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.

Yaho,

Came up recently with our 3 years running title holder for Most Disagreeable Player

Given:

1. Steel Behemoth sentence 2 : "It can also still fire its weapons if enemy units are within 1" of it - but only its twin heavy bolter or twin heavy flamer can target units that are within 1" of it - its other guns must target other units".
2. BRB 182 "3. Overwatch" : A target unit can potentially fire overwatch several times a turn, though it cannot fire if there are any enemy models within 1" of it. Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack ...
3. A BaneHellSwordHammer overwatch fires everything at Penitent Engine A. P.E.A. which gets its charge in successfully, moving within 1" of the BaneHellSwordHammer.
4. Said BaneHellSwordHammer gets charged by Penitent Engine B.
5. P.E.B. can never be 1" away when starting its charge

Therefore:

As Steel Behemoth bypasses the only shooting limitation applying for the overwatch rule since the starting distance negates the Steel Behemoth limitation on just the sponson HBolters/HFLamers the BaneHellSwordHammer fires all its weapons at P.E.B.

The question is, what concocted reason is there that I cant shoot the bejazus out if the half built, unpainted P.E.B?.

Sadly he managed to make me lose my composure so I lost my objectivity, but seriously, am I missing something?

HIWPI is that it can fire Overwatch regardless of units being within 1".

This would mean you could fire everything as Overwatch at PEB

If both make it and survive, in your own turn you could shoot them, but only with the sponson weaponry/hull twin-HB. I believe this is how the rules are intended to be parsed.

It cannot overwatch for the same reason a unit of tactical marines with an enemy unit within 1" cannot overwatch with its pistols. Overwatch denial is separate from normal denial.

You cannot overwatch with units within 1 inch. That restriction is never lifted by the Steel Behemoth rule.

Specific rule over rides the more general rule of "Cannot over watch when units are within 1"

I'd say youre good to go. My opinion.

Steel Beheamoth is not specific to over-watch, it is specific to 1. Choose Unit to Shoot With

Some other rules to consider:
A unit with this ability has a 5+ invulnerable save against Shooting or Overwatch
attacks, and a 4+ invulnerable save against Melee attacks in the Fight phase
- Layered Atomantic Barriers: (Forgeworld)

No Macro weapon may be used to make Overwatch attacks.
- Macro Weapons (forgeworld)

: Enemy units cannot fire
Overwatch at Jain Zar or at friendly units of Howling
Banshees within 6".
- Cry of War Unending

Mass Hypnosis has a warp charge value of 7. If manifested, select a visible enemy
unit within 18" of the psyker. Until the start of your next Psychic phase, the target
cannot fire Overwatch, fights last in the Fight phase even if it charged, and must
subtract 1 from its hit rolls.
- Mass Hypnosis

Enemy units cannot fire overwatch at
your Warlord.
- Silent Stalker


There are many examples where the Authors treat Overwatch differently to normal Shooting attacks, singling them out for additional instructions or restricting people from even carrying out Overwatch in the first place. All these additional modifications and restrictions have nothing to do with the default shooting Rules, and there is no reason to believe that Shooting Restrictions (or the revoking of a Restriction via a specific Exception) are meant to interact with Overwatch in a unique way either. While I would be willing to allow Models with Steel Behemoth to fire Overwatch, the Authors need to inform us better if that was their intend because Overwatch does not equal Shooting.

If you can't be selected to Fire Overwatch, because they are within 1 inch, then you can not fire a single weapon.
If you can be selected to Fire Overwatch, even if they are within 1 inch due to a specific ability, then you shoot at the charging Unit with everything you have!

Yeah this player seems to be conflating "fire overwatch," which is a reaction to being charged, and "shoot", which is resolving the sequence described in steps 1-4 or the shooting phase. Both are separately forbidden if units are within 1".

I.e., there are two separate rules
1. Units cannot shoot if an enemy unit is within 1" of them
1. Units cannot fire overwatch if an enemy unit is within 1" of them

Steel Behemoth only negates the first one.

So there *is* actually a legitimate debate to be had on this. Good stuff!

I'll refer to this bit several times so:

BRB Pg 182/ Core Rules pg 8 Overwatch wrote:
[a.] Each time a charge is declared against a unit, the target unit can immediately fire overwatch at the would-be attacker.
[b.] A target unit can potentially fire Overwatch several times a turn, though it cannot fire if there are any enemy models within 1" of it.
[c.] Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy's Charge phase) and uses all the normal rules except that a 6 is always required for a succesful hit roll, irrespective of the firing model's ballistic skill

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
It cannot overwatch for the same reason a unit of tactical marines with an enemy unit within 1" cannot overwatch with its pistols. Overwatch denial is separate from normal denial.

Steel behemoth does not grant a ' can shoot in the shooting phase if within 1"' exception, it grants "can fire its weapons if enemy units are within 1"' with the sponson limitations on range applying afterwards.The use of 'Fire' instead of anything that would reference BRB 179 point 1's unit selection matches the choice of verb in the quoted Overwatch point B. Therefore, Steel Behemoth's wording directly contradicts the Overwatch point b. limitation in this case
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JinxDragon wrote:
Steel Beheamoth is not specific to over-watch, it is specific to 1. Choose Unit to Shoot With

I'd have to contradict you there; (assuming you're referring to Shooting Phase: 1. Choose a unit to shoot with)
If the clause that would otherwise disqualify the B/H/S/H from shooting in the shooting phase is 'You may not pick a unit ... that is within 1" of an enemy unit.' the corresponding Overwatch clause (point b. above) is '...if there are models within 1"' - the only written distinction between them is model <-> unit.

 JinxDragon wrote:

No Macro weapon may be used to make Overwatch attacks.
- Macro Weapons (forgeworld)

This is particularly relevant as the God Engine rule grants a similar firing 're-qualifier' as Steel Behemoth. Which in my Reaver's case for example would mean it cant shoot the volcano cannon in overwatch, but could unload the mega-bolter at everything that charged it.

 JinxDragon wrote:

There are many examples where the Authors treat Overwatch differently to normal Shooting attacks, singling them out for additional instructions or restricting people from even carrying out Overwatch in the first place. All these additional modifications and restrictions have nothing to do with the default shooting Rules, and there is no reason to believe that Shooting Restrictions (or the revoking of a Restriction via a specific Exception) are meant to interact with Overwatch in a unique way either.

Overwatch point C would disagree with you on that last sentence, as it's is "resolved like a normal shooting attack". Explicit overwatch affecting rules, such as macro apply to overwatch only, rules that affect shooting apply to both, with the written exception of 6's to hit. For example there's no disqualifer for using an Armorium Cherub in overwatch.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Yeah this player seems to be conflating "fire overwatch," which is a reaction to being charged, and "shoot", which is resolving the sequence described in steps 1-4 or the shooting phase. Both are separately forbidden if units are within 1".

I.e., there are two separate rules
1. Units cannot shoot if an enemy unit is within 1" of them
1. Units cannot fire overwatch if an enemy unit is within 1" of them

Steel Behemoth only negates the first one.

As per earlier; the disqualifier as written for both is 'model/unit within 1"'. Steel Behemoth/Imperial God Engine's re-qualifier is 'can fire its weapons even if models are within 1"' within the additional limitations.

What is the point of highlighting that one Rule uses 'Units' and one uses 'Models' when the effect on the table top is identical?
There is no point in focusing on the distances of Models or the Units, that is not the part of the Restriction that people are pointing to. The Authors have a lot of Rules that are very specific to Overwatch, which is why I brought a handful up to show that they specifically use the word Overwatch. They are only a handful too, such Rules are scattered throughout the Codex's and all of them indicate that the Authors tell us when an ability can be used in Overwatch, and how it effects any attacks made during this period of time. As Steel Behemoth does not grant select the Unit to fire Overwatch because it never uses the word Overwatch when it talks about firing weapons within 1 inch of the enemy.

Simply cutting half the sentence and saying 'these parts are similar, 1 inch measurement, and thus both Restrictions are revoked' does not sway me in the slightest....

A thought that might help:
If the line about using 'normal shooting rules' and 'within 1 inch' are referring directly to 1. Choose Unit to Shoot With, and thus are being overturned by Steel Behemoth indirectly:
It could simply say Charged units can fire over-watch, as per Shooting Rules... so why would Overwatch need a near-identical worded Restriction at all?
The Authors deliberately reworded the Shooting Restriction and applies this new wording along side instructions to use the Shooting Sequences which included the original Restriction.

Personally:
I am going to wait till they answer this one by a Frequently Asked Question or piece of Errata, where I fully expect them to grant the ability to Overwatch.

 JinxDragon wrote:

I am going to wait till they answer this one by a Frequently Asked Question or piece of Errata, where I fully expect them to grant the ability to Overwatch.

I'll ask the question myself, kindly join in.

You've managed to convince me that Overwatch imposes its own condition before resolving the shooting condition which Steel Behemoth/God Engine ignores, but that *seems* to go against the point of having the rule.

