A way to nerf Overwatch and make BS matter with snap shots.

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.

**loki old fart**

koooaei wrote:
To be honest, overwatch looks like an extra not-needed buff to shooting in 6 ed

Should just cause pinning

**Furyou Miko**

Um, you know that Overwatch forcing a Pinning test instead of doing damage actually makes it more powerful, right?

**Scipio Africanus**

Peregrine wrote:
Scipio Africanus wrote:
Tau are designed to hurt an all-comers list, is what you're saying?

No, I'm saying they hurt battleforce lists. You know, the kind of list that has one shooting unit, one assault unit, one objective camping unit, one transport and one tank. A list that has just a bunch of random units with no coherent plan and no way to overwhelm an opponent in any area of the game. Tau supporting fire is incredibly harsh to these lists because they don't have enough assault units to threaten multiple simultaneous charges and offer more targets than supporting fire can deal with. So the Tau player gets to focus everything on a single unit and wipe it out, and then move on to the next thing.

I understand. I misunderstood what "Battleforce list" meant. I assume it's a reference to those boxes GW sells that have maybe two or three useful units and then two dead weights? I apologise for this mistake.

And Tau aren't the only army that does this. Battleforce lists suck in general, the Tau codex is just straightforward enough that it's very difficult to build a truly bad list that is on the same level as a battleforce list.

Unless you take the battleforce, I presume?

Well there's your problem. Death stars aren't supposed to be an auto-win against everything they face, and you just encountered one of their bad matchups. You'll encounter similar problems against armies like MSU IG, which will just feed your death star a 50 point meatshield squad every turn until the game ends, or flyer spam lists that will drop scoring units all over the table at the end of the game when there isn't enough time for your death star to reach all of them. Try bringing multiple reasonable (but still powerful enough to slaughter shooting units) units instead of putting all your eggs in one basket.

MSU guard and marines, and armies similar to that don't present much of a problem. I just throw in a single herald and I'm usually out of the combat by my next turn, but I understand what you're saying. Interestingly enough, my other major deathstar army, a farsight bomb also deals with MSU Guard and marines very easily.

It sounds like you're obsessed with ridiculous worst-case scenarios where the Tau player has their entire army bunched up within 6" of the thing you're charging, along with an infinite supply of markerlights. In this case you should be having fun since everything is perfectly arranged for multi-charges and your opponent's entire army will be locked in combat as soon as your assault units arrive.

Even tau hit hard with enough dice.

The point is that it doesn't matter if you wise up to them. If you overwatch against the meatshield you wasted your overwatch and the real threat kills you. If you don't overwatch against the meatshield your only hope is that they fail the charge, since if they make it into combat you're locked in combat, lose your overwatch entirely, and the real threat kills you.

getting back to the example I was using, it's not always the squad who you charge who's overwatch your afraid of. I may soak the overwatch of three squads, but there may be 4 or 5 more squads just waiting for me to charge

And this is the problem. You're looking only at the perfect situation for Tau overwatch and using it as justification for a new rule that applies to every army. Why should my IG have half their overwatch fire removed just because you can't handle Tau?

I don't have a counter for this. It doesn't change that I would like to see BS matter with snap shooting, which was my original goal with this system.

So what? Every rule keeps people from taking lists that they might want to take. I can't take my fluffy IG armored company because tanks can't score objectives. I can't take my fluffy Elysian drop troops because I auto-lose if I put my whole army in reserve. Etc.

Ah, but this is not the rule itself prohibiting the action, as is the case for both the examples you listed, but the rule making the list unreasonably difficult to play with a good chance of winning. The difference is that your suggestions would have to break the rules to work the way you want them to - you'd want an entire rule abolished to allow your list to work. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about changing the rule as little as is necessary (because, let's face it, as far as rules go overwatch was pretty simple so let's keep it there) to ensure that one can take a list that doesn't have to focus on assault to win. I'm not talking armies that have one 'assault' unit and making those assaults very useful, but I'm talking about armies that have a decent portion of their points dedicated to assault, but not expressly all their points, and not more than half, being reliably effective in competitive play. IF you have 40% of your army devoted to assault, you should have a reasonable chance of actually assaulting.

