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 charged a Skyray (which obviously can't overwatch) but my opponent overwatched with the firewarrior squad next to it, is this allowed? I wasn't sure if the original target not being able to overwatch stopped the supporting fire or not.

It is allowed.

Page 32 outlines what the supporting fire special rule does. No where in this special rule is the limitation that the target being charged needs to fire overwatch, or even be eligible to fire overwatch. The only limitation put forth is being within 6 inches of the charging unit's target. In fact, it goes on to state they treat the situation as if they where being charged themselves.

That's what I feared, I guess I might as well not take Swooping Hawks then! I was lucky he had no interceptor but they then got shot up and finished off by the overwatch :(

How did the warriors survive the grenade pack?

It scattered and killed 3.

I'm not sure if I'm amazingly unlucky with it but in 2 battles, it's killed....3 Firewarriors out of 3 large blasts!

That's almost as bad as a monolith getting a terrible accident!

Yeah, couple that with my Warp Spiders mishapping off the board and it wasn't the best turn

Tau with support fire can support fire ( overwatch ) for any unit, including allies ( i dunno about allies of convenience, but they do for battlebrothers ) and you can even buy a upgrade that allows Tau vehicles to overwatch with str 5 weaponry.

Or have Longdouche and overwatch with a railgun

Dracoknight wrote:
Tau with support fire can support fire ( overwatch ) for any unit, including allies ( i dunno about allies of convenience, but they do for battlebrothers)

It works for "friendly models," so this applies only to Codex Tau and to BBros. (It might also apply if your teammate is considered friendly, as was recently the case at a local doubles tourney I played in. Support those Necrons!).

For the person who stated they didn't know if it worked for allies of convenience:
It does not.

There is the limitation that the model with this ability is 'friendly' to the one that is being charged. While the allied table makes no sense, it does at least set the rules that allies of convenience are enemies you just can't target. I mean, really, the Tau are currently seizing territory from the imperium of man and are marked for exterminatus, but treat their elite forces as if they where Tau. However, I guess discussions over how confusion the allied table is can wait for another thread.

JinxDragon wrote:
For the person who stated they didn't know if it worked for allies of convenience:
It does not.

There is the limitation that the model with this ability is 'friendly' to the one that is being charged. While the allied table makes no sense, it does at least set the rules that allies of convenience are enemies you just can't target. I mean, really, the Tau are currently seizing territory from the imperium of man and are marked for exterminatus, but treat their elite forces as if they where Tau. However, I guess discussions over how confusion the allied table is can wait for another thread.

Long debate whether that is correct or not. The rule has no mention that the model with supporting fire must be friendly to the one being charged. Just that only friendly models may use this rule (like if you use tau as an ally of convenience then you cannot use supporting fire), the debate question boils down to "to whom are they friendly? the one being charged by the enemy or to the player?"

The model being charged because there is no way to tell if the model is friendly to the player, as we can't ask them how they think about the omnipresence controlling their actions.

Joking aside:
When it comes to level of alliance you do not create a blanket 'these models are friendly, these are enemies' at the very start of the game. It is only when you have to resolve actions between allied models that you calculate if they are friendly or not. To do otherwise creates unusual situations that the rules clearly did not intend for, such as denying an allied detachment from being able to target itself unless it is Battle Brothers with the primary detachment. For this, and other similar situations, reason I can not conclude that you are required to create a 'these models are enemy in all situation' at the very start of the game but need to address that only in the situations where powers and abilities would be used cross-codex.

I will state that I wish the rules in this regard where better written, the above does come from deduction and not from an obvious statement in the book telling you when to determine the level of alliance.

 shock_at wrote:


Long debate whether that is correct or not. The rule has no mention that the model with supporting fire must be friendly to the one being charged. Just that only friendly models may use this rule (like if you use tau as an ally of convenience then you cannot use supporting fire), the debate question boils down to "to whom are they friendly? the one being charged by the enemy or to the player?"

Wait, that is actually being debated?

Uhm... isn't it clear that whatever models have the rule, can use it? Why would anyone think friendly was referring to anything other than friendly to the ones with the rule? The way I read it, it would be they can support anything that is friendly to the models with the rule. Would you be so kind as to point me to that thread so I can either be educated, or have my IQ lowered please.

http://www.advancedtautactica.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=20559&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

When ATT locks a rules thread, you know the debate went nowhere (ie cyclic)

I think shock_at has a point, it's similar to the argument about whether or not allies of convenience deny objectives to your units by being near them.

It's generally accepted they don't because despite being treated as an enemy unit by your units they aren't truly enemy units, which would leave them being friendly units that your main force treats as enemy units because they certainly aren't neutral units.

So there is a way in which allies of convenience are friendly models and it all boils down to whether you view supporting fire as being taken from the player's point of reference, or the point of reference of the unit being charged.

of course the statement:

(like if you use tau as an ally of convenience then you cannot use supporting fire)

Is patently incorrect either way, at a minimum, tau taken as allies of convenience will be able to fire when tau from that same force are assaulted.

They did Errata that part to make it more clear, your allies of convenience are not 'enemy units' for the purpose of scoring as well as fighting in close combat.

Back in the Tau:
I do see what they are bringing up over there, and it is nothing to do with the alliance matrix. The argument is the rule being evoked is 'self contained' so it doesn't matter what unit the enemy is charging. As the Tau unit is treating the charge as if they where charged themselves, and they are always friendly to themselves, they will always be able to fire overwatch. Quite an interesting take and one that could gain traction, from a rules as written perspective.

The intent is still pretty clear though, the unit being charged has to be friendly.

 shock_at wrote:
http://www.advancedtautactica.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=20559&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

When ATT locks a rules thread, you know the debate went nowhere (ie cyclic)

Thanks for the link


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Drunkspleen wrote:
I think shock_at has a point, it's similar to the argument about whether or not allies of convenience deny objectives to your units by being near them.

It's generally accepted they don't because despite being treated as an enemy unit by your units they aren't truly enemy units, which would leave them being friendly units that your main force treats as enemy units because they certainly aren't neutral units.

So there is a way in which allies of convenience are friendly models and it all boils down to whether you view supporting fire as being taken from the player's point of reference, or the point of reference of the unit being charged.

of course the statement:

I never understood how that argument could exist either.

The desperate allies second paragraph of the BRB pg 112 states that, "Desperate allies are treated exactly like allies of convenience. Furthermore, if your primary detachment is in a desperate alliance, units from that allied detachment are non-scoring, nondenial."

If it is something that is in addition to the allies of convenience rules, then it is obviously not part of them normally... at least I can't believe it could be read any other way... but then people try to argue some rather silly things on these forums and call it raw.

Also with permission given for certain FOC to be scoring or denial given, and denial occurring only for desperate allies, I still can't see how one could try to make that argument. The BRB tells you exactly what being an allied enemy means at each level, and adding more stuff than what they say, is literally making restrictions up.