Overwatch is horrible game design

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.

**Unit1126PLL**

Bharring wrote:
Your bullets don't need to be literally unable to stop them. The slings and arrows of the dark ages were literally able to stop a contemporary solider. But they were practically or feasibly unable to stop them. So slings and arrows were used *in conjunction with* other forms of warfare.

In WW2, it didn't take a particularly heavy rifle to take down an aircraft. But rifles weren't a useful way to take down an aircraft. So they used other tools to take down aircraft. But they didn't throw away their rifles.

Okay, I'll replace "practically or feasibly" unable to stop them instead of Literally.

But the point stands: make a shooting weapon bad against the expected target types, and players stop taking it and start taking the good weapon. The only option is to price shooting incredibly high compared to melee (e.g. an anti-space-marine gun like the Basilisk should be 300-400 pts, to give a 20-man khorne berzker squad a chance to walk into melee like they do in the fluff - if they're only 100 like now, the army will still stop the Zerkers, even if they have a 2+ rerolling 1s against lasguns). Which is a bit silly, since in the fluff, the Imperial Guard are supposed to do most of the outnumbering.

**Bharring**

Klickor wrote:
The imperial guard is ranged dominant and so is the Tau. They are the only 2 "normal" armies and behave as such.

99% of the imperiums battle is fought ranged but those engagement arent that interesting. All the factions with serious melee component have factors that reduce the lethality of normal ranged weapons. But in a typical battle for the Imperial Guard their lasguns work. When they fight power armor or tougher is a tiny minority of their engagements.

Space marines are mostly close ranged combat but they also engage close and have massive armor not available to the common soldiers. Eldar are faster and orks or demons sturdy enough that small arms fire isnt a danger unless massed.

Even though some enemies can shrug off the fire from a squad or two of guardsmen most cant and even space marine armor could succumb under a critical mass. Most fighting in the 40k universe is more "boring" than what we see on the table top so weak weapons like lasguns wouldnt be abandoned just because space marines can shrug it off.

Orks, Tyranids and some times demons comes in such numbers that even though ranged weapons are effective and cause huge casualties the horde just wont stop and sooner or later they will get in close combat no matter what you shoot them with. In a 40k game we might have 100-200 models of orks or tyranids fighting sub 100 models from the other faction. Sure in the lore the orks or tyranids would have 0 chance with those numbers but the game is an abstraction and if you instead treat the 150 orks as 1500 against the 60 marines then it makes more sense if it ends with close combat. The power armor can withstand the orks shooting but 60 marines cant kill 1500 orks before they get close and in melee orks insane strength can come into play.

Looks like I made exactly the same post as Bharring but written more slowly.

But more eloquently.

**amanita**

I'm not sure why melee is even being debated as an element of 40K. It's integral to the setting. Arguing otherwise is from a position of ignorance. Ignoring plenty of real world examples doesn't give any weight to the idea that melee is not viable. War typically does NOT allow for a tidy arrangement of optimal weapons against an enemy as well as ideal conditions for battle. The Japanese attack on Saipan with over 4000 troops (some of which were unarmed) may have been desperate and suicidal...but it happened. Why expect less from 40K, which at its core is all inclusive?

Postulating that melee shouldn't be possible in such a setting filled with violent warp-enhanced super soldiers, blood-thirsty fungoid hooligans and all-consuming lizard insect beasts is utterly ridiculous, much less dismissing the motivation for such entities. 40K has never represented an accurate assessment of futuristic combat, and why should it? Pushing a panel of buttons to eliminate an enemy over the horizon doesn't have much visceral appeal, does it?

The current Overwatch mechanic is a poor way of addressing the inevitable assault, but the principle is sound even if its execution has much to be desired. Current 40K rules seem to lean toward using buckets of dice to have minimal yet possible effect, and Overwatch is no different.

