| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=30039 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | atension [ Mon Aug 03, 2015 1:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch |
1..6.1 Actions Overwatch: The formation may not move, but instead enters overwatch. Being on overwatch allows the formation to interrupt an enemy formation’s action to shoot at it. You may not choose this action if the formation has any units that are out of formation. The situation is : Rules Clarification time! And its about overwatch! Yesterdays game we had a Praetorian unit assault an Ork war-band in a building. The assault went badly for everyone and no casualties were caused but the Praetorian withdrew anyway due to a lost assault. Now, i moved my Ork unit outside of the building into the building as part of the 5cm consolidation move and my opponent wanted to then activate his overwatch on the unit. Is this a time when he was able to activate his overwatch, as the rule states after ANY move, but it also states BEFORE Assault. FAQ states: Q: A formation carries out an action that involves a move but none of the units physically move, is it still susceptible to overwatch? A: Yes. Any action that includes one of more moves (advance, engage, double, march and possibly marshal, hold and special actions) is considered a move for the purposes of overwatch, even if units moved 0cm.Note that withdrawals and consolidation moves are optional however, and that a player can choose not to move the formation at all, thus avoiding overwatch. This eludes to the fact that consolidation moves will trigger overwatch but doesn't say it in absolutes. The discrepancy is over the terminology of "Actions" as stated in 1.6.1 since the defendor in the assault never actually took an "action". |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Mon Aug 03, 2015 1:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch |
http://www.tp.net-armageddon.org/faq/#overwatch Third question. Consolidation is optional, but still a move for the purposes of overwatch. If any of the stands moved they'd be susceptible to it. |
|
| Author: | atension [ Mon Aug 03, 2015 1:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch |
Yeah that's what I said too, though there is an argument on an epic facebook group and they don't believe me. I said I'd post it for the definitive clarification. thanks Dave. |
|
| Author: | NCO [ Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch |
I think there's a missinterpretation of what is being said here. Overwatch occurs when a unit moves (or could move) as part of an action. As the ork formation is being assaulted it has not made an action so cant be shot when it consolidates. The ruling on the linked document to me is saying that has the pratorians won and consolidated then an ork unit on overwatch could shoot it (as its part of the pretorian units action). |
|
| Author: | atension [ Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch |
sorry the description is taken from the facebook post, I should clarify. The Orks are being assaulted. The praetorian player has a separate unit on overwatch in the area. The orks won the combat and the praetorian formation withdrew. the Orks consolidated and the praetorian player wants to trigger overwatch in response to the ork players consolidation move post assault. The discrepancy being argued is that the original rules state that OW is triggered in response to any enemy move as part of an action. and the ork player is saying that consolidating was not part of an action on the part of the ork player and as 1.6.1 says: "overwatch allows the formation to interrupt an enemy formation’s action to shoot at it." I agreed its a little ambiguous with regards to the wording of "Action" in 1.6.1 |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch |
It was ruled you can overwatch on consolidating units, regardless if they took the action to engage or not. It's the same thing with transports picking up units. You can pick up a unit with your consolidation if you didn't engage. |
|
| Author: | Ginger [ Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch |
I agree with Dave. Basically a formation needs to move to actually trigger OW. If it chooses not move during consolidation or withdrawal, it does not trigger OW. Note, sustaining is not listed in the list of things that trigger OW since it does not result in any movement. Also disembarking is deemed to be movement as is 'popping up' (which is why skimmers cannot both pop up and sustain) Basically it is as simple as that. |
|
| Author: | atension [ Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch |
Ginger wrote: I agree with Dave. Basically a formation needs to move to actually trigger OW. If it chooses not move during consolidation or withdrawal, it does not trigger OW. . This isn't actually true, Read the FAQ. Its not what the issue is either. Ginger wrote: Note, sustaining is not listed in the list of things that trigger OW since it does not result in any movement. Also disembarking is deemed to be movement as is 'popping up' (which is why skimmers cannot both pop up and sustain) Basically it is as simple as that. Its not exactly simple, there are a bunch of exceptions such as counter charges do not trigger OW. But this is besides the point. The issue is the wording of rule 1.6.1, it declares that overwatch interrupts an enemy "ACTION". On a consolidation move for the defending player, the defending player never took an action. I'm not disputing the ruling I agree also with Dave. I'm just wondering if its warranted to amend the wording of rule 1.6.1. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch |
Changing the rules is off the table. Adding a further FAQ for clarification (or re-wording an existing one) is what we normally aim to do. That's Onyx's purview though, if he hasn't responded in the next couple of days shoot him a PM. |
|
| Author: | chivalrynsorcery [ Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch |
i have never considered that units consolidating can be shot at by overwatch if they make the move. The whole premise of overwatch is to creates areas of protection so units coming in know they are to fired at. Being able to use it during the consolidation phase makes no sense or even logical based on the overwatch rules of performing an action which in the rules is advance, double, march etc. No where does it say consolidation is an action. I for one wont be using that rule when i play outside of tournaments, its one of those updates where you just sneer and shake your head. |
|
| Author: | Kyrt [ Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch |
The FAQ is certainly at odds with the rules as written in the rulebook, but this is the legacy we have. It is tempting to think that it is strange to be able to overwatch consolidation moves but not counter charges given what overwatch is supposed to represent; on the surface of it it does sound weird. But consider the prospect of Eldar consolidating 35cm right up to your overwatch formation - it is definitely odd not to be able to fire on them. So it is debatable perhaps. When you also take into account that withdrawal moves are also frequently not taken during an action, it becomes quite clear IMO that the original wording is insufficient to capture the original intent. |
|
| Author: | atension [ Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch |
Kyrt wrote: The FAQ is certainly at odds with the rules as written in the rulebook, but this is the legacy we have. It is tempting to think that it is strange to be able to overwatch consolidation moves but not counter charges given what overwatch is supposed to represent; on the surface of it it does sound weird. But consider the prospect of Eldar consolidating 35cm right up to your overwatch formation - it is definitely odd not to be able to fire on them. So it is debatable perhaps. When you also take into account that withdrawal moves are also frequently not taken during an action, it becomes quite clear IMO that the original wording is insufficient to capture the original intent. +1 Exactly! |
|
| Author: | Onyx [ Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch |
Noted. I'll look at it during this week but if we inherited this particular FAQ from GW, we're not really looking to change it. |
|
| Author: | kadeton [ Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch |
Dave wrote: Changing the rules is off the table. Adding a further FAQ for clarification (or re-wording an existing one) is what we normally aim to do. I don't understand this. If the rules that came from GW in ancient times aren't the rules that we actually play by, why not update them? Leaving old rules in and attempting to supersede them with FAQs is a recipe for confusion. |
|
| Author: | mordoten [ Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rule clarification 1.6.1 Overwatch |
Yes, i've been thinking about this too. Why mot do a living rulebook and fix some of the more crappy rules? |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|