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.

I'd like it if overwatch only applied to units that did not move that turn. You should have to set up to shoot like that, except with assault weapons.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


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.

The more little things like that you have to win a battle, the more combinations you can use to achieve that goal. And the more combinations you have available, the more you get your opponent thinking on what your next move could possibly be.

You start taking away all those little options, it then becomes an easy guessing game of "well, he's either going to do this or he's going to do that because that's all he can do."

 techsoldaten wrote:
I'd like it if overwatch only applied to units that did not move that turn. You should have to set up to shoot like that, except with assault weapons.

I completely agree. There should definitely be a risk involved in trying to take the advantage.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing Overwatch as something you do INSTEAD of shooting (an possibly moving), but buff it to make it actually worthwhile.

I do agree that, as stands, Overwatch is a lot of dice rolling for little effect.

You mean like it was in 2nd edition.????

2nd edition overwatch countered all sorts of 'cheesy' rules....like skimmer 'pop-up' attacks and deep striking units/characters.

The big problem with 2nd edition overwatch was that every unit could do it and it was complained that it slowed the game down and prevented armies from moving. ie: wait for the enemy to move first.

If overwatch was a command point strategem that you could give to several units in a character radius or some such thing and it took the place of moving and shooting ala 2nd edtion I think you could have the best of both 8th and 2nd.

 admironheart wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing Overwatch as something you do INSTEAD of shooting (an possibly moving), but buff it to make it actually worthwhile.

I do agree that, as stands, Overwatch is a lot of dice rolling for little effect.

You mean like it was in 2nd edition.????

2nd edition overwatch countered all sorts of 'cheesy' rules....like skimmer 'pop-up' attacks and deep striking units/characters.

The big problem with 2nd edition overwatch was that every unit could do it and it was complained that it slowed the game down and prevented armies from moving. ie: wait for the enemy to move first.

If overwatch was a command point strategem that you could give to several units in a character radius or some such thing and it took the place of moving and shooting ala 2nd edtion I think you could have the best of both 8th and 2nd.

No to strategem. I HATE making everything into a strategem.

I think the no moving or shooting trade-off is good. I also think that there should be a "cannot overwatch 2 turns in a row"

It could possibly also only be limited to infiltrators like scouts and such maybe?

kaotkbliss wrote:
I think the no moving or shooting trade-off is good. I also think that there should be a "cannot overwatch 2 turns in a row"

It could possibly also only be limited to infiltrators like scouts and such maybe?

I agree with not being able to do it twice in a row. That would prevent a bunch of the static gunlines people worry about.

 techsoldaten wrote:
I'd like it if overwatch only applied to units that did not move that turn. You should have to set up to shoot like that, except with assault weapons.

Agree with this point.

Units can be set up, or 'go prone,' during its shooting phase - similar to how move and advance works. Soemthing like:

Go Prone

During your shooting phase, you may select a unit to go prone. Units gone prone cannot fire any weapon except assault weapons during your shooting phase, but may fire at any time during your opponents movement phase. Place a marker next to units that have gone prone to indicate this. (like a marker light counter)

Models in units firing in this manner can only shoot once, although they can allocate their attacks normally. If a model has fired his assault weapon during the precceding shooting phase, it may not fire again during the opponents movement phase.

Note, a unit gone prone cannot target units entering from tactical reserves - they can only prepare for threats they are aware of: they can still be caught off guard by surprises!

A rule like this can add another layer of tactical decisions I think.

Preventing them from shooting deepstrikers is nonsense. The whole point is to have a counter tool against imediate assault threats.

 techsoldaten wrote:
I'd like it if overwatch only applied to units that did not move that turn. You should have to set up to shoot like that, except with assault weapons.

Do we really want to encourage immobile, static gunlines even more?

well any proposed rules I always believe should be as simple and minimal change to existing.

This is why I suggested a modifier to hit for 'obscurement' rather than burning down the whole terrain rules.

As far as overwatch it needs to be simple. Strategems would limit its usage.

foregoing move and shoot did not work to limit static game play in 2nd ed...no evidence that 8th would be different.

