Switch Theme:

Protective fire.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut






In the spirit of the heroic intervention rule, i'd like to propose a rule that let a unit fire overwatch on an enemy that was attacking a nearby unit.

Say a unit of necron destroyers gets rushed by genestealers. A nearby hexmark could use this rule to overwatch fire on them in defense of the destroyers. Ovbvious we have to work out the ranges, like must in within x" blah blah.

But it could allow important units to be defended by other units. Like where those sneaky eldar DS some banshees to take out your heavy fire support units...

"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..." 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

I don't get what this rule is supposed to fix?

   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Valkyrie wrote:
I don't get what this rule is supposed to fix?


it allows a unit to help protect another unit from being charged in melee by doing OW on the unit attacking it. TBH i was thinking of buying a hexmark and wishing it was more useful so i could justify buying it. I hd the idea of it assigned to guard another unit buy OWing an enemy melee squad attacking it...)

"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..." 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




This is the sort of mechanic I think some niche/underpowered units could benefit from having. In the Troops thread, I talk about how I'd like to see some of the underpowered troops (and other units) get abilities that make you want to field them even though they might not be as durable or lethal as other units in your codex. Something like this could encourage me to buddy up some dire avengers or tactical marines with my specialists to help protect against charges.

Although hexmarks probably aren't a unit I'd be itching to give this rule to.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




This is a fix for a problem that doesn't exist. The game is already HEAVILY imbalanced toward shooting, I say keep the overwatch as is. 1CP per phase usage is great. Now melee focused armys can't get destroyed by deathstars. Tau got knocked off the throne, Drinks all around I say.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
This is a fix for a problem that doesn't exist. The game is already HEAVILY imbalanced toward shooting, I say keep the overwatch as is. 1CP per phase usage is great. Now melee focused armys can't get destroyed by deathstars. Tau got knocked off the throne, Drinks all around I say.

Not sure what you mean by those last bits. Tau definitely aren't on the throne at the moment and really haven't been since 9th started. Yet at the same time, Tau actually overwatch the same way they did last edition (free overwatch, hit on 5+ with the right sept, get to overwatch when their friends are charged). So keeping overwatch as it is wouldn't knock tau off of the throne that they're currently not on to begin with.

The gap between shooting and melee has also probably been reduced this edition between the smaller board sizes, expanded terrain rules, and the importance of being able to end your turn with a unit standing on an objective. That last bit is one of the reasons tau are struggling right now and one of the reasons so many tau threads suggest giving them a way to move in the charge phase or otherwise feel more comfortable charging the enemy.

You're not totally wrong about this being a fix looking for a problem though. I think it could be a bit of extra value for certain units that are considered low value for their cost, but I don't think this change would be a silver bullet for any current issues.
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

I suspect he's referring to Tau being knocked off the throne in general with the arrival of 8th Ed.

I still don't think it's necessary at all. Shooting armies still have a huge advantage in being able to fall back with very little penalty, made less so by the number of abilities letting a unit do something despite falling back.

If you had to change something about it I'd make overwatch a 0CP strat, meaning you can still only do it once a phase but aren't limited by a lack of CP. If there are one or two units which should thematically have this rule such as Hexmarks, then perhaps they can overwatch if the charged unit does so, but this shouldn't be a blanket rule.

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I could see this rule being somewhat useful and fluffy, often in tactical rpg shoot'em ups you can sit your soldiers in a defensive position and they will automatically fire on any enemy that appears in the ground their weapon is covering. Perhaps instead of shooting you can elect to "stand-overwatch" thus being if/when an enemy unit moves into your field of fire, you fire your weapons at them? maybe at -1 to hit sounds fair.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 15:46:52


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




So, the whole idea of this is to allow a unit that can either

1) actually overwatch for a unit with no ranged weapons.
2) overwatch with a unit with a better ranged attack than the unit being charged.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Jarms48 wrote:
So, the whole idea of this is to allow a unit that can either

1) actually overwatch for a unit with no ranged weapons.
2) overwatch with a unit with a better ranged attack than the unit being charged.


I feel like item #2 there is an undesirable goal. Powerful weapons getting extra shooting that shuts down charging units just because is a thing I was glad to see removed/reduced by the changes from 8th to 9th. Letting centurions/aggressors overwatch to protect their eradicator and bladeguard pals seems unnecessary.

Your proposal is a buff to whatever units get it. So I feel like it's greatest potential lies in making this a rule for undesirable units that could use a boost. Again, troops that are perceived as inferior versions of their elite counterparts seem like good candidates.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut





I feel like item #2 there is an undesirable goal. Powerful weapons getting extra shooting that shuts down charging units just because is a thing I was glad to see removed/reduced by the changes from 8th to 9th. Letting centurions/aggressors overwatch to protect their eradicator and bladeguard pals seems unnecessary.

Your proposal is a buff to whatever units get it. So I feel like it's greatest potential lies in making this a rule for undesirable units that could use a boost. Again, troops that are perceived as inferior versions of their elite counterparts seem like good candidates.


It's not my proposal, I'm just summarising the OP for Valkyrie. They asked what was the point of this.

My bad though, I forgot to quote it.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Jarms48 wrote:

I feel like item #2 there is an undesirable goal. Powerful weapons getting extra shooting that shuts down charging units just because is a thing I was glad to see removed/reduced by the changes from 8th to 9th. Letting centurions/aggressors overwatch to protect their eradicator and bladeguard pals seems unnecessary.

Your proposal is a buff to whatever units get it. So I feel like it's greatest potential lies in making this a rule for undesirable units that could use a boost. Again, troops that are perceived as inferior versions of their elite counterparts seem like good candidates.


It's not my proposal, I'm just summarising the OP for Valkyrie. They asked what was the point of this.

My bad though, I forgot to quote it.

Ah. Makes sense. My mutual bad.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: