Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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).