Chitchat thread ... 40k league

[MVB]

I'm in Chicago, waiting to head out for the evening's shenanigans. I actually went to Shenanigans last night ... and it was a fun time.


Check it ...


Things for trollers to ponder ....

1) What do people think of killpoints? I hate them, personally, think they're silly, but we'll be playing with them per the book rules in league play ... curious what folks like or don't like along those lines or others ...

2) What do people think of the league stance of breaking draws with victory points per the back of the rulebook optional rule?

3) Whose friends are totally in, but haven't signed up yet formally? ;)

/ramble

[Crom]

1) I hate killpoints, mainly because of how easy it is to simply deny a killpoint if you get lucky enough to have a lone survivor from shooting, and then manage to get him out of LOS for the rest of the game.

ex: Killpoints, Player A has significantly less killpoints, lets say 7, possible than Player B, who has 20. Player B kills all but one model and has about half his army left on the board, however, he loses because he has only 6 KP and Player A has 9

Oh, and gun drones coming off a devilfish or hammerhead becoming a KP = BS

2) Personally, I have always been a fan of victory points, and I would be thrilled to use that to break ties. It is pretty lame when you can virtually table someone, but somehow a tie is managed.

EDIT: First...

[Darwinn69]

1. I like killpoints for the most part. If I had to tweak them at all I would say make dedicated transports not count for killpoint purposes. That would fix 99% of the issues where kill points can screw with certian armies. While you have to build your armies with killpoints in mind you can't play a complete kill point denial army and still have a chance at winning the other two missions. 40k should be a troop on troop battle with everything else focused on supporting troops. With killpoints and objectives it's finally started happening.

2. As a tie breaker victory points is fine, expecally considering how many times games end up in a tie. However, it should not be used to determine primary win/loss conditions. It encouraged cheesy list building and rewards stradigies that avoid enemy contact, making the game very boring. One of the more annoying thing of 4'th edition is min/maxing units. Why make a unit bigger and more resiliant when you can make it small and cheap? Then with all the points you saved you dump it into a large unit that is very hard to kill, and try not to engage with that unit. The whole game revolved around minimizing casulaties on your super unit while trying to get the enemies super unit below half with the rest of your pretty weak army. Victory points encourages stradigies that revolve around "getting your points back" where it dosen't matter what the tactical advantage of a certian unit is, if it can't kill enough it is deemed useless and discarded.