Kill Points Verses Victory Points by Chaplain Centuris

13 Oct

I understand GW is trying to simplify the game.  But, when you are playing in a tournament and you draw a Deathwing army with only 8 kill points and you have 23, you are screwed.

This very thing happened to me.  My opponent only had to kill 9 things to guarantee victory.  Unless I tabled him.  I almost did.  At the end of the game he only had a librarian terminator with one wound left.  I knew what I was getting into with my list.  I expected most of the field to have similar kill points amounts.  If it was victory points I would of had a massacre.  Yes, he killed half of my army but I almost tabled him.

Some tournaments have gone to victory points.  Others use multiple mission objectives.  Which way is right or fair?  That my friends depends on the person playing the game.  If you wanted it 100% even and fair then for every model you kill, you get the points.  IE: kill an Ultramarine space marine and get 16 points.  But some of us are not good at math. And would need an hour to add up what got killed.

I had an idea on how to modify the kill points system.  When you wipe out a unit, you get 1 plus the hundreds value of the unit.  For example, If I wipe out a ten man tactical squad worth 170 points, I would get 2 kill points. 1+1+2.  Or if I took down an ten man Terminator Squad worth 400 points I would get 5 kill points. 4+1=5. A single land speeder(50 points, has no hundreds place) would earn only 1 kill point because 0+1=1.  It still penalizes the many small unit (MSU) armies because of the plus 1.

This is only in theory and I plan to keep a running tally of the win loss difference between regular kill points and my modified kill points.  Or kill points 2.0.


12 Responses to “Kill Points Verses Victory Points by Chaplain Centuris”

  1. Dan Sackett October 13, 2011 at 08:06 #

    I like the kill point mission as it is. Without it MSU armies will have a big advantage in all 3 missions. Kill points allows for a wider range of armies to be viable at tournaments, the more different armies that are viable the better the game. If you choose to take an army with 23 KP to a tournament with a KP mission, you have to accept the risk you will run into an elite army that is designed more for KP denial.

  2. From The Fang October 13, 2011 at 10:26 #

    I agree with Dan. The reason people take MSU armies is because they excel in two of the three standard missions. Elite armies will most likely not have many scoring units so will naturally struggle in objective games. By changing the KP mission you’ll stop people having any chance with anything but MSU.

    Some codexes struggle at MSU so naturally will have less KP than others. That deathwing list doesn’t have many other viable options at a tournament if he wants to take his DA. I’d rather see variety.

  3. Chris Smith (@BadgerRustler) October 13, 2011 at 10:28 #

    I like kill points to a certain degree – I agree with Dan that they are great at keeping MSU armies in check (particularly marine based ones) however there are some armies that require an MSU build by virtue of their codex design (Dark Eldar particularly, weird builds aside) that are more negatively impacted by kill points than others.

    They sure are easy to work out which has to count for something too.

  4. Leon David Smith October 13, 2011 at 11:26 #

    I like KP’s as there is no right or wrong answer to put in your army but you have to think about it, in your example you have choosen to be weak in a KP mission this is your choice so if you loose to an army with 9 thats something you had control over, it would be like taking no scoring units in your army (which orks and BA’s can do) and complaining about not being able to play objective games as they reward moving and boring troop selections not killing.

    As other have mentioned they help balance to game in context of the the rulebook missions and are quick to work out and cannot be cheated which ive seen with VP’s where they have “accidently” forgot to add something on to your total. I dont think the system is perfect but it is for me the right idea.

  5. Killswitch October 13, 2011 at 12:50 #

    I have run MSU before it was even popular, and that hasn’t stopped me winning KP Games. Honestly, if people think that KPs stops MSU’s dominating, they need to have a good hard think. Now if I have, lets say, 3 Autocannon Dreadnoughts, ky killing one, you havn’t really reduced my ranged firepower dramatically. This is the same for all MSU armies. Elite armies suffer against MSu for this very reason. Your double Land Raider army may be able to stop one unit of meltagunners, but what about the other 3? They will come up and pop your raiders, now your hardcore units on foot have a chance at smashing a unit of Vets, then are left out in the open for return fire. This is call redundancy. You kill one unit, another is still there to take its place.

    • Dan Sackett October 13, 2011 at 13:11 #

      Just because MSU can beat more elite armies at KP, doesn’t mean that KP doesn’t help more elite armies. We all know the benefits of MSU, but if all armies were MSU then the game would be less varied and I think that would be a shame.

      Also some low KP armies dont really care about your redundancy as they are resilient enough to not be tabled and only need to kill a couple of transports all game to win. For example my paladin army spent 6 games at northen warlords walking across the table and not once did the main squad go below half strength.

  6. Franco October 13, 2011 at 14:40 #

    I’ve gone back and forth over this one tbh, When I thought about it at first it seemed a little silly to my that my 2 gun drones were as valuable a kill in a KP game as, say, 12 nob bikerz with power claws. That just seems retarded in fact.

    But Dans’ right, it does allow elite armies have some viable basis to them. There is no doubt that having more things to attack with that each do a fraction of the damage as one big elite thing is simply a more efficient way to kill things – because while you may be odds on to do as much damage as that one big mega-squad, you could actually get lucky and kill 3 things with your 3 squads over just 1 with one mega-squad. Likewise, lots of small units create a more durable army as, like Killswitch has mentioned, because when you lose something you don’t lose something big, just a small part of the whole.

    So the advantages of MSU armies are obvious, and if there was no advantage to taking in an elite army then we might never see them, and that would make for some fairly dull 40k games. It acts like a natural handicap on armies in KP games. I’m not sure whether that is good or bad, but it keeps things in the mix at least.

  7. Joby Davis October 13, 2011 at 18:58 #

    I like Killpoints just fine, as others have said MSU armies excel in Objective Missions (generally speaking), and Kill Points may be a disadvantage to them – but it goes the otherway for the Elite armies in Seize Ground Missions (Especially with 5 Objectives) as they have less units to score and hold. In Capture and Control its 50/50 to who has the advantage, there are only 2 objectives – One side has multiple units to hold and assualt, the other has less to play with but what he is sending to attack your objective and holding to defend his own is generally superhard, and with only 2 objectives he is able to focus his limited resources.

    Seize Ground – MSU – Advantage
    Killpoints – Elite Force – Advantage
    Capture and Control – 50/50

    When you pick your army you know what your getting into and what the strengths and weaknesses are per mission, as someone else said some Armies like Dark Eldar are forced into more of an MSU build which may well be a disadvantage for Killpoints, but they are also super fast and annoying in multiple objective missions, with lots of units to hold objectives or move flat out to contest in the last few turns.

    As a Tau player I generally have a mixed build, I cant really field an Elite Army and my Points are too high to run a full on MSU list. Killpoints however (against Elites or MSU) is the Tau’s best misson, Seize Ground is fine because we do have a few bodies and are quite manuverable. Capture and Control however is a nightmare, as it relies on you sending your Brave Tau lads into your opponents Deployment Zone to clear them off an objective (something Tau dont do well) and Holding your own Objective means you cant dance around as much and your opponent has a focal point to charge his army at. Half the time in Capture and Control I know I’m playing either for a Draw or going to have to try and table my opponent.

    Its swings and roundabouts, but you know when you pick your race and list where your going to struggle and where you have an advantage because of the Race and Build you picked. In my book, Killpoints are great and Capture and Control is awful – But I picked Tau so thats my problem!

  8. Mark Perry October 14, 2011 at 11:11 #

    Problem I have with elite armies is where an HQ allows them to use their elites as troops. They then have a low KP footprint, but still have 4 hard scoring units for objective games. No downside. When you have to choose “either/or” I’m happy with that but where many armies can now take both the system becomes broken.

    … and not just beacuse I play nids!

  9. Graeme Nicholls (@TheTayne) October 15, 2011 at 08:52 #

    Sadly, this article is too one sided for my liking. As many commenters say, MSU has distinct advantages on the two other standard missions over elite armies, I see no issue whatsoever with the current Kill Point system.

    For Joby, I’ll be surprised if drone’s remain a KP in the next codex (barring a dedicated gun drone squadron, but who cares about that?). They’ve already scrapped them offering up KP whilst still attached to vehicles, though they may decide that is enough of a change I guess..

  10. Digital Unicorn October 15, 2011 at 11:14 #

    Chaplain, While I agree with most of the points previously made about the actual subject, I think tayne has pointed out the only thing that really needs to be changed. The article could do to be ever so slightly less one-sided. However other than that, this is now a Blogging website, Bloggers give their opinions. Not everyone shares opinions, in fact, look how much discussion has been generated because people don’t agree with you. I like that you’ve seen a potential inbalance and are trying to forge a new idea. Literally my only critism of your actual writing though is to just see things from the other side a little, you don’t have to compromise but, it helps others to see that your opinion is well formed.

    So don’t be disheartened, you never know, you could end being nicknamed Chaplain “The Controvertial” Centuris, Lol.

  11. Digital Unicorn October 15, 2011 at 11:23 #


    On the actual subject, I personally am not quite sure where to fall, my list tends to feel a little “KP Neutral”. Iv got 13 at 1750, its not busting the bank but, its not hyper elite either. But, its a Kantor Mech list, so its reasonably resilient, and actually has quite a few scoring units, and some with large VP values. I actually tend to find, bore draw, is my best mission as my cheap defensive scoring holds objectives well and my aggresive scoring takes it well. Like Franco said in his Tau article, having a focus for my force in the 2 obj, really helps me make good use of my limited resources.

    I also, lost to Rob Madelys MSU Dark Eldar at KP, precisely because my tiny elite brain, couldn’t wrap its head around all those units. So KP, doesn’t neccessarily spell death for MSU.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: