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.

So the new bodyguard rule prevents characters from being targeted by ranged weapons while they are within 3"

example, victrix honor guard.
"While a friendly ULTRAMARINES CHARACTER unit that has a Wounds characteristic of 9 or less is within 3" of this unit, enemy models cannot target that CHARACTER unit with ranged attacks."

the relevant rule for overwatch is.
...overwatch is resolved like a shooting attack (albeit one that is resolved in the charge phase) and uses all the normal rules, except that an unmodified hit roll of 6 is required for a successful hit roll, irrespective of the firing model's ballistic skill or any hit roll modifiers. In addition, it does so at the charging unit. Any rule that states the unit cannot be targeted unless it is the closest target (eg lookout sir) does not apply when firing overwatch.


To me it is open and shut, new body guard rule prevents overwatch. Overwatch ignores rules that require the target to be the closest. Body guard rule prevents targeting regardless of which unit is closer.

Last tournament I went to however, a Tau player argued it did not. The TO agreed... Their principle argument was that overwatch did not "target" so my character could still be shot despite being near a body guard unit.

Personally, I think that is card game logic that has no place in 40k rules. Targeting isn't a keyword that needs to be repeated for an attack to "target" something. All attacks target, overwatch or not. Am I wrong? If I'm right, how can I convince the TO that I'm right?

It seems like you are correct.

However, you probably can not convince the TO of that.

 footfoe wrote:

the relevant rule for overwatch is.
...overwatch is resolved like a shooting attack (albeit one that is resolved in the charge phase) and uses all the normal rules, except that an unmodified hit roll of 6 is required for a successful hit roll, irrespective of the firing model's ballistic skill or any hit roll modifiers. In addition, it does so at the charging unit. Any rule that states the unit cannot be targeted unless it is the closest target (eg lookout sir) does not apply when firing overwatch.

Bolded text mine. This seems to me like it indicates that targeting is not necessary; the target is mandatory, and MUST be the charging unit. While it goes on to say that "closest target" rules do not apply, it doesn't specifically state that all other rules still apply. In order to uphold the rule of Overwatch that the Overwatching unit fires at the charging unit, it would have to ignore the Bodyguard rule.

That's just my take, though.

I think you are technically right but spiritually wrong. My personal opinion is that GW has made one of their famous rules oversights by including wording in Overwatch that covers Look Out, Sir but doesn’t take into account the new Bodyguard rules.

 alextroy wrote:
I think you are technically right but spiritually wrong. My personal opinion is that GW has made one of their famous rules oversights by including wording in Overwatch that covers Look Out, Sir but doesn’t take into account the new Bodyguard rules.

This. RAI is likely not RAW in this case.

Because RAW, you cannot Overwatch against a unit that is effected by the Bodyguard rule or a similar one.

Making a lot of assumptions here, but can you describe the charge? Was your Character at the start of the charge, within 3", and at the end of the charge, outside of 3"? I can see that being the issue, now if you charged a unit directly with your character first, I would obviously say this was how it is played. Your character is indepdently moving outside of the bubble during the charge.

I know this is a major assumption, but perhaps more detail of where characters were positioned, pre and post charge?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Making a lot of assumptions here, but can you describe the charge? Was your Character at the start of the charge, within 3", and at the end of the charge, outside of 3"? I can see that being the issue, now if you charged a unit directly with your character first, I would obviously say this was how it is played. Your character is indepdently moving outside of the bubble during the charge.

I know this is a major assumption, but perhaps more detail of where characters were positioned, pre and post charge?

You Overwatch before the charge is rolled. You don't move until after the charge is successful.

You can fail a charge, move the failed amount, and then try again. There are numerous ways one could get out of the 3" bubble and declare the charge, which is why I wanted to get a physical idea of the space. I mean, honestly, are we just going to assume the TO is off his bit and has no clue how charges/bodyguards work?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You can fail a charge, move the failed amount, and then try again. There are numerous ways one could get out of the 3" bubble and declare the charge, which is why I wanted to get a physical idea of the space. I mean, honestly, are we just going to assume the TO is off his bit and has no clue how charges/bodyguards work?

That's not how charges work. You don't move on a failed charge.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Making a lot of assumptions here, but can you describe the charge? Was your Character at the start of the charge, within 3", and at the end of the charge, outside of 3"? I can see that being the issue, now if you charged a unit directly with your character first, I would obviously say this was how it is played. Your character is indepdently moving outside of the bubble during the charge.

