Nightlord1987 wrote:
Not that it would see much use in 40k, I do like the Killteam approach of either fire Overwatch, or retreat 3 inches and screw your opponents charge.

I kinda hope 9th takes some of Killteam and some of Apocalypse to make a more interactive system for both players.

I would really like to be able to fall back three inches instead of shooting with some of my stuff, as for damage being done at the end of the battle round as in Apocalypse, that would be interesting as well.

More so than anything I think they should try to incorporate some of the "Cities of Death" rules into baseline 40K. I just started in August of 2018, and didn't know there was such a massive upheaval in rules from 7th to 8th edition and looking over some of the old rules and new rules, a D12 for saves (like in APoc) and getting rid of invulnerable saves all together and just having wounds/saves redone would be interesting.

D12 no thanks.
2d6 gives range of 2 to 12.
Better idea as in termies from way back...

2d6 saves means having to roll them one at a time. Unless you have pairs of dice all different colours. Its impractical.

Tygre wrote:
2d6 saves means having to roll them one at a time. Unless you have pairs of dice all different colours. Its impractical.

"Impractical" covers most of 2nd edition's mechanics. Pretty decent rules, but not for the style of game 40k has become. Overwatch was terrible in 2nd edition too - it just led to armies sitting in one place the whole game for fear of getting gunned down. At least now when armies sit in one place for the whole game they're still taking shots.

Apoc saves are good (and you stil have the equivalent of Invulns)

too many models on the table for 2D6 saves. Could go for D12 or D10.

Damage being at end of turn is another great thing in Apocolypse

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

But Overwatch WILL stop them from declaring a charge against 6 units, three of whom might be sitting at 10+ inches.

I’m not seeing why that’s important or necessary. If units are that close together then consolidation would let them tag who they want anyway.

But not attack them, while the defender fights back. Declaring the charge allows you to attack more units.

And? The unit doesn’t get more attacks, and they also then have to deal with all 6 units swinging back. The biggest win is just tagging many units to force them to fall back and not shoot. It just seems like you’re preventing a mild edge case scenario with a mechanic that many people have expressed they don’t like.

Plus, charging tau means all 6 units get to shoot you anyway.

The unit can get more attacks by spending 3CP. Overwatch still cuts down on frivolous charges.

People have expressed that they dislike Overwatch generally as part of a whole package of CC not feeling powerful enough. Addressing fallback would help that cause better than Overwatch, imo. Declaring far-charges won't be an edge case scenario if Overwatch isn't there., because if there's no downside to declaring a charge against everything, why wouldn't you? Overwatch forces you to actually make a decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blood reaper wrote:

Overwatch is a terrible rule because it reinforces the fact that there is simply no reason to ever go into close combat because there is no disadvantage to shooting, ever.

Merely touching a unit can make them not shoot in their next turn. Tri-cornering a model prevents Fall Back, effectvely hiding your own unit from enemy shooting. Both of these are very powerful abilities aside from the damage dealt in CC.

And both are entirely negated by Fly.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And both are entirely negated by Fly.

That doesn't seem like a problem with Overwatch, that seems like a problem with Fall Back.

 Insectum7 wrote:


The unit can get more attacks by spending 3CP. Overwatch still cuts down on frivolous charges.

People have expressed that they dislike Overwatch generally as part of a whole package of CC not feeling powerful enough. Addressing fallback would help that cause better than Overwatch, imo. Declaring far-charges won't be an edge case scenario if Overwatch isn't there., because if there's no downside to declaring a charge against everything, why wouldn't you? Overwatch forces you to actually make a decision.

But why is being able to multi charge a bad thing? Why are far charges bad and frivolous? Why do you feel the need to force a choice upon those melee units? Why should melee units be forced into such a decision when ranged units can split fire all they want and still get access to shoot twice strats? Where is the penalty for split fire?

Overwatch has no penalty or cost for the player that benefits from it, and i feel that is bad for gameplay.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Declaring far-charges won't be an edge case scenario if Overwatch isn't there., because if there's no downside to declaring a charge against everything, why wouldn't you? Overwatch forces you to actually make a decision.

What gameplay benefit does that decision provide?

IMO it leads to incredibly unintuitive gameplay- the idea of not declaring a charge against one unit so they can't shoot as you run up, but then consolidating into them anyways, so they're technically in melee, but you can't hit them, but they can hit you... It makes no logical sense and is too far abstracted from the 'reality' that the rules are meant to depict.

From a purely balance perspective it's another big negative on melee that shooting units have no appropriate counterpart for. You can split fire as much as you want, no penalty, no drawback.

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


The unit can get more attacks by spending 3CP. Overwatch still cuts down on frivolous charges.

People have expressed that they dislike Overwatch generally as part of a whole package of CC not feeling powerful enough. Addressing fallback would help that cause better than Overwatch, imo. Declaring far-charges won't be an edge case scenario if Overwatch isn't there., because if there's no downside to declaring a charge against everything, why wouldn't you? Overwatch forces you to actually make a decision.

But why is being able to multi charge a bad thing? Why are far charges bad and frivolous? Why do you feel the need to force a choice upon those melee units? Why should melee units be forced into such a decision when ranged units can split fire all they want and still get access to shoot twice strats? Where is the penalty for split fire?

Overwatch has no penalty or cost for the player that benefits from it, and i feel that is bad for gameplay.

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Declaring far-charges won't be an edge case scenario if Overwatch isn't there., because if there's no downside to declaring a charge against everything, why wouldn't you? Overwatch forces you to actually make a decision.

What gameplay benefit does that decision provide?

IMO it leads to incredibly unintuitive gameplay- the idea of not declaring a charge against one unit so they can't shoot as you run up, but then consolidating into them anyways, so they're technically in melee, but you can't hit them, but they can hit you... It makes no logical sense and is too far abstracted from the 'reality' that the rules are meant to depict.

From a purely balance perspective it's another big negative on melee that shooting units have no appropriate counterpart for. You can split fire as much as you want, no penalty, no drawback.

It's basic risk-reward decision making, the greater the risk, the greater the potential reward. And it encourages you do declare a direction to your charges as opposed to just rolling the dice and deciding where to go after the number comes up. It encourages you to actually commit to a course of action, which makes sense for a game that makes the player the commander of an army. You choose the targets your units shoot at, and you choose the units your units assault. It's perfectly appropriate.

Overwatch per se aint too bad IMO. But no real fallback penelaties, and re-rolls for overwatch is stupid design..

So what’s your risk for split firing?

Why would the direction matter in the charge? The melee unit has already committed plenty to getting close to the opposing units. Melee units already operate in the most deadly range of 40k, right up in their opponents face. Getting there and staying there results in heavy casualties, much more than a ranged unit would incur. The risk/reward has already been completed before the charge phase. There’s no need to add an extra layer of risk to an already risky endeavor.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So what’s your risk for split firing?

Who cares? It isn't really relevant as they don't have to be equivalent. But generally your risk for split-firing is the risk that you'll be less guaranteed to kill one or more targets.

Dandelion wrote:
Why would the direction matter in the charge? The melee unit has already committed plenty to getting close to the opposing units. Melee units already operate in the most deadly range of 40k, right up in their opponents face. Getting there and staying there results in heavy casualties, much more than a ranged unit would incur. The risk/reward has already been completed before the charge phase. There’s no need to add an extra layer of risk to an already risky endeavor.

A unit can be surrounded. You can declare a charge in several directions and take overwatch from all of them, or declare against one and commit to a direction, only taking incoming fire from one unit instead of three.

Edit:
Honestly this reads as "Why should I have to commit to a course of action before rolling any dice?"

But the melee unit is already being committed. The fact that they’re within 12” of anything shows that the controlling player committed to that unit being there.
Whether or not a player declares a charge against 3 or 1 units is a tactically meaningless choice. Under the current rules, the player will declare against the least threatening one or the one he wants to kill most or is closest, and then consolidate into the other squads anyway. The charging player is going to tag as many units as the dice allow, overwatch doesn’t change that. The only tangible effect is that the charging unit cannot split fire. That’s it. Oh and the charging unit suffers casualties for their efforts.

Plus, not every scenario has you charge multiple units. If I charge a deff dread into a tank I get to eat overwatch with no option to mitigate it. In which case overwatch is strictly a penalty with no minute decision making.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Who cares? It isn't really relevant as they don't have to be equivalent. But generally your risk for split-firing is the risk that you'll be less guaranteed to kill one or more targets.

Okay, so then I can just as easily say regarding far-charges and multi-charges: Who cares? Your risk for multi-assaulting is that you'll be less guaranteed to kill one or more targets.

And unlike in shooting, all of those units you charge get to hit back. The more units you charge, the more will get to swing at you after you resolve your attacks. That alone is a disincentive to charging multiple units- unless you have a real CC specialist and none of their units are good in CC, in which case I think if you can manage to get into contact with several at once, you deserve to be able to tie them up.

You know, we could add more risk/reward to the game by having target priority tests to shoot anything but the closest target, and if you fail you don't get to shoot at all. That'd give you lots of decision-making- do I shoot the nearest enemy, or do I risk not being able to shoot at all by going for a juicier target? Sure, it's not logical at all that you would be completely unable to shoot if you fail, but so far nobody's tried to justify the current assault rules with logic, and think of all the risk/reward decision-making it would add!

(Or maybe more decision-making for its own sake, without any grounding in plausibility, isn't necessarily a good thing?)

Dandelion wrote:
But the melee unit is already being committed. The fact that they’re within 12” of anything shows that the controlling player committed to that unit being there.

Shooters with short ranged weapons have to do the same thing. Assault is not special in the regard that you need to get them somewhere to be effective.

Dandelion wrote:
Whether or not a player declares a charge against 3 or 1 units is a tactically meaningless choice. Under the current rules, the player will declare against the least threatening one or the one he wants to kill most or is closest, and then consolidate into the other squads anyway.

And sometimes that isn't going to help you, because the opposing units have Fly and will just fly away then. Having to choose between being able to attack and not attack in CC is far from meaningless.

Dandelion wrote:
The charging player is going to tag as many units as the dice allow, overwatch doesn’t change that. The only tangible effect is that the charging unit cannot split fire. That’s it. Oh and the charging unit suffers casualties for their efforts.

Being not able to hurt those units can be a major difference in outcome.

Dandelion wrote:
Plus, not every scenario has you charge multiple units. If I charge a deff dread into a tank I get to eat overwatch with no option to mitigate it. In which case overwatch is strictly a penalty with no minute decision making.

It makes a lot of sense to me that assaulting an opponent with big guns is riskier than assaulting an opponent without big guns.


Like what are you trying to accomplish here? If you're looking to boost assault why the fixation on Overwatch?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Who cares? It isn't really relevant as they don't have to be equivalent. But generally your risk for split-firing is the risk that you'll be less guaranteed to kill one or more targets.

Okay, so then I can just as easily say regarding far-charges and multi-charges: Who cares? Your risk for multi-assaulting is that you'll be less guaranteed to kill one or more targets.

And unlike in shooting, all of those units you charge get to hit back. The more units you charge, the more will get to swing at you after you resolve your attacks. That alone is a disincentive to charging multiple units- unless you have a real CC specialist and none of their units are good in CC, in which case I think if you can manage to get into contact with several at once, you deserve to be able to tie them up.

You know, we could add more risk/reward to the game by having target priority tests to shoot anything but the closest target, and if you fail you don't get to shoot at all. That'd give you lots of decision-making- do I shoot the nearest enemy, or do I risk not being able to shoot at all by going for a juicier target? Sure, it's not logical at all that you would be completely unable to shoot if you fail, but so far nobody's tried to justify the current assault rules with logic, and think of all the risk/reward decision-making it would add!

(Or maybe more decision-making for its own sake, without any grounding in plausibility, isn't necessarily a good thing?)

