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.

People don't charge burna boyz because no one plays them And even if they show up sometimes they usually get obliterated by a single volley of shooting. Otherwise they'd get charged with no problems.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
How do pistols make sense for overwatch?

Overwatch is a real thing. It's a guy, or team of guys, that take up a position to watch over their other men and protect them with long ranged weaponry.

You don't wait for people to charge you for overwatch. You shoot the enemy coming up on your allies before they can get close enough.

Ever see the movie American Sniper? He spends basically the whole movie being Overwatch.

It depends on range. When you're at long range like a sniper, movements are less of a thing. When you're at close range? Pistols are easier to react with. They don't require you looking down a scope (which hampers your visibility) at one specific point, they give you a full field of view and allow you to go "oh gak" and quickly whip your arm at the target and fire. Either version has merits, but then you have to translate that into game rules. Anyways, my take on it.

If your at a range where a pistol instead of a rifle or carbine is the better choice for accuracy and reaction then it's no longer really over watch. It's "OH feth!"

The point of putting guys on overwatch and then allowing them to interrupt the enemies turn to shoot is that those guys are paying attention in a position where they are ready for the enemy. You are not doing that with a gun that is effective at 30 yards at best.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
How do pistols make sense for overwatch?

Overwatch is a real thing. It's a guy, or team of guys, that take up a position to watch over their other men and protect them with long ranged weaponry.

You don't wait for people to charge you for overwatch. You shoot the enemy coming up on your allies before they can get close enough.

Ever see the movie American Sniper? He spends basically the whole movie being Overwatch.

It depends on range. When you're at long range like a sniper, movements are less of a thing. When you're at close range? Pistols are easier to react with. They don't require you looking down a scope (which hampers your visibility) at one specific point, they give you a full field of view and allow you to go "oh gak" and quickly whip your arm at the target and fire. Either version has merits, but then you have to translate that into game rules. Anyways, my take on it.

If your at a range where a pistol instead of a rifle or carbine is the better choice for accuracy and reaction then it's no longer really over watch. It's "OH feth!"

The point of putting guys on overwatch and then allowing them to interrupt the enemies turn to shoot is that those guys are paying attention in a position where they are ready for the enemy. You are not doing that with a gun that is effective at 30 yards at best.

I won't necessarily disagree with you there, in rl terms (or anything close to that). But in the game, LOS on a specific point for overwatch isn't really a thing, if someone activates overwatch you can respond regardless of their relative position. I'm not saying this can't be accounted for in game rules, just that it's not likely. But as someone who has at least fired a rifle and pistol irl, for a "oh gak, who's that?" situation, the pistol required moving your arm while the rifle requires moving your whole body (you have to lean into it). That's basically where i'm coming from when i say that pistols make more 'sense'.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
How do pistols make sense for overwatch?

Overwatch is a real thing. It's a guy, or team of guys, that take up a position to watch over their other men and protect them with long ranged weaponry.

You don't wait for people to charge you for overwatch. You shoot the enemy coming up on your allies before they can get close enough.

Ever see the movie American Sniper? He spends basically the whole movie being Overwatch.

It depends on range. When you're at long range like a sniper, movements are less of a thing. When you're at close range? Pistols are easier to react with. They don't require you looking down a scope (which hampers your visibility) at one specific point, they give you a full field of view and allow you to go "oh gak" and quickly whip your arm at the target and fire. Either version has merits, but then you have to translate that into game rules. Anyways, my take on it.

If your at a range where a pistol instead of a rifle or carbine is the better choice for accuracy and reaction then it's no longer really over watch. It's "OH feth!"

The point of putting guys on overwatch and then allowing them to interrupt the enemies turn to shoot is that those guys are paying attention in a position where they are ready for the enemy. You are not doing that with a gun that is effective at 30 yards at best.

I won't necessarily disagree with you there, in rl terms (or anything close to that). But in the game, LOS on a specific point for overwatch isn't really a thing, if someone activates overwatch you can respond regardless of their relative position. I'm not saying this can't be accounted for in game rules, just that it's not likely. But as someone who has at least fired a rifle and pistol irl, for a "oh gak, who's that?" situation, the pistol required moving your arm while the rifle requires moving your whole body (you have to lean into it). That's basically where i'm coming from when i say that pistols make more 'sense'.

In the game you need something to balance the fact that your creating a system where a unit placed on overwatch can interrupt the enemies turn to shoot them at full or near full effect. So you either create static gun lines where nobody is willing to make the first move or you give some kind of hindrance. By cutting ranges in half you allow enemies to do maneuvering but can still have one unit protect another from a charge or a flank from deep strikers. It adds a tactical layer and an interesting choice. Do I give up shooting here just in case? Is the threat of shooting a powerful enough deterrent that even if you don't get to shoot it was still advantageous? Thats some good game play.

