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.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Not that it would see much use in 40k, I do like the Killteam approach of either fire Overwatch, or retreat 3 inches and screw your opponents charge.

I kinda hope 9th takes some of Killteam and some of Apocalypse to make a more interactive system for both players.

I would really like to be able to fall back three inches instead of shooting with some of my stuff, as for damage being done at the end of the battle round as in Apocalypse, that would be interesting as well.

More so than anything I think they should try to incorporate some of the "Cities of Death" rules into baseline 40K. I just started in August of 2018, and didn't know there was such a massive upheaval in rules from 7th to 8th edition and looking over some of the old rules and new rules, a D12 for saves (like in APoc) and getting rid of invulnerable saves all together and just having wounds/saves redone would be interesting.

D12 no thanks.
2d6 gives range of 2 to 12.
Better idea as in termies from way back...

2d6 saves means having to roll them one at a time. Unless you have pairs of dice all different colours. Its impractical.

Tygre wrote:
2d6 saves means having to roll them one at a time. Unless you have pairs of dice all different colours. Its impractical.

"Impractical" covers most of 2nd edition's mechanics. Pretty decent rules, but not for the style of game 40k has become. Overwatch was terrible in 2nd edition too - it just led to armies sitting in one place the whole game for fear of getting gunned down. At least now when armies sit in one place for the whole game they're still taking shots.

Apoc saves are good (and you stil have the equivalent of Invulns)

too many models on the table for 2D6 saves. Could go for D12 or D10.

Damage being at end of turn is another great thing in Apocolypse

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

But Overwatch WILL stop them from declaring a charge against 6 units, three of whom might be sitting at 10+ inches.

I’m not seeing why that’s important or necessary. If units are that close together then consolidation would let them tag who they want anyway.

But not attack them, while the defender fights back. Declaring the charge allows you to attack more units.

And? The unit doesn’t get more attacks, and they also then have to deal with all 6 units swinging back. The biggest win is just tagging many units to force them to fall back and not shoot. It just seems like you’re preventing a mild edge case scenario with a mechanic that many people have expressed they don’t like.

Plus, charging tau means all 6 units get to shoot you anyway.

The unit can get more attacks by spending 3CP. Overwatch still cuts down on frivolous charges.

People have expressed that they dislike Overwatch generally as part of a whole package of CC not feeling powerful enough. Addressing fallback would help that cause better than Overwatch, imo. Declaring far-charges won't be an edge case scenario if Overwatch isn't there., because if there's no downside to declaring a charge against everything, why wouldn't you? Overwatch forces you to actually make a decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blood reaper wrote:

Overwatch is a terrible rule because it reinforces the fact that there is simply no reason to ever go into close combat because there is no disadvantage to shooting, ever.

Merely touching a unit can make them not shoot in their next turn. Tri-cornering a model prevents Fall Back, effectvely hiding your own unit from enemy shooting. Both of these are very powerful abilities aside from the damage dealt in CC.

And both are entirely negated by Fly.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And both are entirely negated by Fly.

That doesn't seem like a problem with Overwatch, that seems like a problem with Fall Back.

 Insectum7 wrote:


The unit can get more attacks by spending 3CP. Overwatch still cuts down on frivolous charges.

People have expressed that they dislike Overwatch generally as part of a whole package of CC not feeling powerful enough. Addressing fallback would help that cause better than Overwatch, imo. Declaring far-charges won't be an edge case scenario if Overwatch isn't there., because if there's no downside to declaring a charge against everything, why wouldn't you? Overwatch forces you to actually make a decision.

But why is being able to multi charge a bad thing? Why are far charges bad and frivolous? Why do you feel the need to force a choice upon those melee units? Why should melee units be forced into such a decision when ranged units can split fire all they want and still get access to shoot twice strats? Where is the penalty for split fire?

Overwatch has no penalty or cost for the player that benefits from it, and i feel that is bad for gameplay.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Declaring far-charges won't be an edge case scenario if Overwatch isn't there., because if there's no downside to declaring a charge against everything, why wouldn't you? Overwatch forces you to actually make a decision.

What gameplay benefit does that decision provide?

IMO it leads to incredibly unintuitive gameplay- the idea of not declaring a charge against one unit so they can't shoot as you run up, but then consolidating into them anyways, so they're technically in melee, but you can't hit them, but they can hit you... It makes no logical sense and is too far abstracted from the 'reality' that the rules are meant to depict.