What's not plausible about "Assault this specific position" instead of "Assault every position nearby in every direction!"

And why the fixation on Overwatch?

 Insectum7 wrote:
...And why the fixation on Overwatch?

The thread is titled "Overwatch is horrible game design." Not fixating on Overwatch seems off-topic to me.

 Insectum7 wrote:
What's not plausible about "Assault this specific position" instead of "Assault every position nearby in every direction!"

The fact that the decision is either to charge all the units, get shot in Overwatch, then getting to hit them all in melee, versus charging just one, getting minimally shot by Overwatch, consolidating/piling into the other units, not getting to hit them in melee, but still being hit back.

Because the Overwatch mechanic encourages you to use mechanics other than charging to get locked in melee, but then that simultaneously prevents you from fighting, despite being in melee.

What on earth does that decision model?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
...And why the fixation on Overwatch?

The thread is titled "Overwatch is horrible game design." Not fixating on Overwatch seems off-topic to me.

That doesn't answer the question, which remains relevant. The question is essentially: Why does the thread focus on Overwatch? What is the great sin Overwatch instills on the game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
What's not plausible about "Assault this specific position" instead of "Assault every position nearby in every direction!"

The fact that the decision is either to charge all the units, get shot in Overwatch, then getting to hit them all in melee, versus charging just one, getting minimally shot by Overwatch, consolidating/piling into the other units, not getting to hit them in melee, but still being hit back.

Because the Overwatch mechanic encourages you to use mechanics other than charging to get locked in melee, but then that simultaneously prevents you from fighting, despite being in melee.

What on earth does that decision model?

Whatever it models, it's a far better model than "Let me just roll to see how far I go before choosing where to commit my unit."

 Insectum7 wrote:
Whatever it models, it's a far better model than "Let me just roll to see how far I go before choosing where to commit my unit."

Yes, because trained soldiers, genetically modified superhuman warrior monks, psychic space elves, and beings literally created for war have absolutely no idea how much momentum they're carrying and can never attempt to make a long-shot charge, but realize they won't make it "safely" and instead move to murder nearer enemies.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Whatever it models, it's a far better model than "Let me just roll to see how far I go before choosing where to commit my unit."

Yes, because trained soldiers, genetically modified superhuman warrior monks, psychic space elves, and beings literally created for war have absolutely no idea how much momentum they're carrying and can never attempt to make a long-shot charge, but realize they won't make it "safely" and instead move to murder nearer enemies.

And certainly closing the distance against lots of guns should surely be just as easy as closing the distance against no guns at all.

Again, what is the sin of the Overwatch mechanic?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
But the melee unit is already being committed. The fact that they’re within 12” of anything shows that the controlling player committed to that unit being there.

Shooters with short ranged weapons have to do the same thing. Assault is not special in the regard that you need to get them somewhere to be effective.

So why do you allow those ranged units to split fire in every direction without committing, but then turn around and require melee units to commit further? It’s contradictory.

Anyway the sin of overwatch is that it’s anti-fun. You can talk all you want about risk/reward but what all these posters in this thread have been getting at is that overwatch is unfair at its core, time consuming and frustrating to play against. It’s a bad mechanic.

You also seem overly focused on decisions being made post roll instead of pre roll when no one else cares about that. Remember when pre measuring was not allowed and you had to guess? The rule that forced you to decide targets before knowing the distance? Yeah, not a popular rule. I’m glad it’s gone.

Besides, the only reason we are talking so much about overwatch is because there is a disagreement. If everyone agreed we’d have moved on ages ago. Is it a big deal all things considered? Probably not, but that doesn’t give it a pass either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, while we’re at it, I do believe it is unreasonable for a tank to fire it’s big guns on overwatch after it already fired. It is unreasonable in that we must assume the tank is already not firing at full capacity. Being charged won’t make the crew reload the cannon any faster than they already are. The heavy bolters can only fire so fast. You have to imagine that everything is happening simultaneously. If you want to shoot the melee unit you had your chance in your own turn.

 Insectum7 wrote:


Again, what is the sin of the Overwatch mechanic?

I hereby bring against the mechanic of Overwatch the following charges:

* It adds a lot of extra dice rolling to a game that is already slow to play. Especially if rerolls are involved.

* It generally accomplishes little or nothing despite eating up all that time.

* Lucky overwatch rolls that do accomplish something feel bad. Your opponent had to invest points or command points into a delivery system to get close enough to attempt a charge (that might still fail), and then a few lucky 6s took a chunk out of his investment just because. This is mostly directed at non-autohitting weapons with only a few shots apiece. Flamers and weapons with tons of shots can be considered to have invested in their overwatch abilities.

* It favors shooting-heavy armies in a meta that already favors shooting heavies, thus increasing the gap between them.

So basically, it's usually a waste of time, and when it's not a waste of time, it creates bad experiences while also not adding any interesting decisions to the game. Seems like a good candidate for removal to me.

Edit: As for creating a penalty for charging multiple units, you could always just take away the "strike first" bonus for units that declare multiple charge targets. That's much simpler to resolve than overwatch, and I'd argue that a lucky screening unit managing to drag down a berzerker or two before they swing makes for a much better experience for both players than overwatch does.

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
But the melee unit is already being committed. The fact that they’re within 12” of anything shows that the controlling player committed to that unit being there.

Shooters with short ranged weapons have to do the same thing. Assault is not special in the regard that you need to get them somewhere to be effective.

You also seem overly focused on decisions being made post roll instead of pre roll when no one else cares about that. Remember when pre measuring was not allowed and you had to guess? The rule that forced you to decide targets before knowing the distance? Yeah, not a popular rule. I’m glad it’s gone.

Pre-measurement is one of the best changes to 40k. I'm sure no one misses the days where opponents would put their palm on the table in 90 degree angles "just because"

Also, some people need to stop acting like overwatch is responsible for wiping out entire units. As a mechanic I think it's fine - the problem that I feel that people have with it is that Assault units have a tough time as it is, taking that occasional 1 or 2 wounds on the way in just compounds on that. Falling back freely is the problem.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
But the melee unit is already being committed. The fact that they’re within 12” of anything shows that the controlling player committed to that unit being there.

