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.

tneva82 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I HATED guessing in old 40k...

"I'm a super solider, with implants to never miss, been training for 100's of years, master of this weapon, BUT i don't know how far i can shoot", ing stupid.

Who guesses? Well except newbies who haven't learned n+1 tricks to "guess".

.... you miss the point completely. My little super soldiers that has been trainer longer than an human can live can't have rules to let them know the enemy distance when shooting.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Also, some people need to stop acting like overwatch is responsible for wiping out entire units.

I have first hand experience of overwatch wiping whole units. Not every time, but enough to be hella frustrating.

tneva82 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I HATED guessing in old 40k...

"I'm a super solider, with implants to never miss, been training for 100's of years, master of this weapon, BUT i don't know how far i can shoot", ing stupid.

Who guesses? Well except newbies who haven't learned n+1 tricks to "guess".

Forgive my ignorance, what is the n+1 trick?

Aash wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I HATED guessing in old 40k...

"I'm a super solider, with implants to never miss, been training for 100's of years, master of this weapon, BUT i don't know how far i can shoot", ing stupid.

Who guesses? Well except newbies who haven't learned n+1 tricks to "guess".

Forgive my ignorance, what is the n+1 trick?

tneva doesn't mean a specific trick, I think. Just means that there are ways of being able to estimate distances on the tabletop with quite a high degree of accuracy.

Yes, a lot of it is knowing generic base sizes like official GW terrain base, vehicle base, MC bases, etc... Also most importantly, know the table sections, 1/2 a tabl (both ways), 1/3's and 1/4's (extremely easy to do, 1/2 of 3' and 1/2 of 6', or 1/3, or 1/4 of them) once you know those you can estimate your distance within an 1' easily.

But, the point was, why should we have to be made to guess when we are playing toy soldiers with "the best soldiers in the universe"

Dandelion wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Also, some people need to stop acting like overwatch is responsible for wiping out entire units.

I have first hand experience of overwatch wiping whole units. Not every time, but enough to be hella frustrating.

And I have dozens of first hand experience where overwatch amounted to nothing - point is you remember the negative experience, never the positives.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Also, some people need to stop acting like overwatch is responsible for wiping out entire units.

I have first hand experience of overwatch wiping whole units. Not every time, but enough to be hella frustrating.

And I have dozens of first hand experience where overwatch amounted to nothing - point is you remember the negative experience, never the positives.

Rolling dice for no effect is a positive now?

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Also, some people need to stop acting like overwatch is responsible for wiping out entire units.

I have first hand experience of overwatch wiping whole units. Not every time, but enough to be hella frustrating.

And I have dozens of first hand experience where overwatch amounted to nothing - point is you remember the negative experience, never the positives.

And? Overwatch has still been responsible for wiping units. Is it rare? Yes. But that was irrelevant to your claim. I’m not acting or making anything up, it has happened.

Just because something bad happens rarely doesn’t mean it gets a pass.

To me overwatch is a pain just because it slows down the game so much, especially with all the rerolls happening.
Most overwatch won't do much, kill one or two models and thats it (unless done by a "specialised" overwatch army).
The game is already ridiculously slow as it is with centurions shooting taking forever, then repeating it in the overwatch, and then repeating it in the fight phase.
Overwatch with no rerolls was already long, now its just obnoxious.

With fallback overwatch is less necessary. It should become a rule some weapons/factions have and not default to every shooting attack.

blaktoof wrote:
With fallback overwatch is less necessary. It should become a rule some weapons/factions have and not default to every shooting attack.

I rather disagree. Sometimes you need a unit to hold a location for whatever reason (objective, cover denial), so running is the less effective choice. Not to mention, so long as IGOUGO is in play, it provides the capacity of choice for response.

Should it be as nasty as current or as bonus-filled as some armies are capable of pulling off? No. Honestly, I think its introduction at the beginning of 6th was just about right, but those armies that completely ignore the downsides reduce the desire to Charge at all.

Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

give overwatch to some specialised units, starting with all the factions that get a 5+ overwatch for example.

Also, the same logic applies to fallign back. Why would a bloodthirsty berzerker just watch his enemy take one step back without attacking him?

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

The Fire Warriors already had a chance to shoot those nasties. It was in the Tau Player's own shooting phase.

You know, the part of the turn specifically for firing ranged weapons.

 vipoid wrote:

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

The Fire Warriors already had a chance to shoot those nasties. It was in the Tau Player's own shooting phase.

You know, the part of the turn specifically for firing ranged weapons.

The part that you only get if you are going second and don't get first-turn charged. And yes, getting first-turn charged is possible.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The part that you only get if you are going second and don't get first-turn charged. And yes, getting first-turn charged is possible.

1st-turn charges shouldn't exist, IMO. It's no fun to be on the receiving end of a wombo combo that propels the enemy from completely outside the range of your guns to in your face before you have any chance to respond. The worst part is that melee armies basically need them because either you tie up part of the gunline ASAP, or you get blown off the board by the end of turn 2.

Anyways, there are other circumstances in which reaction fire makes sense, too. If I'm hiding behind a building then I can't be engaged in the enemy's Shooting Phase, but I can then pop out to make a 10" charge across open ground. Yet one of the silly things about Overwatch is that in this scenario, the enemy doesn't actually get to shoot, because I started my charge in cover.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: with even a basic action/reaction system, Overwatch would be completely unnecessary. It's a band-aid fix for the problems of raw IGOUGO. Dust, Infinity, and Bolt Action are all modern and successful examples.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

The Fire Warriors already had a chance to shoot those nasties. It was in the Tau Player's own shooting phase.

You know, the part of the turn specifically for firing ranged weapons.

The part that you only get if you are going second and don't get first-turn charged. And yes, getting first-turn charged is possible.

Or you do go first and you get to shoot down one of the melee threats before they can do anything....


Honestly, if 40k stopped using IGOUGO melee would be a lot better and overwatch wouldnt be needed as a global rule.

Even GW's own Lord of the Rings (or now Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game) adequately handles the problems of IGOUGO. But 40k can't get rid of it (apparently) so speculating about it is pointless.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Even GW's own Lord of the Rings (or now Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game) adequately handles the problems of IGOUGO. But 40k can't get rid of it (apparently) so speculating about it is pointless.

Both killteam and Apocalypse use an AA system that works very well, i would not be surprised if the next edition started using AA too. it makes for much better systems with more depth and tactical decisions.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Even GW's own Lord of the Rings (or now Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game) adequately handles the problems of IGOUGO. But 40k can't get rid of it (apparently) so speculating about it is pointless.

Both killteam and Apocalypse use an AA system that works very well, i would not be surprised if the next edition started using AA too. it makes for much better systems with more depth and tactical decisions.

You could've literally said that about any 40k rule-set GW has released since third.

"Both GW game (X) and GW game (Y) have an AA (or alternating phases really) system that works very well, I would not be surprised if next edition..."

And then what did next edition do?
Not AA, that's for sure.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Even GW's own Lord of the Rings (or now Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game) adequately handles the problems of IGOUGO. But 40k can't get rid of it (apparently) so speculating about it is pointless.

Both killteam and Apocalypse use an AA system that works very well, i would not be surprised if the next edition started using AA too. it makes for much better systems with more depth and tactical decisions.

You could've literally said that about any 40k rule-set GW has released since third.

"Both GW game (X) and GW game (Y) have an AA (or alternating phases really) system that works very well, I would not be surprised if next edition..."

And then what did next edition do?
Not AA, that's for sure.

i wasnt playing 40k before 8th so i dont know if past subgames had AA instead of IGOUGO, im talking about my observations with the recent stuff only.
Honestly, after playing 40k as an introduction to wargaming, everyother game i've played has mechanics in them that i feel are missing in 40k.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Even GW's own Lord of the Rings (or now Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game) adequately handles the problems of IGOUGO. But 40k can't get rid of it (apparently) so speculating about it is pointless.

Both killteam and Apocalypse use an AA system that works very well, i would not be surprised if the next edition started using AA too. it makes for much better systems with more depth and tactical decisions.

You could've literally said that about any 40k rule-set GW has released since third.

"Both GW game (X) and GW game (Y) have an AA (or alternating phases really) system that works very well, I would not be surprised if next edition..."

And then what did next edition do?
Not AA, that's for sure.

To be fair, none of them, to my knowledge, were directly based on the mainstream 40K rules. I mean, Apoc is its own thing, but Kill Team is basically 40K with one-man units, a slightly different range/cover system, and incapacitation rolls.

Kill Team, Apocalypse, Adeptus Titanicus, and Aeronautica Imperialis all use alternating activation. I haven't played Warcry, but if that uses alternating activations too then that would mean every wargame GW has released in the last few years has used AA. Doesn't seem unreasonable to speculate that it's coming to 40K sooner or later.

Kill Team did little to change 40K rules till relatively recently. Going back as recently as 7th Edition, the only thing Kill Team changed was army building and unit cohesion.

Agreed with OP

It easily adds 30 minutes to a game for my opponent if I play Tyranids

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

So the Tau get to shoot twice if the orks charge.

If the orks DON'T charge, The well trained fire warrior just lets them be for while.

Why would the Tau get to fire twice if the Orks charge, but only get to fire once if they don't?

 catbarf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The part that you only get if you are going second and don't get first-turn charged. And yes, getting first-turn charged is possible.

Anyways, there are other circumstances in which reaction fire makes sense, too. If I'm hiding behind a building then I can't be engaged in the enemy's Shooting Phase, but I can then pop out to make a 10" charge across open ground. Yet one of the silly things about Overwatch is that in this scenario, the enemy doesn't actually get to shoot, because I started my charge in cover.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: with even a basic action/reaction system, Overwatch would be completely unnecessary. It's a band-aid fix for the problems of raw IGOUGO. Dust, Infinity, and Bolt Action are all modern and successful examples.

This at least makes some amount of sense, as it's the only way to represent a proper ambush in the game. Without it you otherwise get similarly weird situations like in my little short story earlier in the thread: units that should otherwise be too preoccupied suddenly able to 180 noscope a unit charging them that they didn't know existed a second ago.

In fact, I think there's generally problem with how discussions about overwatch (and the shooting/melee gap in general) where people arguing in favor of overwatch/fall back/what have you always seem to think assault units as incompetent ("charging across open ground", "yelling and swinging a sword around", ect) which thinking any model that's picked up a gun as hyper competent.

 JimOnMars wrote:

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

So the Tau get to shoot twice if the orks charge.

If the orks DON'T charge, The well trained fire warrior just lets them be for while.

Why would the Tau get to fire twice if the Orks charge, but only get to fire once if they don't?

Once in combat, the Orks get to fight in the Tau player's turn. When not in combat, Tau only get to shoot in their turn unless Charged. But I guess there is no discrepancy and imbalance there, right?

Of course, your supposition is that the Ork player approached fully open in a fire lane before charging. Which then applies to faults in table setup and Ork player's choices in movement.

After 5th went the way it did, 40k needed a way to make sure things got at least one chance to shoot at what charged them.

So they implemented Overwatch.

They also implemented no-charge-from-reserves/infilitrate/etc.

Both did the same thing - they made sure there was at least some reaction to something showing up and eating you in CC.

GW really only needed one.

Then GW gave everyone and their dog a dozen ways to get around the second one.

Reimplement the second generally, and I'd be less resistant to Overwatch going away.

 Charistoph wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

So the Tau get to shoot twice if the orks charge.

If the orks DON'T charge, The well trained fire warrior just lets them be for while.

Why would the Tau get to fire twice if the Orks charge, but only get to fire once if they don't?

Once in combat, the Orks get to fight in the Tau player's turn. When not in combat, Tau only get to shoot in their turn unless Charged. But I guess there is no discrepancy and imbalance there, right?

Of course, your supposition is that the Ork player approached fully open in a fire lane before charging. Which then applies to faults in table setup and Ork player's choices in movement.

Well, the tau get to fight in the ork’s turn too.

As for the getting shot beforehand, the tau player’s choices also matter. Even with enough terrain, it is pretty easy to maneuver into a firing lane against an enemy that is coming at you. The only time the orks would completely avoid getting shot is with zone mortalis style walls everywhere, which would imply that the tau player intentionally places their troops behind a wall. And that doesn’t make tactical sense from the tau’s standpoint since they want to shoot.

 Charistoph wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Gary_1986 wrote:
Overwatch makes perfect sense though. I mean look at it from a Tau perspective, as an example. Imagine Fire Warrior team A is holding objective 1, and a bunch of nasties comes charging toward them. Are these well trained Fire Warriors going to just stand and watch them get into point blank range? Of course not. Though Overwatch ALL of the time doesn't make much sense either.

So the Tau get to shoot twice if the orks charge.

If the orks DON'T charge, The well trained fire warrior just lets them be for while.

Why would the Tau get to fire twice if the Orks charge, but only get to fire once if they don't?

Once in combat, the Orks get to fight in the Tau player's turn. When not in combat, Tau only get to shoot in their turn unless Charged. But I guess there is no discrepancy and imbalance there, right?

Of course, your supposition is that the Ork player approached fully open in a fire lane before charging. Which then applies to faults in table setup and Ork player's choices in movement.

Everybody in melee range fights in every combat phase unless they get killed before they get the chance. Should they survive the charge the Tau will both shoot and fight on the Ork's turn so yeah, there is a discrepency and imbalance - it's not in the charging army's favour.