I know this is a major assumption, but perhaps more detail of where characters were positioned, pre and post charge?

Yes started in the bubble. Could have stayed in the bubble if it mattered.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You can fail a charge, move the failed amount, and then try again. There are numerous ways one could get out of the 3" bubble and declare the charge, which is why I wanted to get a physical idea of the space. I mean, honestly, are we just going to assume the TO is off his bit and has no clue how charges/bodyguards work?

"To make a charge move, the unit's charge roll must be sufficient that is is able to end the move in unit coherency and within Engagement Range of every unit that was a target of its charge. If this is possible, then the charge is successful and the models make a charge move so as to fulfill the above conditions. If this is impossible, the charge fails and no models in the charging unit move this phase."

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You can fail a charge, move the failed amount, and then try again. There are numerous ways one could get out of the 3" bubble and declare the charge, which is why I wanted to get a physical idea of the space. I mean, honestly, are we just going to assume the TO is off his bit and has no clue how charges/bodyguards work?

This must be the like the 10th time i read something from you that makes no sense, you really have no idea how the rules work. Please stop participating in rules discussions until you know how to play this game. All you do is confuse others, and cause irritation.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I think you are technically right but spiritually wrong. My personal opinion is that GW has made one of their famous rules oversights by including wording in Overwatch that covers Look Out, Sir but doesn’t take into account the new Bodyguard rules.

This. RAI is likely not RAW in this case.

Because RAW, you cannot Overwatch against a unit that is effected by the Bodyguard rule or a similar one.

Overwatch jumps to "shooting attacks" (1-5 steps) though, not "shooting" (choose eligible, choose target, make attacks) so there isn't a targeting step for bodyguards to block.

This also means that there isn't a weapon selection step but yeah, Overwatch is in general not well written.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You can fail a charge, move the failed amount, and then try again. There are numerous ways one could get out of the 3" bubble and declare the charge, which is why I wanted to get a physical idea of the space. I mean, honestly, are we just going to assume the TO is off his bit and has no clue how charges/bodyguards work?

Is this a troll account? I actually can't tell.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I think you are technically right but spiritually wrong. My personal opinion is that GW has made one of their famous rules oversights by including wording in Overwatch that covers Look Out, Sir but doesn’t take into account the new Bodyguard rules.

This. RAI is likely not RAW in this case.

Because RAW, you cannot Overwatch against a unit that is effected by the Bodyguard rule or a similar one.

Overwatch jumps to "shooting attacks" (1-5 steps) though, not "shooting" (choose eligible, choose target, make attacks) so there isn't a targeting step for bodyguards to block.

This also means that there isn't a weapon selection step but yeah, Overwatch is in general not well written.

I don't agree that the Overwatch rules are that badly written:

OVERWATCH
Certain rules enable units to fire Overwatch at an enemy unit before it can charge. If an enemy unit declares a charge that targets one or more units from your army that have such a rule, each of those units can fire Overwatch before the charge roll is made. A unit cannot fire Overwatch if there are any enemy units within Engagement Range of it. Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the Charge phase) and uses all the normal rules, except that an unmodified hit roll of 6 is always required for a successful hit roll, irrespective of the firing model’s Ballistic Skill or any hit roll modifiers. In addition, when a model fires Overwatch, it does so at the charging unit. Any rule that states the unit cannot be targeted unless it is the closest target (e.g. Look Out, Sir) does not apply when firing Overwatch.

The section in red notes that Overwatch is resolved just like a normal shooting attack and that the attack must be at the charging unit, amongst other things. Therefore there is a targeting stage of Overwatch.

The problem is the section in blue allows the rule to negate Look Out, Sir but not the new Bodyguard rules. Remove those 6 words and it also negates the new Bodyguard rules.

A shooting attack is the five step process, shooting (as part of the phase) involves targeting. The assignment of target is done because there is no targeting step if you jump straight to attacks (shooting attacks).

This was already heavily discussed in another thread, though this one's name is more on point.
For those who wish to see more of the argument, here's the other thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/797508.page


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To clarify, I am in no way saying that this is a stupid question or a bad thread even though it was previously covered in another thread. However, I personally don't think we need to go through the whole argument again when it's clearly played out in the other thread I linked.

I am not a mod, just another Dakka user who wishes to save everyone a little time not rehashing an argument multiple times.

