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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

bibotot wrote:
Why so? It's very realistic. Obviously, the army that claims the objective once the dust settles is the winner, not the one holding the said objective for longer during the fight.

Anyway, I prefer End Game Scoring because:

+ It makes Objective Secured units more valuable. Don't want to lose them all over the game.

+ Less random. Good tactics and good match-up may still end up in complete failure if the cards don't do your way.

There are plenty of realistic reasons for progressive scoring. Obsec is no less valuable. Way more tactics, sorry....

I agree with you Daedalus, tons of realistic reasons why progressive scoring is just as realistic, if not more.

The game we are fighting on the tabletops is more than likely just a small portion of the overall fight. And things you do on your front could be effecting the whole picture.

-Taking down that flyer gains your side air superiority, leaving the flyers in other fronts to operate freely and without competition.

-Holding a single objective for a turn or two could be denying areas for enemy reinforcements to join the battle, your guys could be setting up (or cutting) communication lines, or your guys could be laying (or disabling) mines to take out advancing armor columns.

-Kill the enemy warlord, they could also be commanding forces in another front.

-Advancing your entire army out of your deployment zone, the enemy force's moral could be wavering after a string of defeats, and a quick and sudden advance could cause them to waiver (simulated as your side getting Victory Points).

Thinking of your 2,000 point game fight as being a self contained encounter is kind of silly when you think that besides your Blood Angels and Black Templars, there is likely at least another 10,000 Guardsmen fighting and dieing in the area. It isn't too hard to imagine the fight as being a small section of a bigger picture.

The Maelstrom cards do a good job of making the fight feel like part of a larger battle, since they force you to react on the fly to changing situations in your battle, and situations that may arise in other fronts.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
ITC missions are worth playing.

Only if you want games that reward gameplay completely unintended by the designers of the game.

Well seeing game designers aren't all that competent and aren#t at all interested about balance the less THEIR input is taken into account better

One great and commonly known example of how Maelstrom can be uber-realistic is the story from "Black Hawk Down". The scale of forces in this operation is pretty much in line with a typical 40k game. At the begining, there was a nice, straight up plan to execute, exactly like ones in EW games. But the plan went completely out of the window and then it was all about ever changing tactical objectives, fog of war, chaos, scattered forces desperately trying to do all sorts of things at once... Maelstrom feels just like it and I have no idea how to represent such operation using a single EW game - it would require a small, extensively forked campaign of end game scoring games to get that same feel...

nou wrote:
One great and commonly known example of how Maelstrom can be uber-realistic is the story from "Black Hawk Down". The scale of forces in this operation is pretty much in line with a typical 40k game. At the begining, there was a nice, straight up plan to execute, exactly like ones in EW games. But the plan went completely out of the window and then it was all about ever changing tactical objectives, fog of war, chaos, scattered forces desperately trying to do all sorts of things at once... Maelstrom feels just like it and I have no idea how to represent such operation using a single EW game - it would require a small, extensively forked campaign of end game scoring games to get that same feel...

Except the events of Black Hawk Down didn't occur within ~5 minutes, it was a sequence played out over hours/days. Malestrom missions, on the other hand, have your chain of command giving you new and contradictory orders every few seconds with no connection to any previous events in the agme.

I agree with the posters above, saying that the maelstrom cards can be used to create a variety of goals for the players to achieve. I would enjoy a game where we pick a few cards and use those as end game objective for example.

We tend to mix our lists up a lot. Been playing for just shy of 20 years now, so there's no shortage of units to choose from. or armies to choose from, for that matter.

Yes, my preference in a game is to enter with a plan; and then adapt that plan as the circumstances change. Progressive scoring doesn't prevent that, so long as the goal remains constant and predictable throughout the game. Warmachine, for example, scores a point each turn for zones held. I still feel like a commander with a plan, rather than a puppet on strings.

I can absolutely appreciate the preference for something new and exciting each game. It's probably my personality that still finds that year after year in EW type games.

I've previously been dismissive of Maelstrom games. We tried them in our group and it didn't work out. Looking at it now, I'm seeing that it didn't work out for us because my group enjoys the Commander role in our games, where other players might enjoy a "boots on the ground" in the trenches feel that mid-game scoring helps to emulate. It might help them to enjoy and celebrate the "small victories" of their models and units better.

