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.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
nobody hits in overwatch on anything better than a 5+.

The only units that do that are the ones that specifically state they hit on a 5+ in overwatch.

If they don't mention overwatch specifically, they only hit on a 6+.


NOTHING IN THE FAQ changes that.

Wrong. Custodes unit with the Gatekeeper relic hits on 3+

No, not "Wrong", just inaccurate. The spirit of Eihnlazer's post is correct: The only units that can Overwatch better than 6s specifically state so in their rules.
So Custodes with the Gatekeeper relic hit on 3+ because that relic says so and only for the model with it. But 90% of all other units that get a boost to Overwatch rolls are typically just 5+

-

My bad, I tend to not even remember pointless relics like that exist.

That's ok, Dire Avengers are the only example I can readily think of the OWs on 5+ or better.

-

Seriously, Maugan Ra doesn't have inescapable accuracy. he has Inescapable death. In the shooting phase. Now in the Orverwatch Phase. And it doesn't have the FAQ entry saying no.

Eldar Buffed in the FAQ afterall!

Maugan Ra does now hit on a 2+, rerolling 1s in OW. It's an ability that functions in the shooting phase, so now works with OW.

Dark Reapers got a special nerf so that they wouldn't be even more insane, but it only applies to them. It's not like his pot shots are going to be doing much, anyway. Let the poor elf have this one.

 Trimarius wrote:
Maugan Ra does now hit on a 2+, rerolling 1s in OW. It's an ability that functions in the shooting phase, so now works with OW.

Dark Reapers got a special nerf so that they wouldn't be even more insane, but it only applies to them. It's not like his pot shots are going to be doing much, anyway. Let the poor elf have this one.

Agreed. As silly as it is for his Inescapable Death rule to work in Overwatch and not the Reaper's Inescapable Accuracy, only the Reapers have a "No" in the FAQ

-

you guys need to stop. The FAQ saying no is still there and nowhere in his ability does it mention overwatch so no it doesn work.

Get over it.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
you guys need to stop. The FAQ saying no is still there and nowhere in his ability does it mention overwatch so no it doesn work.

Get over it.

Sorry, bit RAW, this just isn't true any more.

Get over it.

The FAQ saying no is about IA, a "completely different" rule.

It's nearly impossible to read it as RAI that way, so I hope nobody ever tries to argue this in a game.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
you guys need to stop. The FAQ saying no is still there and nowhere in his ability does it mention overwatch so no it doesn work.

Get over it.

Faq has no just for reapers. Special exception. Like faq gave quantum shield boost strategem special exception to work vs d1 weapons despite needing to roll less than 1 and faq also says less than 1 counts as 1. So all others if you roll less than 1 you count as rolling 1. Not necrons in this usage

Raw it shouldn't work. But faq ignores raw time to time. Tough. Get over it.

There's a lot of silly in the FAQ if you specifically read past intent (I know, 40k players), as someone pointed out, the fact that Rubrics are considered a psyker unit could be interpreted as every time you remove a model from the unit as a result of perils, it blows up and does D6 MW to the squad. We all know that's not the intent, it won't stop some pedantic scrub from trying to wrangle advantage from a completely disingenuous reading of the rule.

My understanding of fixed modifiers is that they happen at the same time- so RAW Maugan Ra has a fixed modifier of 2+ from ID at the same time as a fixed modifier of 6+ from OW, because Ra's rule does not specifical mention overriding OW- therefore both modifiers are simultaneously valid.

I believe the rulebook has a way of resolving simultaneous, conflicting fixed modifiers. I don't have mine to hand, can someone clarify? Is it decided by the player who's turn it is, or by a roll-off?

 Haighus wrote:
My understanding of fixed modifiers is that they happen at the same time- so RAW Maugan Ra has a fixed modifier of 2+ from ID at the same time as a fixed modifier of 6+ from OW, because Ra's rule does not specifical mention overriding OW- therefore both modifiers are simultaneously valid.

I'm thinking this is just a quick and dirty way of constructing a list of people you don't play against. You know the intent and as a result of interpretation, you know the intent of the person trying to exploit it, if you choose to play against that person or really engage with them in any way, well, that's on you.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
My understanding of fixed modifiers is that they happen at the same time- so RAW Maugan Ra has a fixed modifier of 2+ from ID at the same time as a fixed modifier of 6+ from OW, because Ra's rule does not specifical mention overriding OW- therefore both modifiers are simultaneously valid.

I'm thinking this is just a quick and dirty way of constructing a list of people you don't play against. You know the intent and as a result of interpretation, you know the intent of the person trying to exploit it, if you choose to play against that person or really engage with them in any way, well, that's on you.

Eh, I'm never going to ever play it this way (even if I actually had an Aeldari army, nevermind one with Maugan Ra in it). But that doesn't mean it isn't interesting to tease out the strict RAW reading of a particular rules interaction- for a start, working it out allows the community to give feedback to GW on how to correct it to RAI in the future, and hopefully helps them learn how to write less ambiguous rules.

I have no problem with a special guy , and one small like a phoenix lord, hitting on overwatch on 2+.

 Galas wrote:
I have no problem with a special guy , and one small like a phoenix lord, hitting on overwatch on 2+.

I don't particularly think it's overwhelming or crazy to have 1 special character that can do that. However, what it tells me about the player attempting to do that speaks volumes and I want nothing to do with that person.