 SergentSilver wrote:
This was already heavily discussed in another thread, though this one's name is more on point.
For those who wish to see more of the argument, here's the other thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/797508.page


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To clarify, I am in no way saying that this is a stupid question or a bad thread even though it was previously covered in another thread. However, I personally don't think we need to go through the whole argument again when it's clearly played out in the other thread I linked.

I am not a mod, just another Dakka user who wishes to save everyone a little time not rehashing an argument multiple times.

There's one more exception to add onto JNA's point though, the unit is not shooting, it is making shooting attacks.

From the nearer to the top of the shooting phase: "When you select a unit to shoot with, you select targets and resolve attacks "

Overwatch jumps the shooting unit straight to attacks, past targets.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

 SergentSilver wrote:
This was already heavily discussed in another thread, though this one's name is more on point.
For those who wish to see more of the argument, here's the other thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/797508.page


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To clarify, I am in no way saying that this is a stupid question or a bad thread even though it was previously covered in another thread. However, I personally don't think we need to go through the whole argument again when it's clearly played out in the other thread I linked.

I am not a mod, just another Dakka user who wishes to save everyone a little time not rehashing an argument multiple times.

There's one more exception to add onto JNA's point though, the unit is not shooting, it is making shooting attacks.

From the nearer to the top of the shooting phase: "When you select a unit to shoot with, you select targets and resolve attacks "

Overwatch jumps the shooting unit straight to attacks, past targets.

If that were the case, it wouldn't need to be able to bypass targeting rules, such as Look Out Sir.

I don't know why GW clarifies things they way they do.

But it says "shooting attacks" not "shooting".

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
I don't know why GW clarifies things they way they do.

But it says "shooting attacks" not "shooting".

Overwatch doesn't jump into shooting attacks. It is resolved like a normal shooting attack, but as it says, it uses all the normal rules with the stated exceptions. The normal rules of shooting start with determining valid targets. If it truly meant to jump straight into an attack role, then that would mean you would only get one hit die with each model regardless of weapon used, as that is one shooting attack and the Overwatch rule is specifically singular when it says "a shooting attack". It would also mean that there is no step to declare which weapon is being fired for models with multiple weapons.

 SergentSilver wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
I don't know why GW clarifies things they way they do.

But it says "shooting attacks" not "shooting".

Overwatch doesn't jump into shooting attacks. It is resolved like a normal shooting attack, but as it says, it uses all the normal rules with the stated exceptions. The normal rules of shooting start with determining valid targets. If it truly meant to jump straight into an attack role, then that would mean you would only get one hit die with each model regardless of weapon used, as that is one shooting attack and the Overwatch rule is specifically singular when it says "a shooting attack". It would also mean that there is no step to declare which weapon is being fired for models with multiple weapons.

There's a lot wrong with this.

"Overwatch doesn't jump into shooting attacks." And yet...

"It is resolved like a normal shooting attack" Yes, it resolves according to the five steps of a shooting attack.

"The normal rules of shooting start with determining valid targets." This is not what a shooting attack means. You are describing shooting. The extra word means something, and it means you are moving through the five steps of the attack sequence.

"If it truly meant to jump straight into an attack role, then that would mean you would only get one hit die with each model regardless of weapon used, as that is one shooting attack" This isn't how the shooting attack sequence works normally BUT

"It would also mean that there is no step to declare which weapon is being fired for models with multiple weapons" Yes, I mentioned this above. Overwatch is not written well whatever GWs intention was here.

HIWPI, which is overwatch functions like you are shooting and not making a shooting attack. The overwatch rule says you fire overwatch at the charging character, and avoids using the word target. So you shoot the character.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is not the first time GW has, RAW, broken a key component of the game (advancing).

To me its pretty clear. RAW, bodyguard rule prevents overwatch.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:

Spoiler:

 SergentSilver wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
I don't know why GW clarifies things they way they do.

But it says "shooting attacks" not "shooting".

Overwatch doesn't jump into shooting attacks. It is resolved like a normal shooting attack, but as it says, it uses all the normal rules with the stated exceptions. The normal rules of shooting start with determining valid targets. If it truly meant to jump straight into an attack role, then that would mean you would only get one hit die with each model regardless of weapon used, as that is one shooting attack and the Overwatch rule is specifically singular when it says "a shooting attack". It would also mean that there is no step to declare which weapon is being fired for models with multiple weapons.

There's a lot wrong with this.

"Overwatch doesn't jump into shooting attacks." And yet...

