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.

Well no. In the corridor/alley scenario the the 'spot' would be at the end of the alley, covering the bulk of it. If your shooter was on the left corner they might not cover the close right side. But that's the price of focusing.

The wedge creates, potentially, a massive zone that increases in area drastically faster than the 'spot' marker. As overwatch is, in concept, reactionary firing, to me it makes sense that you'd have to be focusing on an area to make such a shot.

Basically, if you're looking out over a ruined city scape in general, good luck hitting the guy who appears from cover, runs 5 meters in the open and disappears back into cover unless your weapon and attention are already focused on that spot. But if you're focusing there, his buddy 30 meters to the right is going to be able to cover hop unmolested. You'd have to spot movement, focus on the next originating point, then catch them next time they move.

Either shoot during your activation or go onto overwatch, but you don't get to shoot at your enemy as he moves from cover AND maintain your fire arc. You have to choose, based on the movement and use of cover made by the enemy. Don't have enough men to overwatch all the gaps? You're gonna get flanked or snuck up on. A troopers attention cannot be everywhere at once.

*further to that, you could introduce varying sizes of overwatch zones based on trooper skill. A marine or eldar with their super human reflexes will naturally be better at reactive fire than a green guardsman or easily distracted ork.

I hate templates so much. They add an unnecessary level of complication just to resolve a weapon that kills more than one individual per shot. Wouldn't it work just as well to just a roll a D6 or so for how many hits you get?

@Kojiro - that sounds awful to play, tracking overwatch per model. The wedge is an unquestionably superior mechanic. :p

Granted I did say it was more book keeping that wouldn't work well with a lot of models. I'm probably unconsciously importing my own assumptions here in terms of scale. Namely I'm thinking of my own design, which runs 4-10 models per side (Infinity scale more or less). So you'd have overwatch for 2-3 models *at most*. I fully agree it'd be far too unwieldy for a larger scale game

I think John we're talking a little past each other. The wedge is a good idea, as the OP says for squads or general action. And I'm perhaps also importing my own definition of overwatch, which is to me a sort of snap fire at targets you otherwise don't have time to shoot (the block of time known as a turn).

I think either option could work, based on scale of the game. As with anything, the lower the model count the more detail you can spare.

It's totally OK. My game which streamlined away overwatch & reactions in favor of faster action rounds. Similar scale of a half-dozen to a dozen models per side. Different design objectives = different biases.

a 45 degree angle needs people to be actually able to measure it accurately and the same each time it is needed, like 90 degree angle its a mess waiting to be exploited and abused if it is not carved or painted on the base.

This is a big reason why 180 degrees LoS has become so popular.

This overwatch/LOS discussion sounds like good stuff to discuss here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/683130.page (Game Design Discussions: Line-of-Sight (LoS) )

90 degrees is a corner of paper. 45 is that corner folded. Easy.

I know we did that a lot in 2nd edition 40k, but it is 2016 now and things have changed.

We folded paper for WFB charge arcs, too...

That does not stop it from been a dated system out of favor.

40k to expensive, to many models needed for a serious game, other company's such as infinity, are to focused on skirmish

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
That does not stop it from been a dated system out of favor.

And that's why GW pulled the plug on WFB... Mercy killing, really.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
a 45 degree angle needs people to be actually able to measure it accurately and the same each time it is needed, like 90 degree angle its a mess waiting to be exploited and abused if it is not carved or painted on the base.

This is a big reason why 180 degrees LoS has become so popular.

I don't see any reason you can't use base markings. As a predominantly Warmachine player marked bases are the standard (excluding the rare 360­° front arc modes). There's a certain simplicity to aligning a tape measure or laser line on one the markings and I think for larger scales that's a definite plus you don't get when the markings don't line up. Which is another reason I prefer the 'marked area' style template. As a general rule you get 180­­° vision which is only restricted when you choose to take an out of turn action like overwatch- a special LOS for a special circumstance. I also think that restricting it to a small, 5" area makes the decision more tactical about where you set up overwatch- it's literally guarding against attack from a certain point. It also limits the amount of watching an individual soldier can do.

From what the OP was saying though he has a more general engagement area, a sort of zone of reaction. I think this is different from overwatch (as I term it) in one specific way. Notably I see overwatch as an interruption to the enemy turn. A model moves from cover and before it can finish moving or start shooting the overwatch kicks in. Conversely what it sounds like the OP has is a general 'this is the direction we're facing' and any attempt to engage from that zone will be reciprocated but not preempted. That's a system I really like for ranged and melee combat, where the price of engaging is likely some of your troops.

You can, but then you requite from the player an extra step and honesty.

checking a 180 degree angle is one thing 90 and 45 is trickier and easier to open a dispute.

Meh, if a player cheats, that's an issue with the player not the rules, though I would agree that rules should be as precise as possible to avoid disputes.