Also, I disagree with the claim that the army lists that are ruled out by overwatch are good lists. Tau overwatch might be a problem for some mediocre assault armies, but the only lists that lose to overwatch in general are bad lists that weren't going to win anyway.

My example is the unit I've been talking about for a long while now, Blood Crushers. They work, but you have to build your army around one unit of them and that's basically your army. It wrecks face in the face of most overwatch, and can stand up to a decent amount of shooting, but it needs that 3++. If overwatch wasn't so prominent, you could still build a list around bloodcrushers, without making it a deathstar. Now I'll wholeheartedly admit that this isn't an optimal build, because current blood crushers, while lovely models and with good attack stats, are awful at getting into assault because of the toughness. What I'm arguing is that their inoptimacy (they're by all means one of the best assault units in that codex, given a 3+ save) is based solely around the effects of overwatch. You can stomach losing models in shooting but when an enemy army gets to basically shoot at you once at 100% effectiveness and once at 33% effectiveness, you feel it.

My comments are in bold, to make this easier to type. .

**blaktoof**

I still stand by the rulebook stating that overwatch shots are shots done without aiming and represent a last desperate attempt to stop the unit from charging you.

That in mind if it's done without aiming, BS should not factor in.

**Scipio Africanus**

blaktoof wrote:
I still stand by the rulebook stating that overwatch shots are shots done without aiming and represent a last desperate attempt to stop the unit from charging you.

That in mind if it's done without aiming, BS should not factor in.

Except that the better the soldier quality, the better they are at shooting without aiming. You can fire a rifle from the hip, yet the more accustomed you are to doing so, the better your chance of hitting.

**greyknight12**

Scipio Africanus wrote:
Except that the better the soldier quality, the better they are at shooting without aiming. You can fire a rifle from the hip, yet the more accustomed you are to doing so, the better your chance of hitting.

Possibly, but you're still going to be really, really inaccurate. The granularity of a D6 based system doesn't really allow us to differentiate between guardsmen and space marines hip-firing, in my opinion; without either super-nerfing or super-buffing overwatch. And as other posters have mentioned, a change like you propose is too complicated.
Really, it does seem that this is focused on Tau, because all of the examples cited have been Tau overwatch with markerlight support. I think a better place to start would be their codex, maybe with not allowing snap shots to benefit from markerlights or something along those lines. Because overwatch from anyone else isn't really that bad:

Example: Space Marine overwatching another Space Marine with a bolter (gets to rapid-fire):

2 x 0.167 (to hit) x 0.5 (to wound) x 0.333 (to fail armor save) = 0.056 dead marines. From a squad of 10, we get a whopping 0.56 casualties in the assaulting unit. Other weapons like plasma might hurt more, but you pay for those anyway.

Firewarrior overwatching a space marine with a pulse rifle (also gets rapid-fire):
2 x 0.167 (to hit) x 0.667 (to wound) x 0.333 (to fail armor save) = 0.074 dead marines. Squad of 10 does 0.74 wounds...and you will slaughter them once you get there.

The point being, overwatch exists because for years players watched helplessly as their shooting units just stood there and took the charge. Now they can feel like they get to affect that somewhat. It's like a 6++ (actually statistically worse), it's really not going to help you that much but it makes you feel better that you can take it. That's what overwatch is.

**Black Tauplar**

Personally, I like the Overwatch system as is. I understand nerfing Tau overwatch (I plan on starting up an army soon and it is pretty OP, if you can set your army right on the table). Other than maybe making it so markelights don't affect snap shots, or overwatch either one, I think any other change to overwatch is not needed.

