's army is completely destroyed at the end of the game, you win. Yes, technically both players can win a game of WH40k. Any modifications to the rules so that the game works in a tournament format is outside the scope of discussion in YMDC. Arguing about the way tournaments should be run is not on topic and is counter-productive to the purpose of this sub-forum.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

Uhhh...... what??

We're clearly discussing the OP's topic when treating tournament play. As tournament scenarios are expansions of the stock missions, and RAW clearly says you CAN expand missions, we're not even off RAW discussing them. Likewise, when we're off stock missons, by definition we're in HYWPI land, which is also clearly allowed by the forum tenets - as long as you specify you're doing so.

Lorek wrote:4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).

My knee-jerk reaction to a mission win or tie after being tabled was, "that's wrong", but now I think that's thoughtless. We're talking about a potential for losing a scenario, ie, a point structure where it's theoretically possible. I don't think that's wrong, or even a bad idea, if the intent of the points structure is to encourage players to employ their forces dynamically, ie, not just castle in a corner.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Somehow I find it less than comforting that to beat some low KP Gray Knight armies in a KP game you may win by tabling them.

So a spam army should always have an advantage in every mission? 1/3rd of missions have an advantage for LOW KP loganwing style armies. 2/3 are massively disadvantageous for low KP armies.

There SHOULD be a mission where a specific army type struggles.

I think this is why a lot of players are starting to like Warmachine. Every mission type is Control Objectives by turn 3/4/whatever or Kill the Warcaster. It has a very clear goal.

At least for standard book missions.

Mannahnin wrote:

Disarray wrote:

Squash wrote:Even it's annihilation and you've scored more kill points than the enemy?

and this is exactly why killpoint scoring is absolutely atrocious.

No, it's not. Precisely because KP missions (by the rules) always allow the player with a higher-KP army to win by wipeout. If a tournament doesn't allow that, and you disagree with them, you're disagreeing with that tournament's rules, not with the KP rules in the rulebook.

I'm sorry, but if any rule system treats a 35pt truck EXACTLY EQUALLY to a 250pt land raider to decide who wins the game, yeah it's an awful way to decide games.

Disarray wrote:I'm sorry, but if any rule system treats a 35pt truck EXACTLY EQUALLY to a 250pt land raider to decide who wins the game, yeah it's an awful way to decide games.

It is actually a great way to balance MSU armies.

without KP's MSU's would have no disadvantage at all...

DeathReaper wrote:

Disarray wrote:I'm sorry, but if any rule system treats a 35pt truck EXACTLY EQUALLY to a 250pt land raider to decide who wins the game, yeah it's an awful way to decide games.

It is actually a great way to balance MSU armies.

without KP's MSU's would have no disadvantage at all...

It doesn't balance anything. It imbalances the game. Warhammer has always worked by victory points. This kill point thing is just some garbage thrown in to make "Space Marines" even better since they were given the option to "Combat Squad".

"Hey guys how can we make space marines even better since they already have ATSKNF, 3+ save across the board, T4, S4, and every gun imaginable?"

"Well lets change the way the game is played, we will make one of the missions decided by who kills the most enemy units, then we will let space marines decide after the mission is rolled if they want to split their squads in half or keep them together. That gives them an advantage in either scenario!"

High fives all around....

I don't see how combat squading helps in KP scenarios. Combat Squads +1 potential KP per squad spliting up. Sure they can target more things, but Combat squads have less firepower than a 10 man, and are twice as easy to destroy. Then also are easier to send packing and wound allocation comes into it MORE, meaning it is actually easier to lose a special weapon or Sgt.

To prove it, scenario below.

10 man Tac Squad with Flamer, Missile Launcher and Sgt take 12 wounds from shooting. After saves, 4 die. These can all be taken on Bolters.

