Topic: "Kills Points" neuters some armies?

[I.G. Joe]

I haven't tried the kill point division method but it seems to work much better than GW's crappy system.

[*Striker*]

Unfortunately it seems GW is sticking to killpoints, as GW Canada has released the updated hall of hero rules(rules for tournies in local stores and such.) for 5th edition and killpoints are certainly still used.

http://ca.games-workshop.com/CommunityNew/HOH/download/download.htm?/CommunityNew/HOH/HOHdownload/Warhammer_40K_HoH_small.pdf

[srintuar]

The secondary objectives do seem like an interesting way to make the battle more fun, and to differentiate between levels of win/lose.  I like them.


And yes: killpoints are certainly here to stay. GW has never been a fan of admitting its mistakes, so even if KP's werent any good (I say they are the best S&D mission type ive seen yet) they would never back down.

[Kiefatar]

They will, I give it a year, or two tops of tournaments where the Tau or Guard player with 60-70% of his army, looses to the CSM player with 1 model left before they go back entirely, or at least change their missions to VPs again.

I don't see 5th as sticking around for all that long, an interesting diversion into a different branch of dynamics, but it's alienating some of the older players and making a serious split between the younger and older generations, a 40k lite and a 40k real.

Just like 4th Edition for DnD, being a dumbed down boardgame system. It won't stick around for long, I just hope it's gone soon enough that I can get back into it.

[srintuar]

ok, youve made your prediction...  as have many others.

I guess that means you are already in line for some hot steamy crow

[Gornon]

I don't see 5th as sticking around for all that long, an interesting diversion into a different branch of dynamics, but it's alienating some of the older players and making a serious split between the younger and older generations, a 40k lite and a 40k real.

I disagree with you there, I am afraid to say.  Wile I am finding I am more comfortable playing VPs instead of KPs, in both my gaming groups, one of new players, and one mostly made up of guys playing the game since Rogue Trader, seem to enjoy it.  Oh, not everyone likes everything, KPs being the most hated, but overall its considered an improvement in my circles. 

Just like 4th Edition for DnD, being a dumbed down boardgame system.

Dumbed down?  I don't like KP, but overall, I find that I am using more tactics and stratigums.  My Battle Sister's tactics have changed from zoom across the board and blast away to a slightly slower approch trying to find a weak point to attack.  I am forced to choose between committing all my forces, and hanging a squad back to hold an objective.

[Tarrin the Space Marine]

A tidy up of teh system was needed, and i don't beleive it has been dumbed down. As gornon says you can't just rely on the rushing.

as i said previously, a number of the rules are big improvements:

• Changes to sweeping advance to stop one guy doing all the work (throwback from 4th ed Chaos codex
• Damage charts for vehicles
• Run for positioning
• Tightening of general rules
• Free Counter attack
• Back to wound based Ld

But also they have introduced some rules that really affect the dynamic of the game and some rules that favour certain army types and codices over others.

• KP as discussed here is an awful addition.
• Str 4 defensive. With run adding to the dynamic of the game, having tanks like Preds and leman russ turned into pillboxes, whilst some tau upgrades are redundant (target lock on hammerheads anyone?) makes no sense. Str 5 would have been better, or even better would have been fire 1 gun at BS, fore rest at 1/2 Bs rounding down accounting for spraying bullets in the general direction.
• Troops only scoring, favours 50% of the codices unit types over others, and makes a mockery of the new codex character type troop selection process (buy HQ type, shift something to troops)
• Cover saves behind men. 4+ is ridiculous in my opinion, favouring CC armies over shooting. Though countered with the sweeping advance changes, i think 4+ is too much. 5+ would have been sufficient.
• TLOS whilst a nice idea is starting to affect how people model minis, build terrain, and generally splumf up dynamic looking battlefields. In a representative game this does not belong
• see one, kill all. An offshoot of the TLOS rules that is awful in a representative game. A friend of mine lost 3 penitent engines 2 nights ago, because a dev squad could see about 1/2 inch of leg through a window. Ok they got lucky but still.
• loss of Entanglement. Makes those 35 point rhinos a very nice option, combined with teh reduction in damage that people take when something explodes.
• 1 man securing an objective, or due to KP one man alive can beat an entire army. Around here this has lead to people taking cheap E inquisitors and hiding him right at the back, giving them a 20 point buffer on missions. 

