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.

"and uses all the normal rules except that a 6 is
always required for a successful hit roll, irrespective of the
firing model’s Ballistic Skill or any modifiers."

It's not a 6+, and its never modified: 'A Natural Six.'

 Arkaine wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

Wagguy80 wrote:
BRB rules do not override Index, Codex, or Forge World rules. So it can fire overwatch even if enemy models are within 1" of it.

No one said BRB rules override the codex. They said the codex rule does not override the BRB rule in question. It overrides a different rule, one pertaining to Shooting.

Rules which we are told by the Overwatch rules also apply to firing Overwatch.

No, they don't, and I've explained why already. I won't be repeating this again so if you have nothing new to add... then I guess we're not going to agree here.

Yes they do and we've all explained several times why they do, we won't be repeating the same arguements again if you won't listen.

Why are you targeting me? And even using the collectivism as though you're correct? Several people in this thread have said the same thing I have. If you won't listen, then we're at an impasse.

He used the wording you used on me, and several people in the thread have agreed with him, so his "collectivism" is referring to people making his arguments. We can make the claim that you're not the one listening; we listened, rejected your arguments and discussed why. We can agree to disagree, but it's bad form to say we're at an impasse just because you want to claim the other side is not listening to you.

I'd go with can fire Overwatch. I'd make the same call on a Baneblade/other model with the same Steel Behemoth wording.

 doctortom wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

Wagguy80 wrote:
BRB rules do not override Index, Codex, or Forge World rules. So it can fire overwatch even if enemy models are within 1" of it.

No one said BRB rules override the codex. They said the codex rule does not override the BRB rule in question. It overrides a different rule, one pertaining to Shooting.

Rules which we are told by the Overwatch rules also apply to firing Overwatch.

No, they don't, and I've explained why already. I won't be repeating this again so if you have nothing new to add... then I guess we're not going to agree here.

Yes they do and we've all explained several times why they do, we won't be repeating the same arguements again if you won't listen.

Why are you targeting me? And even using the collectivism as though you're correct? Several people in this thread have said the same thing I have. If you won't listen, then we're at an impasse.

He used the wording you used on me, and several people in the thread have agreed with him, so his "collectivism" is referring to people making his arguments. We can make the claim that you're not the one listening; we listened, rejected your arguments and discussed why. We can agree to disagree, but it's bad form to say we're at an impasse just because you want to claim the other side is not listening to you.

No, he didn't, which is why I brought it up, and he even accused me of not listening... read my original remarks. I neither did that nor claimed collectivism stands with me, which is what's actually bad form in a debate, especially when it's not true. My remark referred to the circular reasoning being employed and the fact that both sides are reading the same statement, presenting the same statement as evidence, and adding nothing new beyond their own subjective interpretation. I pointed this out and said we wouldn't be agreeing here unless something new was added, hence the impasse. Please stop judging my intent as hostility here, I've openly explained my words twice now when I really shouldn't have to.

I'll stress it a third time, unless someone has something new to add then this is a dead case and each side can play it how they'd like to interpret the same exact wording we're all referring to.

Comment with this and only this or I'll no longer be responding to you.