Offical OW rule

tneva82 wrote:

Aash wrote:
According to the feed there are other ways to Overwatch, not just the Strategem. some units will have it for a special rule and the day one FAQ/errata will amend existing rules and strategems that interact with overwatch so that they still work.

Yeah. Expect tau for example get hefty amount of ways.

Plus the oddball units like aggressors still has that 1cp with more cp to pay.

Not huge help overall though elite assault units like it

Yeah, they made passing references to tau and to Ultramarines regarding other ways to overwatch besides the new strat.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Called it! Overwatch is a strat!

I flat out posted it on tactics three weeks ago.

Aash wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Aash wrote:
According to the feed there are other ways to Overwatch, not just the Strategem. some units will have it for a special rule and the day one FAQ/errata will amend existing rules and strategems that interact with overwatch so that they still work.

Yeah. Expect tau for example get hefty amount of ways.

Plus the oddball units like aggressors still has that 1cp with more cp to pay.

Not huge help overall though elite assault units like it

Yeah, they made passing references to tau and to Ultramarines regarding other ways to overwatch besides the new strat.

Spitballing a little, but given the terrain rules they previewed today, it would be really cool for "anti-terrain" armies like the IF and IW if instead of having bonuses to "destroying" terrain, they negated the rule benefits a given terrain pieces' keyword gives an inhabiting unit.

Make those kinds of armies a little more useful if say, you can negate an OW bonus or melee bonus from "Defensible" terrain for a phase or something. A LOT more engaging and interesting than just being able to damage ruins like they did in 8th.

 Therion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Called it! Overwatch is a strat!

I flat out posted it on tactics three weeks ago.

I said Overwatch could be a strat back when they announced the Cut Them Down strat.

Glad to see I wasn't the only who thought it could happen.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Fall Back will be a Stratagem as well, right?

Fall back through models is a stratagem. So one unit will not be held hostage/tri pointed/wrapped except with special rules that deny fall back or denying them sufficient movement to place the models. The special rule fly is vastly less important in 9th than in 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Therion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Called it! Overwatch is a strat!

I flat out posted it on tactics three weeks ago.

I said Overwatch could be a strat back when they announced the Cut Them Down strat.

Glad to see I wasn't the only who thought it could happen.

I didn’t think that I knew that. There’s a difference to guessing and actually knowing.

Yeah you keep saying stuff like that, but we've yet to see any evidence of it.

 Therion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Fall Back will be a Stratagem as well, right?

Fall back through models is a stratagem. So one unit will not be held hostage/tri pointed/wrapped except with special rules that deny fall back or denying them sufficient movement to place the models.

Is that confirmed or a theory?

nevermind

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Offical OW rule

Was that even written in English?

tneva82 wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Cool tactical decisions to make when holding terrain, defending units *can* get bonuses against charging enemies it seems if they're in the right terrain and made the right tactical decision. I like it!

Some reason to take fortifications that generally sucked and quite possibly costs cp to get det so were about to take a nerfbat

note that Ruins had the defensible trait.

They had soft cover, hard cover, defensible.

 bullyboy wrote:
errr, Look Out Sir rule? Character targeting changed too

I noticed that too, I'm very interested to see what that entails.

Would be annoying if they reduced rolling through changes to OW only to add to rolling by making Characters targetable but with universal LOS saves.

 jabbakahut wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Offical OW rule

Was that even written in English?

Worse, it's written in legalese..

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 jabbakahut wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Offical OW rule

Was that even written in English?

Worse, it's written in legalese..

And without periods.

Here's hoping that's not from the final print

Also, I'll take excessive legalese over vague generalizations any day.

Yeah is that fall back stratagem theory or confirmed? First i heard. Kick to assault armies if true as 3 point is about only thing that has sustained assault.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 jabbakahut wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Offical OW rule

Was that even written in English?

Worse, it's written in legalese..

For whatever reason, it's lacking full stops.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
errr, Look Out Sir rule? Character targeting changed too

I noticed that too, I'm very interested to see what that entails.

Would be annoying if they reduced rolling through changes to OW only to add to rolling by making Characters targetable but with universal LOS saves.

No it was always the case that you could overwatch a charging Character

 Tyran wrote:
As long as tri-pointing is still a thing, falling back is a Fly only thing.

Which is, unfortunately, a gamey solution to the problem. If Fall Back was more restricted, players wouldn't have to resort to tri-pointing.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
errr, Look Out Sir rule? Character targeting changed too

I noticed that too, I'm very interested to see what that entails.

Would be annoying if they reduced rolling through changes to OW only to add to rolling by making Characters targetable but with universal LOS saves.

No it was always the case that you could overwatch a charging Character

I just meant if they reinvented Character interactions so they were targetable in the general shooting phase, but could benefit from a LOS save if any friendly unit is within x inches.

Completely spitballing based off nothing, carry on!

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
errr, Look Out Sir rule? Character targeting changed too

I noticed that too, I'm very interested to see what that entails.

Would be annoying if they reduced rolling through changes to OW only to add to rolling by making Characters targetable but with universal LOS saves.

No it was always the case that you could overwatch a charging Character

I think the point is the "look out sir" didn't prevent you shooting at something that wasn't the closest target before and the implication is that now it does. Unless I'm mistaken.

For look out somebody here(therion?) Mentioned before in 9th not only some unit needs to be closer to enemy than character but would need to be within x" of character. Would prevent rhino in opposite direction preventing shooting at character

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah is that fall back stratagem theory or confirmed? First i heard. Kick to assault armies if true as 3 point is about only thing that has sustained assault.

With rumors like these and anonimity you’ll get ’confirmation’ when the rules are teased or released by GW. Until then you can choose to speculate or ignore it. Check back later.

 Therion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Called it! Overwatch is a strat!

I flat out posted it on tactics three weeks ago.

Looks like you said your source told you it was gone entirely.... https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/788961.page#10820032

Then you said "Maybe" it's a strat https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/788961.page#10820054

Doesn't sound like you "Knew" at all.

ClockworkZion wrote:Called it! Overwatch is a strat!

Yes, this is an excellent change. A big thumbs up to gw on this one.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Fall Back will be a Stratagem as well, right?

We can only hope.

Yeah I was guessing

 jabbakahut wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Offical OW rule

Was that even written in English?

yes, but for some reason it lacks punctuation. With the Random capitalizations Dotting the page, the combination is really hard to parse.

From the Community article:

Be careful, though – a savvy enemy might be able to catch you off-guard if you’re in their deployment zone. The Strategic Reserves rule allows a unit to deploy on their own table edge, even if it’s within Engagement Range (1”) of an enemy, and proceed to make attacks as though they charged! This is such a situational rarity that it probably won’t come up very often, but a stunt like that completely bypasses Overwatch to surprise unwary or careless opponents.

Interesting tidbit I thought.

Who knows, maybe they'll give you an Artificer Marking Pen for inserting your own custom punctuation with for the low price of only $20USD!

Is this new art? I don't recognize it offhand.

The "Look Out, Sir!" mention has me worried.

I don't want to go into a world of Rhino-sniping characters.

Nice that units can just walk onto the table in your own DZ.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Who knows, maybe they'll give you an Artificer Marking Pen for inserting your own custom punctuation with for the low price of only $20USD!

It is the new way they're writing codexes. They're calling it "FinePrint".

 Kanluwen wrote:

Is this new art? I don't recognize it offhand.

Looks new. And a different style- more starship troopers the movie.

And by an artist who thinks guardsmen have machineguns, apparently. The guy behind the first one's muzzle flash is using something that's almost a P-90.

Is that an autogun? Looks to have a long magazine.

Guy in the background seems to have a bullpup gun too.

Could be PDF.

Voss wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Is this new art? I don't recognize it offhand.

Looks new. And a different style- more starship troopers the movie.

And by an artist who thinks guardsmen have machineguns, apparently. The guy behind the first one's muzzle flash is using something that's almost a P-90.

There's a FAMAS toting gunman in the background as well. Or maybe its a AUG.
Don't the Elysians have lasguns that look like a FAMAS?

The logo still isn't fixed.

 Slinky wrote:
Is that an autogun? Looks to have a long magazine.

Guy in the background seems to have a bullpup gun too.

Bullpup lasguns aren't new.

 Slinky wrote:
Is that an autogun? Looks to have a long magazine.

Guy in the background seems to have a bullpup gun too.

Yeah, looks like an autogun.
Might be PDF, or maybe new Guardsmen are getting autoguns instead of lasguns. Maybe the lore is that they improved the autogun design and it has more of a punch compared to lasguns now, idk.

 puma713 wrote:
The logo still isn't fixed.

Never will be. That overlapping R is tradition at this point.

They are autoguns, a laser would look different when firing. And autoguns may not be the preferred standard in the Guard, but they aren't rare and are very common in PDFs.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Don't the Elysians have lasguns that look like a FAMAS?

Accatran Pattern, yes.

Wonder if it's a sign of things to come. We're getting new Cadians with redone Lasguns and Autoguns.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.

Yes, you can do that if you feel that the product is not worth the price. It is called 'not playing the game,' instead of advocating piratism like you have done in the past.

Why shouldn't it be advocated? With the amount of crap they release without testing or proofreading or the sloppiness it's presented in...it should be free to begin with. Patches are already not free AND we have people defending that here! You can't call that anything but being a white Knight.

Well, for starters, it's illegal. It's also against forum rules to advocate for piracy.

While I find the overall change to overwatch interesting, I'm not too thrilled that it costs CP. What we've seen so far is that the "More CP than ever" is exaggerated compared to for example what a Brigade or double Battalion would give you. When every 'basic' action is going to cost CP as well, we'll end up actually having less CP for the fun stratagems. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet, but the picture given so far is not only positive regarding the "more CP" slogan.

They changed Overwatch into a stratagem.
Wasn't that a common suggestion from the player base?

Its a huge nerf. Only one unit can use overwatch as its a stratagem, and it still only hits on 6s. I guess that's the buff to melee they were talking about.

Might be interesting. I don't think Tau would be that affected by the change though, because they can still use Supporting Fire (is that the name?). Its just that they have to blob up more now to get everything in range of the ability.

Honestly, the lasguns just look like the ones that the Van Saar have for Necromunda.

WarCom wrote:Overall, this is a huge boost to massed assault armies, such as Orks or Tyranids, that excel at smashing dozens of units into the enemy line all at once. Where previously, each one of those units would face retaliatory fire, now, your opponent will only be able to target ONE of your changing units, so will have to choose very carefully indeed! Do you stop the rampaging Trygon from smashing a tank or that horde of 30 Hormagaunts from shredding an infantry platoon? No easy choice.

Yeah, ok, this is good for melee armies. But this example is pants-on-head stupid. Firing overwatch with a single unit, hitting only on 6s is NOT going to stop a trygon.

If you've got the spare CP and a good shooting unit, you might shoot at the Hormagaunts to do some damage, but barring flametanks or something similar, you're not going to do significant damage to a trygon, so it IS an easy choice.

Of course, the even easier choice is 'never waste CP on overwatch,' because paying and praying for 6s is statistically poor, but there are exceptions.

----
Various free overwatch rules are going to be interesting for the general army composition trends. I'm curious how many people will prioritize it, and how many will treat it as a dead rule with no game impact.

They really need to fire their proof reader and whichever intern is writing these.
They forgot the periods.

Also, do paragraphs or line breaks not exist in England? Because it really needs those. It's just a big block of text, its like a bad forum post.

Us3Less wrote:
While I find the overall change to overwatch interesting, I'm not too thrilled that it costs CP. What we've seen so far is that the "More CP than ever" is exaggerated compared to for example what a Brigade or double Battalion would give you. When every 'basic' action is going to cost CP as well, we'll end up actually having less CP for the fun stratagems. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet, but the picture given so far is not only positive regarding the "more CP" slogan.

Or we'll have to build our armies up around the fun strats we want to use instead of using rerolls, or maybe even Overwatch.

We get at least a CP a turn though, so Overwatch can always be paid for.

Us3Less wrote:
While I find the overall change to overwatch interesting, I'm not too thrilled that it costs CP. What we've seen so far is that the "More CP than ever" is exaggerated compared to for example what a Brigade or double Battalion would give you. When every 'basic' action is going to cost CP as well, we'll end up actually having less CP for the fun stratagems. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet, but the picture given so far is not only positive regarding the "more CP" slogan.

I think that's the point. What would the point of turning actions into strategems be if you could just do them without sacrificing anything? If you want to do your "fun strategem", then you're going to have to sacrifice OverWatch.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
They changed Overwatch into a stratagem.
Wasn't that a common suggestion from the player base?

