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.

What if KP were yielded to a max of one per Force Org box? As in a platoon, yields a KP, when any of its squad(s) are wiped out, but that is all, maximum. So even if all 3 squads are killed it is still only worth one Kpoint?

I think this would also fix a lot of the issue troops in transports have and Tau with drones.

What say you?

Augustus wrote:What if KP were yielded to a max of one per Force Org box? As in a platoon, yields a KP, when any of its squad(s) are wiped out, but that is all, maximum. So even if all 3 squads are killed it is still only worth one Kpoint?

I think this would also fix a lot of the issue troops in transports have and Tau with drones.

What say you?

The problem with this is that for 4 Kill Points, I could make an IG army with 120 models, 3+ cover saves, infiltrate, 15 lascannons, 6 missile launchers, 3 autocannons, and 22 grenade launchers in a 2000pt army. That way, I'd probably give up all 4 kill points in a game at some point, but then a 11 KP CSM army would be in the same position IG are in now.


Sadly, it seems there is just no solid way to fix Kill Points.

I think that is a really extreme example, and the way CC works out, I think 2 chaos Marine models could still beat them. Because they are that bad.

The easiest way to fix KPs is to drop them completely and go back to counting codex point values.

It's a system that worked for decades in other wargames like Ancients, and has the virtue of being relatively balanced to combat value.

I don't understand the rationale behind KPs. It just looks broken.

The "extreme examples" are the reason people want to change the rule to begin with.

Good try, but no cigar I think, based on the reason Vak says.

Maybe there is a way to combine Stelek's "mobile objective" kill points with the KP ratio thing to come up with a system that provides a variable number of kill points based on the number of units in the whole army. I will post back when I've thought about it some more.

Vaktathi wrote:

Sadly, it seems there is just no solid way to fix Kill Points.

Easy, take them out. The only reason they exist was because kids couldnt add the model values, so there goes half their revenue.

I like take them out too.

Use the 'ard boys Kill point system

I suggested this earlier and got zero response but I will throw it out again:

Before deployment both players count kill points for each unit per the current rules. If they have the same total then they fight the battle.

If one player has more KP than the other, then the player with less KP applies the difference to adding a KP to each of his units starting with the most expensive. This continues moving through his units until the difference is used up or another pass is required. In the end both players end up with even numbers of Kill points on the board.

I would adopt the Ard Boyz no points for dedicated transports (or for the associated gun drones for Tau). The only abuse that would allow would be the Inquisitors retinues and their land raiders.

The only complication is that you have to remember which units are worth more points. A small detail to have a relatively level playing field where every unit is worth something.

Examples:
IG Command - 2 KP (Senior Officer + retinue)
IG Platoon - 4 KP (Junior Officer, retinue, 2 squads)
IG Platoon - 4 KP (Junior Officer, retinue, 2 squads)
Hellhound - 1KP
Leman Russ - 1 KP

12KP

vs.

Space Marine Captain and command squad 2 KP
Dreadnought 1KP
Tactical Squad 1KP
Tactical Squad 1KP
Scout Squad 1 KP
Assault Squad 1KP
Whirlwind 1KP

7KP

So the space marine player would allocate 5KP to his 5 most expensive units

Space Marine Captain 1 KP + 1KP
Dreadnought 1KP + 1KP
Tactical Squad 1KP + 1KP
Tactical Squad 1KP + 1KP
Scout Squad 1 KP
Assault Squad 1KP + 1KP
Whirlwind 1KP

12KP

The problem with all these solutions are that they make Kill Points fair. Kill Points aren't meant to be fair - they're meant to give an ADVANTAGE to the army with the least unit choices. In this way they perfectly balance the other two missions, one of which gives an advantage to the army which has more scoring unit choices, and one of which gives the advantage to armies which are really well balanced.

Kill points don't work if you look at them as a standalone mission. They're only fair in the context of the three possible missions you could get, and that fact that you have to build an army with all three in mind....

EDIT - as in all KP discussions, we have to say.... "Except for Imperial Guard" ...and hopefully this will be changed soon!!!

What I propose does make it a more level playing field.

There is a bias toward more expensive units for the army with more initial KP in the beginning because they will be counted the same as the smallest unit, 1 KP. This encourages taking expensive elite/FA/HS units or taking fewer larger troops units. I believe that is the same intent as the current rule.

For the army starting with less KP there is a similar effect although it is mitigated by the balancing step. There may some incentive to having a really expensive unit since the KP are not allocated proportional to the points cost. I would think that would be a small factor.

For me it is just a balancing act. You want more scoring/contesting units? Then you also have a higher kill point potential.

Are some armies pushed towards having more kill points? Sure they are, but those same armies are more likely to have a 1 or 2 man "squad" running around trying to contest things. Eventually the opponent has to "waste" a full squad firing at the loners just to get rid of them.

Not all games use kill points and not all games use scoring units. Either balance, or go heavy to one side knowing that you aren't as favorable in the other direction.

You could use a system similar to the one Warmachine uses. Low value variable points for squads based on how powerful they are.

e.g.

Space Marine Tactical Squad 2 points
Imperial Guard Infantry Squad 1 point
Rhino 1 point
Leman Russ 2 points
Platoon Command Squad 1 point
Chaos Lord 3 points
Necron Monolith 3 points

It would require GW or the tournament organiser to release a definitive set of values for every unit in the game. It would however be easy to implement in game from a players perspective.

Isn't that just victory points by another name?

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Isn't that just victory points by another name?

Yeah, it is a little easier to count at the end. You will still end up with unbalanced units and uneven numbers of KP to begin the game resulting in situations where an army can get tabled and still get more KP, or get nearly tabled but still win.

I really think that Yak's ratio solution is the best idea.

BYE

I'm running a tournament at my FLGS at the end of the month, and I'm using Yak's ratio idea for the kp mission. We'll see how it goes, but I'm hoping the players will find it a more balanced alternative.

George Spiggott wrote:You could use a system similar to the one Warmachine uses. Low value variable points for squads based on how powerful they are.

Actually, this is the most complex alternative available.

You have to get some neutral party to go through every unit in every Codex and assign a value to each of them.

But a lot of these units have a lot of options. Is a 5-man BT Squad the same value as a 15-man BT squad? or a 5-man CSM squad the same as a 20-man MoN CSM squad?

And after all that effort, everybody will be unhappy with the assignments.


In many ways, this is the same trap that the WFB guys fell into, trying to score Comp for every Fantasy option.

Kill Points is the balance point for the fact that, 2/3rds of the time, a maxed-out Troops army has superiority in victory conditions. Without Kill Points, IG becomes dominant by sheer spamming of units. A 1500pt IG army can field around 18 scoring units, with plenty of heavy-weapon potential.

Kill Points encourages balance, in my opinion. Sure, it's sometimes a pain, but the math-magic points-tweaking of victory points was worse.

lord_sutekh wrote:Kill Points is the balance point for the fact that, 2/3rds of the time, a maxed-out Troops army has superiority in victory conditions. Without Kill Points, IG becomes dominant by sheer spamming of units. A 1500pt IG army can field around 18 scoring units, with plenty of heavy-weapon potential.

You are assuming that *more* scoring units automatically is an advantage. I see this argument come up every time KP's comes up, and it never really makes sense.

IG scoring units are weak, don't cause a whole lot of damage by themselves, are prone to fleeing, slow, and are best when stationary, and have horrendously overcosted transports. Not exactly the best setup. An Eldar army with 3-4 mechanized DA squads, drop pod marines, huge ork squads, etc are going to be infintely more competitive.

This is also assuming that armies with lots of KP's have lots of scoring units. My IG army has 3 scoring units (its got 60 stormtroopers, 3 "elites" and 3 "troops") and 19 KP's. My Tau army has 3 scoring units and 19 KP's. Those Gun Drones on devilfish are worth the same KP as my CSM's 10man terminator squads.

I'm sorry, but the argument that KP's somehow balance out a perception that lots of KP's or that lots of scoring units translates to an advantage in scoring missions just doesn't hold much water.

Kill Points encourages balance, in my opinion. Sure, it's sometimes a pain, but the math-magic points-tweaking of victory points was worse.

A system where everyone has the same potential gain/loss is *worse* than one where the missions are stilted from the outset?

The problem is, the missions are attempting to balance a problem that really doesn't exist, and doing it in a manner where the mean is significantly different than the mode. a 50/50 win ratio sounds like a good thing, but if you are practically auto-losing the ones you do lose means something is wrong with the game system. there's no point to playing a game where you start with a significant disadvantage.