**Scipio Africanus**

greyknight12 wrote:

Possibly, but you're still going to be really, really inaccurate. The granularity of a D6 based system doesn't really allow us to differentiate between guardsmen and space marines hip-firing, in my opinion; without either super-nerfing or super-buffing overwatch. And as other posters have mentioned, a change like you propose is too complicated.

Yup. In fact, my system would make marines even less accurate than they currently are - but it would make an ork boy even less accurate than that.

Really, it does seem that this is focused on Tau, because all of the examples cited have been Tau overwatch with markerlight support. I think a better place to start would be their codex, maybe with not allowing snap shots to benefit from markerlights or something along those lines. Because overwatch from anyone else isn't really that bad:

Weight of dice will do anything.

Example: Space Marine overwatching another Space Marine with a bolter (gets to rapid-fire):

one with a pulse rifle (also gets rapid-fire):
2 x 0.167 (to hit) x 0.667 (to wound) x 0.333 (to fail armor save) = 0.074 dead marines. Squad of 10 does 0.74 wounds...and you will slaughter them once you get there.

Disagree, especially since FW are taken in squads of 12 (minor difference). Also, a fire warrior won't die so quickly, he is usually hit on a 3, wounded on a 4 and fails on a 50% when attacked by a guardsman. A Fire Warrior against a guardsmen yields a 4 to hit, a 4 to wound and a 33% chance to fail - in actuallity, the final damage is the same - Tau aren't awful in CC, they just have bad WS.

The point being, overwatch exists because for years players watched helplessly as their shooting units just stood there and took the charge. Now they can feel like they get to affect that somewhat. It's like a 6++ (actually statistically worse), it's really not going to help you that much but it makes you feel better that you can take it. That's what overwatch is.

Because armies don't rely on overwatch?

**Johnnytorrance**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Stupid rule is stupid.

Overwatch being Snap Shots is silly in the first place. The Snap Shot rule is basically saying "you don't aim, but you MIGHT get lucky as you squeeze the trigger and pray!"

With your addendum, you're saying "You might get lucky! And then you might aim!"

It's like American shooting. "Ready, Fire, Aim!".

you mean like the fire we used to send your asses back over the pond?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
why don't we then say something like, keep overwatch as is. but only 50% of one unit next to Tau can overwatch

**Furyou Miko**

Johnnytorrance wrote:

you mean like the fire we used to send your asses back over the pond?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
why don't we then say something like, keep overwatch as is. but only 50% of one unit next to Tau can overwatch

What, you mean when we decided that holding onto India and Africa were more important than some dustbowl thousands of miles away and let you get on with it?

**Johnnytorrance**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Johnnytorrance wrote:

you mean like the fire we used to send your asses back over the pond?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
why don't we then say something like, keep overwatch as is. but only 50% of one unit next to Tau can overwatch

What, you mean when we decided that holding onto India and Africa were more important than some dustbowl thousands of miles away and let you get on with it?

America is a dustbowl?

Don't forget that dustbowl you guys tried to get back in 1812 but didn't succeed.

The dustbowl is Africa and India.

**Rustican**

I would say make Overwatch resolve hits on BS -2 of the model. I would also make it so that units that are hit by an assault grenade during shooting be disallowed from over watching.

**Rumbleguts**

I don't mind the standard overwatch at all, having jumped from 2nd Ed to 6th Ed where their version of overwatch required skipping your fire phase to fire at any point during an opponent's phase, at full BS.

I do find the Tau support firing to be overly nasty in combination with marklights and some of the support/relic equipment they get. Remove the support fire rule and that solves much of the problems.

I would love to see a rule that makes it so that units that fired overwatch are initiative 1 however. Or have their max AT for the turn be reduced to 1.

**Dakkamite**

koooaei wrote:
To be honest, overwatch looks like an extra not-needed buff to shooting in 6 ed

Agree with this. People get pissy about "my dudes just stand there while you charge", but at the same time, my dudes are just gonna stand there while you run out and shoot. Or while you drop artillery on them. Or while you run away and out of sight so I can't shoot you. Its a side effect of IGOUGO, get over it.