Shooters with short ranged weapons have to do the same thing. Assault is not special in the regard that you need to get them somewhere to be effective.

You also seem overly focused on decisions being made post roll instead of pre roll when no one else cares about that. Remember when pre measuring was not allowed and you had to guess? The rule that forced you to decide targets before knowing the distance? Yeah, not a popular rule. I’m glad it’s gone.

Pre-measurement is one of the best changes to 40k. I'm sure no one misses the days where opponents would put their palm on the table in 90 degree angles "just because"

Also, some people need to stop acting like overwatch is responsible for wiping out entire units. As a mechanic I think it's fine - the problem that I feel that people have with it is that Assault units have a tough time as it is, taking that occasional 1 or 2 wounds on the way in just compounds on that. Falling back freely is the problem.

1 or 2 wounds? Maybe if charging guard squads. Last time I charged 10 intercessors I got hit by 9 str 4 ap3 ignore cover D2 shots. Exploding 6s with rerolls make overwatch a normal shooting phase.

My opponent forgot to screen his baneblade once and I charged him with my Librarian Dread and ofc it died. 8 t7 3+ wounds wasnt enough, even with half damage strat it would have died with those rolls. 5+ with reroll ones and a ton of shots make LoW super risky to charge.

Last game I played I charged one of the new Ad Mech tanks with a Vanguard Veteran squad, 6 guys left at that point. Had 4 guys with SS and one without die so only the sergeant survived :( Lots of shots and lucky 6s and bam your expensive melee unit lost more points by charging than the charged unit cost.

There are less ways to negate overwatch than there is to buff it. Half of them involves paying 100pts for a Librarian, hope it goes off and the opponent cant negate it while most buffs to overwatch is more of a side effect of having buffs to get a good normal shooting phase.

If screened and positioned properly you are not gonna get easy charges through ruins or be able to consolidate into their shooting units to prevent them from shooting if you can even do that. Most LoW and many of the more popular vehicles are flyers and can just fall back and shoot without penalties anyway even if they messed up their screen so you can consolidate into them.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
But the melee unit is already being committed. The fact that they’re within 12” of anything shows that the controlling player committed to that unit being there.

Shooters with short ranged weapons have to do the same thing. Assault is not special in the regard that you need to get them somewhere to be effective.

You also seem overly focused on decisions being made post roll instead of pre roll when no one else cares about that. Remember when pre measuring was not allowed and you had to guess? The rule that forced you to decide targets before knowing the distance? Yeah, not a popular rule. I’m glad it’s gone.

Pre-measurement is one of the best changes to 40k. I'm sure no one misses the days where opponents would put their palm on the table in 90 degree angles "just because"

Also, some people need to stop acting like overwatch is responsible for wiping out entire units. As a mechanic I think it's fine - the problem that I feel that people have with it is that Assault units have a tough time as it is, taking that occasional 1 or 2 wounds on the way in just compounds on that. Falling back freely is the problem.

I HATED guessing in old 40k...

"I'm a super solider, with implants to never miss, been training for 100's of years, master of this weapon, BUT i don't know how far i can shoot", ing stupid.

I am totaly ok with overwatch on 6+ and 5+ for Tau Bc they suck in melee but 4+ overwatch in an army that is also good in melee is not ok. There are some units that can't be successfully charged such as an iron hands Leviathan dreadnought. With reroll all hits and reroll 1's to wound. No model is going to make it in to CC.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I HATED guessing in old 40k...

"I'm a super solider, with implants to never miss, been training for 100's of years, master of this weapon, BUT i don't know how far i can shoot", ing stupid.

Who guesses? Well except newbies who haven't learned n+1 tricks to "guess".

tneva82 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I HATED guessing in old 40k...

"I'm a super solider, with implants to never miss, been training for 100's of years, master of this weapon, BUT i don't know how far i can shoot", ing stupid.

Who guesses? Well except newbies who haven't learned n+1 tricks to "guess".

.... you miss the point completely. My little super soldiers that has been trainer longer than an human can live can't have rules to let them know the enemy distance when shooting.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Also, some people need to stop acting like overwatch is responsible for wiping out entire units.

I have first hand experience of overwatch wiping whole units. Not every time, but enough to be hella frustrating.

tneva82 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I HATED guessing in old 40k...

"I'm a super solider, with implants to never miss, been training for 100's of years, master of this weapon, BUT i don't know how far i can shoot", ing stupid.

Who guesses? Well except newbies who haven't learned n+1 tricks to "guess".

Forgive my ignorance, what is the n+1 trick?

Aash wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I HATED guessing in old 40k...

"I'm a super solider, with implants to never miss, been training for 100's of years, master of this weapon, BUT i don't know how far i can shoot", ing stupid.

Who guesses? Well except newbies who haven't learned n+1 tricks to "guess".

Forgive my ignorance, what is the n+1 trick?

tneva doesn't mean a specific trick, I think. Just means that there are ways of being able to estimate distances on the tabletop with quite a high degree of accuracy.

Yes, a lot of it is knowing generic base sizes like official GW terrain base, vehicle base, MC bases, etc... Also most importantly, know the table sections, 1/2 a tabl (both ways), 1/3's and 1/4's (extremely easy to do, 1/2 of 3' and 1/2 of 6', or 1/3, or 1/4 of them) once you know those you can estimate your distance within an 1' easily.

But, the point was, why should we have to be made to guess when we are playing toy soldiers with "the best soldiers in the universe"

Dandelion wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Also, some people need to stop acting like overwatch is responsible for wiping out entire units.

I have first hand experience of overwatch wiping whole units. Not every time, but enough to be hella frustrating.

And I have dozens of first hand experience where overwatch amounted to nothing - point is you remember the negative experience, never the positives.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Also, some people need to stop acting like overwatch is responsible for wiping out entire units.

I have first hand experience of overwatch wiping whole units. Not every time, but enough to be hella frustrating.

