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!
I’m unable to go to the Warhammer World Design Studio Open Day on the 14th which is a shame cause I really wanted to ask one dire question to the designers of the 5th edition rules…
“Why have you replaced victory points with kill points, won’t it make the game unbalanced?”
I’ve seen the new rule book and its stats that you are rewarded 1 kill point for every enemy unit, vehicle or character you kill, now I feel that this will make the game very unbalanced!
Now guard players rely on squads of 5 and 10 that are around 85pts each, we have no real armour or large units (with the exception of conscripts). My guard army in total will include 16 easy kill points compared to an average marine army and includes around 8 which is an immediate disadvantage on our part.
My favourite unit in my army is my 75pt deep striking vets they have always got at least double their points worth in games but now they will be a no more than an easy kill point for my opponent it doesn’t matter if I took out a terminator squad with them I’ll still get only 1 kill point for it making them almost unless!
I went down to my GW to see what my local manager had to say about this and he says that guard will excel in objective missions cause 1 lonely guardsmen will still count as a scoring unit. But when it comes to the 'Annihilation' mission (5th's seek and destroy) guard are completely screwed unless we completely wipe out are opponents army and how often will that happen!
Does GW expect guard players to take their armies to the Tournaments knowing that if that mission is drawn they have pretty much lost the round?
So can someone please explain to me how the average guard army can stand a chance of winning an ‘Annihilation’ Mission?
First, chill out. This is a board game with toy soldiers.
Second, I'm not sure myself. I think we're shafted until the new dex comes out. I believe the new dex will do something so that platoons count for a kill point or something similar. In the meantime, we'll have to re-evaluate how we play our armies for annihilation. I'm sure GW figured this would be an issue for certain armies. We'll just have to hold tight and be clever.
Also, you'll have to make your list more generic and less min-maxed to handle this. Maybe only take one suicide drop squad instead of 3? Also, the kill point system was designed expressly for stuff like those drop suicide squads. You'll need to rethink how you go about winning games.
Pretty much, GW is a toolbox that didn't think this one through at all.
If you look at it, the Annihilation mission is not much more than a "kill them all" Victory Points game with a, wait for it.... Unfair and unbalanced victory points system!
Huzzah! Good freakin' job GW.
Considering that a lot of our tactics revolve around trading lives (break and shoot, split deployment, suicide teams etc) we really are shafted for quite a while.Shows a pretty piss poor understanding of a tournament system IMO, where the victor is often required to win all of his games. Something an annihilation mission makes a very difficult task, particularly if you draw it in the later rounds which will be against better opponents. So you win all your games until we get to the last one, which is annihilation. Gamer over there. Really that's almost as bad as Jervis' comment when questioned over the rather extreme power of Lash of Submission, his answer being that people should remember that Lash of Submission doesn't explicitly kill anything itself...I went down to my GW to see what my local manager had to say about this and he says that guard will excel in objective missions cause 1 lonely guardsmen will still count as a scoring unit.
Anyway I digress. At the moment about the best we can do really is to just modify our armies to lighten the hit as much as possible, that means removing things like suicide teams (which we can do) and potentially adding in more armour as it's becoming harder to kill. People using multiple sentinel teams might want to look into grouping them together as much as possible, though that has its own drawbacks.
Last edited by Triumph Of Man; June 7th, 2008 at 23:21.
... only triumph could turn pooing his pants into a good thing..
Besides as Triumph Of Man said "a lot of our tactics revolve around trading lives (break and shoot, split deployment, suicide teams etc)" this is practically how nearly all guard armies work.
DAMN I REALLY WANT TO GO ASK THE 5TH EDITION DESIGNERS WHY THEY THINK THIS IS BALANCED ON THE OPEN DAY!
I haven't played enough games with kill points, in fact none as the rules aren't technically out yet, and neither have the two you to render any final judgment on the matter. Why don't you play a couple of games first in the next two months, with the rules and see how it works?
It seems to me that in annihilation, carapace armor, chemilioline, and some other doctrines would become much more viable. Mechanized wouldn't hurt either as transports don't count towards the point total IIRC.
Last edited by Dr. Paris; June 8th, 2008 at 00:08.