If you permit it only every other turn....armies will just pair up units (MSUs) and keep the same results.

so what would be easy and simple to implement in Chapter Approved.??

Spitballing ideas here:
1 - overwatch only happens once per turn, not once per charge
2 - overwatch then becomes more reliant on BS, and less on a flat chance + weight of fire
3 - units gain firing arcs again? Not necessarily f/s/r but just 180degree front and back.

One thing that always bugged me about it...

Assault armies have 1 trick, and the opponent gets a free shot at them when they do it.

Why can't we overwatch shooting? Imagine a guard unit loading a shell into a basilisk. Am I just going to sit back and do nothing while he does that?

If someone tees up on me for charging, I should be able to shoot them for loading. Same thing.

 JimOnMars wrote:
One thing that always bugged me about it...

Assault armies have 1 trick, and the opponent gets a free shot at them when they do it.

Why can't we overwatch shooting? Imagine a guard unit loading a shell into a basilisk. Am I just going to sit back and do nothing while he does that?

If someone tees up on me for charging, I should be able to shoot them for loading. Same thing.

Go to proposed rules and look at the thread Beyond the Gates of 40k

I'm so happy and relieved to see I'm not the only one to have a problem whith overwatch.

Quick fix : Drop it with a few exception Tau, Mordian Regiment, assault weapon idk i'm a H2H guy)

Good fix : Many possibilities.

For myself I dislike the Necromunda way to handle overwatch but I really like this proposition :

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

But I would change it this way :

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 will strike first in the next fighting fight but at -1 WS, even if charged. -> or it would be better for a H2H unit to be charged than to charge. Feels ankward to me

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 charging unit get to fight it immediately and out of phase. If there is remaining enemy models within 1" of the charging unit at the start of the fight phase, it gets to be activated and fight again as normal. removing the unit entirely felt to harsh and could provoke strange situation where a tank could be deleted by grots just because it was not willing to take the fight.

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 can not be activated during the following fight phase.

 Lance845 wrote:
Preventing them from shooting deepstrikers is nonsense. The whole point is to have a counter tool against imediate assault threats.

The said element which doesn't allow shooting at deep striked units in my proposed rule is precisely to give entrenched units a certain weakness that can be exploited to discourage static gunlines.

Deep striking units are already imposed to decent amount of deterrence to 'deep strike assault' as they have to be placed 9" away from any enemy models.

As per proposed rule, you can shoot at units that are disembarking (i.e. valkyrie's grav chut insertion) under the premises you can spot them coming at you.

Not allowing shooting at deep striking units will give the player another level of decision to whether to go prone or not - if he/she dedicated all of his unit for proned shooting, but nothing moved within range but the deep strikers, he/she would have wasted all of his shooting attacks that could have been made the turn prior.

Plus, shooting at deep striking units currently is only allowed via few wargears. Allowing this per my proposed rule will invalidate those wargears.

 skchsan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Preventing them from shooting deepstrikers is nonsense. The whole point is to have a counter tool against imediate assault threats.

The said element which doesn't allow shooting at deep striked units in my proposed rule is precisely to give entrenched units a certain weakness that can be exploited to discourage static gunlines.

Deep striking units are already imposed to decent amount of deterrence to 'deep strike assault' as they have to be placed 9" away from any enemy models.

As per proposed rule, you can shoot at units that are disembarking (i.e. valkyrie's grav chut insertion) under the premises you can spot them coming at you.

Not allowing shooting at deep striking units will give the player another level of decision to whether to go prone or not - if he/she dedicated all of his unit for proned shooting, but nothing moved within range but the deep strikers, he/she would have wasted all of his shooting attacks that could have been made the turn prior.

Plus, shooting at deep striking units currently is only allowed via few wargears. Allowing this per my proposed rule will invalidate those wargears.

The wargear can be altered to improve on the situation.

I think that allowing movement, disallowing shooting and charging, to gain the ability to shoot on the opponents turn at -1 to enemies that charge/disembark/deepstrike is fine. It provides a counter to deepstriking shooters and should not be allowed to be used twice by a unit, letting the deepstriker charge as well. Deepstriking is a very powerful tool that has minimum counters, usually bubblewrap which slows the game and is not inherently fun for either side. Furthermore the overwatch might need to declare if they are guarding against charge or strike. This system would allow options for both sides to consider making the game more about thinking.