Its a huge nerf. Only one unit can use overwatch as its a stratagem, and it still only hits on 6s. I guess that's the buff to melee they were talking about.

Might be interesting. I don't think Tau would be that affected by the change though, because they can still use Supporting Fire (is that the name?). Its just that they have to blob up more now to get everything in range of the ability.

I imagine Tau will have some key units that give Overwatch ability out maybe, like commanders of fireblades. That'd be how I'd do it anyway. So they can spread out and keep overwatch as long as they have a leader nearby. Doesn't nerf them into the floor, but also doesn't turn them into castle tau again.

Overall though, this is a fantastic change.

I am looking forward to seeing what 'look out sir' is.

I am hoping it will be like now for characters in that they can only be shot if closest, but with additional caveat that they must be within X inches of a friendly unit to stop the stupidity of a unit closer but no where near the character

Fantastic change, now finally people won't be compelled to trigger 60 dice rolls and burn 5 minutes of play time at every charge for the offhand chance of killing 1-2 dudes, and only pay for the overwatch that matters, like for Knights and stuff.

Apparently, if I understand right, units in Crusade Armies get better and free overwatch, but only if they "rank up" enough.

That's one way of making Crusade Armies appealing I guess.

So what are the chances that the new Angels of Death rule will grant Overwatch?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Apparently, if I understand right, units in Crusade Armies get better and free overwatch, but only if they "rank up" enough.

That's one way of making Crusade Armies appealing I guess.

It's one of the Battle Honors a unit can get yeah. But you can also get penalties.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
While I find the overall change to overwatch interesting, I'm not too thrilled that it costs CP. What we've seen so far is that the "More CP than ever" is exaggerated compared to for example what a Brigade or double Battalion would give you. When every 'basic' action is going to cost CP as well, we'll end up actually having less CP for the fun stratagems. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet, but the picture given so far is not only positive regarding the "more CP" slogan.

Or we'll have to build our armies up around the fun strats we want to use instead of using rerolls, or maybe even Overwatch.

We get at least a CP a turn though, so Overwatch can always be paid for.

Sure. But is it worth paying for?
There are just so many better strats that can also use the CP.

Its the same situation as the 'maybe hit falling back units on 6s' strat. It generally isn't worth paying for- the opportunity cost is too high for an effect that isn't very compelling.


On the other hand. I actually do think this is a good change. Overwatch wasted a lot of time, and as a free thing for every unit against every charge it was too strong.

 puma713 wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
While I find the overall change to overwatch interesting, I'm not too thrilled that it costs CP. What we've seen so far is that the "More CP than ever" is exaggerated compared to for example what a Brigade or double Battalion would give you. When every 'basic' action is going to cost CP as well, we'll end up actually having less CP for the fun stratagems. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet, but the picture given so far is not only positive regarding the "more CP" slogan.

I think that's the point. What would the point of turning actions into strategems be if you could just do them without sacrificing anything? If you want to do your "fun strategem", then you're going to have to sacrifice OverWatch.

Exactly this. I'm never going to be mad about having to make *more* tough tactical decisions. Which is a feature they've really seemed to be leaning into this edition based on what we've seen.

If nothing else, I'm glad that removing vast swathes of overwatch will slightly speed the game up too. It was not fun rolling an extra 60 dice with my Custodes jetbikes just to do a couple of wounds. And having to sit through a Knight or large tank overwatching with all its weapons and all its little stubbers and missiles was excruciating. So the less of that, the better.

Also make it infantry only because it is kinda ridiculous that you cannot fire at a big model like Dreadnaught characters or OOE or Daemon Princes.

Of course such changes should also come with very large point discounts on such models.

Voss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
While I find the overall change to overwatch interesting, I'm not too thrilled that it costs CP. What we've seen so far is that the "More CP than ever" is exaggerated compared to for example what a Brigade or double Battalion would give you. When every 'basic' action is going to cost CP as well, we'll end up actually having less CP for the fun stratagems. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet, but the picture given so far is not only positive regarding the "more CP" slogan.

Or we'll have to build our armies up around the fun strats we want to use instead of using rerolls, or maybe even Overwatch.

We get at least a CP a turn though, so Overwatch can always be paid for.

Sure. But is it worth paying for?
There are just so many better strats that can also use the CP.

Maybe, but then there's also that well-placed Aggressor or Retribution squad that's covering a key shooting unit. If nothing else they can act as great deterrants. Also, as one of the bigger time wasters, I don't see any problem with OW being relegated to the nosebleed section of tactical options.

Good to have in the pocket, no longer a no-brainer.

Also, it makes factions/units with OW benefits that much more unique, which is also a good thing.

Us3Less wrote:
While I find the overall change to overwatch interesting, I'm not too thrilled that it costs CP. What we've seen so far is that the "More CP than ever" is exaggerated compared to for example what a Brigade or double Battalion would give you. When every 'basic' action is going to cost CP as well, we'll end up actually having less CP for the fun stratagems. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet, but the picture given so far is not only positive regarding the "more CP" slogan.

Maybe for gun line armies looking to stop charging units. But not for those of us doing the charging.

I like this a lot.

Voss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
While I find the overall change to overwatch interesting, I'm not too thrilled that it costs CP. What we've seen so far is that the "More CP than ever" is exaggerated compared to for example what a Brigade or double Battalion would give you. When every 'basic' action is going to cost CP as well, we'll end up actually having less CP for the fun stratagems. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet, but the picture given so far is not only positive regarding the "more CP" slogan.

Or we'll have to build our armies up around the fun strats we want to use instead of using rerolls, or maybe even Overwatch.

We get at least a CP a turn though, so Overwatch can always be paid for.

Sure. But is it worth paying for?
There are just so many better strats that can also use the CP.

It's situational, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
While I find the overall change to overwatch interesting, I'm not too thrilled that it costs CP. What we've seen so far is that the "More CP than ever" is exaggerated compared to for example what a Brigade or double Battalion would give you. When every 'basic' action is going to cost CP as well, we'll end up actually having less CP for the fun stratagems. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet, but the picture given so far is not only positive regarding the "more CP" slogan.

Maybe for gun line armies looking to stop charging units. But not for those of us doing the charging.

I like this a lot.

Yeah while obviously we need to wait until the rubber meets the road, on paper this is a very exciting change.

Honestly, if they make Fall Back a strat, along with OW and CTD it would be the perfect trifecta.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
While I find the overall change to overwatch interesting, I'm not too thrilled that it costs CP. What we've seen so far is that the "More CP than ever" is exaggerated compared to for example what a Brigade or double Battalion would give you. When every 'basic' action is going to cost CP as well, we'll end up actually having less CP for the fun stratagems. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet, but the picture given so far is not only positive regarding the "more CP" slogan.

Maybe for gun line armies looking to stop charging units. But not for those of us doing the charging.

I like this a lot.

Yeah while obviously we need to wait until the rubber meets the road, on paper this is a very exciting change.

Honestly, if they make Fall Back a strat, along with OW and CTD it would be the perfect trifecta.

Wasn't Fall Back confirmed to be a strat? Or am I thinking of something else?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Voss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
While I find the overall change to overwatch interesting, I'm not too thrilled that it costs CP. What we've seen so far is that the "More CP than ever" is exaggerated compared to for example what a Brigade or double Battalion would give you. When every 'basic' action is going to cost CP as well, we'll end up actually having less CP for the fun stratagems. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet, but the picture given so far is not only positive regarding the "more CP" slogan.

Or we'll have to build our armies up around the fun strats we want to use instead of using rerolls, or maybe even Overwatch.

We get at least a CP a turn though, so Overwatch can always be paid for.

Sure. But is it worth paying for?
There are just so many better strats that can also use the CP.

It's situational, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

Game with many situational tactical options > Game with a few no-brainers that are used exclusively


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
While I find the overall change to overwatch interesting, I'm not too thrilled that it costs CP. What we've seen so far is that the "More CP than ever" is exaggerated compared to for example what a Brigade or double Battalion would give you. When every 'basic' action is going to cost CP as well, we'll end up actually having less CP for the fun stratagems. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet, but the picture given so far is not only positive regarding the "more CP" slogan.

Maybe for gun line armies looking to stop charging units. But not for those of us doing the charging.

I like this a lot.

Yeah while obviously we need to wait until the rubber meets the road, on paper this is a very exciting change.

Honestly, if they make Fall Back a strat, along with OW and CTD it would be the perfect trifecta.

Wasn't Fall Back confirmed to be a strat? Or am I thinking of something else?

I don't think so given the number of people complaining that it isn't.

I think we are also moving towards codified USR thank god..

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
While I find the overall change to overwatch interesting, I'm not too thrilled that it costs CP. What we've seen so far is that the "More CP than ever" is exaggerated compared to for example what a Brigade or double Battalion would give you. When every 'basic' action is going to cost CP as well, we'll end up actually having less CP for the fun stratagems. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet, but the picture given so far is not only positive regarding the "more CP" slogan.

Maybe for gun line armies looking to stop charging units. But not for those of us doing the charging.

I like this a lot.

It's not like most units had particularly good overwatch.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Voss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
While I find the overall change to overwatch interesting, I'm not too thrilled that it costs CP. What we've seen so far is that the "More CP than ever" is exaggerated compared to for example what a Brigade or double Battalion would give you. When every 'basic' action is going to cost CP as well, we'll end up actually having less CP for the fun stratagems. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet, but the picture given so far is not only positive regarding the "more CP" slogan.

Or we'll have to build our armies up around the fun strats we want to use instead of using rerolls, or maybe even Overwatch.

We get at least a CP a turn though, so Overwatch can always be paid for.

Sure. But is it worth paying for?
There are just so many better strats that can also use the CP.

Maybe, but then there's also that well-placed Aggressor or Retribution squad that's covering a key shooting unit. If nothing else they can act as great deterrants. Also, as one of the bigger time wasters, I don't see any problem with OW being relegated to the nosebleed section of tactical options.

Good to have in the pocket, no longer a no-brainer.

Also, it makes factions/units with OW benefits that much more unique, which is also a good thing.

I largely agree, Overwatch largely is a time waster, and the change is largely good. But it is a big change back (and not for the first time in the history of Overwatch), and GW often doesn't grasp how big some of their changes are.

I disagree on that last point, however. By generally relegating it to a back-tier 'maybe' strat, factions/units with real OW benefits will be a problem. Either by being over/under costed or GW not appreciating how game changing they can be.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
From the Community article:

Be careful, though – a savvy enemy might be able to catch you off-guard if you’re in their deployment zone. The Strategic Reserves rule allows a unit to deploy on their own table edge, even if it’s within Engagement Range (1”) of an enemy, and proceed to make attacks as though they charged! This is such a situational rarity that it probably won’t come up very often, but a stunt like that completely bypasses Overwatch to surprise unwary or careless opponents.

Interesting tidbit I thought.

As they said rare. More of interest is no limit on how close you come to enemy near own edge so flamer/melta counter deploy 6" from own edge and shoot. And easy charbdge

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Voss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Us3Less wrote:
While I find the overall change to overwatch interesting, I'm not too thrilled that it costs CP. What we've seen so far is that the "More CP than ever" is exaggerated compared to for example what a Brigade or double Battalion would give you. When every 'basic' action is going to cost CP as well, we'll end up actually having less CP for the fun stratagems. Perhaps we just don't know enough yet, but the picture given so far is not only positive regarding the "more CP" slogan.

Or we'll have to build our armies up around the fun strats we want to use instead of using rerolls, or maybe even Overwatch.

We get at least a CP a turn though, so Overwatch can always be paid for.

Sure. But is it worth paying for?
There are just so many better strats that can also use the CP.

It's situational, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

Eh. Its situational to the point of 'if I'm not rolling tons of dice or have 5+ flamers' I'm never going to use it, it turns no brainer again, and that is bad.

The limit to once per phase is virtually irrelevant, it's very rare you're charging more than one unit with significant overwatch in the first place, and if you are, you're almost certainly turning it off against at least one of them. Because overwatch was so ubiquitous in 8th, any combat army basically had to have some way of ignoring it, either directly, through using soakers, or through using terrain. And T'au get to at least partially ignore the mechanic, which is the only army where you would potentially have to face multiple units worth of overwatch regularly.

The big thing is it costing 1CP. This is going to amount to a 2-3CP tax over the course of the average game for a gunline, which is significant...but only if that stuff on the stream about "the strat isn't the only way to overwatch" turns out to be minor. If it turns out that every major unit (+ every space marine unit period because Space Marines(TM)) gets free overwatch, this whole thing is pretty much pointless anyway.

In any case, overwatch wasn't the issue for melee in 8th, the issue was the free fall back with virtually no consequences that meant that unless you could trap a unit, your melee unit always died the turn after charging.

All the changes to overwatch in the world won't compensate for the nerf to melee that would occur if they gave a fall back strat that lets you fall back even if you are wrapped, for example.

Voss wrote:

WarCom wrote:Overall, this is a huge boost to massed assault armies, such as Orks or Tyranids, that excel at smashing dozens of units into the enemy line all at once. Where previously, each one of those units would face retaliatory fire, now, your opponent will only be able to target ONE of your changing units, so will have to choose very carefully indeed! Do you stop the rampaging Trygon from smashing a tank or that horde of 30 Hormagaunts from shredding an infantry platoon? No easy choice.

Yeah, ok, this is good for melee armies. But this example is pants-on-head stupid. Firing overwatch with a single unit, hitting only on 6s is NOT going to stop a trygon.

If you've got the spare CP and a good shooting unit, you might shoot at the Hormagaunts to do some damage, but barring flametanks or something similar, you're not going to do significant damage to a trygon, so it IS an easy choice.

Of course, the even easier choice is 'never waste CP on overwatch,' because paying and praying for 6s is statistically poor, but there are exceptions.

----
Various free overwatch rules are going to be interesting for the general army composition trends. I'm curious how many people will prioritize it, and how many will treat it as a dead rule with no game impact.

Depends on unit that you charged now don't you? I have stopped 12w t8 vehicle with ow. Exorcist is risky prospect to charge(18 wounds would have been just as dead). Not likely but bigger impact than shooting handfull boyz

 Tyran wrote:
Of course such changes should also come with very large point discounts on such models.

But stuff is going UP in 9e

yukishiro1 wrote:
The limit to once per phase is virtually irrelevant, it's very rare you're charging more than one unit with significant overwatch in the first place, and if you are, you're almost certainly turning it off against at least one of them. Because overwatch was so ubiquitous in 8th, any combat army basically had to have some way of ignoring it, either directly, through using soakers, or through using terrain. And T'au get to at least partially ignore the mechanic, which is the only army where you would potentially have to face multiple units worth of overwatch regularly.

The big thing is it costing 1CP. This is going to amount to a 2-3CP tax over the course of the average game for a gunline, which is significant...but only if that stuff on the stream about "the strat isn't the only way to overwatch" turns out to be minor. If it turns out that every major unit (+ every space marine unit period because Space Marines(TM)) gets free overwatch, this whole thing is pretty much pointless anyway.

In any case, overwatch wasn't the issue for melee in 8th, the issue was the free fall back with virtually no consequences that meant that unless you could trap a unit, your melee unit always died the turn after charging.

All the changes to overwatch in the world won't compensate for the nerf to melee that would occur if they gave a fall back strat that lets you fall back even if you are wrapped, for example.

One issue is game becomes more and more unscalable though. Funny how they keep saying game works with every game size while making sure game works well in 1 size only

So do you get to overwatch for the remainder of the phase or just that unit? Say I have a 9" charge with a chaff unit and you pay to overwatch them, and my guys either die or don't make it in. Do you get to overwatch my other unit trying for a charge in the same phase then?

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Of course such changes should also come with very large point discounts on such models.

But stuff is going UP in 9e

If others go up 20% and you go up 5% you get discount. And as we already have seen all won't go up same %

Its a big deal for me, my mate runs a knight valiant and every single game it flamers stuff off the board charging it.

Now not only does he have to decide to use overwatch or not for 1cp he has to risk the chaff unit i chuck in first failing and saving the overwatch for the thing i actually want to make it in.

if the chaff makes it in it stops overwatch for the other anyway so its a really horrible positition for this model

Voss wrote:

Eh. Its situational to the point of 'if I'm not rolling tons of dice or have 5+ flamers' I'm never going to use it, it turns no brainer again, and that is bad.

This. Going from "everybody does it " to "nobody does it" isnt a net positive.

I understand the changing of Overwatch to speed up the game and help melee armies out a bit...but...1CP to shoot the crazy nastys charging me? 0CP, full stop. Why am I being penalized for shooting the crazy nastys charging? I only get one shot at it now...and I have to pay CP for it? Which is more important because both seem to be over swinging the hammer.

Wait for full picture, Wait for full release, Don't make assumptions...:(:(:(

Edit: HOLY F!@# didn't think of flamers...wtf GW as if Sisters iconic weapon wasn't being sidelined enough.

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
I understand the changing of Overwatch to speed up the game and help melee armies out a bit...but...1CP to shoot the crazy nastys charging me? 0CP, full stop. Why am I being penalized for shooting the crazy nastys charging? I only get one shot at it now...and I have to pay CP for it? Which is more important because both seem to be over swinging the hammer.

Wait for full picture, Wait for full release, Don't make assumptions...:(:(:(

If I have to pay one CP to use "Cut them down" when you Fall Back on top of being super careful when moving a melee unit to avoid as much fire as possible AND to try to prevent you from Falling Back the turn after I charged because of bad rolls or whatever, the least you can do is to pay one CP for OW.

PiñaColada wrote:
So do you get to overwatch for the remainder of the phase or just that unit? Say I have a 9" charge with a chaff unit and you pay to overwatch them, and my guys either die or don't make it in. Do you get to overwatch my other unit trying for a charge in the same phase then?

Just the one unit, OW is made before the charge roll for the unit that declared the charge is made.

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
I understand the changing of Overwatch to speed up the game and help melee armies out a bit...but...1CP to shoot the crazy nastys charging me? 0CP, full stop. Why am I being penalized for shooting the crazy nastys charging? I only get one shot at it now...and I have to pay CP for it? Which is more important because both seem to be over swinging the hammer.

Wait for full picture, Wait for full release, Don't make assumptions...:(:(:(

Edit: HOLY F!@# didn't think of flamers...wtf GW as if Sisters iconic weapon wasn't being sidelined enough.

Somebody has managed to shoot 8" flamers in OW? I have yet to do that trick even once. Everybody I play are smart enough to charge 8.1" away if the unit actually cares few flamers. Or do 3d6 with rerolls charge out of deep strike which negates flamers anyway.

tneva82 wrote:

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
I understand the changing of Overwatch to speed up the game and help melee armies out a bit...but...1CP to shoot the crazy nastys charging me? 0CP, full stop. Why am I being penalized for shooting the crazy nastys charging? I only get one shot at it now...and I have to pay CP for it? Which is more important because both seem to be over swinging the hammer.

Wait for full picture, Wait for full release, Don't make assumptions...:(:(:(

Edit: HOLY F!@# didn't think of flamers...wtf GW as if Sisters iconic weapon wasn't being sidelined enough.

Somebody has managed to shoot 8" flamers in OW? I have yet to do that trick even once. Everybody I play are smart enough to charge 8.1" away if the unit actually cares few flamers. Or do 3d6 with rerolls charge out of deep strike which negates flamers anyway.

An 8" charge isn't that easy to pull off.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The limit to once per phase is virtually irrelevant, it's very rare you're charging more than one unit with significant overwatch in the first place, and if you are, you're almost certainly turning it off against at least one of them.

Uh? So people won't be charging both my flamer dominions and my immolator now?

It's a really big deal for flamers, not so much for other weapons.
Also the rule description doesn't mention it explicitly, but I guess we still measure range from the starting point of the charge, which is also sad for flamers. And flamers don't get the blast rule. I guess at least Immolators can shoot in melee now, so not everything is wasted ^^.

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
I understand the changing of Overwatch to speed up the game and help melee armies out a bit...but...1CP to shoot the crazy nastys charging me? 0CP, full stop. Why am I being penalized for shooting the crazy nastys charging? I only get one shot at it now...and I have to pay CP for it? Which is more important because both seem to be over swinging the hammer.

Wait for full picture, Wait for full release, Don't make assumptions...:(:(:(

Edit: HOLY F!@# didn't think of flamers...wtf GW as if Sisters iconic weapon wasn't being sidelined enough.

Somebody has managed to shoot 8" flamers in OW? I have yet to do that trick even once. Everybody I play are smart enough to charge 8.1" away if the unit actually cares few flamers. Or do 3d6 with rerolls charge out of deep strike which negates flamers anyway.

An 8" charge isn't that easy to pull off.

Serious assault units don't roll 2d6 and that's it. They have modifiers and/or rerolls(both or single dice) making odds to around 80% as a very least like with orks.

And of course most units don't care too much about few flamers. And if they do still option to drive in empty rhino to prevent overwatch. Problem solved.

tneva82 wrote:
Somebody has managed to shoot 8" flamers in OW?

Sisters have 12" heavy flamers (on retributors) and 12" immolation flamers (on immolators).

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Somebody has managed to shoot 8" flamers in OW?

Sisters have 12" heavy flamers (on retributors) and 12" immolation flamers (on immolators).

Retributor stratagem(not usable in OW anyway) gave reroll to wounds for flamers. Range boost is multi meltas.

Immolator isn't something many opponents will worry anyway. And the few units that do you can still ram empty rhino or something first, laugh overwatch and then charge in with rest.


And besides you can still fire that OW with that 1 unit. Assuming immolator doesn't say get even the native ability in day1 errata among others. And even if not I take ability to fire out of melee over ow any day. Bigger buff for the junk unit.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The limit to once per phase is virtually irrelevant, it's very rare you're charging more than one unit with significant overwatch in the first place, and if you are, you're almost certainly turning it off against at least one of them.

Uh? So people won't be charging both my flamer dominions and my immolator now?

It's a really big deal for flamers, not so much for other weapons.
Also the rule description doesn't mention it explicitly, but I guess we still measure range from the starting point of the charge, which is also sad for flamers. And flamers don't get the blast rule. I guess at least Immolators can shoot in melee now, so not everything is wasted ^^.

Why would anyone charge your flamer dominions and flamer immolator in 8th edition unless they don't know how to play 40k? Far better to just charge one and wrap the other. That way you avoid overwatch from the one you don't charge and avoid the possibility of accidentally killing it, while protecting yourself next turn as well.

But if you really were going to do that...chances are you'd have some way to turn off the overwatch on one or both of those. How many combat armies don't have an overwatch immune unit or a psychic power to disable it? Virtually none, and even the armies that don't have things like repulsors with the 4++ that excel at soaking overwatch.

Overwatch just didn't matter much in competitive 8th edition 40k. Falling back is the big issue.

The rules but with full stop this time.

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
I understand the changing of Overwatch to speed up the game and help melee armies out a bit...but...1CP to shoot the crazy nastys charging me? 0CP, full stop. Why am I being penalized for shooting the crazy nastys charging? I only get one shot at it now...and I have to pay CP for it? Which is more important because both seem to be over swinging the hammer.

Wait for full picture, Wait for full release, Don't make assumptions...:(:(:(

Edit: HOLY F!@# didn't think of flamers...wtf GW as if Sisters iconic weapon wasn't being sidelined enough.

If Cut Them Down costs CP, then yes, Overwatch needs to cost CP too.

Anyone noticed this yet?

tneva82 wrote:
Retributor stratagem(not usable in OW anyway) gave reroll to wounds for flamers.

Not the stratagem. The datasheet rule. The one that also prevent them from getting -1 to hit when moving and shooting heavy weapons.


Note that Cool-Headed Orks in a ruin will be able to get free overwatch on 4+, meaning they hit better in overwatch than on their own turn. lol

Huh. Looks like Character rules ARE changing.

Good eye, GK12!

 greyknight12 wrote:
Anyone noticed this yet?

Yeah. I suspect its just a proper name for that untargetable character rule.

Could be just a new name for the current rule.

Voss wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoiler:

Is this new art? I don't recognize it offhand.

Looks new. And a different style- more starship troopers the movie.

And by an artist who thinks guardsmen have machineguns, apparently. The guy behind the first one's muzzle flash is using something that's almost a P-90.

So, there's some interesting bits going on apparently.
The guy in the background is using an Urdeshi Mark VI Lasgun. It's also shown in the Sabbat Worlds book on a Blood Pact soldier, albeit with some modifications to the barrel & a bayonet.

Found the original image as well. It's used in the Drukhari Codex...but it's not entirely the same image?

Drukhari Codex p71 for 8th edition, in case anyone can check to see if the page art has the Guardsmen front and center as well?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Retributor stratagem(not usable in OW anyway) gave reroll to wounds for flamers.