Malamis: pistol is not shooting phase specific either. Pistol: "A model can fire a Pistol even if their are enemy units within 1" of its own unit,"

Overwatch has 2 restrictions against firing within 1"; step 1 of the shooting phase, and its own rules. Pistol and the various super-heavy vehicle rules only remove the shooting phase restrictions(and the super heavy rules still won't let you fire at a unit within 1" if their is another friendly unit within 1"

This is very similar to the "Can MCs fire two weapons in Overwatch" from 7th. 8th is meant to be a much simpler ruleset and when you start breaking down parts of rules to explain why something cannot happen, you are probably getting away from what the rule says.

I would allow it to Overwatch.

Fragile wrote:
This is very similar to the "Can MCs fire two weapons in Overwatch" from 7th. 8th is meant to be a much simpler ruleset and when you start breaking down parts of rules to explain why something cannot happen, you are probably getting away from what the rule says.

I would allow it to Overwatch.

That's your call, of course, but I'll play it the other way simply because if GW had actually intended for Steel Behemoth to also allow Overwatch, they would have simply said so.
The disassembly of the rules happens when you say "ok so if I am allowed to Shoot while in combat, surely I can also Overwatch while in combat since part of the Overwatch is that you Shoot". And that's a) "breaking down parts of the rules" to explain why you went from "being able to Shoot" to "being able to Shoot and Overwatch" and b) simply a false conclusion.
Blackjack, cocaine and hookers aren't all legal just because Blackjack is, even though they colloquially come as a package. Same principle applies here.

Yeah, I think this is solidly one of those "work it out with your mates for now, and hope for an FAQ" ones, because both Jinx', Kel' and Malamis' interpretations of the rules interplay are ll fairly solidly reasoned, and a lot of it really hinges on whether the 1" rule in overwatch is a separate exception, or simply a reiteration of the 1" rule in shooting, since it is resolved using "normal shooting rules".

I would personally land on the side of separate exemption, otherwise they could have just said "normal shooting rules" and left it at that, but that's just me, and it's not like GW has never put redundant reminders in rules

nekooni wrote:

Fragile wrote:
This is very similar to the "Can MCs fire two weapons in Overwatch" from 7th. 8th is meant to be a much simpler ruleset and when you start breaking down parts of rules to explain why something cannot happen, you are probably getting away from what the rule says.

I would allow it to Overwatch.

That's your call, of course, but I'll play it the other way simply because if GW had actually intended for Steel Behemoth to also allow Overwatch, they would have simply said so.
The disassembly of the rules happens when you say "ok so if I am allowed to Shoot while in combat, surely I can also Overwatch while in combat since part of the Overwatch is that you Shoot". And that's a) "breaking down parts of the rules" to explain why you went from "being able to Shoot" to "being able to Shoot and Overwatch" and b) simply a false conclusion.
Blackjack, cocaine and hookers aren't all legal just because Blackjack is, even though they colloquially come as a package. Same principle applies here.

And assault weapons cannot fire RAW. You completely missed the point.

Fragile wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Fragile wrote:
This is very similar to the "Can MCs fire two weapons in Overwatch" from 7th. 8th is meant to be a much simpler ruleset and when you start breaking down parts of rules to explain why something cannot happen, you are probably getting away from what the rule says.

I would allow it to Overwatch.

That's your call, of course, but I'll play it the other way simply because if GW had actually intended for Steel Behemoth to also allow Overwatch, they would have simply said so.
The disassembly of the rules happens when you say "ok so if I am allowed to Shoot while in combat, surely I can also Overwatch while in combat since part of the Overwatch is that you Shoot". And that's a) "breaking down parts of the rules" to explain why you went from "being able to Shoot" to "being able to Shoot and Overwatch" and b) simply a false conclusion.
Blackjack, cocaine and hookers aren't all legal just because Blackjack is, even though they colloquially come as a package. Same principle applies here.

And assault weapons cannot fire RAW. You completely missed the point.

So then are we allowed to multiple Overwatch if a unit is equipped with pistols?

Imho since the Overwatch rule clearly specifies you can't perform it if there is units within 1" Steel Behemoth shouldn't be able to. ( and this restriction it's built in the Overwatch rule before they told you to resolve it like a normal shooting attack)

Fragile wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Fragile wrote:
This is very similar to the "Can MCs fire two weapons in Overwatch" from 7th. 8th is meant to be a much simpler ruleset and when you start breaking down parts of rules to explain why something cannot happen, you are probably getting away from what the rule says.

I would allow it to Overwatch.