Rather than halving the range of all weapons for over watch, why not just have a fixed range for over watch?

EG
A unit that forgoes it shooting phase,may enter over watch. Units on over watch may fire on any enemy unit that moves within 12" during the enemy movement phase.

To represent the unit waiting for the enemy to enter a 'kill zone' (or spring a ambush.)

That would work fine too. But I would make it 18". and just anyone moving with the range. Movement or charge or anything.

If you have to actively enter overwatch you should be protecting other nearby units. Not just yourself.

I think this is a bit of a clumsy implementation, but what if an overwatching unit placed a marker on the table (within legal firing range of it's weapons), and it could overwatch anyone who comes within say 6" of it during the enemies turn?

So talk about suspension of disbelief troubles...

...I recently had a Stormsword get charged six times. It fired its main armament, a huge siege shell, six fething times in like, a split second.

lol.

 Torga_DW wrote:
I think this is a bit of a clumsy implementation, but what if an overwatching unit placed a marker on the table (within legal firing range of it's weapons), and it could overwatch anyone who comes within say 6" of it during the enemies turn?

Too limiting. How often would you remove a units ability to shoot for the chance to shoot a 6" disk? What protection does that actually afford against say... A trygon popping up with a brood of gak and attacking you?

Pffft, it could always be worse.

Nothing is as soul-crushing as not wanting to bother charging a unit of Conscripts because you know it will roll 60+ dice for Overwatch, then reroll another 10 1s, then reroll 1s to wound...then it fails to make an impact yet you flub your charge, and attempt to do it again!

 Lance845 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
I think this is a bit of a clumsy implementation, but what if an overwatching unit placed a marker on the table (within legal firing range of it's weapons), and it could overwatch anyone who comes within say 6" of it during the enemies turn?

Too limiting. How often would you remove a units ability to shoot for the chance to shoot a 6" disk? What protection does that actually afford against say... A trygon popping up with a brood of gak and attacking you?

Yeah, and the markers per squad could get confusing if you had enough of them on the table. I was just trying to go with the idea of sighting down a rifle at a specific point. But in fairness, if the unit in question couldn't see anything to shoot in it's turn, it would be of somewhat use at that point. Not so good about a trygon popping up behind/to the sides, but isn't that one of the classic problems with focusing on a specific point waiting for someone to pop their head up?

Maybe for each unit that fires overwatch, the opponent can add 1" to their charge distance (to the max of 12").

Armies that need overwatch can still use it, but intelligently.

The only thing about putting a "half range" limitation on overwatching models is that it becomes pretty severe pretty fast for a lot of units. Eldar guardians and dire avengers end up with a 6" and 9" overwatch respectively, which seems odd for weapons meant to spew out tons of shots in a small amount of time.

What about needing to roll a LD check to be allowed to overwatch.

representing the charge target overcoming the fear of getting charged.

units with less balls may often panic and not get ready fast enough while more trained soldiers will get their gak together faster.

 Desubot wrote:
What about needing to roll a LD check to be allowed to overwatch.

representing the charge target overcoming the fear of getting charged.

units with less balls may often panic and not get ready fast enough while more trained soldiers will get their gak together faster.

Leadership checks don't really work in 8th.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
What about needing to roll a LD check to be allowed to overwatch.

representing the charge target overcoming the fear of getting charged.

units with less balls may often panic and not get ready fast enough while more trained soldiers will get their gak together faster.

Leadership checks don't really work in 8th.

Why not.

Most units have Leadership 6 or better. Hell, CULTISTS have Leadership 6 with their Champ.

And Leadership tests are taken on 1d6. So the vast majority of units cannot fail it.

Oh damn right its no longer 2d6 match or under.

Yeah, Overwatch has always felt clunky to me. I preferred it not to be there in the way it is done as it stands, it honestly just seems to be a waste of time.

With the Maelstrom of War missions, and even a good chunk of the Eternal War missions that have a decent amount of objectives it really doesn't seem like it would make the game too static if you had to forfeit movment and shooting with a unit to qualify for Overwatch.

So perhaps what they should do is something like Napoleonics or Fantasy.

When you are charged, you get a choice of a few options:

Close Ranks: At the barked order of an officer, the troops, whether Space Marine or Ork, are directed into a line, presenting the enemy with a hedge of steel through which they must pass before striking. This unit strikes first, even if charged.