Do I deepstrike in pairs, do I have a deepstriking unit in reserve as a bluff to convince my opponent to waste multiple turns not shooting, do I coordinate a charge and deepstrike at the same enemy, do I accept that the enemy was going to shoot something anyways and just go for it?

On the other side, do I take the volly of shots against the opponents tank or wait for the charge/strike at a penalty? Should I move to a better position first (not static gunline) to encourage charging/striking in a specific location that I can react to? How do I accept losing a round of shooting if the enemy deepstrikes someplace else entirely or chooses not to charge and instead gets behind my line? What if the enemy charges a different unit and the whole round is wasted?

Minimally related: orks shouldn't be taking shooting penalties generally, Tau should be able to overwatch either without penalty and/or if not charged directly.

It's about counter play and interesting choices. As pointed out by Shas'O, what do you do? Do you risk your shots now for the potential of that deepstriker? How long do you keep those units hanging out in reserves to keep him wasting chances to shoot? How many units does he commit to protection? What units are left vulnerable while he does that?

By allowing Overwatch to be an effective active choice you open up lots of counter play that leads to more interesting choices and significantly more entertaining game play.

Hi folks.
''It's about counter play and interesting choices''
Could not have put in better myself.

However, why is 40k still stuck with a 'Napoleonic' game turn, which needs extra rule to get the level of interaction required in Napoleonic warfare.

40K should have far more interaction options ,as it at a much smaller scale,than Napoleonic warfare.(Squads fighting squads, not regiments fighting regiments.)

Here is a youtube video of a typical Napoleonic engagement.(From the film Waterloo,) to give a sense of scale and pace of this type of warfare.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vlcuvrM1po

I always though 40k was closer to modern warfare scale and scope.And therefore would benefit from a more interactive game turn to start with.

Here is a clip from 'Band of Brothers' , as an example of the scale and pacing of 'modern warfare'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6da9U6Xjd8

Do you agree that 40k is closer to modern warfare than Napoleonic?

Lanrak, it sounds like you're in favor of an activating system or other major overhaul which is a very popular opinion and topic but beyond the scope of this thread. 40k seems unable to choose between either of your options since it wants to be bigger than skirmish but more honed in than napoleanic, perhaps failing at both. Especially since units have reason to be clustered together making things less spread out than modern and more maneuverable than napoleanic.

Back to overwatch change making the game have more tactical options and be less one sided, should the player who goes second have any units starting in overwatch mode? And should that player get to choose VS ds or charge, or just ds?

This would help temper the 1st turn deepstrike steamroller. I'd propose a third of the units that deployed directly into the field be able to declare overwatch against deepstrike. If somebody manages a first turn charge they probably deserve the full effect.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
Lanrak, it sounds like you're in favor of an activating system or other major overhaul which is a very popular opinion and topic but beyond the scope of this thread. 40k seems unable to choose between either of your options since it wants to be bigger than skirmish but more honed in than napoleanic, perhaps failing at both.

Back to overwatch change making the game have more tactical options and be less one sided, should the player who goes second have any units starting in overwatch mode? And should that player get to choose VS ds or charge, or just ds?

This would help temper the 1st turn deepstrike steamroller. I'd propose a third of the units that deployed directly into the field be able to declare overwatch against deepstrike. If somebody manages a first turn charge they probably deserve the full effect.

I am personally of the opinion that all models that deploy normally within your deployent zone should begin the game on overwatch.

It would help be a deterrent against the overwhelming power house that is often the first turn charge and help negate first turn advantage while keeping the flow going with each subsequent turn.

 Lance845 wrote:

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
Lanrak, it sounds like you're in favor of an activating system or other major overhaul which is a very popular opinion and topic but beyond the scope of this thread. 40k seems unable to choose between either of your options since it wants to be bigger than skirmish but more honed in than napoleanic, perhaps failing at both.