5 man combat squad with Sgt and Flamer takes 12 wounds from shooting. Allocations give on each model and 2 spare which naturally will be taken on Bolters. This leaves 7 wounds for 3 marines with Bolters, 2 for Sgt, 2 for Flamer. So this means 2 Bolter marines die, and morale test (assuming passed)

Next time, let's say they take 9 wounds, each marine has to take 3 saves, meaning each model fails a save.

I think you misunderstand. In a "Capture Objective" type scenario, SM can combat squad giving them extra scoring units. In "Annhilation" SM can stay together meaning fewer KPs.

Kevlar wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Disarray wrote:I'm sorry, but if any rule system treats a 35pt truck EXACTLY EQUALLY to a 250pt land raider to decide who wins the game, yeah it's an awful way to decide games.

It is actually a great way to balance MSU armies.
without KP's MSU's would have no disadvantage at all...

It doesn't balance anything. It imbalances the game. Warhammer has always worked by victory points.

No it hasn't. In previous editions VPs were ONE kind of mission, but there were also plenty of missions (Cleanse, for example, Night Fight for another, Across Enemy Lines for a third) which involved holding objectives or table quarters or getting more units across the table, and so forth. VPs were less balanced because A) They rewarded MSU armies even more, and B) Once one army got a lead it was harder for the enemy to recover and get back in the game. They were also less fun because they rewarded a more passive, stand-back-and-shoot mode of play, rather than requiring movement.

Kevlar wrote:This kill point thing is just some garbage thrown in to make "Space Marines" even better since they were given the option to "Combat Squad"..

Not true. KPs are in the game to counterbalance MSU (which is otherwise always superior), and for speed and simplicity of calculation compared to VPs. Combat squads (like the IG platoon blobbing rules) is there in part to give SM more tactical flexibility in KP vs. objective missions, that's true, but it's not as if it unbalances them. They're a good codex but certainly not overpowered.

lol sig away....and im not the hive mind... i just think if you play a game, and even with special scenarios and objectives, if you wipe your opponent out, then you win. pretty simple. how can you win by getting your butt kicked? you have no forces left to claim objectives, no forces left to do anything, except decorate the battlefield with a bunch of lawn ornaments. how is that winning?

even in killpoints missions, of yea you killed 5 of my 12 units... and i only got 4 of yours....but i got ALL 4 of yours. i still have guys left to continue the fight, whereas you dont. "but ok i guess you win" - even though i killed 100% of your army and only suffered 68% in return... but hey! you still win....

that kind of game is going to result in nothing but draigo-wing style armies featuring forces with nothing but 1000 pt deathstar units. how is that balanced? your pretty much auto crippling DE, IG, nids, orks, eldar... since they dont really have the ability to fill a force org with 3 deathsatr massive points units. but hey... as long as it stops the overpowered broken cheddar of venomspam, or rhino rush, or any other MSU build... cause those are totally OP broken processed cheese in a spray can that break every tourney they enter...

I am familiar with Draigowing and Venomspam, but what exactly is Rhino Rush?

a ton of minimum SM tac squads in rhinos. not MSU as such i suppose, but when you play a SM player with 9 rhinos..

3rd edition, you could assault out of transports after they'd moved. You saw this most often with space marines, who could whip across the board and get a mass of power armor into 1st or 2nd turn assaults.

5th edition, as many squads in rhinos as you can muster, moving full speed across the board and blowing smoke to get as many power armored bodies into your enemies' vulnerable points as possible.

I haven't actually heard of this before. Majority of peoplem I play run 1 or 2 transpoorts tops, but this is because the tiny store I play at has a 1k pts limuit unless you ask to play larger. They only have 2 4X4 tables to game with. Lots of vehicles eats into this small points cap quickly, as well as the wallet. Also, many people, myself included, never have used smoke launchers.I was watching a team game where one kid, about 11, said to a proper vet, with models from ages past, say

" Run those Blood Angels in the razorback, zoom uop 18" first turn and pop smoke."

The reply was

"Smoke? Nah, I don't smoke. My da gave me a cigarette as a child. Said never again!"


I literally facepalmed. When asked how long he had been playing, he said 20 years or so.