Rather than a buff to shooting, I see it more as just a way to make us roll a bunch of extra dice for very little game effect. 40k needs less of this.

**Melevolence**

Rumbleguts wrote:
I don't mind the standard overwatch at all, having jumped from 2nd Ed to 6th Ed where their version of overwatch required skipping your fire phase to fire at any point during an opponent's phase, at full BS.

I do find the Tau support firing to be overly nasty in combination with marklights and some of the support/relic equipment they get. Remove the support fire rule and that solves much of the problems.

I would love to see a rule that makes it so that units that fired overwatch are initiative 1 however. Or have their max AT for the turn be reduced to 1.

I could see something like this being a thing, but I think people would get too angry about it, and never use overwatch if that were the case. I could see the rational being that they are still shooting when your own guys plow into them, or they are trying to reload, etc. It would be awesome for Orks, who have terrible initiative to begin with, allowing them to really hammer down some dudes.

Again, I think it might only affect Tau. Most other armies might just take their chances with the assault itself instead of swinging last, or barely swing at all.

**Rav1rn**

I think that the current overwatch rules are rather ridiculous. While i love the idea, i just think it was implemented horribly, and i don't really need to explain why, because that's been discussed to death everywhere else.

I don't see the point of a consequence free round of shooting before assault, where its both slow and often totally ineffective, meaning all the steps taken to proceed through the overwatch are pointless and wasteful.

I'd much rather see overwatch be some extreme choice a unit has when being assaulted by an enemy unit. So instead of the current rules, overwatch would take place after both units have piled into BTB contact, but before any attacks are made. Each model in the assaulted unit would then get one round of shooting at a BS 1 lower than their normal value, and if they manage to kill all the enemy models in BTB contact with or within 2" of friendly models, then the melee is over. If they fail to kill all enemy models in BTB contact or within 2" of a friendly model, they automatically lose a number of models equal to the number of attacks the enemy unit would have generated in the first round of the assault, after casualties from overwatch are applied.

I don't want the option to have a minor effect on either side, because then it's just a chore to get through, typically with little to no benefit. If someone wants to choose to overwatch, they should have a strong reason to, such as thinking they have a good chance of actually killing all the enemy models, or not care if the unit takes massive casualties, since they were going to lose anyways, and putting a few wounds on the enemy is more important. If the rumors that consolidation into assault is returning are true, then this rule would make player consider the choice even more, because having this unit get overrun immediately could put another unit at risk.

**Farseer Anath'lan**

Personally I think adding a leadership or initiative test that needs to be passed before shooting would suffice. Either to see if they hold, or to see if they can react fast enough.

I also agree that it really is only Tau(and to a smaller extent Eldar) who can abuse overwatch. It really has a negligible impact without buffs.

**Xanrn**

So much bad history in this thread...

The War of 1812 was an attempt by America to annex Canada.

America invaded first and got repulsed by the Canadian Militia and Native tribes. The Counter invasion was just ment to force an end to the War quickly so we would get back to the War with Napoleon. The British/Canadian counter attack ripped through America and burnt the Whitehouse

The only major Battle won by the Americans was the Battle of New Orleans and yes thats how far south from Canada they got. Which was fought after the Peace Treaty had already been signed

What the hell Americans have to do with either of the Boer Wars is beyond me and the British Empire didn't loose either anyway.

Also you will find France won the American Revolution, they spent so much money on it they bankrupted themselves and dug the Foundations of the French Revolution.

You also managed to fail Geography, because you didn't kick our "arses" back across any pond, we held still had Canada and a large portion of the Caribbean.

**Furyou Miko**

Americans also believe they won the first world war, so...

**koooaei**

And that they were the mvp in the 2-d

But that's offtop.

