Boys and girls, Unicorns and children of all ages… it’s that time again. Brent here, yourStrictly Average sexy-roving-report type, ready to dish Part the Second of An Argument for Killpoints.
This is The Mob Speaks. That’s you, my chickies.
As always, for those whose time is precious as well as those whose lips move as they read, all the important comments / topics are in bold. The Article Within An Article is my gift to you, the terminally impatient.
Before we get started, I’ve been asked why I insist on my little jokes, like occasionally referring to you, the creme de la creme of Wargaming, as little chickies. Why, I’m glad you asked.
The first reference was way, way back in It’s High School All Over Again. In it, I noted, “We as flawed human beings still can’t keep our prejudices out of the pastime we love. It can be contentious out there.” That’s still true… and is there anything more helpless than baby chickies?
Brent’s We Need a List, List
Tone: The tone is playful and lighthearted. It let’s the reader know that though we may disagree, it’s all okay in this little corner of the Blogosphere.
Branding: The use of running jokes and consistent themes help thread disparate articles together, creating a brand. It helps build an audience… or in some cases, warn ’em away!
Annoyance: It bothers all the right people. If you find yourself upset by it, know you are in the minority… and lighten up! Relax a bit – it ain’t all that important. Your bowels will run better.
An Argument for Killpoints probably didn’t change any minds, but from my point of view it was an unqualified success. It almost broke 300 comments, which is great…
…but doesn’t come close to the all-time Bell of Lost Souls record, currently held by Mkerr. Remember? It’s the one with a title that would make a great por… er, adult film. What an evil genius; I still wake up in the middle of the night, sick to my stomach.
I wish I’d thought of it.
You know you’d watch that movie.
What’s most surprising about the article is the quality of comments, which was extremely high. Sure, there’s the odd bit of crazy, but for the most part you, the reader, had something to say and said it very, very well. I think we all know it could have turned into FlameWar v245.01 or something, but it didn’t. I couldn’t have been happier, so I kept my nose out of it and let it run all by itself.
The Mob Speaks; I Comment
What follows are some highlights from both point of views, but it’s by no means exhaustive. From this point on, any comments I make will be in green.
Moik: The thing with Kill Points is, Abaddon the Freakin’ Despoiler equals three Rippers? I can’t accept the system on that one fact.
Real Genius: That’s because you’re looking at Kill Points as a replacement for Victory Points. Look at KP’s as a mission type to balance different army builds and KP’s make a lot more sense.
This is the core of a basic back-and-forth. People look at Kill Points and try to compare and contrast them to Victory Points and it does’t add up. It won’t add up – it’s not designed to. Remember, Victory Points are still in the main book as a supplemental; they’re meant to be different things.
Darkwynn: How many Kill Points is Abaddon going to pick up if he’s used right? A lot more than those Ripper Swarms.
Poor Nick. He’s wrong so often… but he made a good point here. Still, let’s make a larger point.
Trying to draw some larger conclusion from the points values in the Codex is meaningless. In the fluff, a single Space Marine is worth a Battle Company or more of Imperial Guard. The problem is, if they tried to represent that in the ‘dexes it would be a pretty worthless set of rules. The balance would be hopelessly skewed.
We can and should appreciate the fluff separately from the mechanics of the game.
Evil Tendencies: Simply put, Kill Points don’t have ANYTHING to do with relative value between models; that’s what points values are for. KP’s encourage balanced list-building – both between higher and lower unit count lists – but also between the various missions available in the main rulebook.
What he said.
Jonathan Boynton: I do agree that Guard players should stop complaining about the multitude of cheap tanks they can bring, but let’s look at the counter to that statement: three Leman Russes in a squadron is one Kill Point. So, if I kill two of those tanks, and cripple the third, but can’t kill it, I get nothing? This is a system that certainly has its benefits, but right now, it needs severe tweaking. Victory Points are not a perfect system (funny commented edited) it is a far more accurate way to compare how much each player killed. Personally, I don’t like either system, I much prefer fighting over objectives, but that’s me.
I pretty much love this comment; it’s a great, concise statement of position. That said, if your opponent has three Russes in a squadron, be thankful for your blessings! While the point is taken, it’s not an example we’ll see often.
