Simple question really. I haven't played 40k in a couple years because life just kind of got in the way. I'm hoping to get back into it after the pandemic, so I've been following the 9th edition discussion closely. People in the N&R thread keep mentioning the tactic of "tripointing" as a way to prevent Fallback, and I have no idea what it means. Can anyone explain it to me?

Normally when you engage a unit in melee, there's nothing stopping them from Falling Back in their own turn.

However, a model cannot move through enemy models in order to Fall Back, so if they're trapped, they're stuck in combat.

Tripointing is surrounding at least one enemy model with three of your own, so that there is no way for them to escape, and thus they are locked in combat and cannot Fall Back. You then may have to do some tricks to reduce your own lethality (like not using your specialist melee weapons) to avoid producing casualties that your opponent could take on the tripointed model(s).

It's basically a necessary tactic for melee to work in 8th, but some people find it exploitative/'gamey' and would prefer that limitations on Fall Back be baked directly into the rules.

Units cannot fall back if all models in the unit cannot fall back.

you cannot move through enemy models if you dont' have fly and try to make a fall back move.

Once you finish your charge, you get to pile in 3", and then consolidate 3" after you make your attacks. These moves must take your model closer to the closest enemy model.

"tripointing" is the practice of charging an enemy unit, then using your Pile in and Consolidate moves to move your models AROUND the closest model (you can start 1" in front of them, and end your move 0.75" behind them, and that is a legal move because you ended up closer). Once the enemy model has three of your models around him, he can't move through you and therefore that fall back move cannot be made.

It's called tripointing because you need at least 3 models around an enemy to stop them leaving. If you only have 2, they can always move away from you.

It might be going away REAL soon. Anyway, here it is:

1) Models can't cross through other models without fly keyword.
2) Consequently, an assault unit can prevent enemy fallback by surrounding a member of an enemy squads on three sides with our models. This makes it impossible for that unit to move, and therefore traps the enemy unit in combat, preventing fallback. Hence the term "tripoint" since we need three models to trap one enemy model.
3) This doesn't work if the enemy takes sufficient casualties such that they can remove the trapped model as a battleshock loss.
4) Consequently, we get absurd situations where we charge with say DC and only place one model within 1" as to MINIMIZE enemy casualties such that they can't remove tripointed models with battleshock.
Needless to say, I find the idea of DC or any BA really minimizing enemy damage on the charge to be ridiculous and gamey, yet necessary because of how insane the fall back rule is.
I really dislike how the BA play atm for this reason. We are essentially codex: tripoint.
Note that cheap models with fly, such as Tau drones, completely short circuit this scheme

When in combat with an enemy unit, you use your charge/consolidate/pilein moves to pick an enemy model and surround it with your models such that there is not room enough for it to legally move past them and their bases, and out of combat, generally achievable with at least 3 models in base contact spread equidistantly around a circular infantry base. It's really more an artefact of the ruleset than an intended mechanic (and GW typically doesn't knowingly design such fiddly mechanics in, they usually actively try to avoid them, largely similar to in older editions using Rhinos to block LoS to other targets so characters could be picked out, etc) so thus it tends to rub people the wrong way but is extensively used by melee armies as a crutch given that everything can just leave combat without real restriction.

 catbarf wrote:
Normally when you engage a unit in melee, there's nothing stopping them from Falling Back in their own turn.

However, a model cannot move through enemy models in order to Fall Back, so if they're trapped, they're stuck in combat.

Tripointing is surrounding at least one enemy model with three of your own, so that there is no way for them to escape, and thus they are locked in combat and cannot Fall Back. You then may have to do some tricks to reduce your own lethality (like not using your specialist melee weapons) to avoid producing casualties that your opponent could take on the tripointed model(s).

It's basically a necessary tactic for melee to work in 8th, but some people find it exploitative/'gamey' and would prefer that limitations on Fall Back be baked directly into the rules.

It is gamey and silly. But in 8th neccessary. Gw should fix both extremes. Locking stuff into melee with no way to escape leads to death of shooty armies especially when getting into melee is so easy. But falling back at will isn't good either unless melee gets other compensation to stand a chance.

Locking stuff into melee with no way to escape leads to death of shooty armies especially when getting into melee is so easy.

in 8th or in 9th???

Thanks for the explanations. I see why people are calling it "gamey" if you're intentionally minimizing damage to keep a model trapped.

It's "gamey" because it's an unintended consequence of GW's rules. And because it defies reason on so many levels. How does one tell DC to go over there, but only put one model in CC contact range?

You might be minimizing damage, but you become immune to all shooting.

Its "gamey" because its a skill which is clearly in 40k now, but a lot of people hate learning anything new.

Probably not totally happy - but it would be interesting if they got rid of it, but at the same time made it so fall back requires a stratagem.

Probably not that brave though.

Martel732 wrote:
It's "gamey" because it's an unintended consequence of GW's rules. And because it defies reason on so many levels. How does one tell DC to go over there, but only put one model in CC contact range?

You might be minimizing damage, but you become immune to all shooting.

This isn't the only way to achieve it. You can charge into one unit you want to blend and hit them full force, whilst positioning a couple of models to tripoint a model in a squad you didn't charge. Obviously if the opponent's squads are widely spaced this doesn't work, but it usually does because auras encourage clumping. The minimising damage approach is from my perspective a fall back of this other method is unavailable.

Its not gamy tho... literally from day one people saw it and was doing it. It was clear if you are surrounded you can not fallback. Its like that in AoS too.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not gamy tho... literally from day one people saw it and was doing it. It was clear if you are surrounded you can not fallback. Its like that in AoS too.

It's totally gamey. It's borderline cheating; at least, that's how I feel every time I use it. There is no way it can be RAI.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not gamy tho... literally from day one people saw it and was doing it. It was clear if you are surrounded you can not fallback. Its like that in AoS too.

I actually like it. It rewards careful position play on the part of both players. It also makes sense fluff wise that trapped dudes can't teleport away.

Tyel wrote:
Its "gamey" because its a skill which is clearly in 40k now, but a lot of people hate learning anything new.

It's not a skill at all. That's what makes it gamey. Once you're aware of its existence there's no skill required to pull this off, it's just a (unintended) consequence of the way the rules work.

Yeah. The only skill with Tripointing is understanding that narrative has no meaning, and that it is better for your Bloodletters of Khorne and the Bloodthirster to only dink the enemy with their basic CC weapon than it is for them to actually kill anyone.

Drager wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not gamy tho... literally from day one people saw it and was doing it. It was clear if you are surrounded you can not fallback. Its like that in AoS too.

I actually like it. It rewards careful position play on the part of both players. It also makes sense fluff wise that trapped dudes can't teleport away.

IN the same game where a tank can shoot me through 5 windows from its antenna?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not gamy tho... literally from day one people saw it and was doing it. It was clear if you are surrounded you can not fallback. Its like that in AoS too.

I would strongly debate how "clear" it is, given that I've been physically threatened for doing it. Wasn't clear to that opponent.

Slipspace wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Its "gamey" because its a skill which is clearly in 40k now, but a lot of people hate learning anything new.

It's not a skill at all. That's what makes it gamey. Once you're aware of its existence there's no skill required to pull this off, it's just a (unintended) consequence of the way the rules work.

Disagree. Its like saying there is no skill to removing casualties to lengthen charge distances - or avoid taking shooting from other units because the unit is now out of LOS since those in LOS have been removed.

In the same way - once you are *aware you can do this* there is no skill - but being aware, and remembering to position in the right way, is a skill.

Martel732 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not gamy tho... literally from day one people saw it and was doing it. It was clear if you are surrounded you can not fallback. Its like that in AoS too.

It's totally gamey. It's borderline cheating; at least, that's how I feel every time I use it. There is no way it can be RAI.

Well i feel conga lining is gamey and cheating then, its the same principle of assumption. Just b.c you don't like it doesn't make it gamey or cheating. Its been there from literally day 1, its a part of 8th as much as conga line into auras and objectives are.

Martel732 wrote:

Drager wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not gamy tho... literally from day one people saw it and was doing it. It was clear if you are surrounded you can not fallback. Its like that in AoS too.

I actually like it. It rewards careful position play on the part of both players. It also makes sense fluff wise that trapped dudes can't teleport away.

IN the same game where a tank can shoot me through 5 windows from its antenna?

I can like one thing and not a different unrelated thing, yes.

Tyel wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Its "gamey" because its a skill which is clearly in 40k now, but a lot of people hate learning anything new.

It's not a skill at all. That's what makes it gamey. Once you're aware of its existence there's no skill required to pull this off, it's just a (unintended) consequence of the way the rules work.

Disagree. Its like saying there is no skill to removing casualties to lengthen charge distances - or avoid taking shooting from other units because the unit is now out of LOS since those in LOS have been removed.

In the same way - once you are *aware you can do this* there is no skill - but being aware, and remembering to position in the right way, is a skill.

This, it is a tactic, you can stop it with good positioning. Just like bubble wrapping and zoning out DS is a tactic.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not gamy tho... literally from day one people saw it and was doing it. It was clear if you are surrounded you can not fallback. Its like that in AoS too.

It's totally gamey. It's borderline cheating; at least, that's how I feel every time I use it. There is no way it can be RAI.

Well i feel conga lining is gamey and cheating then, its the same principle of assumption. Just b.c you don't like it doesn't make it gamey or cheating. Its been there from literally day 1, its a part of 8th as much as conga line into auras and objectives are.

I said borderline. I'm aware it's "legal".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Drager wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not gamy tho... literally from day one people saw it and was doing it. It was clear if you are surrounded you can not fallback. Its like that in AoS too.

I actually like it. It rewards careful position play on the part of both players. It also makes sense fluff wise that trapped dudes can't teleport away.

IN the same game where a tank can shoot me through 5 windows from its antenna?

I can like one thing and not a different unrelated thing, yes.

I"m talking about how they super simplified most of the game, but I'm supposed to believe they intended assault to be the convoluted nightmare of half inches making a critical difference?

so, a thought experiment for a second.

Let's say we do ditch fall back, but we just add in being able to fire into melee.

Make your hit roll, and then after hits are rolled, 50-50 chance that you get to allocate them to enemy units involved in the melee, or that the opposing player gets to allocate them to your units.

Besides being something that would make the game even more lethal, I'm not sure I honestly dislike it conceptually. Even if there's no downside and you've got like ork boyz charging a tank and IG unload on them with lasguns, being in melee would always block the damage you're going to take by 1/2. It'd be like gaining an extra 4+ invulnerable that as a bonus might hurt your opponents models.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Its "gamey" because its a skill which is clearly in 40k now, but a lot of people hate learning anything new.

It's not a skill at all. That's what makes it gamey. Once you're aware of its existence there's no skill required to pull this off, it's just a (unintended) consequence of the way the rules work.

Disagree. Its like saying there is no skill to removing casualties to lengthen charge distances - or avoid taking shooting from other units because the unit is now out of LOS since those in LOS have been removed.

In the same way - once you are *aware you can do this* there is no skill - but being aware, and remembering to position in the right way, is a skill.

This, it is a tactic, you can stop it with good positioning. Just like bubble wrapping and zoning out DS is a tactic.

If you position your models in base to base with each other in a square then take casualties from the centre you will rarely get tripointed. You force the opponent to kill more than they'd like to make a big enough hole and you control where the hole sisters (assuming they kill enough to force casualties from the outer layer). You can still around the whole unit to stop fallback with enough models, but that's hard.

Spacing your units to avoid tripoint tagging or force the opponent's unit to spread a great distance to do it can also help.

That would be better than what we have by far.

Martel732 wrote:

I"m talking about how they super simplified most of the game, but I'm supposed to believe they intended assault to be the convoluted nightmare of half inches making a critical difference?

I didn't say it was intended. I said I like it.

If someone tripointed and had a bloodletters use their basic strength no AP close combat attack just so they could stay safe in melee in a game, the game would stop and we'd have a discussion about how we want different things from the game.

They want: to make the best decisions using the rules in order to win.

I want: units to do what they would in a fictional situation

It's like when you gamemaster RPGs like dungeons and dragons. You don't run the monsters as if they are aware of the minutia of the rules, you run them like characters in a movie or story and have them do what they would reasonably do.

There are probably expectations along a continuum between the two positions, but for anyone who is having trouble understanding why people might object to tripointing, it's all about he mindset with whichyou approach the game.

Martel732 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not gamy tho... literally from day one people saw it and was doing it. It was clear if you are surrounded you can not fallback. Its like that in AoS too.

It's totally gamey. It's borderline cheating; at least, that's how I feel every time I use it. There is no way it can be RAI.

Well i feel conga lining is gamey and cheating then, its the same principle of assumption. Just b.c you don't like it doesn't make it gamey or cheating. Its been there from literally day 1, its a part of 8th as much as conga line into auras and objectives are.

I said borderline. I'm aware it's "legal".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Drager wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not gamy tho... literally from day one people saw it and was doing it. It was clear if you are surrounded you can not fallback. Its like that in AoS too.

I actually like it. It rewards careful position play on the part of both players. It also makes sense fluff wise that trapped dudes can't teleport away.

IN the same game where a tank can shoot me through 5 windows from its antenna?

I can like one thing and not a different unrelated thing, yes.

I"m talking about how they super simplified most of the game, but I'm supposed to believe they intended assault to be the convoluted nightmare of half inches making a critical difference?

Yes melee has always been like that, even more so in older editions. You used to want to have mix weapons b.c you could kill models you wanted if you were BTB with them, wanted that Sargent with a PF dead? Well your Sargent with a SW better be BTB with him, but you wanted your Plasma gun not to fight, keep him in back. Then there was positioning from being charged. Or if you wanted to Tie up a Ork unit you would charge a hard flank clipping 1 model to pull the rest in, but b.c only 3-4 could fight it would take 2-3 turns to slowly consolidate them into your ranks and kill you effectively wasting that Ork unit for the rest of the game (b.c everyone had to be 2" apart do to blasts/flamers)

Melee now at this point is so far little compare to what it was that Tripointing is baby in compassion.

Yes, I know all that. This seems much worse somehow.

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, I know all that. This seems much worse somehow.

So basically you hate melee tactics then?

 Chamberlain wrote:
If someone tripointed and had a bloodletters use their basic strength no AP close combat attack just so they could stay safe in melee in a game, the game would stop and we'd have a discussion about how we want different things from the game.

They want: to make the best decisions using the rules in order to win.

I want: units to do what they would in a fictional situation

It's like when you gamemaster RPGs like dungeons and dragons. You don't run the monsters as if they are aware of the minutia of the rules, you run them like characters in a movie or story and have them do what they would reasonably do.

There are probably expectations along a continuum between the two positions, but for anyone who is having trouble understanding why people might object to tripointing, it's all about he mindset with whichyou approach the game.

You'd have to agree not to use fallback. Otherwise, im forced to tripoint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, I know all that. This seems much worse somehow.

So basically you hate melee tactics then?

I hate the idea of DC charging in and then minimizing its damage.

It seems “gamey” because 8th edition removed positioning and maneuvering from the game.

Martel732 wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
If someone tripointed and had a bloodletters use their basic strength no AP close combat attack just so they could stay safe in melee in a game, the game would stop and we'd have a discussion about how we want different things from the game.

They want: to make the best decisions using the rules in order to win.

I want: units to do what they would in a fictional situation

It's like when you gamemaster RPGs like dungeons and dragons. You don't run the monsters as if they are aware of the minutia of the rules, you run them like characters in a movie or story and have them do what they would reasonably do.

There are probably expectations along a continuum between the two positions, but for anyone who is having trouble understanding why people might object to tripointing, it's all about he mindset with whichyou approach the game.

You'd have to agree not to use fallback. Otherwise, im forced to tripoint.

Yeah, I mean, as long as I'm allowed to say that my Bloodletters would 1000% stab your guardsmen in the back the second they turned around to run, then I'm A-OK with this.

For way too long the melee rules for 40k have required hideously deadly close combat units to stand around like dinguses in the middle of the battlefield taking bullets to the chin for various reasons.

Older editions: Welp, I have jumped in to the battlefield 3" away from my foe using this goddamn rocket pack I've got on, now it's time to...shoot my pistols at him so that my opponent doesn't feel like they didn't get a fair shake at shooting me to death!

Now: Whoops, looks like I dun failed that charge roll. Guess I'll just stand right here... Oh, you want to fall back. Go ahead buddy, here have a juice box, I'll just stay right here

Pancakey wrote:
It seems “gamey” because 8th edition removed positioning and maneuvering from the game.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
If someone tripointed and had a bloodletters use their basic strength no AP close combat attack just so they could stay safe in melee in a game, the game would stop and we'd have a discussion about how we want different things from the game.

They want: to make the best decisions using the rules in order to win.

I want: units to do what they would in a fictional situation

It's like when you gamemaster RPGs like dungeons and dragons. You don't run the monsters as if they are aware of the minutia of the rules, you run them like characters in a movie or story and have them do what they would reasonably do.

There are probably expectations along a continuum between the two positions, but for anyone who is having trouble understanding why people might object to tripointing, it's all about he mindset with whichyou approach the game.

You'd have to agree not to use fallback. Otherwise, im forced to tripoint.

Yeah, I mean, as long as I'm allowed to say that my Bloodletters would 1000% stab your guardsmen in the back the second they turned around to run, then I'm A-OK with this.

For way too long the melee rules for 40k have required hideously deadly close combat units to stand around like dinguses in the middle of the battlefield taking bullets to the chin for various reasons.

Older editions: Welp, I have jumped in to the battlefield 3" away from my foe using this goddamn rocket pack I've got on, now it's time to...shoot my pistols at him so that my opponent doesn't feel like they didn't get a fair shake at shooting me to death!

Now: Whoops, looks like I dun failed that charge roll. Guess I'll just stand right here... Oh, you want to fall back. Go ahead buddy, here have a juice box, I'll just stay right here

Stabbing them in the back doesn't matter. All they care about is that YOUR unit can be targeted by the rest of the gunline.

Pancakey wrote:
It seems “gamey” because 8th edition removed positioning and maneuvering from the game.

Does pancakey win some kind of award for having managed to stick it out the entire edition making the same complaints about 8th? You've almost done it my man, you've almost consistently come on to a forum dedicated to a game that as far as anyone can tell you do not play to field the same gripes for - what has it been now, three whole years?

And they say the divorce rate proves commitment is dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
It seems “gamey” because 8th edition removed positioning and maneuvering from the game.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
If someone tripointed and had a bloodletters use their basic strength no AP close combat attack just so they could stay safe in melee in a game, the game would stop and we'd have a discussion about how we want different things from the game.

They want: to make the best decisions using the rules in order to win.

I want: units to do what they would in a fictional situation

It's like when you gamemaster RPGs like dungeons and dragons. You don't run the monsters as if they are aware of the minutia of the rules, you run them like characters in a movie or story and have them do what they would reasonably do.

There are probably expectations along a continuum between the two positions, but for anyone who is having trouble understanding why people might object to tripointing, it's all about he mindset with whichyou approach the game.

You'd have to agree not to use fallback. Otherwise, im forced to tripoint.

Yeah, I mean, as long as I'm allowed to say that my Bloodletters would 1000% stab your guardsmen in the back the second they turned around to run, then I'm A-OK with this.

For way too long the melee rules for 40k have required hideously deadly close combat units to stand around like dinguses in the middle of the battlefield taking bullets to the chin for various reasons.

Older editions: Welp, I have jumped in to the battlefield 3" away from my foe using this goddamn rocket pack I've got on, now it's time to...shoot my pistols at him so that my opponent doesn't feel like they didn't get a fair shake at shooting me to death!

Now: Whoops, looks like I dun failed that charge roll. Guess I'll just stand right here... Oh, you want to fall back. Go ahead buddy, here have a juice box, I'll just stay right here

Stabbing them in the back doesn't matter. All they care about is that YOUR unit can be targeted by the rest of the gunline.

Well sure, but we're talking about playing a game where the models perform the way they'd reasonably perform in the situation they're in. I would not expect the guardsmen to not try to run away from the bloodletters, and I would not expect the rest of the guardsmen not getting stabbed to not shoot the bloodletters regardless of whether Pvt Jenkins had finished being run through yet.

the_scotsman wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
It seems “gamey” because 8th edition removed positioning and maneuvering from the game.

Does pancakey win some kind of award for having managed to stick it out the entire edition making the same complaints about 8th? You've almost done it my man, you've almost consistently come on to a forum dedicated to a game that as far as anyone can tell you do not play to field the same gripes for - what has it been now, three whole years?

And they say the divorce rate proves commitment is dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
It seems “gamey” because 8th edition removed positioning and maneuvering from the game.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
If someone tripointed and had a bloodletters use their basic strength no AP close combat attack just so they could stay safe in melee in a game, the game would stop and we'd have a discussion about how we want different things from the game.

They want: to make the best decisions using the rules in order to win.

I want: units to do what they would in a fictional situation

It's like when you gamemaster RPGs like dungeons and dragons. You don't run the monsters as if they are aware of the minutia of the rules, you run them like characters in a movie or story and have them do what they would reasonably do.

There are probably expectations along a continuum between the two positions, but for anyone who is having trouble understanding why people might object to tripointing, it's all about he mindset with whichyou approach the game.

You'd have to agree not to use fallback. Otherwise, im forced to tripoint.

Yeah, I mean, as long as I'm allowed to say that my Bloodletters would 1000% stab your guardsmen in the back the second they turned around to run, then I'm A-OK with this.

For way too long the melee rules for 40k have required hideously deadly close combat units to stand around like dinguses in the middle of the battlefield taking bullets to the chin for various reasons.

Older editions: Welp, I have jumped in to the battlefield 3" away from my foe using this goddamn rocket pack I've got on, now it's time to...shoot my pistols at him so that my opponent doesn't feel like they didn't get a fair shake at shooting me to death!

Now: Whoops, looks like I dun failed that charge roll. Guess I'll just stand right here... Oh, you want to fall back. Go ahead buddy, here have a juice box, I'll just stay right here

Stabbing them in the back doesn't matter. All they care about is that YOUR unit can be targeted by the rest of the gunline.

Well sure, but we're talking about playing a game where the models perform the way they'd reasonably perform in the situation they're in. I would not expect the guardsmen to not try to run away from the bloodletters, and I would not expect the rest of the guardsmen not getting stabbed to not shoot the bloodletters regardless of whether Pvt Jenkins had finished being run through yet.

I am sorry my posts do not please you.

If you think 8th edition was a healthy example of product development then good for you!

the_scotsman wrote:
so, a thought experiment for a second.

Let's say we do ditch fall back, but we just add in being able to fire into melee.

Make your hit roll, and then after hits are rolled, 50-50 chance that you get to allocate them to enemy units involved in the melee, or that the opposing player gets to allocate them to your units.

Besides being something that would make the game even more lethal, I'm not sure I honestly dislike it conceptually. Even if there's no downside and you've got like ork boyz charging a tank and IG unload on them with lasguns, being in melee would always block the damage you're going to take by 1/2. It'd be like gaining an extra 4+ invulnerable that as a bonus might hurt your opponents models.

The shooty army would gleefully take such an opportunity if they could. Between enemy and friendly casualty removal you would easily be able to remove yourself from combat with only a minimal amount of shooting, and then do the rest of the shooting as normal. If you assume the melee unit is going to destroy you in the fight phase anyway, it's a win-win.

Edit to clarify: If an opponent gets tri-pointed, in most situations they would be better off strategically if they could just voluntarily remove their own squad completely.

Tri-pointing exists as a tactic because GW have created a game where it is better off to take 2 turns killing something in melee than 1 turn. And honestly that has existed since 4th edition. But in previous editions you didn't even need to tri-point, simply touching things in combat was mostly enough.

Trasvi wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
so, a thought experiment for a second.

Let's say we do ditch fall back, but we just add in being able to fire into melee.

Make your hit roll, and then after hits are rolled, 50-50 chance that you get to allocate them to enemy units involved in the melee, or that the opposing player gets to allocate them to your units.

Besides being something that would make the game even more lethal, I'm not sure I honestly dislike it conceptually. Even if there's no downside and you've got like ork boyz charging a tank and IG unload on them with lasguns, being in melee would always block the damage you're going to take by 1/2. It'd be like gaining an extra 4+ invulnerable that as a bonus might hurt your opponents models.

The shooty army would gleefully take such an opportunity if they could. Between enemy and friendly casualty removal you would easily be able to remove yourself from combat with only a minimal amount of shooting, and then do the rest of the shooting as normal. If you assume the melee unit is going to destroy you in the fight phase anyway, it's a win-win.

Sure. And as opposed to now, you lose the unit that was being tied up in melee assuming you shoot them to death, and your opponent takes 50% of the hits instead of 100% of the hits after your unit falls back with no penalty.

Martel732 wrote:


You'd have to agree not to use fallback. Otherwise, im forced to tripoint.

90% of the time I'd stay in combat. I think I only usually flee with my non combatants like imperial advisors, wyrdvane psykers and the like. And even then, they do have pistols lol. If I did fall back with an actual squad of combatants I'd only shoot the bloodletters with that squad once it had been given the order to allow the fallback and shoot. I tend to have my guys shoot the closest threat and split fire across multiple units most of the time rather than dedicate fire into a unit until it's gone. I know it's inefficient but I never really considered my guardsmen to be efficient. the storm troopers though, they'd make the best decision. like if a guardsmen squad fell back, they might move up and shoot the bloodletters. Oh, or if some guardsmen fell back, then maybe the ogryn would come up and shoot and charge in. Rescuing the squad and taking their place on the line.

As you can imagine the instant I play someone who plays competitively I pretty much auto lose

 Chamberlain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


You'd have to agree not to use fallback. Otherwise, im forced to tripoint.

90% of the time I'd stay in combat. I think I only usually flee with my non combatants like imperial advisors, wyrdvane psykers and the like. And even then, they do have pistols lol. If I did fall back with an actual squad of combatants I'd only shoot the bloodletters with that squad once it had been given the order to allow the fallback and shoot. I tend to have my guys shoot the closest threat and split fire across multiple units most of the time rather than dedicate fire into a unit until it's gone. I know it's inefficient but I never really considered my guardsmen to be efficient. the storm troopers though, they'd make the best decision. like if a guardsmen squad fell back, they might move up and shoot the bloodletters. Oh, or if some guardsmen fell back, then maybe the ogryn would come up and shoot and charge in. Rescuing the squad and taking their place on the line.

As you can imagine the instant I play someone who plays competitively I pretty much auto lose

I'm not going to say that this is a bad way to play, but it's so strange that this is the only game I'm aware of with this level of disparity. I mean, I'd autolose to a masters level SCII player, but not necessarily a diamond level.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not going to say that this is a bad way to play, but it's so strange that this is the only game I'm aware of with this level of disparity.

People want different things from their hobby. I play to find out what happens, to be surprised, to create a story, etc.,. Others play to win as a stimulating challenge.

I could totally see having the house rule that if a unit falls back every model that could not get out of engagement range is removed as a casualty. So if you get tripointed you're going to lose the one guy. If half the models in the unit don't get away, well too bad for them.

Tripointing is gamey because it's effect is a result of series of clauses creating a mathematically impossible situation, rather than being an explicitly written out rule.

Tripointing is essentially (un)revised version of (can't remember what it used to be called for the life of me) the mechanic where it would wipe out the unit if it failed morale test but cannot move towards your table edge due to intervening enemy models. Back then, it was an actual tactic to surround a unit in order to invoke this rule.

Edit: it's the 'Trapped!' clause in 6thed ed rulebook. If a unit that is Falling Back due to failing a morale test cannot make the full 2d6 fall back towards own board edge without doubling back, the unit is destroyed.

 skchsan wrote:
Tripointing is gamey because it's effect is a result of series of clauses creating a mathematically impossible situation, rather than being an explicitly written out rule.

Tripointing is essentially (un)revised version of (can't remember what it used to be called for the life of me) the mechanic where it would wipe out the unit if it failed morale test but cannot move towards your table edge due to intervening enemy models. Back then, it was an actual tactic to surround a unit in order to invoke this rule.

It was called crossfire, I think. The strange thing, at least to my mind, is that people used to try and achieve it (or sweeping advance, which was easier) even though it led to exactly the same situation that tri-pointing seeks to avoid - that is, leaving your melee unit exposed to enemy fire after it has wiped out its target. But I don't remember playing anyone back then (like 15, 20 years ago, right?) tearing out their hair and trying to find ways of NOT killing their targets to keep their units alive longer.

 skchsan wrote:
Tripointing is gamey because it's effect is a result of series of clauses creating a mathematically impossible situation, rather than being an explicitly written out rule.

Tripointing is essentially (un)revised version of (can't remember what it used to be called for the life of me) the mechanic where it would wipe out the unit if it failed morale test but cannot move towards your table edge due to intervening enemy models. Back then, it was an actual tactic to surround a unit in order to invoke this rule.

Edit: it's the 'Trapped!' clause in 6thed ed rulebook. If a unit that is Falling Back due to failing a morale test cannot make the full 2d6 fall back towards own board edge without doubling back, the unit is destroyed.

Except that rule made sense and was awesome, like the one where I would block all exit ports of a Land Raider full of Terminators before giving it a good shower of fire dragon fusion.

Those things made sense, and made the game far more logical and interesting than not having them.



If you want something that really exploited the rules through mathematical impossibility, I've got a nice one from 6th and I believe 7th - which in my opinion was fair and all, just convoluted:

People used to have those dumb deathstars with always maximum conga lining active, thus 2" between models.
If you did a tank charge in the middle of such a line, models had to move out of the way, while retaining unit coherency, or be destroyed.
First tank charges in, models x2 destroyed, unit coherency broken.
Other tank charges, further from the hole in the conga line, impossible to retain unit coherency with normal move, models get deleted.
And so on.

I don't think I've ever seen it used but RAW you could delete a deathstar like that.
And why not, they were just so dumb anyway, it made sense to be able to destroy them.


I don't think it's bad that people actually think and find smart things to do with the rules.
Now tripointing... just points at how slowed assault rules always were in 40K.

First you couldn't shoot in a CQC even though you're imperial guard, orks or some other faction that doesn't give a flying feth.
And Assault units could just consolidate into the next unit.
Then you couldn't fall back even in kind of a strategic retreat or whatnot.

Then come 8th, anyone can just get away from any CC without really risking anything, when falling back in nearly all prior editions meant risking being caught and deleted.
I guess it's hard to write, but assault rules with no CC lock, reasonable penalty if attempting to flee (not delete all, maybe a free phase of shooting / CC with -1 / -2 to hit ) and fluff justifiable shooting in a melee, where all missed shots are for your friends...

Now that would be nice, there would be no 3pointing or anything dumb like that.

I think its safe to say that if you are after a game that makes sense and doesn't use overly gamey mechanics, that GW games are largely going to disappoint you. That seems to be one of their core design principals.

Abstraction and gamey for the abstraction and gamey gods. Dice for the Dice Throne.

The trick discussed here is gamey. And largely why most people that love 40k also have no problem with it, because its a game that attracts that style of play. I dont see that changing anytime soon. I expect 9th edition to crank up the gamey abstraction to even greater heights to be honest.

Its "gamey" b.c people want everything for themselves and nothing for everyone else "You stop me from falling back and shooting you? GAMEY!"

But those same people dont cry Gamey when they are sitting on terrain so my Trygon can't melee them.

Thats not what gamey means no. What you are describing is hypocritical, which can be fit into any context.

Models sitting on terrain so they cannot be melee'd at all in the open is also very gamey.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its "gamey" b.c people want everything for themselves and nothing for everyone else "You stop me from falling back and shooting you? GAMEY!"

But those same people dont cry Gamey when they are sitting on terrain so my Trygon can't melee them.

I"m forced to use this almost every match and I hate it. And I freely admit its gamey as hell.

 auticus wrote:
Thats not what gamey means no. What you are describing is hypocritical, which can be fit into any context.

Models sitting on terrain so they cannot be melee'd at all in the open is also very gamey.

Its part of the rules, even tho i hate it I don't say it is gamey, and some of the people (not going to name names) that think Tripoint is gamey always uses terrain tactic to not get charges. Thats my point. They call 1 tactic gamey but not the other.

Martel732 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its "gamey" b.c people want everything for themselves and nothing for everyone else "You stop me from falling back and shooting you? GAMEY!"

But those same people dont cry Gamey when they are sitting on terrain so my Trygon can't melee them.

I"m forced to use this almost every match and I hate it. And I freely admit its gamey as hell.

Yeah not saying everyone thinks its not, just saying a certain few.

"ts part of the rules, "

I'd argue its not part of the RAI. I guess we'll find out very shortly. This one topic will probably shape my view of 9th. They need to get rid of tripoint.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its "gamey" b.c people want everything for themselves and nothing for everyone else "You stop me from falling back and shooting you? GAMEY!"

But those same people dont cry Gamey when they are sitting on terrain so my Trygon can't melee them.

Nice strawman you've built there. Can you point to anyone saying that in this thread...or anywhere else?

Tri-pointing (which I maintain takes no skill regardless of how some people ITT seem to define skill) is pretty much just as gamey as hiding on the first floor of a ruin to avoid monsters and a whole host of other weird interactions in the game. I don't think I've ever come across anyone who thinks one is any more or less "gamey" than the other. Everyone I play with recognises the ridiculousness of both situations.

I'm really curious what you think does take skill in games. Tripointing to maximum effect takes thought and planning to set up. So does countering it. Tripointing in the simple case when you fight a unit and some are left then you tripoint one takes virtually no skill, but is also almost never done by someone skilled in tripointing (it's the least efficient method).

I think it takes skill to set up fiddly gamey positions yes. It takes skill to position your guys in just the right way that your opponent can't maximize their attacks. It takes skill to position your guys in just the right way to prevent a unit from falling back. With certain terrain it takes a certain amount of skill to set your guys up in a way that the gamey 40k rules prevent your opponent from charging.

Not like a great amount of skill, but some skill none the less.

Its the type of skill required that may have some conflict with others.

Battlefield skills like terrain management, cover, command and control, those are skills that one would expect in a wargame.

Those are skills largely vacant in 40k (or most gw games). Which is where you'll get cries of gamey coming from.

I don't see where the problem is suppose to be here. w40k is a game, games have rules, and just like in sports a fight has little to do with an actual brawl, table top games have little to do with actual war. All we get to play with is rules, and if rules allow something, then it is to be used, specialy if it creates an advantage.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its part of the rules, even tho i hate it I don't say it is gamey

Well if it weren't part of the rules, it wouldn't be called 'gamey', it'd be cheating.

The label 'gamey' gets applied to things that are legal and supported by the rules, but have no logical (real-world) justification and detract from the verisimilitude of the game experience. The fact that tri-pointing is allowed by the rules is the whole point. It's part of the rules, it's an essential tactic for melee armies, but it doesn't make logical sense that a squad of Guardsmen would stay in combat with thirty Bloodletters just because one of their number is surrounded.

Bonus points if the Bloodletters are casually poking at their trapped Guardsman, because they don't actually want to kill him until after the rest of the Guard army has a chance to react- while the Guard can't fire indiscriminately into the melee, because risking hitting their trapped Guardsman to obliterate the Bloodletters would violate their well-known respect for the sanctity of human life.

That's the sort of thing that feels 'gamey'.

Karol wrote:
I don't see where the problem is suppose to be here. w40k is a game, games have rules, and just like in sports a fight has little to do with an actual brawl, table top games have little to do with actual war. All we get to play with is rules, and if rules allow something, then it is to be used, specialy if it creates an advantage.

