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.

I think the title pretty much says it all. Not necessarily the same as it was, but would you like to see it make a return in some form.

Yeah, if assaults are deadly, so should shooting.

I play Tau.

With the removal of area terrain, is there really a need?

Reading the pdf, I don't see where it states area terrain is no more. What do you base that statement on, Lormax?

I'm not a fan of overwatch, it makes static firepower way too strong in my opinion they never have to move then.

-GWP

Laserbait wrote:Reading the pdf, I don't see where it states area terrain is no more. What do you base that statement on, Lormax?

He is (I must assume) baseing it on the fact that the 5th edition pdf states that line of sight can be traced though area terrain. So while it isn't exactly going away, it doesn't keep you from being seen. All it does now is provide a cover save for anyone in or behind it. This will mean that its a lot harder to hide units behind forests and other similar pieces of area terrain than it was in 4th.

All in all, overwatch was one of the worst things to hit 40k ever and I'm very very happy to see it gone. I don't see how it could be brought back and be a reasonable and fun rule. Now if we could just get GW to stop making sub codexes, life would be great.

I like it in Necromunda but i think it would re-break 40k.

Can someone explain what overwatch is? I just started last year and i have heard alot about it but im not sure exactly what it is.

Boyofdestiny205 wrote:Can someone explain what overwatch is? I just started last year and i have heard alot about it but im not sure exactly what it is.

Not sure if this is how the 40k version goes but basically a unit can forgo their standard phases in order to fire on a target that presents itself in the opponents turn. So picture a unit of heavy weapons troops at the end of a fire lane, any opposing unit that moves through their LOS in their movement phase can now be fired on.

Thats the Necromunda version which is basicly 2nd edition anyway.

Overwatch, also known as opportunity fire has been a feature in many "modern" rules such as Squad Leader and is an interesting tactical factor.

While it may have bogged down WH40K there is no law of nature why it spoils games in general and the trouble in 40K was probably caused by interaction with other aspects of the rules.

I think a lot of players dislike it because it tends to devalue assault based troops and H2H is a much more important part of 40K than most modern or SF rules.

Hell, NO!

And I play Guard... :(

Overwatch has nothing to recommend its reintroduction. It requires recordskeeping that destroys the very premise of self-contained Igo-Ugo turns. It is an arbitrary interruption of the active player's turn. It promotes stagnation of play. It requires no tactical or strategic decision-making on the part of any player who intended to shoot anyways. Overwatch is as boring and mindless a rule as one can imagine, which is why it is good that it is gone.

Yes, Overwatch promotes the illusion of tactics, but it really isn't a valuable element of modern gaming.

And as for modern gaming, Squad Leader is anything but. Squad Leader dates back to the mid 1980s, and is a very high-detail ruleset. Something like 200 pages of detailed rules. Great game, especially played double-blind with a referee. But definitely not modern.

I said no, but would consider some sort of "fire at the guys rushing your lines" or whatever WFB and FoW call it. Forgoing melee attacks to shoot at the guy climbing over the trench wall would make sense to me, but I wouldn't call it overwatch. Overwatch to me is "shoot at anyone that pokes their head out anywhere in LOS and range."

JohnHwangDD wrote:Hell, NO!

And I play Guard... :(

Overwatch has nothing to recommend its reintroduction. It requires recordskeeping that destroys the very premise of self-contained Igo-Ugo turns. It is an arbitrary interruption of the active player's turn. It promotes stagnation of play. It requires no tactical or strategic decision-making on the part of any player who intended to shoot anyways. Overwatch is as boring and mindless a rule as one can imagine, which is why it is good that it is gone.

Yes, Overwatch promotes the illusion of tactics, but it really isn't a valuable element of modern gaming.

And as for modern gaming, Squad Leader is anything but. Squad Leader dates back to the mid 1980s, and is a very high-detail ruleset. Something like 200 pages of detailed rules. Great game, especially played double-blind with a referee. But definitely not modern.

good enough for me. I think the problem is that the board just isn't big enough, and there just isn't enough going on. It might have a place in the current Epic ruleset.

Absolutley not!!!

Overwatch brought games to an utter standstill in 2nd Ed, and we even banned it in our Necromunda campaigns. We later made it a Shooting Skill, requiring an Ld test in order to activate. And while that works in Necro, where Lds are usually 7 or 8, it would not work in a game on the same scale as 40K.

With overwatch, things just stop:

Player 1: My entire army is on overwatch. Your turn.
Player 2: Ok... so is mine. Your turn.
Player 1: Still on overwatch. Your turn.
Player 2: Me too. Your turn.
Player 1: Yup... still overwatching. Your turn.
Player 2: Ditto. Your turn.

Uhh... never again...

BYE

P.S. And before anyone says 'But no one would do that', please understand that while most reasonable people wouldn't, the rules themselves should never allow for this situation to occur in the first place.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Hell, NO!

And I play Guard... :(

Overwatch has nothing to recommend its reintroduction. It requires recordskeeping that destroys the very premise of self-contained Igo-Ugo turns. It is an arbitrary interruption of the active player's turn. It promotes stagnation of play. It requires no tactical or strategic decision-making on the part of any player who intended to shoot anyways. Overwatch is as boring and mindless a rule as one can imagine, which is why it is good that it is gone.

Yes, Overwatch promotes the illusion of tactics, but it really isn't a valuable element of modern gaming.

And as for modern gaming, Squad Leader is anything but. Squad Leader dates back to the mid 1980s, and is a very high-detail ruleset. Something like 200 pages of detailed rules. Great game, especially played double-blind with a referee. But definitely not modern.

By "modern" I meant rules for games in the modern era, meaning arguably 1880 onwards -- the period when basic infantry firepower leapt an order of magnitude thanks to magazine rifles, machine-guns and accuracy training. This huge increase in firepower made H2H combat strength almost useless, as seen at battles like Omdurman. (Though it didn't go away completely.)

It's rubbish to say that overwatch is merely an illusion of tactics. Overwatch -- the combination of fire and movement -- is the very core of modern infantry tactics.

The point is that 40K isn't a modern infantry game and can't accomodate it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:P.S. And before anyone says 'But no one would do that', please understand that there are lots of deuschbags on the tourney circuit

Fix'd

Seriously though ive seen that crap happen even without OW. There was a IG player i knew that made his fire base and was playing a rhino rush BA player back in 3rd and the guy was so scared to move out he sat his transports in cover and never left. The game ended w/ no casualty's and the judges ruled that the IG won cause the other guy was a pussy. Not fun.

Which is why I said that the rules should never allow for it in the first place, so you fixed nothing, you just proved my point.

And that player was a pussy. He should have gone down fighting. But hats off to the Guard player for scaring a BA player in 3rd Ed.

BYE

Kilkrazy wrote:By "modern" I meant rules for games in the modern era, meaning arguably 1880 onwards

It's rubbish to say that overwatch is merely an illusion of tactics. Overwatch -- the combination of fire and movement -- is the very core of modern infantry tactics.

The point is that 40K isn't a modern infantry game and can't accomodate it.

Oh, OK.

See HMBC's example. There is no tactics or thought involved. And when we both vehemently *agree* on something, well, that's kinda scary.

Overwatch isn't fire and movement. It is sit and shoot. Last I checked, sitting was the exact opposite of movement.

40k could easily accommodate Overwatch if we wanted the game to return to a simulation of static trench fighting.

I said yes, in some form I think overwatch should returnbut for this to happen we would have to completelly strip the mechanics down and rebuild it from scratch.

The way it worked in 40k mark 2 is completelly out but I can see it workable if you start from scratch.

In reality I dont think it is possible to create simple, fast and fun overwatch rules that fulfill the overwatch role without messing upp the game, I will however give it a try.

Lets go out on a limb, lets utilize the large blast, guess range rules and tweak it.

#1 to go into overwatch you test vs Ld in place of movement:
sucsess: the unit goes into overwatch, it now has a 90' field of fire wich must be declared. If the unit moves for any reason before shooting overwatch it looses its overwatch status.
fail: the unit becomes pinned for the remainder of the turn and can not claim cover if charged in the oponents turn.

#2 The unit in overwatch may interrupt the oponents turn at any point during the movement, shooting or assault phases to unload its overwatch payload.

#3 place the large blast over the overwatching unit, all models completelly under the template may shoot, models partly under may shoot on a 4+, all other models are acting as lookouts and/or were too slow to get shots off.

#4 place the large blast on the intended target centering the hole on a model in the unit and roll the scatter dice and a D6, the blast may not be placed within 10" of the overwatching unit but it may scatter closer, normal target priority rules must be followed.
Naturally the target must be within the specified 90' arc of fire declared when the unit went into overwatch.
The large blast is only used to define wich units are shot at, split shots as evenly as possible between any units that are even partly under the template randomising any uneven numbers. IC's are only considered targets if they happen to be the closest unit at the time of the shot as to not allow overwatch sniping of IC's.

#5 If a friendly unit or a close combat ends upp under the template then the overwatch unit holds their fire and have missed their chance.

#6 Check range and LOS as usual and resolve normal shooting.

--

I really dont know why I chose to use the large blast but using it meens only small units grouped close together, and thus vulnerable to blast weapons, will be able to unload full payloads, for most units the heavy/special weapons will be able to fire if you set it upp right but usually many models will end upp as spotters.

If too many models end upp shooting we may have to switch from large blast to blast but for now lets consider large blast.

The Ld test makes it risky, even for Ld10 units, especially as they cant use cover if charged.

Additionally it boosts tank shock as the only way to remain on overwatch if tank shocked is to make a succeesull death or glory to remain in overwatch.

Finally the scatter meens you may not even hit what you wish or possibly even anything and even if you get shots off at the intended target a scattering template hitting a separate unit may meen that las cannon shot you wanted to get off at the wave serpent was shot at a nearby unlucky guardsman.

The main point here is to make the overwatch fast, once it is fast enough one can look at balancing it.

fester, I have to wonder whether your Overwatch mechanic could possibly be any more complicated.

You've got a Ld test for every Overwatching unit.

You've got to flag every unit that goes Overwatch, *and* mark their 90-degree view angle.

You've got the opponent asking "OK?" after every movement, shooting, and assault move. (This is necessary, so that the Overwatcher

You've got a template / scatter mechanic.

This is all pretty messy.

I say bring it back...... but as a specail rule to certain units.

Tau Stealth Suits... give up thier extra 6' in the assault phase to ready themselves..

They could find a way to involve it.. just not like 2nd... Allow it on certain units.. limit those units.. and their wargeart.. Problem solved.

JohnHwangDD wrote:fester, I have to wonder whether your Overwatch mechanic could possibly be any more complicated.

You've got a Ld test for every Overwatching unit.

You've got to flag every unit that goes Overwatch, *and* mark their 90-degree view angle.

You've got the opponent asking "OK?" after every movement, shooting, and assault move. (This is necessary, so that the Overwatcher

You've got a template / scatter mechanic.

This is all pretty messy.

Yes.

But then I did say

fester wrote:In reality I dont think it is possible to create simple, fast and fun overwatch rules that fulfill the overwatch role without messing upp the game

you should have seen the draft I did before I managed to tear my mind away from the type 2 version.

It would however not be all that time consuming, remember that the unit goes into overwatch in place of moving, simply declare a unit go into overwatch, roll the dice and place a marker, the 90' arc dosnt have to be all that exact when placed, simply stating the unit goes into overwatch centered on a table feature should do.

I do agree that the interuption part will be messy but then nomatter how you design overwatch it will be, as far as the oponent having to stop and say ok... no, you missunderstood, overwatch is being able to fire as a model moves not once it has reaced its destination.
Sadly enough this would not make overwatch simpler but Ill let you think about that.
Suffice to say that if you play normally the overwatch player will have to be in the game and say "stop, this unit on overwatch opens fire on this or that target" if he forgets to use it then its like forgetting a unit in any other phase.

As for the template, its actually fast work, hold it over the own unit and declare how many get to shoot, nominate target model and roll scatter and see wich units you end upp shooting at if any, I would say the whole procedure from end to end would take alot less time and by far have less die rolls than say an ork mobs move, shooting and followed assault.

I do however agree it is messy but then it is a first draft.

What I would like for you to do and not just state that you think its messy but rather take the time to post a constructive criticism post, look into the idea and take it apart, can it be made more efficient, how can it be made faster while remain balanced...
if it will not work then say why, after all if "its messy" is a reason not to keep looking at somthing then we never would have had 40k in the first place.
Do you have a better concept?

Basically what you just did was level a doubble barreled sawn off shotgun at the posts backside and shoot two barrels of rock salt into it

Part of the notion of modern maneuver warfare is that units move under cover fire. And a key to modern gaming is that movement happens as a concrete action.

Interrupting the movement mid-movement is a terrible game decision. It destroys maneuver warfare *and* it obliteratets the flow of the game.

If Overwatch is to return, it needs to have huge penalties, such as:
- only 1 weapon type
- *after* Opponent Shooting
- test for pinning if any hits are scored against.

That sort of thing.

But remember, I don't like Overwatch. It's a crap mechanic, so I'm not interested in bringing it back in any form.

Yes you have to limit the number of models that can shoot to make it balanced.

Shooting done after oponent shooting would make it pointless as the point of overwatch is to shoot at an oponent as he moves, catching them in the open between two covers for example.

Pinning would only work if the overwatch shooting takes place after the regular shooting for the turn and like I said above that kind of defeats the purpouse.

I agree that it would be hard to crate a simple, balanced and fast enough method of incorperating overwatch wich is in all probability the reason why it was removed but I will still be 100% behind it IF rules that work are developed.

Being able to shoot mid-movement only makes sense in hex-games in which movement is hex-to-hex. Being able to shoot mid-movement destroys the ability to use bounding cover and simulate cover fire - the essence of modern maneuver warfare.

Shooting after opponent shooting works because you're gaining the opportunity to take a shot when no shot would have been possible. Otherwise, you've got no trade-off for a devastator squad. You shoot during your turn if you've got a target, or you "overwatch" to see if a target appears during your opponent's turn. Because you're giving up the momentum, it is only fair to allow the opponent full advantage of his turn.

Why should the opponent be penalized for having good positioning and making good tactical use of cover? If the opponent is doing a good job of preventing you from taking a shot during your turn, he should be rewarded for doing so. He is playing actively, and the game mechanics should encourage and reward this. The overwatcher is playing passively, and should be penalized as harshly as possible. By default, the 40k rules say that he can't shoot AT ALL. And that is fair. Adding Overwatch gives the overwatcher a partial shooting phase where there was none before.

Pinning works because there should be real risks to going on Overwatch. Overwatch needs to be balanced to default of firing on your turn, not your opponent's turn. And pinning is a good way to do this.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Why should the opponent be penalized for having good positioning and making good tactical use of cover? If the opponent is doing a good job of preventing you from taking a shot during your turn, he should be rewarded for doing so. He is playing actively, and the game mechanics should encourage and reward this. The overwatcher is playing passively, and should be penalized as harshly as possible. By default, the 40k rules say that he can't shoot AT ALL. And that is fair. Adding Overwatch gives the overwatcher a partial shooting phase where there was none before.

That is the primary reason I dislike it. Overwatch completely removes tactical movement. You can’t move from cover to cover if your opponent is on over watch. You can’t move from out of line of sight to another position that is also out of line of sight if you opponent is on overwatch. If you are out of line of sight of your opponent, he doesn’t have to move to a better position to shoot you, all he has to do is sit on overwatch and wait for you to stick your head out. If there is overwatch in the game, the first turn is uber since you just put your whole army (or at least anything that’s shooty) on overwatch and then have your opponent go. When he moves (or doesn’t) you just start shooting and picking off the targets of your choice. It really removes movement as a viable option both because it makes it difficult for your opponent to move if you are on overwatch, but also because in order to go into overwatch, you have to not move yourself. In general, it’s just a bad idea and I’m very happy to see it gone.

To the poster who asked "why not do it like WFB and FOW".....

The mechanics are entirely different in both games and different from 40K.

Fantasy - it is called stand and shoot. It ONLY can be done if THAT UNIT is charged. I am an elf player and I love it BUT - it is only handheld weapons, there is a BS penalty, AND if the unit charging you is under half of it's charge range (and charge range varies considerably between different units) you CANNOT stand and shoot.

So a 40K new rule to compare - you get to shoot at a unit that declares an assault against you, but with -1 to hit. That might or might not be popular, but it would fit within the basic game mechanics and doesn't require a lot of record keeping.

FOW- you get to shoot when you assualt if you have certain weapons types. This means you shoot in your shooting phase with some weapons, assault, and get to shoot with other weapons DURING the assault. The unit getting assaulted gets to shoot back. However, in FOW, PINNING is based on the number of HITS you take, and isn't a Leadership test. You take X number of hits, you are pinned. Pinning DECREASES your rate of fire if you are defending unit, so it is a good tactic to hammer a unit you want to assult with all of your supporting weapons like mortars (which are GREAT in FOW) and your artillary and even nearby armor. Furthermore, if you pin a unit assaulting you....they stop dead in their tracks. Assault fails. To UNPIN is a leadership test. That would happen later.

Equivalent 40K new rule to compare - can't think of one without completely redoing the basic mechanics.

What we all have to remember is that when overwatch existed there was not nearly the ammount of high powered shooting existing in the game. Of course tau would love overwatch, because it would give an already potentially mindless army that much less reason to actually have a strategy. This also goes for any list such as marines or guard that can field large ammounts of heavy weapons.

Not only no but hell no.

Dakkaladd wrote:What we all have to remember is that when overwatch existed there was not nearly the ammount of high powered shooting existing in the game.

Ummmm really? Were we playing different games? Back then my warwalkers had 2 heavy weapons that could fire independently. My dark reapers all had missile lanuchers and counted towards the 25% of my army that had to be spent on troops. My buddie's space wolf terminators (~60% of his army) all had assault cannons (even more broken in 2nd than in 4th) and cyclone missile launchers (both on every model) and they could fire both of them each turn. There was a lot of heavy weapons around back then. Heck, if you didn't have one you were mostly useless since transports were death traps and over watch kept assault units from moving anywhere without being shot.

Phoenix wrote:

Ummmm really? Were we playing different games? Back then my warwalkers had 2 heavy weapons that could fire independently. My dark reapers all had missile lanuchers and counted towards the 25% of my army that had to be spent on troops. My buddie's space wolf terminators (~60% of his army) all had assault cannons (even more broken in 2nd than in 4th) and cyclone missile launchers (both on every model) and they could fire both of them each turn. There was a lot of heavy weapons around back then. Heck, if you didn't have one you were mostly useless since transports were death traps and over watch kept assault units from moving anywhere without being shot.

That's my point. There are more units with more overall firepower now than there were then, simply because there are more armies now. Can you imagine destroyers or obliterators on overwatch? I'm not talking single model firepower like 2nd had, I'm talking squad firepower. The fact remains that this idea has come up constantly since the game changed from 2nd to 3rd edition and the resounding consensus is a very big no.