And I have dozens of first hand experience where overwatch amounted to nothing - point is you remember the negative experience, never the positives.

Rolling dice for no effect is a positive now?

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Also, some people need to stop acting like overwatch is responsible for wiping out entire units.

I have first hand experience of overwatch wiping whole units. Not every time, but enough to be hella frustrating.

And I have dozens of first hand experience where overwatch amounted to nothing - point is you remember the negative experience, never the positives.

And? Overwatch has still been responsible for wiping units. Is it rare? Yes. But that was irrelevant to your claim. I’m not acting or making anything up, it has happened.

Just because something bad happens rarely doesn’t mean it gets a pass.

To me overwatch is a pain just because it slows down the game so much, especially with all the rerolls happening.
Most overwatch won't do much, kill one or two models and thats it (unless done by a "specialised" overwatch army).
The game is already ridiculously slow as it is with centurions shooting taking forever, then repeating it in the overwatch, and then repeating it in the fight phase.
Overwatch with no rerolls was already long, now its just obnoxious.

With fallback overwatch is less necessary. It should become a rule some weapons/factions have and not default to every shooting attack.

blaktoof wrote:
With fallback overwatch is less necessary. It should become a rule some weapons/factions have and not default to every shooting attack.

I rather disagree. Sometimes you need a unit to hold a location for whatever reason (objective, cover denial), so running is the less effective choice. Not to mention, so long as IGOUGO is in play, it provides the capacity of choice for response.

Should it be as nasty as current or as bonus-filled as some armies are capable of pulling off? No. Honestly, I think its introduction at the beginning of 6th was just about right, but those armies that completely ignore the downsides reduce the desire to Charge at all.

Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

give overwatch to some specialised units, starting with all the factions that get a 5+ overwatch for example.

Also, the same logic applies to fallign back. Why would a bloodthirsty berzerker just watch his enemy take one step back without attacking him?

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

The Fire Warriors already had a chance to shoot those nasties. It was in the Tau Player's own shooting phase.

You know, the part of the turn specifically for firing ranged weapons.

 vipoid wrote:

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

The Fire Warriors already had a chance to shoot those nasties. It was in the Tau Player's own shooting phase.

You know, the part of the turn specifically for firing ranged weapons.

The part that you only get if you are going second and don't get first-turn charged. And yes, getting first-turn charged is possible.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The part that you only get if you are going second and don't get first-turn charged. And yes, getting first-turn charged is possible.

1st-turn charges shouldn't exist, IMO. It's no fun to be on the receiving end of a wombo combo that propels the enemy from completely outside the range of your guns to in your face before you have any chance to respond. The worst part is that melee armies basically need them because either you tie up part of the gunline ASAP, or you get blown off the board by the end of turn 2.

Anyways, there are other circumstances in which reaction fire makes sense, too. If I'm hiding behind a building then I can't be engaged in the enemy's Shooting Phase, but I can then pop out to make a 10" charge across open ground. Yet one of the silly things about Overwatch is that in this scenario, the enemy doesn't actually get to shoot, because I started my charge in cover.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: with even a basic action/reaction system, Overwatch would be completely unnecessary. It's a band-aid fix for the problems of raw IGOUGO. Dust, Infinity, and Bolt Action are all modern and successful examples.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

The Fire Warriors already had a chance to shoot those nasties. It was in the Tau Player's own shooting phase.

You know, the part of the turn specifically for firing ranged weapons.

The part that you only get if you are going second and don't get first-turn charged. And yes, getting first-turn charged is possible.

Or you do go first and you get to shoot down one of the melee threats before they can do anything....


Honestly, if 40k stopped using IGOUGO melee would be a lot better and overwatch wouldnt be needed as a global rule.

Even GW's own Lord of the Rings (or now Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game) adequately handles the problems of IGOUGO. But 40k can't get rid of it (apparently) so speculating about it is pointless.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Even GW's own Lord of the Rings (or now Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game) adequately handles the problems of IGOUGO. But 40k can't get rid of it (apparently) so speculating about it is pointless.

Both killteam and Apocalypse use an AA system that works very well, i would not be surprised if the next edition started using AA too. it makes for much better systems with more depth and tactical decisions.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Even GW's own Lord of the Rings (or now Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game) adequately handles the problems of IGOUGO. But 40k can't get rid of it (apparently) so speculating about it is pointless.

Both killteam and Apocalypse use an AA system that works very well, i would not be surprised if the next edition started using AA too. it makes for much better systems with more depth and tactical decisions.

You could've literally said that about any 40k rule-set GW has released since third.

"Both GW game (X) and GW game (Y) have an AA (or alternating phases really) system that works very well, I would not be surprised if next edition..."

And then what did next edition do?
Not AA, that's for sure.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Even GW's own Lord of the Rings (or now Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game) adequately handles the problems of IGOUGO. But 40k can't get rid of it (apparently) so speculating about it is pointless.

Both killteam and Apocalypse use an AA system that works very well, i would not be surprised if the next edition started using AA too. it makes for much better systems with more depth and tactical decisions.

You could've literally said that about any 40k rule-set GW has released since third.

"Both GW game (X) and GW game (Y) have an AA (or alternating phases really) system that works very well, I would not be surprised if next edition..."

And then what did next edition do?
Not AA, that's for sure.

i wasnt playing 40k before 8th so i dont know if past subgames had AA instead of IGOUGO, im talking about my observations with the recent stuff only.
Honestly, after playing 40k as an introduction to wargaming, everyother game i've played has mechanics in them that i feel are missing in 40k.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Even GW's own Lord of the Rings (or now Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game) adequately handles the problems of IGOUGO. But 40k can't get rid of it (apparently) so speculating about it is pointless.

Both killteam and Apocalypse use an AA system that works very well, i would not be surprised if the next edition started using AA too. it makes for much better systems with more depth and tactical decisions.

You could've literally said that about any 40k rule-set GW has released since third.

"Both GW game (X) and GW game (Y) have an AA (or alternating phases really) system that works very well, I would not be surprised if next edition..."