 Galas wrote:
I have no problem with a special guy , and one small like a phoenix lord, hitting on overwatch on 2+.

This is also true. In this specific example, I'd be fine with an opponent playing it this way. I wouldn't try it myself, mind, partly because I can't be bothered with the argument.

Honestly, I think the likely outcome is the rule gets added to the next FAQ/Chapter Approved and we can all forget about it, except that one person arguing "no" isn't a valid English word.

Specific overrides general, so I think that RAW the phoenix lord would hit on 2's, since he has a static buff that always applies in the shooting phase, and effects that would apply in the shooting phase now also apply during overwatch. Therefore, there's a general rule that says people hit on overwatch on 6's, and then there's a specific rule that says he hits on 2's that overrides that. If it was alternately interpreted, other benefits to hit in overwatch wouldn't work.

Dark Reapers have a specific callout, IIRC, that says they don't work.

Leman Russ Grinding Advance specifies the following shooting phase, so it doesn't work in overwatch

This is how you get gak like "can i move off the table" and "do I lose if I concede".

Internet TFG who think their own so clever and 'discuss' it for hours but won't ever do it in a real game because they know they will get laughed out of the store/tournament.

Just ignore the obvious trolls.

I wish GW spent a little more time working through the implications of the rules when they make some of these changes.

Does the Vindicare now hit on a 2+ in overwatch?
Does Maugan Ra shoot twice in overwatch?

Time for a USR discussion?

I am somewhat perplexed that "Unless a ballistic skill or hit roll modifier states otherwise, it does not apply to Overwatch rolls." isn't directly stated in the FAQ.

Reemule wrote:
I wish GW spent a little more time working through the implications of the rules when they make some of these changes.

Does the Vindicare now hit on a 2+ in overwatch?
Does Maugan Ra shoot twice in overwatch?

Time for a USR discussion?

I think vindicare specifically states its doesn't not apply in overwatch in it's rule.

They just need to amend overwatch's wording. "Overwatch does not count as shooting in the shooting phase" or whatever they choose to do with it. It would be better than amending all the special cases.

Small note just to throw in for fun Mordian tanks can hit on a 4+ in overwatch I do believe.

RAW is not how real law works. There's no compelling reason to be enslaved in a game.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Small note just to throw in for fun Mordian tanks can hit on a 4+ in overwatch I do believe.

4+ rerollable baby! Mordian+Defensive gunners+tank company warlord trait.

There were actual people who refused to let you heal things with tech marines in the last edition....because their requirement to heal things was breaking the rules of the game.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Small note just to throw in for fun Mordian tanks can hit on a 4+ in overwatch I do believe.

And a variety of units can also hit on 4+ when using the Vigilus Defiant specialist detachment stratagems.

Honestly, I'm not certain where the confusion is. Aside from one specific example of a special character that has been collecting dust for ages, and basically just turns the weapon into a flamer for overwatch purposes, everything else seems to have a nice rule explanation to tie it all together.

Grinding Advance - following shooting phase means not in overwatch.
Dark Reapers - FAQ says no (no means no)
Vindicare - specifically says not in overwatch (no also means no here, too)

Not even sure what other crazy outliers there are.

 Haighus wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
My understanding of fixed modifiers is that they happen at the same time- so RAW Maugan Ra has a fixed modifier of 2+ from ID at the same time as a fixed modifier of 6+ from OW, because Ra's rule does not specifical mention overriding OW- therefore both modifiers are simultaneously valid.

I'm thinking this is just a quick and dirty way of constructing a list of people you don't play against. You know the intent and as a result of interpretation, you know the intent of the person trying to exploit it, if you choose to play against that person or really engage with them in any way, well, that's on you.

Eh, I'm never going to ever play it this way (even if I actually had an Aeldari army, nevermind one with Maugan Ra in it). But that doesn't mean it isn't interesting to tease out the strict RAW reading of a particular rules interaction- for a start, working it out allows the community to give feedback to GW on how to correct it to RAI in the future, and hopefully helps them learn how to write less ambiguous rules.

I think if anyone is arguing over what BS he fires at in OW has bigger problems because he's actually getting charged. He should probably never be in a position to be charged anyway

 Haighus wrote:
My understanding of fixed modifiers is that they happen at the same time- so RAW Maugan Ra has a fixed modifier of 2+ from ID at the same time as a fixed modifier of 6+ from OW, because Ra's rule does not specifical mention overriding OW- therefore both modifiers are simultaneously valid.

I believe the rulebook has a way of resolving simultaneous, conflicting fixed modifiers. I don't have mine to hand, can someone clarify? Is it decided by the player who's turn it is, or by a roll-off?

We just had FAQ that states that when attacker has always hit X and defender has always hit on X the attacker trumps defender...

Why think it's same time when the DESIGNERS are telling order it is done? Attacker trumps defender. That's the official rule. If you want to house rule fine but official rule is attacker trumps defender.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
I am somewhat perplexed that "Unless a ballistic skill or hit roll modifier states otherwise, it does not apply to Overwatch rolls." isn't directly stated in the FAQ.

Because GW still has faith that their fanbase doesn't need to be specifically told "don't be a jackwagon" and expects us to be capable of applying a modicum of common sense. It's obvious they don't read DakkaDakka. Seriously. The last three pages or so are a shining example of why we literally have an FAQ that says you lose if you forfeit the game.