Overwatch uses "ammo" in that sure you're attacking more often but at the loss of ammunition or shots - if you will, now couple that with limited "clips" on the character's person (explain to me how and where you have more than 3 clips on your person is my common GM question for any type of gear, if its explained logically then by all means the PC has it)...

So as far as I can tell the foil of the mechanic being finite ammo

Stay GAMING

Morbid

Overwatch uses "ammo" in that sure you're attacking more often but at the loss of ammunition or shots - if you will, now couple that with limited "clips" on the character's person (explain to me how and where you have more than 3 clips on your person is my common GM question for any type of gear, if its explained logically then by all means the PC has it)...

So as far as I can tell the foil of the mechanic being finite ammo

Stay GAMING

Morbid

That still blows any concept of "real" rate of fire out of proportion. It allows weapons with intentionally low rates of fire to attack far more often than they ought to in a given round. So someone with that heavy crossbow from Enemies Within could fire that thing on Overwatch, and hit and -knock down- up to 12 target enemies in a single Overwatch action? That's game balance to you?

Look, Rule 0 is great and all, but the reason we pay money for these books is to free us up from having to make hard Rule 0 decisions constantly, and abstracts out a certain degree of "fairness", such that, while the rules may be flawed, at least everyone generally has to operate under them.

Besides, the heart of the problem lies with the ability for Overwatch to break the economy of actions.

KommissarK - my 2 cents was only in addition to - not the whole of - the foil to the game mechanic you are discussing...

I.E. another thing to consider (on top of all else, if you will)

Outside of that - herein as another idea independent of what has been presented prior.

Why or would it work better if Overwatch was handled as a Reaction (like dodge or parry) instead of the way it was written?

How would that work - seems to me, risk vs. reward = I either choose to Overwatch, or save my reaction for a Dodge / Parry attempt instead is the gist of where I am going with this latest suggestion.

I do/did see a problem as outlined herein - so I'm flexible and willing to apply solutions (I dont embrace excuses only solutions - comes to mind ROTFL)

Stay GAMING

Morbid

Another consideration - if you don't want to mess with Reactions:

You could assign the # of Overwatch action to be equal to a character's Agility bonus or Intelligence bonus instead?

Say I am walking around with a 38 AG - that would mean when i opt to overwatch I can only make up to 3 attacks before Im done (conceivably a massed horde could run past those first 3 targets I shot and thusly bypass my killzone).

For me - as a GM I could also go in this direction as well equally; combine the two ideas together
(overwatch is a reaction + maximum actions are equal to your Agility bonus - conjoining the two facets of play seems like a good solution)

No worries

Morbid

The problem MorbidDon, is you're going into the realm of house rules. Whereas this sub-forum is for understanding the printed rules themselves. Yes, fixing Overwatch is quite easy really ( I've actually already developed a set of house rules I'm happy with myself) , and while I'll admit I haven't fully read over what you're describing, it sounds like it would at least be workable.

But the point is more to highlight just how -badly- the current rules handle the situation. To show just how -broken- the way it currently is working in the rules themselves. Going forward, this needs to change if DH2e is to be taken seriously. As written the rules provide me with no incentive to use the line. I am a capable GM, and if I so desired I could run 40k in a different rules system. I use a given RPG's set of rules for 3 main reasons:

-I do give at least some deference to it being the "licensed" rules for a particular setting.

-The rules are internally consistent (i.e. the game itself can be played without arriving at a "broken" state of being uncertain how to proceed besides applying Rule 0).

-The rules are fun

DH2e is at least the first point, and partly the third point. But that middle point? DH2e has some problems. This is probably one of the bigger ones, especially with how lazily the FAQ response to the Overwatch question was given.

EDIT: Whoops, thought this was the newer Rules question on the same matter. Sorry guys.

The term "broken mess" is used far too often when it isn't deserved. Reading through this however I think it's an apt phrase to describe the overwatch rules. Has anyone tried contacting FFG or Tim hucklebury about it? I'd do it but I'm going to go and weep in the corner that somehow I missed that attacks can only be made once per turn...

I go with the reading as follows, although, admittedly, it requires bending the words a little:

Overwatch ends when you take an Action or Reaction.

I treat the firing action, as an action which you've already paid time for with your Overwatch action. Completing this action, by firing, ends your Overwatch.

Done. You can fire once.

The term "broken mess" is used far too often when it isn't deserved. Reading through this however I think it's an apt phrase to describe the overwatch rules. Has anyone tried contacting FFG or Tim hucklebury about it? I'd do it but I'm going to go and weep in the corner that somehow I missed that attacks can only be made once per turn...

Well, this thread was written before the FAQ came out. The FAQ included a question on whether or not Overwatch triggered off an Action of the movement sub-type, and the dev response was to clarify that it it could be off any trigger, not just the movement sub-type, as well as clarifying that it could trigger an attack as many times as the trigger occurred during the intervening term.

So basically the response was to pour kerosene on the fire.

I'll admit, I haven't bothered for clarification since then, largely because the actual function of the rules does seem quite clear to me. And I'm not sure they would appreciate the Rules Question system to be usurped into a "Rules Commentary" system.