Kill points revised

Pete · Kill points revised

So I know some of us have lamented the implementation of "Kill Points" in 5th edition. I know I have, I think the system is broke as written in the book.

For the recent 'Ard Boyz tournaments worldwide, they issued a revised set of Kill point rules that I think the store should adopt. These are official scenario sheets for the 'Ard Boyz tournaments.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MED...40K_Ard_Boyz_Round1_Scenarios.pdf

In summary they read like this:
Troop Choices - 1 Kill Point
Fast Attack/Elites/Heavy Support - 2 Kill Points
HQ - 3 Kill Points
Dedicated Transports do not provide Kill Points

I think this is a decent, simple fix for the rule. While it's not great, now I can stop skipping annihilation games entirely.

-Peter

Groomie

Why stop with Kill Points? Let's house rule everything that doesn't make sense.

I am sure that the kill points revision is fine for 'Ard Boyz tournaments, but I don't think that is necessarily a good thing for standard format 40k. Honestly, the best route to take is to follow what is in the book and wait for the rumored Scenario Book to come out.

Personally, the book talks about generating the mission before your army list, so I say that you forget the entire Annihilation scenario. The win condition is wildly unbalanced and while winning truly isn't everything, it is nice to have a somewhat more level playing field for many armies that have yet to be updated for 4th edition, let alone 5th.

If we start to make house rules, then we might as well write our own rules and be like the New Johnson County Blood Bowl League. While Annihilation is easily one of the clearest examples of poor game design, if we start to adopt changes for that part of the game where do we stop? Everyone will be better players by sticking to the rulebook. Doing so means that when tournaments happen, everyone knows what they are doing. Following the rules, even the dumb ones, makes you all better players.

I'd like a house rule on wound assignment and casualty removal. I'd like one on Instant Death and Multi Wound Models. I'd like one on Fearless. I'd like one on Scouts/Infiltrate. There are a lot of rules that I don't agree with and I truly believe were made for the sake of making new rules. I don't think that is fair to change one rule without addressing all of these examples plus many more that I won't bother going into.

Stick with the book, guys. House rules are for cry babies, anyway.

Pete

I agree with what you're saying about house rules Groomie. I don't think that's a good idea. However, this rule is somewhat "official" as it comes down from "official" tournament rules. It's not much different than the original rule and it's easy to describe to someone who's never seen these scenarios. For example, if I were to sit down to play a game with someone I would ask: "Hey, do you mind that if we play an annhilation game, that we use the 'ard boyz tournament rule for kill points?". It isn't like: "Hey, I've got this little booklet of house rules that we've all decided to adopt here in the store because we don't like this laundry list of things in the new rulebook." Which is essentially what the NJCBBL rule book is (which can certainly drive away new players).

'ard boyz tournaments are essentially big games where victory is the most important goal, I don't think this adjustment for kill points breaks down in more friendly games, I think it's simple and reasonable for a quick fix to an unbalanced game mechanic (it isn't a great fix).

-Peter

Groomie

I don't agree that this "fix" is appropriate for normal gaming. 'Ardboyz Tournies are all about the most efficient lists with higher than normal, almost Apocolypse level, point values. That means a LOT more Elites/Heavy Support/Fast Attack/HQ choices on the board, which is why that change was made for that format.

'Ardboyz Tournies also expressly prohibit giving awards for sportsmanship or list construction. In my opinion, this is probably the most abusive and detrimental format for the game in terms of how players treat one another and how players build their armies and paint their models.

It isn't an official rules change to 40k as a game, and so I disagree with implementing it for standard games. I think a better "fix" for kill points in 5th edition would be using a scale based on the points values of the units. That way cheaper units would be worth less kill points. That is basically getting back to VPs for games, which is why I think that GW is shying away from it.

Pete

Well, aren't most elite/fast attack/heavy support choices about double the cost of a troops choice?

Take the new Space Marines:

I can get a 10 man tactical squad for around 180 points. My 10 man Devastator squad costs me 270 points, I'd say that's nearly twice the cost. Another example is my 10 man Assault squad, it costs me 320 points.

Making HQ worth 3 kill points means that wiping out that abusive character model like Abaddon or my Hive Tyrant actually means something for a game.

I agree that 'ard boyz is a decidedly nasty format for your average 40k gamer, but I think this little rule transcends that environment. I think it's a nice, semi-official change that I wouldn't mind at least trying out.

-Peter

Groomie

If we were talking about only Space Marines, that would be true. It's pretty easy to kill 6 Guardsmen in a heavy weapon squad that counts as an HQ choice. In fact, the Guard Army can have up to 7 HQ units in one HQ choice. And they are much easier to kill than Marines.