That's your call, of course, but I'll play it the other way simply because if GW had actually intended for Steel Behemoth to also allow Overwatch, they would have simply said so.
The disassembly of the rules happens when you say "ok so if I am allowed to Shoot while in combat, surely I can also Overwatch while in combat since part of the Overwatch is that you Shoot". And that's a) "breaking down parts of the rules" to explain why you went from "being able to Shoot" to "being able to Shoot and Overwatch" and b) simply a false conclusion.
Blackjack, cocaine and hookers aren't all legal just because Blackjack is, even though they colloquially come as a package. Same principle applies here.

And assault weapons cannot fire RAW. You completely missed the point.

Totally incorrect.

Assault weapons fire just fine by RAW.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Fragile wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Fragile wrote:
This is very similar to the "Can MCs fire two weapons in Overwatch" from 7th. 8th is meant to be a much simpler ruleset and when you start breaking down parts of rules to explain why something cannot happen, you are probably getting away from what the rule says.

I would allow it to Overwatch.

That's your call, of course, but I'll play it the other way simply because if GW had actually intended for Steel Behemoth to also allow Overwatch, they would have simply said so.
The disassembly of the rules happens when you say "ok so if I am allowed to Shoot while in combat, surely I can also Overwatch while in combat since part of the Overwatch is that you Shoot". And that's a) "breaking down parts of the rules" to explain why you went from "being able to Shoot" to "being able to Shoot and Overwatch" and b) simply a false conclusion.
Blackjack, cocaine and hookers aren't all legal just because Blackjack is, even though they colloquially come as a package. Same principle applies here.

And assault weapons cannot fire RAW. You completely missed the point.

Totally incorrect.

Assault weapons fire just fine by RAW.

Not totally incorrect; there's RAW silliness if the unit had advanced. Models had been given permission to fire, but the unit doesn't have permission to be selected to fire, so you don't get to the models firing. We know what they meant for it to do, though, so people don't play by the silly RAW.

Yeah; RAW assault weapons can fire just fine(whether advancing or not), it is just that the unit cannot be selected to fire them.

That is not a problem with the assault weapons, it is a problem with the unit selection rules.

Yet it's still a RAW problem for firing asault weapons if the unit advanced, whether you see it as a problem with the assault weapons or the unit selection rules (and an argument can be made that it gets back to the assault weapons because their rules weren't written to make the exception for the unit selection rules like they should have).

Can I point out that both of you are simply debating where Game Workshop screwed up?
Even I would have stopped chuckling and moved on at this point... no, no, actually I wouldn't.

Excuse me while I go over here and chuckle some more over the assault weapon problem.

Fragile wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Fragile wrote:
This is very similar to the "Can MCs fire two weapons in Overwatch" from 7th. 8th is meant to be a much simpler ruleset and when you start breaking down parts of rules to explain why something cannot happen, you are probably getting away from what the rule says.

I would allow it to Overwatch.

That's your call, of course, but I'll play it the other way simply because if GW had actually intended for Steel Behemoth to also allow Overwatch, they would have simply said so.
The disassembly of the rules happens when you say "ok so if I am allowed to Shoot while in combat, surely I can also Overwatch while in combat since part of the Overwatch is that you Shoot". And that's a) "breaking down parts of the rules" to explain why you went from "being able to Shoot" to "being able to Shoot and Overwatch" and b) simply a false conclusion.
Blackjack, cocaine and hookers aren't all legal just because Blackjack is, even though they colloquially come as a package. Same principle applies here.

And assault weapons cannot fire RAW. You completely missed the point.

And it's completely unrelated, so what is your point?

Assault Weapons wouldn't make sense without being able to fire.
Steel Behemoth does make sense even without it affecting Overwatch.
That's a huge difference when you come from "use common sense" point of view.

Nekooni; it is related in the exact opposite way that fragile intended. Assault weapons ate trying to allow themselves to be fired even when the unit advances(a specific allowance on the basic Advance rules) the reason that RAW shenanigans say they still cannot fire is that the unit cannot be selected to fire. This was poor writing on GW's part because both unit selection and Advanced state you cannot shoot if you have Advanced; they did not need to include the restriction in selecting a unit to shoot(and technically advancing precludes "instead of shooting" abilities because you cannot even select the unit in the shooting phase as opposed to simply following the Advanced rules not allowing the unit to shoot). Overwatch is an entirely separate denial of shooting, where pistol would not being able to function due to unit selection for shooting would be a more accurate similarity; and still denies pistols in overwatch.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Nekooni; it is related in the exact opposite way that fragile intended. Assault weapons ate trying to allow themselves to be fired even when the unit advances(a specific allowance on the basic Advance rules) the reason that RAW shenanigans say they still cannot fire is that the unit cannot be selected to fire. This was poor writing on GW's part because both unit selection and Advanced state you cannot shoot if you have Advanced; they did not need to include the restriction in selecting a unit to shoot(and technically advancing precludes "instead of shooting" abilities because you cannot even select the unit in the shooting phase as opposed to simply following the Advanced rules not allowing the unit to shoot). Overwatch is an entirely separate denial of shooting, where pistol would not being able to function due to unit selection for shooting would be a more accurate similarity; and still denies pistols in overwatch.