Not the stratagem. The datasheet rule. The one that also prevent them from getting -1 to hit when moving and shooting heavy weapons.


Note that Cool-Headed Orks in a ruin will be able to get free overwatch on 4+, meaning they hit better in overwatch than on their own turn. lol

No they won't. Its not a modifier, its a set value.

Cool-headed is a hit on an unmodified roll of a 5.
Hold Steady is the same.

You're thinking of Set to Defend, which grants +1 to hit in the fight phase, but no overwatch.

I’m really happy about the new overwatch strategem. Situational, limited and used in the right place at the right time could be very effective. It encourages decision making and thought, with a genuine opportunity cost element.

If this is the general direction of strategems in 9th I will be very pleased. I like the idea that you won’t see the same strategems being used over and over in every game, and that there shouldn’t be automatic choices which effectively limit player choice and tactical decision making.

This puts the Cut them down strategem in a new light, and I’m pleasantly surprised so far.

To me its clear that overwatch is now meant to be combined with a unit positioned in defensible terrain. And anything that costs CP is a plus for me, the less CPs the better for the game IMO (I despise CP power combo spam)

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
I understand the changing of Overwatch to speed up the game and help melee armies out a bit...but...1CP to shoot the crazy nastys charging me? 0CP, full stop. Why am I being penalized for shooting the crazy nastys charging? I only get one shot at it now...and I have to pay CP for it? Which is more important because both seem to be over swinging the hammer.

Wait for full picture, Wait for full release, Don't make assumptions...:(:(:(

Edit: HOLY F!@# didn't think of flamers...wtf GW as if Sisters iconic weapon wasn't being sidelined enough.

If Cut Them Down costs CP, then yes, Overwatch needs to cost CP too.

There is quite a lot of counter play to OW on top of it not being much of a deal unless you're charging auto hitting heavy weapons. It's also a deterrent to charging everything in sight, since bad touching units is kind of a powerful move.
Falling back has 0 counter play outside of wrapping/tripointing units.

I would rather have OW stay as is (or a bit abstracted to speed up game time) and falling back becoming a strat, than this.

dhallnet wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
I understand the changing of Overwatch to speed up the game and help melee armies out a bit...but...1CP to shoot the crazy nastys charging me? 0CP, full stop. Why am I being penalized for shooting the crazy nastys charging? I only get one shot at it now...and I have to pay CP for it? Which is more important because both seem to be over swinging the hammer.

Wait for full picture, Wait for full release, Don't make assumptions...:(:(:(

Edit: HOLY F!@# didn't think of flamers...wtf GW as if Sisters iconic weapon wasn't being sidelined enough.

If Cut Them Down costs CP, then yes, Overwatch needs to cost CP too.

There is quite a lot of counter play to OW on top of it not being much of a deal unless you're charging auto hitting heavy weapons. It's also a deterrent to charging everything in sight, since bad touching units is kind of a powerful move.
Falling back has 0 counter play outside of wrapping/tripointing units.

I would rather have OW stay as is (or a bit abstracted to speed up game time) and falling back becoming a strat, than this.

How about this : OW costs CP and Falling Back also costs CP.

Much better.

Selfcontrol wrote:
Much better.

Not if charging (or rather, "engaging") rules are untouched.

 Argive wrote:
I think we are also moving towards codified USR thank god..

This was well-built in 5th ed. and I don't understand why they ever went away from it.

 puma713 wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I think we are also moving towards codified USR thank god..

This was well-built in 5th ed. and I don't understand why they ever went away from it.

Because someone in the studio got convinced that 'exception based design' was the new hotness in the games industry.

Or just liked overusing the word 'bespoke'

 Kanluwen wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoiler:

Is this new art? I don't recognize it offhand.

Looks new. And a different style- more starship troopers the movie.

And by an artist who thinks guardsmen have machineguns, apparently. The guy behind the first one's muzzle flash is using something that's almost a P-90.

So, there's some interesting bits going on apparently.
The guy in the background is using an Urdeshi Mark VI Lasgun. It's also shown in the Sabbat Worlds book on a Blood Pact soldier, albeit with some modifications to the barrel & a bayonet.

Found the original image as well. It's used in the Drukhari Codex...but it's not entirely the same image?

Spoiler:

Drukhari Codex p71 for 8th edition, in case anyone can check to see if the page art has the Guardsmen front and center as well?

Yeah, the full picture includes the Guardsmen. In fact the banner image only cuts off a small porion of the top and bottom of the full picture.

Faction Focus: Chaso Space Marines.

is it just me but the terms Set to Defend and Hold Steady the wrong way round

So

Set to Defend shoud be the better Overwatch and
Hold Steady is better aim?

Well at least he admits that cultists don't make any sense in a Night Lords army.

Set to Defend is the unit preparing to meet the charge in melee, Hold Steady is the unit holding their guns steady on the incoming charge.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Anyone noticed this yet?

The rule that already existed? Yes we noticed it 3 years ago

It's name of the character protection rule. It's there to ensure you can shoot charging character even if it's protected from shooting. At most we know with this characters won't be freely targetable ala AOS in 9th ed

Hopefully the rumoured improved version is true and wasn't just wishlisting. It would be so much more logical. I really hate it when rhino opposite side of unit out of LOS protects character waaaaay different direction all alone middle of plain field. Just so silly. The version posted here would make much more sense while still keeping rhino sniping away(well rhino sniping died largely with TLOS...since you can draw LOS from UNDER rhino anyway...)

While I do think the Overwatch rule is a great change for the game, another rule change that is being easily overlooked, I think, is the change to reserves in your own deployment. Now, you can deploy your reserves within 1" of an enemy if they're in your deployment zone. So, did the Raven Guard just drop all around you to destroy your tanks? That's okay because your bikes/assault marines/etc., etc. come right on and clean them up next turn.

The implications for that could be huge, given the proper deployment (the reserves come on from the board edge).

NVM

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You're thinking of Set to Defend, which grants +1 to hit in the fight phase, but no overwatch.

You are right, I mixed up things !

 puma713 wrote:
While I do think the Overwatch rule is a great change for the game, another rule change that is being easily overlooked, I think, is the change to reserves in your own deployment. Now, you can deploy your reserves within 1" of an enemy if they're in your deployment zone. So, did the Raven Guard just drop all around you to destroy your tanks? That's okay because your bikes/assault marines/etc., etc. come right on and clean them up next turn.

The implications for that could be huge, given the proper deployment (the reserves come on from the board edge).

I really really like this, it might not see a ton of use, but it's a great way to make reserves feel like *real* reserves.

Reserves are not often something you plop into an enemy armies' backfield, they're something used to reinforce your own lines.

In 8th at best they could deepstrike nearby, shoot, and hope for a lucky charge.

This change makes them much more helpful immediately when you've got 15 Death Company with jumppacks rushing your back line.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
While I do think the Overwatch rule is a great change for the game, another rule change that is being easily overlooked, I think, is the change to reserves in your own deployment. Now, you can deploy your reserves within 1" of an enemy if they're in your deployment zone. So, did the Raven Guard just drop all around you to destroy your tanks? That's okay because your bikes/assault marines/etc., etc. come right on and clean them up next turn.

The implications for that could be huge, given the proper deployment (the reserves come on from the board edge).

I really really like this, it might not see a ton of use, but it's a great way to make reserves feel like *real* reserves.

Reserves are not often something you plop into an enemy armies' backfield, they're something used to reinforce your own lines.

In 8th at best they could deepstrike nearby, shoot, and hope for a lucky charge.

This change makes them much more helpful immediately when you've got 15 Death Company with jumppacks rushing your back line.

Forget popping INTO melee. Notice it means you get close to enemy. 6" from your board edge, that reaches quite a lot straight into melta/flamer range and easy charge range...

The pop into melee out of thin air doesn't happen that often. Appearing to shoot/charge range likely happens lot more often.

edit: Nevermind, it makes it sound like the deploying within 1" thing only applies if you deploy "on your table edge." This makes it far less likely to ever come up in a game where the outcome isn't already predetermined. If you're hunkering on your own table edge you've already lost the game the way the new missions work.

The changes to Overwatch on the face of it are good but are really going to depend on how many 'other' ways there are to get it. If every unit under the sun has some ability that grants Overwatch then these changes to the core rule are meaningless.

I mean, we don't know if every unit that currently has a rule that interacts with OW will get OW as an ability AND their rule for example. I am all for a general approach of less but more meaningful overwatch but it remains to be seen whether this is the case both at launch and once we are 7 codexes in.

Wow, I really like all of those rule changes. Definitely increased my excitement for 9th.

For the Greater Good: When an enemy unit declares a charge, a unit with this ability that is within 6" of one of the charging unit's targets may fire Overwatch as if they were also targeted. A unit that does so cannot fire Overwatch again in this turn. (Codex: T'au Empire p89)

All the Tau players seem to be looking at the wording and reading it as "If unit A is charged and unit B is within 6" unit B is a valid target for Fire Overwatch but FTGG does not enable Overwatch fire by itselt because of the 'as if they were also targetted' wording".

Consensus on that?

The preview says the FTGG rules text is changing anyway, so it doesn't really matter what it says now.

I'm assuming the popping into melee is to prevent weird edge cases like that Kroot Conga Line from happening again:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
The changes to Overwatch on the face of it are good but are really going to depend on how many 'other' ways there are to get it. If every unit under the sun has some ability that grants Overwatch then these changes to the core rule are meaningless.

I mean, we don't know if every unit that currently has a rule that interacts with OW will get OW as an ability AND their rule for example. I am all for a general approach of less but more meaningful overwatch but it remains to be seen whether this is the case both at launch and once we are 7 codexes in.

Yeah, this.

I like this change,but if a Ton of unis start getting handed the exception then the impact is going to be negligible.

Not so sure about the Aura of Discord rule, aren't all Deamon Engines also Vehicles, and so effectively receive no bonus at all from being nearby?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm assuming the popping into melee is to prevent weird edge cases like that Kroot Conga Line from happening again:

Spoiler:

That edge case isn't an edge case anymore because you can't deploy entire armies into Reserve.

warl0rdb0b wrote:
Not so sure about the Aura of Discord rule, aren't all Deamon Engines also Vehicles, and so effectively receive no bonus at all from being nearby?

It's the current rule.

ENEMY Vehicles get the penalty. FRIENDLY Daemon Engines get the bonus.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm assuming the popping into melee is to prevent weird edge cases like that Kroot Conga Line from happening again:

Spoiler:

That edge case isn't an edge case anymore because you can't deploy entire armies into Reserve.

Right, but blocking out whole units is still possible so letting you deploy right into combat prevents that.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The preview says the FTGG rules text is changing anyway, so it doesn't really matter what it says now.

"You may find that some units benefit from other special rules that modify Overwatch as well, such as the T’au Empire’s For the Greater Good special rule."

That doesn't say anything about the FTGG text changing, merely that it modifies Overwatch.

The Newman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The preview says the FTGG rules text is changing anyway, so it doesn't really matter what it says now.

"You may find that some units benefit from other special rules that modify Overwatch as well, such as the T’au Empire’s For the Greater Good special rule."

That doesn't say anything about the FTGG text changing, merely that it modifies Overwatch. Although that would imply that at a minimum GW reads FTGG as enabling Overwatch by itself.

The article says you can activate two units for the price of one for Tau.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm assuming the popping into melee is to prevent weird edge cases like that Kroot Conga Line from happening again:

Spoiler:

That edge case isn't an edge case anymore because you can't deploy entire armies into Reserve.

Right, but blocking out whole units is still possible so letting you deploy right into combat prevents that.

But that wasn't the actual point of the example story, which was a list designed to punish null deployment.

The Newman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The preview says the FTGG rules text is changing anyway, so it doesn't really matter what it says now.

"You may find that some units benefit from other special rules that modify Overwatch as well, such as the T’au Empire’s For the Greater Good special rule."

That doesn't say anything about the FTGG text changing, merely that it modifies Overwatch. Although that would imply that at a minimum GW reads FTGG as enabling Overwatch by itself.

Modifying something doesnt for a moment enable it.

The Newman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The preview says the FTGG rules text is changing anyway, so it doesn't really matter what it says now.

"You may find that some units benefit from other special rules that modify Overwatch as well, such as the T’au Empire’s For the Greater Good special rule."

That doesn't say anything about the FTGG text changing, merely that it modifies Overwatch. Although that would imply that at a minimum GW reads FTGG as enabling Overwatch by itself.

I can’t find it now, maybe they said it in the stream, but I’m sure they said FTGG would allow you to fire with additional unit(s) when you spend 1CP for overwatch. I take that to mean that it would trigger as normal if a unit charged has native overwatch, and for units that don’t have native overwatch then spending the CP to allow the target of a charge to overwatch will trigger FTGG. Whether or not the wording of FTGG is changed isn’t clear, but it seems that the intent is for it to work more or less as it does now.

yukishiro1 wrote:
edit: Nevermind, it makes it sound like the deploying within 1" thing only applies if you deploy "on your table edge." This makes it far less likely to ever come up in a game where the outcome isn't already predetermined. If you're hunkering on your own table edge you've already lost the game the way the new missions work.

So you have never enemy units close to your table edge hunting at your tanks/characters where appearing within 6" of your table edge doesn't give you easy charge or shooting?

Enemy never comes into your deployment zone? Ever?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The Newman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The preview says the FTGG rules text is changing anyway, so it doesn't really matter what it says now.

"You may find that some units benefit from other special rules that modify Overwatch as well, such as the T’au Empire’s For the Greater Good special rule."

That doesn't say anything about the FTGG text changing, merely that it modifies Overwatch. Although that would imply that at a minimum GW reads FTGG as enabling Overwatch by itself.

The article says you can activate two units for the price of one for Tau.

I'm failing the spot check, where are you seeing that?

The Newman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The Newman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The preview says the FTGG rules text is changing anyway, so it doesn't really matter what it says now.

"You may find that some units benefit from other special rules that modify Overwatch as well, such as the T’au Empire’s For the Greater Good special rule."

That doesn't say anything about the FTGG text changing, merely that it modifies Overwatch. Although that would imply that at a minimum GW reads FTGG as enabling Overwatch by itself.

The article says you can activate two units for the price of one for Tau.

I'm failing the spot check, where are you seeing that?

That's odd, I recall that being mentioned specifically too, but I can't see it in the text. They've modified it at least once (the Overwatch text was... not punctuated. Whoops), they might have edited again to remove that based on re-reading the rules for FTGG?

The Newman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The Newman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The preview says the FTGG rules text is changing anyway, so it doesn't really matter what it says now.

"You may find that some units benefit from other special rules that modify Overwatch as well, such as the T’au Empire’s For the Greater Good special rule."

That doesn't say anything about the FTGG text changing, merely that it modifies Overwatch. Although that would imply that at a minimum GW reads FTGG as enabling Overwatch by itself.

The article says you can activate two units for the price of one for Tau.

I'm failing the spot check, where are you seeing that?

Nowhere because the article doesn't say that.

 Platuan4th wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The Newman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The preview says the FTGG rules text is changing anyway, so it doesn't really matter what it says now.

"You may find that some units benefit from other special rules that modify Overwatch as well, such as the T’au Empire’s For the Greater Good special rule."

That doesn't say anything about the FTGG text changing, merely that it modifies Overwatch. Although that would imply that at a minimum GW reads FTGG as enabling Overwatch by itself.

The article says you can activate two units for the price of one for Tau.

I'm failing the spot check, where are you seeing that?

Nowhere because the article doesn't say that.

It originally said Tau have a two for one bonus but was since edited

Matrindur wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The Newman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The preview says the FTGG rules text is changing anyway, so it doesn't really matter what it says now.

"You may find that some units benefit from other special rules that modify Overwatch as well, such as the T’au Empire’s For the Greater Good special rule."

That doesn't say anything about the FTGG text changing, merely that it modifies Overwatch. Although that would imply that at a minimum GW reads FTGG as enabling Overwatch by itself.

The article says you can activate two units for the price of one for Tau.

I'm failing the spot check, where are you seeing that?

Nowhere because the article doesn't say that.

It originally said Tau have a two for one bonus but was since edited

So, in other words, it doesn't say that.

Article does refer to The Greater Good though,

I’m quite liking this change.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Matrindur wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The Newman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The preview says the FTGG rules text is changing anyway, so it doesn't really matter what it says now.

"You may find that some units benefit from other special rules that modify Overwatch as well, such as the T’au Empire’s For the Greater Good special rule."

That doesn't say anything about the FTGG text changing, merely that it modifies Overwatch. Although that would imply that at a minimum GW reads FTGG as enabling Overwatch by itself.

The article says you can activate two units for the price of one for Tau.

I'm failing the spot check, where are you seeing that?

Nowhere because the article doesn't say that.

It originally said Tau have a two for one bonus but was since edited

So, in other words, it doesn't say that.

Not anymore yes, could be someone did a mistake and that info was wrong, could be they just didn't want us to know yet

Matrindur wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The Newman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The preview says the FTGG rules text is changing anyway, so it doesn't really matter what it says now.

"You may find that some units benefit from other special rules that modify Overwatch as well, such as the T’au Empire’s For the Greater Good special rule."

That doesn't say anything about the FTGG text changing, merely that it modifies Overwatch. Although that would imply that at a minimum GW reads FTGG as enabling Overwatch by itself.

The article says you can activate two units for the price of one for Tau.

I'm failing the spot check, where are you seeing that?

Nowhere because the article doesn't say that.

It originally said Tau have a two for one bonus but was since edited

I can confirm it did say that originally. Faeit 212 still has the original transcription on their page here http://natfka.blogspot.com/2020/06/big-changes-to-overwatch-in-9th-edition.html

This is what the article originally said about the Tau before being edited.

You may find that some units benefit from other special rules that modify Overwatch as well, such as the T’au Empire’s For the Greater Good special rule, essentially giving them two-for-one Overwatch fire – a brilliant use of a single Command point!

yukishiro1 wrote:
The limit to once per phase is virtually irrelevant, it's very rare you're charging more than one unit with significant overwatch in the first place, and if you are, you're almost certainly turning it off against at least one of them. Because overwatch was so ubiquitous in 8th, any combat army basically had to have some way of ignoring it, either directly, through using soakers, or through using terrain. And T'au get to at least partially ignore the mechanic, which is the only army where you would potentially have to face multiple units worth of overwatch regularly.

The big thing is it costing 1CP. This is going to amount to a 2-3CP tax over the course of the average game for a gunline, which is significant...but only if that stuff on the stream about "the strat isn't the only way to overwatch" turns out to be minor. If it turns out that every major unit (+ every space marine unit period because Space Marines(TM)) gets free overwatch, this whole thing is pretty much pointless anyway.

In any case, overwatch wasn't the issue for melee in 8th, the issue was the free fall back with virtually no consequences that meant that unless you could trap a unit, your melee unit always died the turn after charging.

All the changes to overwatch in the world won't compensate for the nerf to melee that would occur if they gave a fall back strat that lets you fall back even if you are wrapped, for example.

I disagree with the first part.

I'd argue overwatch is going to be largely useless except for certain specific exceptions because now you can bait overwatch again.

By that I mean, even if you have a Knight Valiant, I can charge you with a single guardsmen and you either spend 1CP and nuke him (not remotely worth it) or I tag you and you are now no longer eligible to fire OW at whatever hell I actually wanted to hit the knight with.

Basically overwatch will make it's largest impact in the end turns i my guess. When your down to only a few key units that are already damaged or isolated. I'm OK with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoiler:

Is this new art? I don't recognize it offhand.

Looks new. And a different style- more starship troopers the movie.

And by an artist who thinks guardsmen have machineguns, apparently. The guy behind the first one's muzzle flash is using something that's almost a P-90.

So, there's some interesting bits going on apparently.
The guy in the background is using an Urdeshi Mark VI Lasgun. It's also shown in the Sabbat Worlds book on a Blood Pact soldier, albeit with some modifications to the barrel & a bayonet.

Found the original image as well. It's used in the Drukhari Codex...but it's not entirely the same image?

Spoiler:

Drukhari Codex p71 for 8th edition, in case anyone can check to see if the page art has the Guardsmen front and center as well?

Thats old art mate. It's from the 7th ed DE Coven Supplement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm assuming the popping into melee is to prevent weird edge cases like that Kroot Conga Line from happening again:

Spoiler:

That was already fixed with the current tactical reserves rules. The new addition fixes the CURRENT problem where units can be blocked off the entire table, which would have been even worse on the new size. Now I can at the very least appear in combat, this helps GSC tremendously.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you're hunkering on your own table edge you've already lost the game the way the new missions work.

Leafblower IG would probably disagree with you. But we'll see. I think I misunderstood how it works. I assumed that the deploying would work like outflanking used to work and you'd "move on" to the board. Now that I re-read it, it sounds like if the enemy is 1" from your board edge, which will happen quite rarely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
The changes to Overwatch on the face of it are good but are really going to depend on how many 'other' ways there are to get it. If every unit under the sun has some ability that grants Overwatch then these changes to the core rule are meaningless.

I mean, we don't know if every unit that currently has a rule that interacts with OW will get OW as an ability AND their rule for example. I am all for a general approach of less but more meaningful overwatch but it remains to be seen whether this is the case both at launch and once we are 7 codexes in.

Yeah, this.

I like this change,but if a Ton of unis start getting handed the exception then the impact is going to be negligible.

Reminds me of when ObSec was gone from the 8th rules. And then it showed up in every codex.

 Tyran wrote:
This is what the article originally said about the Tau before being edited.

You may find that some units benefit from other special rules that modify Overwatch as well, such as the T’au Empire’s For the Greater Good special rule, essentially giving them two-for-one Overwatch fire – a brilliant use of a single Command point!

A screenshot someone else shared elsewhere, with the original wording:

Nice to see I haven't gone crazy yet!

sure, but if it's removed it's probably more likely to be el classico "warhammer community writer forgot how rule worked" situation than a secret rule change.

RAW, you get to overwatch with EVERYTHING within 6" if you want with FTGG right?

the_scotsman wrote:
sure, but if it's removed it's probably more likely to be el classico "warhammer community writer forgot how rule worked" situation than a secret rule change.

RAW, you get to overwatch with EVERYTHING within 6" if you want with FTGG right?

They say there's a day 1 faq to clarify how all overwatch based abilities work, it might be changed to a 2-4-1 style situation.

Dudeface wrote:

They say there's a day 1 faq to clarify how all overwatch based abilities work, it might be changed to a 2-4-1 style situation.

At the rate these changes are stacking up, the Day 1 FAQ for most armies is going to need to be Codex sized given the growing list of rules, equipment, units and abilities that are flat out non-functional in 9th as currently written.

Voss wrote:

Eh. Its situational to the point of 'if I'm not rolling tons of dice or have 5+ flamers' I'm never going to use it, it turns no brainer again, and that is bad.

aha. this is literally what SITUATIONAL means....


not so thrilled about the 'cool headed' rule, though... we all know what 'far in between' generally means for GW...

really hoping to see fall back as a strategem, that would make me wanna field my orks close combat centric again

RedNoak wrote:

Voss wrote:

Eh. Its situational to the point of 'if I'm not rolling tons of dice or have 5+ flamers' I'm never going to use it, it turns no brainer again, and that is bad.

aha. this is literally what SITUATIONAL means....


not so thrilled about the 'cool headed' rule, though... we all know what 'far in between' generally means for GW...

really hoping to see fall back as a strategem, that would make me wanna field my orks close combat centric again

Cool headed is only for narrative (crusade) play anyway.

RedNoak wrote:

Voss wrote:

Eh. Its situational to the point of 'if I'm not rolling tons of dice or have 5+ flamers' I'm never going to use it, it turns no brainer again, and that is bad.

aha. this is literally what SITUATIONAL means....


not so thrilled about the 'cool headed' rule, though... we all know what 'far in between' generally means for GW...

really hoping to see fall back as a strategem, that would make me wanna field my orks close combat centric again

Yeah remember when almost nothing in 8th would be immune to morale XD

 BaconCatBug wrote:

RedNoak wrote:

Voss wrote:

Eh. Its situational to the point of 'if I'm not rolling tons of dice or have 5+ flamers' I'm never going to use it, it turns no brainer again, and that is bad.

aha. this is literally what SITUATIONAL means....


not so thrilled about the 'cool headed' rule, though... we all know what 'far in between' generally means for GW...

really hoping to see fall back as a strategem, that would make me wanna field my orks close combat centric again

Cool headed is only for narrative (crusade) play anyway.

Except you can take Crusade Armies in matched play too. Pretty sure GW said that.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

RedNoak wrote:

Voss wrote:

Eh. Its situational to the point of 'if I'm not rolling tons of dice or have 5+ flamers' I'm never going to use it, it turns no brainer again, and that is bad.

aha. this is literally what SITUATIONAL means....


not so thrilled about the 'cool headed' rule, though... we all know what 'far in between' generally means for GW...

really hoping to see fall back as a strategem, that would make me wanna field my orks close combat centric again

Cool headed is only for narrative (crusade) play anyway.

Except you can take Crusade Armies in matched play too. Pretty sure GW said that.

They said there will be rules for playing a crusade army against a matched play army, but that crusade benefits would use the PL system rather than the points system.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Except you can take Crusade Armies in matched play too. Pretty sure GW said that.

The warcom article said it was a Narrative Play system mainly with a tool to convert a Matched play army to play a Crusade mission.
"* As a campaign system for narrative play, Crusade uses Power Ratings instead of points values.
** All your opponent will need to do is quickly calculate the Power Rating of their matched play army, and then you simply complete a Crusade mission! Any difference in your army’s respective Crusade scores (your opponent’s score would be zero as it’s not a Crusade army) will accrue them some bonuses to help balance things out."

That set to defend is interesting because it's not replacing overwatch its instead of.

That says to me you charge anyone and they'll get a plus one to hit you for all charges if they are in cover. In a lot of cases I'd prob take that instead of overwatch! Hmmm maybe a nerf in disguise for assault units charging

 BaconCatBug wrote:

RedNoak wrote:

Voss wrote:

Eh. Its situational to the point of 'if I'm not rolling tons of dice or have 5+ flamers' I'm never going to use it, it turns no brainer again, and that is bad.

aha. this is literally what SITUATIONAL means....


not so thrilled about the 'cool headed' rule, though... we all know what 'far in between' generally means for GW...

really hoping to see fall back as a strategem, that would make me wanna field my orks close combat centric again

Cool headed is only for narrative (crusade) play anyway.

thanks for clarifiying bacon! did miss the crusader part
i dont think crusader will have any impact in matched play, outside of friendly games

 Latro_ wrote:
That set to defend is interesting because it's not replacing overwatch its instead of.

That says to me you charge anyone and they'll get a plus one to hit you for all charges if they are in cover. In a lot of cases I'd prob take that instead of overwatch! Hmmm maybe a nerf in disguise for assault units charging

It also gives a tangible bonus to hold objectives with HTH troops.

I mean, 10 Ork Boyz with Slugga and Choppa, Set To Defend (or is it the other one?) would be what, 30 Attacks hitting on a 2+ against charging units?

I know no one is going to agree with me, but I think if falling back from combat is a stat it will swing too much in the favour of melle amries.

I remember 3rd or 4th edition(so long ago so forgive me)

Where you would have melee armies hitting melee and making sure not to kill units so they stayed in combat, killing them in the following combat.
then charging into next line.

it was pretty much kill the Melee army before they hit your lines or it was game over. It really wasn't fun.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't know. It could be a swing too far.

i play a CC army by the way.

I'm not arguing against others opinions here, it's just my opinion on it

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
That set to defend is interesting because it's not replacing overwatch its instead of.

That says to me you charge anyone and they'll get a plus one to hit you for all charges if they are in cover. In a lot of cases I'd prob take that instead of overwatch! Hmmm maybe a nerf in disguise for assault units charging

It also gives a tangible bonus to hold objectives with HTH troops.

I mean, 10 Ork Boyz with Slugga and Choppa, Set To Defend (or is it the other one?) would be what, 30 Attacks hitting on a 2+ against charging units?

nah first of thos 30 attacks wont do much at s4 and ap0 and secondly 10 orks wont survive any decent CC wave... its good though for tougher units


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Doohicky wrote:
I know no one is going to agree with me, but I think if falling back from combat is a stat it will swing too much in the favour of melle amries.

I remember 3rd or 4th edition(so long ago so forgive me)

Where you would have melee armies hitting melee and making sure not to kill units so they stayed in combat, killing them in the following combat.
then charging into next line.

it was pretty much kill the Melee army before they hit your lines or it was game over. It really wasn't fun.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't know. It could be a swing too far.

i play a CC army by the way.

I'm not arguing against others opinions here, it's just my opinion on it

yeah i kinda agree... miniwargaming's steve at a conversation about exactly that... with all the units that are able to reliable charge from 30" away... we kinda NEED a fallback mechanic. but still... i would much more prefere a strat that costs 1cp and allowes all units in a CC to retreat

and yeah that was 3rd AND 4th edition. Tau army would castle up in a corner... and by turn 4 or so a single boy unit would finally hit their lines and smach up the entire army
those were the times^^

Very happy with the Overwatch rules and the defensible trait. This is more like it, lads.

I share the anxiety about abilities like Cool Headed, though. I can definiately half the marine armies in the game having some sort of free overwatch by the time we're halfway through the edition. Like Cool Headed sounds like a rewrite of ATSKNF.

Castle Tau in 3rd and 4th were asking to get stomped. They had one of the most mobile armies in those editions. I remember kiting CC armies all game because vehicles couldn't get locked in combat.

Any ways, perhaps in 9th they could tone down all the units with over compensated charge buffs like genestealers because they don't need them now to function at a basic level.

did you read the marine faction article?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
That set to defend is interesting because it's not replacing overwatch its instead of.

That says to me you charge anyone and they'll get a plus one to hit you for all charges if they are in cover. In a lot of cases I'd prob take that instead of overwatch! Hmmm maybe a nerf in disguise for assault units charging

It also gives a tangible bonus to hold objectives with HTH troops.

I mean, 10 Ork Boyz with Slugga and Choppa, Set To Defend (or is it the other one?) would be what, 30 Attacks hitting on a 2+ against charging units?

But the charging units would get the benefit of cover, not the Orks (for their saving throw). Remember that.

I did not know that. You sure? Sounds odd.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Voss wrote:
Hmmm. When a group of three bikers can take the same amount of damage as a main battle tank, you might have goofed your game design.

Well, bikes work this way:
- 1 hand to use your pistol
- 1 hand to use your chainsaw
- 1 hand to drive the bike
- 1 hand to shoot the bike's gun
Makes perfect sense, you just need 4 hands!

Explains the GSC headed captain. All hail the four-armed emperor!

That was my immediate thought about the head..

RedNoak wrote:


yeah i kinda agree... miniwargaming's steve at a conversation about exactly that... with all the units that are able to reliable charge from 30" away... we kinda NEED a fallback mechanic. but still... i would much more prefere a strat that costs 1cp and allowes all units in a CC to retreat

and yeah that was 3rd AND 4th edition. Tau army would castle up in a corner... and by turn 4 or so a single boy unit would finally hit their lines and smach up the entire army
those were the times^^

A strat that allows multiple units to fall back I could get on board with. I think that would be a nice middle ground.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I did not know that. You sure? Sounds odd.

Ready the Heavy Cover rules carefully. The unit gets +1 save unless the model MAKING the attack charged. So, the unit that charged gets cover (for now being in cover) but the unit that is receiving the charge does not.

It is a very poorly worded rule, but that is standard with GW.

On review, I think the biggest change is actually the one kinda sneaked in there, that the unit you elect to overwatch with can only do so once against one target, even if that target then fails its charge roll or is destroyed by the overwatch. This gives a lot more control to the charging player, and it's a good change.

Unfortunately, it only seems to apply to the overwatch stratagem - it's not in the base rule. Which means it has no impact on stuff that gets overwatch natively or through some other rule.

So again, it all comes down to how many other ways to overwatch there are.

I wouldn’t read too much into the Crusade abilities. You collect experience in the campaign and your units gain superman powers. Won’t have anything to do with standard tournament matched play.

 puma713 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I did not know that. You sure? Sounds odd.

Ready the Heavy Cover rules carefully. The unit gets +1 save unless the model MAKING the attack charged. So, the unit that charged gets cover (for now being in cover) but the unit that is receiving the charge does not.

OK, cool.

My only reservation on that wording is how someone is defined to be receiving the benefits of cover. Otherwise thank you for the clarification

 Therion wrote:
I wouldn’t read too much into the Crusade abilities. You collect experience in the campaign and your units gain superman powers. Won’t have anything to do with standard tournament matched play.

By most accounts, they have "Power Level" adjustments associated with benefits, for the purposes of balanced narrative play between experienced (has Crusade abilities) and inexperienced (does not, or has a much more limited number) players.

Estimating points from PL is not exactly a difficult task, and I suspect folks will try that at home. That could, eventually, lead to GW playtesting point costs for abilities, released initially as playtesting in a Chapter Approved.

By no means certain, but I don't think they'll get the support for Crusade-style play if they don't get a bit more precise than PL.

So, we know that there are 7 core strategems now. If we assume the original ones don't change, then we have:

Old

1. Reroll a die.
2. Interrupt combat order.
3. Auto-pass morale.

New:

4. Cut Them Down
5. Fire Overwatch
6. ??
7. ??


I could see one of them being a Fall Back strategem. I know that we think it isn't because they've referenced Falling Back more than once, but we can hope. I think we've also heard that one of them could be Falling Back through models. Of course, the original 3 are subject to change as well.

It's admittedly been a while since I played a game of 40K...

How was trying to escape from close combat handled in 7th and 8th?

And is it really going to be a 'free pass' out of CC in 9th?

Given how shooty 40K is overall, and how shooty 8th is and 9th looks to be?

 puma713 wrote:
So, we know that there are 7 core strategems now. If we assume the original ones don't change, then we have:

Old

1. Reroll a die.
2. Interrupt combat order.
3. Auto-pass morale.

New:

4. Cut Them Down
5. Fire Overwatch
6. ??
7. ??


I could see one of them being a Fall Back strategem. I know that we think it isn't because they've referenced Falling Back more than once, but we can hope. I think we've also heard that one of them could be Falling Back through models. Of course, the original 3 are subject to change as well.

Prepared positions is most likely still around

 Alpharius wrote:
It's admittedly been a while since I played a game of 40K...

How was trying to escape from close combat handled in 7th and 8th?

And is it really going to be a 'free pass' out of CC in 9th?

Given how shooty 40K is overall, and how shooty 8th is and 9th looks to be?

There have been a lot of tools tossed into recent books to prevent people from leaving combat, but it's possible that the game will change how things work for falling back. Honestly I won't be surprised if Falling Back becomes a strat too.

 Therion wrote:
I wouldn’t read too much into the Crusade abilities. You collect experience in the campaign and your units gain superman powers. Won’t have anything to do with standard tournament matched play.

I didn't mean that, I meant how they mentioned on the stream there were other ways to get overwatch too.

Based on what they said, I would not be at all surprised to see a fair number of units just get overwatch as a base rule, for free, with no one per phase limitation. And for faction traits and that sort of thing to give it to your entire army as well.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I wouldn’t read too much into the Crusade abilities. You collect experience in the campaign and your units gain superman powers. Won’t have anything to do with standard tournament matched play.

I didn't mean that, I meant how they mentioned on the stream there were other ways to get overwatch too.

Based on what they said, I would not be at all surprised to see a fair number of units just get overwatch as a base rule, for free, with no one per phase limitation. And for faction traits and that sort of thing to give it to your entire army as well.

Free over watch I can believe, but not unlimited overwatch.

If the free overwatch wasn't unlimited, why wouldn't the base rule have the limitation in it, not the stratagem?

The base rule is written to not limit your overwatch to one per phase per unit.

RedNoak wrote:

Voss wrote:

Eh. Its situational to the point of 'if I'm not rolling tons of dice or have 5+ flamers' I'm never going to use it, it turns no brainer again, and that is bad.

aha. this is literally what SITUATIONAL means....

No it isn't.

Situational is something that might be worth trying even if the likelihood isn't certain, because you might gain something. An 8" charge with no modifiers is situational (and, late game, might be all but certain if the game can make or break on that fight).

The kind of thing I'm thinking of with overwatch is when you're almost certain to get 10+ hits, likely more, hence 5+ flamers (though the statistics on that are more 15 hits average). That's worthwhile. Flame Aggressors are worthwhile.
A repulsor executioner with 33+3d6+d3 shots of S4 or 5 is a maybe (you'll probably get 7-8 hits out of it)
A typical 40k squad- 5 immortals, 10 cultists/guard/GSC neophytes, 5 intercessors, etc? Those are NEVER worth firing in overwatch in this system. They aren't worth the CP, or the opportunity cost of another unit firing overwatch.

That isn't situational. You've either included a unit in your list that's worth firing in overwatch AND your enemy is foolish enough to charge it, or you don't spend the CP. It is just that simple.