**Unit1126PLL**

Insectum7 wrote:
You are stuck on the notion that life is precious and we're only talking about humans fighting humans in roughly symmetrical warfare. 40K isn't bound to that. Life is not precious, armies have wildly different equipment and oftentimes you're having to fight gorillas or lion equivalents that have human intelligence or better. Like, the IG fight as you say they do, more or less. But Tyranids? Orks? They don't follow the same rules. Likewise, Space Marines have the very particular job of boarding spacecraft and defenses, as well as bully renegade human factions. They function on a different doctrine than a "normal" army. They'll fight in CC to conserve ammunition and keep the battle momentum up.

I agree, fluffwise.

But we're talking about melee being overpowered in the context of the battlefield upon which 8th edition is played - a 6x4, typically with a bunch of LOS blocking terrain (hopefully) and deployment zones roughly 24" apart for most missions.

I agree that in the narrative, melee is effective in certain situations. And I actually think if you set those situations on the tabletop, melee would prove to be pretty damn effective. But the current set of 40k missions played on a 6x4 and about which players who like melee complain, it's literally a trench line of Imperial Guardsmen, a tank squadron, and some artillery with pre-registered fire (apparently, since there's no negative to-hit), dug in to optimal defensive positions with commanding fields of fire.

That's the kind of engagement that the current 40k game represents, and that's the kind of engagement where "lions or gorillas with human intelligence" would be better off using guns than their natural gifts. So it's no surprise that shooting is utterly ridiculous.

EDIT:
I want people to realize I'm not saying melee shouldn't be possible. I'm saying that the designers wrote themselves into a corner, by making a setting that is inherently self-contradictory. "Open field battles often devolve into medieval-style swordfights" is inherently incompatible with "mechanized warfare with tanks, artillery, and airstrikes is a viable form of war!" because they're mutually exclusive. If one is true, then the other isn't - except in specific, isolated cases. But the game of 40k doesn't reflect those specific isolated cases as it stands, because the designers choose not to.

**Insectum7**

Also, if you take two roughly-real-world equivalent armies in 40K, IG, it will naturally just turn into a shooting match.

**Unit1126PLL**

Insectum7 wrote:
Also, if you take two roughly-real-world equivalent armies in 40K, IG, it will naturally just turn into a shooting match.

This is also true but not exactly relevant to what people are complaining about (or what I am trying to assert).

**Insectum7**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Also, if you take two roughly-real-world equivalent armies in 40K, IG, it will naturally just turn into a shooting match.

This is also true but not exactly relevant to what people are complaining about (or what I am trying to assert).

Well they're wrong.

40K incorporates a very wide array of units to use, some of which have excellent armor or straight up magical abilities, or are simply so fast and aggressive that CC becomes a thing in spite of all the guns that are available.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

I want people to realize I'm not saying melee shouldn't be possible. I'm saying that the designers wrote themselves into a corner, by making a setting that is inherently self-contradictory. "Open field battles often devolve into medieval-style swordfights" is inherently incompatible with "mechanized warfare with tanks, artillery, and airstrikes is a viable form of war!" because they're mutually exclusive. If one is true, then the other isn't - except in specific, isolated cases. But the game of 40k doesn't reflect those specific isolated cases as it stands, because the designers choose not to.

My point is effectively that it's not self-contradictory because the elements involved are non-real-world and extremely diverse. Like, if we had awesome speed enhancing armor and a lack of fear against small arms fire, then clearing a house of baddies-with-guns while using a super-sword isn't really too far fetched. You gotta clear that house, you want to save your bullets, and your religion tells you that hand to hand combat is glorious and honorable. . . get out your sword. S***, a marine could kill a guy buy forcibly sitting on them.

As for charging across open ground into a gunline, Tyranids haven't a care in the world as long as they think that'll get the job done. Also, Tyranids have a lot of guns if they want to do that instead.

**Unit1126PLL**

I generally agree with you - but players are complaining about the tabletop situation, not the lore situation.

