GT changed my opinion on KP!

Baragash · by **Baragash** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:54 am

"Hi, my name's Baragash and I like KPs......"

*suffers administration of shock probes*

Playing GT gave me a totally different perspective on KPs. I think when you play one-off games at club night, it can seem unsatisfying.

Firstly, from the conversations I had and what I saw, it meant most armies came in at between 10 and 13 KPs (I ran 11), which kept things quite evenly balanced for the objective games.

Secondly, I really enjoyed the different way of approaching the game it throws up when you're playing that many games close together. I found compared to the old VP system, it really focusses you on preserving units and whether or not to risk trading KPs with your opponent for an advantage in future turns as it offers a much more obvious sacrifice choice than calculating half strength VPs.

Thirdly, I found it makes a difference to target priority choices versus objective games, as the position at the start of the turn certainly affected my decision making in the two games I played. It poses a tactical dilemma in terms of banking that easy KP (like a Rhino), or stacking damage on a hard KP (like a Seer Council) to reduce your opponent's damage output and/or score the KP in future turns.

mattjgilbert · by **mattjgilbert** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:49 am

I think that an tournament environment probably makes you think about it more, but I've found the same considerations do occur when playing one-off friendly games. I agree with your summary though, especially the target priority point. It might also make you hide units in later turns to prevent them being targetted where you may have sacrificed them or taken a risk in an objective based mission.

KInG · by **KInG** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:38 am

Agreed... the C: Daemon list I fought, game 2, just put his nurgle daemons in a wood, away from my army, and assaulted me with his 5 MCs. I targeted the threat all the way, as they were the only things that could hurt me and ignored the others.

Angelwing · by **Angelwing** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:31 pm

Sorry, I don't agree. All the considerations you mention are exactly the same with VP's. The problem is you are not rewarded fairly for kills. An easy KP (ie that rhino) is worth too much, whilst a hard KP (eldar seer council) is worth too little with the KP system.
KP's are easy to work out, however, it's not too difficult to add up VP's either.

KInG · by **KInG** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:59 pm

Surely thats the point though. You look for the easy KP in your opponents list. You then consider the KP that can do the most damage.... the uneasy KP.

So, the thought process is; easy KP, or the harder KP to preserve my own KPs? This is a diff process as to the objective based game.

But as for VPs you are right; the harder KP might be a better option to take down coz as u eliminate the harder unit you also score a related value in points.

Angelwing · by **Angelwing** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:31 pm

KInG wrote:Surely thats the point though. You look for the easy KP in your opponents list. You then consider the KP that can do the most damage.... the uneasy KP.

So, the thought process is; easy KP, or the harder KP to preserve my own KPs?

Simply substitute VP for KP in your statement. The thought process is the same, except that VP system rewards you fairly for your efforts when the KP system does not.

KInG wrote:This is a diff process as to the objective based game.

Exactly, but this isn't about pure objective games. Now if 'KPs' were given out for objectives as well as units...

KInG wrote:But as for VPs you are right; the harder KP might be a better option to take down coz as u eliminate the harder unit you also score a related value in points.

Precisely my point.

Can you tell I think KP's are a very bad idea? :lol:

KInG · by **KInG** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 pm

lol I know it doesn't take alot to confuse me... but now my head hurts

killmaimburn · by **killmaimburn** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:33 am

There are some scenarios in which killpoints reign in the uber ubers.
I've started to see a few people daring to take FOC fillers again. This provides a massive in game advantage, your opponent wastes shots on overkills, you never waste shots (unless you left vehicle arcs to narrow)..you can counter all objectives..you can cover the board with very loose coherancy making demons and DSers have a problem) you can spread out so that assualts are wasted on you.... but you have 17 easy killpoints.(my list suffers from this if I have to split)

KPs have some stupids, mostly on generated units.
And some codexs need a polish (e.g. a lictor might use rules like lone wolves)
And its annoying when people have designed lists that in killpoint scenarios mean they must be tabled.(those folks who have 6 or less)

Baragash · by **Baragash** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:26 am

Angelwing wrote:
KInG wrote:Surely thats the point though. You look for the easy KP in your opponents list. You then consider the KP that can do the most damage.... the uneasy KP.

So, the thought process is; easy KP, or the harder KP to preserve my own KPs?

Simply substitute VP for KP in your statement. The thought process is the same, except that VP system rewards you fairly for your efforts when the KP system does not.

I don't see how that holds TBH.

Under VPs, if you have the choice of shooting at a Seer Council or a squad of something pathetic and squishy, there are virtually no incentives to shoot the squishy unit - taking a Seer Council to half strength is worth more than completely blatting the pathetic unit.

Under KPs you are faced with the trade-off of getting a point on the board vs what an unmolested Seer Council will do in subsequent turns (ie possibly score 1 or more KPs back).

Another comparison someone made was a LR vs an IG Command Squad. Actually, despite the vast difference in cost, the CS is undoubtedly a more valuable kill in the grand scheme of applying real world logic to it, as damaging the enemy's chain of command almost always is.

Killsiwtch · by **Killsiwtch** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:37 pm

Just kill everything, thats the space wolf way

:D!

Angelwing · by **Angelwing** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:50 pm

Baragash wrote:
I don't see how that holds TBH.

Under VPs, if you have the choice of shooting at a Seer Council or a squad of something pathetic and squishy, there are virtually no incentives to shoot the squishy unit - taking a Seer Council to half strength is worth more than completely blatting the pathetic unit.

The incentive is to crush the squishy unit and collect easy victory points. Taking the seer council to half strength could be very difficult (and with average rolls impossible) depending on what you have available to use against them.

Baragash wrote:Under KPs you are faced with the trade-off of getting a point on the board vs what an unmolested Seer Council will do in subsequent turns (ie possibly score 1 or more KPs back).

but this is the same as Vp's....

Baragash wrote:Another comparison someone made was a LR vs an IG Command Squad. Actually, despite the vast difference in cost, the CS is undoubtedly a more valuable kill in the grand scheme of applying real world logic to it, as damaging the enemy's chain of command almost always is.

Sadly though, real world logic doesn't apply to 40k. All units in 40k have a points cost that gives it's in game worth (which as we all know isn't an exact measure). Points should be earned based on this in game worth. Points costs are used to help ensure game balance and both players an equal chance of winning the game. Clearly a landraider has more in game worth than an IG command squad (as indicated by it's codex points cost), so should be worth more when it is destroyed.
As for a real world logic argument: a landraider is an ancient, revered, rare holy relic that space marines will fight to retrieve when damaged. Guard command squads are replaced by field promotions and regularly shot by commissars. Which has more 'value' to the imperium?