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 originally created this idea in response to this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/215619.page

Overwatch: A unit that becomes the target of an assault that had taken no action during its moving or shooting phase and did not go to ground, fall back, become pinned or suffer any other effect which would cause it to be otherwise occupied is allowed to make a special Overwatch attack that happens during the opponent's assault phase.

This special attack allows the defender to make any ranged attacks that it would have been able to during a normal shooting phase with the added effect of ignoring any cover bonus due to terrain that the assaulting enemy unit may have. The Overwatch attack is resolved after the intent to assault against the target unit is declared and before any models are actually moved into the assault. The Overwatch attack must be resolved between the assaulting unit and the assaulted units, and only applies to cover bonuses granted by terrain. Cover due to intervening models or bonuses granted by wargear (i.e. Kustom Force Field) are still in effect.

Any terrain blocking line of sight is also ignored as it is assumed that the Overwatch attack occurs as assaulting units are leaving cover, and therefore lose any beneficial effect that it would have granted.

Overwatch against Multiple Assaulting Units: A unit can only make one Overwatch attack per assault phase and must resolve it against the first unit to assault the target. This reflects a wave of inexpensive fodder units being sent forward to drag down a defender's guns while an elite assault force waits to exploit the distraction. Note that this can have negative consequences for the assaulter because if the first unit is not sufficiently thinned out, the elite force may be in the open and vulnerable to defensive fire!

I don't see myself ever bothering to use this rule because I think 5ed does a decent enough job on its own, but a few of my friends (especially a tau player) have expressed regret at Overwatch's non-existence in 5th. So what do you think? Like it? Hate it? Like it but think it adds unnecessary complication?

I think it needs to be either tied to a Ld test, (either taking a Ld test when they want to shoot the attacking unit, or taking a Ld test instead of moving to 'go into Overwatch') and/or replace the unit's close combat attacks.

I like the idea of Overwatch, but it needs to be heavily limited, particulary when two shooty armies are involved. Otherwise games get very static, with both sides just waiting for the other two move.

I realize that the new rule is rather exhausting to read at one go-through due to both its complexity and length, but I don't think you quite captured all of the aspects of it.

Overwatch in this case is heavily limited. You forego ALL actions, you survive your enemy's shooting phase unscathed, and you gamble on the enemy seeing this unit as being significant enough that he absolutely must assault it in his assault phase. Add to all that, and the only bonus you receive is no fear of cover saves, so the only time you'd even bother is with low ap weapons versus decently armored targets.

If two shooty armies are involved, this rule is never going to come into play because neither side will assault each other. The only time I can think of it being beneficial is with one elite shooty unit expecting assault from an elite close combat unit that has either very good armor or is out of line of sight.

I think to dilute it even further would be to make it absolutely worthless, when it's already a pretty marginal bonus.

I do thank you for your opinion, though.

Hell no.

Overwatch was horrendous in 2nd Ed, torturous in Necromunda, and I've never looked back at including it without serious restrictiosn - and that's in Necromunda. On a game the scale of 40K, it just doesn't work.

The reason why is it brings games to a complete standstill.

Player 1: My army's on overwatch. Your turn.
Player 2: So's mind. Your turn.
Player 1: Still on overwatch. Your turn.
Player 2: Yup, me too. Your turn.
Kool Aid Man: OOOOOOOOOOOOH YEEEEEAAAAHH!!!!!

See how this is bad even before the Kool Aid Man shows up?

Inaniak is right though, if you were going to include it, it would have to be something that the unit can fail to do - tied inot a Leadership test that if failed resulted in the unit being unable to act for the rest of the turn.

For our Necromunda house rules we ended up making Overwatch a Shooting Skill, something you had to earn rather than having as a standard rule. It required an Ld test as well, and you'd give up your entire turn to use it.

But I still reccomend against it.

BYE

sourclams wrote: You forego ALL actions,

Which isn't really that much of a deficit... The main use of overwatch is when there are currently no valid targets. A shooty army doesn't really want to move anyway, so losing your movement phase doesn't hurt, and if there aren't any valid targets forgoing your shooting phase likewise isn't really an issue.

you survive your enemy's shooting phase unscathed,

Fair enough. Although again, if he didn't have anything in range or LOS of your weapons in the first place, his return shooting is probably going to be minimal.

and you gamble on the enemy seeing this unit as being significant enough that he absolutely must assault it in his assault phase.

Depending on the mission, of course... since he might not actually have much of an option there.

If two shooty armies are involved, this rule is never going to come into play because neither side will assault each other.

Fair point. On that ground, I think tying it specifically to an assault is possibly actually a little excessive. I'd go with a similar rule, tied to a Ld check as I mentioned, but allowing the unit to shoot whenever it is assaulted or targeted by a ranged attack.

The best way to punish a unit for going on overwatch is to target them with two or three units worth of artillery, or lacking that ordinary missle launchers. After they've been thinned down enough that their overwatch shooting will not be a threat, send in two units to assault them. Sure, the first unit will suffer some casualties, but the combination of the two units assaulting at the same time will finish the assault target off neatly, especially with the LD penalties for losing the combat based on the relative number of wounds, which would not include any wounds suffered by the assaulting forces from overwatch shooting. Everything has a counter. The problem with most people, especially hard-core game theory addicts is that they get so fixated on each unit's individual capabilities that they forget to consider using their units in a cooperative manner, which is the foundation of smart military tactics.

warpcrafter wrote:The best way to punish a unit for going on overwatch is to target them with two or three units worth of artillery,

I forget... How many armies have access to artillery, again?

or lacking that ordinary missle launchers.

Any heavy weapon requiring LOS is going to have to move into LOS in order to shoot... which, under most versions of Overwatch that have been proposed over the years, would trigger the unit in Overwatch to shoot first... or at the very least prompt them to move in their next movement phase.

Even in this version, if you are getting the opportunity to shoot heavy weapons at the unit in Overwatch, your opponent isn't paying attention.

The problem with most people, especially hard-core game theory addicts is that they get so fixated on each unit's individual capabilities that they forget to consider using their units in a cooperative manner, which is the foundation of smart military tactics.

I'm not sure how this statement has any relevance to the topic. (We can ignore for the moment whether it actually has any basis in fact...) The problem with Overwatch isn't that it's unbeatable. The problem is simply that it tends to lead to very static games.

warpcrafter wrote:The best way to punish a unit for going on overwatch is to target them with two or three units worth of artillery, or lacking that ordinary missle launchers. After they've been thinned down enough that their overwatch shooting will not be a threat, send in two units to assault them. Sure, the first unit will suffer some casualties, but the combination of the two units assaulting at the same time will finish the assault target off neatly, especially with the LD penalties for losing the combat based on the relative number of wounds, which would not include any wounds suffered by the assaulting forces from overwatch shooting. Everything has a counter. The problem with most people, especially hard-core game theory addicts is that they get so fixated on each unit's individual capabilities that they forget to consider using their units in a cooperative manner, which is the foundation of smart military tactics.

You can say this about any individual unit regardless what they're doing. Furthermore, if I am playing any army whatsoever, and you are slotting three heavy support choices and two dedicated assault units to take down any single squad, you're probably losing to the rest of my guys.

Anyhow, the rule I proposed is specifically for a shooty unit to counter an assaulty unit. Static games aren't going to ever happen due to my Overwatch variant rule because shooty armies will just shoot each other, and assaulty armies will just assault each other, and 90% of the time a shooty army will just shoot an assaulty army regardless of any Overwatch options that may exist.

Again, thank you for your opinions. I myself am also not a fan of Overwatch due to Necromunda experience primarily. I was simply brainstorming ways for Overwatch to work, without incurring the wrath of the many problems that everybody has brought up, and I probably won't ever be using this.

sourclams wrote:Again, thank you for your opinions. I myself am also not a fan of Overwatch due to Necromunda experience primarily. I was simply brainstorming ways for Overwatch to work, without incurring the wrath of the many problems that everybody has brought up, and I probably won't ever be using this.

Yay!

About the only way you can make Overwatch work is if you place it *after* enemy Shooting, and slap some serious restrictions (e.g. only one weapon type), and tack on penalties (e.g. if any casualties scored against the Overwatching unit, unit automatically Falls Back 3d6"). And even then, mono-shooting armies are *still* going to make heavy use of it.

For the record, I'm against the return of Overwatch, even if heavily restricted, etc. as above.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Overwatch was horrendous in 2nd Ed, torturous in Necromunda, and I've never looked back at including it without serious restrictiosn - and that's in Necromunda. On a game the scale of 40K, it just doesn't work.

Normally I would agree, but after getting into AT-43 I now know that it is possible to not only incorporate Overwatch on the same scale as 40K typically uses, but that it can be done elegantly as well.

40K just doesn't lend itself to Overwatch because of not only the turn structure, but in how some units work. The mechanics simply aren't..right...to have such a rule function in 40K rules.

Until GW really completely starts from the ground up with 40K rules, I am convinced that overwatch in 40K cant work properly without being broken.

Here is what I proposed to my group.

Any unit can go into overwatch by giving up its shooting for that turn. Now in 5th it would be shooting and running. The unit must have at least 75 percent "rapid fire" weapons.

After the enemy has moved, but before they enter the shooting phase, any unit that was on over watch has the opportunity to shoot. They must declare a unit to target, then roll a "night fighting" roll to see if they saw the unit come out of hiding/cover. If they succeed they get one round of shooting with all weapons in the unit. If they fail, they wasted the turn waiting.

This I thought was a great way to handle overwatch, it had a chance of failing at long distances, but since most rapid fire weapons can't reach that far anyways, it allowed you to watch your back for infiltrators or deep strikers who just appear next to you and eat your breakfast before you can do anything.

I picture a line of soldiers behind a barrier, watching the enemy off in the distance coming for them, just then something or someone jumps up and says boo! The soldiers just have to stand there and get shot/eaten because it was not their turn to shoot.

It was shot down because too many people said that since it was not in the rulebook, it does not exist.

insaniak wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:The best way to punish a unit for going on overwatch is to target them with two or three units worth of artillery,

I forget... How many armies have access to artillery, again?

or lacking that ordinary missle launchers.

Any heavy weapon requiring LOS is going to have to move into LOS in order to shoot... which, under most versions of Overwatch that have been proposed over the years, would trigger the unit in Overwatch to shoot first... or at the very least prompt them to move in their next movement phase.

Even in this version, if you are getting the opportunity to shoot heavy weapons at the unit in Overwatch, your opponent isn't paying attention.


I'm not sure how this statement has any relevance to the topic. (We can ignore for the moment whether it actually has any basis in fact...) The problem with Overwatch isn't that it's unbeatable. The problem is simply that it tends to lead to very static games.

The problem with most people, especially hard-core game theory addicts is that they get so fixated on each unit's individual capabilities that they forget to consider using their units in a cooperative manner, which is the foundation of smart military tactics.

Missile launchers have a longer range than any squad's majority weapons, so unless it's also a heavy-weapon squad their overwatch fire should be minimal. Lascannons and battlecannons are also good for this tactic. I've done it myself in second edition, which led to my few wins.

The Sarge wrote:Here is what I proposed to my group.

Any unit can go into overwatch by giving up its shooting for that turn. Now in 5th it would be shooting and running. The unit must have at least 75 percent "rapid fire" weapons.

After the enemy has moved, but before they enter the shooting phase, any unit that was on over watch has the opportunity to shoot. They must declare a unit to target, then roll a "night fighting" roll to see if they saw the unit come out of hiding/cover. If they succeed they get one round of shooting with all weapons in the unit. If they fail, they wasted the turn waiting.

This I thought was a great way to handle overwatch, it had a chance of failing at long distances, but since most rapid fire weapons can't reach that far anyways, it allowed you to watch your back for infiltrators or deep strikers who just appear next to you and eat your breakfast before you can do anything.

I picture a line of soldiers behind a barrier, watching the enemy off in the distance coming for them, just then something or someone jumps up and says boo! The soldiers just have to stand there and get shot/eaten because it was not their turn to shoot.

It was shot down because too many people said that since it was not in the rulebook, it does not exist.

That's an excellent idea.I've have to try it.

Taken from this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/215619.page

I played during the days of overwatch. I would REALLY rather not ever do it again. It was needlessly cumbersome and was a huge slow-down to the game in general.

"ok I'll move here"
"Wait! Please show me the path you take to get there so I can see if my overwatchers can see you as you move"
"<sigh> ok. I started here, now I'm moving...can you see me yet? how 'bout now? Now? How 'bout here? Almost done moving...did you see it?"
"Yep, I think I saw him as he went past the window, move him back an inch?"
"Here?"
"Nah, back another half inch"
"Here?"
"Ok yeah, leave him there a sec, getting my laser pointer....Nope, can't see him. Ok, go ahead and move the next guy in the squad now, but I need to see the path again"
<repeat 8 more times for a tactical squad>


Yeah, that's an extreme example, but I've seen it happen.

warpcrafter wrote:Missile launchers have a longer range than any squad's majority weapons, so unless it's also a heavy-weapon squad their overwatch fire should be minimal.

insaniak wrote:...or at the very least prompt them to move in their next movement phase

Again, if you're getting heavy weapon shots against a squad in Overwatch, your opponent isn't paying attention.

insaniak wrote:Again, if you're getting heavy weapon shots against a squad in Overwatch, your opponent isn't paying attention.

Exactly. He's actually moving models...

I find it funny that about half of the people here are having a knee jerk reaction to the term "overwatch" more so than the proposed rule itself. I'll call out H.B.M.C. and Lormax on it.

The rule proposed here is much more like "stand and shoot" from fantasy rather than over watch from 2nd edition so people should get it out of their heads that its a return to those rules.

Now, dispite that, I think that this encarnation of the rule is still bad. The reason is that it really prevents assault units from doing what they do and gives all kinds of extra benifits to shooty troops. Lets look at some examples.

1) Dark eldar in a raider want to assault some tac marines (or fire warriors, or eldar guardians, or ig troopers). Round 1, the raider moves up to about 20 inches away from the marines (12" raider move + 2" disembark,+1d6 run, +6" charge). Marines can now either shoot the raider from outside of rapid fire range, move forward into (possibly) rapid fire range and shoot the raider, or go on over watch. If they go into overwatch, the raider can move up, dump the dark eldar and they can assault. If they do, 9 marines rapid fireing => 8 dead dark eldar on average (and this isn't counting any heavy or special weapons they may have). So 2 make it into hand to hand. That's just not acceptable from a situation where they should be able to assault the marines.

2) Nid horde running up on marines (or fire warriors, or guardians, or whatever). Nid horde moves up to 18" away on their turn. The marines again have the same options of move up and waste heavy weapon shots to get into rapid fire range (and possibly waste a bonus to cover they might be in), stay back and fire from outside of rapid fire range, or go on overwatch. If they go on over watch, the nids can ignore them and try to get around them to other units (which will either be on over watch or well out of range) or they can assault and suck up the fire power from the unit that is now at short range and didn't have to give up anything to get there. Either way, it sucks for the nids.

3) Anything trying to assault dark reapers. They are just screwed, end of story.

All in all the option to use this rule breaks one of the main tenants of the game. Shooty units should be able to kill assaulty units on the way in and assaulty units should destroy shooty units if they can get to them. If shooty units can also kill assaulty units once they get there, then assaulty units are worthless. All you have to do is put out some cheep units in front of your fire base (tac marines, fire warriors, guardians, etc) and have them sit there on overwatch as soon as the enemy gets into anything resembeling an assault posistion. In the mean time, the rest of your army can be sitting back and pummeling the assault army as it comes in.

Phoenix wrote:1) Dark eldar in a raider want to assault some tac marines (or fire warriors, or eldar guardians, or ig troopers).

Bad example.

You should use Eldar examples:
- 10 full-gun Dire Avengers for 30+ shots @ BS4+ = 20 hits, scoring 13+ wounds with no save
- 20 Guardians for 40+ shots @ BS3 = 20 hits scoring 13+ wounds with no save.

In either case, NO Dark Eldar manage to Assault. They simply Disembark and are gunned down immediately.

Phoenix and JohnWangDD both make excellent points. The only thing I can suggest is that the player who wishes to assault a squad that's on overwatch concentrate fire on them for a round or two until they've been reduced in numbers sufficiently that their overwatch fire is not enough to destroy whatever unit first assaults them, and have two units to assault them so that they will be well and truly destroyed. Of course, like Insaniak said, that's a lot of attention to direct at a single unit, and it is compounded if their are multiple units on overwatch or stand and shoot.
The only thing I could suggest to balance this out is to state that overwatching models only get a single shot each regardless of having rapid fire or assault weapons, or a to-hit penalty if the enemy ran instead of shooting or approached in vehicles that moved 12" or more, but that would be an additional complication and would have the fans of overwatch/stand and shoot complaining.
It seems that the reason why this rule is so unpopular in wargames is because it's as effective on the tabletop as it is in real life. After all, I remember in 3rd grade dissuading the playground bully picking on me by repeatedly beaning him with rocks!

How about this, expanding from my last post.

The unit in overwatch gets to shoot AFTER the player who's turn it is. If the overwatch unit gets pinned, or goes to ground during the shooting phase, they lose the overwatch. Basically you will get to move knowing which units are on overwatch, then disembark any troops that you want, now comes the choice, forgo shooting with the assault unit and hope that the other units will cover them or stand and shoot with the assault unit. Now this tactic will work better for some armies then others but now you will have a chance to counter the overwatch and if you fail, you will probably lose a unit. Remember this is in addition to my prior post. It won't make sense without read that one too.

War is Hell!