Hey guys,

Is it true that overwatch triggers EACH time the condition is met (not only once) ?

This would be...very easy to be abused imo.

As not only movement can be a trigger, someone can set overwatch onto a group of people and say "it triggers when they attack".

So with 3 guys in the zone which are likely to shoot (e.g. because they went into cover to fire from there), I get 3 shots instead of he regular 1 !

Or am I missing something ?

Nope, EACH time the triggering effect occurs before the character in Overwatch gets their next turn, they get to activate their Overwatch.

But isnt that really unbalanced ? It is very easy to get multiple shots that way...

Why should I ever make a regular attack again ?

**** it - if I make the trigger "whenever he breathes", I could even get 2-3 shots on 1 enemy within 1 turn if I want to abuse this rule.

Or I could overwatch 1 target to shoot on it whenever any other character does anything. Great...

Overwatch doesn't trigger with free actions, which 'whenever he breathes' would be covered. The qualifying triggers are either half or full actions by definition, so by necessity dictates either a movement or hostile action. All within a 45 degree killzone of course.

So you as a player can dictate the trigger as 'whenever a hostile opens fire", it won't trigger if the enemy just makes a movement out of the killzone. It's one of those abilities that can be great if the enemy falls into the trap, but can easily be mitigated with simple combat experience. Also, visual triggers don't work if for say, someone is able to pop smoke first.

Suddenly, the smoke grenade is even more useful...

It doesnt state that the trigger has to be an action at all. It just states that you can define a "condition", which is not an Action RAW.

So a trigger can be basically anything, including a free action.

Looking at the past lines (OW, BC etc.), it always said "any" time not "every" time. And was limited to 1 use, not several.

I think it is rather a typo, and in Addition the Person who wrote the errata made it worse by not really looking at what was meant (same goes for the toxic issue in my other thread).

You can infer from the description from one part in particular where it talks about going at the same time as another character (If it occurs at the same time as another character’s action,). To me, this is clearly meaning the Overwatch has to trigger on an action . As free actions never trigger attacks of opportunity, or are counted in normal in any other mechanism, it is to my reasoning able to read it as such.

Perhaps there is ambiguity in it admittedly from the way it is written.

As for the differences between "Any" and "every", is there really? It can be read to mean the same thing in both contexts' given.

o - this clearly says, that IF the trigger is an action, ag determines who acts first.

The use of IF clearly indicates that there are not only actions triggering.

There clearly is a context difference in "any" and "every".

Any time means: in one time of choice the trigger is met

Every time means: each time the trigger is met

And inthe lines before, it always stated "any".

I don't know then. My way has been fairly consistent without allowing things to get absurd and out of control. Reading it any other way leads to absurd possibilities.

Also, define 'any' and you get this: (used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or many.) Otherwise, synonymous with Every and/or All depending on how each person reads it. That one word difference doesn't actually make...a difference.

I'm just trying to help you out Gauntzero, ya know, not trying to attack anything here. It just seems silly to me that you'd insist the minutiae of the action allows for a declaration that can give a player a potential infinite amount of opportunities to attack based on vague trigger events.

Its not only for players, but also for NPCs.

And I am not about stripping away opportunities for them, but rather to prevent verwatch from being the only choice that makes sense in combat (leading to absurd combats situations where everybody overwatches each other).

It is an Action that allows for multiple shots too easily if read that way. Besides that, even with 1 shot it is clearly fine and balanced.

I always used it this way:

-Arc of 45degree

-Specific condition is: ennemy moving into the killzone, ennemy drawing guns, etc.

-It stops working after the action was made.

I never had problem with it this way.

Exactly - it stops after the action was made. I am fully with you on this one.

The problem comes up, if you make it go on even after your overwatch shot and allow it to trigger multiple times within the same turn.

That can be violent. I don't use it that way so never got the problem.

Problem is that the errata state that it is to be meant that way...which makes no sense imo - especially as it never was like that before.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/129770-overwatch-better-than-the-normal-attacks/

FAQ states that it does trigger after each instance of the stated trigger. Which can be quite nebulous.

Question: Does the condition set for the Overwatch action (page 223) have to be a movement?

Answer: It does not need to be a movement and can indeed be things such as an enemy firing. Note that it is triggered each time the condition is met, so if the condition is an enemy moving into the kill zone, the character will perform his set Overwatch response each time an enemy enters the zone. Depending on the condition, the GM might call for the Overwatching character to succeed on an Awareness test to detect this, such as when an enemy carefully sneaking across the kill zone in heavy fog or darkness.

Quite frankly, this is the moment I gave up on the system. When its writers clearly lost any sense of reasonable game design. Overwatch, as described, is far and beyond -better- than any other attack action a player can make. It imposes a pinning test, it ignores dodge, attacks at an potentially infinite number of times, and can be used against an extremely nebulous action condition (e.g. the enemy does "anything" is my trigger). But yes, it does indeed require the target to take an Action. Note though, that Overwatch does allow an attacker to choose to attack or not though.

Each any [sic] time the specified conditions are met before the start of the character's next turn, he can perform that attack (so long as he is otherwise eligible to do so).

"Can perform," not "must perform" or "performs." "Can" clearly indicates an option. So basically, you could establish the trigger as being "if a character performs an action in my killzone." Obviously the GM should stop you, but the rules don't indicate that is invalid.

Yes, you can house rule/rule 0 it, but why bother?

Because one can enjoy the rest of the system and the setting? Hell, I never even house-ruled it and no-one Overwatches in my game like that.

To throw my say in...

Consider this game design wise;

Step ONE: Make Overwatch a Reaction

Step TWO: Make Reactions during a round equal to your INT bonus

(not AGL as that would make too many facets of play tied to that stat like in many other RPG systems - which is why AGL / DEX tend to be overpowered stats generally speaking...)

Intellect could also include your brain's ability to process things going on around yourself quickly (brain speed persay)

So now in our game INT is tied to both Lore Skills and now the # of Reactions you get per Round!

Step THREE: Try it out before you slam it (try your food before you say you don't like it)

FIN

So now by default of average values a character generally will range from 2 to 4 Reactions now (20 to 40 characteristic score)

Thoughts, concerns, etc?

Morbid

Because one can enjoy the rest of the system and the setting? Hell, I never even house-ruled it and no-one Overwatches in my game like that.

That's more an artifact of having reasonable players who don't want to break the game, which yes, is good, and yes, generally playing a game with those that want to break the rules is a bad idea. Are your players aware that Overwatch, as written, provides an undodgeable attack that invokes pinning and can trigger multiple times? Or do they just view it as the option for a readied action to attack?

But its like leaving a window broken and not fixing it just because the temperature outside is nice.

The problem really, is where does the definition of "overpowered" step in and need to actually be applied in-game. Yes, as a player, I would opt to not cheese Overwatch in order to win encounters, but if I'm at the table, and half the group has already been wrecked by a bad Fear test, and I'm being swarmed by alot of weak enemies all coming from a single direction, I am at least going to look at the GM, declare that I know what the rules say about Overwatch, and ask for a declaration if they're going to run the game rules as written. I'm not going to be so proud to not use a mechanic clearly defined in the rules that would work in my favor. Yes, I would feel bad about cheesing Overwatch, but the situation demanded it. The point is, just because nobody at your table uses Overwatch doesn't mean its fine to leave it broken. Perfectly reasonable players, when pushed, should be expected to use the rules to their advantage because they're rational players and don't want to see their characters shredded and the game result in a TPK.

While there is a responsibility to the players to not intentionally break the game, demanding that they intentionally forgo an advantage clearly provided to them in the rules is unfair and not a good way to run a game.

