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.

Anyone noticed this yet?

tneva82 wrote:
Retributor stratagem(not usable in OW anyway) gave reroll to wounds for flamers.

Not the stratagem. The datasheet rule. The one that also prevent them from getting -1 to hit when moving and shooting heavy weapons.


Note that Cool-Headed Orks in a ruin will be able to get free overwatch on 4+, meaning they hit better in overwatch than on their own turn. lol

Huh. Looks like Character rules ARE changing.

Good eye, GK12!

 greyknight12 wrote:
Anyone noticed this yet?

Yeah. I suspect its just a proper name for that untargetable character rule.

Could be just a new name for the current rule.

Voss wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoiler:

Is this new art? I don't recognize it offhand.

Looks new. And a different style- more starship troopers the movie.

And by an artist who thinks guardsmen have machineguns, apparently. The guy behind the first one's muzzle flash is using something that's almost a P-90.

So, there's some interesting bits going on apparently.
The guy in the background is using an Urdeshi Mark VI Lasgun. It's also shown in the Sabbat Worlds book on a Blood Pact soldier, albeit with some modifications to the barrel & a bayonet.

Found the original image as well. It's used in the Drukhari Codex...but it's not entirely the same image?

Drukhari Codex p71 for 8th edition, in case anyone can check to see if the page art has the Guardsmen front and center as well?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Retributor stratagem(not usable in OW anyway) gave reroll to wounds for flamers.

Not the stratagem. The datasheet rule. The one that also prevent them from getting -1 to hit when moving and shooting heavy weapons.


Note that Cool-Headed Orks in a ruin will be able to get free overwatch on 4+, meaning they hit better in overwatch than on their own turn. lol

No they won't. Its not a modifier, its a set value.

Cool-headed is a hit on an unmodified roll of a 5.
Hold Steady is the same.

You're thinking of Set to Defend, which grants +1 to hit in the fight phase, but no overwatch.

I’m really happy about the new overwatch strategem. Situational, limited and used in the right place at the right time could be very effective. It encourages decision making and thought, with a genuine opportunity cost element.

If this is the general direction of strategems in 9th I will be very pleased. I like the idea that you won’t see the same strategems being used over and over in every game, and that there shouldn’t be automatic choices which effectively limit player choice and tactical decision making.

This puts the Cut them down strategem in a new light, and I’m pleasantly surprised so far.

To me its clear that overwatch is now meant to be combined with a unit positioned in defensible terrain. And anything that costs CP is a plus for me, the less CPs the better for the game IMO (I despise CP power combo spam)

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
I understand the changing of Overwatch to speed up the game and help melee armies out a bit...but...1CP to shoot the crazy nastys charging me? 0CP, full stop. Why am I being penalized for shooting the crazy nastys charging? I only get one shot at it now...and I have to pay CP for it? Which is more important because both seem to be over swinging the hammer.

Wait for full picture, Wait for full release, Don't make assumptions...:(:(:(

Edit: HOLY F!@# didn't think of flamers...wtf GW as if Sisters iconic weapon wasn't being sidelined enough.

If Cut Them Down costs CP, then yes, Overwatch needs to cost CP too.

There is quite a lot of counter play to OW on top of it not being much of a deal unless you're charging auto hitting heavy weapons. It's also a deterrent to charging everything in sight, since bad touching units is kind of a powerful move.
Falling back has 0 counter play outside of wrapping/tripointing units.

I would rather have OW stay as is (or a bit abstracted to speed up game time) and falling back becoming a strat, than this.

dhallnet wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
I understand the changing of Overwatch to speed up the game and help melee armies out a bit...but...1CP to shoot the crazy nastys charging me? 0CP, full stop. Why am I being penalized for shooting the crazy nastys charging? I only get one shot at it now...and I have to pay CP for it? Which is more important because both seem to be over swinging the hammer.

Wait for full picture, Wait for full release, Don't make assumptions...:(:(:(

Edit: HOLY F!@# didn't think of flamers...wtf GW as if Sisters iconic weapon wasn't being sidelined enough.

If Cut Them Down costs CP, then yes, Overwatch needs to cost CP too.

There is quite a lot of counter play to OW on top of it not being much of a deal unless you're charging auto hitting heavy weapons. It's also a deterrent to charging everything in sight, since bad touching units is kind of a powerful move.
Falling back has 0 counter play outside of wrapping/tripointing units.

I would rather have OW stay as is (or a bit abstracted to speed up game time) and falling back becoming a strat, than this.

How about this : OW costs CP and Falling Back also costs CP.

Much better.

Selfcontrol wrote:
Much better.

Not if charging (or rather, "engaging") rules are untouched.

 Argive wrote:
I think we are also moving towards codified USR thank god..

This was well-built in 5th ed. and I don't understand why they ever went away from it.

 puma713 wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I think we are also moving towards codified USR thank god..

This was well-built in 5th ed. and I don't understand why they ever went away from it.

Because someone in the studio got convinced that 'exception based design' was the new hotness in the games industry.

Or just liked overusing the word 'bespoke'

 Kanluwen wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoiler:

Is this new art? I don't recognize it offhand.

Looks new. And a different style- more starship troopers the movie.

And by an artist who thinks guardsmen have machineguns, apparently. The guy behind the first one's muzzle flash is using something that's almost a P-90.