The fact is, that changing kill points based on the Organization Chart selection is just as dumb as having it be one kill point per unit. The only real answer for kill points is to have a scale like this:

1-85 points: 1 kill point
86- 100 points: 2 Kill points
101-200 points: 3 kill points
200-399 points: 4 kill points
400+ 5 kill points

That is much more effective, and it took me a whole 30 seconds to come up with it. This game isn't about chart choices, it is about the cost of the units in question. Units across the board aren't more or less expensive because of their location on an organization chart, they are pointed based on usefulness and (supposedly) their effectiveness against other armies.

This type of thinking (GW, not yours) is exactly why I am on strike in the first place. This concession for 'Ardboyz Tournies is ridiculous. If kill points weren't right in the first place, why were they even included in 5th edition?

If you want to try games this way, that is fine, but I really don't think ANY rules changes will be beneficial in the long term. GW clearly either does not care about kill points (or they would be different in the rulebook) or will be changing them in the future (probably with planet strike, if that ever comes out).

In closing, this isn't an official rules change for the main game, it is a Tournament Scoring Format change for one type of tournament. If you must change Kill Points, you will be doing everyone a bigger favor by using a scale like I proposed, rather than just upping the points on certain types of units.

lewitmann

I've played where you get the same number of points that the unit is worth. Also, if you kill at least half the points of a squad, or damage a vehicle, or wound a character you get half its value. This takes more time, but seems the most fair to me. If you make break points like 1 killpoint = 1-100 points, you get people planning their army to minimize killpoints. For example, units worth 199 points. That isn't necessarily bad. It does add another level of strategy to your army design.

Pete

Ideally, your chart is much better Groomie. I personally think they should just bring back the victory points chart from 4th edition, it certainly wasn't that difficult to understand, in fact they included it in the 5th edition book anyway!

So far, I've suggested to my opponents that when I play annihilation games, I'd like to use the victory points table. This was included to resolve "ties", but I honestly think someone talked them into putting it in because they knew that kill points were absurd.

I'm going to try the 'Ardboyz revised kill points chart and see how well it works out. I think the original thinking behind Kill Points was to make victory in the game easier to resolve for children and newbies. That being the case, they should have offered the victory point system as an alternative for everyone else.

-Peter

Groomie

My post responds to both previous posts by Pete and Iewittman:

Guy who I don't know, but seems cool (Iewittman):

I think that "a scale is bad because people will minimize their squads for kill points" is not a valid concern. It doesn't matter how small an individual unit is, it matters how many kill points in total they bring to the table. If I trim a unit to 199 from 220, I still have that 21 points to spend somewhere else, and that means that eventually I will either spend it to make another unit better or buy a whole new unit. Either way that would be reflected in the number of kill points I bring.

According to the 'Ardboyz Tournament adjustment, if I play Deathwing, I stand to gain a great deal. All my Terminators are Troops, unlike any other army, where they would be worth 2 points, they would be 1 point under the new "rules". Under mine, they would be 4 points, and there would be no way to make them worth less in terms of kill points because the minimum cost is 200 plus their squad weapon.

I think that a squad of Guardsmen is going to struggle to get above 150, and even if they get that high, they are still Guardsmen.

The valid concern about kill points is that they are awarded regardless of how easy the kill is to obtain. Why is a unit of Terminators worth the same as a unit of Guard? That is the concern. The culture of "This will make players worse by encouraging them to behave differently" is what got 5th edition into the hole that it is in.

I literally put 30 seconds into creating the scale I suggested. With a minimum amount of work, any intelligent person could come up with a fair one for Annihilation, which casts doubts over the average IQ at Games Workshop right now.

Pete:

I don't agree with your assessment of why kill points were used rather than victory points. I honestly think that you are giving GW far too much credit in their game design process. They included Kill Points because they thought it would be a good way to design their scenario.

They also let you ram vehicles in a suicidal fashion, but don't let you shoot into close combat because that would endanger your own troops.

GW has had a long and well documented history of making really bad decisions where game mechanics are concerned, and hopefully a real scenario book will be released that fixes these flaws.

Still patiently waiting for 6th edition,

lewitmann · alternative rules

This discussion makes me wonder if there is an alternative set of rules that can be used with 40k models. The miniatures are cool, the background is great, and a lot of people have put a lot of work into their armies. I enjoy 40k, but some of the rules I just don't like. Annihalation missions are the best example.

Groomie

I was thinking about that over christmas, myself.

Maybe instead of considering house rules, we should just make our own game. If anyone is interested, I have ALL the previous 40k rules, as well as rules for other minis games, like Warmachine, Hordes, and other sundry items.

wrekka

Pete

Groomie

That is victory points from 4th edition. You can thank 40k for it's inclusion in Fantasy.

Kill Points is a bad system, as evidenced by the changes for the 'Ardboyz Tournament.

Kill points revised

alternative rules