Thanks for the discussion, folks. I see from a new perspective today.

 Insectum7 wrote:
More tactics or different tactics?

Endgame feels more realistic, although some of the progessive scoring missions are sensible.

I mostly play endgame with a smattering of progressive. I leave it to the other players preference. Usuly BRB, sometimes the cards. Haven't really looked into the CA missions. Haven't played itc since 7th. Had a lot of fun with maelstrom in 7th.

I really liked the "secret" missions of 2nd, actually.

I agree with other posters that the ideal setup might be a forced mix of endgame/progressive. Knowing the mission "trend" has an effect on lists, so more mission diversity is healthier, imo.

More - in my opinion.

All those threads of people claiming how the game has no tactics? Rooted in end game scoring mindsets where you just line up and shoot your guns as best you can so you still have something on the table to score with.

End of game scoring is not particularly bad...but the way GW does it is pretty poor.

When I get the chance to run a scenario or GM a game of 40K for buddies, I do end of game scoring, but the objectives are narrative aimed and are kept secret from the opposing team. We set a dictated turn limit and scores are revealed post game. This is generally pretty enjoyable because neither side can determine "all" of their opponents objectives. They might pick up on a couple during the game and try to thwart them.

End game scoring (to my knowledge) has never really been done well by GW but it's gotten pretty bad when a large portion of games are decided by tablings. I do find progressive scoring to be more engaging but again it works better when wiping your opponent off the board isn't the most practical winning condition.

 Elbows wrote:
End of game scoring is not particularly bad...but the way GW does it is pretty poor.

When I get the chance to run a scenario or GM a game of 40K for buddies, I do end of game scoring, but the objectives are narrative aimed and are kept secret from the opposing team. We set a dictated turn limit and scores are revealed post game. This is generally pretty enjoyable because neither side can determine "all" of their opponents objectives. They might pick up on a couple during the game and try to thwart them.

I don't mind secret missions in casual games for sure. I prefer open information, because it creates more complex issues for players to resolve.

In ITC you have some secondary scoring missions. You secretly pick three from a list of 10 and then reveal them to your opponent. You then notice that he picked one where units of 10+ models need to be destroyed, so, you might hold one of those units back to make it harder for him to score that extra point. These are worth up to 12 points or almost 30% of your total possible score of 42 and become incredibly important in close games.

But at the same time on your turn you score :

- 1 point if you killed a unit
- 1 point if you hold at least one objective

And at the end of the round you can get:

- 1 if you killed MORE
- 1 if you held MORE
- 1 if you achieve the bonus objective, which may be something like hold 2 out of 3 objectives

So a MAX of 5 points per round. If your opponent flubs it they can still score 2 by killing and holding.

Then at the same time going second has distinct advantages, because you can determine what objectives will be worth chasing. Did he kill 3 units and you can't possibly kill 4 this turn? Then focus on other priorities like forcing control away from objectives or secondaries.

There's a huge number of choices you'll have to make and I can't do it justice in a forum.

Maelstrom is trash. Random objectives simply aren't good for competitive play, and encourage tabling rather than trying to achieve a plethora of scattered objectives. Other "progressive scoring" systems are a bit better, since you at least know what you have to achieve each turn.

But don't think that ITC missions and other hybrids somehow eliminate gunlines...games are finishing turn 3 and 4 in many cases, and in ITC champions missions that means 12 points from secondaries vs 12-16 points from primaries. And while "have a unit in every table corner 4 turns of the game" can be difficult, "kill your opponent's tanks" is straightforward for a lot of armies, and doesn't require 4 turns to achieve. And there are easily enough secondaries to make killing your opponent's units the only strategy you need, especially since half of the primary points are gained by killing stuff. So a player can get 3 out of 4 points a turn killing more stuff than their opponent and holding a single objective, at least one of which will be in their deployment zone.