Do templates address the 45/90 thing at all? It seems like a simple template. If bases are standardized, it could even have a notch for the base.

The template I'm proposing would be a simple 5" (or some other scale relevant number) line essentially. You'd place it down somewhere in the models general 180° LoS as it's action for the turn, in lieu of firing or whatnot, The zone would be a cone from the base of the model to the ends of the line. So you'd still be using a straight line or a tape measure or laser pointed to check whether a model was in or out- exactly as difficult as the 180° fire arc.

It would function exactly like melee ranges in Warmachine and free strikes. An enemy model that alters it's status (say enters or exits) in regards to the cone gets shot at. Note such a rule would prohibit shooting at a model that starts and ends it's activation in an overwatching model's LoS. Such a model would have been a target during their turn, and if they wanted to shoot it they should have shot it then. This would discourage default overwatch- opportunities must bet taken and you can't just rely on interruptions. To me this also preserves the idea of discreet time units.

And you could, if you so desire allow models to engage in overwatch shooting outside the cone with a small penalty- it's obviously easier to react to something you're focused on but that may not preclude all reactions.

Overwatch and snap-fire are entirely two different things. One is a prepared state, not a reaction, utilized to cover squad/fireteam movement as they move forward. In terrain despite being an arc, there is already a limited amount of options that a train soldier knows to cover. Snap-fire utilizes a reaction based unknown and from an unprepared state to a ready state of fire.

In order to determine the effectiveness and limitations of overwatch, you need to determine what game setting you are utilizing it in. The effectiveness of overwatch in medieval/civil war times is different than in modern times. Overwatch isn't simply just looking at a direction, prepared to fire due to an enemy movement within a direction. In a modern environment you have access to infrared, heat optics, satellite imaging and other information so the majority of the time, troop movement is already known and you know which angles to cover. In a magic/scifi setting then you have cybernetic enhanced reactions, motion optics, powers or abilities for boosts as well.

Regular fire and overwatch fire can involve different mechanics. For example Infinity technically everyone is in an overwatch state. The difference is someone firing on their active turn gets access to their full dice pool, while someone in overwatch (reactive) gets to shoot but doesn't have access to their full dice pool. Overwatch does not have to simply mean "shoot back" in aimed shot. It can simply be covering fire for advancing friendly units (which is what it really is), attacks from a real overwatch is usually in the form of suppression. They see someone move from one cover section to another, their job isn't necessarily to kill but to provide fire at the location limiting movement of that troop while drawing attention for friendly moving units. Since in games movement isn't simultaneous this usually translates in a type of reaction fire. There is nothing saying that overwatch could instead mean that someone who triggers overwatch is now pinned or considered suppressed until they deal with the overwatch unit. In game where 'flanking' is considered the main tactic, overwatch could instead of "return fire" negate the effect of flanking. There are many ways to integrate overwatch depending on how you want to define and use it.

DS has the right of it, and there needs to be clarity as to what "Overwatch" represents as covering fire, suppression fire, reaction fire, opportunity fire, or some combination thereof.

 Dark Severance wrote:
Overwatch and snap-fire are entirely two different things. One is a prepared state, not a reaction, utilized to cover squad/fireteam movement as they move forward. In terrain despite being an arc, there is already a limited amount of options that a train soldier knows to cover. Snap-fire utilizes a reaction based unknown and from an unprepared state to a ready state of fire.

In order to determine the effectiveness and limitations of overwatch, you need to determine what game setting you are utilizing it in. The effectiveness of overwatch in medieval/civil war times is different than in modern times. Overwatch isn't simply just looking at a direction, prepared to fire due to an enemy movement within a direction. In a modern environment you have access to infrared, heat optics, satellite imaging and other information so the majority of the time, troop movement is already known and you know which angles to cover. In a magic/scifi setting then you have cybernetic enhanced reactions, motion optics, powers or abilities for boosts as well.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
DS has the right of it, and there needs to be clarity as to what "Overwatch" represents as covering fire, suppression fire, reaction fire, opportunity fire, or some combination thereof.

This is where fine-tuning and having a clear unified vision of what does what in your gaming system matters.
Not every weapon, nor even every type of weapon mount (if any), will or should be capable of performing overwatch or snapfire reactions, especially things like missiles or target designated (semi-guided) rockets.

What it boils down to is modeling the decision cycle loop, modified for how long you think a model should have to act and with what during its own inherent activation or else to react outside of that.


All that being said, I find the channel in inches idea as the monitored direction, of some interest.
This could even be ''set'' as whatever direction the model fired in (or the bearing it slewed its turret onto, for vehicles) during its last activation, a state kept until the next activation of that model or infantry grouping.

_
_

 Smilodon_UP wrote:
This is where fine-tuning and having a clear unified vision of what does what in your gaming system matters.

