40k Tournament: Febuary 9th

[Sterling Archer]

Then maybe this isnt the gam for you

[Sterling Archer]

By that i mean. If you are getting mad an not having fun anymore. Maybe its time for a break?

[jeremyholiday]

Congrats on the win, Chris. Maybe the next faq will put this overwatch issue to rest.

[fuzzums]

Discordian was correct about the charging one at a time thing. I think the biggest thing that threw all of us off guard is how loving stupid that rule is. It makes Over Watch useless. There is no longer a need to even have over watch because any player with 1/16 of a brain can abuse that.

Also on a personal side topic I figured out the problem. Because no one at the store gave me a clear answer on the solid walls thing I had a big discussion with someone about it and it was properly explained to me. Apparently even though a solid wall is... well.. solid it counts as difficult. So in order to avoid problems in the future I suggest players make sure dub all walls as impassable terrain.

[neb]

... That overwatch argument goes on for quite a while with no clear winner...

[Sterling Archer]

I think its quite clear. If you choose to jot overwatch the first unit that charges you, and they make contact. You cannot overwatch any other unit that tries to charge the sam target as the first unit.

[jeremyholiday]

I agree with Poofy, and would say that if the rule book was as clear as Poofy's post, we wouldn't be having this argument. It's just difficult because you have to look in several different parts of the rule book to try to answer this one simple question that could have been dealt with in the Overwatch section... They can't think of everything, though. It is a very big book.

[neb]

Mm looking over the actual rulebook now I agree, the argument used on the forum seems to be adding text

[hardihar]

Pretty much clear, once your in btb with a unit you can't shoot/overwatch at another. There really isn't any grounds for debate here, except by reading crap into the rules that isn't there.

[fuzzums]

But you guys to realize that melee armies are now WAY better. I actually don't understand why anyone was saying this is a shooting edition. I know for my sisters I can actually probably now run an all melee list, I am sure you guys can do the same. Take this debate we had on Saturday as a good thing.

[droofus]

Feb 10, 2013 5:01:09 GMT -5 fuzzums said:

Discordian was correct about the charging one at a time thing. I think the biggest thing that threw all of us off guard is how loving stupid that rule is. It makes Over Watch useless. There is no longer a need to even have over watch because any player with 1/16 of a brain can abuse that.

Also on a personal side topic I figured out the problem. Because no one at the store gave me a clear answer on the solid walls thing I had a big discussion with someone about it and it was properly explained to me. Apparently even though a solid wall is... well.. solid it counts as difficult. So in order to avoid problems in the future I suggest players make sure dub all walls as impassable terrain.

I think this is a grey area. Ruined walls or cottage walls are unlikely to stop anyone in a warzone, but if they are those giant castle walls then it's going to have to be impassable.

In Codex: Cityfight they explained as fighters either using their bulk (space marines, orks) or weaponry (everyone else) to demolish the wall in their way.

[ross]

assaults do require line of sight in this edition (unlike in 5th) so a wall could prevent an assault if big enough. However, nothing is impassible in 40k unless specifically stated. Walls have never been impassible in any 40k game I have ever played.

[fuzzums]

I had my friends out in Iowa explain the whole wall thing to me. I get it; I just find it stupid. I am sure people disagree with me and that's fine.

To me a wall is a wall. If GW wants to throw some doody at me about being able to bash through it, then I think there should be a follow rule that says you need to make a dangerous terrain check for everything moving through the wall as you move through it (because it's crashing on you) OR the terrain changes to a pile of rubble instead of remaining a wall.

Don't get me wrong. The rules are the rules and I should deal with it, so no one needs to toss that line at me. ~grumbles~ I just don't think GW has the right to try and use "logic" when they don't follow their logic up with reality. Stick to one side or the other GW.... pick a line already.

[discordian]

I did explain the terrain test at the time, I'm just pretty sure neither of us where listening to each other at that point.

For the most part while shooting is based on reality, GW kept terrain pretty abstract. Mostly because movement with tiny bases can already be annoying. The limits right now are terrain tests and actually being able to place the model in it's final position.

You can try and ask that walls and I guess tiny windows at that point be impassable. But you run the risk of creating neat things like unassaultable fire bases, which is probably one of the reasons GW didn't want to make terrain realistic based.




P.S. I know this doesn't add anything but I will point out the terrian that started this question has two big double doors and "grim dark" gothic windows on either side on the ground level.

[fuzzums]

Chris. Both of the pieces of Terrain; not just one, were solid walls. If their were windows, they certainly would have been on the sides and you would have to have gone through them if you are going to throw that piece of mouth speak my way.

Did you take your test because you are a bike or because you busted through a wall hulk style?

If you can get your guys into the piece of terrain someone can assault it. If I make a wall impassable, I don't make doors, stairs, or big windows impassable. It would take a little more work to get the squad in the building, so be it. I personally have jump infantry to make that job a bit easier.

The big point is, it is what it is. It's just rules like these that make it harder to do things.