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.

A nice overwatch change would be:

if you fire overwatch you cannot fire in your next shooting phase

if you fire interceptor shots you cannot fire the weapons used until after your next shooting phase. This would now include overwatch.

I don't think 7th ed will be any better, honestly. They continually prove utter incompetence in writing balanced rules. 7th ed will be just as broken, just in some other way.

Without re-doing the point costs in all the codexes and removing all the random-table crap (psychic powers, warlord traits), you're still going to have silly broken games.

Experiment 626 wrote:

*IF* consolidation is making a return, then it should be done ala Fantasy version of the Overrun rule, meaning you only get it if you wipe out the enemy on the turn you charge.

That'd also elegantly solve the issue of assault units not wanting to break the enemy on the charge.

Still holding my breath for a full re-write, instead of poking and prodding little tiny parts and calling it a new edition. Tweaking Overwatch doesn't really make a new game in my opinion. I look at the jumps between Dungeons and Dragons editions, and love them or hate them, they were fully new games with new mechanics. I think GW is big enough to release fully updated codexes with a new re-write, especially when they are basically focusing on two games only. Just imagine how exciting that'd be?!

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Is this from the same source that said:

tryanid warriors would get EW with synapse
snapshots only against genestealers etc
Combined mycetic spore/hive node kit etc etc etc. ?

Ie, of course as nid and ork players we'd like to see this, but ain't it just an exercise wishful thinking?

It's coming from 40k Radio's source, which, so far, has been remarkably accurate with rumors.

blaktoof wrote:
if you fire overwatch you cannot fire in your next shooting phase

This is a horrible change because it either removes overwatch entirely, or changes nothing, depending on the overwatching unit. Units that expect to either get slaughtered in close combat or spend their next shooting phase locked in combat will always overwatch since they aren't going to shoot next turn anyway, while units that expect to repel a suicide charge and be free to act normally next turn will never use overwatch.

 Peregrine wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
if you fire overwatch you cannot fire in your next shooting phase

This is a horrible change ...

I completely agree with your analysis, which is why I believe this rumour and that we'll see this change. It's exactly the sort of crap change that GW will make, thinking it will address an issue - but actually not helping at all.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
if you fire overwatch you cannot fire in your next shooting phase

This is a horrible change ...

I completely agree with your analysis, which is why I believe this rumour and that we'll see this change. It's exactly the sort of crap change that GW will make, thinking it will address an issue - but actually not helping at all.

I disagree. On long and short distances there wont be much of a decision, but on 7"-9" you might kill the first model and he might fail the charge because of that. You wont be able to shoot next turn, but you wouldnt be anyway if he would have made it. So you get the opportunity to kill them with your other units and reposition the guys who have overwatched instead of loosing a unit in CC without beeing able to shoot the attacker in your Shooting phase, cause they are locked in combat. Another Thing is: its not always gunline versus CC-crowd. Maybe you have your own Assault Squads and start a Counter attack to get your shooty guys some time to get away.

This rule is a small upgrade for Assault based armies. It wont rebalance Ranged and Close combat, but its a step in the right direction.

I dont know the exact mechanics, but i think actual machineguns dont fire at higher RPM as normal if there are som targets getting close. So why should they in 40k? Well, mayb we can call it "Power of the gun Spirit"... No really, current overwatch has to be fixed.

Every new rules edition make pain.
So, maybe we can play with old rules, like 3ed/4ed/5ed.
But I think no one will play that, because people ALWAYS PREPEARING FOR TOURNAMENT

CP'd from another thread: As long as GW clings to the codex/army book model, their games will always inherently be unbalanced. The lack of playtesting excused by "hey, it's not meant to be played competitively" is an atrocious policy for a game company to have. They need to be a game company first and a model company second for them to produce a decent game, and unless they change ownership I don't think that's going to ever happen.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
if you fire overwatch you cannot fire in your next shooting phase

This is a horrible change ...

I completely agree with your analysis, which is why I believe this rumour and that we'll see this change. It's exactly the sort of crap change that GW will make, thinking it will address an issue - but actually not helping at all.

