# IG and the kill point problem



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

How do other IG players deal with the massive number of killpoints we put on the table. I had a game yesterday that went very well(or so it seemed). However as usual with ig. I had more than half my force still on the table but lost on kill points. What to do?


----------



## WarlordKaptainGrishnak (Dec 23, 2008)

My understanding of kill points is that it's a single point for every destroyed unit, yes?

I can understand how this raises issues for Horde players, or in general players who can have large numbers of relatively cheap units on the table.

I feel that the Victory Points scheme was more balanced. (wasn't it you got points equalling the units worth, say a 200pt Tactical squad, if you 100% destroyed it you got 200 VPs, or if 50% 100 VPs)

Grish


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

I will admit that the game was lost by me feeding a couple of units into the grinder and loosing them. Marbo got wasted and i lost a stormtrooper squad to a DS mishap. The only thing that helps the guard is combined squads. I run my 10man inf squads in combined pairs. As the rules state that they are treated as a single unit once combined, this saves me some killpoints.
If we had used VP's it would have been a much better result.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

But we don't have VP's now so not much point in discussing VP's v KP's really...it's been done to death many times. 

Combining Infantry will help..I run a 30-Man Blob in all my Mech lists so that's a couple KP's saved. If you run multiples of those in an Infantry-heavy list then that's 1 way to cut back. CCs's are no longer 2 KP's which is a good thing also.

Also, there's 2 sides to this argument, inthat the opponents who have to wipe out big combined blobs of Guard have to do so but then only receive 1 KP for their effort, so they bitch and moan about that.

I mainly play with Mech lists and it's easy to rack up KP's but the one thing I wouldn't do is try and make as many Squadrons as possible just so I can trim off a few KP's, mainly because we all know the problems surrounding squadroning...depending on the game's points limit of course, but even in 3K lists I only have 3 squadrons.

In the end you need to find a balance so that you can field a list that is competitive in KP missions and also in objective-based missions..and KP's are only 1 out of the 3.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Have you considered a veteran list rather than a horde? You need transports, but it still increases your army`s overall resilience a bit.

Other than that combined squads is the only way I can think of.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

go with bulky units if you can. Also Mech guard mean you have more kill points as all the tanks (lost a game yesterday becuase of that fact)


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

shaantitus said:


> How do other IG players deal with the massive number of killpoints we put on the table. I had a game yesterday that went very well(or so it seemed). However as usual with ig. I had more than half my force still on the table but lost on kill points. What to do?


when KP games come up instantly shake your opponents hand and say "good game, shame I lost, want another?", and keep doing this until a game type that isn't retarded comes up.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Kill Points are fine, there's no reason to auto lose a KP game with Imperial Guard unless you're a awful player. Simple as that. Just play a canny game, you know what the rules are and play to them. They are a bit tougher than the Objective missions but swings and round about's, armies which are great at KP tend to be weak at objectives. 

Aramoro


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

its principle as well, KP is just a terrible game design and makes no sense at all, I'd refuse to play it with any army, don't care if it means auto lose.


----------



## bishop5 (Jan 28, 2008)

KP's suck, fact.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

I don't see anything wrong with KP really, they're simple and roughly correct. They Balance out quite well with Objective missions. 

Aramoro


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Honestly not a fan of kill points, but i guess its just something we have to live with.

If you want to try and minimize the number of kill points, consider blobbing infantry and squadroning vehicles.

I play Orks as well, and they are no better when it comes to kill points.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Aramoro said:


> and roughly correct


I have 10 guard squads, you have 5 marine squads, I lose 5 guard squads (250pts) and you lose 4 marine squads (600+pts), so I have 5 squads worth 250pts vs your 1 worth 150+pts left....but you win.

thats far from "roughly correct" its more along the lines of "completely WRONG".


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Then you should have played a more tactically astute game then shouldn't you. 