They cant be telling the whole story at this time. Theirs no way that any amount of play testing (even small amounts) could ever reveal that this was a fair rule. Puting out unfair rules for whatever reason is a bad idea for a company. If their customers get annoyed they stop buying=bad business
Im sure their was a paragraph or 2 that was skipped over for the prerelease. that paragraph could be the part that says "1 spot on the FOC=1 kill point." or somthing to that effect.
"Thank him who puts me loath to this revenge on you who wrong me not for him who wrongd"
Well if im not msitaking, and I might be I only read through the store copy of the 5th ed rule book lightly, the killpoints most likly wont be a magor part of every tourament. Go and look at some of the older missions and youll see that alot of the magor objectives might be victory points but all the secondary objectives and other lesser objectives can out weight it and have nothing to do with the victory points. SO yeah we'll have to think around this one but so are alot of other armys, ei nids and orks, so we arent the only army getting the short end of the stick.
I say we shut up and work around it for now and wait for the next codex which should deal with a few of the big problems and Im sure GW will release an FAQ that might shed some good light on the subject and give hoard armies an exception rule, though Im not getting my hopes over that one.
However after my reading of the 5th ed rules, . . . .anyone else feel like Space Marines and their many variants arn barely affected by the rule changes?
Then there's the fact that you should always outgun a marine army, and thats not going to change in the new ruleset - making that 1 for 1 trade off more difficult for your opponent to achieve. The way I see it, marines will probably be just as easy to deal with in the new rules as they are now. Shooty marines - you will outgun them. Hth marines - you will outgun them, then sacrifice a couple of kill points to finish the enemy off. And with no such thing as area terrain, its not like those assault squads can hide as easily behind rubble during their approach anymore, is it? And who cares about them getting lots of 4+ cover saves when you have 15 heavy bolters?
Also, if you randomly choose your mission types, kill points will only be important in 1/3 of your games. In the other games, all those cheap IG infantry units will be scoring down to the last man! Then there's the really cheesy options available to us, such as: take light infantry, and bring your entire army on from the table edges. Combine that with drop troops, and BAM! The most tactically flexible army in existance.
Cameleoline? There's going to be a lot of 4+ cover saves in 5th ed. These will all become 3+ with this doctrine. And with the new 'go to ground' pinning option, they will have minimum 5+ out in the open, and probably 2+ when in cover!!! That's a squad thats going to hold an objective.
People say close combat will be brutal and fast: -1 to your Ld for every extra meatshield you lost compared to the grunts your opponent lost. Well, if this worries you, take chem-inhalers. Problem solved!
I can also imagine that a lot more commissars (and priests) will be used - hidden powerfists galore, and the ability to make a squad effectively fearless will help when those massive casualties would otherwise make your squad run when you dont want it to.
Grenadiers as troops choices. This is a good thing! Also, those krak grenades they carry will prove invaluable, as you always strike vehicles on their rear armour! If the enemy does it to our leman russ, you do it back to their predator/vindicator. Not so much to their ludicrously expensive (non scoring unit) landraider, but who cares - you've probably got at least 4 meltaguns within range anyway.
We've gotta stop worrying about the bad things that 5th ed might bring, and start thinking about how we can make things awesome instead! Plan for the bad, and bring on the crazy.
Rant over 8X :party:
"Pickles, the drummer, doodily doo. (Ding-dong, doodily, doodily, doo.)"
Also, you should google "garfield minus garfield". Awesome.
Here in lies the problem though, we cannot afford to trade Kill Points like we trade Victory Points.There are quite a lot of things in the new rules that will heavily weigh towards the IG over other armies such as marines. Such as the new consolidation rules - after combat, you cannot consolidate into another enemy unit. If you set up your gunlines properly, this will effectively mean that you will be trading kill points with your opponent.
Think about it, current break 'n' shoot countermeasures allow you to trade a 70pt Infantry Squad for a 250pt Assault Marine squad. If it goes wrong? If the dice say no and they don't all die? Then maybe he'll get another unit, but you'll most likely remove the threat next turn and still walk away ahead on VPs.
Now under Kill Points we don't get ahead. He'll kill your 10 guardsmen and score one victory point, and you'll get one back when you kill him. Stalemate. Despite the fact that you may have wiped out century old veterans and sacred equipment, apparently they're worth as much as ten idiots in flak armour. Go figure.
And this problem is compounded under target density. Even compared to Orks and Tyranids we often have a lot more scoring units on the field because of the rigid squad/platoon structures. Thus under kill points a lot more units to score off. I played against Daemons recently and under these Kill Point rules would have lost because apparently, I didn't kill as much as him. Never mind the fact that my entire left flank is more or less untouched. Never mind the fact he's only two units left on the board.
Same goes for last time I played against drop pod marines over vassal. I would have lost because my units are nice and squishy and easy for rapidfiring bolters to eliminate in one round of firing. Let alone the subsequent turns of attack. And yet it doesn't matter that I'm the only one with models left on the board at the end of the game. He would have won because, once again, apparently what he killed was more valuable.
Despite the fact we can and will outnumber MEQ armies 2:1, it really is common for some of their units to account for more than ten guardsmen during a game. Under kill points attrition of the army, our main strength, becomes virtually worthless because it's all about the survivability of the individual model, which I'm sure you'll all agree we're pretty low down on the list there.They however can adapt easily, we're not so lucky.SO yeah we'll have to think around this one but so are alot of other armys, ei nids and orks, so we arent the only army getting the short end of the stick.
Adaptation? Here's our next big problem. The easiest way to adapt to kill points is to simply take large units and minimise the MSU parts of your list. Orks and Tyranids can handle this, small broods and mobs can be grouped together into large ones. 180-250pts can easily be sunk into one unit, thus one possible kill point.
But the IG? One word: Platoons. That same 180-250pt ratio is going to be stuck in a minimum of 3 Kill Points, god forbid you're like me and take a platoon larger than the minimum requirements. Grenediers are great and all, but to be truly useful they require a rather specific army set up, something a lot of us don't have.
Now before any of you start uttering "What about Conscripts?" I have to mention that under the new LD and CC rules, they're probably going to be utter crap. They can't perform as a CC tarpit unit anymore. And once again it comes back to the individual survivability of our models. Supposedly negative modifiers now rack up like they do in fantasy, each kill you lose by is a -1 to LD. So, Raptors charge your Conscripts, kill 8, you probably kill maybe one back if you're lucky? So it's a Neg -7 to your LD. Commissar shoots a Conscript so they pass, now it's your turn, you lose another buttload of Conscripts who now don't have the backing of the Summary Execution rule and promptly bugger off because of the continued buttload of negative modifiers to your LD value.
Raptors take their turn and proceed to cause extreme shenanigans in your army.
And that's not mentioning the other issue of conscripts under 5th ed, LOS blocking being the particular one.In summary, under my experiences it has never been difficult for opposing armies with a skilled general to trade at least 1 for 1 when it comes for squads, usually they'll manage to hit somewhere between a 1-2:1 trade off. But that didn't matter under Victory Points, because we'd make the trade off under our terms and score ahead from each one. Not so under Kill Points.Then there's the fact that you should always outgun a marine army, and thats not going to change in the new ruleset - making that 1 for 1 trade off more difficult for your opponent to achieve.Please, be serious. Lash had so many freaking problems with interpretations and it took them more than half a year to simply clarify what the hell was going on. And they didn't even do it themselves, they got this guy called "Yakface" to do it for them. And to compound matters "Yakface" managed to arguably one up GW themselves on stupid rules, allowing the dying race of all armies to shoot into close combat on the basis that their gun is indiscriminate.I say we shut up and work around it for now and wait for the next codex which should deal with a few of the big problems and Im sure GW will release an FAQ that might shed some good light on the subject and give hoard armies an exception rule, though Im not getting my hopes over that one.
Indiscriminate... what? So what? My battlecannons are pinpoint precision weapons with their scatter dice in contrast to a gun that fires in a dead straight line? And the resulting Ordnance blast is so discriminate that it magically never harms guardsmen?
Last edited by Triumph Of Man; June 8th, 2008 at 10:51.
... only triumph could turn pooing his pants into a good thing..