6th ed rumors

[gcsmith]

Kill points should be secondary objective only, after all some armies losing a unit means nothing yet to some it means everything, they shouldnt be worth the same in the end of the game, I mean a 1000 point paladin squad shouldnt be equal to a 10 man guard squad.

All games should have an objective and kill points be used to say in case of draw person with most KP wins or person with most kill points counts as having 1 bonus objective

[DrLove42]

Kill points should stay.

It theoretically hepls limit lists that are 6 troops, 3 elites, 3 heavy all in ded transports.

The MSU lists are out there, but KP gives them a weakness which helps control the competition.

Also don't confuse KP with VP. VP is the points killed, and is always ssecondary. KP is how many complete units. Yes it sucks in games where you've killed everything but 1 man in every squad and therefore get 0 points. But its just a case of keeping your eyes on the objectives then

[Kawauso]

Sure KP 'curbs' MSU (are those lists a problem though, really?), but what about hordes?

Horde armies suffer from KP, especially if they have (God forbid) sacrificial/expendable units.

Hell, my Guard/Nid armies are entirely based around hordes of expendable fellas...Kill Points seem really stupid and unbalanced from that perspective. =/

I mean, let's say you go up against a Draigowing army, for example - unless you table them, how are you supposed to win?

[Wildeybeast]

Sure KP 'curbs' MSU (are those lists a problem though, really?), but what about hordes?

Horde armies suffer from KP, especially if they have (God forbid) sacrificial/expendable units.

Hell, my Guard/Nid armies are entirely based around hordes of expendable fellas...Kill Points seem really stupid and unbalanced from that perspective. =/

I mean, let's say you go up against a Draigowing army, for example - unless you table them, how are you supposed to win?

The stupid thing is that you could actually wipe out every single unit they have and still end up losing on kill points. I have played one game with my nids where I have conceded on turn 4 because it was mathmatically impossible for me to win on the kill points sytem, even though I had most of my big killy units ready to munch the enemy. They gunned down my cheap spam, which is what they are there for, but took out more of them than they had units.

[Old_Paladin]

The stupid thing is that you could actually wipe out every single unit they have and still end up losing on kill points.

If you table an opponent, you always win, regardless of other mission conditions.

[DrLove42]

The stupid thing is that you could actually wipe out every single unit they have and still end up losing on kill points. .

No you can't. Annihalation confers immediate victory

Think of ti this way. Its a Multiplayer FPS. What game modes are there....Territories and Deathmatch.

Its possible to lose Territories evn if you have more kills. its about playing the mission.

KP adds variety. Who wants every game to be about objectives?

[Morgan Darkstar]

Alternatively who cares if you lose. HAVE FUN!

[Kawauso]

You can lose and have fun. That's not the issue.

The issue is a game type where the scoring system favours certain armies over others, to the point where in some instances you have almost no chance of winning.

That's different from 'who cares if you lose, have fun'. That's 'you can't win, but you should still have fun!' Which is BS, honestly.

As for DrLove:
I don't think anyone is arguing that Annihilation games should be replaced with another objective-based game. It's just that the KP system is a flawed way of determining victory.

[Old_Paladin]

Has everyone forgot that KP are a balance system to objective missions?

An army that only has 4 total units is going to have a hard time with objectives; an the army with tons of units takes a hit on KPs.

You have to make choices, knowing your own tactics, the potential missions and the potential opponents; don't blame the game system when its something you've actively done.

[Morgan Darkstar]

You can lose and have fun. That's not the issue.

The issue is a game type where the scoring system favours certain armies over others, to the point where in some instances you have almost no chance of winning.

That's different from 'who cares if you lose, have fun'. That's 'you can't win, but you should still have fun!' Which is BS, honestly.

Almost no chance of winning? BS! what armies are you referring to? tyranids, necrons? tau?

I have won with these armies in KP games. "edit" & Objective games

Just as i have lost with space marines & space wolves.

People who whine about how one army has an advantage over another have lost sight of the point of the game.

disadvantages and overcoming them are part of the fun, stop seeing them as a bad thing.

[rickyard]

But what was the problem with Victory points? you had to make maths for three minutes after having played a game for TWO HOURS??? Kill points are not fair, if some units are more expensive than others when you begin playing, it is not logical to make them worth the same once the game is finished. And it doesn't matter if I choose VP or KP, I always loose everygame with my Tau army. It is a matter that every single unit isn't worth the points i pay, as i am paying for rules that, as the last FAQ said you have to "just ignore" them, but they existed when the points were calculated. So victory points achieved by my partner is higher. Why FAQ about old codex don't change values of units acordingly? :)

[DarkLink]

Almost no chance of winning? BS! what armies are you referring to? tyranids, necrons? tau?

I have won with these armies in KP games.

Just as i have lost with space marines & space wolves.

People who whine about how one army has an advantage over another have lost sight of the point of the game.

disadvantages and overcoming them are part of the fun, stop seeing them as a bad thing.


And, while you might argue that some armies are better at killpoints than others, you inherently argue that those same armies are weaker at objective games because they likely have fewer scoring units. And since 2/3 of the missions are objectives...

[DrLove42]

One of the big arguments people seem to use against KP is that "You can kill more of an enemy, but because I have more units I lose!"

Same can be said about objectives. You could kill an enitre 2000 point army down to a sinlge Ork and still liose if hes on an objective and you're not.

Its about playing the game!

[Lerra]

My biggest problem with KP is that it discourages people from using units that are fragile and cheap, like Tau gun drone units or piranhas.

I run 'em anyway because they are fun, but my 2000 point Tau list is something like 28 KP.

[Lockark]

My biggest problem with KP is that it discourages people from using units that are fragile and cheap, like Tau gun drone units or piranhas.

I run 'em anyway because they are fun, but my 2000 point Tau list is something like 28 KP.

I don't think it discourages Fragile or cheap units. It discourages people from using them as cheap throw-away suicide units.

Fragile Units allot of times still carry about impotent roles in making a army function. You just have to be more carefully with them. (As I can imagine you can speak 1st hand for, being that you enjoy using such units.)

[Wildeybeast]

I don't think it discourages Fragile or cheap units. It discourages people from using them as cheap throw-away suicide units.

So what else do you use cheap units for if not as throw away suicide units? I can't think of any cheap units which serve a purpose other than being flung headlong at the enemy. The only reason units like ripper swarms exist as as living roadblocks, they serve no purpose other than to die. Why on earth should I be discouraged from using them for their expressly designed purpose?

[Old_Paladin]

So what else do you use cheap units for if not as throw away suicide units? I can't think of any cheap units which serve a purpose other than being flung headlong at the enemy. The only reason units like ripper swarms exist as as living roadblocks, they serve no purpose other than to die. Why on earth should I be discouraged from using them for their expressly designed purpose?

They can be useful in other ways.
A 10 man unit of grots is a cheap way hold a backfield objective, or can be placed in a battlewagon to make it scoring after its main payload of boyz has been dropped off.

3 man units of guardian jetbikes aren't very effective on their own, but with turboboost, they make great late game objective grabbers/deniers.

[Lockark]

They can be useful in other ways.
A 10 man unit of grots is a cheap way hold a backfield objective, or can be placed in a battlewagon to make it scoring after its main payload of boyz has been dropped off.

3 man units of guardian jetbikes aren't very effective on their own, but with turboboost, they make great late game objective grabbers/deniers.

Yah. That's the kinda things I'm talking about.

Then in Killpoints you use thows 3 man jetbike squads to chase down thows 1 man left space marine squads, that your opponent will try to hide in the back field to denied you kill points for example.

[Wildeybeast]

For orks that is fine but what about Nids? If I want to leave my small cheap units to hang back for objectie grabbing, then I have to babysit them with a much more expensive synapse creature. My ripper swarms literally start eating themselves if I don't. And adding a synapse creature suddenly stops them being cheap throw away units. Yes it's ok if I'm playing objective games, that the whole point, but I have a one in three chance of geting punished for having an army list filled with many cheap, easy to kill troops that I had to select in case an objective game came up.