"It is resolved like a normal shooting attack" Yes, it resolves according to the five steps of a shooting attack.

"The normal rules of shooting start with determining valid targets." This is not what a shooting attack means. You are describing shooting. The extra word means something, and it means you are moving through the five steps of the attack sequence.

"If it truly meant to jump straight into an attack role, then that would mean you would only get one hit die with each model regardless of weapon used, as that is one shooting attack" This isn't how the shooting attack sequence works normally BUT

"It would also mean that there is no step to declare which weapon is being fired for models with multiple weapons" Yes, I mentioned this above. Overwatch is not written well whatever GWs intention was here.

HIWPI, which is overwatch functions like you are shooting and not making a shooting attack. The overwatch rule says you fire overwatch at the charging character, and avoids using the word target. So you shoot the character.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is not the first time GW has, RAW, broken a key component of the game (advancing).

Core Rules:
When a model shoots a Rapid Fire weapon, double the number of attacks it makes if its target is within half the weapon’s range.[b]
When you shoot, each die you role is a separate attack roll. The number next to a ranged weapon type determines the number of attacks you can make with that weapon in a round of shooting. If Overwatch goes straight into an attack roll as per your logic, then you only get one die, as it uses singular phrasing in the description of how it plays out.

I do not agree with this assessment, I am merely pointing out a fatal flaw in yours.

Like I said, this is not the first time GW has written a rule that breaks the thing it is intended to allow (see advancing previously).

RAI, I'd lean towards it ignores bodyguards as it never says the unit targets the charging unit, just it makes shooting attacks "at" them. And that they intended for it to be a shooting sequence, not just an attack sequence.

I'm picky about wording.

PoorGravitasHandling,
Game Workshop writers is not well known for their technical skills, or their formatting... or their editing... you get the picture.

They have often used 'duel/waring terminology' in many of their Rules as much as it pains all of us to deal with. This is bad form on their behalf, but this does not negate everything else that has been Written within the Rule. When we have text directly related to targeting, it is impossible to state the Rule as Written (or Intended) wants us to skip over Targeting... least of all on the 'technicalities' caused by Game Workshop being terrible at writing rules.

I have been gone years from the game and this 'attack vs attack' debate was old when I was but a chaos spawn!

As for determining what the writers may have intended:
Go back to the Rule quote put forth by AlexTroy and ponder if the inclusion of those blue words was a mistake.
Did the writer simply over look the existence of codex based rules that wouldn't carry this piece of text?
Why the writers would go to such lengths to 'Encode' their intention, instead of creating a Rule that simply reads 'can not be over-watched?'

Does it matter whether GW forgot about the bodyguard rule, or not ? No, it doesnt. Its RAW that matters, and that means bodyguard protects from overwatch.

RAW is clear so convention we ignore RAI

P5Freak,
When an alternative reading presented by another requires a stretch of Rules as Written to get to what they believe is author intended?

I think that is a good time to point out which of those two has higher accuracy:
An easy to make oversight (correct: that should be fixed by FAQ, if really a mistake)
Or some secret Encoded process that only a handful have cracked

Remember, the person being replied to has already stated they wholly discount the 'working as intended' argument because it adds a degree of vagueness to the technical aspect of the game! Instead of banging them on the head and saying 'nope, you are wrong' for whom knows how many times... change tactics and address the root of this misconception. Explain to them it is simply Game Workshop once more forgetting how to use technical writing, that it is not new, and that no one at tables is going to easily accept 'technical writing' as an excuse when it comes to this particular company.

Also keep in mind - you are not creating a record simply to argue with the person who has a different view then you! This is a site that will be read by millions who do not even subscribe. Individuals whom may very well be ignorant of the companies history concerning a certain lax-luster respect for terminology and proper sequences. If all they see is two sides demanding the other simply accepts they are correct, they might do the unthinkable - Subscribe just to ask the question yet again, in a new thread, in hopes it will get an actual answer.

Help us stop this thread being asked over and over again every Edition:
Explain the Attack Vs Attack problem and ask - do they really think you have the secret code everyone else simply missed?

We dont know RAI, only the author knows RAI. The rules team should know all the rules, its their job. Its what they do every day, and what they get paid for. Of course, humans make mistakes (the rules team makes a LOT of mistakes), and it could be a mistake, or not. We dont know that. All we have are the written rules. Anyone can houserule that, if they dont like it. But RAW is clear, no overwatch with bodyguard.