I apologize if this has already been posted. If so, my search-fu wasn't strong enough to find it.

My question is...what if a character, we'll say Barry, is in overwatch and Eva starts her activation in line of site to him, on the same path. Eva decides not to move or act. What does that do to Barry's overwatch? If I'm reading the rules correctly, he can't take a shot - which seems silly.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

- netgeist

Barry looses his action like Eva.

That's how it reads but it's kind of silly to think they just stare at one another.

lol !!!

Nice catch, stupid and fun! You should be able to respond wherever you please when on overwatch, after all it cost you a CP and your movement!!!

Hey, that´s super dramatic! Hero and villain staring at each other, no one dares to take the first move... Just imagine both pointing their weapons at each other!

Ok, it´s not realistic, not at all. maybe it is really stupid, But that´s how it works. It´s a turn to turn board game simulating real time action that happens at the same time. Of course there are flaws in it.

I immagine they reach an impasse, or a situation like far west gun fighters: one-on-one, but none does the first move.

I think it isn't so silly. In a different way, how would you change that rule?

I wouldn't like if overwatch allowed a free (and first) attack.

Great answer Katsuyori, you post it while I write mine

Carlos Castaneda said:

Overwatch is far from "free" its a first attack that cant be special like granades or anything but cost your movement and a CP so i think its ok to first attack for that price.

True, I expect there to be flaws in games. That one just struck me as odd.

If trigger events include someone ending on a space on the same path, it would add more excitement. Instead of the dramatic stare down, there would the dramatic "Oh s---!" moment when someone sees the gun aiming their way and tries to beat feet out of the area.

- netgeist

Maybe a rule like descent, you can interrupt anything you want at anytime you want but if you take damage, you lose your reserved action, in this case the overwatch, so this way you can have a penalty and cant stand in a place for ever just overwatching.

I imagine that Eva has taken cover and just sits out this round, while Barry scans then room.

Also:

If Barry has Line of Sight at Eva when she activates, he should have had LoS when he declared Overwatch. So if he actually wanted to shoot her, he shouldn't have declared Overwatch.

There are some situations where it would make sense for Barry to go into overwatch in that situation. For example, maybe the player wants to activate someone else (to take a med kit, for example) but doesn't want to lose a chance to shoot Eva while she's in his sites.

- netgeist

That's called a Mexican Standoff

I don't think the game's implementation of this is silly at all - this really happens.

Artemus Maximus said:

Not really, the person on overwatch should have the advantage and if he wanna use that, he just cant... And that's what i call silly...

Nobody controlls you while you're playing: if you don't like a rule, you are free to not use it or to change it.. it's simple.

ah i see what you mean - because the OW character can't change the OW decision after the round starts, right? Yeah thats annoying, i agree...but i suppose if he really wanted to take the offensive and attack first instead of sitting back to respond to an action, that player could have tried to win initiative to go first and just attack w/o OW in the first place...

I guess i dont see OW as being an inherent advantage per se, but a choice to be passive/defensive rather than aggresive and the game makes you make that decision at the start of the round.

Than being said, i've been thinking about adding the option to remove OW on a character at the cost of 1 CP somehow after the round starts...

Carlos Castaneda said:

That was totally uncalled for, believe me i know i can do wharever i want with my game, i think we were just discussing a rule and giving out opinions. Wasn't meant to offend anyone or anything like that.

But about the rule, really? Im the only one who believes that at the cost of a CP and your move, its too much to ask that overwatch can be used at anytime?

Sorry, mine was only a piece of rhetorical advise 'cause I didn't understand well your intentions.

Artemus Maximus said what I think.

Finally, I like overwatch as it is.

depending on the situation, the option to overwatch is quite strong, and can change the flow of the game entirely. The cost of 1 CP is fine, as it ensures initiative of attacking for the overwatching character, since he can not be attacked before he gets his attack. And even if the enemy decides that attacking him is to dangerous and gets "paralyzed" like Eva (in the example above) or just shuns of moving into a certain path, a great tactical advantage could have been won.

So, I can live with the rule, and sometimes gain nice opportunities out of it. 1 Point and 1 activation is nothing when I can sway the outcome of a battle with it. If you do not like overwatch and think that it is not worth the cost of 1 activation and 1 CP you still can save your point for a better use. It is up to you, as you are the leader of your team.

Yep, I agree.

Placing Overwatch in this situation simulates you pointing the gun at the opponent, whiile they still have theirs holstered, possibly even with a slight grin as you know you have the advantage.

Tactically it causes the opponent to freeze to the spot, momentarily, while you cover them with your gun.

You'd use it, rather than attacking directly, if there were multiple opponents possibly that you wanted to try and cover, or that you had another character that you wanted to activate first and didn't want to lose the opportunity to attack Eva.

If Eva doesn't move or act that round, then the moment of covering is over (i.e. the turn ends) and next round you choose to either continue covering her (set overwatch again), or open fire on her (act normally).

If you don't set overwatch AND lose initiative and Eva slips away, that just represents you momentarily taking your eye of her; perhaps an explosion from a grenade in another area of the map distracts you.

....We've all seen this in the movies, how more realistic can you get?!