Not every weapon, nor even every type of weapon mount (if any), will or should be capable of performing overwatch or snapfire reactions, especially things like missiles or target designated (semi-guided) rockets.

Exactly. It's important to have clarity of the fundamental game design objectives. It's entirely possible that not all games should have overwatch at all.

For the record the area template/ fire corridor was used in 1/2nd edition of infinity and found too clunky to use properly.

Dark Severance: You hit on another area that bugs me in a lot of games- all fire is fire for deadly effect and suppression fire is largely overlooked except as a secondary effect. Even a poorly trained soldier can usually lay down some fairly effective suppression fire. Now better trained soldiers can do it more effectively and are also more likely to handle suppression fire better, but the point remains that it is often the primary purpose of opening fire.

Suppression fire also goes hand in hand with strategic and bounding movements.

Because it does not produce an exciting game.

Having most units pinned because of suppression fire with limited movement trying to solve the tactical puzzle of unpinning them while pinning the enemy sounds good on paper but creates a rather boring gameplay.

And most players are not simulator funs.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Because it does not produce an exciting game.

The very fact that units can do what they do what they do on your turn is precisely because suppression fire is happening in the background... Duh.

Now, if you wanted to chop turns down to 10-second increments, and with suppression & cover fire, bounding movement, etc. you could do that. You might be able to model a couple minutes for your game. But it would be very small scale, and not particularly exciting, as each player is constantly affected by enemy suppression, so their units spend a lot of time sitting around doing nothing. Fun!

I'm not really a fan of rolling dice.

 jmurph wrote:
Dark Severance: You hit on another area that bugs me in a lot of games- all fire is fire for deadly effect and suppression fire is largely overlooked except as a secondary effect.

Well, in games that do not have model removal I think you can model this a better. Shots are happening but the effect is on morale. I see this in more Horse and Musket type games and larger ground/time scale games.

IMO, lots of game mechanics and resolution methods work well in a specific game , because the game has been developed focusing on the end game play.

The A.R.O. reaction mechanic works well in Infinity because of the game size and scope.
The Blast method for suppression works well in Epic.
The Nerve system for morale works well in K.O.W.
The initiative driven activation system works well in X-wing.
The unbound game turn mechanic works well on Blood bowl/Crossfire.

These are the bits from games that stand out for me personally.

However, you can not just grab the bits you think are best from a selection of games and make 'the best game eva!'

This idea is similar to the 'make the perfect face', by taking the best features of the best looking people and putting them together on one face.

The features that stand out only do so because the rest support them and they all work together as a whole.

The basic concept of the game mechanics and resolution methods can be re assembled to get a game engine that focuses on the game play you want.

But it is important to make adjustments for the level of interaction and the scale and the scope of the game as you transplant concepts from one game to another.

This in my opinion. is the reason for 40ks inadequate core rules.

The alternating game turn only works in game where the models/units have to use tactical maneuver to get in to weapons range.
EG when the game is a skirmish size,(2nd ed).Or the units have limited long range capability.(WHFB)

Removing a movement stat and adding lots of special rules to do the same job is adding complication to appeal to 'non tactical Tweens'.
(This model has the superduper special movement rule, can we have all your 'pocket money' for this month? )

A flat to hit roll works fine if the targets are nearly all large blocks of troops.(EG representing 100 to 1000 actual combatants in close formation.)
It just needs a couple of modifiers for big targets +1, and small targets -1.

The amount of difference in the units in 40k needs far more detail than this!But rather than swap out all the current special rules , for lots and lots of modifiers.
Why not use an opposed stat that represents how hard the unit is to hit?(Similar to S vs T.)

I will stop there,I believe I have illustrated my point.

 Dark Severance wrote:
Overwatch and snap-fire are entirely two different things. One is a prepared state, not a reaction, utilized to cover squad/fireteam movement as they move forward.

[...]

for example Infinity technically everyone is in an overwatch state.

Hi Severance.

But exactly because what you stated at the beginning of your post, wouldn't be more correct saying that in Infinity everyone is in Reaction state, instead of Overwatch?

 michel3105 wrote:
But exactly because what you stated at the beginning of your post, wouldn't be more correct saying that in Infinity everyone is in Reaction state, instead of Overwatch?

In terms of Infinity yes that would probably be more accurate. Overwatch usually involves a prepared state while watching a certain direction. For those not familar with Infinity, I didn't want there to be confusion on what I was talking about. Reaction state could imply that someone firing behind them, could respond by returning fire which is why in the example it had more relation to being an overwatch. Not to mention it doesn't have a 'true' overwatch because of how the game mechanics are setup, it eliminates that need.

The main point is that overwatch differs for each game so defining what it is and the mechanics is important. Just because one game has overwatch, doesn't mean it is the same thing as another game. WH40K has Overwatch but that can only be applied to units moving to assault (close quarters). It isn't the same overwatch as other games.