Progressive scoring is liked by some players because they get to score points while they still have an army, becasuse they don't see that the better list they're facing is systematically winning the game by tabling them cause units are racing around the table trying to contest stuff. In end game, you at least have the option to play the long game and things like reserves become more important. I personally prefer end game, partially because I play elite armies that work better with end game scoring but also because playing 5 turns that are focused on a single goal feels alot more strategic to me than playing 5 "mini-games" that you add up all the points from.

End game scoring is pretty bad, at least how it is set up now. Mid-game scoring is the only thing that stops me from just running to table my opponenets.

Maelstrom is alright in casual games with a bit of wiggle room for unusable cards, but doesn't work in competitive environments when one bad hand can end up skewing an entire game.

I have never been a fan of random objectives. Maelstrom, and anything based off it, is, and always will be, random garbage that represents little in the way of thematic value or representation of tactical skill. Nothing if value would be lost if Maelstrom disappeared.

End game scoring is broadly more realistic and coherent. It can have issues, but largely works better. 40k, at its most fundamental, has always been an attritional wafare game. End game scoring is what such a game is all about. However, than can be varied up. Neither player need be playing for the same objective for example (e.g. one side may need to slay the opposing warlord to win, the other may need to claim and extract an objective off the table). Most of the Eternal War missions are bad, but not unsalvageable.

For a better example of scoring in general, we can look at Dropzone Commander. There, most missions are built around infantry finding, seizing something and getting out of there, you can win without slaying a single enemy because fighting isnt the point, you can raze their armies from orbit once youve gotten your important piece. One faction will overwhelmingly dominate any open field pitched battle scenario, but the game isnt built around such, so its not a huge issue.

Progressive scoring is the only way to go if you want somewhat interesting gameplay and tactics. Endgame scoring is awfully boring, simply put.

 greyknight12 wrote:

But don't think that ITC missions and other hybrids somehow eliminate gunlines...games are finishing turn 3 and 4 in many cases, and in ITC champions missions that means 12 points from secondaries vs 12-16 points from primaries.

That's because of time and not always tabling - hence the chess clock push.

And while "have a unit in every table corner 4 turns of the game" can be difficult, "kill your opponent's tanks" is straightforward for a lot of armies, and doesn't require 4 turns to achieve.

You can easily close out a table quarter to prevent them scoring this and with 3 to 4 turn games...you're at risk of losing points. Especially when deepstrikers arrive before you shoot. I beg to differ on BGH, because we're talking about four tanks. Unless you're rocking a ton of lascannons or hot dice it won't be easy.

And there are easily enough secondaries to make killing your opponent's units the only strategy you need, especially since half of the primary points are gained by killing stuff. So a player can get 3 out of 4 points a turn killing more stuff than their opponent and holding a single objective, at least one of which will be in their deployment zone.

That depends entirely on your opponents list and is exactly why you see units of 9 dark reapers instead of 10. Take the LVO winning list for example:
1 unit over 10
2 tanks

So you're left with only Headhunter (kill characters), Kingslayer (max 3 for a 5 wound model), Recon (quarters), Behind Enemy Lines (2+ w/i 12" of enemy edge), Death by a Thousand Cuts (kill 3 in a round), and Old School (first blood, slay the warlord, last blood, line breaker).

So if your list is not built around being able to control four quarters Recon and BEL will be really hard to do. This leaves you killing characters, which as a gunline will also be difficult. Since the LVO list had 7 characters Headhunter is your first pick, but then you have to decide if you can clear enough to get to their WL before they clear you out and they'll actively work to prevent this, because you've put all your eggs in a basket for one type of objective.

Here is a neat little house-rule scenario I have used in 1000 and 1500 point games on a 4x4 board:

Scatter six objectives according to preference. If a player holds four or more objectives at the end of his opponents turn, then he immediately wins the game.

This scenario includes end-scoring but without the usual stale gameplay.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More tactics or different tactics?

Endgame feels more realistic, although some of the progessive scoring missions are sensible.

I mostly play endgame with a smattering of progressive. I leave it to the other players preference. Usuly BRB, sometimes the cards. Haven't really looked into the CA missions. Haven't played itc since 7th. Had a lot of fun with maelstrom in 7th.

I really liked the "secret" missions of 2nd, actually.

I agree with other posters that the ideal setup might be a forced mix of endgame/progressive. Knowing the mission "trend" has an effect on lists, so more mission diversity is healthier, imo.

More - in my opinion.

All those threads of people claiming how the game has no tactics? Rooted in end game scoring mindsets where you just line up and shoot your guns as best you can so you still have something on the table to score with.

Well, I tend to play end-game but I'd also say 40k has tactics too. My counter is that end-game allows for more long term planning, where I can optimize for a result a few turns ahead. Optimizing for turn by turn results often feels like an arbitrary distraction. I feel more like I'm controlling the action with end-game.

I can see both sides of it, like I said I'd prefer a mix.

Another thing I have a beef with is some of the KP itc rules. I understand that armies wind up with 19 models in a unit rather than 20, purely to give up fewer KP or whatever. I forget which ruleset I'm thinking of, but basically the victor was detetmined via raw point values destroyed. Maybe that was the old Epic game.

 Insectum7 wrote:
[
Another thing I have a beef with is some of the KP itc rules. I understand that armies wind up with 19 models in a unit rather than 20, purely to give up fewer KP or whatever. I forget which ruleset I'm thinking of, but basically the victor was detetmined via raw point values destroyed. Maybe that was the old Epic game.

That comes with sacrifices for some units. Not taking 10/20 might remove a bonus or special weapon. Sometimes taking on a 20+ unit is daunting when they toss out 2CP to prevent morale losses after a strong round of shooting / before game end.

Adepticon's Secondary is 1 point per 100 points killed and then they have tertiaries similar to ITC -- they also score progressively at the START of your turn so any move you make has to stick without being countered.

nou wrote:
One great and commonly known example of how Maelstrom can be uber-realistic is the story from "Black Hawk Down". The scale of forces in this operation is pretty much in line with a typical 40k game. At the begining, there was a nice, straight up plan to execute, exactly like ones in EW games. But the plan went completely out of the window and then it was all about ever changing tactical objectives, fog of war, chaos, scattered forces desperately trying to do all sorts of things at once... Maelstrom feels just like it and I have no idea how to represent such operation using a single EW game - it would require a small, extensively forked campaign of end game scoring games to get that same feel...

So, yes but:

A: It doesnt make sense that every game would be that fubar scenario.

And B: Fubar scenarios are often determined by the opposing force, whereas maelstrom feels determined by nobody. The opposing player has nothing to do with it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

nou wrote:
One great and commonly known example of how Maelstrom can be uber-realistic is the story from "Black Hawk Down". The scale of forces in this operation is pretty much in line with a typical 40k game. At the begining, there was a nice, straight up plan to execute, exactly like ones in EW games. But the plan went completely out of the window and then it was all about ever changing tactical objectives, fog of war, chaos, scattered forces desperately trying to do all sorts of things at once... Maelstrom feels just like it and I have no idea how to represent such operation using a single EW game - it would require a small, extensively forked campaign of end game scoring games to get that same feel...

So, yes but:

A: It doesnt make sense that every game would be that fubar scenario.

And B: Fubar scenarios are often determined by the opposing force, whereas maelstrom feels determined by nobody. The opposing player has nothing to do with it.

Fubar scenarios are determined by things like internal incompetence, equipment malfunction, and weather more often than by the opposing force.

If you want a fun, casual game, go maelstrom. If you wanted a balance, skill based match up, there are a bunch of amazingly good tournament packs out there. If you want a game you don't have to actually be there for for the first 4 turns, play eternal war.

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
One great and commonly known example of how Maelstrom can be uber-realistic is the story from "Black Hawk Down". The scale of forces in this operation is pretty much in line with a typical 40k game. At the begining, there was a nice, straight up plan to execute, exactly like ones in EW games. But the plan went completely out of the window and then it was all about ever changing tactical objectives, fog of war, chaos, scattered forces desperately trying to do all sorts of things at once... Maelstrom feels just like it and I have no idea how to represent such operation using a single EW game - it would require a small, extensively forked campaign of end game scoring games to get that same feel...

Except the events of Black Hawk Down didn't occur within ~5 minutes, it was a sequence played out over hours/days. Malestrom missions, on the other hand, have your chain of command giving you new and contradictory orders every few seconds with no connection to any previous events in the agme.

