Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I didnt start playing warhammer until just after the 3rd edition was released, but i do have quite a few of the White Dwarf magazines lying around the house from way back when in 2nd edition. in there i've seen the term "overwatch" used a lot, and im just curious as to what that ruling was...Is it something like, if an enemy unit moves into LOS during your enemies turn then your squad may take a shot at em or something?
I don't know what over watch was in 2nd edition exactly, but yes that pretty much what overwatch is, if the enemy moves with in los during there turn you can shoot at them, with I think negative to hit modifers.
The 2nd edition Overwatch rule was something like this:
In your own turn (movement) you could decide your squad was going in overwatch, you couldn't move and couldn't shoot with the squad that turn.
BUT, in the movement-phase of your opponent you could fire at one squad (etc.) that moved into LOS with your squad.
This was usefull when your enemies where in cover and you couldn't shoot them in your own turn, just go in overwatch and wait for them to "pop out"
alright cool, thanx for shining some light on that for me. I dont know why they would get rid of that, seems like a logical rule to me...but o well.
I think overwatch would be a much better way to solve the Rhino Rush complaints than making it impossible to assault out of a vehicle on the turn you disembark. (TVR)
With overwatch, the defender would have to make a tactical choice of shooting now, or holding until the enemy unit charges out of the vehicle and then shooting. The risk is the attacker may not charge the next turn and the defender wastes the shots. The defender would have to risk charging in close and suffering close range rapid fire, but getting to rush in.
That way the game gets ADDED tactics instead of reducing tactical options by eliminating the ability to assault from vehicles. I think the game is too stripped down as it is and we need MORE options instead of less.
The problem with overwatch was it made the game very stagnant, because everyone was afraid to move their guys out of cover for fear the termies on overwatch would shoot them -- very bad for assault armies -- partly why 2nd edition was the "shooty" version, while 3rd edition is the "assaulty" version. And then when you called overwatch there were always arguments over where the guys were at exactly during their move. It was a fun rule, but it made the game different in flavor.
the TAU would definitely get an almost unfair advantage if we still had overwatch
Overwatch also had the added disadvantage that you received -1BS when you shot due to suddenly appearing targets. So the defender risked both opportunity for an effective shot (if the attacker didn't move as expected) and also a reduced effectiveness if they did shoot. I think it balanced the shooty army with the assault army. The assaulter could still assault, but the effect was often reduced due to casualties.
In 2dn Ed, they use to hit modifiers for things like cover (and overwatch) instead of just replacing your armor save. Cover made you harder to hit, but if you did get hit you still had your normal armor save. I hate the way cover works now. MOst of the time when I play marines, I just stand out in the open because cover means nothing except for heavy weapons. Skillful maneuvering does nothing for me, so I might as well just charge straight in.
The other rule I miss is the armor save modifier. In 3rd Ed its all or nothing with AP. You either get full armor save or nothing. In 2nd Ed, powerful weapons reduced your armor save, ie, a bolter reduced armor save by 1, a heavy bolter by 2, etc. Similar to what WH Fantasy does.
I didn't find the added modifiers slowed the game at all, but did make more sense and added variety and tactical options. With 'Hide', 'Cover', and 'Overwatch' we played smaller armies, used more terrain, and did a lot of move-shoot to close on the enemy, and then assaulted. With 3rd Ed's reduced tactics its pretty much just charge up and hope the randomness of the dice roll in your favor. That resulted in the mass use of Rhino Rush, since its about the only way to fight, especially with an assault army.
Give us MORE tactical options, and we'll use more tactics. If they take away one more option (assaulting from vehicles) its just going to force people into a more narrow choice of tactics, and everyone's (primarily assaulty armies) will just start using the same tactic, whatever that might be. And the shooty army is just going to sit there and shoot. Why do anything else, there's no point if it doesn't help you.
I know its a rant, but I come from a wargamer background, and tactical games are a lot of fun. GW's seems to just make rules the force an arms race (miniature buying race), and don't care about a really good game. They want you to have big expensive armies.
Some games I feel like we should just show up, display our armies for everyone to look at, then roll a D6 to see who wins.
Then get out and start playing other game systems. I-kore's VOID is a pretty fun game, and a 'step up' tactically from 40k.I know its a rant, but I come from a wargamer background, and tactical games are a lot of fun. GW's seems to just make rules the force an arms race (miniature buying race), and don't care about a really good game.That is pretty much how I now see 40K as. It's a luckfest with very little tactics. Most of the strategy is in the force composition. It's building your army, not employing it in the field, that is the challenging part.Some games I feel like we should just show up, display our armies for everyone to look at, then roll a D6 to see who wins.
40K is 'fun', lots of dice, lots of models, but I think they made a marketing decision to work on the 12 year-old boy demographic a bit too much. I tend to think they need to release a basic game (pretty much how it is out of the box), and release an 'advanced' rule set, retooling all the mechanics to employ more tactics for the older gamer.
I push all my cohorts toward other systems. The problem is getting them to try out new systems. The big advantage Warhammer has is the widespread player base. You can go just about anywhere and find someone who knows how to play, and has the necessary game components. Void is a good alternative since most of the GW models can fit in.Originally posted by hishamEQ@Dec 20 2003, 11:15
Then get out and start playing other game systems. I-kore's VOID is a pretty fun game, and a 'step up' tactically from 40k.
I too would love to see an advance rule set for warhammer. Either that or another game system that's written with GW models in mind, with similar force organization so the models could cross straight over.
I wonder what GW would say if another company produced a system that used "Armored marines with assault carbines, squads of 10 with a heavy weapon and special weapon" instead of a "Space Marine Tac Squad with bolters" as the description for their game system unit?
Anyone got a few (tens) thousand to start up a new game company?