Yes.
I mean tri pointing exists because of the frankly gamey rule that says you can just walk away from someone hitting you with a chain axe, and they can't do anything about it because they are frozen in time.

Karol wrote:
I don't see where the problem is suppose to be here. w40k is a game, games have rules, and just like in sports a fight has little to do with an actual brawl, table top games have little to do with actual war. All we get to play with is rules, and if rules allow something, then it is to be used, specialy if it creates an advantage.

A lot of people do expect wargames to make some attempt to model actual war, and dislike rules-lawyer exploits that detract from that experience.

Also, most of us don't play in as abusive/competitive/WAAC an environment as you do.

It is a basic rules mechanic, that you can't walk through other models base. Calling that abusive is like calling playing time or penality farming just that. It is a basic thing like using charges outside of LoS to avoid overwatch or objective blocking with vehicles.

Next one may as well call dice WAAC, because some faction get re-rolls and there for ignore to a large degree the random factor of rolling while others don't.

It's not basic, or my person would not have been threatened over it. And it is an abusive exploit for sure. Just necessary atm because GW sucks at rules.

Karol wrote:
I don't see where the problem is suppose to be here. w40k is a game, games have rules, and just like in sports a fight has little to do with an actual brawl, table top games have little to do with actual war. All we get to play with is rules, and if rules allow something, then it is to be used, specialy if it creates an advantage.

The issue is that it results in unintended consequences. GW doesn't typically actively design major tactical mechanics around such intricate model placement, and generally are at great pains to explicitly point out when they do (which they pointedly don't do anywhere regarding tripointing), and thus we get effects that, while legal, are exploitative in nature. Same thing with old school rhino-sniping, completely legal, but again, exploitative and just not really something GW considered in writing the rules, and using something just because it creates an advantage goes seemingly against the spirit the rules are written for.

Drager wrote:
I'm really curious what you think does take skill in games. Tripointing to maximum effect takes thought and planning to set up. So does countering it. Tripointing in the simple case when you fight a unit and some are left then you tripoint one takes virtually no skill, but is also almost never done by someone skilled in tripointing (it's the least efficient method).

If you want to get really reductive I guess it could be called a skill, but it's such a rote, simple process it's more equivalent to making sure you get your weapons in range, IMO, than anything I'd truly refer to as skilful. 40k isn't a particularly high-skill game but the skills you do need involve things like target priority, the order of operations of your units to maximise their effectiveness, when to use re-roll stratagems and so on.

Karol wrote:
It is a basic rules mechanic, that you can't walk through other models base. Calling that abusive is like calling playing time or penality farming just that. It is a basic thing like using charges outside of LoS to avoid overwatch or objective blocking with vehicles.

I didn't call the mechanic abusive/WAAC, just gamey. Using an aircraft to block movement because the enemy isn't allowed to stand on its base falls into the same category: a natural consequence of the same basic rule, but a gamey tactic all the same.

I called your gaming environment, where you've claimed on this forum to be subject to constant harassment, bullying, and negativity, where winning is the only thing that matters and you're expected to chase the meta and use every rules-lawyer exploit you can find, abusive. I mean this in the nicest possible way: I legitimately think you do not understand the issue here because your wargaming experience is so warped from what most of us would consider normal.

Slipspace wrote:

Drager wrote:
I'm really curious what you think does take skill in games. Tripointing to maximum effect takes thought and planning to set up. So does countering it. Tripointing in the simple case when you fight a unit and some are left then you tripoint one takes virtually no skill, but is also almost never done by someone skilled in tripointing (it's the least efficient method).

If you want to get really reductive I guess it could be called a skill, but it's such a rote, simple process it's more equivalent to making sure you get your weapons in range, IMO, than anything I'd truly refer to as skilful. 40k isn't a particularly high-skill game but the skills you do need involve things like target priority, the order of operations of your units to maximise their effectiveness, when to use re-roll stratagems and so on.

I find target priority to be lower skill than tripointing outside of the simplest case, so I find it interesting that you see it the other way round. Similarly with when to use re-rolls, if you play a list for a bit it becomes a pretty easy rule of thumb thing. I do agree they have elements of skill and 100% agree that proper order of operations of your units is more skillful than any of the other three things we are talking about, as that requires constant reassessment as you progress through the order to do properly. Target priority and useful tripointing require that to some degree, but nowhere near as much and reroll use is pretty one time, without feedback (except level of CP remaining).

Thanks for answering my question, I was genuinely curious and not just point scoring!

 catbarf wrote:

Karol wrote:
It is a basic rules mechanic, that you can't walk through other models base. Calling that abusive is like calling playing time or penality farming just that. It is a basic thing like using charges outside of LoS to avoid overwatch or objective blocking with vehicles.

I didn't call the mechanic abusive/WAAC, just gamey. Using an aircraft to block movement because the enemy isn't allowed to stand on its base falls into the same category: a natural consequence of the same basic rule, but a gamey tactic all the same.

I called your gaming environment, where you've claimed on this forum to be subject to constant harassment, bullying, and negativity, where winning is the only thing that matters and you're expected to chase the meta and use every rules-lawyer exploit you can find, abusive. I mean this in the nicest possible way: I legitimately think you do not understand the issue here because your wargaming experience is so warped from what most of us would consider normal.

>

Wargaming, maybe. But nearly all 40K groups I've experienced are hostile rules lawyers. I've met nicer people at tournaments.

Martel732 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Karol wrote:
It is a basic rules mechanic, that you can't walk through other models base. Calling that abusive is like calling playing time or penality farming just that. It is a basic thing like using charges outside of LoS to avoid overwatch or objective blocking with vehicles.

I didn't call the mechanic abusive/WAAC, just gamey. Using an aircraft to block movement because the enemy isn't allowed to stand on its base falls into the same category: a natural consequence of the same basic rule, but a gamey tactic all the same.

I called your gaming environment, where you've claimed on this forum to be subject to constant harassment, bullying, and negativity, where winning is the only thing that matters and you're expected to chase the meta and use every rules-lawyer exploit you can find, abusive. I mean this in the nicest possible way: I legitimately think you do not understand the issue here because your wargaming experience is so warped from what most of us would consider normal.

>

Wargaming, maybe. But nearly all 40K groups I've experienced are hostile rules lawyers. I've met nicer people at tournaments.

That's a real shame, I've found very few 40k groups that aren't welcoming and fun to play with, either in FLGS or at tournaments or clubs. I've moved around the country a lot and so seen Northern and Southern groups, East and West and, not to forget Midlands. Now I've moved to Wales and the gaming groups here are great too. That's not to say there aren't sometimes troublesome folks in a group, but overall they've been great and welcoming. There's been maybe one group that I didn't like because of people's behaviour and that was in a big enough city that there were other groups to go to.

 catbarf wrote:

Karol wrote:
It is a basic rules mechanic, that you can't walk through other models base. Calling that abusive is like calling playing time or penality farming just that. It is a basic thing like using charges outside of LoS to avoid overwatch or objective blocking with vehicles.

I didn't call the mechanic abusive/WAAC, just gamey. Using an aircraft to block movement because the enemy isn't allowed to stand on its base falls into the same category: a natural consequence of the same basic rule, but a gamey tactic all the same.

I called your gaming environment, where you've claimed on this forum to be subject to constant harassment, bullying, and negativity, where winning is the only thing that matters and you're expected to chase the meta and use every rules-lawyer exploit you can find, abusive. I mean this in the nicest possible way: I legitimately think you do not understand the issue here because your wargaming experience is so warped from what most of us would consider normal.

I don't understand english well enough to understand what gamey means. w40k is a game, every rule in it is gamey to me. I never claimed to be the subject of bully or harasment no people at my store acted different then people at school or at home. People use every advantage they have in life on a daily basis. Now there were tournament or meta chasers at my store. those were 2 cars of people. everyone else played with the stuff they bought to start and use the rules GW gave them. Besides my initial army and one five man box of strikes, I have not bought a single model in 8th. Everyone who played w40k with me did the same, some quit, fewer stayed. But no one here could afford to meta chase, not before being 30 . And even the dudes that were 30 borrowed units, and used stuff they bought years ago and a Ton of recasts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 789314 10836401 wrote:

Wargaming, maybe. But nearly all 40K groups I've experienced are hostile rules lawyers. I've met nicer people at tournaments.

I wouldn't call it hostile, plus I am more or less limited to expiriance of polish forums and one store, but I agree that there is no way that if someone has a rule that works in their favour, they ain't going to use it. And I am talking about store games here, not tournaments. I have no real expiriance with how tournaments work, besides playing in one store event over 2 plus years.

I don't understand english well enough to understand what gamey means.

Gamey is a game mechanic that makes no sense (in this instance in a battlefield environment how you'd expect it to work, such as true line of sight letting you obliterate an entire unit with pistols or other small arms fire, because you can see one of the model's toe sticking out from behind a steel wall), but is allowed by the game rules.

Its a rule that is used but not written.

Examples;

- Using throw away units to Bubble wrap so your tank so it can not be charged
- Having small throw away units behind you so the opponent has a harder time DS ing near you.
- Standing in terrain in a way to stop someone from charging you.

