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 KPs were like Objectives, with a grand total of 3 per side?

At the start of the game, each player designates 3 units as each worth 1 KP:
- any 1 enemy HQ unit
- any 1 enemy non-HQ unit
- any 1 friendly unit

For starters, each army would have the same number of KPs at risk, and the same number of KPs available. MSU builds aren't unduly penalized compared to mega-unit builds, because they can concentrate their attack like a Fuzzy Wuzzies on the target unit.

KP denial is much more difficult, because of the outnumbering effect.

While I like this idea more than GW's kill points, I'd still much prefer Victory Points.

With objectives, you cannot hide them or avoid having to get out on the field and take them. With this, you could expect to see players assigning their KPs to the most terribly indestructible units, or the most survivable, and avoiding combat with them the entire game. While at the same time your opponent hides whatever unit you branded for a KP.

They can assign the 1 friendly KP to a tough unit, but they can't do anything about the other 2. Such a unit is likely to be expensive, so if they take it out of the game, isn't that an advantage?

This idea is better than GW's however it suffers from the players assigning the points themselves.

Yak's ratio idea is better.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yak's ratio idea is better.

BYE

could you please link me to that? thanks.

Isn't this just the idea that Stelek posted a month ago?

It's an idea that they worked on together (essentially). Stelek posted a really good idea for KP's and then Yakface refined it.

Basically, to those to don't know, you win a game based upong the % of KP's you take.

So if my army is 20 KP's total and yours is 10 KPs and by games end we've both scored 5 KP's, I win as I killed off 50% (5/10) and you only killed off 25% (5/20) of my army. Scales for any sized game, or any GW hamfisted rules writing (Guard platoons vs KP's).

BYE

Kilkrazy wrote:This idea is better than GW's however it suffers from the players assigning the points themselves.

Most of the KPs (4/6) are assigned by the opponent, whereas 2/6 are assigned by the player. This is analogous to how Apocalypse has 2/6 Objectives in the player's own DZ.

sourclams wrote:Isn't this just the idea that Stelek posted a month ago?

At a high level, it is similar, in that we're both advocating for a small number of KPs.

I'm making a more detailed proposal of a fixed, minimal number (3 per side) of KPs to assign, along with a specific way to designate those KPs.

Conceptually, I think Stelek and I are coming at this differently. I'm coming at KPs from more of an Objectives viewpoint, whereas he's more of a Victory Points viewpoint.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:This idea is better than GW's however it suffers from the players assigning the points themselves.

Most of the KPs (4/6) are assigned by the opponent, whereas 2/6 are assigned by the player. This is analogous to how Apocalypse has 2/6 Objectives in the player's own DZ.

sourclams wrote:Isn't this just the idea that Stelek posted a month ago?

At a high level, it is similar, in that we're both advocating for a small number of KPs.

I'm making a more detailed proposal of a fixed, minimal number (3 per side) of KPs to assign, along with a specific way to designate those KPs.

Conceptually, I think Stelek and I are coming at this differently. I'm coming at KPs from more of an Objectives viewpoint, whereas he's more of a Victory Points viewpoint.

I don't play Apocalypse so it does not inform my thinking.

Whether KPs are assigned by the owning player or the opponent, they are part of the metagame that supposedly KPs were meant to avoid.

At least VPs were "designed".


What is the explanation of the fundamental problem with VPs other than that modern 12-year olds can't do simple arithmetic?

Kilkrazy wrote:What is the explanation of the fundamental problem with VPs other than that modern 12-year olds can't do simple arithmetic?

Those 12-year-olds grow up to be 22 & 32-year olds who still can't do simple arithmetic...

And, once again, I say that we've been doing it for a decade now - why have we all suddenly lost the ability to use Victory Points?

BYE