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.

What if overwatch was dependent upon model facing I.E. I I charge you and only models that can see me can fire overwatch. The rack would be 180 degrees, I think this small change would make movement more tactical and assault armies more viable. What do you think??

It might do just what you say, but it would also slow the game down quite a bit as every time someone wants to fire Overwatch, you would have to check this angle of fire in addition to all the normal checks already (range, line of sight, etc) There is a reason fire arcs were removed from the game.

I think that would really just lead to a bunch of people facing all their models at weird angles so they could see anything coming at them. In most cases you're not just going to suddenly have your units in assault range, they'll see it coming and position their facing accordingly. Sort of like how tank movement you always think about what facing is where and what's about to/could hit it, then move your tank accordingly. The only way it would have a huge impact on the game would be if you had two units charging or approaching one unit and then you'd have to think about the fact you're using two units against one.

^What they said.

Best improvement to overwatch IMO is to resolve it at INT step 10 rather than before the charge connects.

what if you can only use pistols and assault weapons in over watch?

I think having just pistols and assault weapons in overwatch would severely imbalance the game. Your assault units would basically run right over units with hardly any damage to them if they did it right. For instance I play IG I already get my butt kicked in assaults on my infantry if I then had to reduce myself to only assault and pistols I'd have to rethink my load outs ie flamers in every squad, but I'd still not be effective. I hardly hit anyways with my lasguns on overwatch but it's something. I think in most cases where your assault squad is going to charge a unit here already at a distinct advantage just by virtue of the fact that they got there and will only be hit on a 6. To reduce that even further would basically gut most armies chance of survival if am assault unit got in the back lines, which already plays havoc with y anyways when that happens.

Going back to 2nd edition you could set a unit in overwatch by giving up your shooting phase for that unit. Then, during the opponent's turn, you could fire the unit at any point, at full BS. But back then games were smaller, (marines cost 35? points, genestealers 28) and all models could only fire in their facing. Did make for some very interesting set ups, especially when you knew an opponent had teleporting terminators or units that could Fly High such as elder swooping hawks and gargoyles.

As much as overwatch can mess up charging, I do like the present rules for it.

I think its a bit ridiculous personally. The enemy is in your face yet you have a much lower chance of hitting them? Plus on the other hand, if you get put out of charge range due to casualties the models stay where they were. So models are basically charging up to the enemy, realising they misjuged the charge by a few meters and instead of pushing on they turn around and run back to where they started. Riiiiiiiite...
But saying that I can't personally think of anything better which keeps balance. I LOVE Dakkamites idea though!

This would be a bad idea because "facing" is not defined for non-vehicle models. You would need to replace all of the round bases with square/hexagonal/etc bases with corners that can define a clear firing arc before you can even consider doing anything like this.

The only change that overwatch needs is that it should be resolved at full BS with blast weapons allowed to fire normally, but should have a penalty to the unit's melee attacks because they're shooting until the last second instead of drawing melee weapons and preparing to receive the charge.

Rumbleguts wrote:
Then, during the opponent's turn, you could fire the unit at any point, at full BS.

IIRC you coulnd't just decide to Overwatch in 2nd cos ou felt like it, there was one or more conditions to meet eg enemy moving out of cover. And it wasn't really full BS due to modifiers being a strong part of the shooting phase (was Overwatch itself -1 to hit..? I forget).

TBH I can take or leave Overwatch (more leave under it's current "oooh, roll for 6s" incarnation), IMO it's not suited to IGOUGO, at least not 40k's version of it, but fits better with alternating activation mechanics.

EDIT: actually after having a preliminary fiddle with the Freebooters Fate rules recently, I actually think a lot of games would have benefitted from using square bases because it's a very easy mechanism to determine arc of sight with.

IIRC you coulnd't just decide to Overwatch in 2nd cos ou felt like it, there was one or more conditions to meet eg enemy moving out of cover. And it wasn't really full BS due to modifiers being a strong part of the shooting phase (was Overwatch itself -1 to hit..? I forget).

I think it was like AROs in Infinity - see an enemy do something, you can shoot at them.

@Perry: That would be extremely unbalanced, and the blast weapon aspect makes no sense. Shooting at point blank is also a heck of a lot less effective than one may think

Overwatch should really just be called spray and pray because thats what your doing. the main thing that must be understood about this games is that a full game last what like 30seconds real time since all this is happing at the same time.

The Front arc issue used to just be solved with a line painted on the base. You just always had it there, and that was where your model was facing.

 Lemartes12 wrote:
Overwatch should really just be called spray and pray because thats what your doing. the main thing that must be understood about this games is that a full game last what like 30seconds real time since all this is happing at the same time.

Given the nightfighting rules of dawn dusk I'd say its more suposed to be in the hours (turn 1 can't see past 36, turn 2 can see any distance with no penalties). But yes overwatch should be hard because you have already had a shooting phase and now your getting another one for free as they arrive at you. Wasn't needed at all as far as I am concerned.

Why not have the unit make an Initiative test or Leadership test before it is allowed to fire Overwatch.

Initiative test would make sense in being "quick enough" to get the shot off.


Leadership test would make sense in the unit keeping it's cool long enough to fire rather than switch to melee weapons for the upcoming melee.

That would severly punish low I armies like Orks, Tau and Necrons IMO while benefitting armies like space marines and both types of eldar.

A LD test might work as the values for that are higher across the board between armies so there isn't a single army or group of armies that would be unduly punished by it.

Don't think overwatch needs more RNG to improve it. Its only really a problem when facing tau who are now virtually unassaultable unless you have multiple units ready to assault at once.

I'd say you could fix overwatch by:
1. getting rid of supporting fire or
2. giving it to everyone and reducing the cost of assault troops
3. Putting a minimum range for overwatch shots e.g. can't fire if enemy is closer than 6 inches.

The facy that tau can supporting fire and space marines can't is pretty funny

I think supporting fire should be a common rule as well (perhaps let Tau do it at 12" and everybody else 6").

rohansoldier: I think supporting fire should be a common rule as well (perhaps let Tau do it at 12" and everybody else 6").

The problem with that being that Tau fire warriors train especially to protect each other from charges. If other armies did that than it would make sense , but they don't.

Co'tor Shas wrote:


The problem with that being that Tau fire warriors train especially to protect each other from charges. If other armies did that than it would make sense

Overwatch is out of phase shooting,it increases rate of fire by giving you an additional opportunity to shoot under thematically appropriate conditions (similar to 'first rank second rank FIRE). But I don't see any fluff indicating Tau are specially trained to shoot at close range at unexpected targets any better than Ultramarines for example.

I think if the reaction trend continues e.g. overwatch, interceptor, hopefully we will see countercharge like beasts of nurgle have.

In the mean time I guess you just have to accept it an bring a dirge caster

 Peregrine wrote:
This would be a bad idea because "facing" is not defined for non-vehicle models. You would need to replace all of the round bases with square/hexagonal/etc bases with corners that can define a clear firing arc before you can even consider doing anything like this.

The only change that overwatch needs is that it should be resolved at full BS with blast weapons allowed to fire normally, but should have a penalty to the unit's melee attacks because they're shooting until the last second instead of drawing melee weapons and preparing to receive the charge.

This would nerf assault armies even more. It's essential saying "if you want to charge something, you have to face an extra round of shooting". In the current rules, that's almost akin to just standing in front of your enemy doing nothing for a turn.

The negative effect in melee is a decent idea, but most units that have (or potentially could have) a devastating overwatch are units that get obliterated in combat anyway, so it's giving them a huge advantage and not much of a disadvantage.

Honestly, I think overwatch is fine as it is. Most of the assault-based armies in 40k (Orks, BA, Tyranids, arguably SW) haven't been re-done yet. I think in these books we'll see (well, hopefully anyway), points values and abilities that take into account the fact that they will have to brave overwatch to make the most of them.

Shadow? My apologies but of all things it isn't worth arguing with Peregrine on this. He doesn't care if there are assault-based or even leaning armies. He doesn't care if there are certain IG regiments built for CC. He doesn't like assault in the slightest and wants it to be an almost worthless mechanic used only for last resorts and to flush out a bunker that has already been whiped out of all but one or two guys and even then a bullet is more important than blade. Apologies Peregrine, I actually respect much of your opinion but this is one thing that just I have to say as it never goes anywhere.

(also I'd argue that CSM are an army that leans towards CC. Also DA. These certainly have many shooty elements but it has always seemed like they lean a bit more to the side of assault than shooty (kinda like how SM lean towards shooting). And... well it doesn't really work in that book and I fear no SM book will get it to really function)

Just make over watch a reaction check (initiative check) to see if you can make the shots. (or if they had voluntarily gone to ground)

Watch as people stop complaining about tau cheese. (though Tau would need to be fix all together again.)

wtnind don't see any fluff indicating Tau are specially trained to shoot at close range at unexpected targets any better than Ultramarines for example.

It says in the tau codex that fire warriors are constantly drilled to keep overlapping lines of fire to protect each other from enemy assaults. I don't have my book with me right now, but I will give the page number when I do.

Co'tor Shas wrote:

It says in the tau codex that fire warriors are constantly drilled to keep overlapping lines of fire to protect each other from enemy assaults. I don't have my book with me right now, but I will give the page number when I do.

Pretty sure the Codex Astartes has a chapter for overlapping fields of fire.

Overwatch is fine, Tau's supporting fire make tau alot better and makes you assault tactically than just charge them , also forcing tau to group up than spread out across the baord. Supporting fire made tau better because their last codex was garbage. I used to demolish my friends tau with orks and now he actually stands a chance versus my never ending tide of orks and shots. The only shenanigan i think is they can fire marklights and the other sqaud can use them to raise their BS. But still it just makes the assaulter more consious of what he is assaulting.

Remeber there still firing at BS1 WORSE THAN AN ORK.

wtnind wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:

It says in the tau codex that fire warriors are constantly drilled to keep overlapping lines of fire to protect each other from enemy assaults. I don't have my book with me right now, but I will give the page number when I do.

Pretty sure the Codex Astartes has a chapter for overlapping fields of fire.

I have not read it so I would not know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Found the pages.
page 32: supporting fire
fluff says: Fire caste doctrine,as laid down in the Code of Fire, instructs all warriors to fight closely together, with each member of a team doing his utmost to protect not just his comrades, but nearby teams as well. Using overlapping fields of fire, all teams provide mutual support on the battlefield
page 37: fire warriors 5th paragraph
...Fire Warrior Teams drill endlessly in setting up overlapping fields of fire and positioning themselves so that they can efficiently protect other teams should they be attacked. Such rigorous training produces Fire Warriors to whom covering fire is second nature - able to send volleys of pulse fire at a foe closing upon their comrades with a single command flashed through the comm-system...