And then what did next edition do?
Not AA, that's for sure.

To be fair, none of them, to my knowledge, were directly based on the mainstream 40K rules. I mean, Apoc is its own thing, but Kill Team is basically 40K with one-man units, a slightly different range/cover system, and incapacitation rolls.

Kill Team, Apocalypse, Adeptus Titanicus, and Aeronautica Imperialis all use alternating activation. I haven't played Warcry, but if that uses alternating activations too then that would mean every wargame GW has released in the last few years has used AA. Doesn't seem unreasonable to speculate that it's coming to 40K sooner or later.

Kill Team did little to change 40K rules till relatively recently. Going back as recently as 7th Edition, the only thing Kill Team changed was army building and unit cohesion.

Agreed with OP

It easily adds 30 minutes to a game for my opponent if I play Tyranids

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

So the Tau get to shoot twice if the orks charge.

If the orks DON'T charge, The well trained fire warrior just lets them be for while.

Why would the Tau get to fire twice if the Orks charge, but only get to fire once if they don't?

 catbarf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The part that you only get if you are going second and don't get first-turn charged. And yes, getting first-turn charged is possible.

Anyways, there are other circumstances in which reaction fire makes sense, too. If I'm hiding behind a building then I can't be engaged in the enemy's Shooting Phase, but I can then pop out to make a 10" charge across open ground. Yet one of the silly things about Overwatch is that in this scenario, the enemy doesn't actually get to shoot, because I started my charge in cover.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: with even a basic action/reaction system, Overwatch would be completely unnecessary. It's a band-aid fix for the problems of raw IGOUGO. Dust, Infinity, and Bolt Action are all modern and successful examples.

This at least makes some amount of sense, as it's the only way to represent a proper ambush in the game. Without it you otherwise get similarly weird situations like in my little short story earlier in the thread: units that should otherwise be too preoccupied suddenly able to 180 noscope a unit charging them that they didn't know existed a second ago.

In fact, I think there's generally problem with how discussions about overwatch (and the shooting/melee gap in general) where people arguing in favor of overwatch/fall back/what have you always seem to think assault units as incompetent ("charging across open ground", "yelling and swinging a sword around", ect) which thinking any model that's picked up a gun as hyper competent.

 JimOnMars wrote:

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

So the Tau get to shoot twice if the orks charge.

If the orks DON'T charge, The well trained fire warrior just lets them be for while.

Why would the Tau get to fire twice if the Orks charge, but only get to fire once if they don't?

Once in combat, the Orks get to fight in the Tau player's turn. When not in combat, Tau only get to shoot in their turn unless Charged. But I guess there is no discrepancy and imbalance there, right?

Of course, your supposition is that the Ork player approached fully open in a fire lane before charging. Which then applies to faults in table setup and Ork player's choices in movement.

After 5th went the way it did, 40k needed a way to make sure things got at least one chance to shoot at what charged them.

So they implemented Overwatch.

They also implemented no-charge-from-reserves/infilitrate/etc.

Both did the same thing - they made sure there was at least some reaction to something showing up and eating you in CC.

GW really only needed one.

Then GW gave everyone and their dog a dozen ways to get around the second one.

Reimplement the second generally, and I'd be less resistant to Overwatch going away.

 Charistoph wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

So the Tau get to shoot twice if the orks charge.

If the orks DON'T charge, The well trained fire warrior just lets them be for while.

Why would the Tau get to fire twice if the Orks charge, but only get to fire once if they don't?

Once in combat, the Orks get to fight in the Tau player's turn. When not in combat, Tau only get to shoot in their turn unless Charged. But I guess there is no discrepancy and imbalance there, right?

Of course, your supposition is that the Ork player approached fully open in a fire lane before charging. Which then applies to faults in table setup and Ork player's choices in movement.

Well, the tau get to fight in the ork’s turn too.

As for the getting shot beforehand, the tau player’s choices also matter. Even with enough terrain, it is pretty easy to maneuver into a firing lane against an enemy that is coming at you. The only time the orks would completely avoid getting shot is with zone mortalis style walls everywhere, which would imply that the tau player intentionally places their troops behind a wall. And that doesn’t make tactical sense from the tau’s standpoint since they want to shoot.

 Charistoph wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

So the Tau get to shoot twice if the orks charge.

If the orks DON'T charge, The well trained fire warrior just lets them be for while.

Why would the Tau get to fire twice if the Orks charge, but only get to fire once if they don't?

Once in combat, the Orks get to fight in the Tau player's turn. When not in combat, Tau only get to shoot in their turn unless Charged. But I guess there is no discrepancy and imbalance there, right?

Of course, your supposition is that the Ork player approached fully open in a fire lane before charging. Which then applies to faults in table setup and Ork player's choices in movement.

Everybody in melee range fights in every combat phase unless they get killed before they get the chance. Should they survive the charge the Tau will both shoot and fight on the Ork's turn so yeah, there is a discrepency and imbalance - it's not in the charging army's favour.

Dandelion wrote:
Well, the tau get to fight in the ork’s turn too.

As for the getting shot beforehand, the tau player’s choices also matter. Even with enough terrain, it is pretty easy to maneuver into a firing lane against an enemy that is coming at you. The only time the orks would completely avoid getting shot is with zone mortalis style walls everywhere, which would imply that the tau player intentionally places their troops behind a wall. And that doesn’t make tactical sense from the tau’s standpoint since they want to shoot.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Everybody in melee range fights in every combat phase unless they get killed before they get the chance. Should they survive the charge the Tau will both shoot and fight on the Ork's turn so yeah, there is a discrepency and imbalance - it's not in the charging army's favour.

If you're going to bring up Tau Fighting, should we not mention Ork Shooting? Ork Weapons are Assault, or does that not matter any more?

Simple fact is that Ork Fighting is superior to Tau Fighting, just like Tau Shooting is superior to Ork Shooting. And the discrepancy used to be far more marked.