I agree that if you fully lose your shooting next turn it will be to harsh. So if they change it so the unit that overwatched can only snap in the next turn that might be somewhat more balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the assault part I think (or atleast hope) that if you can consilidate-charge into another unit then it will not trigger another combat that turn, only on the other players combat phase.
Since this will force you to be more tactical with unit placement and will give assault troops a much needed buff without making deathstars an insta-win, gameboard sweeper.

 salix_fatuus wrote:
I agree that if you fully lose your shooting next turn it will be to harsh. So if they change it so the unit that overwatched can only snap in the next turn that might be somewhat more balanced.

No, it's still the same result because the next-turn penalty will never matter.

Dedicated shooting units like fire warriors and guardsmen will always fire overwatch. If they get charged they die in a single turn and won't be alive to shoot next turn, making the penalty irrelevant. You could change it to "units that fire overwatch are immediately removed as casualties after resolving their shooting" and it wouldn't make one bit of difference.

Attrition melee units like IG blob squads or tactical squads facing a charge from another tactical squad will always fire overwatch. Combat is almost guaranteed to extend into the next player turn, and a "you can't shoot this turn" penalty is irrelevant when you're already locked in combat and unable to shoot.

Dedicated melee units won't care either way, since their shooting is pretty much irrelevant.

The only time the penalty ever matters is if you have the rare situation where a unit with meaningful shooting is facing a weak or extremely long-distance charge that is likely to leave them free to shoot next turn, but even in that case losing overwatch doesn't really matter because you're probably going to win combat without it. If the rumor is true it's yet another case of GW throwing random ideas into the rulebook without any coherent plan behind them.

I'm not expecting it to change anything because I don't believe it's coming.

 Peregrine wrote:

 salix_fatuus wrote:
I agree that if you fully lose your shooting next turn it will be to harsh. So if they change it so the unit that overwatched can only snap in the next turn that might be somewhat more balanced.

No, it's still the same result because the next-turn penalty will never matter.

Dedicated shooting units like fire warriors and guardsmen will always fire overwatch. If they get charged they die in a single turn and won't be alive to shoot next turn, making the penalty irrelevant. You could change it to "units that fire overwatch are immediately removed as casualties after resolving their shooting" and it wouldn't make one bit of difference.

Attrition melee units like IG blob squads or tactical squads facing a charge from another tactical squad will always fire overwatch. Combat is almost guaranteed to extend into the next player turn, and a "you can't shoot this turn" penalty is irrelevant when you're already locked in combat and unable to shoot.

Dedicated melee units won't care either way, since their shooting is pretty much irrelevant.

The only time the penalty ever matters is if you have the rare situation where a unit with meaningful shooting is facing a weak or extremely long-distance charge that is likely to leave them free to shoot next turn, but even in that case losing overwatch doesn't really matter because you're probably going to win combat without it. If the rumor is true it's yet another case of GW throwing random ideas into the rulebook without any coherent plan behind them.

So you allways succeed a 12" or even a 5" assault? The reason its so strong now is that if you fail you will get 2 turns geting shot at and +2overwatch (or in worst case 3 +3) before you get into cc. This will in situation when its a long charge force the shooting player to either use his overwatch since the enemy might succeed or wait and get to shoot at full bs next turn.
The only time it wouldn't matter is if the assaulting unit is within 2" because of as the game is now a charge from 9-10" and above is to much of a risk and if you fight Tau with SF/ML its on the border of suicide.

 Peregrine wrote:

 salix_fatuus wrote:
I agree that if you fully lose your shooting next turn it will be to harsh. So if they change it so the unit that overwatched can only snap in the next turn that might be somewhat more balanced.

No, it's still the same result because the next-turn penalty will never matter.

Incorrect. It will sometimes matter, as instead of assault units never bothering with 9" charges (or 10" with fleet) due to the pain of overwatch not being worth it - they run instead to get to within 5" or s, they may now take a gamble. You, in turn, have to gamble as to whether shooting overwatch is worth it or not

but then we know your dislike of assault, so any mild crumb to assault is something you seem willing to dismiss readily.