Since the game-designers haven't included house-clearing, and haven't given tyranids infinite melee monsters, then melee is worse than shooting, because the game-designers have painted themselves into a corner by either:

1) Not following the lore (seems to be your argument - the missions and rules don't allow for house clearing and infinite tyranids)

2) Having to follow lore that's contradictory (which you assert it isn't. I don't personally care)

**Insectum7**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I generally agree with you - but players are complaining about the tabletop situation, not the lore situation.

Since the game-designers haven't included house-clearing, and haven't given tyranids infinite melee monsters, then melee is worse than shooting, because the game-designers have painted themselves into a corner by either:

1) Not following the lore (seems to be your argument - the missions and rules don't allow for house clearing and infinite tyranids)

2) Having to follow lore that's contradictory (which you assert it isn't. I don't personally care)

If the argument is that melee is worse than shooting. . . that seems to be a terrain issue. One expects a CC army to be at a disadvantage in more open terrain, and an advantage in dense terrain. The game reflects this. It could reflect it even better with better terrain rules, but the basics are already there.

Example: A Charging unit can only be overwatched against if it can be seen. In dense terrain they are more likely to be able to pounce from out of LOS.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Insectum7 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
I generally agree with you - but players are complaining about the tabletop situation, not the lore situation.

Since the game-designers haven't included house-clearing, and haven't given tyranids infinite melee monsters, then melee is worse than shooting, because the game-designers have painted themselves into a corner by either:

1) Not following the lore (seems to be your argument - the missions and rules don't allow for house clearing and infinite tyranids)

2) Having to follow lore that's contradictory (which you assert it isn't. I don't personally care)

If the argument is that melee is worse than shooting. . . that seems to be a terrain issue. One expects a CC army to be at a disadvantage in more open terrain, and an advantage in dense terrain. The game reflects this. It could reflect it even better with better terrain rules, but the basics are already there.

Example: A Charging unit can only be overwatched against if it can be seen. In dense terrain they are more likely to be able to pounce from out of LOS.

This is an excellent idea. Granted it mostly pushes units that have Fly already and those are the ones being used.

**Insectum7**

Depends on the terrain rules. If bikes cant enter buildings than jetbikes with Fly can't assault into structures. Same with tanks. Used to be that bikes took a risk when moving through a forest. Maybe there are other problems with flyers, and attacking troops in certain types of cover should be more difficult from the air.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Insectum7 wrote:
Depends on the terrain rules. If bikes cant enter buildings than jetbikes with Fly can't assault into structures. Same with tanks. Used to be that bikes took a risk when moving through a forest. Maybe there are other problems with flyers, and attacking troops in certain types of cover should be more difficult from the air.

I'm glad you're at least in agreement with me on there needing a change on terrain rules.

**Insectum7**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Depends on the terrain rules. If bikes cant enter buildings than jetbikes with Fly can't assault into structures. Same with tanks. Used to be that bikes took a risk when moving through a forest. Maybe there are other problems with flyers, and attacking troops in certain types of cover should be more difficult from the air.

I'm glad you're at least in agreement with me on there needing a change on terrain rules.

Indeed. They are lacking.

**NinthMusketeer**

I always felt that overwatch should be better (like -2 to hit instead of flat 6s) BUT eat that unit's next shooting phase. As in they aren't able to shoot the next turn. Doing that would create a situation where weapons don't magically gain extra ammunition & firing rate when enemies look at them funny and having a charging unit shot to death on overwatch still provides a benefit to the owning player, while also offering interesting tactical options where the unit that overwatched can now advance since its shooting is already gone regardless.

Of course this would also have to be accompanied by a unit that overwatches cannot retreat in its next movement phase. Which I feel should be a thing anyways.

**Sumilidon**

For me, Overwatch should only be allowed when a successful charge has been made - not when attempted.

In terms of balance - the failed chargers don't get to move any closer - yet the defending unit got a free round of shooting regardless (although limited).

**fraser1191**

It'd be nice if you could opt to move up to your failed charge distance because it'd open up opportunities.

Say there's a terrain piece between the charger and chargee, the charger fails, takes the overwatch but gets to move into the terrain piece. I think this is all that would need to be done because now a melee unit can't just be kited around

**Insectum7**

Sumilidon wrote:
For me, Overwatch should only be allowed when a successful charge has been made - not when attempted.