But terrain is up to the players and what they have available to use as such. It can be as large, small, or interruptive as you the players choose. That part is not on GW's part, but yours.

Still, I have stated that Overwatch is a result of GW's system that they've clung to rather than changing so that Overwatch is not necessary. But so long as the IGOUGO system (or similar) is being used, it's a necessary evil. Could you imagine the imbalance if the Tau got to have two Shooting Phases before the Orks got a chance to Move or choose to Charge?

Realistically it goes like this:
-tau turn: tau shoot at least once
-ork turn: orks move -> probably shoot pistols ->declare charge-> take overwatch->fight->tau fight back
-tau turn: tau fall back -> other units shoot the orks -> orks don’t get to fight in the tau turn

I don’t see the part where the orks actually get to fight twice.

 Charistoph wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Well, the tau get to fight in the ork’s turn too.

As for the getting shot beforehand, the tau player’s choices also matter. Even with enough terrain, it is pretty easy to maneuver into a firing lane against an enemy that is coming at you. The only time the orks would completely avoid getting shot is with zone mortalis style walls everywhere, which would imply that the tau player intentionally places their troops behind a wall. And that doesn’t make tactical sense from the tau’s standpoint since they want to shoot.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Everybody in melee range fights in every combat phase unless they get killed before they get the chance. Should they survive the charge the Tau will both shoot and fight on the Ork's turn so yeah, there is a discrepency and imbalance - it's not in the charging army's favour.

If you're going to bring up Tau Fighting, should we not mention Ork Shooting? Ork Weapons are Assault, or does that not matter any more?

Simple fact is that Ork Fighting is superior to Tau Fighting, just like Tau Shooting is superior to Ork Shooting. And the discrepancy used to be far more marked.


But terrain is up to the players and what they have available to use as such. It can be as large, small, or interruptive as you the players choose. That part is not on GW's part, but yours.

Still, I have stated that Overwatch is a result of GW's system that they've clung to rather than changing so that Overwatch is not necessary. But so long as the IGOUGO system (or similar) is being used, it's a necessary evil. Could you imagine the imbalance if the Tau got to have two Shooting Phases before the Orks got a chance to Move or choose to Charge?

Pulse Blaster - Assault2 interesting, looks like Tau have them too, means they can advance and shoot with a negative modifier to hit, however, have a special ability that allows them to charge after advancing units can’t charge after advancing so in a lot of cases no - assault weapons don’t help an assault army anywhere near as much as they help a shooting one, if anything they allow shooting armies to run further away from melee armies and still shoot at them.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Pulse Blaster - Assault2 interesting, looks like Tau have them too, means they can advance and shoot with a negative modifier to hit, however, have a special ability that allows them to charge after advancing units can’t charge after advancing so in a lot of cases no - assault weapons don’t help an assault army anywhere near as much as they help a shooting one, if anything they allow shooting armies to run further away from melee armies and still shoot at them.

Not the point. Tau Fighting is less effective, just like Ork Shooting is less effective (unless you get enough Boyz behind it, unlike Tau). But the Orks can still do their Advance and Shoot, helping them get close enough (eventually) to do their normal Move, Shoot, and Charge.

Yeah, Assault has changed, and I didn't remember all the changes right off, but that still doesn't change what Orks do.

Quick suggestions: 1. More suppressor like ability/stratagems 2. The ability prevent falling back on 5s, except vehicles 3. Free strikes on 6s.

I think overwatch is ok, we just lack the tools to counter it effectively.

Since Suppressor squads have come out I have been using 3 squads to counter overwatch, it doesn't always work but it helps. If all the armies suppressors like squad/stratagem it would help getting into cc.

If armies also had access to the ability to lock a model/unit in combat, keep it simple with a 5+ roll to prevent falling back, make exceptions for vehicles and yadayada.

And finally a cc version of overwatch, warmachine called the free strikes. It would be exactly like overwatch, if a unit is falling back, you can hit them on 6s.

The solutions provided don't require different dice, the removal/changing of rules, or a overhaul of the current game.
Of course this is all a moot point because GW isn't reading any of our posts.

Jimbobbyish wrote:
...Since Suppressor squads have come out I have been using 3 squads to counter overwatch, it doesn't always work but it helps. If all the armies suppressors like squad/stratagem it would help getting into cc...

And fixing problematic rules by writing another rule that turns it off instead of fixing the original problem has never led to a death-spiral of bloat ("I now need to write another rule to turn off that Suppressor rule because suddenly Fire Warrior boxes aren't selling at all!" etc.) that required the game being rebooted, no, sir.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Jimbobbyish wrote:
...Since Suppressor squads have come out I have been using 3 squads to counter overwatch, it doesn't always work but it helps. If all the armies suppressors like squad/stratagem it would help getting into cc...

And fixing problematic rules by writing another rule that turns it off instead of fixing the original problem has never led to a death-spiral of bloat ("I now need to write another rule to turn off that Suppressor rule because suddenly Fire Warrior boxes aren't selling at all!" etc.) that required the game being rebooted, no, sir.

That was the mantra of 7th and why it was IMO the worst edition. "Need a rule to counter a rule that bypasses a core rule but the counter can be countered because of these 4 different USR's"

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Jimbobbyish wrote:
...Since Suppressor squads have come out I have been using 3 squads to counter overwatch, it doesn't always work but it helps. If all the armies suppressors like squad/stratagem it would help getting into cc...

And fixing problematic rules by writing another rule that turns it off instead of fixing the original problem has never led to a death-spiral of bloat ("I now need to write another rule to turn off that Suppressor rule because suddenly Fire Warrior boxes aren't selling at all!" etc.) that required the game being rebooted, no, sir.

you shoot the suppressor unit like you would any threat. Suppressors are already in the game? It's would be a matter of copy pasting their rules to other units or a blanket stratagem.

Again I think overwatch is fine, just need better access to suppressors/stratagem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Jimbobbyish wrote:
...Since Suppressor squads have come out I have been using 3 squads to counter overwatch, it doesn't always work but it helps. If all the armies suppressors like squad/stratagem it would help getting into cc...

