Topic: "Kills Points" neuters some armies?

[scottdsp748]

Since Zoanthropes and Biovores are each a single squad that is allowed to deploy independent of each other, wouldn't the killpoint value be just one point for the entire squad instead of 1 KP each?

Kill points are one per "unit" not one per force org slot.  Hence units that can be split up, marine combat squads and dedicated transports all count as a kill point.  Don't forget the flip side of that though, they can also individually capture (if troops) or contest (if anything else) objectives in an objective game.

Kill points doesn't neuter any armies as an army that is disadvantaged in a kill point game should have a big advantage in an objective game and those outnumber kill points 2:1.

As for IG...I think it may be a little rough doing kill points without doing all armored fist til the new guard codex hits, but i've seen guard dominate objective games by a similar margin.

[premetheus]

This is all relative, if it is a series of games be it tournement campaign etc... then it will balence out. If however you rock up to your club roll for mission and get KP with a list that has shed loads in it then yeah your unlucky other way round your laughing.

Solution is agree between you ahead of time or when you get there. If you're worried about power gamers don't play them, if there the only ones that exist and you can't compromise well then people will be idiots sometimes.

If you're the power gamer then well shame on you 

[EngeKomkommer]

Before, it was said that 40k was won based on who gets the first turn. Now, it's won based on who gets what mission. You might as well just not play certain matchups, since they're foregone conclusions thanks to the idiotic Kill Points rules.

No it just means *some* people need to change their army setups. 100% swarm and 100% elite min.max squads don't work anymore.

*edit*
Wow, read the rest of the posts. Disadvantage in KP missions normaly means an advantage in objectives. The key is BALANCE people. If you want to put all your eggs in one basket and make your army rock at kill points, you'll suck at objectives.
I myself will balance my armies for either mission vs any race. If only everyone did the same, there would be alot less whining.

[ESHARP]

To get back to the original entry, the scoring was wrong.

[Banned Solorg]

The way the missions are set up encourages balanced armies.  Use too many units and you are punished in KP missions.  Use to few and you are punished objective missions.  It is important to balance out your force so that neither mission type causes too much trouble.   Armies that self-imbalance to do better in objective missions get punished for it.  Armies that self-imbalance for KP missions get punished for it.    I think it makes things interesting.

Good point, but I wonder - do we really want balanced armies all the time?  The player who just *has* to squeeze as many Space Marine Terminators into his army as he can for the "Cool" factor or the player who is trying to meet a certain unordinary theme may fall flat under the new random scenario system.

Does there have to be an artificial way to encourage balance?  Shouldn't balanced be better by some other measure?

It used to be that your non-knowledge of the opponent you were about to face was all the incentive you needed to balance your army.  Now, it seems as if there is a new standard levied which forces this as well.

[premetheus]

It used to be that your non-knowledge of the opponent you were about to face was all the incentive you needed to balance your army.  Now, it seems as if there is a new standard levied which forces this as well.

Therein lies the problem did the old system encourage balance or not?

Also just because you have lots of kill points does not necessarily mean you're going to lose..

[Banned Solorg]

Yes, but why should balance be encouraged?  Is it wrong to tool your army for a specific purpose or to face a specific foe?  These armies shine in certain situations and fall far short in others - and that is the prize and the penalty of trying such a force.  So I suppose you can say that "un"balanced armies were encouraged and discouraged at the same time in the old edition.

Now, they're being double-discouraged.  But for what *reason*?  What is it about balanced armies that makes for a better game experience?  Or is it just a way to get players to expand their collection with a few more boxes of troops?

[premetheus]

Sorry I was talking from a tournament perspective I guess.

I agree balance is not always the best/fun thing and should not be forced on people guess they just set there stall out to say balanced armies = closer games = more fun overall.

As for selling more minis... ahh you're more a cynic than me

[Ailaros]

The way the missions are set up encourages balanced armies.  Use too many units and you are punished in KP missions.  Use to few and you are punished objective missions.  It is important to balance out your force so that neither mission type causes too much trouble.   Armies that self-imbalance to do better in objective missions get punished for it.  Armies that self-imbalance for KP missions get punished for it.    I think it makes things interesting.

I totally agree.

Marines: 1 troop choice, 200 points: 1kp
Guard: 1 troop choice, 200 points, 4kp

Marines: 1 troop choice, 200 points: 1 scoring unit
Guard: 1 troop choice, 200 points, 4 scoring units

So, the way I see it, how a list preforms in kill points is EXACTLY equal and opposite to how well they do in seize ground. You might as well have titled this thread ""seize ground" neuters some armies?"

Cry all you want about you bringing 20 kill points to an opponent's 4, but then you get to laugh it to the bank in an objectives mission when you kill off his two scoring units, and then he has to spend the rest of the game trying to blow your 15 off of them.

If you want to complain about one, you have to complain about both. A valid thing to do, perhaps, as these missions do, indeed, favor certain armies by their mere construction, but most of last edition's scenarios were also unfair too (it's not like it was a holy grail, or anything).

[Derikari]

Except, soon it would be...

Marines: 1 troop choice, 200 points: 2 scoring units
Marines: 1 troop choice, 200 points: 1 kill point

Codex Marines would be getting combat squads and can manipulate their own forces to match the mission with absolutely no changes to their armylist, whereas Guard just stay platoon through and through.