So, there's some interesting bits going on apparently.
The guy in the background is using an Urdeshi Mark VI Lasgun. It's also shown in the Sabbat Worlds book on a Blood Pact soldier, albeit with some modifications to the barrel & a bayonet.

Found the original image as well. It's used in the Drukhari Codex...but it's not entirely the same image?

Spoiler:

Drukhari Codex p71 for 8th edition, in case anyone can check to see if the page art has the Guardsmen front and center as well?

Yeah, the full picture includes the Guardsmen. In fact the banner image only cuts off a small porion of the top and bottom of the full picture.

Faction Focus: Chaso Space Marines.

is it just me but the terms Set to Defend and Hold Steady the wrong way round

So

Set to Defend shoud be the better Overwatch and
Hold Steady is better aim?

Well at least he admits that cultists don't make any sense in a Night Lords army.

Set to Defend is the unit preparing to meet the charge in melee, Hold Steady is the unit holding their guns steady on the incoming charge.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Anyone noticed this yet?

The rule that already existed? Yes we noticed it 3 years ago

It's name of the character protection rule. It's there to ensure you can shoot charging character even if it's protected from shooting. At most we know with this characters won't be freely targetable ala AOS in 9th ed

Hopefully the rumoured improved version is true and wasn't just wishlisting. It would be so much more logical. I really hate it when rhino opposite side of unit out of LOS protects character waaaaay different direction all alone middle of plain field. Just so silly. The version posted here would make much more sense while still keeping rhino sniping away(well rhino sniping died largely with TLOS...since you can draw LOS from UNDER rhino anyway...)

While I do think the Overwatch rule is a great change for the game, another rule change that is being easily overlooked, I think, is the change to reserves in your own deployment. Now, you can deploy your reserves within 1" of an enemy if they're in your deployment zone. So, did the Raven Guard just drop all around you to destroy your tanks? That's okay because your bikes/assault marines/etc., etc. come right on and clean them up next turn.

The implications for that could be huge, given the proper deployment (the reserves come on from the board edge).

NVM

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You're thinking of Set to Defend, which grants +1 to hit in the fight phase, but no overwatch.

You are right, I mixed up things !

 puma713 wrote:
While I do think the Overwatch rule is a great change for the game, another rule change that is being easily overlooked, I think, is the change to reserves in your own deployment. Now, you can deploy your reserves within 1" of an enemy if they're in your deployment zone. So, did the Raven Guard just drop all around you to destroy your tanks? That's okay because your bikes/assault marines/etc., etc. come right on and clean them up next turn.

The implications for that could be huge, given the proper deployment (the reserves come on from the board edge).

I really really like this, it might not see a ton of use, but it's a great way to make reserves feel like *real* reserves.

Reserves are not often something you plop into an enemy armies' backfield, they're something used to reinforce your own lines.

In 8th at best they could deepstrike nearby, shoot, and hope for a lucky charge.

This change makes them much more helpful immediately when you've got 15 Death Company with jumppacks rushing your back line.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
While I do think the Overwatch rule is a great change for the game, another rule change that is being easily overlooked, I think, is the change to reserves in your own deployment. Now, you can deploy your reserves within 1" of an enemy if they're in your deployment zone. So, did the Raven Guard just drop all around you to destroy your tanks? That's okay because your bikes/assault marines/etc., etc. come right on and clean them up next turn.

The implications for that could be huge, given the proper deployment (the reserves come on from the board edge).

I really really like this, it might not see a ton of use, but it's a great way to make reserves feel like *real* reserves.

Reserves are not often something you plop into an enemy armies' backfield, they're something used to reinforce your own lines.

In 8th at best they could deepstrike nearby, shoot, and hope for a lucky charge.

This change makes them much more helpful immediately when you've got 15 Death Company with jumppacks rushing your back line.

Forget popping INTO melee. Notice it means you get close to enemy. 6" from your board edge, that reaches quite a lot straight into melta/flamer range and easy charge range...

The pop into melee out of thin air doesn't happen that often. Appearing to shoot/charge range likely happens lot more often.

edit: Nevermind, it makes it sound like the deploying within 1" thing only applies if you deploy "on your table edge." This makes it far less likely to ever come up in a game where the outcome isn't already predetermined. If you're hunkering on your own table edge you've already lost the game the way the new missions work.

The changes to Overwatch on the face of it are good but are really going to depend on how many 'other' ways there are to get it. If every unit under the sun has some ability that grants Overwatch then these changes to the core rule are meaningless.

I mean, we don't know if every unit that currently has a rule that interacts with OW will get OW as an ability AND their rule for example. I am all for a general approach of less but more meaningful overwatch but it remains to be seen whether this is the case both at launch and once we are 7 codexes in.

Wow, I really like all of those rule changes. Definitely increased my excitement for 9th.

For the Greater Good: When an enemy unit declares a charge, a unit with this ability that is within 6" of one of the charging unit's targets may fire Overwatch as if they were also targeted. A unit that does so cannot fire Overwatch again in this turn. (Codex: T'au Empire p89)

All the Tau players seem to be looking at the wording and reading it as "If unit A is charged and unit B is within 6" unit B is a valid target for Fire Overwatch but FTGG does not enable Overwatch fire by itselt because of the 'as if they were also targetted' wording".

Consensus on that?

The preview says the FTGG rules text is changing anyway, so it doesn't really matter what it says now.