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

garrapignado wrote:When you try to perform defensive fire, you must let the opponent to finish his movement, so you are engaged, so you can't fire because you are previously engaged (previously not only means "last turn"). And the other squad can't fire, as would be firing at a engaged unit.

No. It means "previous to the movement". If unit A with overwatch is already fighting unit B when unit C moves into the 12" DF range, it cannot pause that ongoing close combat and fire at C. If it was unable to fire at a unit it would read "currently unengaged", and the status of the firing unit would therefore be checked during firing.

It just means you move them all before you remove models as casualties, makes it less confusing.

lord_blackfang wrote:
Your reasoning is ridiculous.

Ok at least I know now I'm not on the crazy train and overwatch does exactly as it reads.

lord_blackfang wrote:
Your reasoning is ridiculous.

Your answer helps me to understand this rule.

But, as other people said (and I didn't see in time), Overwatch allows specifically that shooting.

The point is: are there so many units with overwatch rule to care so much about it?

What units do we even know have overwatch? For all we know every Tau Firewarrior may get it with some crazy upgrade (though EXTREMELY unlikely).

At the moment it's just Karamazov that has it, unless someone uses the Fire at Will strategem.

Edit: I mean Coteaz, not Karamazov, sorry

garrapignado wrote:The point is: are there so many units with overwatch rule to care so much about it?

No. There is one unit in the game that currently has it - Coteaz.

A stratagem gives a unit Overwatch when within 3" of an objective.

The likelihood of overwatch appearing regularly is minimal.

Dantalian wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:
Defensive Fire tells you you must let the triggering action complete before you may fire at the enemy unit. Any unit with a speed over 6" can use the charge action to double move and get into base to base contact. You must wait till they finish this move before you can use Defensive Fire, but when they do, you are now locked in combat and unable to use a shooting action (and Defensive Fire as a result) by the normal shooting rules. The part about assaults is telling you that you may go ahead and fire at the enemy unit after it completes it's move, as long as you were not already engaged by another unit.

So it is in fact saying I can shoot the unit that is charging into melee with me before the assault starts? Because it sounds both ways to me so far. They must finish their move, enter assault, therefore not be able to shoot. But in the next breath say I can shoot as long as I'm not already previously engaged in combat? Or is it trying to say (for example) that if there are two squads there, both with overwatch ability, that the second squad not charged can still fire into them before the assault rolls begin.

1) You need Overwatch on any squad that wants to use Defensive Fire against an assault, or an enemy unit that moves within 12" of that squad.

2) Normal shooting rules prohibit you from taking any shooting actions (which Defensive Fire is) if you are locked in assault.

3) Defensive Fire forces you to wait until the triggering action is complete before you can utilize the Defensive Fire rule.

4) The passage that Lord Blackfang quoted gives you permission to bypass number 2, once the move is complete, as long as you were not previously locked in assault before the enemy unit you want to shoot assaulted you (or moved within 12"). It also tells you that if you shoot it up so bad that it has no more models left in base contact with your unit, you refer to the rules on lost contact outside of the assault phase for what to do next.

Dribble Joy wrote:
No. There is one unit in the game that currently has it - Coteaz.

A stratagem gives a unit Overwatch when within 3" of an objective.

The likelihood of overwatch appearing regularly is minimal.

Thanks.

pgmason wrote:At the moment it's just Karamazov that has it, unless someone uses the Fire at Will strategem.

I would happily use that stratagem even if it only allows it to occur on objectives. For Tau this would be a huge boon in their favor. But then again they enemy will also get this trait, gotta be careful.

The part in the pdf that refers to 'basic rules' is indeed how the Fantasy 8th ed book is organized - as a beginner you can use only the first chapters for your games and get used to them, before you move on to the advanced rules further back. Sounds exactly what GW would do in a new 40K edition.

Dantalian wrote:

pgmason wrote:At the moment it's just Karamazov that has it, unless someone uses the Fire at Will strategem.

I would happily use that stratagem even if it only allows it to occur on objectives. For Tau this would be a huge boon in their favor. But then again they enemy will also get this trait, gotta be careful.

By the rules in the document, only the player who loses the bidding gets the stratagems, and generally speaking, they only help his forces. The player who wins the bidding can attempt to Seize the Initiative, and if successful, gains stratagem points equal to 25% of the points that were bid. He can then choose to get Fire at Will for himself if he has enough points.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Dantalian wrote:

pgmason wrote:At the moment it's just Karamazov that has it, unless someone uses the Fire at Will strategem.

