Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Alright - time for an epiphany.
5th edition came out with its three deployments and three mission types. It was a really great concept which provided for many different types of games "out of the box".
But then we, the player community, complained about "Kill Points". Why should a unit of 19 grots be worth the same as a Land Raider when the final accounting for the game is done? "That doesn't make any sense" some cried. "It's just stupid!" others complained.
So we, on our own, decided to break it. The gaming community as a collective whole has decided to ignore that rule and instead use "victory points". You see it in normal games. You see it in tournaments.
But what effect has this had on the game as a whole. Was ignoring the Kill Point rule a good or bad thing?
To answer that you need to think about the reason for the rule. Very few people think about the "why" behind the rules. WHY would GW add, what appears on the surface, such an idiotic rule?
Look at the missions. One mission is to claim multiple objectives. One is to hold your own while claiming another. Another is to kill more enemy units than your enemy kills. All three missions are driving you to build an army with the following parameters:
1 - You army needs to be able to claim objectives. You need troops. You need troops to back up your troops. You need the ability to change other units into troops, as you see more and more in the new codexes.
2 - You need to be able to get in there and contest objectives. You need "deathstar" and fast units to do this. Clearing an objective isn't good enough. You need to clear it and ensure your opponent can't jump on it in the last turn.
3 - You need to ensure that your army isn't spammed with small units, ICs, vehicles, etc., so you don't lose Kill Points.
Think about it for a couple of minutes. Most people think that GW made up the Kill Point rules because they just had a bit too much to drink. Or perhaps it was a bad joke.
No, Kill Points was an effort to balance the game. Remember, they know what is in the pipeline for future codexes. They knew that there were going to be some really cheap builds that spammed different units. They knew that they planned on dropping the cost of transports across the board.
Look at the first codexes to drop after 5E: Space Marines and Imperial Guard. Both codexes allowed for the manipulation of their army for Kill Point purposes: combat squads (SM) and combined squads (IG). This was to provide a HUGE advantage IF you selected a certain unit. So, obviously, they designed those armies to be built around those units.
Everyone loves to hate GW for the mech spam and MSU spam lists, but in reality, that is something that WE, the players, created by ignoring the Kill Point rule and using Victory Points instead. The missions were designed to force the meta-game in a certain direction, to provide more balanced lists and prevent the “new codex is king” concept.
But because we broke the rules, the game becomes “unbalanced” and people complain that GW doesn’t know how to balance a game.
Don’t get me wrong – I think that is a good thing. I enjoy the idea that I never know what I am going to face on the table. There is really no possible way to make an “all-purpose” army anymore because there are just too many variations for builds in each codex. I love the “new codex is king” concept because it forces better tactics from everyone (here’s a hint: no codex is king – they can all be beaten). I think the chaotic nature of the game is what makes it interesting. I actually love the fact that there are simply some armies I cannot beat with a certain build I have. And the opposite is true. There are some armies and builds that simply can’t touch me. THAT forces change in tactics and builds, which makes the whole experience more dynamic.
“Competitive” players may disagree because they see it as being unbalanced. It is difficult to play a game in a competitive format when the rules are constantly in flux. It would be like playing chess, but every turn your pawns have a different rule. How can you play that competitively?
It forces players to become experienced with their army, and that takes years. The “pick the latest and play” gamers really struggle. Yes, there are exceptions, such as those who have played way too many games and no longer see the army but see the units, stats, and abilities only (mechanical players, imho).
So, overall, I think it is a good thing. It annoys me when players pour the hate onto GW, but it is a good thing that WE took control of the game.
How many people use "victory points" overkill points? Granted, I haven't played a lot of tournaments, but kill points have always been used for non-objective based missions.
Last edited by sim_james; June 19th, 2011 at 13:36.
A well written and thoughtful post.
Both my local gaming group, and the local club in the next town over have stuck faithfully with kill points. The only time vctory points come into play is deciding contested objectives in Apoc.
If you're trying to build a balanced, all-comers list, then you have to strike a mix between a KP heavy list, which may handicap you in 1/3 of the games you play and a flexible/mobile list which can deal with objectives in the other 2/3.
With that said though, new-codex-is-king still prevails, but that is because it is part of GW's marketing strategy. If it's newer and shinier and slightly better than the previous then people will be tempted to pick up another army, just to enjoy the top of the hill feeling (*cough* Paladins *cough*) until the next new thing comes along, or until the rest of the gaming group works out how to counter the surprises that come with the new.
I have too many armies to list in my signature!
We typically use kill points over any other type of game. However, in the instance of playing horde armies, we have considered victory points instead for such games. I think you will see a different body of rules, missions, scoring and game types with 6th edition rulebook anyway. Again, I agree that this post is thoughtful and well written, albeit a bit long to read!
Am I the only one that's much more bothered by the whole objective based structure, then by the killpoints? I mean I haven't played that much 40k, but it sort of looks like a whole lot more draws happen compared to fantasy, and that those draws often enough come not by virtue of both sides fighting an even battle, and much more by virtue of owning jump infantry.
The Silver Knights of Tor Adrac (He): 26/2/4
The Spears of Slaanesh (Woc): 7/2/5
Battlegroup Chalybso (GK): 7/3/3
I don't think using VPs over KPs is the reason for Mech MSU spam. With current rules the vehicles are just so damn good and Mech MSU does two things: Saves points from infantry for more vehicles and gets you many units for objective-grabbing.
The KPs balance this a bit, but Mech MSU is very good in 2/3rds of games and kinda sucky in 1/3rd of games so its a risk you can take. The problem is that if you lose the KPs and start to use VPs Mech MSU becomes a no-brainer choice. There is simply no risk in it anymore. And no, I don't think Horde armies are a reason to lose KPs. Big hordes with not-so-many units are balanced by the objective-based missions.
Seriously, the 5th edition WH40K is designed to be played with the missions in the rulebook. Similarly 8th edition WHFB is designed to be played with the missions in the rulebook. Ignore the missions and go for "just-kill" VPs approach and the end result is that you make the game even more unbalanced than it already is.
Revenant Moon Necrons: (W/L/D) 0/1/0 (6th edition: 13/2/2)(5th edition: 14/6/4)(3rd edition Codex: 16/4/7)
XIX Legion: (W/L/D) 0/0/0 (5th edition: 14/12/2)(5th edition Codex: 4/3/0)
Black Legion: (W/L/D) 1/0/0 (6th edition: 2/3/0)
Something Wicked... Reikwald Beastmen: (W/L/D) 10/4/1
The only issue I have with kill points is with dedicated transports, spawned units, and stuff like the drones on tau vehicles. I don't think either of those should count.
As long as the aboved mentioned counts as a kill point, certain styles of army are just not viable if a kill point mission comes up. As a mech-ork player, at 2000 pts I use up all but one force org slot, and come with 5 dedicated transports. If it's a kill points game, I have to wipe my opponent off the field to ever win.
it would also lead to madness with DE and (some) IG armies for both of those forces can/do use their transports to do a lot of heavy lifting within their lists.KP making anything non viable is pure myth, there are so many factors in any given KP battle that having a high number of them can either mean everything or nothing. My DE army sits at 14Kp at 1500 - roughly double the typical marine army and all of it is much less resistant to damage.As long as the aboved mentioned counts as a kill point, certain styles of army are just not viable if a kill point mission comes up. As a mech-ork player, at 2000 pts I use up all but one force org slot, and come with 5 dedicated transports. If it's a kill points game, I have to wipe my opponent off the field to ever win.
I have 27 kill points at 2k, and about 22-24 of them at 1.5k. The good stuff in the Orks codex is often low-points. My 12 man squad(max for transport), with the usual upgrades in a truck, is 152 points. My fast attack slots are 70 points for two buggies. Certain armies are just not good at kill point missions, because of how the codex is made.
And if my opponent wants to do a LR spam, I would thank him. LR are very defensive, but they don't have the killing power to really be threatening. I can't think of any other vehicle that can be used as a dedicated transport that would be annoying.
Because the vendetta for IG, I don't think anything can take it as a dedicated transport, and I know orks can take battle wagons but they also aren't really that good at killing things either.