Note: I have not said if I think thiis is a good idea or not, or will fix the current stupid imbalance between shooting and assault.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It will sometimes matter, as instead of assault units never bothering with 9" charges (or 10" with fleet) due to the pain of overwatch not being worth it - they run instead to get to within 5" or s, they may now take a gamble.

Except it's not a gamble anymore. If you declare a charge from 12" away there's no way I'm going to spend my shooting on overwatch instead of shooting effectively next turn, so now you're free to declare every 12" charge you can instead of having to decide whether your chances with the random charge range dice are worth it or not. Failing the roll no longer has any penalty for you, and occasionally you'll get lucky and roll double 6s. And even in the unlikely event that I do overwatch you're still coming out ahead because even if you fail to charge you've successfully reduced my shooting phase to snap shots and probably haven't lost many models (if you've lost any at all). If the correct decision is always "charge" then why have random charge distances at all?

You, in turn, have to gamble as to whether shooting overwatch is worth it or not

But it's also not really much of a gamble. If you have any realistic hope of making the charge then 99% of the time I'm going to shoot overwatch, because I'm not going to be shooting next turn anyway (either my unit is dead or locked in combat) and have nothing to lose. It's only a "gamble" when you're talking about long charges that are unlikely to succeed, but all that really produces is table-flipping frustration when you make the correct choice (don't fire overwatch against a 12" charge) and your opponent gets to punish you for it because they got really lucky dice. It's just stupid game design either way, you either have boring non-decisions or more "cinematic" randomness.

but then we know your dislike of assault, so any mild crumb to assault is something you seem willing to dismiss readily.

I'm not against this because it helps assault, I'm against it because it's yet another stupid rule that adds to the bloated mess of rules without actually accomplishing enough to justify its existence. If you want to improve assault, improve assault. Don't add random ineffective rules just because you happened to have an idea.

Again: you gamble on risking the 12" charge now, to still have to potentially move and assault next turn, OR you run. Currently there is no point to trying 12" charges - usually - so you run, instead.

So no, your "never" is just incorrect. Is it very situational? Yes. Never said otherwise. However it is not "never" (or "always charge", either)

Except it's not a gamble anymore. If you declare a charge from 12" away there's no way I'm going to spend my shooting on overwatch instead of shooting effectively next turn, so now you're free to declare every 12" charge you can instead of having to decide whether your chances with the random charge range dice are worth it or not. Failing the roll no longer has any penalty for you, and occasionally you'll get lucky and roll double 6s.

WRONG! If i decrlare a charge i cannot run anymore, so you get the chance to get away next turn. You fire overwatch, I fail the Charge, you move 6 and run another d6 cause you cant fire anyway and your out of the dangerzone.

But it's also not really much of a gamble. If you have any realistic hope of making the charge then 99% of the time I'm going to shoot overwatch, because I'm not going to be shooting next turn anyway (either my unit is dead or locked in combat) and have nothing to lose. It's only a "gamble" when you're talking about long charges that are unlikely to succeed, but all that really produces is table-flipping frustration when you make the correct choice (don't fire overwatch against a 12" charge) and your opponent gets to punish you for it because they got really lucky dice. It's just stupid game design either way, you either have boring non-decisions or more "cinematic" randomness.

I guess in youre world is only black and white... distances about 7"-9" are the greyscale. I have to gamble my run movement and you youre shootingphase.

I'm not against this because it helps assault, I'm against it because it's yet another stupid rule that adds to the bloated mess of rules without actually accomplishing enough to justify its existence. If you want to improve assault, improve assault. Don't add random ineffective rules just because you happened to have an idea.

In my opinion the fact that overwatch is actually a free turn of shooting without any disadvantages is justification enough. The other option would be to remove overwatch completely.


Sry but it seems to me youre some of those gunline players, probably tau, who dont want to loose his extreme advantages over assault armies. This rule wouldnt balance gunlines and CC-lists, i agree on that, but it would definitely effect the game in favour of assault based armies.

Glad I didn't actually BUY the Stronghold, or Escalation crap, and sorry for the people that did...