Besides, you can create a 40k like game in other systems. Get a solid GM to establish 40k gear for a Mutants and Masterminds game, set solid ground rules for powers, and go forward from there. The system is solid, plenty of fun, and can the 40k motif can be applied on top of that.

Even more, to quote Gygax:

"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

We use the books to establish a common language for how we play the game. It the rules are bad, why use them? You could run a 40k RPG any way you want. Dark Heresy is just the licensed product.

Joke wise =

You have a wide ass hallway - you declare Overwatch - you are all by yourself
On the foes next go 43 thieves come running at you
You shoot 43 SEPARATE times?!
You are NOW the galactic master blaster! ROTFL

It occurs to me that Overwatch is supposed to be as good as it's written.

Consider;

1) You have a gun

2) You step around the corner and someone is standing there with a gun. That person is a foe.

3) You point your gun at them (Rules: You go into Overwatch, trigger; your foe attacks)

4) They point their gun at you (Rules: They go into Overwatch)

5) Result: It's a standoff, because no-one dares make "the first move".

Then imagine you're a more twitchy individual and your Overwatch trigger is "your foe does anything but surrender". As soon as he tries to go into Overwatch (step 4), you shoot him and a general shoot-out occurs instead of a stand-off, bearing in mind that once you're in Overwatch, you can't take any Reactions without losing it and further, that an Agile opponent can get the drop on you.

Overwatch does what it's supposed to do. It lets you take a defensive/reactive posture with significant advantages, but it works for both sides of the table. If it wasn't so good and only let you take a single reaction, then it'd be useless against a bunch of people; one guy charges forward with a shield raised and "takes it for the team" and the rest act with impunity. As written, "trench warfare" works like it should; the no-mans land in the middle is suicide, even if only one guy with a big gun is on one side. If he can only take a single shot with Overwatch, then he can't hold that ground.

It's also worth bearing in mind that it only covers a fairly small arc; anything acting outside of that arc is quite free to do whatever it wishes and if you want to maintain Overwatch, you're not reacting to it.

Most rules show their validity if taken to extremes.

I think the example with the 43 thieves is a good one. One comes round the corner after the other (stupid, but well, this is just to show the general validity with an extreme example).

With overwatch you got to shoot on every single one of them, possibly pin them and deny them their evasion attempt ? Really ?

And where do you take the time from to shoot 43 times on targets, when a round has about 3-5 seconds ?

Why cant I do that with a regular action (43 Standard attacks in my turn) ?

Wouldnt have the maximum number of shots at least limited to the fire rate ?

And the best Thing: you can even make a full Auto attack on each of the 43 enemies

Or of you make the trigger "any Action", an enemy using two half Actions would be shot at twice ;D

Maybe I should let my 43 NPC mooks use overwatch to wait for the NPCs

Thats ridiculous.

And I am also still the opinion, that the trigger does not even have to be an Action (didnt find any sentence that demands an "Action").

And the best Thing: you can even make a full Auto attack on each of the 43 enemies

Which gun carries enough ammo for 43 full auto attacks ?

Looking through the core rulebook, only the lasgun can hit all 43 of those thieves before running out of ammo, and it can only do it on single shot. A single minimum power shot.

Lets look at weapons with expanded magazines then (+50% ammo capacity, meaning weapons need at least 29 ammo base to get 43 ammo with it):

- Storm Bolter. Single shot only, as each shot is two bolts fired.

- Laspistol. Single shot only.

- Lasgun. Single Shot only. But you can use +1 damage from variable settings.

- Hot-shot laspistol/lasgun. Single shot only. Assuming you'd let the expanded magazine work with them.

- Plasma gun. Single shot only. No using maximal.

- Autogun. Single shot only.

Ammo use is a major limiting factor on overwatch. Weapon jams are another.

The 42 blundering thieves aside, key things are being forgetting about the 'rage' against overwatch.

The character with the higher Agility goes first anyway, so high agility characters can just run outside the killzone before the attacker.