In terms of balance - the failed chargers don't get to move any closer - yet the defending unit got a free round of shooting regardless (although limited).

Removing Overwatch kills any risk for the charger in declaring long distance charges, or charging multiple units. Without Overwatch there would be no downside to just declaring a charge against everything in 12" and seeing how well you rolled before deciding what to do.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NinthMusketeer wrote:
I always felt that overwatch should be better (like -2 to hit instead of flat 6s) BUT eat that unit's next shooting phase. As in they aren't able to shoot the next turn. Doing that would create a situation where weapons don't magically gain extra ammunition & firing rate when enemies look at them funny and having a charging unit shot to death on overwatch still provides a benefit to the owning player, while also offering interesting tactical options where the unit that overwatched can now advance since its shooting is already gone regardless.

I think that's the wrong representation of what's happening. Instead of a unit full-firing multiple times and only hitting on 6's, imagine instead that a unit has limited situational awareness, and that the roll of 6 to hit represents more the fact that the defending unit is barely able to take shots beyond what they would otherwise normally be doing during their own turn. Overwatch isn't full battle rounds of concentrated fire the way that it is in the firing phase, but ad-hoc snap firing in addition to normal firing. Not much extra ammunition is being expended. An Overwatch to-hit roll isn't just a literal "to-hit", but mostly a "do I even have a chance to fire?".

**v0iddrgn**

I think 9th should have a blanket "No Retreat" roll of 5+ when your opponent wants to fall back from combat with a unit. Unit's with Fly modify it to a 6+, units that have lash whips, whip coils, etc... modify it to a 4+. Falling back for free punishes melee and while I like the concept of a mirror action (another combat hitting on 6's as they try to fall back) that will ultimately slow the game down versus a single die roll.

**tulun**

Overwatch is only bad design because shooting is so powerful this edition.

If it was toned back I bet people would rarely complain.

**v0iddrgn**

I just would like to add that Overwatch in general isn't that bad, it's when units get to modify it, for instance, with rerolls to hit or 5+ hits WITH rerolls that it becomes toxic and just another free shooting phase. The sad part is the factions that get to do this are not factions that feature a low number of high quality shooting but rather typically have high volume of shots. That's what becomes absurd IMO.

**Blackie**

Insectum7 wrote:

Removing Overwatch kills any risk for the charger in declaring long distance charges, or charging multiple units. Without Overwatch there would be no downside to just declaring a charge against everything in 12" and seeing how well you rolled before deciding what to do.

And? You don't have any risk when you decide to target something by shooting.

Melee is bland anyway in this edition. How can the "fighting twice" stratagem cost 3 CPs when the "shoot twice" one is just 2 is beyond me.

**Gary_1986**

I must admit I like Overwatch if I'm honest. Had first game since like Fifth Edition this afternoon. GK vs. Necrons, and Overwatch (which I've never experienced before) was rather decent, didn't affect the Knights all that much but due to the sheer volume of Storm Bolter fire I had did it's job quite well.

It makes sense to be fair that a unit that is being charged from a bunch of crazed, power armoured, sword wielding nut cases would chose to shoot them before engaging in hand to hand. It almost gives the Tau Empire (the second force I own) a chance to survive Close Combat without being curb stomped.

**Insectum7**

Blackie wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:

Removing Overwatch kills any risk for the charger in declaring long distance charges, or charging multiple units. Without Overwatch there would be no downside to just declaring a charge against everything in 12" and seeing how well you rolled before deciding what to do.

And? You don't have any risk when you decide to target something by shooting.

Melee is bland anyway in this edition. How can the "fighting twice" stratagem cost 3 CPs when the "shoot twice" one is just 2 is beyond me.

Merely touching many targets stops them from shooting the following turn, and that is incredibly powerful. Shooting a single bolter at a unit cannot claim the same. Charging everything within 12" has the potential to effectively shut down whole portions of an army. 30 Termagants can shut down a tank company, for example.