I think another problem people are having with KP is it has no basis in reality (Yes I know its just a game). Objectives make sense strategically and/or tactically... "I win if I capture the important areas." As an added benefit it is pretty easy in practice.

VP was also pretty simple... "I win if I kill more of you than you do of me." Unfortunately VP is more complicated in practice because high variability in points cost.

KP on the other hand is a bad abstraction that allows situations where a player can kill a few enemy squads and then play very defensively to try to eek out a win or hide units to save KP. While these may be valid tactics for the game they are counter intuitive for a battlefield which is what we are trying to simulate. The benefit is that KP are easy to count.

The more I think about it, the more I feel like both armies should start with the same number of KP either by the method I wrote about above or by assigning a set number to each army. Think about what the reaction would be if each player rolled separately for how many objectives they had in the other scenarios and one army had 6 and the other had 2.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I really think that Yak's ratio solution is the best idea.

BYE

Yea me too, its better than my idea, but I think the add kill points idea is not a bad one.

lord_sutekh wrote:Kill Points is the balance point for the fact that, 2/3rds of the time, a maxed-out Troops army has superiority in victory conditions. Without Kill Points, IG becomes dominant by sheer spamming of units. A 1500pt IG army can field around 18 scoring units, with plenty of heavy-weapon potential...

...and be so terrible in assault and objective taking and movement that the army would be laughable, I mean come on, maxed out platoons dont even shoot their heavy weapons on the move RIGHT? and thats all the IG player would have? thats a joke, especially in Dawn of War...

ptlangley wrote:I think another problem people are having with KP is it has no basis in reality (Yes I know its just a game). Objectives make sense strategically and/or tactically... "I win if I capture the important areas." As an added benefit it is pretty easy in practice.

VP was also pretty simple... "I win if I kill more of you than you do of me." Unfortunately VP is more complicated in practice because high variability in points cost.

...

...

People shouldn't be playing 40K if they can't deal with the complication of points values. It's totally the basis of building an army in the first place. Since you now exchange lists at the start of a game, it's simple to tick off models as they get shot, and work out the final point value.

If that really is too complicated, make every single model worth 1 point. It's just as fair and reasonable as KPs and it's simpler.

Kilkrazy wrote:People shouldn't be playing 40K if they can't deal with the complication of points values.

Agreed, however counting VPs at the end of a game of 4th was always a drag. Especially in a tournament where your opponent might be inclined to forget some stuff. It is a lot harder to fudge a few points out of 10-20 than 1500-2000.

ptlangley wrote:Agreed, however counting VPs at the end of a game of 4th was always a drag. Especially in a tournament where your opponent might be inclined to forget some stuff. It is a lot harder to fudge a few points out of 10-20 than 1500-2000.

It's better than the current system, where everything from a 2-man Gun Drone unit to a 10-man Nurlge Termiantor unit is treated the same as far as KP's are concerned.

BYE

ptlangley wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:People shouldn't be playing 40K if they can't deal with the complication of points values.

Agreed, however counting VPs at the end of a game of 4th was always a drag. Especially in a tournament where your opponent might be inclined to forget some stuff. It is a lot harder to fudge a few points out of 10-20 than 1500-2000.

So keep a copy of the army list as a tally sheet, and tick off models as they are removed from the table.

If people are prepared to put 100s of hours into building an army, painting, learning the rules and everything, I think they would be prepared to do a couple of minutes arithmetic at the end of the game.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's better than the current system, where everything from a 2-man Gun Drone unit to a 10-man Nurlge Termiantor unit is treated the same as far as KP's are concerned.

VP is more balanced than the KP system, KP is easier to do on the fly. There is a way to do this that is both balanced and simple, and it isn't VP or KP.

Kilkrazy wrote:
If people are prepared to put 100s of hours into building an army, painting, learning the rules and everything, I think they would be prepared to do a couple of minutes arithmetic at the end of the game.

The main reason I would prefer to see a simpler system is so that players could keep track during the game. Hypothetically you could do it with VP but practically you aren't going to sit down at the end of each turn with your list to count.

On second thought, the easy/balanced way to determine a winner is play last man standing, that is what we used to do back in Rogue Trader days. It doesn't get any simpler and/or more definitive than that. The last few turns go fast usually anyway.

Last Man Standing forces players to focus on pure killiness, rather than any sort of higher-level strategic play.

Nothing wrong with that, but that is clearly not where GW is going: LMS -> VPs -> KPs.