Of course the events of black hawk down didn't happen in five minutes; the soldiers under fire in that situation also weren't safe once they got outside of 24 inches of the enemy. We might not have even lost those helicopters if the enemy had -1 to hit with their poor ballistic skill. It's an abstraction of the battlefield, much in the same way a rhino should be twice it's size for its capacity, and your opponent should have to field several hundred guardsmen to realistically take out your tactical squad, and why your finest super soldiers can only hit their target 66% of the time and can only ever kill 2 naked cultists with his rocket launching rifle when there are 20 of them dancing right in front of him.

Also, as to the contradictory orders and confusion aspect.... do you remember what "the lost convoy" was? That and the fact that the events at Mogadishu drastically changed how U.S. armed forces handle joint operations.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I agree with the posters above, saying that the maelstrom cards can be used to create a variety of goals for the players to achieve. I would enjoy a game where we pick a few cards and use those as end game objective for example.

We tend to mix our lists up a lot. Been playing for just shy of 20 years now, so there's no shortage of units to choose from. or armies to choose from, for that matter.

Yes, my preference in a game is to enter with a plan; and then adapt that plan as the circumstances change. Progressive scoring doesn't prevent that, so long as the goal remains constant and predictable throughout the game. Warmachine, for example, scores a point each turn for zones held. I still feel like a commander with a plan, rather than a puppet on strings.

I can absolutely appreciate the preference for something new and exciting each game. It's probably my personality that still finds that year after year in EW type games.

I've previously been dismissive of Maelstrom games. We tried them in our group and it didn't work out. Looking at it now, I'm seeing that it didn't work out for us because my group enjoys the Commander role in our games, where other players might enjoy a "boots on the ground" in the trenches feel that mid-game scoring helps to emulate. It might help them to enjoy and celebrate the "small victories" of their models and units better.

Thanks for the discussion, folks. I see from a new perspective today.

Glad I could be of any help!

@Insectum7: but I don't say, that every scenario should be such fubar or that every game should be mid game scored. As I wrote earlier, I play all kinds of odd scenarios to keep games varied. As to "fubar should result from enemy actions" it is quite hard to achieve that feel of unpredictability of results of such actions in a closed game system without some kind of randomness, otherwise you would just plan accordingly to possible, hardwired consequences. This is often a weak point of some adventure board games - all results are predefined in a scenario... One of the greatest advantages of GM based game genres is that consequences of mishaps/actions can be both unpredictable for players and non random at the same time.

@peregrine: you are sometimes so helplessly literal with your POV, with no room for any abstraction... If games of 40k represent ~5min periods for you, then you must have huge problems with accepting that every battle takes place on an area of a football field; artillery has only said footbal field lenght of range; supersonic jetfighters circle around at cavalry speeds and do so so close to the ground that flamers can reliably hurt them, and among many, many other idiotic representations if warefare in 40k, there are up to six points on said football field so crucial, that you are willing to sacrifice dozens of superhumans from only 1000 strong organisations or citizens of a dying race inhabiting huge interstellar arks to stand right next to them with more bodies than the enemy exactly after 5-7minutes after enemies are spotted on the other side of the field... In the light of any of such literal interpretation nonsense both EW and Maelstrom are uber unrealistic and not worth any discussion on the matter... Come on, you can most certainly come up with less straightforwardly dissmissable argument to 'prove' that our way of having fun with toy soldiers is, how you usually say it, "wrong". And I almost forgot to ask - how exactly do you know how Maelstrom game feels since you haven't played this game since 5th ed?

The game is actually much more interesting if you ignore the objectives and just destroy your opponent. ESP in a maelstrom format.

The only reason objectives exist in games like this is to force action and make people leave their deployment zones. More or less they are distractions in a game where you can destroy your opponent in 3 turns.

Just my take.

I personally enjoy a mix of progressive scoring as well as end game scoring. I also generally enjoy games where you can take multiple avenues to win, however to be clear I'm not a fan of Maelstrom missions as I find them a little too random. I prefer a set of pre-determined objectives on the table and those being worth points each turn combined with a few end of game objectives.