Additionally, only a few powerful shooting units have access to shoot-twice. The damage/maneuver manipulation ability of fight-twice is often higher. The top performer for shoot-twice I can think of is Obliterators. Powerfull CC units can do better with fight-twice.

Quick math:
Full unit of Obliterators rolling average get 6 wounds against a Knight.

Full unit of TH Terminators rolling average get 18 wounds, 3x the damage.

**AnomanderRake**

You can't reposition after fighting once to fight again, but you can choose a new target after shooting once to shoot again. It's much easier to actually use without just overkilling one thing.

**Continuity**

Insectum7 wrote:
Blackie wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:

Removing Overwatch kills any risk for the charger in declaring long distance charges, or charging multiple units. Without Overwatch there would be no downside to just declaring a charge against everything in 12" and seeing how well you rolled before deciding what to do.

And? You don't have any risk when you decide to target something by shooting.

Melee is bland anyway in this edition. How can the "fighting twice" stratagem cost 3 CPs when the "shoot twice" one is just 2 is beyond me.

Merely touching many targets stops them from shooting the following turn, and that is incredibly powerful. Shooting a single bolter at a unit cannot claim the same. Charging everything within 12" has the potential to effectively shut down whole portions of an army. 30 Termagants can shut down a tank company, for example.

Additionally, only a few powerful shooting units have access to shoot-twice. The damage/maneuver manipulation ability of fight-twice is often higher. The top performer for shoot-twice I can think of is Obliterators. Powerfull CC units can do better with fight-twice.

Quick math:
Full unit of Obliterators rolling average get 6 wounds against a Knight.

Full unit of TH Terminators rolling average get 18 wounds, 3x the damage.

Yes, touching a unit prevents from shooting on paper, but in practice majority of the best shooting units have fly or other ways to fall back and still shoot. This is obvious in the top 3 shooty factions in the game: elves, marines and tau. So yes, bad touching units is powerful on paper, but highly situation in practice. I'd say that being able to wrap a unit to stay safe in combat is the most powerful aspect of melee in the current state of the game.

Also I think your comparison between oblits and terminator is cherry picking. Knights are explicitly designed to be vulnerable in melee since they have a 4++ at range and no invul in melee at all, that's like me saying melee is worse than shooting because I do fewer wounds in melee against wyches.

**Insectum7**

Knight is a bad comparison choice, thats fair. But I think the point stands. As the Terminators still do 50% more wounds if the 4++ was in place for them, too.

**JNAProductions**

But the Terminators also have to tank an entire round of stomps before they can Fight Again. Oblits just shoot again with no response.

**Insectum7**

JNAProductions wrote:
But the Terminators also have to tank an entire round of stomps before they can Fight Again. Oblits just shoot again with no response.

Fair, but I still think that overall Damage+Lockdown is greater than just Damage, and Damage+Additional Move+More Lockdown is greater than Damage.

Overall, Shooting vs. Assault dont have to be even, they have to be justified.

Additionally, I think the Fall Back/Lockdown(a Grot stopping a Russ from firing) are greater issues than Overwatch.

**JNAProductions**

Insectum7 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
But the Terminators also have to tank an entire round of stomps before they can Fight Again. Oblits just shoot again with no response.

Fair, but I still think that overall Damage+Lockdown is greater than just Damage, and Damage+Additional Move+More Lockdown is greater than Damage.

Right, but you also have to eat Overwatch, make your charge, and then survive counterattack all before you can fight again. Not to mention, if you charged, you can ONLY fight what you charge, so if you get lucky and punk out the Knight in your first fight, you can't even pile in and fight something else-you can spend the 3 CP, but you cannot actually attack anything else, only move around.

Shooting may, in this specific instance, be less potent, but it's also a hell of lot easier and more reliable.

**Insectum7**

But again, Overwatch puts a mechanic against declaring charges against everything, and is therefore good.

Fall Back and Lockdown are the points of error, I think.