Sad that I BOUGHT the big hardcover rulebook, which I assume will come out months before we see a new starter set.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And once again, this will just lead to Veteran players getting old edition rules confused with the new editions.

I cant even tell you how many times someone tries to throw some 4th edition rule into 6th and tell me that I am wrong about it. Just when I thought we could have games without rule-checking every 4 minutes... *grumble*

How about...

A unit is charged.
1. It can pass a morale check and snapshot overwatch and fight normally if there is CC.
2. It can pass morale check and fire normally overwatch and fight at initiative 1 first round (for expending so much ammo/time firing), if there is CC.
3. Pass morale and Fallback d6 or 2d6. If d6 then can only snapfire next turn due to travel time/redressing lines. If 2d6, can't fire next turn due to travel time/redressing lines. Units with atsknf can't voluntarily fall back. This would give a little love to chaos.
4. Fail morale and run backwards d6 or 2d6 (whatever is balanced).

Charging units that pass morale advance what they roll.

This would get rid of back edge hugging castling (as it IS supposed to be a battle); give charged shooty units options; and help assaulty units that make it some help to compensate for Overwatch. Deepstriking units can charge d6 inches, for a middle ground between all or nothing and to compensate for Overwatch and Interceptor.

-Grim

There really isn't a point arguing with Peregrine. He believes assault should be removed from the game and won't be happy until it is gone.

JPong wrote:
There really isn't a point arguing with Peregrine. He believes assault should be removed from the game and won't be happy until it is gone.

This.

Personally I love assault, if I wanted to play a shooty game I would have played a game with mechanics for modern warfare..

 happygolucky wrote:

JPong wrote:
There really isn't a point arguing with Peregrine. He believes assault should be removed from the game and won't be happy until it is gone.

This.

Personally I love assault, if I wanted to play a shooty game I would have played a game with mechanics for modern warfare..

Assault has already been effectively removed unless you have a 2++ rerollable or are an MC.

You don't have to agree with Peregrine, but don't pretend that he wasn't making a point and backing it up with reasoning. He's not arguing against the change because he hates assault, but because he thinks it's a poor rule change.

Honestly I agree to, and I think assault should be buffed in general. The overwatch change just wouldn't make any sense. The only army that gets to shoot overwatch when they aren't charged is Tau. Which would never get used afterwards because it'll always be better to let the one unit die then shoot at it in the following turn. In fact it would make overwatch pointless since if the unit gets charged you'd want as many bodies getting into CC to ensure your unit breaks.

It would just be better and make more sense if they removed overwatch entirely, and make one army specific rule, one psyker power, and one wargear item useless. Pretending that this would allow more tactical flexibility is just deluding yourself. It's another "cinematic" idea thrown into a game that needs less cinematics as it is.

Well, Peregrin's point also ignores the fact that not every charge suceeds. So it isn't like his points are fully merited. It makes going for 9 inch charges a possibility instead of a stupid thing like now, and adds risk to the defender.

But the change doesn't help the system. It's something tacked on to something that's already not working right.

Assault rules weren't balanced before.
They added 8 new things on to assault that made it bad.
So adding a sub clause to each of those 8 things will balance it out?

If there is a legitimate chance of a charge, then you'll obviously overwatch, since the unit will either die or be tied up. Trying to "fake" a charge is not a good strategy, because it's not a reliable one. Adding another mechanic that will take a tactic and add a random dice roll into it is not the solution.

What would you say to change overwatch to d6 + 1 shots for every 5 models in the unit?

I just think overwatch should go entirely. In a turn based system the shooting phase is your response to the charge.

Shooty units really shouldn't get a boost to a system they aren't supposed to be good in. The other penalties that stack on assault would probably be fine as it is.

I like overwatch personally. I never saw it as a big deal unless its Tau with marker lights and supporting fire.

It adds another random point of failure onto assault which already has a terrible point of failure in random charge distance. That's something that shooting doesn't have to deal with. Before you weren't allowed to premeasure and both had a built in point of failure. Now shooting gets to ignore theirs while assault units effectively have a random distance for their weapons. Which don't come cheap I might add.