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.