But it's not a "pass", in the Action Phase, it's a "pass" in the End Phase.

You don't point at the formation on overwatch and say, "pass", and force the opponent to go again, the formation on overwatch never has an activation *unless* you're taking it off overwatch to do something else.

I've "stalled" with a formation on overwatch from the previous turn by giving it another overwatch order, but that took the risk of a failed activation.

I must say I am not a fan of the eternal overwatch rules change.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

That's what I mean, passing on your remaining formations who are all on overwatch is essentially the same mechanic as passing on all your remaining offboard formations.

OK, so can we now move onto the questions around gates that I summarised here.

I think that needs a new thread Ginger.

Ginger: This is for general off-board formations. Specifics of portal/gate blocking is not a general issue, it's list specific, so should be in a different thread.

Yeah, that's how I see it.

It's not really a "pass" in the way I think about it. It's more like a final "activate out" where you declare everything is staying where it is and foregoing a "real" activation.

==

Edit: And yes, I agree that this would be a change in regards to the prior discussions on webway formations being allowed to Regroup on a Hold action after a failed activation.

==

Edit-edit: I also agree that this breaks the core idea of 1.6 that everything has to activate. However, either version of OW and any of the off-board rules break that anyway.

Neal, are you now suggesting that an off-table formation that fails to activate and must 'Hold', is now forced to enter the table with a BM??

Yet again this may be appropriate to Necrons, but I must protest that it is *not* fair to the Eldar. If these mechanics are needed for the Necrons, then they should only be applied to the way that the Necrons work off-table! And, please note that the way I have always played Eldar 'gates (Marshalling off-table) does not break 1.6 so would not cause these problems (nor did the original way that OW worked)!

Ginger: The OW FAW makes it clear that 1.6 is not holy writ, and can be overridden. This is a case where overriding it makes sense, and seems to be what everyone except you is doing if this thread is any judge.

Hi Zombo,
While we may be actively posting, there are many who don't. I (and others) disliked the change to the OW rule, not least because it made Ork formations on OW able to act in an 'un-orky' way by staying on OW.

As you know, IMHO this set of 'changes' to the way that off-table formations work is only really needed for Necrons, and is now apparently set to force failed activations on-table with a BM. Both activities are not fair to Eldar, which are hard enough to play well and do not need further 'nerfs', quite apart from not conforming to the concept of a 'cautious dying race'. Indeed, being forced to arrive on-table having failed to Assault is quite the reverse of a 'cautious' attitude - though it may well be considered the mentallity of the 'metal heads'.

I believe the intent is that an off-board formation that fails to activate and and must 'Hold', either moves onto the table with a Blast marker or *loses* the rest of its activation, remaining off-board with a Blast marker.

It doesn't get the opportunity to regroup if it's not on the table, but it isn't forced onto the table; it could then attempt to rally in the End Phase though.

Ginger: I don't think anyone is in favour of forcing failed activations to come on.

So either way, the formation ends up with a BM, and must pass a test to rally in the end phase to clear it!

Why are we adding yet another complication? I am going to stick my neck out and suggest that currently everyone plays the 'Hold' as either a movement with a BM, or removal of the BM - yet now it is not as straight forward because you have to remember to apply these 'new' off-table rules. Again, if they are only needed for the Necrons, they should only be applied there.

While I accept I am in a minority of those who post here, this seems to be a wholesale change to the way the E:A rules were originally written, and requires yet further changes to the text quite apart from further FAQs with all the attendent confusions - all of which were (I thought) contrary to the intentions behind the thread.

Ok, the alternative (minority) position to that formulated at the top of the thread is to state in FAQs that

• Under 1.6.1, a player is expected to play all his available activations (unless they are on OW - grr),
• A player may use a Marshall to activate an off-table ground formation while remaining off-table,
• If the off-table formation fails to activate, it may remove the BM and stay off-table as part of the 'Hold'
• Off-table formations may Rally in the end-phase

And a new definition borrowed from the Necron sheet:-

At the start of the turn, if there are insufficient 'gates to deal with all the off-table formations, the excess formations must be put to one side and may not enter the battle this turn.

Ok, so how would this position affect the game? It would not require any changes to the existing rules - how would it affect the way Necrons play?

Ginger: Sorry, but noone other that you seems to want to be able to marshall offboard; the stalling tactics it encourages leave a sour taste in the mouth if you win using them. That's why I stopped doing it.

Other than "breaking 1.6", what do you have against the proposed rules in this thread? Given that 1.6 is already broken by OW, that's not enough on an argument.