PiñaColada wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
So, we know that there are 7 core strategems now. If we assume the original ones don't change, then we have:

Old

1. Reroll a die.
2. Interrupt combat order.
3. Auto-pass morale.

New:

4. Cut Them Down
5. Fire Overwatch
6. ??
7. ??


I could see one of them being a Fall Back strategem. I know that we think it isn't because they've referenced Falling Back more than once, but we can hope. I think we've also heard that one of them could be Falling Back through models. Of course, the original 3 are subject to change as well.

Prepared positions is most likely still around

Good Catch, although it may be absorbed into the mission rules, or unnecessary because of other rules we don't know about yet (Night Fight?)

I like the terrain rules with defending them.

Plaguebearers don't shoot and they are mostly used as objective holders. So I park my plaguebearers behind cover, hopefully on an objective, and i choose to hold steady.

I now hit on 3's in melee instead of 4's and reroll on wound rolls and i can buff them more with spells and characters.

I like how you can choose, depending on the units abilities, how you want to defend an objective.

As a Daemon player I like the changes to overwatch. Taking Khorne or Slaanesh Daemons against IW or Tau, two armies that have insane overwatch, was never fun because Daemonettes especially need lots of bodies to make the most of their rending attacks. Every Daemonette lost to OW shooting hurts.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I wouldn’t read too much into the Crusade abilities. You collect experience in the campaign and your units gain superman powers. Won’t have anything to do with standard tournament matched play.

I didn't mean that, I meant how they mentioned on the stream there were other ways to get overwatch too.

I expect to see a base warlord trait: 'Tactical Genius: one unit with x" of this model can fire overwatch for free this round'
And eventually a 'divination type psychic power: Warp Charge X: grant a unit overwatch until the start of your next turn.

That's the kind of thing I expect they're talking about.

Maybe. I kinda got the impression they meant the rules that let you overwatch on a 5+ now would maybe just become "everyone gets overwatch; if they already have overwatch, now they hit on one higher than they otherwise would," and that other units would just get overwatch as a keyword.

How does choosing to flee from close combat work in 8th?

It can't be a 'free' action, is it?

Does the other side get "free hacks" or something similar?

yukishiro1 wrote:
If the free overwatch wasn't unlimited, why wouldn't the base rule have the limitation in it, not the stratagem?

The base rule is written to not limit your overwatch to one per phase per unit.

They can just write it in as a unit rule. "This unit may overwatch once per charge phase."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
How does choosing to flee from close combat work in 8th?

It can't be a 'free' action, is it?

Does the other side get "free hacks" or something similar?

It's free in 8th with no attacks. There is wargear and relics that can force units to stay in combat, but that's still pretty light in the game at the moment.

9th is shaking things up though and we haven't seen how that works yet.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If the free overwatch wasn't unlimited, why wouldn't the base rule have the limitation in it, not the stratagem?

The base rule is written to not limit your overwatch to one per phase per unit.

They can just write it in as a unit rule. "This unit may overwatch once per charge phase."

Sure, they could. But why, if the plan is to always restrict it that way? Makes no sense. Just have it in the base rule.

It also makes it impossible to include simply as a keyword.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If the free overwatch wasn't unlimited, why wouldn't the base rule have the limitation in it, not the stratagem?

The base rule is written to not limit your overwatch to one per phase per unit.

They can just write it in as a unit rule. "This unit may overwatch once per charge phase."

Sure, they could. But why, if the plan is to always restrict it that way? Makes no sense. Just have it in the base rule.

It also makes it impossible to include simply as a keyword.

Depends on how universal they decide to make it.

Well, no, unless by that you mean "sometimes they do want to make it unlimited." In which case we're back to where we were before: the impact of this mostly matters on how much they start throwing it around other than the stratagem.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If the free overwatch wasn't unlimited, why wouldn't the base rule have the limitation in it, not the stratagem?

The base rule is written to not limit your overwatch to one per phase per unit.

They can just write it in as a unit rule. "This unit may overwatch once per charge phase."

Sure, they could. But why, if the plan is to always restrict it that way? Makes no sense. Just have it in the base rule.

It also makes it impossible to include simply as a keyword.

Scalability and flexibility I'd say. If they want someone to have that function it's easier to add it to a bespoke rule than remove it from a universal one. Narrower ramifications, smaller area of impact from any changes.

Makes sense to me. In coding you try to build upon a base class with child classes when you want new functionality, ideally you don't change the base class at all.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no, unless by that you mean "sometimes they do want to make it unlimited." In which case we're back to where we were before: the impact of this mostly matters on how much they start throwing it around other than the stratagem.

They made it unlimited in that Crusade rule, so it's not impossible that it can be an upgrade, but I have a feeling they may curb it more for matched play.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no, unless by that you mean "sometimes they do want to make it unlimited." In which case we're back to where we were before: the impact of this mostly matters on how much they start throwing it around other than the stratagem.

Sure, which is an unknown at this point, it's all just speculation.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I wouldn’t read too much into the Crusade abilities. You collect experience in the campaign and your units gain superman powers. Won’t have anything to do with standard tournament matched play.

I didn't mean that, I meant how they mentioned on the stream there were other ways to get overwatch too.

Based on what they said, I would not be at all surprised to see a fair number of units just get overwatch as a base rule, for free, with no one per phase limitation. And for faction traits and that sort of thing to give it to your entire army as well.

They could also simply allow those units to use the overwatch strat for 0 CP like the GSC sanctus rule. Or they could have a rule allowing them to overwatch with +1 to hit, or to overwatch for another unit being charged, or to join in. It doesn't have to necessarily mean units will get free unlimited OW like in 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
So, we know that there are 7 core strategems now. If we assume the original ones don't change, then we have:

Old

1. Reroll a die.
2. Interrupt combat order.
3. Auto-pass morale.

New:

4. Cut Them Down
5. Fire Overwatch
6. ??
7. ??


I could see one of them being a Fall Back strategem. I know that we think it isn't because they've referenced Falling Back more than once, but we can hope. I think we've also heard that one of them could be Falling Back through models. Of course, the original 3 are subject to change as well.

Prepared positions is most likely still around

Good Catch, although it may be absorbed into the mission rules, or unnecessary because of other rules we don't know about yet (Night Fight?)

I bet it's strategic reserves. They mentioned in passing that everyone would put units in reserves with CP if I recall. So that's most likely all 7 with prepared positions.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no, unless by that you mean "sometimes they do want to make it unlimited." In which case we're back to where we were before: the impact of this mostly matters on how much they start throwing it around other than the stratagem.

Sure, which is an unknown at this point, it's all just speculation.

Right, which was my original point. They obviously do want the overwatch to be unlimited sometimes, because they built the rule that way. This change may end up being a bit fat nothing if overwatch is thrown around liberally elsewhere. For all we know, the stratagem is going to end up just as mocked as the "cut them down" one they revealed a few days ago.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no, unless by that you mean "sometimes they do want to make it unlimited." In which case we're back to where we were before: the impact of this mostly matters on how much they start throwing it around other than the stratagem.

Sure, which is an unknown at this point, it's all just speculation.

Right, which was my original point. They obviously do want the overwatch to be unlimited sometimes, because they built the rule that way. This change may end up being a bit fat nothing if overwatch is thrown around liberally elsewhere. For all we know, the stratagem is going to end up just as mocked as the "cut them down" one they revealed a few days ago.

I get the cynicism and lack of faith when it comes to GW, but sometimes you honestly do have to take the win while it's in front of you. I am positive by the end of the 9th books some doctrine will grant free overwatch or something absurd, but with GW there really isn't much you can do with creep. It's just a pill you swallow to play their games. Not saying it shouldn't be mocked, but it hasn't changed in 9 editions so it's unlikely to ever go away. But as of right now, it appears as though they are aware of how loathed OW really is as a mechanic, but they kind of have to throw a bone out there for the few armies that kind of were known for it recently, like T'au.

You’re jumping to a conclusion.

Overwatch as a rule simply suggests the associated Stratagem won’t be the only source of the ability.

That by absolutely no means equates to it’s going to be otherwise unlimited.

 Alpharius wrote:
How does choosing to flee from close combat work in 8th?

It can't be a 'free' action, is it?

Does the other side get "free hacks" or something similar?

It is very cheap: the fleeing unit give up being able to shoot or charge on the turn they disengage. Except if they fly, or a bunch of other exceptions...

 Red Corsair wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, no, unless by that you mean "sometimes they do want to make it unlimited." In which case we're back to where we were before: the impact of this mostly matters on how much they start throwing it around other than the stratagem.

Sure, which is an unknown at this point, it's all just speculation.

Right, which was my original point. They obviously do want the overwatch to be unlimited sometimes, because they built the rule that way. This change may end up being a bit fat nothing if overwatch is thrown around liberally elsewhere. For all we know, the stratagem is going to end up just as mocked as the "cut them down" one they revealed a few days ago.

I get the cynicism and lack of faith when it comes to GW, but sometimes you honestly do have to take the win while it's in front of you. I am positive by the end of the 9th books some doctrine will grant free overwatch or something absurd, but with GW there really isn't much you can do with creep. It's just a pill you swallow to play their games. Not saying it shouldn't be mocked, but it hasn't changed in 9 editions so it's unlikely to ever go away. But as of right now, it appears as though they are aware of how loathed OW really is as a mechanic, but they kind of have to throw a bone out there for the few armies that kind of were known for it recently, like T'au.

Agreed. Why focus on the negative possibilities when we've got what's on it's surface a great new way to handle the OW mechanic that largely addresses the main complaints people had with it?

Seems a reason to celebrate.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You’re jumping to a conclusion.

Overwatch as a rule simply suggests the associated Stratagem won’t be the only source of the ability.

That by absolutely no means equates to it’s going to be otherwise unlimited.

I'm not jumping to any conclusion. What I said was: "we don't know if this will end up being significant or not. The rule doesn't prohibit unlimited overwatch from other sources. Only the strat is limited."

That is literally the opposite of jumping to a conclusion, mate.

Yukoshiro1 wrote: They obviously do want the overwatch to be unlimited sometimes,

That’s perhaps not what you meant, but ifs what you typed.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You’re jumping to a conclusion.

Overwatch as a rule simply suggests the associated Stratagem won’t be the only source of the ability.

That by absolutely no means equates to it’s going to be otherwise unlimited.

I'm not jumping to any conclusion. What I said was: "we don't know if this will end up being significant or not. The rule doesn't prohibit unlimited overwatch from other sources. Only the strat is limited."

That is literally the opposite of jumping to a conclusion, mate.

They literally said that free overwatch is rare and far between? Or am I missing something here?

did this one get posted yet?

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:


did this one get posted yet?

yeah and from the sound of it we're trying to cure the instant depression that rule has caused among dakkanauts.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:


did this one get posted yet?

Yes, applies to Crusades only, as far as we know.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Yukoshiro1 wrote: They obviously do want the overwatch to be unlimited sometimes,

That’s perhaps not what you meant, but ifs what you typed.

I think you may be confused about what was being discussed. I was pointing out that the rule allows for overwatch that is not limited to once per unit per phase - in other words, that is unlimited. Limited vs unlimited is being used to denote the difference between being able to fire overwatch only at a single unit, or at an unlimited amount of units per phase.

It is not jumping to any conclusion to say that they obviously intended to allow for some unlimited overwatch through the wording of the rule. The example they gave - the crusade thing - is literally an example of unlimited overwatch. If someone writes a rule in a way that doesn't make sense unless they intended to make something possible, and then they give you an example of that exact thing, it isn't jumping to a conclusion to say: "they intended to allow this thing in some circumstances."

 Alpharius wrote:
It's admittedly been a while since I played a game of 40K...

How was trying to escape from close combat handled in 7th and 8th?

And is it really going to be a 'free pass' out of CC in 9th?

Given how shooty 40K is overall, and how shooty 8th is and 9th looks to be?

As ClockworkZion as said, in 8th falling back is completely free as long as your models can move away without being within 1" of any enemy models (so surrounded units can't fall back). There are an increasing number of units that have abilities to stop enemy units from falling back without surrounding them, most are in the Daemons codex but Drukhari Wyches can do that via a roll off as well.

7th handled it really, really badly. You basically had to voluntarily fail a moral check and fall back, which means attempting to regroup at the end of the phase or fall back again, potentially running off the board if you can't regroup in time. And of course your opponent would roll off with you to Sweeping Advance, if they won then your unit was wipped out. However, if your unit was Fearless or had ATSKNF then you couldn't even chose to do that, you were just stuck in combat regardless of whether it was even physically possible to hurt your opponent or not. 7th ed could be pure cancer at times.