Sure hope this hasn't been posted, anyway; the rules CLEARY state on PAGE 10, under ACTIVE CHARACTERS, that:

During an activation, a character performs one of the following::

-Move and then act.

-Act and then move.

-Move, then act, then move some more.

-Move without taking an action.

-Act without moving.

There is no "Stand still" action, unless trying to add holes into your game by using house rules- Eva Kramer MUST do one of those things and would then be targeted by Barry. The exception to this would be putting Eva on overwatch, in which I imagine it as a standoff as in any good western or the tabletop game Necromunda. Both characters are in a compromised position. It's basically the same thing as Eva Kramer's magic "stand still" action that I've never heard of, except she has to spend a CP as well so the team playing Barry doesn't get ripped off.

This is the same deal with fire grenades (I'm assuming you don't have the union troop pack yet). There is no "stand still" action to avoid damage by fire grenades, though you can repeatedly drop and pick up equipment without moving. (which is probably why they last for 3 turns: drop, pick up, drop- so you would at least have to waste another turn picking up what you dropped)

Sure you can argue A character is not required to spend all - or any - of his movement points on a given activation. (pg. 17 under MOVING)

But I would say that not spending movement points is just another way of saying not moving. A dictionary might explain it as the absense of movement, or -without movement. And going back to page ten, the only activation such a character without movement can do is Act without moving.

Maybe that makes an argument about someone with a character far out of combat who doesn't want to do anything with them. I say, too bad, move them one space and then one space back to make a Move without taking an action activation.

But that's just my opinion, and I'm an apparent rules nazi.

While it is correct that an active character must move or act, there is no rule stating that you must activate all characters, IMO you are allowed to simply skip your turn.

Miah999 said:

Miah, you said all that I think: a player can choose to do nothing with a character and he looses that activation.

I doubt that the intention of the activation sequence rules is that a you must do something. The rule book says (p 10, number 4, line 9 - 10)

"when activated, a character can move ... and take one action"

"can" means that you are allowed to do something (optionally), and should clearly not be interpreted as a "must". I suppose the following text:

"During an activation, a character performs one of the following:

-Move and then act.

-Act and then move.

-Move, then act, then move some more.

-Move without taking an action.

-Act without moving."

simply explains in the form of a detailed list what the character can do in which order.

eh, just adding my opinion. And we've never had ANY such problem or have had to institute any such house rules to fix or argue over broken gameplay.

@Miah and Katsuyori: A VERY valid arguement, but one that I think branches into a different subject.

your pg. 10 reference:

When his turn to activate a character comes, a player MAY choose to activate ANY character on his side who has not been activated yet and is not on overwatch.

My pg. 11 reference (same section, but under marking activations):

When a player finishes activating a character, he MUST place an unused objective token facedown on that character's character sheet. This placement indicates that the character may not be activated again in the current game turn. WHEN ALL CHARACTERS HAVE BEEN ACTIVATED, OR ARE ON OVERWATCH, THE TURN ENDS, AND PLAY PROCEEDS to the Refresh Tokens step (see page 10)

You draw attention to the "player may choose" on pg.10. Which is stated very cleary. But it also references "any" which could, and may refer specifically to "may choose any character".

And if we are going to pay close attention to such words as can, may, and must. The same section states that an activated character MUST have an objective token placed on it to state it's activity this turn is over and only after it is activated. Also, it states that in order for play to proceed to the next turn, all characters must be activated or on overwatch.

I still disagree with Katsuyori though. If you ask me, if it's just vaguely outlining what a character can do during an activation- it would also state "Use no movement and take no action" or rephrase "Move without taking an action and/or without moving." and it wouldn't say "performs one of the following".

Like I said, my group has NEVER had any such problems playing the way we do. In a narrative sense, in my book: overwatch portrays a character carefully on guard or exerting all effort and adrenaline to even the odds on a faster opponent (or something like that). It promotes a more fair gameplay if you ask me. If one player wastes a command point to get the drop on an enemy, then the target should also have to spend a command point for them to "hide" behind something that isn't really on the map (seeing as LOS is the whole point of the pathfinding system).

"command-point wasting gameplay" might be more tactical, but think of it this way- How many times have you heard people complaining and whining about how useless overwatch is? And it seems to me that more people agree with the way you guys play.

I'm just putting out there a way of playing that is 110% supported by the rules and 110% effective.

Even if you want to talk narrative, anyone "standing still" on a battlefield (especially around an extra trigger-happy enemy) is dead, dead, and dead. If I was to personally play that way, I would instead give the overwatch player 2 free attacks on such a target to represent them being extra wary and the other person doing extra nothing.

Also, if that character is "hiding"- how come a character NOT on overwatch can attack them??? Wouldn't a charging person be less aware of his surroundings and the position of an enemy he didn't even see? I guess this is just my opinion, but isn't overwatch supposed to be overcoming of initiative and portray watchfulness? Wouldn't a faster, more perceptive soldier spot where an enemy is hiding or moving before one who is running around and ducking in and out of cover themself?

Sorry if I sound angry and ****, I'm just really irritable. Someone VERY close to me passed on VERY recently and I'm just trying to get my mind off it.