Going with victory points leads to really really negative play on behalf of the horde player and makes it unbalanced in their favour every time. KP prevents that type of negative play by making all squads essentially equal. 

Aramoro


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Aramoro said:


> Then you should have played a more tactically astute game then shouldn't you.


oh don't gimme that bollocks for goodness sake, even in a "tactically astute game" losing 5 squads of guardsmen is more than realistic, stop talking crap.


Aramoro said:


> KP prevents that type of negative play by making all squads essentially equal.


wait, you reckon making all squads essentially equal is preventing negative play?, your seriously trying to say that something like 10 thunder hammer terminators is equal to 1 squad of guardsmen?...even though there perfectly capable of cutting through 10 squads of guardsmen...........thats a load of stinking steaming crap.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

I have to agree with Stella on this one.

Lets look at a Dual Nob Biker list.

Tough, everything holds objectives, can stretch out to cover multiple objectives, VERY mobile, and is only 4 kill points.

They are effective enough in objective-based games, but playing them in kill points?.... seriously, its just a fucking waste of time. icknose:


"Oh look, i killed 5 units of gaunts you spawned from your Tervigons, i auto-win"
"But.... ive killed everything of yours except for 1 model..."
"Doesnt matter, i auto-win, quit bitching"

*facepalm*


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> oh don't gimme that bollocks for goodness sake.


If you hadn't noticed IG are one of the top tier armies so clearly have little problem winning KP based games. Being a bad player doesn't mean the game is wrong, it means you're a bad player. 

What you're saying is I can build my all Death Company army and refuse to play any objective based mission because my army sucks in those situations. That is clearly nonsense. My army selection sucks, not the mission type. 



Stella Cadente said:


> wait, you reckon making all squads essentially equal is preventing negative play?, your seriously trying to say that something like 10 thunder hammer terminators is equal to 1 squad of guardsmen?...even though there perfectly capable of cutting through 10 squads of guardsmen...........thats a load of stinking steaming crap.


Play VP's with those termies and watch them get tarpitted with disposable squads. VP's encourage tarpitting with stubborn squads which just turn games in grind fests. KP's discourages that tactic. With your Tervigon-Nob Bikers example. You just spawn lots of free termigants and lock them in combat, now it's just as unfair in the other direction. 

Aramoro


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

to avoid getting tarpitted maybe you should play a more "tactically astute game".


----------



## Bloodcuddler of Khorne (Mar 22, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> If you hadn't noticed IG are one of the top tier armies so clearly have little problem winning KP based games. Being a bad player doesn't mean the game is wrong, it means you're a bad player.
> 
> Just because some might be lucky/good enough to deal with being at a severe disadvantage doesn't change the fact that the severe disadvantage exists.
> 
> ...


Just my two cents. Personally I don't deal with any of this crap--my friends and I usually just set up and try to wipe each other off the board. Whenever we decide to call it we just look at what's left and where, talk out how the rest of the game would probably have gone, and agree on a victor of a draw. On the rare occasion we do objectives, they're in 2v2 or 3v3 games with nobody playing the same army, so that usually doesn't matter. Tournaments of virtually any game have too much competitiveness and general douchebaggery for me to enjoy, and if I'm not having fun playing a game there really isn't any reason to play that game.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

You absolutely do not have to pick a lot of troops to play guard. You can take 1 CCS, 2 Vet Squads and 2 Squadrons of 3 Demolishers as a 1500pts Army, 5 KP total. But thats an aside. 

There are two types of missions, KP and Objectives. Guard have a great time in Objective based missions and a slightly harder time in KP based games. To say they autolose is just a lie, their performance in KP games in tourneys shows this to be a lie. 





> Isn't that the very tactic you just said going from VP's to KP's was trying to discourage?
> 
> How is handing them a free win by KP's by locking those bikers in combat unfair to the Ork player? Being locked in combat really doesn't matter when it makes you win the game.


Read what I said again, if you play VP it favours the side that can produce free troops which prevent your opponent scoring any points. 



> to avoid getting tarpitted maybe you should play a more "tactically astute game".


Correct you should, but no matter which way you cut that third mission it favours one tactic or the other, can't please everyone. But it still stands that if you consider a KP an Autoloss for Guard it is because your army sucks, you suck or they both suck. There is no reason you cannot win those games. 

Aramoro


----------



## Dowjin (Oct 11, 2010)

I dont like the fact that the single limitless resource in the imperium is worth a kill point. BUT, to be sporting;

You can take heavy weapons in your infantry blobs, as well as special weapons. RAW you can even take more than one heavy per squad. Add in a vox and some competent commandering, and wow, especially if you tried to snag some area terrain for your side of the field and didn't gimp your field of fire.

So you can make a very useful, very big, 1 kp unit. Autocannons with that kind of screen will stick around long enough to earn their weight in gold.

You can also fill out a complete stormtrooper squad, a vet squad or two with cammy cloaks gives you 3+ cover if placed right.

so in an example like that, youve got your obligatory ccs, a pcs, a blob, stormtroops, and 2 vet squads, for 6 kps total.

Sprinkle in some grenade launchers, meltas, and plasguns, and you can run a fair points game, outnumber your opponent, and still have less kps on the field than him.


----------



## Nave Senrag (Jul 8, 2010)

I have this problem for my horde of foot guard. The only way that I've been able to win is by tabling my opponent for an auto-win. This only works on rare occasions though because my gaming group (all four of us) does, almost exclusively, games that are 3-4 players.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Aramoro said:


> You absolutely do not have to pick a lot of troops to play guard. You can take 1 CCS, 2 Vet Squads and 2 Squadrons of 3 Demolishers as a 1500pts Army, 5 KP total. But thats an aside.


and boring as fuck.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Stella Cadente said:


> and boring as fuck.


That doesn't really have any bearing on his point, though. Fact is Guard armies don't _have_ to have a ton of Kill Points.

---

Other than that though, there's nothing wrong with the Kill Point system in my opinion. I initially hated it when 5th Edition came out, but since then I've warmed up to it like almost every other change from 4th. Kill Points help discourage people from taking tons of squads that are worth almost no points (like Grots or whatever) and force people to be careful with how willing they are to throw squads into the grinder, no matter how many or few points the unit is worth.


----------



## The Thunder of KayVaan (Jun 19, 2009)

Saying Guard suck at Kill points is like saying that commisars don't scare the living bajesus out of you.

I Am fairly new to guard, yet i mainly play Kill point games and win roughly 2 out of three games on average. As katie Drake (and a few others) have pointed out, Guard don't _Have_ to have a load of kill points. Lets see: 1 Company command Squad, Two Platoon Command Squads and Two 50 man Blob Squads. 115 models and five, Thats right, FIVE kill points. and for what, only 610 points? i would be crapping my pants if i was the opponent.

And a small note on KP's vs VP's, i don't care. I play the game to have fun, not to squabble over which system is better.

Anyway, that was my two pence and a portion of insanity. Enjoy!:victory:


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

> Aramoro said:
> 
> 
> > You absolutely do not have to pick a lot of troops to play guard. You can take 1 CCS, 2 Vet Squads and 2 Squadrons of 3 Demolishers as a 1500pts Army, 5 KP total. But thats an aside.
> ...


----------



## The Thunder of KayVaan (Jun 19, 2009)

Because Sentinels are 100% woopass! 

Sorry i love sentinels. Yeah, people should be building balanced lists (tailoring is one of my pet pevees) in the first place or better yet, Build an army list they know how to use. I do it every time and i have thrashed my opponent. I generaly play non-mech with my marines (The shock!) and i still do rather well. Just goes to show, its not just the list, its the player as well.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

I don't think Guard are screwed by killpoints. Yes they can have a lot of them but lots of armies can. There are 2 guard lists in my area. Vet guard with I think it's 4 troops in chimeras, command squad in chimera, 2 vendettas, a valkyrie(with squad), 2 manticores and a hydra. that's 16 KPs right there. Majority of Marien lists I make or face have anywhere from 12-18 KPs in them so they're fairly balanced. The other list is the infantry blob list. Don't have the specifics on the list atm but it comes up to 9 KPs. Both are very effective lists and can destroy most lists with ease. Mainly because guard, with so many units has a huge output potential so they can easily wipe most armies unless there's a serious problem.


----------



## vonklaude (May 16, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> That doesn't really have any bearing on his point, though. Fact is Guard armies don't _have_ to have a ton of Kill Points.
> 
> ---
> 
> Other than that though, there's nothing wrong with the Kill Point system in my opinion. I initially hated it when 5th Edition came out, but since then I've warmed up to it like almost every other change from 4th. Kill Points help discourage people from taking tons of squads that are worth almost no points (like Grots or whatever) and force people to be careful with how willing they are to throw squads into the grinder, no matter how many or few points the unit is worth.


I concur. The mission types keep force builders honest. Too few troops and multiple objectives becomes tougher, too many units in light vehicles and you offer up an advantage to your opponent. KPs mean a rock list sometimes has a good day.

I get the argument that MSU is strong under 5th rules, but that simply stresses the value of having varied missions. It helps to look wider than 40k. Mass cheap units is difficult to correctly balance in any wargames systems. They raise issues with tempo (more actions), upper limits (big weapons can only be so killy or the game goes to first effective firer, defences can only be so strong or the game grinds to a halt), lower limits (cheap units can only be so ineffective or they become irrelevant), and burden to play (the game becomes unplayable within reasonable timeframes). 

These design issues are tricky to resolve. My preferred solution would be effective discounts on big ticket units (e.g. the discount on Assault Termies that keeps them in the game), implemented as a _tax on small units_. However, the varied mission types is design-wise a good patch that is far less difficult to get right. The efficiency of the result to the design effort looks good.

Another way to look at it is to ask: if we didn't have KP missions, what would make rock armies good? To my mind, the greatest issue with 5th isn't KPs, it's having more strong, flexible Codexes; especially for xenos. IG and SW should be the standard, not the outliers. I think the issue with ceding mission types you don't like is that your opponent might with equal justice cede you your non-KP missions: and then you don't actually play! What would be kind of good would be HQ picks that - for a price - let you influence the mission type. That way you pay a tax that balances the efficacy of your MSU with the over-costing effects your opponent is paying (e.g. the overcost of paying for weapons that are far stronger than needed, but still only allowed to shoot at one thing per turn).


----------



## Widowmaker666 (Jul 30, 2008)

Get infantry squads combined, it saves KP's and i find them to be much more effective than 10 man infantry squads, even in objective games. If i run an infantry heavy list, i rarely use many transports which saves alot of KP's as well. Keep command squads hidden in terrain or a chimaira to counter balance their small size, while still being able to utilize their orders. 

Plain and simple, the best, yet not exactly easiest way to win with KP's (or any gamee type, for that matter) is to table your opponent. With massed infantry and ordnance it is not unfeasible to do so. i have gotten my opponent down to 3 scout snipers hiding away with their camo-cloaks and still retained a majority of my army and he won. I was stupid about exposing units i shouldn't and not utilizing the combined squads as much as i should.

Its like any of the game types, certain armies excel at certain things, it just takes finding your own way of gettin' it done.


----------



## don_mondo (Jan 28, 2007)

Hmmm, KP games are the ones my IG (15+ KP list at 2K) have the easiest time with. But I still run an old-school infantry IG army with a couple of blob platoons. It's the 3-5 objectives scenario that I have problems with. 

And VPs is still in the 5th ed rulebook.........................


----------

