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.

Ok I couldn't find a thread on this so thought I would ask, how do you feel about jinking and overwatch? It has come up many times with my Ravenwing especially my black knights and I have heard several differing opinions.

House rule at ours is now yes you can jink against overwatch shots but due to this you lose hammer of wrath (harder to get a good run up!)

Not hoping to start an argument just curious as to how people play this

You can use Jink whenever the unit is targeted by a shooting attack. Overwatch is a shooting attack.

and yet I've read and heard several arguments over RAW and RAI. don't have my rule book to hand so can't check wording.

Does seem to make sense that charging and jinking are not compatible movements.

 Jazzhands wrote:
and yet I've read and heard several arguments over RAW and RAI. don't have my rule book to hand so can't check wording.

Does seem to make sense that charging and jinking are not compatible movements.

What would make sense in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset


Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

 Jazzhands wrote:
and yet I've read and heard several arguments over RAW and RAI. don't have my rule book to hand so can't check wording.

Does seem to make sense that charging and jinking are not compatible movements.

sense would be that people on foot cant charge as far as a flying/biked/jetdriven person, so lets not think about sense while playing . just imagine the biker leaning to the left to avoid some gunfire.
This is a long discussion though, do a search. pretty sure its "leaning" towards allowed RAW.

They are not leaning, they are listing lazily. Clearly they know some maneuvers.

My friends these are all valid points. As I said I only brought it up as I have seen it argued over both online and off.

I play with a lovely group who truly believe the spirit of the game is to have fun. Would rather play to a disadvantage until FAQ make things clear (and yes I know that can take a while) that way if they say I cant then I've lost little, if they say I can then its a bonus.

We are happy with the way its played for us. was just wondering how others handled it.

I agree that GW's rules often don't seem logical but I think most people play for a bit of escapism so C'est la vie

Fun? You're not allowed to have fun, this is a serious game.

Poor jokes aside, i would enjoy playing your group. House rules are cool. I've always played cover saves with overwatch, but if someone says "no", i will suggest a roll for it's use.

Given you can jink when immobilised trying to link sense to jink is a some what pointless task. Jink is something you choose to activate when targeted by a shooting attack. Overwatch is a shooting attack so you can use it.

Your house rule is fine if it is all marines vs marines but that rule change literally destroys Dark Eldar Reavers. They have a 5+ armour and rely on rending HoW to do damage in combat (particularly the fellows with Caltrops). Jinking into to overwatch is functionally how Reavers are designed to work.

Wow. Someone might be pulling a fast one by convincing you of a very poor house rule. How are your ravenwing doing? If you're not winning a majority of your games, I'd ask whatever forceful personality but poor player put this rather steep penalty on an already mediocre codex to please take his foot off your throat and let your bikes ride.

If it's an Eldar player, just wow.

I see this all the time. The "leader" of a group convinces everyone of house rules that ultimately hold every other codex down.

Hopefully you're all just having homebrew fun, but ask yourself which armies have the most house rules effecting them and who is winning the most games. I hope there's not a disparity there.

Didn't know about the Dark Eldar thing (don't think anyone here plays them).

A lot of my games are against Eldar and I win plenty.
Hopefully nobody is trying to con me

You cannot jink while immobilized. You lose jink when you're immobilized. Thank god for a FAQ.
But you're apparently one of the people the FAQ was created to protect other players from. Is common sense not a thing some people can use?

Yeah, this might be one of the most contentious issues in 40k. The main issue I see argued is the nature of what constitutes targeting. For the most part, the group I play with is on the side of no, you can't jink during overwatch, the reason being that overwatch is reflexive, and can only be resolved against the unit that charged, and therefore that unit has not been "targeted". On the other hand, I know that a lot of people who support jinking during overwatch argue that the unit has been targeted, because you could have elected not to fire overwatch (why anyone would do this is beyond me). In the end, it is simply a poorly worded rule, like so many of GW's rules, and you just have to work out with the people you play with how to resolve it.

I will say, though, that spirit-of-the-gamewise, if I had written the rules, I would have disallowed jinking during overwatch. When you assault, you're charging headlong at the foe (in game terms, this is represented by the requirement to charge in a straight line, closest model to closest model). When you jink, you're zigging and zagging, taking evasive maneuvers to avoid being shot. The two should be mutually exclusive. At the least, there should be an assault penalty for jinking, as well as the shooting penalty, something like hitting on Init 1, or being treated as WS 1.

Why you wouldn't be able to Jink against overwatch? You can choose to jink everytime you're targeted by a shooting attack, not only in the enemy's Shooting Phase.
You can Jink from an enemy's Witchfire (which happens in his Psychic Phase).

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Yeah, this might be one of the most contentious issues in 40k. The main issue I see argued is the nature of what constitutes targeting. For the most part, the group I play with is on the side of no, you can't jink during overwatch, the reason being that overwatch is reflexive, and can only be resolved against the unit that charged, and therefore that unit has not been "targeted". On the other hand, I know that a lot of people who support jinking during overwatch argue that the unit has been targeted, because you could have elected not to fire overwatch (why anyone would do this is beyond me). In the end, it is simply a poorly worded rule, like so many of GW's rules, and you just have to work out with the people you play with how to resolve it.