Let's return to the thread. I think that overwatch on the whole is not that bad. But when it comes to supporting fire, it's broken. I think that it should be just a bit rewritten to sound like: "Models within 6' of the charged squad can shoot overwatch". And explictly prohibiting markers to be used in the enemy's turn.

**dracpanzer**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Americans also believe they won the first world war, so...

Many Americans suffer from our terrible public education system.

I like the -BS for overwatch. Marines shouldn't be paying more for their BS if they can't use it.

Pinning through regular means. Assault grenades or otherwise should be an additional penalty to overwatch.

I would be happy with an option to fire overwatch as is or at a lesser BS if the defender wants to swing in close combat. But allow full BS if you want to give up your attacks in h2h.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Changing the way barrage/pinning weapons work would help equal out the assault mechanic. If they auto-pinned rather than check to pin. Coupled with a
check to unpin at the start of the turn to act normally. This would allow the attacker to oin reliably in their shooting phase dramatically reducing defensive fire.

**Happyjew**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Americans also believe they won the first world war, so...

We did. We also single-handedly won WW2. Now if only the those silly Brits could learn to spell "color" and "armor" correctly.

Gah that's annoying. What is wrong with Americans? Why can they not teach proper spelling of words? Colour and Armour have a "u" in them!

I am of course just joking about all this.

Not the misspelling on USA's part.

**Furyou Miko**

I like the idea of giving up melee attacks to Overwatch at full ballistic skill, but the assault fangirls will just complain that it makes shooting armies even more overpowered because lets face it, what Tau would ever choose to strike once at I2 S3 on a 5+ when they can strike twice at I11 S5 on a 4+?

**Daba**

Overwatch should be tied to initiative.

I check or you can't overwatch. Simple as that.

**Furyou Miko**

Initiative is too tied to close combat. For example, Sisters of Battle are a highly disciplined army that focus their lives around ranged combat - Initiative 3 makes sense for their close combat ability, but their defensive fire training should be better than that. You'd need a new stat.

**DanFST**

Since when could you use marker lights on Overwatch?

I played tau before and after the new codex, then sold it because it was boring. But i specifically remember it was FAQ'd that Markerlights don't effect snapshots.

**Daba**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Initiative is too tied to close combat. For example, Sisters of Battle are a highly disciplined army that focus their lives around ranged combat - Initiative 3 makes sense for their close combat ability, but their defensive fire training should be better than that. You'd need a new stat.

Since they have so many flamers, it balances out.

**SRSFACE**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Initiative is too tied to close combat.

Isn't that the entire point?

Also, I have to say I kind of resent the spurious accusations Americans don't know how to handle a gun. Yeah, okay, Hollywood action movies they spew bullets hurr hurr you made a funny at the expense of Hollywood excess. Actual soldiers, though, are quite accurate. Also, I'm willing to bet we've got a larger population of people per capita that actually practice firing their weapons than any other country at least from a Civilian standpoint.

Woe be unto anyone who'd actively wage war on our soil. We're pretty good at killing our own population with guns. Imagine if we had a united foreign enemy to unload upon.

**Ashiraya**

Americans are like turians.

Every single one hides a shotgun under the pillow.

**Furyou Miko**

SRSFACE wrote:
Furyou Miko wrote:
Initiative is too tied to close combat.
Isn't that the entire point?

Also, I have to say I kind of resent the spurious accusations Americans don't know how to handle a gun. Yeah, okay, Hollywood action movies they spew bullets hurr hurr you made a funny at the expense of Hollywood excess. Actual soldiers, though, are quite accurate. Also, I'm willing to bet we've got a larger population of people per capita that actually practice firing their weapons than any other country at least from a Civilian standpoint.

Woe be unto anyone who'd actively wage war on our soil. We're pretty good at killing our own population with guns. Imagine if we had a united foreign enemy to unload upon.

While American civilians are hideously over-equipped, it doesn't change the fact that your 'elite special ops' Navy SEALs' designated marksman manual is the same as the standard British Infantryman's shooting manual.