MCs and Overwatch

[nurglitch]

All evidence is circumstantial. If it was definitive, then it would be proof.

Besides, it's not the 'subtle distinction' so much as the definition of the basic, normal rules being pages 10-31, including the Shooting phase as the normal case of shooting attacks. I find it's much clearer if you think of it algebraically, where the normal shooting attack is defined by the number of weapons that infantry can fire in the Shooting phase: w. Monstrous Creatures have 2w, which they can use in Overwatch since they can use it in the Shooting phase. The Multi-Tracker confers +1, an additional weapon in the shooting phase.

Infantry: w
Infantry with Multi-Tracker: w+1
Monstrous Creature: 2w
Monstrous Creature with Multi-Tracker 2w+1

However, Overwatch only uses the first term, the normal shooting attack, hence Monstrous Creatures get two weapons on Overwatch, but Crisis Battlesuits only get one.

As for Riptides only having two weapons: Find a Tau Quad Gun to aim with its foot and you're groovy.

[t⊗theark]

Apr 30, 2013 0:27:49 GMT WestRider said:

I don't have more than circumstantial evidence, but I suspect that the reason for the different wording on Multi-Trackers was that at some point in playtesting, the Riptide had 3 guns and a Multi-Tracker. If it had been worded "can fire two Weapons", it wouldn't have done anything there. Wouldn't be the first time playtest wordings that had been rendered irrelevant had made it into the published Dex.

Well, I think is has to do with the nova charged ripple fire where one can fire the secondary weapon twice. For example, a riptide with a smart missile system and a heavy bust cannon who has a successful Nova Charge test can fire the smart missile system twice as well the heavy burst cannon due to being a monstrous creature (fire two weapons in the shooting phase) with a multi-tracker (fire an additional weapon in the shooting phase).

[WestRider]

The Riptide doesn't actually have a Multi-Tracker, which is why I was speculating about possible Playtest Builds.

nurglitch: Where is it specified that you're supposed to think of it that way, tho? You're assuming structure to the Rules Set that is never stated.

[t⊗theark]

Page 70 of Codex: Tau Empire
"The following battle suits come equipped with multi-trackers...
...Riptide"

[WestRider]

Ah, and here I was thinking that Wargear would be listed under "Wargear" in the Army List Entry. Silly me

I stand corrected, but that actually reinforces my point about the reasons for the difference in wording. Even tho Ripple Fire says that firing twice only counts as firing a single Weapon, so I can't see any way other than a Weapons Emplacement or Emplaced Weapon for it to actually have three Weapons to fire.

[carnogaunt]

The "in the shooting phase" language has been around forever. I can find dozens of references in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition rulebooks and codices which contain that phrase, even though there was no possible way to shoot at any time except the shooting phase in any of those editions. So when I see it come up again in 6th edition, I'm going to continue to read "in the shooting phase" interchangeably with "when the unit shoots."

I don't see any distinction anywhere in the rules between making a "shooting attack" and making a "normal shooting attack," i.e. the word "normal" is included merely for rhetorical effect and doesn't actually reference anything. The shooting attack from Overwatch is just like any other, minus the listed exceptions. Firing extra weapons because of Advanced rules (Monstrous Creature, Multi-Tracker, whatever) is not one of the listed exceptions.

[brianb9999]

I agree with carnogaunt...I feel that the inclusion of the word "normal" tends to obscure things like this. Remember when 6th hit and certain people were saying ymgarls couldn't assault the turn they came in because it wasn't a "normal" action? Remove that word from the ymgarls' description and there's no argument. At least that got FAQ'd...

[coredump]

Which is the logic used to determine that you could use Witchfire for overwatch.
Until GW made it clear that was not intended.....

[t⊗theark]

May 1, 2013 11:59:46 GMT coredump said:

Which is the logic used to determine that you could use Witchfire for overwatch.
Until GW made it clear that was not intended.....

I hate that spanner in the works! Next time mention that in the rule book

[Jabberwocky]

I think the no to witchfire was a reactionary answer because it assumed there would be no warp charge etc. That and certain powers auto-hitting like novas.

I'm still unsure on the intention of MC overwatch but my group never even considered only being able to fire 1 weapon so I doubt they would change without an FAQ.

[coredump]

Warp charges are on both turns, and they have to know it since it is how it has always worked.... force weapons and such.
Auto hitting powers can't snap fire anyway, so they were a non issue.

[fragile]

May 1, 2013 11:59:46 GMT coredump said:

Which is the logic used to determine that you could use Witchfire for overwatch.
Until GW made it clear that was not intended.....

Which means that until they state otherwise, they intend for you to fire two weapons

[t⊗theark]

May 2, 2013 1:53:39 GMT fragile said:

May 1, 2013 11:59:46 GMT coredump said:

Which is the logic used to determine that you could use Witchfire for overwatch.
Until GW made it clear that was not intended.....

Which means that until they state otherwise, they intend for you to fire two weapons

...in the shooting phase and not necessarily in the assault phase.

[papacheese]

May 1, 2013 12:56:55 GMT coredump said:

Warp charges are on both turns, and they have to know it since it is how it has always worked.... force weapons and such.
Auto hitting powers can't snap fire anyway, so they were a non issue.

Does it say that autohitting powers cannot snap fire? Auto hitting weapons can snap fire (template weapons).

But there does seem to be a specific prejudice against psychic powers and overwatch, Eldar Warlocs for example have been specifically faq'd to not be able to use their destructor power for overwatch, even though they don't spend any warp charges to use it.

Sometimes I can't help but shake the feeling that GW is either really slap-dash with the rules writing and FAQing, or that there are way too many lawyers out there creating loopholes and counter arguments for their own benefit.

[Superstringy]

Forgetting the specific wording for a minute, think of it this way:

In a player-owned shooting phase it is implied that the units are somewhat in control; planning and executing firing solutions, following orders - aiming and shooting in a (hopefully) refined fashion. I would say in situations like this they would employ extra tactical methods and engage additional wargear etc that would (say) allow them the extra shots as per the Tau shooting buff. They can set this up as they have the luxury of time and can prepare that extra salvo.

When being assaulted, the defensive act of firing Overwatch is a reactionary last-ditch, unprepared and possibly panicked act; firing from the hip (or equivalent) with whatever weaponry is to hand. This shouldn't be as co-ordinated as no unit knows they are going to be charged (especially with the new random charge range modifier) so it follows that they wouldn't have had the time and wherewithal to get any extra prep time in place.

Monstrous Creatures are still firing all available weapons 'from the hip', they just have the limbs, brains and strength to wield more of these in the first place.