And fixing problematic rules by writing another rule that turns it off instead of fixing the original problem has never led to a death-spiral of bloat ("I now need to write another rule to turn off that Suppressor rule because suddenly Fire Warrior boxes aren't selling at all!" etc.) that required the game being rebooted, no, sir.

That was the mantra of 7th and why it was IMO the worst edition. "Need a rule to counter a rule that bypasses a core rule but the counter can be countered because of these 4 different USR's"

lol yeah I get it, I'm new to warhammer 40k this year with 8th edition, but I did but 7th book when it came out and I decided not to buy into the game back then. But overwatch is in the game now and so is the suppressor Squad. I'm saying if we gave them to other armies it would help.

There are a couple of things which I feel ought to be pointed out in this discussion. For one justifying game mechanics thorough it being thematic is a horrible practice, as nearly any rule can be justified that way. Also saying that shooting units need to get turn of shooting before being charged is silly, as they do already get to shoot in their own shooting phase.

However a far better support for overwatch has been that it forces the charging player to make a choice whether they wan't to charge or not, or if they want to multicharge, but this is not a very good argument in the end. That is because the decision to charge with your assault units is made when building your list. No assault unit is going to sit back and just eat a round of shooting, even if they have to endure overwatch to get into melee, as they have to go through overwatch at some point anyways. Also, I find that discrouraging multicharges is a bad idea, as it removes an element of positioning from this game, as bunching up your units in front of a melee unit should be punished by risking getting multicharged.

Finally some people point out that tau have benefitted greatly from overwatch, but this is not true. Tau used to be an interesting mobile and tactical army, but with overwatch they have become blue imperial guard as they can just sit on their asses and overwatch any incoming units.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
There are a couple of things which I feel ought to be pointed out in this discussion. For one justifying game mechanics thorough it being thematic is a horrible practice,

You're right, instead of anchoring our games in a setting or in reality, we should instead base them on .........................?

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
as nearly any rule can be justified that way.

If you can justify a rule that says "my single character tables your entire army on a 2+ before the first battle round" then that's probably a setting issue, rather than a game issue. If you can't justify this rule (or any old rule I can come up with out of thousands) then this statement is obviously false.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
Also saying that shooting units need to get turn of shooting before being charged is silly, as they do already get to shoot in their own shooting phase.

.... which they don't get if they don't get a turn of shooting. QED. "Units don't need to get a turn of shooting because they get a turn of shooting" is a useless tautology (and is also false in this case).

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
However a far better support for overwatch has been that it forces the charging player to make a choice whether they wan't to charge or not, or if they want to multicharge, but this is not a very good argument in the end. That is because the decision to charge with your assault units is made when building your list. No assault unit is going to sit back and just eat a round of shooting, even if they have to endure overwatch to get into melee, as they have to go through overwatch at some point anyways.

However, it will make them think before declaring a charge that is likely to fail. Charge me from 12" away? better to not, and eat another turn of shooting, then to try, eat overwatch, likely fail, and eat another turn of shooting anyways.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
Also, I find that discrouraging multicharges is a bad idea, as it removes an element of positioning from this game, as bunching up your units in front of a melee unit should be punished by risking getting multicharged.

Units that are bunched up like that are at risk of getting multicharged. Overwatch exists precisely to actually give the assaulting player to think about in this situation, instead of just shouting "FULL STEAM AHEAD" and declaring every target forever. In my opinion, requiring positioning (e.g. LOS breaking terrain) to deny overwatch is far more interesting than "FULL STEAM AHEAD" as a slaanesh daemons player.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
Finally some people point out that tau have benefitted greatly from overwatch, but this is not true. Tau used to be an interesting mobile and tactical army, but with overwatch they have become blue imperial guard as they can just sit on their asses and overwatch any incoming units.

"People with guns sit far away and shoot people with swords" doesn't preclude interesting mobility and tactics. In fact, mobility and tactics have arguably increased since the introduction of the gun. Methinks something unrelated to overwatch might be the real culprit...

How many units can get a first-turn charge? And, as a follow-up to that, are ANY of those units healthy for the game?

Shooting units (outside very short-ranged ones) can be expected to get their shots off turn one. Melee units, outside the stupid fast and/or gimmicky ones, cannot be expected to charge T1.

 JNAProductions wrote:
How many units can get a first-turn charge? And, as a follow-up to that, are ANY of those units healthy for the game?

Shooting units (outside very short-ranged ones) can be expected to get their shots off turn one. Melee units, outside the stupid fast and/or gimmicky ones, cannot be expected to charge T1.

The only first turn charge I consider unhealthy is units who have double moves or units that start outside of their deployment zone. Forcing an opponent to deploy farther away from objectives than they should have to or accept a likely game ending first charge is dumb. Deep strike turn 1 charges are kind of annoying but usually come with at best 50% success rate due to the 9" restriction. Maybe the same restriction should be implemented for all units on turn 1.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
How many units can get a first-turn charge? And, as a follow-up to that, are ANY of those units healthy for the game?

Shooting units (outside very short-ranged ones) can be expected to get their shots off turn one. Melee units, outside the stupid fast and/or gimmicky ones, cannot be expected to charge T1.

The only first turn charge I consider unhealthy is units who have double moves or units that start outside of their deployment zone. Forcing an opponent to deploy farther away from objectives than they should have to or accept a likely game ending first charge is dumb. Deep strike turn 1 charges are kind of annoying but usually come with at best 50% success rate due to the 9" restriction. Maybe the same restriction should be implemented for all units on turn 1.

Something like bringing back Fog of War?
Cover for everything for the first turn would be cool.

Jimbobbyish wrote:
...But overwatch is in the game now...

This is a really terrible argument. If you can only add to the game and can't remove, adjust, or fix anything you get before you're dooming people to have to deal with any mistakes you made for a long time.

It seems like it would be easy to go with 2nd edition overwatch where you give up your shooting so that you can shoot at anyone that tries to charge you in the following player turn.