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.

The Tech Priest Dominus gives units within 6" the ability to reroll 1s in the shooting phase.

Does this rule also apply to overwatch?

Shooting Phase != Charge Phase

Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy's Charge Phase) and uses all the normal rules...

So in my opinion yes you can reroll your ones.

It literally says "shooting phase", so if you're shooting overwatch, that happens in your opponent's movement phase. Therefore, no.

 Warboss_Waaazag wrote:
It literally says "shooting phase", so if you're shooting overwatch, that happens in your opponent's movement Charge phase. Therefore, no.

ftfy

 Selym wrote:

 Warboss_Waaazag wrote:
It literally says "shooting phase", so if you're shooting overwatch, that happens in your opponent's movement Charge phase. Therefore, no.

ftfy

It still stands to reason that neither the Charge phase nor the Movement phase are the Shooting phase.

Drew a line through all of that for you (dltatfy)

Yes. I was being pedantic.

 Selym wrote:
Yes. I was being pedantic.

It came across discourteous.

It was concise.

Your presentation was boorish.

 Warboss_Waaazag wrote:
Your presentation was boorish.

And your attitude reflects immense insecurity.

Please keep in mind that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Stick to the points and leave out personal insults. Thanks!

This was literally the most polite disagreement I've ever seen on Dakka.

I wish it had continued.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
This was literally the most polite disagreement I've ever seen on Dakka.

I wish it had continued.

While I agree it was proper polite& it did break the tenant. In technicality; which is important enough. I did not report it myself as it lacked a certain quality, but the structure for a report was there. It was simply off topic

I reported us for derailing the thread in under half a page. Anyhoo, I like to look at the exact wording of the rules, especially given GW's new propensity for using key words in a (somewhat) consistent manner. Pair of terms =/= lone term.