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.

 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.