The last article served to define some key elements to this argument. The first key to the entire discussion is that this notion is really intended to only apply to game settings in which MULTIPLE OBJECTIVES are in play.
The second is that Kill Point Denial lists are lists which are designed to deny Kill Points (duh). Although related to Death Star lists, they are not necessarily the same and in many cases are dramatically different. Many good Kill Point Denial lists don't have Death Stars.
Consider a normal, multiple objective mission game. Let's say there are 3 objectives in play. The concept of a fair game then involves two players each competing over those 3 objectives. He who can earn the most, wins. The idea is that both sides must actively compete over the 3 objectives.
What if I all but guaranteed one side a single objective of the 3 before the game started? How would this alter the dynamics of the game?
Well first, the side that was already guaranteed the objective would:
- Only ever have to worry about competing over the remaining 2.
- Have the option of merely preventing his opponent from claiming the other 2 objectives, because he's already got one to win with.
- Not necessarily expecting to have auto-lost one objective from the jump, tried to build his list to win all 3 objectives. He is now at an efficiency disadvantage to the guy who already knew he auto-claims one objective.
- Has to claim 2 objectives now to win, not just tie. Whereas, the KP Denial list only has to DENY 2, not claim any, or.....
Many of the 3 Objective Missions that are in play in tournaments and GTs have tie breakers. What is usually the tie-breaker in a game? Victory Points.
Guess what else a Kill Point Denial list is really good at? Not giving up Victory Points!
Thus, we have another advantage:
- The Kill Point Denial list really only has to focus on stopping the opponent from getting ONE SINGLE objective, not BOTH. Why? He knows that he can force a tie on objectives, he'll most likely win on Victory Points.
- Seize Ground (3 objectives in play)
- Capture and Control (roll dice and tie)
- Annihilation (kill points)
Now, just by the names above, how easy do you think it would be for a well designed KP Denial list to claim one of the above objectives and TIE in another?
(See what I did there?)
MSU or Transport Armies inherently come with a ton of kill points. Kill Point Denial lists can abuse this fact to almost guarantee wins on Kill Points.
However, MSU armies have no such return guarantee that they can claim mission objectives by completing Seize Ground style objectives. And even if they can, it will be even more difficult for them to claim a 2nd objective (Cap & Control, Quarters, whatever...) and then not lose on a VP tie breaker.
One of the big reasons for this is that the effective KP Denial List, once its had its core of KP Denial filled, should now focus on what it takes to contest Seize Ground objectives.
The next big reason is that, at the end of the day, you can't win Seize Ground by "doing something" and then simply not playing the game anymore.
By that, I mean that a Kill Point Denial list always has the luxury of "kill something and run" or "hide behind terrain". You can't do that an win at objectives. You have to stay in the game, the WHOLE game.
The entire point of this article is to try to convince you that there be some validity to this whole KP Denial Argument.
When in doubt, just refer to this guy for further instruction: