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.

Phoenix wrote:

Hellfury wrote:Here is something I heard from local buddy who went to adepticon for the phil kelly seminar.
"Kelly said was that the Force Org chart was the biggest design mistake GW made with 40k, but they're stuck with it now, since removing it would mean invalidating every army book. (Not sure I agree with that. Just FAQ it and get to it when the new book comes out. Of course, we're still waiting for the Ogre Kingdoms FAQ...)"

Funny enough, I really like the Force Org chart.......While the force org system as it stands may not be perfect, there needs to be some sort of governing force to control the composition of armies.

Persactly. Fantasy stopped being "herohammer" when the rule book imposed the core/special/rare composition system. Yeah stuff gets gamed, and yeah some core types "suck" although, I can truthfully say, spearmen got so much better after I actually learned to play better

I suspect it is the same in 40k.

Two points to consider:

1.)
Pushing troops probably aint so bad. Elites etc. only stand out when they are in the minority. So with less elites on both sides the remainders will shine more and have more cannonfodder to feast on. Basicly the exact opposite of the much hated point denial elite armys of 4th.

So while the goal of pushing troops is a good one I think KPs make the game unnecessarily complicated, when the ammount of troops is allready defined by the FoC. One could simply change the FoC to 1 troops choice per 500 points for example.

Or even better provide a few named modifyers to the FoC which people can chose from before army selection, like:

- no dublicates in HQ, Elites, Fast and Support

- max. 1 HQ, Elites, Fast and Support per full 500 points

We recently played with these mods in about 8 tourneys and Ive got to say I love it. It lead to a whole fresh metagame with a lot of choices becoming good, which pretty likely increased sales.

Most of you propably know the different formats in the trading card game Magic the Gathering. Think along thouse lines.

2.)

KPs suffer from Escalation syndrome. Heres a bit general gametheory: People normally enjoy a game when there is a certain element of uncertainty to the very end and at the same time a noticeable effect of the players actions.

This means that games that are mostly decided by pure armylist selection, roll for first turn, or roll for mission are considered boring by most players, because their actions have very little effect on the game for long times.

Obviously game designers should make sure that the game isnt decided by pure listbuilding, which they do with the FoC (still room for improvement, see above), or by first turn (the new rules sound like a simple and smart solution), or by random selection of extremely different Missions.

I think you guys are seeing KPs as the replacement for VPs. VPs are in 5thed to stay... at least in the leaked copy... The way the missions work is you can have a mission based on one of 3 things

1) KP
2) VP
3) Objectives

You randomly figure out what which you will be doing before the game starts. There are also 3 core scenarios with different deployment zones.

My point is KPs is just one of three possible core missions!