I would happily use that stratagem even if it only allows it to occur on objectives. For Tau this would be a huge boon in their favor. But then again they enemy will also get this trait, gotta be careful.

By the rules in the document, only the player who loses the bidding gets the stratagems, and generally speaking, they only help his forces. The player who wins the bidding can attempt to Seize the Initiative, and if successful, gains stratagem points equal to 25% of the points that were bid. He can then choose to get Fire at Will for himself if he has enough points.

Fire at Will explicitly states that it affects units from both sides, regardless of who choses the stratagem

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Dantalian wrote:

pgmason wrote:At the moment it's just Karamazov that has it, unless someone uses the Fire at Will strategem.

I would happily use that stratagem even if it only allows it to occur on objectives. For Tau this would be a huge boon in their favor. But then again they enemy will also get this trait, gotta be careful.

By the rules in the document, only the player who loses the bidding gets the stratagems, and generally speaking, they only help his forces. The player who wins the bidding can attempt to Seize the Initiative, and if successful, gains stratagem points equal to 25% of the points that were bid. He can then choose to get Fire at Will for himself if he has enough points.

I tend to be a person who surrenders first turn and deploy according to that. And with some of these stratagems that wouldn't be a bad idea to continue. For example I could force night fighting first turn and use Tau's blacksun filters and acute senses to my advantage. But the main reason I see the Fire at Will being worth it for Tau is because you generally won't be assaulting units off objectives. I tend to play kroot heavy, but even then my opponent would had to of done something wrong to let it get to the point my kroot are assaulting his objectives.. Most games I end up shooting people off objectives.

Speaking of things that would make me and my kroot happy. The Surprise Attack stratagem would really play well with my play style. I think what would make this a lot more discernible is if we knew how many stratagem points we would be allocated. Because there are a few there that cost 12, so I'm assuming that there is a way for one player to get 12 points to spend. I'm very interested/excited to see how these stratagems will play out in the meta-game.

Charax wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Dantalian wrote:

pgmason wrote:At the moment it's just Karamazov that has it, unless someone uses the Fire at Will strategem.

I would happily use that stratagem even if it only allows it to occur on objectives. For Tau this would be a huge boon in their favor. But then again they enemy will also get this trait, gotta be careful.

By the rules in the document, only the player who loses the bidding gets the stratagems, and generally speaking, they only help his forces. The player who wins the bidding can attempt to Seize the Initiative, and if successful, gains stratagem points equal to 25% of the points that were bid. He can then choose to get Fire at Will for himself if he has enough points.

Fire at Will explicitly states that it affects units from both sides, regardless of who choses the stratagem

Ah, so it does. Carry on


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dantalian wrote:

Speaking of things that would make me and my kroot happy. The Surprise Attack stratagem would really play well with my play style. I think what would make this a lot more discernible is if we knew how many stratagem points we would be allocated. Because there are a few there that cost 12, so I'm assuming that there is a way for one player to get 12 points to spend. I'm very interested/excited to see how these stratagems will play out in the meta-game.

Well, like I said, it's a bidding thing, detail under Tactical Gambit on pg 134 of the document.

If your oppenent is mad enough to give you 12 sp for the first turn...^^

Then again in games like Tau vs IG on a rather open board I can easily see a 12 sp bet...
I mean you can litterally whipe the opponent off the board with your first turn. 0o

FAKE...I could make this just using word. This is someones unilateral wet dream. It's too radical a departure from 5th edition.

I'm pretty sure that the Overwatch special rule is just for when enemy units come within 12". Defensive fire can be used by any unit that is assaulted whether they have Overwatch or not.

That's why it says in the Overwatch segment that if the unit is assaulted, it can shoot nonetheless.

Drake118 wrote:I'm pretty sure that the Overwatch special rule is just for when enemy units come within 12". Defensive fire can be used by any unit that is assaulted whether they have Overwatch or not.

That's why it says in the Overwatch segment that if the unit is assaulted, it can shoot nonetheless.

NO..and if you read the last couple pages, you will see why.

I have further proof that its not fake.

Rulebook mentioned separate roll for Deployment Zones.It wasnt in before.

In Dark Eldar codex Baron Sathonyx give +1 on this exact roll, it even required further clarification in FAQ that in 5th edition this is for who goes first.

So when they release 6th ed they just change DE FAQ and codex will written accordingly to rule book.

No way thats a coincedence.

Black Dragon wrote:FAKE...I could make this just using word. This is someones unilateral wet dream. It's too radical a departure from 5th edition.

Show us. Write a rulebook better than 5th in word.

Beckett wrote: I have further proof that its not fake.

Rulebook mentioned separate roll for Deployment Zones.It wasnt in before.

In Dark Eldar codex Baron Sathonyx give +1 on this exact roll, it even required further clarification in FAQ that in 5th edition this is for who goes first.

So when they release 6th ed they just change DE FAQ and codex will written accordingly to rule book.

No way thats a coincedence.

That's a good point. The Baron's text in the DE codex reads that he "adds +1 to the dice roll when determining which side chooses deployment". It had to be FAQ'd to make clear sense in 5th, but it suits what's described in the leaked document, where players roll for deployment instead of rolling who goes first, fantastically well.

Edit: Of course, I suppose someone could argue that someone could just have read the Baron's text in the DE codex, and have just been inspired to write that as a rule in a fandex.

I'm waiting to see the Cerebore/Tervigon dual kit in White Dwarf at the end of this month for my 100% confirmation. We should all thank Chapterhouse studios for their tervigon kit (which i'm not a fan of) because otherwise the litigious GW wouldn't have had to create a new unit to make a dual-kit for that particular model. (as I understand it GW cannot make a straight-up Tervigon kit because that IP is now owned by CH studios, the first to create such a kit. By doing a dual version with something else they can still produce the model....I may have a misunderstanding of the actual situation but that's what i thought anyway)

Also the inclusion of a weapon called a Zeal Bolt Pistol for Black Templars (fits their fluff with that title, don't it?).

You really think the tervigon is in one box with a "caterpillar-like" unit?

Yes, i really do.

Edit - A really big, fat caterpillar like unit that much like a tervigon, houses other tyranids inside of it. i think a dual kit for that wouldn't be a stretch to believe at all.

Kharrak wrote:

Beckett wrote: I have further proof that its not fake.

Rulebook mentioned separate roll for Deployment Zones.It wasnt in before.

In Dark Eldar codex Baron Sathonyx give +1 on this exact roll, it even required further clarification in FAQ that in 5th edition this is for who goes first.

So when they release 6th ed they just change DE FAQ and codex will written accordingly to rule book.

No way thats a coincedence.

That's a good point. The Baron's text in the DE codex reads that he "adds +1 to the dice roll when determining which side chooses deployment". It had to be FAQ'd to make clear sense in 5th, but it suits what's described in the leaked document, where players roll for deployment instead of rolling who goes first, fantastically well.

Edit: Of course, I suppose someone could argue that someone could just have read the Baron's text in the DE codex, and have just been inspired to write that as a rule in a fandex.

This is the kind of evidence we need. Good point!

IPS wrote:You really think the tervigon is in one box with a "caterpillar-like" unit?

I agree the Cerebore doesn't really look like the Tervigon artwork, but then there were some earlier rumors floating about that the Tervigon model is a little different than the artwork. So rumors might be fitting into place there.
Back on topic, I played a game with these last night and posted some random thoughts in the other thread.

Beckett wrote: I have further proof that its not fake.

Rulebook mentioned separate roll for Deployment Zones.It wasnt in before.

In Dark Eldar codex Baron Sathonyx give +1 on this exact roll, it even required further clarification in FAQ that in 5th edition this is for who goes first.

So when they release 6th ed they just change DE FAQ and codex will written accordingly to rule book.

No way thats a coincedence.

That is a brilliant point! Good find Sir!

SoI

tetrisphreak wrote: (as I understand it GW cannot make a straight-up Tervigon kit because that IP is now owned by CH studios, the first to create such a kit. By doing a dual version with something else they can still produce the model....I may have a misunderstanding of the actual situation but that's what i thought anyway)

a) CH doesn't make a Tervigon kit. They make some parts you can add to a Carnifex (which they don't sell) to make their version of a Tervigon, but not a complete kit.
b) The case to decide who owns what IP is still ongoing, so anyone that says CH stopped GW from releasing a Tervigon kit is premature.

Well, however the situation is, I still have hope for a neat new bio-transport for my bugs...and if it also makes the baby-factory of a tervigon I'll have to get a couple for those too.

That being said, a cerebore is referenced in the leak pdf so seeing a kit for such a model with such a name will also lend veracity to the 6th ed playtest rules (which i will myself be playtesting this weekend and i'm fairly excited about it).