Its overall an improvement but only just. Tactically its better, but its loop hole heavy.

[Raktra (So long, I guess)]

• see one, kill all. An offshoot of the TLOS rules that is awful in a representative game. A friend of mine lost 3 penitent engines 2 nights ago, because a dev squad could see about 1/2 inch of leg through a window. Ok they got lucky but still.

You need to be able to see the actual hull of the vehicle to be able to open fire upon it according to my rules

Your friend got screwed around.

[Hawaiian Zombie]

You need to be able to see the actual hull of the vehicle to be able to open fire upon it according to my rules

Your friend got screwed around.

Actually the leg is clearly part of the hull of a walker and thus it can be targetted. Check out the list of examples of things that don't count toward vehicle LOS on page 60 for a better idea of what doesn't count: weapon barrels, antenna, decorative banners etc

[Gornon]

see one, kill all. An offshoot of the TLOS rules that is awful in a representative game. A friend of mine lost 3 penitent engines 2 nights ago, because a dev squad could see about 1/2 inch of leg through a window. Ok they got lucky but still.

I do think thats silly.  GW was trying to get rid of the snipe the character tactic.  And they did.  However, I think that appling the combat rules would work here.  The 'kill zone" is within 2 inches of a unit in LOS.  That kills sniping, but also means that a whole unit won't die because a hand is showing.

loss of Entanglement. Makes those 35 point rhinos a very nice option, combined with teh reduction in damage that people take when something explodes.

I hate to say it, but thats where KPs do something good...Rhinos add a KP to the army, meaning the Rhino comes with a price.

Troops only scoring, favours 50% of the codices unit types over others, and makes a mockery of the new codex character type troop selection process (buy HQ type, shift something to troops)

I think that any Infantry scoring would be good.  Things like MCs, Jump Troops, and Tanks should not be able to hold an objective.  That would be interesting. 

However, we would still end up with min maxed armies.  Take two minium tac teams and just hide them from KP denial.  Now your Devs hold the objectvies in your zone wile the termies go after the objectives elsewhere. 

[moc065]

As a Saim-Hann player I am certainly glad that GW did not say that all Infantry can score and nothing else... Think about the implications... You simply create a neuter to any army that is not full infantry...

KP's have their downfalls; but so does everything else.

CaHG

[Ixe]

I think it's very simple.  VPs favored many small units, because they overloaded the enemy's guns, no matter what he shot at he was only able to get a small number of points.  KPs favor the opposite, that is big, tough units that are hard to destroy utterly.  Some armies had the advantage in a VP system, some armies have the advantage in a KP system.  Hopefully the one army that was seriously nerfed (which is Guard, the only army that's forced to have a minimum of 7 fragile low cost units in their list, and can easily get beyond 15 kp) will get fixed.  And that will be that...

[Daedalus_Mk_V]

I think it's very simple.  VPs favored many small units, because they overloaded the enemy's guns, no matter what he shot at he was only able to get a small number of points.  KPs favor the opposite, that is big, tough units that are hard to destroy utterly.  Some armies had the advantage in a VP system, some armies have the advantage in a KP system.  Hopefully the one army that was seriously nerfed (which is Guard, the only army that's forced to have a minimum of 7 fragile low cost units in their list, and can easily get beyond 15 kp) will get fixed.  And that will be that...

This is absolutely far and away the most relevent statement in the entire thread, and I agree entirely. Most armies are fine, easily capable of creating balanced lists within the codex. I'd also say that DE have something of a problem (all those Raiders will die, if the enemy so much as sneezes in their general direction), but other than that most codices are pretty well balancable so far as KPs vs objective claiming. Sure, some units got a nasty nerf thanks to what I can only hope to be unforseen circumstances (spore mines, for example, and by extension Biovores.), but overall Kill Points isn't a bad system. Balance the armies that don't work with it, and I'll support it wholeheartedly.