Fall Back!: The unit, either shaken and retreating or following the orders of a prudent officer, abandons its positions and tries to slip away. Retreating in the face of the enemy is always risky... The unit may move 2d6" backwards. However, if it does not manage to get away from its pursuers, the whole unit is removed as casualties immediately and no attacks are resolved. The charging unit may be chosen to fight as normal even if this means there are no enemy models within 1", whether they fell back or were slain.

Fire at the whites of their eyes!: Warned by a nearby unit or one of their own squadmates, the soldiers snap their weapons up and try to forestall the onrushing wave through sheer firepower. The unit immediately makes a shooting attack at -1 Ballistic Skill against the charging unit. However, they may not be chosen to fight until all other eligible units have already been selected, as they are too focused on defending themselves.

Those are pretty neat for getting charged and I wouldn't mind using them, but overwatch was much more tactical when used offensively.

You could sort of guide your opponent where you wanted them. Do I move to the left and get blasted by those units in overwatch or do I move right towards that killer H2H unit?

Just get rid of Overwatch. it's a bad mechanic that punishes assault units for actually doing their job, and any other version of it is just another buff to shooting that doesn't need it

kaotkbliss wrote:
Those are pretty neat for getting charged and I wouldn't mind using them, but overwatch was much more tactical when used offensively.

You could sort of guide your opponent where you wanted them. Do I move to the left and get blasted by those units in overwatch or do I move right towards that killer H2H unit?

The only thing I don't really like about this is the other option is: "I don't move at all, and instead go into overwatch to keep the killer H2H unit from moving."

You end up with two gunlines tucked behind cover, all set in overwatch, waiting to spring the perfect trap.

and waiting.
and waiting.
and waiting.

OH LOOK TURN 5 BATTLE ENDS COUNT YOUR POINTS LADS

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

kaotkbliss wrote:
Those are pretty neat for getting charged and I wouldn't mind using them, but overwatch was much more tactical when used offensively.

You could sort of guide your opponent where you wanted them. Do I move to the left and get blasted by those units in overwatch or do I move right towards that killer H2H unit?

The only thing I don't really like about this is the other option is: "I don't move at all, and instead go into overwatch to keep the killer H2H unit from moving."

You end up with two gunlines tucked behind cover, all set in overwatch, waiting to spring the perfect trap.

and waiting.
and waiting.
and waiting.

OH LOOK TURN 5 BATTLE ENDS COUNT YOUR POINTS LADS

On Andy Chambers' old website, he discussed this tangentially in an article about why 3rd ditched Smoke rules: http://www.redstargames.net/retrospektiv.html

Andy Chambers wrote:Zip forward to 2nd edition 40K, blind grenades et al. Players habitually used these not to cover a storming attacks across open ground, but to create a little bunker on their side of the table with all their units hiding behind it on overwatch. The first unit foolish enough to move through the blind clouds gets blasted. Similar tactic, same problem. In both cases the enemies’ tactic involved not superior skill or strategy but basically boring you to death until you get impatient enough to charge onto their guns.

So this is why I generally prefer Overwatch to trigger via "intent to attack", rather than "intent to move", and why I prefer Overwatch to be "delay your shooting" rather than "forfeit moving or shooting this turn." Because Overwatch should be a supporting tool, rather than something that causes the game to freeze up.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Just get rid of Overwatch. it's a bad mechanic that punishes assault units for actually doing their job, and any other version of it is just another buff to shooting that doesn't need it

I don't think the answer is to remove tactics, that just makes the game bland.
A good solution to remove stalemates or other shenanigans like mentioned with the grenades, such as a unit cannot overwatch if they did so the previous turn.

Thre's nothing tactical about Overwatch. You get it for free, the ability is absolutely passive, you don't make a choice when using it

Nothing tactical about setting ambushes? wow, ok.
But in it's current state, it needs fixed so it actually performs it's purpose

To be fair, Ambushes aren't actually that tactical.

"Hide until the enemy comes by and then shoot them unexpectedly" isn't something you'd have to go to West Point to figure out.

Ambush is one of the most famous tactics used throughout history. Just because it's widely known or easy to come up with, doesn't mean it's not tactical.

Flanking is a huge tactic nearly every army in history tried to use. It's widely known and easy to come up with, does that mean it's not tactical?

kaotkbliss wrote:
Ambush is one of the most famous tactics used throughout history. Just because it's widely known or easy to come up with, doesn't mean it's not tactical.

Flanking is a huge tactic nearly every army in history tried to use. It's widely known and easy to come up with, does that mean it's not tactical?

I mean, if you're reducing tactical to mean "things what help you win battles" then they're tactical.

If you meant "actually makes you think" (which is what we'd like to have: having something engaging to do) then no, they're not tactical.