It's funny how GW went from a terrible fallback mechanic in 7th to an equally terrible, but polar opposite fallback mechanic in 8th.

It shows the enduring optimism of players that after two editions that were both terrible in totally different ways, people are hopeful that this time, they'll get it right.

 EnTyme wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.

Yes, you can do that if you feel that the product is not worth the price. It is called 'not playing the game,' instead of advocating piratism like you have done in the past.

Why shouldn't it be advocated? With the amount of crap they release without testing or proofreading or the sloppiness it's presented in...it should be free to begin with. Patches are already not free AND we have people defending that here! You can't call that anything but being a white Knight.

Well, for starters, it's illegal. It's also against forum rules to advocate for piracy.

I'm not advocating Piracy per se, and if this opinion I express that's related to the subject is against the rules I apologise. That disclaimer aside, I do have a certain amount of sympathy for the concept. Me personally I spend £1000s a year on GW minis because I like them and they're great quality imo, though arguably not good value in some sense (subjective). And you see exactly what you're getting, which makes it a completely informed choice for the buyer. BL books though, for me, are a different matter entirely. I've been burned so many times by the varying quality of BL output (ranging from excellent to dire) that I don't trust them and I decided a long time ago that I wouldn't spend any more money on shoddy product that I had to buy on faith. I will, however, download free books, give them a shot and, 90% of the time, delete them after 20 minutes. Occasionally I'll find a good author that I really like, and then buy the legit copy of their next book (Chris Wraight recently, for example). So they do get money from me for goods that they've provided and that I consume. The ripoffs that I sample then delete? They were never going to get money from me for that, and I didn't get anything from them for free either.

Now, this is not quite the same as pirating a rule book, using it to the full extent, and thereby depriving them of a sale whilst still gaining from the act. But it's definitely in the same ballpark. So no, whilst I'm not saying it's right steal their IP and gain w/o compensating the creator, I do have some sympathy with the concept. I'll rip a book, test it, usually find it to be sub-par, and discard it. They're lost nothing and neither have I. And on the rare occasions I find something worthy, they've made no money from me on that but they have secured future sales on the basis that I'm now informed and don't feel like a mark. Again, apologies if this is not allowed to be expressed, like I say I'm not advocating piracy of material that a person will be utilising for free, but philosophically I don't see it as a strictly immoral to discover whether a product is worth paying for by trying it for free. Finally, (sorry for the long post, probably totally OT), but this has me thinking - what's the process for returning a book that you've partially read, found to be lacking, and getting a refund? (This is basically a more inconvenient and inefficient version of what I do, but I'd be interested to know whether it's possible).

Gentle reminder that this thread is about 9th edition, new Necrons, and new Marines, please take discussions regarding piracy and IP issues to other venues, thanks!

And if you don't want to pay for books before reading them, support your local library.

Oh boy! Another Faction Focus article. We're bound to get tons of generalised and otherwise banal information about things we already know insight into Chaos in 9th!

Here we go!!!

A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:Psychic Awakening: Faith and Fury brought us plenty of amazing new Stratagems, but we’ve still found ourselves feeling obligated to bring along an endless sea of Chaos Cultists (a Tide of Traitors, you could say) to pay for them.

Well thank Khorne that the brains trust at GW saw fit to increase the price of cultists by 50%, thereby discouraging their use. Of course, the actual problem was the lack of incentive (outside of Red Corsair armies) to take actual Chaos Space Marines in your Chaos Space Marines army. The good news here is that CSMs have also gone up in cost... wait... that's bass ackwards.

Anyway, moving on...

A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:You’ll now find yourself with plenty of points to spend on all those powerful Stratagems and will, in fact, be rewarded for not choosing to spread out into additional Detachments – more Daemonforge for everyone!

So, in other words, "Everyone gets more CP than before. That includes Chaos Space Marines! WOW!", which we of course already knew. Oh, and a reprint of a stratagem from the Chaos Codex. Such insight!!!!

A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:The updated Blast weapons rules will breathe new life into many of their weapon options by making them far more reliable when targeting larger units. We won’t even have to wait for a new codex as the rules kick in from Day 1!

So, in other words, "The Blast rules that everyone gets also includes Chaos Space Marines armies! WOW!" The amount of new information in this article is simply incredible.

A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:The newest edition will give your Vehicles a chance to keep firing away even while smashing Imperials to bits with their metallic hands and/or teeth – this will make the shooting/assault versatility of most Daemon Engines feel like an asset rather than a missed opportunity.

So, in other words, "The new vehicle rules that affect everyone also affect Chaos Space Marines armies! WOW!" I am utterly floored by the sheer injection of knowledge this article is providing.

A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:It will be much, much harder for an enemy player to hide from your wrath in the new edition. No longer can your opponent’s units cower behind walls they think you can’t clamber over, or try to fill the floor of a ruined building so you can’t climb up. The new terrain rules are much friendlier to aggressive assaults – which, in turn, allows us to be very unfriendly to our opponents’ armies!

You know what? I'm going to give him this one. This is an example of actually explaining how a new set of rules might impact an army. Finally.

And then we're onto reprinting existing rules for units we already know about. But, to be fair, the guy is at least explaining options for units (Heavy Flamer + Combi-Flamer combo on a Defiler to take advantage of the new vehicle rules, for example) rather than just meaningless waffle.

So if the other articles were solid 0/5 efforts, we'll give this one a 2/5 for at least containing a paragraph and a half of actual useful information.

Voss wrote:

RedNoak wrote:

Voss wrote:

Eh. Its situational to the point of 'if I'm not rolling tons of dice or have 5+ flamers' I'm never going to use it, it turns no brainer again, and that is bad.

aha. this is literally what SITUATIONAL means....

No it isn't.
[...]
That isn't situational. You've either included a unit in your list that's worth firing in overwatch AND your enemy is foolish enough to charge it, or you don't spend the CP. It is just that simple.

situational
/sɪtjʊˈeɪʃ(ə)n(ə)l,sɪtʃʊˈeɪʃ(ə)n(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
relating to or dependent on a set of circumstances or state of affairs.

If you have something worthwihle than you'll gonna use the overwatch strat... if not, you'll not use it. Maybe you get charged by a vehicle/character with only a couple of wounds left... maybe you'll hope to cut down enough chaff to survive the combat... maybe you'll use it as a deterrant (your example^^)... those are all situations in which the strat may or may not be used... hence its situational....

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm assuming the popping into melee is to prevent weird edge cases like that Kroot Conga Line from happening again:

Spoiler:

God I love that picture. The look on the Kroot player's face.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's funny how GW went from a terrible fallback mechanic in 7th to an equally terrible, but polar opposite fallback mechanic in 8th.

I keep saying they make changes by swinging a pendulum rather than looking for a middle ground. Look no further than the changes to falling back between editions.

A Playtester Who Should Know Better wrote:It will be much, much harder for an enemy player to hide from your wrath in the new edition. No longer can your opponent’s units cower behind walls they think you can’t clamber over, or try to fill the floor of a ruined building so you can’t climb up. The new terrain rules are much friendlier to aggressive assaults – which, in turn, allows us to be very unfriendly to our opponents’ armies!

(previous post; You know what? I'm going to give him this one. This is an example of actually explaining how a new set of rules might impact an army. Finally.)

Yea I noticed this in the (rather dull) article as well. Based on what some play testers said on Youtube, GW is trying to get rid of a lot of the "gamey" type stuff, and one of the worst was the 5 guys on a ruins ledge are unassailable because you psychically can't fit your models on that same ledge. Also my giant magnus model can't attack models that are on a second floor even though they come to his chest. Based on the above statement it shows that GW is trying to fix the worst abuses, (if they do or not is another issue) which is good.

 insaniak wrote:
And if you don't want to pay for books before reading them, support your local library.

Point was i won't pay for books before not reading them, but yes, library seems a good solution, thanks. Mod note acknowledged.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's funny how GW went from a terrible fallback mechanic in 7th to an equally terrible, but polar opposite fallback mechanic in 8th.

It shows the enduring optimism of players that after two editions that were both terrible in totally different ways, people are hopeful that this time, they'll get it right.

Completely disagree. Fall Back itself is not a bad mechanic, it's just lacking any kind of deterrent or cost to it which is more of a caveat. If your models got to make even a single attack against a unit falling back then that would at least be something.

Fallback as a concept is fine, its just that there is no real downside to do it.

The only time its a downside is if you have literally nothing else to shoot with in your army, which is only really possible at like 100 points or something.

Which means that GW must have play tested with unit vs unit instead of army vs army.

 Imateria wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's funny how GW went from a terrible fallback mechanic in 7th to an equally terrible, but polar opposite fallback mechanic in 8th.

It shows the enduring optimism of players that after two editions that were both terrible in totally different ways, people are hopeful that this time, they'll get it right.

Completely disagree. Fall Back itself is not a bad mechanic, it's just lacking any kind of deterrent or cost to it which is more of a caveat. If your models got to make even a single attack against a unit falling back then that would at least be something.

I thought the cost was that the unit falling back couldn't do anything else.

The issue isn't its cost, it's that it is automatic and easy as its counters are kinda rare (surrounding) or gamey (tripointing) and is something that you're more or less always willing to do (as it puts the assaulting units in a weak spot).
Even being able to chop off a model or two when they fall back isn't a solution. And to be honest, I don't have a clue how you solve this problem outside of moving fall back to the end of the close combat phase and allowing assaulting units to make some move if their opponents falls back. Which isn't great either imho.

Slowing down the movement of the fastest melee outliers and most reliable deep strike melee threats.

Improve terrain rules and how units interact with it. (It appears they've done this)

Move falling back to the end of the shooting phase. You want to avoid getting hacked apart? Fine, run but you're not getting rewarded with a full shooting phase. Requiring some counter assault elements makes the game more dynamic and reduces the no brainer shooting skew currently without downsides.

* Expand Tau by finally putting the "Empire" into it by adding melee centric auxiliaries. A one phase army is a balancing nightmare.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh boy! Another Faction Focus article...

So if you know you're going to be disappointed by these Faction Focus articles, why even click on them and give GW the traffic?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm assuming the popping into melee is to prevent weird edge cases like that Kroot Conga Line from happening again:

Spoiler:

God I love that picture. The look on the Kroot player's face.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's funny how GW went from a terrible fallback mechanic in 7th to an equally terrible, but polar opposite fallback mechanic in 8th.

I keep saying they make changes by swinging a pendulum rather than looking for a middle ground. Look no further than the changes to falling back between editions.

There definitrly is the pendulum issue in general, but I'd argue they seem to be swinging it a bit more gently these days, and with better intent rather than trying to huck it into the next county.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So if you know you're going to be disappointed by these Faction Focus articles, why even click on them and give GW the traffic?

Can't you tell how much fun I'm having ragging on these things?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
... but I'd argue they seem to be swinging it a bit more gently these days...

There is absolutely zero evidence of this.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So if you know you're going to be disappointed by these Faction Focus articles, why even click on them and give GW the traffic?

Can't you tell how much fun I'm having ragging on these things?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
... but I'd argue they seem to be swinging it a bit more gently these days...

There is absolutely zero evidence of this.

If you're having fun, that's fair.

And I feel the changes to terrain and flyers are good examples of giving the pendulum a push instead of yeeting it.

Intent doesn't always reflect end result though, so who knows how much it'll mess with the meta.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just had a thought: would the Overwatch change count as a Iron Hands nerf since they have a buffed Overwatch?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Just had a thought: would the Overwatch change count as a Iron Hands nerf since they have a buffed Overwatch?

Depends on whether or not one of the "other ways" to get overwatch is having atsknf on your datasheet.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And I feel the changes to terrain and flyers are good examples of giving the pendulum a push instead of yeeting it.

The fact that everyone seems to be saying that this edition will be vehicle heavy and infantry will be going back in the box suggests otherwise, though.

 insaniak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And I feel the changes to terrain and flyers are good examples of giving the pendulum a push instead of yeeting it.

The fact that everyone seems to be saying that this edition will be vehicle heavy and infantry will be going back in the box suggests otherwise, though.

All claims made based on hyperbole and incomplete data.

I get there is a lot of apprehension right now but most of this threads has been people making rather big claims off of small bits of information.

I mean people were saying that melee was still dead before today's reveal. Who knows what people will claim tomorrow?