I didn't ask for an explanation of the Assault weapons issue, but thank you anyway. I'm still not seeing the point fragile claims I'm missing, though - but that's not your fault.

Please, forgive me; I did not realize you two were having a private conversation.

Lord Perversor wrote:

Fragile wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Fragile wrote:
This is very similar to the "Can MCs fire two weapons in Overwatch" from 7th. 8th is meant to be a much simpler ruleset and when you start breaking down parts of rules to explain why something cannot happen, you are probably getting away from what the rule says.

I would allow it to Overwatch.

That's your call, of course, but I'll play it the other way simply because if GW had actually intended for Steel Behemoth to also allow Overwatch, they would have simply said so.
The disassembly of the rules happens when you say "ok so if I am allowed to Shoot while in combat, surely I can also Overwatch while in combat since part of the Overwatch is that you Shoot". And that's a) "breaking down parts of the rules" to explain why you went from "being able to Shoot" to "being able to Shoot and Overwatch" and b) simply a false conclusion.
Blackjack, cocaine and hookers aren't all legal just because Blackjack is, even though they colloquially come as a package. Same principle applies here.

And assault weapons cannot fire RAW. You completely missed the point.

So then are we allowed to multiple Overwatch if a unit is equipped with pistols?

Imho since the Overwatch rule clearly specifies you can't perform it if there is units within 1" Steel Behemoth shouldn't be able to. ( and this restriction it's built in the Overwatch rule before they told you to resolve it like a normal shooting attack)

No, because a pistol states that you need to target the closest enemy unit when you're within 1" of an enemy. Steel behemoth doesn't seem to have this restriction.

Oh geeze. I run a superheavy tank company and every opponent I've ever played (including the judges and my 8 games at the nova open) agreed that Steel Behemoth meant the vehicles could still overwatch even if there was an enemy unit within 1"

Now I am worried I cheated.

The reason we agreed it worked on overwatch is that it says "May still fire its weapons" rather than "may shoot in the shooting phase" (or whatever). Here's the logic chain we used:

1) Models have blanket permission to fire their weapons in Overwatch and the Shooting Phase.

2) This permission is revoked (in both cases) for units with enemy units within 1".

3) That revocation of permission is overriden by saying "may still fire it's weapons if enemy units are within 1 inch" restoring the categorical permission to fire their weapons in Shooting and Overwatch mentioned in step 1.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh geeze. I run a superheavy tank company and every opponent I've ever played (including the judges and my 8 games at the nova open) agreed that Steel Behemoth meant the vehicles could still overwatch even if there was an enemy unit within 1"

Now I am worried I cheated.

The reason we agreed it worked on overwatch is that it says "May still fire its weapons" rather than "may shoot in the shooting phase" (or whatever). Here's the logic chain we used:

1) Models have blanket permission to fire their weapons in Overwatch and the Shooting Phase.

2) This permission is revoked (in both cases) for units with enemy units within 1".

3) That revocation of permission is overriden by saying "may still fire it's weapons if enemy units are within 1 inch" restoring the categorical permission to fire their weapons in Shooting and Overwatch mentioned in step 1.

I would agree with your logic.

I've been using the same. Seems reasonable to me.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh geeze. I run a superheavy tank company and every opponent I've ever played (including the judges and my 8 games at the nova open) agreed that Steel Behemoth meant the vehicles could still overwatch even if there was an enemy unit within 1"

Now I am worried I cheated.

The reason we agreed it worked on overwatch is that it says "May still fire its weapons" rather than "may shoot in the shooting phase" (or whatever). Here's the logic chain we used:

1) Models have blanket permission to fire their weapons in Overwatch and the Shooting Phase.

2) This permission is revoked (in both cases) for units with enemy units within 1".

3) That revocation of permission is overriden by saying "may still fire it's weapons if enemy units are within 1 inch" restoring the categorical permission to fire their weapons in Shooting and Overwatch mentioned in step 1.

Well, either you played it correctly (in which case it would not be cheating) or your opponent and you agreed (as well as TOs) in which case it is a house rule agreed upon by players and is not cheating.