From a purely balance perspective it's another big negative on melee that shooting units have no appropriate counterpart for. You can split fire as much as you want, no penalty, no drawback.

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


The unit can get more attacks by spending 3CP. Overwatch still cuts down on frivolous charges.

People have expressed that they dislike Overwatch generally as part of a whole package of CC not feeling powerful enough. Addressing fallback would help that cause better than Overwatch, imo. Declaring far-charges won't be an edge case scenario if Overwatch isn't there., because if there's no downside to declaring a charge against everything, why wouldn't you? Overwatch forces you to actually make a decision.

But why is being able to multi charge a bad thing? Why are far charges bad and frivolous? Why do you feel the need to force a choice upon those melee units? Why should melee units be forced into such a decision when ranged units can split fire all they want and still get access to shoot twice strats? Where is the penalty for split fire?

Overwatch has no penalty or cost for the player that benefits from it, and i feel that is bad for gameplay.

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Declaring far-charges won't be an edge case scenario if Overwatch isn't there., because if there's no downside to declaring a charge against everything, why wouldn't you? Overwatch forces you to actually make a decision.

What gameplay benefit does that decision provide?

IMO it leads to incredibly unintuitive gameplay- the idea of not declaring a charge against one unit so they can't shoot as you run up, but then consolidating into them anyways, so they're technically in melee, but you can't hit them, but they can hit you... It makes no logical sense and is too far abstracted from the 'reality' that the rules are meant to depict.

From a purely balance perspective it's another big negative on melee that shooting units have no appropriate counterpart for. You can split fire as much as you want, no penalty, no drawback.

It's basic risk-reward decision making, the greater the risk, the greater the potential reward. And it encourages you do declare a direction to your charges as opposed to just rolling the dice and deciding where to go after the number comes up. It encourages you to actually commit to a course of action, which makes sense for a game that makes the player the commander of an army. You choose the targets your units shoot at, and you choose the units your units assault. It's perfectly appropriate.

Overwatch per se aint too bad IMO. But no real fallback penelaties, and re-rolls for overwatch is stupid design..

So what’s your risk for split firing?

Why would the direction matter in the charge? The melee unit has already committed plenty to getting close to the opposing units. Melee units already operate in the most deadly range of 40k, right up in their opponents face. Getting there and staying there results in heavy casualties, much more than a ranged unit would incur. The risk/reward has already been completed before the charge phase. There’s no need to add an extra layer of risk to an already risky endeavor.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So what’s your risk for split firing?

Who cares? It isn't really relevant as they don't have to be equivalent. But generally your risk for split-firing is the risk that you'll be less guaranteed to kill one or more targets.

Dandelion wrote:
Why would the direction matter in the charge? The melee unit has already committed plenty to getting close to the opposing units. Melee units already operate in the most deadly range of 40k, right up in their opponents face. Getting there and staying there results in heavy casualties, much more than a ranged unit would incur. The risk/reward has already been completed before the charge phase. There’s no need to add an extra layer of risk to an already risky endeavor.

A unit can be surrounded. You can declare a charge in several directions and take overwatch from all of them, or declare against one and commit to a direction, only taking incoming fire from one unit instead of three.

Edit:
Honestly this reads as "Why should I have to commit to a course of action before rolling any dice?"

But the melee unit is already being committed. The fact that they’re within 12” of anything shows that the controlling player committed to that unit being there.
Whether or not a player declares a charge against 3 or 1 units is a tactically meaningless choice. Under the current rules, the player will declare against the least threatening one or the one he wants to kill most or is closest, and then consolidate into the other squads anyway. The charging player is going to tag as many units as the dice allow, overwatch doesn’t change that. The only tangible effect is that the charging unit cannot split fire. That’s it. Oh and the charging unit suffers casualties for their efforts.

Plus, not every scenario has you charge multiple units. If I charge a deff dread into a tank I get to eat overwatch with no option to mitigate it. In which case overwatch is strictly a penalty with no minute decision making.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Who cares? It isn't really relevant as they don't have to be equivalent. But generally your risk for split-firing is the risk that you'll be less guaranteed to kill one or more targets.

Okay, so then I can just as easily say regarding far-charges and multi-charges: Who cares? Your risk for multi-assaulting is that you'll be less guaranteed to kill one or more targets.

And unlike in shooting, all of those units you charge get to hit back. The more units you charge, the more will get to swing at you after you resolve your attacks. That alone is a disincentive to charging multiple units- unless you have a real CC specialist and none of their units are good in CC, in which case I think if you can manage to get into contact with several at once, you deserve to be able to tie them up.

You know, we could add more risk/reward to the game by having target priority tests to shoot anything but the closest target, and if you fail you don't get to shoot at all. That'd give you lots of decision-making- do I shoot the nearest enemy, or do I risk not being able to shoot at all by going for a juicier target? Sure, it's not logical at all that you would be completely unable to shoot if you fail, but so far nobody's tried to justify the current assault rules with logic, and think of all the risk/reward decision-making it would add!

(Or maybe more decision-making for its own sake, without any grounding in plausibility, isn't necessarily a good thing?)

Dandelion wrote:
But the melee unit is already being committed. The fact that they’re within 12” of anything shows that the controlling player committed to that unit being there.

Shooters with short ranged weapons have to do the same thing. Assault is not special in the regard that you need to get them somewhere to be effective.

Dandelion wrote:
Whether or not a player declares a charge against 3 or 1 units is a tactically meaningless choice. Under the current rules, the player will declare against the least threatening one or the one he wants to kill most or is closest, and then consolidate into the other squads anyway.

And sometimes that isn't going to help you, because the opposing units have Fly and will just fly away then. Having to choose between being able to attack and not attack in CC is far from meaningless.

Dandelion wrote:
The charging player is going to tag as many units as the dice allow, overwatch doesn’t change that. The only tangible effect is that the charging unit cannot split fire. That’s it. Oh and the charging unit suffers casualties for their efforts.

Being not able to hurt those units can be a major difference in outcome.

Dandelion wrote:
Plus, not every scenario has you charge multiple units. If I charge a deff dread into a tank I get to eat overwatch with no option to mitigate it. In which case overwatch is strictly a penalty with no minute decision making.

It makes a lot of sense to me that assaulting an opponent with big guns is riskier than assaulting an opponent without big guns.


Like what are you trying to accomplish here? If you're looking to boost assault why the fixation on Overwatch?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Who cares? It isn't really relevant as they don't have to be equivalent. But generally your risk for split-firing is the risk that you'll be less guaranteed to kill one or more targets.

Okay, so then I can just as easily say regarding far-charges and multi-charges: Who cares? Your risk for multi-assaulting is that you'll be less guaranteed to kill one or more targets.

And unlike in shooting, all of those units you charge get to hit back. The more units you charge, the more will get to swing at you after you resolve your attacks. That alone is a disincentive to charging multiple units- unless you have a real CC specialist and none of their units are good in CC, in which case I think if you can manage to get into contact with several at once, you deserve to be able to tie them up.

You know, we could add more risk/reward to the game by having target priority tests to shoot anything but the closest target, and if you fail you don't get to shoot at all. That'd give you lots of decision-making- do I shoot the nearest enemy, or do I risk not being able to shoot at all by going for a juicier target? Sure, it's not logical at all that you would be completely unable to shoot if you fail, but so far nobody's tried to justify the current assault rules with logic, and think of all the risk/reward decision-making it would add!

(Or maybe more decision-making for its own sake, without any grounding in plausibility, isn't necessarily a good thing?)

What's not plausible about "Assault this specific position" instead of "Assault every position nearby in every direction!"

And why the fixation on Overwatch?

 Insectum7 wrote:
...And why the fixation on Overwatch?

The thread is titled "Overwatch is horrible game design." Not fixating on Overwatch seems off-topic to me.

 Insectum7 wrote:
What's not plausible about "Assault this specific position" instead of "Assault every position nearby in every direction!"

The fact that the decision is either to charge all the units, get shot in Overwatch, then getting to hit them all in melee, versus charging just one, getting minimally shot by Overwatch, consolidating/piling into the other units, not getting to hit them in melee, but still being hit back.

Because the Overwatch mechanic encourages you to use mechanics other than charging to get locked in melee, but then that simultaneously prevents you from fighting, despite being in melee.

What on earth does that decision model?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
...And why the fixation on Overwatch?

The thread is titled "Overwatch is horrible game design." Not fixating on Overwatch seems off-topic to me.

That doesn't answer the question, which remains relevant. The question is essentially: Why does the thread focus on Overwatch? What is the great sin Overwatch instills on the game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
What's not plausible about "Assault this specific position" instead of "Assault every position nearby in every direction!"

The fact that the decision is either to charge all the units, get shot in Overwatch, then getting to hit them all in melee, versus charging just one, getting minimally shot by Overwatch, consolidating/piling into the other units, not getting to hit them in melee, but still being hit back.

Because the Overwatch mechanic encourages you to use mechanics other than charging to get locked in melee, but then that simultaneously prevents you from fighting, despite being in melee.

What on earth does that decision model?

Whatever it models, it's a far better model than "Let me just roll to see how far I go before choosing where to commit my unit."

 Insectum7 wrote:
Whatever it models, it's a far better model than "Let me just roll to see how far I go before choosing where to commit my unit."

Yes, because trained soldiers, genetically modified superhuman warrior monks, psychic space elves, and beings literally created for war have absolutely no idea how much momentum they're carrying and can never attempt to make a long-shot charge, but realize they won't make it "safely" and instead move to murder nearer enemies.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Whatever it models, it's a far better model than "Let me just roll to see how far I go before choosing where to commit my unit."

Yes, because trained soldiers, genetically modified superhuman warrior monks, psychic space elves, and beings literally created for war have absolutely no idea how much momentum they're carrying and can never attempt to make a long-shot charge, but realize they won't make it "safely" and instead move to murder nearer enemies.

And certainly closing the distance against lots of guns should surely be just as easy as closing the distance against no guns at all.

Again, what is the sin of the Overwatch mechanic?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
But the melee unit is already being committed. The fact that they’re within 12” of anything shows that the controlling player committed to that unit being there.

Shooters with short ranged weapons have to do the same thing. Assault is not special in the regard that you need to get them somewhere to be effective.

So why do you allow those ranged units to split fire in every direction without committing, but then turn around and require melee units to commit further? It’s contradictory.

Anyway the sin of overwatch is that it’s anti-fun. You can talk all you want about risk/reward but what all these posters in this thread have been getting at is that overwatch is unfair at its core, time consuming and frustrating to play against. It’s a bad mechanic.

You also seem overly focused on decisions being made post roll instead of pre roll when no one else cares about that. Remember when pre measuring was not allowed and you had to guess? The rule that forced you to decide targets before knowing the distance? Yeah, not a popular rule. I’m glad it’s gone.

Besides, the only reason we are talking so much about overwatch is because there is a disagreement. If everyone agreed we’d have moved on ages ago. Is it a big deal all things considered? Probably not, but that doesn’t give it a pass either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, while we’re at it, I do believe it is unreasonable for a tank to fire it’s big guns on overwatch after it already fired. It is unreasonable in that we must assume the tank is already not firing at full capacity. Being charged won’t make the crew reload the cannon any faster than they already are. The heavy bolters can only fire so fast. You have to imagine that everything is happening simultaneously. If you want to shoot the melee unit you had your chance in your own turn.

 Insectum7 wrote:


Again, what is the sin of the Overwatch mechanic?

I hereby bring against the mechanic of Overwatch the following charges:

* It adds a lot of extra dice rolling to a game that is already slow to play. Especially if rerolls are involved.

* It generally accomplishes little or nothing despite eating up all that time.

* Lucky overwatch rolls that do accomplish something feel bad. Your opponent had to invest points or command points into a delivery system to get close enough to attempt a charge (that might still fail), and then a few lucky 6s took a chunk out of his investment just because. This is mostly directed at non-autohitting weapons with only a few shots apiece. Flamers and weapons with tons of shots can be considered to have invested in their overwatch abilities.

* It favors shooting-heavy armies in a meta that already favors shooting heavies, thus increasing the gap between them.

So basically, it's usually a waste of time, and when it's not a waste of time, it creates bad experiences while also not adding any interesting decisions to the game. Seems like a good candidate for removal to me.

Edit: As for creating a penalty for charging multiple units, you could always just take away the "strike first" bonus for units that declare multiple charge targets. That's much simpler to resolve than overwatch, and I'd argue that a lucky screening unit managing to drag down a berzerker or two before they swing makes for a much better experience for both players than overwatch does.

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
But the melee unit is already being committed. The fact that they’re within 12” of anything shows that the controlling player committed to that unit being there.

Shooters with short ranged weapons have to do the same thing. Assault is not special in the regard that you need to get them somewhere to be effective.

You also seem overly focused on decisions being made post roll instead of pre roll when no one else cares about that. Remember when pre measuring was not allowed and you had to guess? The rule that forced you to decide targets before knowing the distance? Yeah, not a popular rule. I’m glad it’s gone.

Pre-measurement is one of the best changes to 40k. I'm sure no one misses the days where opponents would put their palm on the table in 90 degree angles "just because"

Also, some people need to stop acting like overwatch is responsible for wiping out entire units. As a mechanic I think it's fine - the problem that I feel that people have with it is that Assault units have a tough time as it is, taking that occasional 1 or 2 wounds on the way in just compounds on that. Falling back freely is the problem.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
But the melee unit is already being committed. The fact that they’re within 12” of anything shows that the controlling player committed to that unit being there.

Shooters with short ranged weapons have to do the same thing. Assault is not special in the regard that you need to get them somewhere to be effective.

You also seem overly focused on decisions being made post roll instead of pre roll when no one else cares about that. Remember when pre measuring was not allowed and you had to guess? The rule that forced you to decide targets before knowing the distance? Yeah, not a popular rule. I’m glad it’s gone.

Pre-measurement is one of the best changes to 40k. I'm sure no one misses the days where opponents would put their palm on the table in 90 degree angles "just because"

Also, some people need to stop acting like overwatch is responsible for wiping out entire units. As a mechanic I think it's fine - the problem that I feel that people have with it is that Assault units have a tough time as it is, taking that occasional 1 or 2 wounds on the way in just compounds on that. Falling back freely is the problem.

1 or 2 wounds? Maybe if charging guard squads. Last time I charged 10 intercessors I got hit by 9 str 4 ap3 ignore cover D2 shots. Exploding 6s with rerolls make overwatch a normal shooting phase.

My opponent forgot to screen his baneblade once and I charged him with my Librarian Dread and ofc it died. 8 t7 3+ wounds wasnt enough, even with half damage strat it would have died with those rolls. 5+ with reroll ones and a ton of shots make LoW super risky to charge.

Last game I played I charged one of the new Ad Mech tanks with a Vanguard Veteran squad, 6 guys left at that point. Had 4 guys with SS and one without die so only the sergeant survived :( Lots of shots and lucky 6s and bam your expensive melee unit lost more points by charging than the charged unit cost.

There are less ways to negate overwatch than there is to buff it. Half of them involves paying 100pts for a Librarian, hope it goes off and the opponent cant negate it while most buffs to overwatch is more of a side effect of having buffs to get a good normal shooting phase.

If screened and positioned properly you are not gonna get easy charges through ruins or be able to consolidate into their shooting units to prevent them from shooting if you can even do that. Most LoW and many of the more popular vehicles are flyers and can just fall back and shoot without penalties anyway even if they messed up their screen so you can consolidate into them.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
But the melee unit is already being committed. The fact that they’re within 12” of anything shows that the controlling player committed to that unit being there.

Shooters with short ranged weapons have to do the same thing. Assault is not special in the regard that you need to get them somewhere to be effective.

You also seem overly focused on decisions being made post roll instead of pre roll when no one else cares about that. Remember when pre measuring was not allowed and you had to guess? The rule that forced you to decide targets before knowing the distance? Yeah, not a popular rule. I’m glad it’s gone.

Pre-measurement is one of the best changes to 40k. I'm sure no one misses the days where opponents would put their palm on the table in 90 degree angles "just because"

Also, some people need to stop acting like overwatch is responsible for wiping out entire units. As a mechanic I think it's fine - the problem that I feel that people have with it is that Assault units have a tough time as it is, taking that occasional 1 or 2 wounds on the way in just compounds on that. Falling back freely is the problem.

I HATED guessing in old 40k...

"I'm a super solider, with implants to never miss, been training for 100's of years, master of this weapon, BUT i don't know how far i can shoot", ing stupid.

I am totaly ok with overwatch on 6+ and 5+ for Tau Bc they suck in melee but 4+ overwatch in an army that is also good in melee is not ok. There are some units that can't be successfully charged such as an iron hands Leviathan dreadnought. With reroll all hits and reroll 1's to wound. No model is going to make it in to CC.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I HATED guessing in old 40k...

"I'm a super solider, with implants to never miss, been training for 100's of years, master of this weapon, BUT i don't know how far i can shoot", ing stupid.

Who guesses? Well except newbies who haven't learned n+1 tricks to "guess".