 Insectum7 wrote:
More tactics or different tactics?

Endgame feels more realistic, although some of the progessive scoring missions are sensible.

I mostly play endgame with a smattering of progressive. I leave it to the other players preference. Usuly BRB, sometimes the cards. Haven't really looked into the CA missions. Haven't played itc since 7th. Had a lot of fun with maelstrom in 7th.

I really liked the "secret" missions of 2nd, actually.

I agree with other posters that the ideal setup might be a forced mix of endgame/progressive. Knowing the mission "trend" has an effect on lists, so more mission diversity is healthier, imo.

Now I want to find my copy of Dark Millennium and see how hard they'd be to convert. They were usually pretty fun.

I also liked 4th edition missions quite a lot.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The game is actually much more interesting if you ignore the objectives and just destroy your opponent. ESP in a maelstrom format.

The only reason objectives exist in games like this is to force action and make people leave their deployment zones. More or less they are distractions in a game where you can destroy your opponent in 3 turns.

Just my take.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic.

 Earth127 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The game is actually much more interesting if you ignore the objectives and just destroy your opponent. ESP in a maelstrom format.

The only reason objectives exist in games like this is to force action and make people leave their deployment zones. More or less they are distractions in a game where you can destroy your opponent in 3 turns.

Just my take.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic.

I mean he's stated in another thread that it is impossible to win consistently at 40k and anyone who does so is cheating.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More tactics or different tactics?

Endgame feels more realistic, although some of the progessive scoring missions are sensible.

I mostly play endgame with a smattering of progressive. I leave it to the other players preference. Usuly BRB, sometimes the cards. Haven't really looked into the CA missions. Haven't played itc since 7th. Had a lot of fun with maelstrom in 7th.

I really liked the "secret" missions of 2nd, actually.

I agree with other posters that the ideal setup might be a forced mix of endgame/progressive. Knowing the mission "trend" has an effect on lists, so more mission diversity is healthier, imo.

Now I want to find my copy of Dark Millennium and see how hard they'd be to convert. They were usually pretty fun.

I also liked 4th edition missions quite a lot.

I can't say I remember the 4th ed missions, but it was my favorite edition. . .so that means something I'm sure.

I prefer to play with fixed objectives, where you accumulate points for owning them, and weighting midfield objectives more heavily each turn, then throw in the standard first blood, linebreaker and Slay the Warlord.

Actual *objectives only matter at he end of the game* is rather bland

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The game is actually much more interesting if you ignore the objectives and just destroy your opponent. ESP in a maelstrom format.

The only reason objectives exist in games like this is to force action and make people leave their deployment zones. More or less they are distractions in a game where you can destroy your opponent in 3 turns.

Just my take.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic.

I mean he's stated in another thread that it is impossible to win consistently at 40k and anyone who does so is cheating.

Because dice game man. Can you consistently roll heads on a quarter? It's literally the same concept - just less more coin flipping. Feel free to debunk what I'm saying though - go out there in a game vs your friends and just ignore the objective cards and go for the kill.

Also - I win a lot - so obviously I am doing something right.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More tactics or different tactics?

Endgame feels more realistic, although some of the progessive scoring missions are sensible.

I mostly play endgame with a smattering of progressive. I leave it to the other players preference. Usuly BRB, sometimes the cards. Haven't really looked into the CA missions. Haven't played itc since 7th. Had a lot of fun with maelstrom in 7th.

I really liked the "secret" missions of 2nd, actually.

I agree with other posters that the ideal setup might be a forced mix of endgame/progressive. Knowing the mission "trend" has an effect on lists, so more mission diversity is healthier, imo.

Now I want to find my copy of Dark Millennium and see how hard they'd be to convert. They were usually pretty fun.

I also liked 4th edition missions quite a lot.

I can't say I remember the 4th ed missions, but it was my favorite edition. . .so that means something I'm sure.

The key thing that made them good was that VPs were calculated as a percentage of the game's points total. Holding a table quarter might be worth 25% (so 250 in a 1000 point game), then units were worth their own points cost for destroying them. Much more balanced than kill points.