I never liked kill points since I first heard its rumour, way too much favour to durable elites in my eyes. But that doesn’t matter, it’s here now and everyone has to just live with it...

[Banned Solorg]

Sorry I was talking from a tournament perspective I guess.

I agree balance is not always the best/fun thing and should not be forced on people guess they just set there stall out to say balanced armies = closer games = more fun overall.

As for selling more minis... ahh you're more a cynic than me

Ah, maybe it is true

But yes, I agree players are free to ignore some of the new rules if desired - for example, if they want to, they can still play for VP.  For that matter, they can also stay with 4th.

[Sapphon]

Except, soon it would be...

Marines: 1 troop choice, 200 points: 2 scoring units
Marines: 1 troop choice, 200 points: 1 kill point

Codex Marines would be getting combat squads and can manipulate their own forces to match the mission with absolutely no changes to their armylist, whereas Guard just stay platoon through and through.

Correct.  The new KP/objectives missions were designed to make Combat Squads a feared and respected ability.

[bca11]

Just curious, if you aren't dealing with multiple FOC's or Apocalypse, how do you get 15 scoring units?  I though 6 troops was max for everyone.  Is it a special IG thing? 

[Gwaihir]

IG force organization is a bit different than that of other armies.  They get more than one unit per troop choice on the FOC.  I believe the minimum number of units they can field to occupy both troops slots is four.

[premetheus]

Correct.  The new KP/objectives missions were designed to make Combat Squads a feared and respected ability.

At what point do you have to decide which of the two they are? Have not read DA codex sorry.

[Derikari]

During deployment. The rule allows the Marine player tailor his army, without modifying the list, to the opponent, situation and mission.

[Daedalus_Mk_V]

The way the missions are set up encourages balanced armies.  Use too many units and you are punished in KP missions.  Use to few and you are punished objective missions.  It is important to balance out your force so that neither mission type causes too much trouble.   Armies that self-imbalance to do better in objective missions get punished for it.  Armies that self-imbalance for KP missions get punished for it.    I think it makes things interesting.

I totally agree.

Marines: 1 troop choice, 200 points: 1kp
Guard: 1 troop choice, 200 points, 4kp

Marines: 1 troop choice, 200 points: 1 scoring unit
Guard: 1 troop choice, 200 points, 4 scoring units

So, the way I see it, how a list preforms in kill points is EXACTLY equal and opposite to how well they do in seize ground. You might as well have titled this thread ""seize ground" neuters some armies?"

Cry all you want about you bringing 20 kill points to an opponent's 4, but then you get to laugh it to the bank in an objectives mission when you kill off his two scoring units, and then he has to spend the rest of the game trying to blow your 15 off of them.

If you want to complain about one, you have to complain about both. A valid thing to do, perhaps, as these missions do, indeed, favor certain armies by their mere construction, but most of last edition's scenarios were also unfair too (it's not like it was a holy grail, or anything).

Actually, I'm not complaining about either when it comes to any army except for IG. Any other army can be balanced to be equally effective in either mission (and, as previously stated, thanks to Combat Squads Marines get a significantly easier time balancing their army). I have no trouble with it in relation to my Tau; sure, some units are now a little bit less valuable, but it's not like you can't achieve a healthy balance. The problem is that IG cannot be balanced with their current ruleset. An IG army will always have more distinct units than the enemy, it will always have more than double the Kill Points of a well-balanced MEq force, and as such it will always be massively advantaged or massively crippled depending on which mission is rolled.

[Lucky_Jackal]

IG force organization is a bit different than that of other armies.  They get more than one unit per troop choice on the FOC.  I believe the minimum number of units they can field to occupy both troops slots is four.

A platoon (witch occupies one FOC slot) is acculy 3-6 units. 2 infatry squades and a Command Squad min. The plattoon can have up to 5 infatry units witch with Command is 6 units max in one FOC slot.

Not to mention the Gaurd HQ is a command squad that can then have all kinds of crazy kind of units attached to it, that too only take up one slot. (Heavy Weapon and special weapon squads are a example. Sentinels also.)

There for with 6 troop slots a IG army can in fact fit in 38 scoreing units, with-in the FOC. Only problem is finding the points for 38 scoreing units. lol.

[bca11]

I still think it puts things in favor of those with good troops choices.  What do eldar have?  Dire avengers are good if you bring them in bladestorming. Don't expect them to hold the objective they just took though, because now they can't shoot.  Guardians suck, with no range, no save (against most things), and low S & T.  Jetbikes are good, but freaking expensive (I still don't have any).  Rangers can hold an objective in cover, but not take one.  Wraithguard, well they may be the best option for holding an objective, but when you need 10 to be a troops choice, plus a farseer and warlock to give it its resilience, its almost 500 points.  Nurgle is now the best army for 5th.

[Sanctjud]

My Nurgle Sense are tingling...

"Quoted from bca11:
Nurgle is now the best army for 5th."

That sounds good.

___________________ ____________

I agree it's a balance..... my 2000 point CSM army has 12 KP to lose... 5KP are the 'fragile' things.... like the 3 RHino's and 20 lesser daemons... but these options help for 2/3 of the games with objective and scoring.... while I accept that I'll need to kill more stuff in Annihilation and baby the 'fragile stuff'.

My 7 Cents.