Some people don't like these "hidden" mechanics b.c it makes the game less fun for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS anyone that says it defies realism, um.. so? The whole game does, why would a gun have limited range? Really all guns in 40k should be able to shoot all units on the table but should be harder to hit the farther away they are. Or you should be able to shoot any 1 model you wanted at anytime like characters, sargents, etc.. the gmae is full of non real mechanics.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
PS anyone that says it defies realism, um.. so? The whole game does, why would a gun have limited range? Really all guns in 40k should be able to shoot all units on the table but should be harder to hit the farther away they are. Or you should be able to shoot any 1 model you wanted at anytime like characters, sargents, etc.. the gmae is full of non real mechanics.

I very specifically use the word verisimilitude rather than realism for a reason. Not all unrealistic mechanics are created equal.

Soldiers being able to run across open fields into bayonet range without getting immediately gunned down may not be realistic, but it's accepted as part of the style of the setting. It fits the background. It's clearly deliberate as part of the fantasy-in-space motif.

A Guard squad being unable to retreat because one member has been surrounded, the rest of the army being unwilling to fire on the stranded squad, and the attacking forces deliberately whiffing their first round of attacks to preserve this bizarre scenario, makes no sense within the logic of the setting. It doesn't fit the background; it's just a weird product of several rules interacting in ways the designers probably didn't intend.

"A Guard squad being unable to retreat because one member has been surrounded"

But you need some narrative, just b.c on the table 1 i behind doesn't mean the others in front and the 1 behind isn't hindering their escape. Just like a Guardsmen meleeing a Land raider is able to hurt it doesn't mean he is using his fists.

Thats what i mean, so yes it is in the real of accepted when we have rules that lets a Str 1 hurt a T10.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
"A Guard squad being unable to retreat because one member has been surrounded"

But you need some narrative, just b.c on the table 1 i behind doesn't mean the others in front and the 1 behind isn't hindering their escape. Just like a Guardsmen meleeing a Land raider is able to hurt it doesn't mean he is using his fists.

Thats what i mean, so yes it is in the real of accepted when we have rules that lets a Str 1 hurt a T10.

I don't buy it. Creating a narrative to explain an abstract mechanic, and creating a narrative to explain a detailed and specific but illogical mechanic, are very different things.

In prior editions, I had no problem with the abstraction that you are unable to retreat from melee. That's an abstract mechanic, justified as units in melee being unable to safely disengage from a foe in close quarters. 8th Ed says that you can always retreat, unless a model is surrounded. It's no longer abstract; it's highly specific to a condition of the game state. Invoking the same justification doesn't work.

Similarly: Justifying a S3 profile as an abstract representation of the strength of a character with all their equipment, and having that character then potentially able to damage a tank, seems fine to me. However, in a game that models the difference between a sword, axe, and hammer, now each melee profile represents a very specific weapon, and invoking the same justification no longer makes sense.

I am all for abstracted mechanics easily explained by narrative. 'Simulationist' mechanics preclude those narrative explanations, because they no longer have that abstraction 'wiggle room'. Two units contacting one another are no longer abstractly 'in combat', now it matters exactly where every member of the squad is, and those positions are considered 1:1 representations of what the troops are 'really' doing. The rules are explicit that a soldier is prevented from falling back by being literally surrounded- and what's the narrative justification for the attackers deliberately making their attacks ineffective so as not to kill the trapped model, anyways?

Verisimilitude is maintained by designing either for effect (abstract mechanics which dictate the appropriate outcome) or accurate simulation (specific mechanics, which mechanically result in the appropriate outcome). Simulationist mechanics that don't produce the expected outcome degrade verisimilitude.

 catbarf wrote:
and what's the narrative justification for the attackers deliberately making their attacks ineffective so as not to kill the trapped model, anyways?

Generally you shouldn't do that, there's no need in the vast majority of situations. Hit one squad with full fury and tri-point a model you didn't charge is the best method. Sometimes this isn't possible, but it usually is.

Drager wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
and what's the narrative justification for the attackers deliberately making their attacks ineffective so as not to kill the trapped model, anyways?

Generally you shouldn't do that, there's no need in the vast majority of situations. Hit one squad with full fury and tri-point a model you didn't charge is the best method. Sometimes this isn't possible, but it usually is.

People make it a priority to force DC to do just that.

so?

Because some people like the immersion aspect in their games. Some people like the gamist min / max aspect of the game. Some people love the competitive aspect of the game.

We all are here for different reasons.

 auticus wrote:

so?

Because some people like the immersion aspect in their games. Some people like the gamist min / max aspect of the game. Some people love the competitive aspect of the game.

We all are here for different reasons.

I think it's a little simplistic to assume people who are for tri-pointing do it solely because they have no attachment to verisimilitude or immersion. I'm for tri-pointing and against how fall-back works currently, and I certainly find nothing immersive about my 30 boy mob getting stopped in their tracks by a squad of guardsmen, who then walks out of combat as if nothing was there, and my boyz politely waiting with both hands wedged up their bum while a baneblade slowly aims all its guns on them.

I was answering the particular question of "its not realistic, so?".

That doesn't mean the people that like gamey things are solely about no verisimilitude.

GW tends to be fairly explicit when they intend for mechanics like tri-pointing to function as they do in a tactical sense (being able to walk out of combat, whatever one feels about it, was very definitely intended and called out specifically for example), and GW has never done so, and in fact this seems to be very much in opposition to most other CC mechanics where simply getting "close enough" works and the exact physical positions don't matter. These aren't the sorts of things GW tries to slip in as hidden tactical secrets. It's something that expresses itself as a byproduct of the rules in a way that can be used to one's tactical advantage, but wasn't ever really something the designers intended for. In some places and settings, such things are lauded, and often rightfully so. In 40k's case, that's generally not the case, and that presents some issues both narrative and balance related and is the sort of thing that's tolerated while also complained about, but also comes and goes with each edition. GW never can seem to nail down close combat functionality in any edition particularly well.

 Vaktathi wrote:
GW tends to be fairly explicit when they intend for mechanics like tri-pointing to function as they do in a tactical sense (being able to walk out of combat, whatever one feels about it, was very definitely intended and called out specifically for example), and GW has never done so, and in fact this seems to be very much in opposition to most other CC mechanics where simply getting "close enough" works and the exact physical positions don't matter. These aren't the sorts of things GW tries to slip in as hidden tactical secrets. It's something that expresses itself as a byproduct of the rules in a way that can be used to one's tactical advantage, but wasn't ever really something the designers intended for. In some places and settings, such things are lauded, and often rightfully so. In 40k's case, that's generally not the case, and that presents some issues both narrative and balance related and is the sort of thing that's tolerated while also complained about, but also comes and goes with each edition. GW never can seem to nail down close combat functionality in any edition particularly well.

I guess that ultimate depends on one's view on emergent gameplay. I don't particularly find the idea that what the game designer has ultimate authority on how the game is played compelling, so if something comes from the interaction of the basic rules that makes the game more interesting and tactical than not I'd prefer to keep it around than dismiss it as merely "gamey". The fact that people are throwing the word "hate" around about it seems exaggerate.

I dont mind anyone surrounding my models in CC by positioning.. But withholding from inflicting damage, I'd consider that as highly dishonourable. If someone did that to me in a game, I'd give up the game and would never play that person again.

I dont care about your whining about how CC armies are unfairly screwed if they kill the unit they charged. This is the tradeoff you accept for charging into melee in the first place. If you are not thoughtful enough in your timing and army coordination to mitigate the consequences of a successful charge, its not my fault. You're trying to "hack" the game to compensate for your weak playing skills.

" But withholding from inflicting damage, I'd consider that as highly dishonourable"

It's basically mandatory, though. I"m guessing you don't play competitively. I basically do this on every charge.

"I dont care about your whining about how CC armies are unfairly screwed if they kill the unit they charged."

Well, they are screwed if they don't kill it and don't surround as well. It's almost like fallback shouldn't exist.

"You're trying to "hack" the game to compensate for your weak playing skills."

Or maybe compensate for 4 pt models existing.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
GW tends to be fairly explicit when they intend for mechanics like tri-pointing to function as they do in a tactical sense (being able to walk out of combat, whatever one feels about it, was very definitely intended and called out specifically for example), and GW has never done so, and in fact this seems to be very much in opposition to most other CC mechanics where simply getting "close enough" works and the exact physical positions don't matter. These aren't the sorts of things GW tries to slip in as hidden tactical secrets. It's something that expresses itself as a byproduct of the rules in a way that can be used to one's tactical advantage, but wasn't ever really something the designers intended for. In some places and settings, such things are lauded, and often rightfully so. In 40k's case, that's generally not the case, and that presents some issues both narrative and balance related and is the sort of thing that's tolerated while also complained about, but also comes and goes with each edition. GW never can seem to nail down close combat functionality in any edition particularly well.