Let’s examine the line, “VP’s are a more accurate way to compare how much each player has killed.”
In on sense… yup! True enough, so it is!
In another sense, why are people so fixated on that? One person said, basically, he couldn’t stand it when he killed the majority of his opponent’s army only to lose the game. He felt he’d won.
The game isn’t about killing more than you lose, though that’s part of it – it’s more active, more vital, than that. It’s a better game than the Stadium of Death in editions past. Don’t remember? It’s when everyone packed the edges of the board with their Gunline and turned the middle into no man’s land. Nice.
Hod: Just as VP are friendly to MSU, KP is friendly towards Deathstars. No matter what victory condition you choose, there will be some sort method of denial or abuse of that if its KP or VP.
That’s a fine argument. Hod goes on…
As to the simplicity of the system of KP, its an insult to the intelligence of the average gamer. It is not that hard to break out a calculator and add things up.
No, it’s an insult to the dumb gamer. That said, everyone makes mistakes. Still, Vossl said it best, referencing a dude with two years of school who had to break out the calculator to add four single-digit numbers. Further:
Vossl: …gamers with basic math comprehension problems has been a consistent theme I’ve seen over the last decade or so.
Yup. For the record, I don’t think people these days are any stupider than in years gone by… actually, what I think is people are no dumber than they ever were… but the focus in school these days is simply different. There is less emphasis on memorization of all types, including math. It leads to sometimes embarrassing gaps.
Phanixis: I strongly disagree with OP, out of his explicitly numbered justifications for kill points, I he believe he only really justified #1: they are easy to add. His arguments for the other two don’t make much sense. Sorry, Brent, if anything, you have only helped to convince me that KP were a mistake.
I hate it when that happens.
Advertisement
For The Emperor: Hilarious article, Brent!! Very, very funny! I don’t really like KP vs VP, but you are making me reconsider my position…
Okay, who put you up to that?
The Mob Speaks; I Shut Up
Doomgring: Exactly! The KP mechanic is better looked at when considering all 3 standard mission types. More vehicles and smaller units makes the capture & control and seize ground formats easier due to the sheer number of separate targets you can put on the field. The KP mechanic goes the other way and gives an advantage to those armies that cannot field numerous units.
War Hammer: I played a Chaos player and killed 1500pts and he killed 750 maybe less, but won the game on kill points. How is that fair. Because of the low cost of my units he got the win. We figured it also with victory points and I won big time.
Shabbadoo: You see, prior to 5E, nobody jockeyed for an advantage using VPs anywhere near as much as what happens now very obviously with KPs.
Ziggyqubert:They are a mission objective; saying a land raider equals one kill point is not representative of the unit. Two objectives on my side of the board is not representative of my army.
Advertisement
Sgt. Brisbane: As to your idea, it’s not really any better. Go back to VP? That’s not a solution so much as a band-aid. I don’t propose KP are better, but certainly not worse. What we need is a better solution, not simply a different or preferred one.
In Closing
So after a long hard battle during the 13th Black crusade, a lowly minion walks up to Abbadon with fear clutching his throat. “M-My lord the battle is over, but we lost.” Abbadon turns to look at him and yells “What? We destroyed over a million guardsmen!” The thrall cowers for a moment choosing what to say and then sputtered, “It is true my lord. In the process we lost only 200,000 heretics and 80 rhinos. In battlefield terms we lost 280 KP where as the Guard were combined and only gave up 100 KP.”
I had to end on that one, Hod’s one paragraph refutation of my entire article – I loved it I did!
A Blogger emailed me last Thursday to let me know 1) the quality of the comments was unexpected and 2) both Zingbaby and PorkyPoster agreed with me.
Success!
For today’s comments, I don’t really expect anyone to rehash this little love-fest. Frankly, I doubt anyone’s mind was changed last week, either by the article or from the comments, but I think it’s important to take these issues and shake ’em out every so often. No harm, no foul.
Instead, consider this: our tournament environment is changing, becoming more of what the competitive crowd wants and less of what they don’t.
Subscribe to our newsletter!
Get Tabletop, RPG & Pop Culture news delivered directly to your inbox.
I’m on record as stating I believe the same people who won Comp’d, fluffy events will be winning tournaments in this newer, more Battle Points oriented environment.
