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.

I touched on this in someone else's thread, but the more I read/think/play it, the less sense it makes to me.

Weapons which can fire using the Interceptor USR can shoot at any enemy unit which has arrived from Reserve in range and line of sight, at the end of the enemy movement phase, but cannot fire the weapon used for such shooting during their next shooting phase.

Then, Overwatch fire allows you to shoot during the enemy Assault Phase, with Snap Shot restrictions, but doesn't otherwise restrict you in your next shooting phase.

From a game design perspective, I don't get why there are both options. The guy who can shoot a missile at a plane waaaay far away can't reload in time to use it next round, but the guy who can shoot a missile at the orks right near him can reload in time to shoot again. Plus, the guy shooting at an ork 10 paces away is less likely to hit it than the guy shooting at a plane halfway across the board.

I feel like it is overcomplicated, inconsistent, and clunky, and (in the case of Overwatch), unnecessarily punitive to melee armies, who should have spent some time taking fire while closing to melee range anyway.

I realize that both rules are an attempt to mitigate problems with the Igo-Ugo system. Interceptor allows you to have some chance of shooting an oncoming flyer (which would have been visible if the board edge wasn't artificial), before it just gets to open up on your troops with impunity for a round. Overwatch allows your short-ranged weapons, like pistols and flamers, to be useful, as many units could start outside their range and charge successfully in one turn.

But is there some good reason that Overwatch isn't treated like Interceptor? It would allow blast weapons to be used (as I, for one, would find charging at a plasma cannon kind of scary), and it would reward high BS models during the charge. But it would also penalize Overwatchers, in that they couldn't count on using their good shooting to see off a charge, without sacrificing a round of that shooting to do so. Sure, you might have a devastator squad who can blow up this small unit of orks, but are you willing to ignore that unit of Nobs to do so, or should you hope you can kill them in close combat?

I'm just really not sure why Interceptor has a built-in penalty (no shooting next round) when Overwatch is free (it has penalties, but it's giving you an EXTRA shooting phase, with penalties, rather than penalizing an existing phase).

You typically sacrifice your shooting with Overwatch in any case, because you're locked in melee, without it needing a special rule to say so.

IMO, overwatch is pointless. At first the none assault players, that I play with, liked the rule but once I increase my assault squads by 25% to compensate for the overwatch "maybe" kills they don't really like it anymore. But if they were going to change the overwatch it should replace their melee attacks. Allow the shooting attacks at Int 10 and allow full BS skill. Allowing the kills to count in the out come.

As for intercepter, you make a very good point and they should be able to at least snap fire the next turn.