Back to overwatch change making the game have more tactical options and be less one sided, should the player who goes second have any units starting in overwatch mode? And should that player get to choose VS ds or charge, or just ds?

This would help temper the 1st turn deepstrike steamroller. I'd propose a third of the units that deployed directly into the field be able to declare overwatch against deepstrike. If somebody manages a first turn charge they probably deserve the full effect.

I am personally of the opinion that all models that deploy normally within your deployent zone should begin the game on overwatch.

It would help be a deterrent against the overwhelming power house that is often the first turn charge and help negate first turn advantage while keeping the flow going with each subsequent turn.

Though it does virtually nothing to blunt a shooting offensive.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
Lanrak, it sounds like you're in favor of an activating system or other major overhaul which is a very popular opinion and topic but beyond the scope of this thread. 40k seems unable to choose between either of your options since it wants to be bigger than skirmish but more honed in than napoleanic, perhaps failing at both.

Back to overwatch change making the game have more tactical options and be less one sided, should the player who goes second have any units starting in overwatch mode? And should that player get to choose VS ds or charge, or just ds?

This would help temper the 1st turn deepstrike steamroller. I'd propose a third of the units that deployed directly into the field be able to declare overwatch against deepstrike. If somebody manages a first turn charge they probably deserve the full effect.

I am personally of the opinion that all models that deploy normally within your deployent zone should begin the game on overwatch.

It would help be a deterrent against the overwhelming power house that is often the first turn charge and help negate first turn advantage while keeping the flow going with each subsequent turn.

Though it does virtually nothing to blunt a shooting offensive.

In the fictional world where we are talking about overwatch acting as an activatable shooting phase in the opponents turn that triggers when the opponent moves within range, the choice you have to help protect against shooting is positioning and terrain along with overwatch against deep striking shooters.

Not every tool needs to work agaisnt every tool. Overwatch is for enemies who get too close. LOS blocking terrain and not deploying on the edge of your deployment zone are good ways to stop a gun line alpha strike.

Fair enough. This still leaves guard as an issue, what with their mortars, and manticores, and basilisks.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Fair enough. This still leaves guard as an issue, what with their mortars, and manticores, and basilisks.

Which is more of an issue because this game has entire armies go at a time instead of an alternating system (which would be the answer to that kind of crap while introducing better counter play and interesting choices and more engaging game play). But as noted, outside the scope of this particular thread.

 JNAProductions wrote:


Though it does virtually nothing to blunt a shooting offensive.

True, on a separate note terrain would need to be improved to provide better defense from a first turn long range shooting army. Though I think that's the case regardless of what happens to overwatch.

As far as artillery, it would either have to not shoot so that it could counter a counter to it or have not only bubble wrap against charging units but shooting strikers.

If you got first turn what unit would you choose to deploy around your manticore and basilisk to keep my crisis suit squad (9 meltaguns with 18" range, T5, 3W, 3+) away from them? Or would you choose to keep them in overwatch? If I went first I'd consider keeping the suits in reserve to see what you do or have them come in behind cover and let you chase em down.
Currently haha too bad, on my turn they are coming in within 18" and laying waste to anything scary looking regardless of 1st or 2nd.

I would think the natural enemy of long range high power shooting is opposing long range high power shooting. Or airborne units that can close the gap in no time, don't count as charging or striking, and have massive dakka. This could give fliers a role as the first turn gamble, if you get first you'll be able to do the next best thing to deep strike unharmed, if you go 2nd your flier is probably grounded by your turn. Not that they aren't already but I'm of the opinion that deepstriking is a heavier threat. Also, if a flier with embarked troops tries to disembark over you the troops get overwatched, which means the flier might prioritize taking out the watcher rather than the heavier hitting target.

Things to think about. Which is why I don't want everything to have overwatch from the get go, a player should have to make choices.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Fair enough. This still leaves guard as an issue, what with their mortars, and manticores, and basilisks.

As a side note, the Manticore can only overwatch with its Heavy Bolter or Flamer. And IIRC, the Basilisk is the same way.

It should have never existed and I wish it was dead.