I guess that ultimate depends on one's view on emergent gameplay. I don't particularly find the idea that what the game designer has ultimate authority on how the game is played compelling, so if something comes from the interaction of the basic rules that makes the game more interesting and tactical than not I'd prefer to keep it around than dismiss it as merely "gamey". The fact that people are throwing the word "hate" around about it seems exaggerate.

With GW's oft repeated design intents, and the general nature of what they devote rules detail and rules fixes for, to me at least, emergent gameplay of this type isn't really a big plus for a game like 40k when in this form. It's really just not what 40k as a wargame is about. As I said, there are places where it's absolutely awesome, Minecraft for instance is built almost entirely around that, but in 40k, a huge part of the casual playerbase is basically completely unaware of tripointing even after 3+ years of an edition about to be replaced, many more consciously don't use it, which speaks to its being exploitative. There's just too much investment in playing a single game of 40k for unstated "gotcha" mechanics to really be anything else (unlike a game of SCII, WoT, or LoL that you can just replay in 20 mins, taking an entire evening to play 40k is a bit more of an undertaking), and the game is otherwise very intentionally written without any such detailed positioning mechanics which sets up certain expectations as well, that's just not the detail GW set out for with the game in general. Again, we've seen this in the past with other things such as Rhino-sniping of characters, part of why the current character rules are as wonky as they are now.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
GW tends to be fairly explicit when they intend for mechanics like tri-pointing to function as they do in a tactical sense (being able to walk out of combat, whatever one feels about it, was very definitely intended and called out specifically for example), and GW has never done so, and in fact this seems to be very much in opposition to most other CC mechanics where simply getting "close enough" works and the exact physical positions don't matter. These aren't the sorts of things GW tries to slip in as hidden tactical secrets. It's something that expresses itself as a byproduct of the rules in a way that can be used to one's tactical advantage, but wasn't ever really something the designers intended for. In some places and settings, such things are lauded, and often rightfully so. In 40k's case, that's generally not the case, and that presents some issues both narrative and balance related and is the sort of thing that's tolerated while also complained about, but also comes and goes with each edition. GW never can seem to nail down close combat functionality in any edition particularly well.

I guess that ultimate depends on one's view on emergent gameplay. I don't particularly find the idea that what the game designer has ultimate authority on how the game is played compelling, so if something comes from the interaction of the basic rules that makes the game more interesting and tactical than not I'd prefer to keep it around than dismiss it as merely "gamey". The fact that people are throwing the word "hate" around about it seems exaggerate.

With GW's oft repeated design intents, and the general nature of what they devote rules detail and rules fixes for, to me at least, emergent gameplay of this type isn't really a big plus for a game like 40k when in this form. It's really just not what 40k as a wargame is about. As I said, there are places where it's absolutely awesome, Minecraft for instance is built almost entirely around that, but in 40k, a huge part of the casual playerbase is basically completely unaware of tripointing even after 3+ years of an edition about to be replaced, many more consciously don't use it, which speaks to its being exploitative. There's just too much investment in playing a single game of 40k for unstated "gotcha" mechanics to really be anything else (unlike a game of SCII, WoT, or LoL that you can just replay in 20 mins, taking an entire evening to play 40k is a bit more of an undertaking), and the game is otherwise very intentionally written without any such detailed positioning mechanics which sets up certain expectations as well, that's just not the detail GW set out for with the game in general. Again, we've seen this in the past with other things such as Rhino-sniping of characters, part of why the current character rules are as wonky as they are now.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Drager wrote:
Tripointing to maximum effect takes thought and planning to set up.

Let's see:

There are 4 models on 32mm bases: 1 defender & 3 attackers. The 3 attackers are in base-to-base contact with the enemy, adjacent to each other.

It will take approximately 2.6" of movement for this configuration to achieve tripointing.

So the amount of planning that is required is:
1. have at least 3 models attacking the far most defender.
2. have 3" of movement after base-to-base charging.

This doesn't take much thought - just enough movement/distance prior to charging.

Counters? "you can blob up your unit so you don't have a model singled out to be tripointed. Well;
1. if one was going for tripointing, s/he would not charge a unit that is blobbed up.
2. if the unit was initially not blobbed up, it cannot use pile in to successfully blob it up at the charge as pile requires you to move your models in a way so that you are as close to base to base contact as possible. While this is easier to do for the attacker who has set up their charge distance & angle for optimal surround, the defender would most likely not be able to do so unless the unit was already prepared for a charge - which then would result in the above case.

Meaning, you can set your units up to prevent/deter CHARGES, but you cannot (or at least very difficult to) reactively deny tripointing without breaking some rules.

 skchsan wrote:

Drager wrote:
Tripointing to maximum effect takes thought and planning to set up.

Let's see:

There are 4 models on 32mm bases: 1 defender & 3 attackers. The 3 attackers are in base-to-base contact with the enemy, adjacent to each other.

It will take approximately 2.6" of movement for this configuration to achieve tripointing.

So the amount of planning that is required is:
1. have at least 3 models attacking the far most defender.
2. have 3" of movement after base-to-base charging.

This doesn't take much thought - just enough movement/distance prior to charging.

Counters? "you can blob up your unit so you don't have a model singled out to be tripointed. Well;
1. if one was going for tripointing, s/he would not charge a unit that is blobbed up.
2. if the unit was initially not blobbed up, it cannot use pile in to successfully blob it up at the charge as pile requires you to move your models in a way so that you are as close to base to base contact as possible. While this is easier to do for the attacker who has set up their charge distance & angle for optimal surround, the defender would most likely not be able to do so unless the unit was already prepared for a charge - which then would result in the above case.

Meaning, you can set your units up to prevent/deter CHARGES, but you cannot (or at least very difficult to) reactively deny tripointing without breaking some rules.

You're talking about the simplest case of tripointing, which I've already called out as (A) trivial in terms of planning and (B) not that useful as the charger (although you'll do it if you have no better option). That's not tripointing to maximum effect, which is therefore not what I was referring to. The scenario you are describing is like saying "Target priority takes no skill when there's only one target!" Well, yes, but it doesn't address the whole of the concept and isn't really helpful. I made this point in the part of my post you left out.

Further your example is incorrect as you can't tripoint from starting in base to base and not being in a tripoint position as you aren't allowed to pile in/consolidate any further after achieving base to base. Tri pointing has to be done before. Reactive counterplay to tripointing often involves basing models so they can't move. I think you just demonstrated it takes more skill than you thought.

It takes plenty of skill, it's just awful and gamey.

Drager wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Drager wrote:
Tripointing to maximum effect takes thought and planning to set up.

Let's see:

There are 4 models on 32mm bases: 1 defender & 3 attackers. The 3 attackers are in base-to-base contact with the enemy, adjacent to each other.

It will take approximately 2.6" of movement for this configuration to achieve tripointing.

So the amount of planning that is required is:
1. have at least 3 models attacking the far most defender.
2. have 3" of movement after base-to-base charging.

This doesn't take much thought - just enough movement/distance prior to charging.

Counters? "you can blob up your unit so you don't have a model singled out to be tripointed. Well;
1. if one was going for tripointing, s/he would not charge a unit that is blobbed up.
2. if the unit was initially not blobbed up, it cannot use pile in to successfully blob it up at the charge as pile requires you to move your models in a way so that you are as close to base to base contact as possible. While this is easier to do for the attacker who has set up their charge distance & angle for optimal surround, the defender would most likely not be able to do so unless the unit was already prepared for a charge - which then would result in the above case.

Meaning, you can set your units up to prevent/deter CHARGES, but you cannot (or at least very difficult to) reactively deny tripointing without breaking some rules.

You're talking about the simplest case of tripointing, which I've already called out as (A) trivial in terms of planning and (B) not that useful as the charger (although you'll do it if you have no better option). That's not tripointing to maximum effect, which is therefore not what I was referring to. The scenario you are describing is like saying "Target priority takes no skill when there's only one target!" Well, yes, but it doesn't address the whole of the concept and isn't really helpful. I made this point in the part of my post you left out. Further your example is incorrect as you can't tripoint from base to base as you aren't allowed to pile in/consolidate any further after achieving base to base. Tri pointing has to be done before. Reactive counterplay to tripointing often involves basing models so they can't move.

I'm not sure what you mean by "maximizing" the effect of tripointing. The reason for tripointing is to hide your units in combat from ensuing enemy shooting phase. It's an "either-or" situation and not really a "how much of" situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
It takes plenty of skill, it's just awful and gamey.

It takes set up, not necessarily "skills".

Although I agree that it would take some skills/thinking/planning on keeping that unit alive long enough to set up the unit to tripoint successfully.

More importantly, it takes the LACK of setup on your opponent's part. That's why its a gotcha move.

 skchsan wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "maximizing" the effect of tripointing. The reason for tripointing is to hide your units in combat from ensuing enemy shooting phase. It's an "either-or" situation and not really a "how much of" situation.

The reason for target priority is to maximize damage, that doesn't mean there is no skill involved. I'm a competitive player, mainly, and I've been helping some people at my local shop with tri pointing and how to make the best use of it. It takes a while to get all the nuances of how exactly to employ the technique and what it can be used for. It's difficult to explain on a froum as I can't position models to show you without a lot of picture making I don't have time for, but I';; give you one scenario as an example.

Say I'm playing with Slashing Impact reavers with Grav talons. These do ~6 mortal wounds on the charge and a good load of attacks. My opponent has a Knight screened by 3 IG squads. If he moves his knight out of his deployment zone he'll be able to get a bead on units I have camping an objective. I can charge my reavers into the central gaurd squad and use my charge move to set up consolidation into the other two. The central one will be mostly killed by mortal wounds and finished off by CC attacks, but I can tri point the other two squads. This sets up a cordon of bikes that the Knight can't move over and locks both the infantry squads in place, allowing me greater control of how to remove them on my next turn. I lose a bunch of bikes to Knight close combat, but less than I would have if he'd been able to shoot them and score the objective, give myself more time to deal with the knight and get his units out of position, mostly down to careful tripointing.

But tripointing shouldn't exist in the first place. That's the real point here. I'm really hoping they fix this in 9th.

Drager wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "maximizing" the effect of tripointing. The reason for tripointing is to hide your units in combat from ensuing enemy shooting phase. It's an "either-or" situation and not really a "how much of" situation.

The reason for target priority is to maximize damage, that doesn't mean there is no skill involved. I'm a competitive player, mainly, and I've been helping some people at my local shop with tri pointing and how to make the best use of it. It takes a while to get all the nuances of how exactly to employ the technique and what it can be used for. It's difficult to explain on a froum as I can't position models to show you without a lot of picture making I don't have time for, but I';; give you one scenario as an example.

Say I'm playing with Slashing Impact reavers with Grav talons. These do ~6 mortal wounds on the charge and a good load of attacks. My opponent has a Knight screened by 3 IG squads. If he moves his knight out of his deployment zone he'll be able to get a bead on units I have camping an objective. I can charge my reavers into the central gaurd squad and use my charge move to set up consolidation into the other two. The central one will be mostly killed by mortal wounds and finished off by CC attacks, but I can tri point the other two squads. This sets up a cordon of bikes that the Knight can't move over and locks both the infantry squads in place, allowing me greater control of how to remove them on my next turn. I lose a bunch of bikes to Knight close combat, but less than I would have if he'd been able to shoot them and score the objective, give myself more time to deal with the knight and get his units out of position, mostly down to careful tripointing.

Yeah.... but this is more of how to use "BIKER" keyword to maximum and not how to "maximize the effect of tripointing". I do it all the time to tie down a knight.

In your particular example, the knight should just charge the reavers instead of dillydallying because it can't move over BIKER - which then goes to show the lack of skills/thought on the defender moreso than the skills/thoughts of the attacker (the one who tripointed).

 skchsan wrote:

Drager wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "maximizing" the effect of tripointing. The reason for tripointing is to hide your units in combat from ensuing enemy shooting phase. It's an "either-or" situation and not really a "how much of" situation.

The reason for target priority is to maximize damage, that doesn't mean there is no skill involved. I'm a competitive player, mainly, and I've been helping some people at my local shop with tri pointing and how to make the best use of it. It takes a while to get all the nuances of how exactly to employ the technique and what it can be used for. It's difficult to explain on a froum as I can't position models to show you without a lot of picture making I don't have time for, but I';; give you one scenario as an example.

Say I'm playing with Slashing Impact reavers with Grav talons. These do ~6 mortal wounds on the charge and a good load of attacks. My opponent has a Knight screened by 3 IG squads. If he moves his knight out of his deployment zone he'll be able to get a bead on units I have camping an objective. I can charge my reavers into the central gaurd squad and use my charge move to set up consolidation into the other two. The central one will be mostly killed by mortal wounds and finished off by CC attacks, but I can tri point the other two squads. This sets up a cordon of bikes that the Knight can't move over and locks both the infantry squads in place, allowing me greater control of how to remove them on my next turn. I lose a bunch of bikes to Knight close combat, but less than I would have if he'd been able to shoot them and score the objective, give myself more time to deal with the knight and get his units out of position, mostly down to careful tripointing.

Yeah.... but this is more of how to use "BIKER" keyword to maximum and not how to "maximize the effect of tripointing". I do it all the time to tie down a knight.

In your particular example, the knight should just charge the reavers instead of dillydallying because it can't move over BIKER - which then goes to show the lack of skills/thought on the defender moreso than the skills/thoughts of the attacker (the one who tripointed).

He did charge them. As I mentioned in my post. Settign up the tripoint correctly is essential to that particular example. there are lots of other similar examples. They all interact with other mechanics too, that's mostly where the skills come in, leveraging it to your advantage.

With any luck, this discussion is moot very soon.

 skchsan wrote:

Drager wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "maximizing" the effect of tripointing. The reason for tripointing is to hide your units in combat from ensuing enemy shooting phase. It's an "either-or" situation and not really a "how much of" situation.

The reason for target priority is to maximize damage, that doesn't mean there is no skill involved. I'm a competitive player, mainly, and I've been helping some people at my local shop with tri pointing and how to make the best use of it. It takes a while to get all the nuances of how exactly to employ the technique and what it can be used for. It's difficult to explain on a froum as I can't position models to show you without a lot of picture making I don't have time for, but I';; give you one scenario as an example.

Say I'm playing with Slashing Impact reavers with Grav talons. These do ~6 mortal wounds on the charge and a good load of attacks. My opponent has a Knight screened by 3 IG squads. If he moves his knight out of his deployment zone he'll be able to get a bead on units I have camping an objective. I can charge my reavers into the central gaurd squad and use my charge move to set up consolidation into the other two. The central one will be mostly killed by mortal wounds and finished off by CC attacks, but I can tri point the other two squads. This sets up a cordon of bikes that the Knight can't move over and locks both the infantry squads in place, allowing me greater control of how to remove them on my next turn. I lose a bunch of bikes to Knight close combat, but less than I would have if he'd been able to shoot them and score the objective, give myself more time to deal with the knight and get his units out of position, mostly down to careful tripointing.

Yeah.... but this is more of how to use "BIKER" keyword to maximum and not how to "maximize the effect of tripointing". I do it all the time to tie down a knight.

In your particular example, the knight should just charge the reavers instead of dillydallying because it can't move over BIKER - which then goes to show the lack of skills/thought on the defender moreso than the skills/thoughts of the attacker (the one who tripointed).

Agreed. Also, if the intent is to limit the Knight's movement there isn't even any need to charge since the Knight can't move over the bikes regardless. Sure, by tri-pointing you keep the bikes "safe" (they still die to the Knight's charge, most likely) and reduce the shooting from some Guard squads but your example isn't really a great example of the utility of tri-pointing since the survival of the bikes is in your opponent's shooting phase is very much secondary to limiting the Knight's movement.

Having had more time to think about why I consider tri-pointing to lack skill I think it ultimately boils down to a lack of any real decision-making. Tri-pointing is just something you can do by working your way down a completely objective checklist of actions and that checklist isn't particularly long. Your opponent may be able to prevent you trapping their units through either casualty removal or their own positioning but again that's also just working through an objective checklist of actions too. There's no randomness, no real chance to get it wrong for either side like there is with splitting fire, for example (which is still a fairly rudimentary skill in itself). Talk of how nuanced you can get with tri-pointing seems to me to be looking for complexity where it just doesn't exist.

What you make of the situation after tripointing may be worthy of discussion elsewhere, but no matter how you spin it, the act of tripointing is not skill dependent.

As others have said, a particular game strategy is 'gamey' when it is legal but breaks from custom and the intention of the rules. Tripointing is a perfect example of such play. It's not an explicit strategy in the rules, just an application of the rules that a model cannot move through other models.

In the most benign form, it may just happen as part of normal piling in and consolidating with the goal of getting the maximum number of models into combat range and up the field, surrounding a model for death in future combat rounds. This is a thematic use of close combat units. They assault the enemy, kill everything they can, and surround the remainder so that they can finish the job in the next round of close combat.

In the most aggravating form, it is players maneuvering and playing in a manner to minimize the amount of damage they do during the initial assault. They then so take 1 model 'prisoner' to prevent the opponent from falling back and exposing them to shooting attacks by the enemy. It is not thematic. Never in the history of history has someone said, "don't kill those guys too fast, someone may shoot at us". No one images a horde of blood thirsty killers allowing only one member of their squad to fight, with him using his fist rather than his daemon sword.

That being said, what starts out as gamey over time becomes just part of the game. The NFL Victory Formation or Quarterback Kneel is a perfect example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarterback_kneel). It was always legal, but considered to be unsportsmanlike. It became standard practice and then the rules were formalized to make it safe.

tneva82 wrote:
It is gamey and silly. But in 8th neccessary. Gw should fix both extremes. Locking stuff into melee with no way to escape leads to death of shooty armies

Uhhh, I don't think the previous 4 editions (at least) support that statement.

That will be a yes and a no, Martel:

Yea, I think this is a gak "fix", but whatever. Desire to play 9th just went down a LOT. Unless they modify charge move such that all models that CAN reach MUST reach.