Tied abilities have to roll off to see who goes first.

Hard Target is still a thing for that sweet -20 penalty to be shot at.

Suppressing Fire can hit up to several hundred people at once as an attack action as well.

And the best Thing: you can even make a full Auto attack on each of the 43 enemies

Which gun carries enough ammo for 43 full auto attacks ?

Looking through the core rulebook, only the lasgun can hit all 43 of those thieves before running out of ammo, and it can only do it on single shot. A single minimum power shot.

Lets look at weapons with expanded magazines then (+50% ammo capacity, meaning weapons need at least 29 ammo base to get 43 ammo with it):

- Storm Bolter. Single shot only, as each shot is two bolts fired.

- Laspistol. Single shot only.

- Lasgun. Single Shot only. But you can use +1 damage from variable settings.

- Hot-shot laspistol/lasgun. Single shot only. Assuming you'd let the expanded magazine work with them.

- Plasma gun. Single shot only. No using maximal.

- Autogun. Single shot only.

Ammo use is a major limiting factor on overwatch. Weapon jams are another.

You do know you can Overwatch and have it use Standard Attack (i.e. single shot), and still have it cause a Pinning (doesn't have to hit to cause Pinning either) and be undodgeable.

At to the higher Agility acting first: realize they're still stuck performing their triggering action, followed by the Overwatch attack. So if they were attacking, sure, they get to shoot first, but then they get shot back at and have to roll Pinning and can't dodge.

Have people seriously never heard of the concept of the action economy in a tabletop game? One actor being able to take a scaling amount of actions, equal to up to the amount of targets they're facing, is immensely effective. Too much so.

Compared to Surpressing Fire - Overwatch doesn't carry the same to hit penalty as Surpressing Fire has. You can Standard Attack with Overwatch and get BS +10 shots + all other modifiers all day. And you cause Pinning. That wrecks the action economy of your targets (reduce them to half actions only first, and suddenly they can't Overwatch you back).

Have people seriously never heard of the concept of the action economy in a tabletop game? One actor being able to take a scaling amount of actions, equal to up to the amount of targets they're facing, is immensely effective. Too much so.

Compared to Surpressing Fire - Overwatch doesn't carry the same to hit penalty as Surpressing Fire has. You can Standard Attack with Overwatch and get BS +10 shots + all other modifiers all day. And you cause Pinning. That wrecks the action economy of your targets (reduce them to half actions only first, and suddenly they can't Overwatch you back).

I have heard of it, but I actually play the game. Overwatch isn't the premier action it's being made to seem. Because you know, there's always more of the enemy than the players, and they can overwatch too. The acolytes can't just sit down each turn (full action) and wait for the plot to advance. Their the ones who are going to have to move. And trust me, if they do sit there and just overwatch, overwatch, overwatch, the npcs will be doing so too, finally boiling down to that one hostile negotiations scene with both parties just aside a door trying to socially intimidate each other to surrender or broker a truce.

But that is actually the point. With Overwatch being as the errata says, the strategically most effective tactic for all combatants would be to overwatch each other. Which means 3 Things for your future combat situations:

1.) they can be Long sessions of People watching each other

2.) Whoever moves first, is screwed

3.) Whoever acts quickest and is able to overwatch the others with the trigger being to shot if anybody overwatches, wins

The comparison with Supressive fire is not valid imo:

a.) it is at a -20 Penalty

b.) only full Auto has 45 degrees (semi Auto only 30 which Limits the area quite a lot)

c.) a scored hit does not hit everyone in the area, but 1 random target. This neither hits a lot of People, nor definitely the ones you want to hit; only for each 2 DoS above the first, there is another hit

d.) the Targets still have the possibility to dodge

So, as effective as supressive fire is, it is not OP imo. Overwatch is fully ok, if it is only able to trigger once. Overwatch gets ridiculous with multiple triggering.