My point is, VP's were fair and worked, why get rid of them in favour of system that hampers some armies?

[Old_Paladin]

My point is, VP's were fair...

Except that some armies were very good at playing the VP denial game; which made it unfair.

Good luck beating a a good Necron player that had two maxed units of Warriors, a lord with Res. orb, and 3 monoliths.
Or a well built mechdar army; with those unkillable falcons and wave serpents, safely hiding the most expensive units possible.

[DarkLink]

VPs can be gamed just like killpoints. I remember figuring out little things in 4th ed on how to make it just that more difficult for my opponent to collect VPs.

Keep in mind that, while lots of weak units are at a disadvantage with scoring, MSU (multiple small unit) armies have a solid mathmatical advantage when it comes to shooting damage output and durability. Take a Driagowing army with 4-5 units vs a Razorback spam list, and while those 4-5 Paladin units will probably each kill a Razorback easily, they can only target a handful per turn, and they waste a lot more firepower doing it. The Razorspam list can then put one lascannon at a time into the Driago list, with much more efficiency of firepower.

To balance out the fact that MSU armies have a distinct firepower advantage, we have Killpoints. Running MSU means that you risk giving your opponent an easy(er) victory in one of the three mission types.

[HsojVvad]

I think the reason most people still complain about KP is that they do not make an all comers list army for ALL 3 scenarios but only 2 out of 3 scenarios that don't involve KP. That is what KP is for. To make you choose not to take so many scoring uints and keep your army smaller just in case you play KP missions.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, you play for only 2/3 of the missions, you'll pay in the other one.

And ultimately, things like Tau drones are an awkward something left over from 4th ed. If Tau get a new codex there will be something to smooth out the issue of having a ton of easy killpoints from stuff like drones. Assuming 6th ed keeps killpoints in some fashion.

[rickyard]

Never used kill points. Units don't have the same value for some reason. perhaps would you even consider the option to play a game without using points to balance?, Imagine just saying "five units against five units. One HQ allowed, doesn't matter the values" Would be crazy, but that's exactly what we do when the game finishes, we reduce everything to number of units.

[musical-fool]

I don't know if this is relevant or been mentioned already but in France, every GW store has been given a SM Army that they will be dedicated to. They have to make an army dedicated banner and display for a showcase at the next Games Day. Now this is around the end of May (unless I am mistaken) which would coincide with the release of 6th Ed for the Summer 2012...

Is this happening elsewhere?

I'm pleased to say that Lyon will be dedicated to The Lion, cheesy? Maybe...:rolleyes:

The only thing against this theory is that as far as I am aware GD France has never had anything new or unexpected on show from GW...

[HsojVvad]

I don't know if this is relevant or been mentioned already but in France, every GW store has been given a SM Army that they will be dedicated to. They have to make an army dedicated banner and display for a showcase at the next Games Day. Now this is around the end of May (unless I am mistaken) which would coincide with the release of 6th Ed for the Summer 2012...

Is this happening elsewhere?

I'm pleased to say that Lyon will be dedicated to The Lion, cheesy? Maybe...:rolleyes:

The only thing against this theory is that as far as I am aware GD France has never had anything new or unexpected on show from GW...

Don't have a local GW store, so not sure what they are up to.

Had to laugh about the The Lion comment. Funny why pick an amry that nobody is supposedly playing? LOL (according to the rumour on what Phil Kelly said why DA is not being done at the momenet).

[musical-fool]

Don't have a local GW store, so not sure what they are up to.

Had to laugh about the The Lion comment. Funny why pick an amry that nobody is supposedly playing? LOL (according to the rumour on what Phil Kelly said why DA is not being done at the momenet).

I still think that DA have one of the more interesting Fluff lines out of the SM (this is obviously subjective) and the choice was undoubtedly a commercial one for Games Day France 2012.

[MarneusCalgar]

Well, let´s wait, sometimes the rumours tend more to be wishlists than reality