I will say, though, that spirit-of-the-gamewise, if I had written the rules, I would have disallowed jinking during overwatch. When you assault, you're charging headlong at the foe (in game terms, this is represented by the requirement to charge in a straight line, closest model to closest model). When you jink, you're zigging and zagging, taking evasive maneuvers to avoid being shot. The two should be mutually exclusive. At the least, there should be an assault penalty for jinking, as well as the shooting penalty, something like hitting on Init 1, or being treated as WS 1.

I disagree that it wouldn't work fluff wise, at least for some units.

Jink is a zigging zagging wiggling thing that the models in the unit do to avoid shots. It is representing in the game by ....not moving the model at all, only adding a cover save.

Charge is as you say, a straight forward move, without shortcuts in game mechanics, and according to fluff it is a furious raging run towards the enemy while screaming your fearsome charge roar... but c'mon, that may be true for orks, some marines and so on. But the fluff doesn't fit all races or models in the 40k universe, a Wraith might phase out and suddenly appear next to its enemy, with its whip coils around him. A Harleqiun might lurk forward laughing or something....

Then when you combine these two moves, imagine a jet bike doing some crazy twists here and there, upside down while charging the opponent with raging speed. It is represented in game with a straight move + cover save. Works fine!

The idea that it's a bike means that it's hard to hit. Jinking doesn't even have to be bobbing around.... it could just be the guy lowering his head and going faster, too fast to aim accurately. The rule honestly should just be they always have a cover save, but people complain it's unfair. YOU try shooting a marine off a motorcycle going 80 miles an hour.

 kingbobbito wrote:
The idea that it's a bike means that it's hard to hit. Jinking doesn't even have to be bobbing around.... it could just be the guy lowering his head and going faster, too fast to aim accurately. The rule honestly should just be they always have a cover save, but people complain it's unfair. YOU try shooting a marine off a motorcycle going 80 miles an hour.

YOU try going 80 miles per hour over difficult terrain.

Than stop emidiately to wave your sword.

 koooaei wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:
The idea that it's a bike means that it's hard to hit. Jinking doesn't even have to be bobbing around.... it could just be the guy lowering his head and going faster, too fast to aim accurately. The rule honestly should just be they always have a cover save, but people complain it's unfair. YOU try shooting a marine off a motorcycle going 80 miles an hour.

YOU try going 80 miles per hour over difficult terrain.

Than stop emidiately to wave your sword.

You use their body to stop your bike! Where do you think the hammer of wrath comes in?

Oh, i see, you've assumed you're successfully passing the first part with difterrain, eh =P

And that you don't kill yourself with an emidiate stop too

Oh, I'd definitely fail the difficult terrain test and die, just like my bikes often do. Luckily Black Knights are super ultra turbo black spess muhrens and know how to drive better than I do. Clearly better than those boring old White Scars, btw....

I love how DA players complain so much that the bikers weren't good enough and GW gave in, poor white scars

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I love how DA players complain so much that the bikers weren't good enough and GW gave in, poor white scars

Did black knights not have all the rules they do now? Or just not exist? And to be fair, my bikes are pretty inferior to white scars, especially points wise.

Yeah and you also get to take a terminator only army as a legit formation :-p no complaints allowed!

BTW, I hate all DA players :-P the first person I ever played against back in the 90s was a DA Player and he cheated something awful. And because we didn't know any better at the time we let him get away with some serious B.S.

So thats why I reserve my hatred for you lot :-p the local DA player takes a lot of guff from me

 Jazzhands wrote:
...how do you feel about jinking and overwatch?
House rule at ours is now yes you can jink against overwatch shots but due to this you lose hammer of wrath (harder to get a good run up!)

RAW of course you can Jink anytime, so long as you have the special rule and are declared the target of a shooting attack. As posted above, Overwatch is resolved as a normal shooting attack (save for the snap firing limitation).

Since your original question was asking how I feel about jinking and overwatch, my answer is this: It's not well-balanced internally, as there is no price to pay for utilizing it. Currently, the price for jinking (the cost/benefit) is snap firing. Since jinking can make or break a charge--it is not an inconsequential rule--it should have a mechanism that makes the controlling player 'pay' for it. I would like to see invoking Jink during a charge result in a Disordered Charge, where the unit is denied bonus attacks from charging.

Again, this is how I 'feel' about it. I play against White Scars often, and I encourage them to Jink every chance they get because, cheesy or not, it's in the rules.

Here's a (fun) question: If a unit declares a Jink during the ASSAULT phase of their turn, how long do the effects (snap firing) last?

FratHammer wrote:
You cannot jink while immobilized. You lose jink when you're immobilized. Thank god for a FAQ.
But you're apparently one of the people the FAQ was created to protect other players from. Is common sense not a thing some people can use?

The FAQ wasn't written yet when that post was made.

You dug up a 3 week old post just to correct someone whose post was correct at the time it was posted. Congratulations.