If a enemy deep-strikes close to several units with Interceptor special rule, how do I resolve the Interceptor shooting attacks?
A: I name a single unit with Interceptor, do it's shooting attacks and then move on to the next unit with Interceptor?
B: I have to announce how many units are going to intercept the moment the deep-strikers land and then resolve all their shooting at the same time? (thus potentially wasting shots/overkilling a target)
It never really states an order of operations regarding it. It only allows a Weapon with the Rule to perform the out of Phase action. Nothing requires all units with the Weapon to be declared at the same time.
Since we don't really have anything regarding an order of operations, I would suggest following the standard Shooting Sequence for simplification.
col_impact wrote: All of the Interceptors happen at the end of the opponent's movement phase.
This would mean that the opponent is the active player and gets to choose which Interceptor rules to resolve first per the Sequence rule.
No. There is no statement that all units firing Interceptor shots have to be nominated before resolving any. This isn't Overwatch or rolling for Reserves. You nominate the first unit firing Interceptor shots, resolve that, then you get to nominate another one if you have more, still have a legitimate target to shoot and the desire to shoot, then continue that way until you're done with all the units firing interceptor shots.
col_impact wrote: All of the Interceptors happen at the end of the opponent's movement phase.
This would mean that the opponent is the active player and gets to choose which Interceptor rules to resolve first per the Sequence rule.
No. There is no statement that all units firing Interceptor shots have to be nominated before resolving any. This isn't Overwatch or rolling for Reserves. You nominate the first unit firing Interceptor shots, resolve that, then you get to nominate another one if you have more, still have a legitimate target to shoot and the desire to shoot, then continue that way until you're done with all the units firing interceptor shots.
The sequence rules only apply to things that would happen at the same time. The opponent has to resolve all of their deep strike rolls prior to actually deploying the units. So you will know what is coming in and what is not. You use the shooting rules during the end of movement.
col_impact wrote: All of the Interceptors happen at the end of the opponent's movement phase.
This would mean that the opponent is the active player and gets to choose which Interceptor rules to resolve first per the Sequence rule.
No. There is no statement that all units firing Interceptor shots have to be nominated before resolving any. This isn't Overwatch or rolling for Reserves. You nominate the first unit firing Interceptor shots, resolve that, then you get to nominate another one if you have more, still have a legitimate target to shoot and the desire to shoot, then continue that way until you're done with all the units firing interceptor shots.
The sequence rules only apply to things that would happen at the same time. The opponent has to resolve all of their deep strike rolls prior to actually deploying the units. So you will know what is coming in and what is not. You use the shooting rules during the end of movement.
Where did I say different? Isn't nominating the unit to shoot, resolving that, then going to the next following the shooting rules?
col_impact wrote: All of the Interceptors happen at the end of the opponent's movement phase.
This would mean that the opponent is the active player and gets to choose which Interceptor rules to resolve first per the Sequence rule.
No. There is no statement that all units firing Interceptor shots have to be nominated before resolving any. This isn't Overwatch or rolling for Reserves. You nominate the first unit firing Interceptor shots, resolve that, then you get to nominate another one if you have more, still have a legitimate target to shoot and the desire to shoot, then continue that way until you're done with all the units firing interceptor shots.
The sequence rules only apply to things that would happen at the same time. The opponent has to resolve all of their deep strike rolls prior to actually deploying the units. So you will know what is coming in and what is not. You use the shooting rules during the end of movement.
Where did I say different? Isn't nominating the unit to shoot, resolving that, then going to the next following the shooting rules?
Indeed. The Sequencing rules really are when they are between your units and your opponent's units. They do not need to come in to play when it is only your units being involved.
Indeed. The Sequencing rules really are when they are between your units and your opponent's units. They do not need to come in to play when it is only your units being involved.
Your statement doesn't hold up when we look at the Sequencing rule
Spoiler:
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
The Sequencing rule is invoked whenever we have two or more rules happening at the same time.
We have two or more instances of Interceptor happening at the end of the opponent's movement phase.
The opponent is the active player.
There is no statement in the Interceptor rule that the player with the Intercepting units gets to choose the order in the case of multiple units with Interceptor. So nothing is overriding the Sequence rule.
The opponent will, according to the Sequencing rules, point to a unit with Intercept and ask if that unit Intercepts and if it does that particular Intercept will get resolved. Rinse and repeat.
col_impact wrote: All of the Interceptors happen at the end of the opponent's movement phase.
This would mean that the opponent is the active player and gets to choose which Interceptor rules to resolve first per the Sequence rule.
No. There is no statement that all units firing Interceptor shots have to be nominated before resolving any. This isn't Overwatch or rolling for Reserves. You nominate the first unit firing Interceptor shots, resolve that, then you get to nominate another one if you have more, still have a legitimate target to shoot and the desire to shoot, then continue that way until you're done with all the units firing interceptor shots.
It would work this way if the player with Intercepting units was the active player. However, he is not the active player.
col_impact wrote: All of the Interceptors happen at the end of the opponent's movement phase.
This would mean that the opponent is the active player and gets to choose which Interceptor rules to resolve first per the Sequence rule.
No. There is no statement that all units firing Interceptor shots have to be nominated before resolving any. This isn't Overwatch or rolling for Reserves. You nominate the first unit firing Interceptor shots, resolve that, then you get to nominate another one if you have more, still have a legitimate target to shoot and the desire to shoot, then continue that way until you're done with all the units firing interceptor shots.
The sequence rules only apply to things that would happen at the same time. The opponent has to resolve all of their deep strike rolls prior to actually deploying the units. So you will know what is coming in and what is not. You use the shooting rules during the end of movement.
Where did I say different? Isn't nominating the unit to shoot, resolving that, then going to the next following the shooting rules?
You didn't say differently, I was agreeing with you.
col_impact wrote: All of the Interceptors happen at the end of the opponent's movement phase.
This would mean that the opponent is the active player and gets to choose which Interceptor rules to resolve first per the Sequence rule.
No. There is no statement that all units firing Interceptor shots have to be nominated before resolving any. This isn't Overwatch or rolling for Reserves. You nominate the first unit firing Interceptor shots, resolve that, then you get to nominate another one if you have more, still have a legitimate target to shoot and the desire to shoot, then continue that way until you're done with all the units firing interceptor shots.
The sequence rules only apply to things that would happen at the same time. The opponent has to resolve all of their deep strike rolls prior to actually deploying the units. So you will know what is coming in and what is not. You use the shooting rules during the end of movement.
Where did I say different? Isn't nominating the unit to shoot, resolving that, then going to the next following the shooting rules?
You didn't say differently, I was agreeing with you.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of such permission, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the active players choosing.
What quote in the BRB gives you permission to treat Interceptor like Overwatch?
Except it is the players choice on when to shoot, they don't have to shoot, they CAN shoot one and then decide whether or not they want to shoot another. The only limitation is that they perform this at the end of the movement step, in no particular order, because you elect to fire one and then elect to fire another. They do not occur at the same time, but sequentially.
Ceann wrote: Except it is the players choice on when to shoot, they don't have to shoot, they CAN shoot one and then decide whether or not they want to shoot another. The only limitation is that they perform this at the end of the movement step, in no particular order, because you elect to fire one and then elect to fire another. They do not occur at the same time, but sequentially.
There is no permission to resolve the multiple instances of Interceptor 'in no particular order in a sequence of the firing players choosing'. You are making this up.
Per the Sequence rule, the order of rules happening at the same time is dictated by the active player.
How are you hand-waving away the Sequencing rule?
How are you magically treating this case like Overwatch and Multiple Overwatch without the corresponding rule support that the BRB provides for Overwatch and Multiple Overwatch to be specifically handled the way they are?
There is no requirement forcing you to fire with interceptor.
This isn't a triggered requirement, such as rolling all of your reserve rolls, or rolling for morale. You CAN fire, meaning it is the players choice on when they choose to use interceptor or not, you cannot force them to use it.
No one is "hand-waving" away anything.
You are trying to apply a basic rule to a special rule and it is hilarious, the sequencing rule for turns has no precedence, you are using the rules for FIRING A WEAPON, which is performed one weapon at a time.
You are trying to apply a basic rule to a special rule and it is hilarious, the sequencing rule for turns has no precedence, you are using the rules for FIRING A WEAPON, which is performed one weapon at a time.
What part of the Interceptor rule overrides the Sequencing rule?
I can see how the rules for Multiple Overwatch overrides the Sequencing rule but no such rules exist for Interceptor as they do for Overwatch. Why are you insisting on making up rules?
You use the SHOOTING rules for interceptor.
The first rule is CHOOSE A UNIT TO FIRE.
You cannot choose two units to fire simultaneously.
You cannot make them choose the unit to fire that you want to fire.
A weapon with the rule CAN be fired.
You don't get to decide whether it is fired or not.
What rule gives you the permission to lump all the instances of Interceptor together as a shooting sequence?
Overwatch has this permission . . .
Spoiler:
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Spoiler:
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . but Interceptor does not.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of such permission, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
I am going to fire at your unit that just arrived with my Icarus Array,
You don't get to them immediately demand which units I am using interceptor with, anymore than during the shooting phase that you must declare all of your shooting attacks before you shoot.
I perform the shooting for my Icarus Array using the shooting rules. Once the shooting is resolved I can elect to fire another one should I choose too.
I CAN fire them, not I MUST fire them.
There is no "pool" you elect each one individually.
Once you have resolved one shooting you CAN decide if you want to shoot another.
I CAN fire them, you don't fire them.
The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
You nominate a unit BEFORE you choose to fire, you cannot make them choose targets before a unit is nominated.
You have 3 weapons with Interceptor among 3 units.
The timing for each of these Interceptors happens "at the same time" so Sequencing rule applies.
The ACTIVE player chooses the order the Interceptor rules apply.
The ACTIVE player points to one of the Intercepting weapons and the controlling player decides whether to Intercept or not.
Intercept is resolved for that weapon.
Rinse and Repeat for all instances of the Interceptor rule.
This isn't Overwatch or Multiple Overwatch so quit treating it like it is. Interceptor does not have the permissions that Overwatch/Multiple Overwatch does. Quit making that up.
Interceptor simply does not have these permissions . . .
Spoiler:
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Spoiler:
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . so why do you keep adding those permissions to Interceptor? If you do then you are house-ruling to treat Interceptor like Overwatch.
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit...
The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
You cannot force them to declare all of the units they are firing at before they have chosen a unit to fire. That is not following the rules for shooting. If your first attack kills a unit then it is no longer a legal target for firing.
Last I checked sequencing was not a special rule and does not override the rules of the shooting phase.
Interceptor is used as a special rule when the unit is FIRING, which is after it has been nominated. You don't get to pick the order they nominate. Quit making that up.
Ceann wrote: At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired...
The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
You cannot force them to declare all of the units they are firing at before they have chosen a unit to fire. That is not following the rules for shooting. If your first attack kills a unit then it is no longer a legal target for firing.
Last I checked sequencing was not a special rule and does not override the rules of the shooting phase.
Interceptor is used as a special rule when the unit is FIRING, which is after it has been nominated. You don't get to pick the order they nominate. Quit making that up.
Sorry, you cannot choose which interceptor to resolve.
Because the 2nd step of the shooting is naming a target.
Interceptor asks you to target a unit, which you cannot do until after you nominate a unit.
Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit...
The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
Interceptor comes into effect until AFTER a unit's nominated.
You do not get to determine the order units are nominated.
Quit making that up.
@OP
The answer is A, col is just playing with words and no one would actually agree with his interpretation IRL.
Ceann wrote: Sorry, you cannot choose which interceptor to resolve.
Because the 2nd step of the shooting is naming a target.
Interceptor asks you to target a unit, which you cannot do until after you nominate a unit.
Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit...
The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
Interceptor comes into effect until AFTER a unit's nominated.
You do not get to determine the order units are nominated.
Quit making that up.
@OP
The answer is A, col is just playing with words and no one would actually agree with his interpretation IRL.
You aren't in the Shooting Phase so why are you treating this case like it is occurring in the context of a Shooting Phase?
The ACTIVE player is deciding the order in which the separate Interceptor rules apply.
If you do otherwise then you are treating Interceptor like it is Overwatch and giving Interceptor permissions it does not have, namely these permissions . . .
Spoiler:
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Spoiler:
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
If you treat Interceptor like it is Overwatch then you are house-ruling. There is a forum called Proposed Rules for suggestions along those lines. In YMDC we stick to what the actual rules say.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of such permission, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
If a enemy deep-strikes close to several units with Interceptor special rule, how do I resolve the Interceptor shooting attacks?
A: I name a single unit with Interceptor, do it's shooting attacks and then move on to the next unit with Interceptor?
B: I have to announce how many units are going to intercept the moment the deep-strikers land and then resolve all their shooting at the same time? (thus potentially wasting shots/overkilling a target)
Thanks in advance!
The answer is: A
After your opponent has finished his movement phase then you can do your out of turn Interceptor shooting as per the normal shooting rules, ie. pick a unit, shoot, pick another unit, shoot.
The rules for firing a weapon are basic rules Col.
If you can't understand than then I suppose I can see why you are having a hard time with this.
In YMDC, you just invent things and do not follow the requirements to provide precedence.
These are the basic rules for firing a weapon.
The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target. *Interceptor is decided here*
3. Select a Weapon.
As you can see in order to select a weapon to fire, you must first nominate a unit. What you are stating is breaking the rules. You want the player to name a target before a unit is selected, which is not the rules for a shooting sequence.
Nothing is permitting you to break the rules for shooting and we all can clearly see that there are no other rules for shooting to use.
We are using the rules for interceptor, you quoting Overwatch is obfuscation and means nothing. If you want to open a thread about overwatch feel free.
Ceann wrote: The rules for firing a weapon are basic rules Col.
If you can't understand than then I suppose I can see why you are having a hard time with this.
In YMDC, you just invent things and do not follow the requirements to provide precedence.
These are the basic rules for firing a weapon.
The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target. *Interceptor is decided here*
3. Select a Weapon.
As you can see in order to select a weapon to fire, you must first nominate a unit. What you are stating is breaking the rules. You want the player to name a target before a unit is selected, which is not the rules for a shooting sequence.
Nothing is permitting you to break the rules for shooting and we all can clearly see that there are no other rules for shooting to use.
Ceann,
This is the end of the opponent's movement phase.
You aren't in the Shooting Phase so you don't have permission to shoot.
Whatever permission you have to shoot is granted by an instance of the Interceptor rule.
The Interceptor rules don't happen all at the same time.
Per the Sequencing rule, the ACTIVE player decides the order in which the Interceptor instances happen.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of such permission, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Ceann wrote: We are using the rules for interceptor, you quoting Overwatch is obfuscation and means nothing. If you want to open a thread about overwatch feel free.
Considering that Overwatch has specific permissions, how are you resolving Interceptor any different than Overwatch?
If you cannot show a difference then you are magically treating Interceptor like Overwatch without any rule in the BRB allowing this. If there is no difference for you between Interceptor and Overwatch then you are house ruling.
Remember Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
Spoiler:
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Spoiler:
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
You are right, they don't happen at the same time.
You are right we aren't in the shooting phase.
"Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise."
We are performing the sequence of shooting.
All shooting in the game uses these rules, the unit firing Interceptor is electing to use the rules for shooting. There is nothing taking those rules away.
The rules for interceptor are attached to selecting a weapon to fire.
Which is done after you nominate a unit.
You do not get to determine the order unit's are nominated.
There are never two instances of Interceptor occurring in order to be sequenced.
You have to nominate a unit before Interceptor can be used.
You are in a out of turn Shooting Phase so you do have permission to shoot.
The controlling player decides the order in which the Interceptor instances happen.
Does that make it easier for people to understand?
Do you have rules quotes to back up your claims?
The Sequencing rule quite clearly indicates that the ACTIVE player decides the order in which Interceptor instances happen, which directly contradicts you.
Spoiler:
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then
the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
So can you please point to a rule in the BRB like I am doing?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: You are right, they don't happen at the same time.
You are right we aren't in the shooting phase.
"Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise."
We are performing the sequence of shooting.
All shooting in the game uses these rules, the unit firing Interceptor is electing to use the rules for shooting. There is nothing taking those rules away.
The rules for interceptor are attached to selecting a weapon to fire.
Which is done after you nominate a unit.
You do not get to determine the order unit's are nominated.
There are never two instances of Interceptor occurring in order to be sequenced.
You have to nominate a unit before Interceptor can be used.
You have that backwards. The ACTIVE player chooses an Interceptor instance to resolve.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack.
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack.
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack.
You are under the FALSE impression that Interceptor effects are happening simultaneously and providing you an opportunity to determine the order.
Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight.
The weapons have the special rule, and in order to fire a weapon you have to nominate a unit.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target.
3. Select a Weapon.
Selecting a Weapon is step 3 of the sequence.
Since two units cannot be nominated at the same time, Interceptor is only applied to one unit and one weapon at a time.
You are provided no opportunity to assert a sequence.
In order for a weapon to be used a unit already has to be nominated and once nominated no other unit can fire until you finish the sequence of shooting.
You are under the FALSE impression that Interceptor effects are happening simultaneously and providing you an opportunity to determine the order.
Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight.
The weapons have the special rule, and in order to fire a weapon you have to nominate a unit.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target.
3. Select a Weapon.
Selecting a Weapon is step 3 of the sequence.
Since two units cannot be nominated at the same time, Interceptor is only applied to one unit and one weapon at a time.
You are provided no opportunity to assert a sequence.
In order for a weapon to be used a unit already has to be nominated and once nominated no other unit can fire until you finish the sequence of shooting.
Your entire argument is false.
You keep putting yourself magically into a Shooting Phase at the end of the opponent's movement phase.
How do you have permission to shoot in the enemy's movement phase unless you are resolving an instance of Interceptor?
You are completely unable to shoot unless you are actively resolving an instance of Interceptor.
The order in which those instances of Interceptor resolve is determined by the ACTIVE player per the Sequencing rule.
1. Your opponent deep strikes a unit in their movement phase
2. Your opponent finishes their movement phase
3. You declare your going to shoot with your Interceptor enabled units
4. It now becomes an out of turn shooting phase
5. You then follow the normal rules for shooting
6. There is no rule conflict, so sequencing is not in play
7. After Interceptor is resolved it goes back to your opponent's control for the rest of his turn.
1. Your opponent deep strikes a unit in their movement phase
2. Your opponent finishes their movement phase
3. You declare your going to shoot with your Interceptor enabled units
4. It now becomes an out of turn shooting phase
5. You then follow the normal rules for shooting
6. There is no rule conflict, so sequencing is not in play
7. After Interceptor is resolved it goes back to your opponent's control for the rest of his turn.
4, 5, 6, 7 are not supported by any rule.
For reference here is the rule for Interceptor . . .
Spoiler:
Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Unlike Overwatch, Interceptor makes no mention of 'an out of turn shooting phase' or 'giving control to the firing player'.
So, your 4-7 sequence has no rule support and is nothing more than a house rule.
You are under the FALSE impression that Interceptor effects are happening simultaneously and providing you an opportunity to determine the order.
Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight.
The weapons have the special rule, and in order to fire a weapon you have to nominate a unit.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target.
3. Select a Weapon.
Selecting a Weapon is step 3 of the sequence.
Since two units cannot be nominated at the same time, Interceptor is only applied to one unit and one weapon at a time.
You are provided no opportunity to assert a sequence.
In order for a weapon to be used a unit already has to be nominated and once nominated no other unit can fire until you finish the sequence of shooting.
Your entire argument is false.
You keep putting yourself magically into a Shooting Phase at the end of the opponent's movement phase.
How do you have permission to shoot in the enemy's movement phase unless you are resolving an instance of Interceptor?
You are completely unable to shoot unless you are actively resolving an instance of Interceptor.
The order in which those instances of Interceptor resolve is determined by the ACTIVE player per the Sequencing rule.
You are only using one at a time.
The weapon CAN be fired.
Active player doesn't get to determine if it is or isn't fired.
If I have two Dunecrawlers with Icarus Array's and the first one destroys the only unit that arrived, then the other has no need to fire, you are not required to announce it will fire and what it will fire at prior to it actually firing.
If the first one does not destroy it then I can choose to fire with the other one, the weapon CAN be fired, still not the active players choice.
You don't get to know what units are firing and what they are firing at, before they fire.
If we are firing a weapon we use the rules for a shooting sequence.
You are only using one at a time.
The weapon CAN be fired.
Active player doesn't get to determine if it is or isn't fired.
If I have two Dunecrawlers with Icarus Array's and the first one destroys the only unit that arrived, then the other has no need to fire, you are not required to announce it will fire and what it will fire at prior to it actually firing.
If the first one does not destroy it then I can choose to fire with the other one, the weapon CAN be fired, still not the active players choice.
You don't get to know what units are firing and what they are firing at, before they fire.
If we are firing a weapon we use the rules for a shooting sequence.
I am not saying the ACTIVE player chooses whether or not to fire an Interceptor weapon.
The ACTIVE player chooses the ORDER in which the Interceptor rules resolve. The firing player does not choose the order. The firing player is not the ACTIVE player. The firing player chooses to fire or not based on the order dictated by the ACTIVE player.
So, your 4-7 sequence has no rule support and is nothing more than a house rule.
Yes, big house with Games Workshop sign on the front
Cool. I am glad that you admit that you have no rules support and are implementing a house rule. Please mark your suggestions as a house rule. That's a rule in this forum.
You are only using one at a time.
The weapon CAN be fired.
Active player doesn't get to determine if it is or isn't fired.
If I have two Dunecrawlers with Icarus Array's and the first one destroys the only unit that arrived, then the other has no need to fire, you are not required to announce it will fire and what it will fire at prior to it actually firing.
If the first one does not destroy it then I can choose to fire with the other one, the weapon CAN be fired, still not the active players choice.
You don't get to know what units are firing and what they are firing at, before they fire.
If we are firing a weapon we use the rules for a shooting sequence.
I am not saying the ACTIVE player chooses whether or not to fire an Interceptor weapon.
The ACTIVE player chooses the ORDER in which the Interceptor rules resolve. The firing player does not choose the order. The firing player is not the ACTIVE player. The firing player chooses to fire or not based on the order dictated by the ACTIVE player.
This is hilarious.
The problem with your sequencing, is that "active player" doesn't get to decide IF the weapon is actually going to shoot or not.
By the time one is already firing, another cannot fire, so there is no sequencing to apply.
The rules for a shooting sequence are dictating this.
There is no other way to fire a weapon other than using the shooting sequence.
Interceptor is actually impossible to resolve simultaneously and will never be sequenced.
The rules for Interceptor are using the shooting sequence rules in order to work.
By your version 3 units with an interceptor weapon would have all name their targets at the same time, because part of interceptor is naming your target.
Since you cannot name 3 targets at the same time, they cannot happen at the same time.
If they cannot happen at the same time they cannot be sequenced.
The problem with your sequencing, is that "active player" doesn't get to decide IF the weapon is actually going to shoot or not.
By the time one is already firing, another cannot fire, so there is no sequencing to apply.
The rules for a shooting sequence are dictating this.
There is no other way to fire a weapon other than using the shooting sequence.
Interceptor is actually impossible to resolve simultaneously and will never be sequenced.
The rules for Interceptor are using the shooting sequence rules in order to work.
By your version 3 units with an interceptor weapon would have all name their targets at the same time, because part of interceptor is naming your target.
Since you cannot name 3 targets at the same time, they cannot happen at the same time.
If they cannot happen at the same time they cannot be sequenced.
Again, you don't have any permission at all to shoot unless you are resolving an Interceptor instance.
The ACTIVE player decides the order in which those are resolved and they are completely resolved before going on to the next Interceptor instance.
By my version each unit with Interceptor is resolved separately and completely before going on to the next in the order of the ACTIVE players choosing.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack.
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack.
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack.
How are you determining the order of Interceptor if they first have to nominate a unit to fire?
You can't.
Your argument holds no water.
How are you making them declare all of their shooting attacks at the same time?
You can't.
Your argument holds no water.
Each instance of Interceptor is resolved whenever the player with the weapon that has the rule determines they wish for it to fire, you cannot make it fire.
If you cannot make it fire then you cannot have a conflict of order.
If you cannot have a conflict of order then you cannot sequence anything.
Ceann wrote: How are you determining the order of Interceptor if they first have to nominate a unit to fire?
You can't.
Your argument holds no water.
How are you making them declare all of their shooting attacks at the same time?
You can't.
Your argument holds no water.
You have it all backwards. You can't shoot at all unless you are resolving an instance of Interceptor. It's the enemy's movement phase. You don't have permission to shoot.
The ACTIVE player tells you which of the Interceptor rules (that are happening at the same time) to resolve first. It is only in the context of resolving each Interceptor rule in the order the ACTIVE player prescribed that you have permission to shoot.
You have units A, B, and C that have Interceptor.
It's the end of the opponent's movement phase.
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for C.
You resolve Interceptor for C (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for B.
You resolve Interceptor for B (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for A
You resolve Interceptor for A (by firing and yet failing to destroy the target).
You have exhausted all Interceptor shooting at this point and cannot revisit B and C and proceed to fire Interceptor for B and C.
The weapon CAN fire, you don't get to decide if it will fire.
I elect to tell you I am firing with a unit with Interceptor.
There is no other unit firing, so the unit I selected fires.
I elect to tell you I am firing with a unit with Interceptor.
There is no other unit firing, so the unit I selected fires.
I elect to tell you I am firing with a unit with Interceptor.
There is no other unit firing, so the unit I selected fires.
Part of the rules for interceptor are naming a target, naming a target is part of the shooting sequence, part of the shooting sequence is nominating a unit.
You want to have all units nominated and all units targets named prior to a unit firing. You have no rules that support you doing this. The rules for the shooting sequence supports me. Your interpretation breaks the rules for shooting, the sequence rule is not a special rule and is not permitted to break any rules. Therefore you are using it incorrectly.
I do have permission to shoot it is granted by Interceptor, and the rules for shooting apply to all models unless stated otherwise, nothing is removing my permission to use the shooting sequence rules.
The weapon CAN fire, you don't get to decide if it will fire.[ . . . ]
You want to have all units nominated and all units targets named prior to a unit firing. You have no rules that support you doing this.
I am not saying this at all. I am not claiming that the ACTIVE player decides if an Interceptor weapon will fire nor am I saying that the firing player has to have 'all units nominated and all units targets named prior to a unit firing'
Can you please read what I am posting? I am saying that the Interceptor rules are resolved piecemeal in the order of the ACTIVE player's choosing. You are imagining things about what I am saying.
READ THIS CAREFULLY!
You have units A, B, and C that have Interceptor.
It's the end of the opponent's movement phase.
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for C.
You resolve Interceptor for C (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for B.
You resolve Interceptor for B (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for A
You resolve Interceptor for A (by firing and yet failing to destroy the target).
You have exhausted all Interceptor shooting at this point and CANNOT REVISIT B and C and proceed to fire Interceptor for B and C (even if you want to)
Interceptor is only occurring if the player with the weapon chooses to have it fire, if they are not firing with it then there is no conflict, then there is no reason to sequence anything.
Your statement is leading with an assumption that all of them will fire and that you must sequence them.
But it does not say the weapons MUST fire, it says they CAN fire, so by default there is no reason to sequence them.
You are assuming a default where they MUST fire and sequencing them.
In reality you actually don't know if they will all be firing, so you have no authority to sequence them. You are putting the cart in front of the horse.
The default circumstance is that NONE of them are firing, so no sequencing needs to take place because there is no conflict.
Then...
I elect to tell you I am firing with a unit with Interceptor.
There is no other unit firing, so the unit I selected fires.
I elect to tell you I am firing with a unit with Interceptor.
There is no other unit firing, so the unit I selected fires.
I elect to tell you I am firing with a unit with Interceptor.
There is no other unit firing, so the unit I selected fires.
Interceptor is only occurring if the player with the weapon chooses to have it fire, if they are not firing with it then there is no conflict, then there is no reason to sequence anything.
Your statement is leading with an assumption that all of them will fire and that you must sequence them.
But it does not say the weapons MUST fire, it says they CAN fire, so by default there is no reason to sequence them.
You are assuming a default where they MUST fire and sequencing them.
In reality you actually don't know if they will all be firing, so you have no authority to sequence them. You are putting the cart in front of the horse.
The default circumstance is that NONE of them are firing, so no sequencing needs to take place because there is no conflict.
Then...
I elect to tell you I am firing with a unit with Interceptor.
There is no other unit firing, so the unit I selected fires.
I elect to tell you I am firing with a unit with Interceptor.
There is no other unit firing, so the unit I selected fires.
I elect to tell you I am firing with a unit with Interceptor.
There is no other unit firing, so the unit I selected fires.
You don't get to choose the order in which the Interceptor rules happen. The ACTIVE player chooses the order. You are not the active player.
It is the rules themselves which are being ordered so it is the OPPORTUNITY for Intercepting which is being ordered.
So you have 3 units A. B, C, each with Interceptor.
The ACTIVE player tells you to resolve Interceptor in the order of their choosing, not yours.
For example, the ACTIVE player tells you to resolve Interceptor for B then A then C.
You might prefer to resolve Interceptor for A then B then C but TOO BAD that is not how the rules work according to the Sequencing rule.
The ACTIVE player chooses the order of resolution, not you.
So, your 4-7 sequence has no rule support and is nothing more than a house rule.
Yes, big house with Games Workshop sign on the front
Cool. I am glad that you admit that you have no rules support and are implementing a house rule. Please mark your suggestions as a house rule. That's a rule in this forum.
Really, your missing the point of everything so far, comments, rules, the meaning of life
At the end of your movement phase, there are no rules being used.
You are not preemptively prompted to decide all of my units with interceptor are firing at the same time and need to be sequenced.
In order for you to sequence A, B and C you have to know they are firing, which you don't.
And since you don't know if they are firing, you have no permission to sequence.
So while I do have 3 units with Interceptor, you have no permission to ask me what they are doing because I haven't told you what they are doing. You are assuming that they will all fire and that you need to sequence them. You won't know they are firing until I tell you they are firing.
So, your 4-7 sequence has no rule support and is nothing more than a house rule.
Yes, big house with Games Workshop sign on the front
Cool. I am glad that you admit that you have no rules support and are implementing a house rule. Please mark your suggestions as a house rule. That's a rule in this forum.
Really, your missing the point of everything so far, comments, rules, the meaning of life
I am just answering the OP question according to the rules.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then
the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
Do you have any rules to support what you say like I do?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: The active player doesn't tell me anything.
At the end of your movement phase, there are no rules being used.
You are not preemptively prompted to decide all of my units with interceptor are firing at the same time and need to be sequenced.
In order for you to sequence A, B and C you have to know they are firing, which you don't.
And since you don't know if they are firing, you have no permission to sequence.
So while I do have 3 units with Interceptor, you have no permission to ask me what they are doing because I haven't told you what they are doing. You are assuming that they will all fire and that you need to sequence them. You won't know they are firing until I tell you they are firing.
You don't have any permission to be shooting at all until you are actively resolving an instance of Interceptor. The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which you resolve each instance of Interceptor. And you must resolve each instance completely before going on to the next instance in the order of the ACTIVE player's choosing.
Remember it is the Interceptor rule itself which is being ordered, so it is the OPPORTUNITY to Intercept which is being ordered by the ACTIVE player.
Extended example
READ THIS CAREFULLY!
You have units A, B, and C that have Interceptor.
It's the end of the opponent's movement phase.
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for C.
You resolve Interceptor for C (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for B.
You resolve Interceptor for B (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for A
You resolve Interceptor for A (by firing and yet failing to destroy the target).
You have exhausted all Interceptor shooting at this point and CANNOT REVISIT B and C and proceed to fire Interceptor for B and C (even if you want to)
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time...
At the end of your movement phase, what two rules are to be resolved at the same time?
None.
I choose to tell you I am firing with a unit with interceptor.
Now we have one rule.
What is prompting us for another rule?
Nothing.
Your silly A,B, C argument is based off the assumption that you know 3 units will fire and that you must sequence them because of that. But Interceptor is an optional choice not a mandatory one, so all instances of interceptor are not put in front of you to sequence by default.
Your assumption is that there are 3 instances of interceptor so you need to sort them in a hurry.
There is only a number of instances of interceptor that you are told there will be.
You can only be told about one at a time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's the end of the opponent's movement phase.
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for C.
You resolve Interceptor for C (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for B.
You resolve Interceptor for B (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for A
This nonsense?
This is a paradox.
In your example, only one unit is firing, so therefore there are no two rules or more being used, there is only one being used. So you should never be prompted to sequence them in the first place.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time...
At the end of your movement phase, what two rules are to be resolved at the same time?
None.
I choose to tell you I am firing with a unit with interceptor.
Now we have one rule.
What is prompting us for another rule?
Nothing.
Your silly A,B, C argument is based off the assumption that you know 3 units will fire and that you must sequence them because of that. But Interceptor is an optional choice not a mandatory one, so all instances of interceptor are not put in front of you to sequence.
You are confusing permissions with choices selected within the confines of those permissions (to fire or not to fire). It's the permissions which are being sequenced.
The OPPORTUNITY for Intercepting is what is being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
The ACTIVE player tells you that you unit A has the OPPORTUNITY to Intercept. Does unit A intercept?
The ACTIVE player tells you that your unit B has the OPPORTUNITY to Intercept. Does unit B intercept?
Rinse and Repeat.
Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
This is because Interceptor does not have the permissions that Overwatch has.
In your example, only one unit is firing, so therefore there are no two rules or more being used, there is only one being used. So you should never be prompted to sequence them in the first place.
No. At the end of the opponent's movement phase, the opportunity for all of your Interceptor permissions happen at the same time. The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which to resolve those permissions, per the Sequencing rule. You have to follow the order the ACTIVE player dictates.
Whether you choose to actually exercise those permissions is up to you but you must exercise those permission in the order of the ACTIVE players choosing, not yours. You are not the active player!
Ceann wrote: Your argument is a paradox.
If A and B don't fire, there is are no two rules being used at the same time for C.
If there are no two rules for C then why did you have permission to sequence them?
You don't have permission to sequence them, because they don't happen at the same time.
You cannot point to anything that happens at the same time, the rules for shooting don't allow them to happen at the same time.
The active player is sequencing the PERMISSIONS to Intercept which happen at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase"). Whether or not you actually choose to Intercept is immaterial and is simply a choice that you make in the context of the permission.
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which to resolve those permissions, per the Sequencing rule. You have to follow the order the ACTIVE player dictates.
Whether you choose to actually exercise those permissions is up to you but you must exercise those permission in the order of the ACTIVE players choosing, not yours. You are not the active player!
Ceann wrote: Rail on all you want about HCWPI "How Col would play it".
No one has agreed with you so clearly it is your opinion solely and your own house rule.
It doesn't matter whether anyone else agrees with me. The rules agree with me. That's all that matters.
Remember 'argumentum ad populum' is a logical fallacy.
So, your 4-7 sequence has no rule support and is nothing more than a house rule.
Yes, big house with Games Workshop sign on the front
Technically he is correct. It does not tell you to go through an out of turn Shooting Phase any more than Overwatch does.
However, there is nothing that tells you to treat it as anything but the standard Shooting Sequence, either, and there is no other method detailed, so he is just arguing a pointless point.
So, your 4-7 sequence has no rule support and is nothing more than a house rule.
Yes, big house with Games Workshop sign on the front
Technically he is correct. It does not tell you to go through an out of turn Shooting Phase any more than Overwatch does.
However, there is nothing that tells you to treat it as anything but the standard Shooting Sequence, either, and there is no other method detailed, so he is just arguing a pointless point.
Overwatch gives permission to have an out of turn Shooting Phase.
Spoiler:
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Spoiler:
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
Interceptor does not give permission to have an out of turn Shooting Phase.
The Sequencing rule provides the method for Interceptor and is the rule we follow.
Spoiler:
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
For Interceptor, it is the end of the opponent's movement phase.
You aren't in the Shooting Phase so you don't have permission to shoot.
Whatever permission you have to shoot is granted by an instance of the Interceptor rule.
The Interceptor rules don't happen all at the same time since the Sequencing rule kicks in to sequence the permissions that would otherwise happen at the same time.
Per the Sequencing rule, the ACTIVE player decides the order in which the Interceptor instances happen.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of such permission, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
The ACTIVE player chooses an Interceptor instance to resolve.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack.
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack.
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack.
Rinse and Repeat.
Extended example
Spoiler:
You have units A, B, and C that have Interceptor.
It's the end of the opponent's movement phase.
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for C.
You resolve Interceptor for C (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for B.
You resolve Interceptor for B (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for A
You resolve Interceptor for A (by firing and yet failing to destroy the target).
You have exhausted all Interceptor shooting at this point and CANNOT REVISIT B and C and proceed to fire Interceptor for B and C (even if you want to)
Except that Interceptor are SHOOTING attacks.
They cannot "be resolved at the same time".
You can only sequence things that are resolved at the same time.
You resolve interceptor by firing.
The firing sequence doesn't permit them to resolve at the same time.
We do have permission to shoot.
"a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can
be fired at any one unit"
Basic Versus Advanced
"Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They
include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules
for morale."
It hasn't been stated otherwise, so we have permission to use the shooting rules to fire a weapon.
Nothing has removed these permissions.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with.
HCWPI is not a rule, stop making up your own rules about sequencing.
Ceann wrote: Except that Interceptor are SHOOTING attacks.
They cannot "be resolved at the same time".
You can only sequence things that are resolved at the same time.
You resolve interceptor by firing.
You have this all backwards.
The permissions for Interceptor happen at the same time ("at the end of the opponent's movement phase").
Those permissions are then ordered by the ACTIVE player, per the Sequencing rule.
The firing player resolves those permissions by choosing to shoot or not to shoot.
"a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can
be fired at any one unit"
Basic Versus Advanced
"Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They
include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules
for morale."
It hasn't been stated otherwise, so we have permission to use the shooting rules to fire a weapon.
Nothing has removed these permissions.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with.
HCWPI is not a rule, stop making up your own rules about sequencing.
You don't have permission to shoot until you are actively resolving an instance of Interceptor in the order dictated by the ACTIVE player.
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which you get to have your Interceptor permissions.
I am not making up the Sequencing rule. It is from the BRB. I quote it here for your reference.
Spoiler:
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack.
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack.
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
I was also able to show how Overwatch has specific permissions which Interceptor does not.
Spoiler:
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Spoiler:
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
You, Ceann, and Charistoph are all treating Interceptor like it is Overwatch. And yet, there are no rules giving Interceptor the permissions that Overwatch has.
If you treat Interceptor like it is Overwatch then you are house-ruling.
Interceptor it's a single rule all it's states it's a weapon with it can be fire at end of enemy movement phase vs units arriving from reserves.
It's not multiple instances happening, just one and all weapons with it can be fired or not up to the controlling player choice Period.
You are convoluting yourself with *several instances* of a special rule as several rules happening at once when it's just one that affect all weapons with it.
Interceptor it's a single rule all it's states it's a weapon with it can be fire at end of enemy movement phase vs units arriving from reserves.
It's not multiple instances happening, just one and all weapons with it can be fired or not up to the controlling player choice Period.
You are convoluting yourself with *several instances* of a special rule as several rules happening at once when it's just one that affect all weapons with it.
Incorrect. Any unit/model/weapon that is going to fire as Interceptor needs to have its own instance of the Interceptor rule in order to itself have the ability to Intercept.
If I have two units with Interceptor and one unit without Interceptor I cannot fire the unit without Interceptor as if it had Interceptor.
So the ability of a unit to fire with Interceptor is tied to an instance of the Interceptor rule being on the Army List Entry.
So the instances of Interceptor on Army List Entries and the order in which those instances happen is what we are concerned with sorting out.
The Interceptor permissions are all happening at the same time ("at the end of the opponent's movement phase") so the Sequencing rule kicks in.
Per the Sequencing rule, the ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions happen.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of such permission, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Extended example
Spoiler:
You have units A, B, and C that have Interceptor.
It's the end of the opponent's movement phase.
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for C.
You resolve Interceptor for C (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for B.
You resolve Interceptor for B (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for A
You resolve Interceptor for A (by firing and yet failing to destroy the target).
You have exhausted all Interceptor shooting at this point and CANNOT REVISIT B and C and proceed to fire Interceptor for B and C (even if you want to)
The sequencing rule doesn't "kick in".
"At the end of the movement phase" isn't a trigger, its conditional.
IF you use it, you have to use it at the end of movement.
You don't get to sequence anything because they cannot occur at the same time. There is no requirement to announce all of your uses of interceptor, you are assuming there is one and prompting yourself to sequence.
Skyfire
Skyfire weapons excel at shooting down enemy aircraft and skimmers. A model with this special rule, or that is firing a weapon with this special rule, fires using its normal Ballistic Skill when shooting at Flyers, Flying Monstrous Creatures and Skimmers, but it can only fire Snap Shots against other targets.
Anything with interceptor also has skyfire and skyfire permits us to shoot, using the shooting the rules.
Interceptor allows you to select a weapon to fire.
There is no sequencing, there is shooting sequence after shooting sequence.
Ceann wrote: There are not two or more rules, there is one rule.
Whether or not it is being used multiple times is irrelevant.
The Sequence rule does not specify that the rules have to be separate rules.
We are talking about two or more instances of Interceptor on separate Army List Entries.
The Interceptor rule on unit A plus the Interceptor rule on unit B equals two rules being invoked.
The Interceptor rule that triggers for unit A does not apply to unit B. Unit B has its own Interceptor rule and is separably invoked.
We then simply resolve the Sequence based on who the active player is in this case.
The sequencing rules are never invoked. Only if all units that were using Interceptor had to declare that they were firing before any of the units actually resolved their interceptor fire would there be an opportunity for sequencing. Without this statement, the player who is firing can choose one unit, then resolve that unit's firing. After that he can choose another unit that can fire Interceptor, then resolve that. And so on, and so on. Since he doesn't have to declare a second unit is using Interceptor before completely resolving the first unit's actions, the player whose turn it is doesn't get to use the sequencing rule to choose which one is firing. He doesn't get to use sequencing to choose units that can poentially fire. At any time there is only one unit designated as firing using the Interceptor rules, so even if the sequencing rule is invoked, you get to choose the one unit that's been selected to fire Interceptor at that time. When that's done and he selects another one, the player whose turn is it has only that unit to be able to select under sequencing rules.
In order to do what you say, you have to provide a rules quotation that states that Interceptor fire must all be declared before any of the shots are resolved.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And, while we're at it, let's examine col impact's evidence for what he is saying - the sequencing rule, not hidden behind a spoiler tag so that it will be evident to everyone.
"SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to [which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in."
We have one rule involved here - Interceptor, not two rules. This does not even meet the bar required to be able to invoke sequencing, which is for resolving two or more separate rules. This isn't for resolving one rule.
Even if it were to be invoked, you don't get to invoke it based on every unit that can potentially use the rule; you have to use it on ones where the rule is actively being used. As you don't state all the units that will be firing Interceptor before resolving any (you do follow the basic shooting sequence - whether or not you want to consider it a shooting phase , you do have permission from Interceptor to fire, which would follow the shooting sequence as there are no rules overriding it as to how to handle shooting Interceptor other than it's not in the regular shooting phase.
The Sequencing rules do not specify distinctly worded rules, so it will apply to the case of two or more instances of the same rule just fine.
If I have one unit with Interceptor and another unit with Interceptor then I have two Interceptor rules to resolve not one.
Also, as I have already stated it is the permissions to Intercept that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the various copies of the Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those permissions are accessed by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the permissions but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those permissions.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
Spoiler:
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Spoiler:
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
The Sequencing rules do not specify distinctly worded rules, so it will apply to the case of two or more instances of the same rule just fine.
If I have one unit with Interceptor and another unit with Interceptor then I have two Interceptor rules to resolve not one.
Incorrect. You have one rule that you're dealing with. You may have more than one unit with the rule, but it is one rule, not two rules. You are making an unwarranted assumption here.
col_impact wrote: Also, as I have already stated it is the permissions to Intercept that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
You could have cited the rules for Smash and it would have had the exact same relevance to the situation - none.
col_impact wrote: The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" need to be sequenced.
An unwarranted assumption on your part. Where is your quotation to back this up? The Sequencing rule does not back this up.
col_impact wrote: Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must invoke one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order those Interceptor permissions.
Yes, you must invoke one of the interceptor permissions. If you have more than one unit, however, where is the requirement for all the permissions for all the intercepting units to be invoked before resolving any of the intercepting fire? There is no statement in Interceptor for this. "At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If this rule is used , the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model may fire a different weapon if it has one."
Nope, no mention of declaring all interceptor fire before resolving one. Let's compare to Multiple Overwatch, as you like to point out the differences between overwatch and other shooting. Overwatch tells you to resolve sequentially and how to handle the order. Here there is no statement except for the weapon may fire. That means you follow the rules for firing a weapon. This means you use the Shooting Sequence for firinig a weapon, (not The Shooting Phase, but the Shooting Sequence). Here you are dealing with one unit. You resolve the steps in order, then you are done with the unit. Here you have the unit choosing its target. You do not have any statements that you choose all units that will be firing and all units that will be fired at before resolving any of the fire (unlike multiple Overwatch). You do not have this mentioned in Interceptor either. Multiple Overwatch is different, but they specify how you handle it. Lacking those instructions, yuo must fall back on the normal shooting sequence. Insisting that all units that will fire must commit to firing is not in the rules. Using sequencing rules, stated to cover resolving two or more rules, to try to resolve one rule is an unwarranted assumption. You have not provided a rules quotation to back up these unwarranted assumptions. The sequencing rules do not back it up; the section you highlighted in the rules is trumped by the section I highlighted which indicated the rule is irrelevant in this case. Go back and provide more proof.
"
col_impact wrote: There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
You have this exactly backwards. Interceptor is one rule. You do not have permission to apply a rule that states it is for two rules You do not have permission to treat one rule as two rules. You have permission to fire a weapon, and you have the standard rules, the Shooting Sequence, for handling firing a weapon. You do not get to claim "sequencing" when you do not have permission to use it - it is for resolving two rules at the same time, not resolving one rule. As a stickler for RAW, you should realize that.
The Sequencing rules do not specify distinctly worded rules, so it will apply to the case of two or more instances of the same rule just fine.
If I have one unit with Interceptor and another unit with Interceptor then I have two Interceptor rules to resolve not one.
Incorrect. You have one rule that you're dealing with. You may have more than one unit with the rule, but it is one rule, not two rules. You are making an unwarranted assumption here.
Incorrect. I have a special rule named Interceptor showing up on one Army List Entry and I have a special rule named Interceptor showing up on another Army List Entry so I have 2 rules to resolve. If I somehow only have one rule instance between the two rules then the controlling player will only get to fire ONE Interceptor unit altogether since the rule applies to "a weapon".
There are two rules to resolve. The Sequencing rule does not have us check to see if they are worded the same.
Yes, you have A rule named Interceptor. You have one rule to resolve. You resolve it using the rules that have been established - the shooting sequence rules.
You are not required to state all of the units using Interceptor before resolving any one of them. Therefore, when you invoke the rule, you only have one rule taking place. It is resolved before you even have to choose to invoke another unit using the same rule. Therefore, sequencing does not apply, unlike Overwatch where they specifically are saying which units are doing overwatch and resolving them sequentially.
col_impact wrote: The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" need to be sequenced.
An unwarranted assumption on your part. Where is your quotation to back this up? The Sequencing rule does not back this up.
The Sequencing rule does back this up. When does "can be fired" happen? "At the end of the enemy Movement phase"
If I have two or more Interceptor rules happening "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" then I have the occasion for the use of the Sequencing rule. The wording in Interceptor is not explicit as to the case of two or more Interceptor rules happening at the same time. In the case of Multiple Overwatch the controlling player is specifically given the power to choose the order.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doctortom wrote: Yes, you have A rule named Interceptor. You have one rule to resolve.
That one rule only allows for "one weapon" to be fired.
So are you saying that if a player has 3 units with Interceptor then only one weapon among them all gets to fire Interceptor?
In the case of 3 units with Interceptor we have 3 Interceptor rules to resolve which result in 3 shots possibly fired, not one.
You are not required to state all of the units using Interceptor before resolving any one of them. Therefore, when you invoke the rule, you only have one rule taking place. It is resolved before you even have to choose to invoke another unit using the same rule. Therefore, sequencing does not apply, unlike Overwatch where they specifically are saying which units are doing overwatch and resolving them sequentially.
The "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" permissions need to be sequenced. You can't do them at the same time. The rules dictate that the ACTIVE player is in charge of sequencing the Interceptor rules that happen at the same time. The controlling player is not in charge of the order in which he resolves the Interceptor rules.
The controlling player invokes the rules for things happening at the same time in the order of the ACTIVE players choosing.
It also deals with your added message where you try to set up a straw man argument.
No strawman. Read the Interceptor rule. It only allows one firing. So you need to have 2 Interceptor rules being resolved to allow for 2 firings, and so on.
It's the case of two or more Interceptor firing permissions to resolve that we are dealing with here. The rules dictate that the ACTIVE player sequences those permissions to fire.
"Can be fired" does not need to be sequenced. You are not required to invoke them, either all or some, before resolving anything. Acitve opposing player does not get to dictate the sequence in which you might do stuff, only when dealing with multiple rules (not one rule) do you deal with sequencing the multiple (not the one) rule. As you do not have permission to resolve the shot before invoking the rule for another unit, you must resolve the rule for the unit that has invoked the rule before doing anything else. You follow the shooting sequence rules.
doctortom wrote: "Can be fired" does not need to be sequenced. You are not required to invoke them, either all or some, before resolving anything. Acitve opposing player does not get to dictate the sequence in which you might do stuff, only when dealing with multiple rules (not one rule) do you deal with sequencing the multiple (not the one) rule. As you do not have permission to resolve the shot before invoking the rule for another unit, you must resolve the rule for the unit that has invoked the rule before doing anything else. You follow the shooting sequence rules.
No. There is no rule for "invoking" such that a rule magically appears or disappears.
The Interceptor rules are always present.
The Interceptor rules happen at the same time and so must be sequenced.
The question that the ACTIVE player resolves is which of those Interceptor rules happen first, second, and so on.
Per the Sequencing rule, the ACTIVE player chooses which Interceptor rule happens first, second, and so on.
The controlling player must abide by that order.
If the controlling player fires the Interceptor weapon the ACTIVE player has deemed second in order then he cannot go back and fire the Interceptor weapon deemed first by the ACTIVE player.
You are not required to state all of the units using Interceptor before resolving any one of them. Therefore, when you invoke the rule, you only have one rule taking place. It is resolved before you even have to choose to invoke another unit using the same rule. Therefore, sequencing does not apply, unlike Overwatch where they specifically are saying which units are doing overwatch and resolving them sequentially.
The "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" permissions need to be sequenced. You can't do them at the same time. The rules dictate that the ACTIVE player is in charge of sequencing the Interceptor rules that happen at the same time. The controlling player is not in charge of the order in which he resolves the Interceptor rules.
Maybe if we use your own words you will understand. Do you see where you said you can't do them at the same time? We agree with you!
Since you can't do them at the same time, they can't be sequenced, you are trying to sequence things that can't be done at the same time.
You cannot simultaneously fire two weapons, since you cannot do this, there is no precedence to sequence.
At the end of the movement phase is a condition to fire, not a trigger to fire.
We are not required to fire you cannot decide which unit will be firing.
You have lost here but you twist the words to your meaning. The issue is you don't understand the words.
Maybe if we use your own words you will understand. Do you see where you said you can't do them at the same time? We agree with you!
Since you can't do them at the same time, they can't be sequenced, you are trying to sequence things that can't be done at the same time.
You cannot simultaneously fire two weapons, since you cannot do this, there is no precedence to sequence.
At the end of the movement phase is a condition, not a trigger.
You have lost here but you twist the words to your meaning. The issue is you don't understand the words.
Twisting my words won't help you here. At the end of the day we have to follow the rules in the BRB and on this matter the BRB is clear.
The rules have it such that the Interceptor rules will clash and try to happen at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase").
In the case of rules happening at the same time the Sequencer rule applies to prevent rules from happening at the same time.
A sequence is necessarily imposed by the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rules means the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the controlling player resolves his Interceptor rule permissions.
The active player will ask you if your unit is firing and you need to tell them.
No, it doesn't say that anywhere and you are assuming some fairy tale situation that you have permission to do this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh please you are cherry picking one statement out of context of the entire rule. The entire rule requires you to perform shooting which two things cannot do at the same time and the rules for shooting are covered by the shooting sequence.
You can't use sequencing because two shooting sequences cannot occur at the same time.
You are laughably trying to cut out a one liner of the rule and use it as justification.
The active player will ask you if your unit is firing and you need to tell them.
No, it doesn't say that anywhere and you are assuming some fairy tale situation that you have permission to do this.
The Interceptor does not say anything about the case of multiple weapons with their own Interceptor rules firing at the same time.
So when you have a case of multiple Interceptor rules competing to happen at the same time then the Sequencer rule applies (because Interceptor does not provide its own rules that would override the Sequencer rule).
Spoiler:
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then
the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
Oh please you are cherry picking one statement out of context of the entire rule. The entire rule requires you to perform shooting which two things cannot do at the same time and the rules for shooting are covered by the shooting sequence.
You can't use sequencing because two shooting sequences cannot occur at the same time.
You are laughably trying to cut out a one liner of the rule and use it as justification.
You are failing to keep track of when specifically you can shoot.
It's not the shooting phase so you can only be resolving a shooting sequence IN THE CONTEXT of resolving an instance of the Interceptor rule.
Since you are not the ACTIVE player you do not get to order how you resolve the Interceptor rules.
The ACTIVE player will inform you of the order in which you will resolve the Interceptor rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Interceptor uses the shooting sequence.
Sure.
Each separate Interceptor rule will call up a shooting attack (and the Shooting Sequence rules) for just that one Interceptor attack. After you resolve that one attack you then get to resolve the next Interceptor rule.
The problem is the controlling player does not get to choose the order in which he resolves his Interceptor rule permissions. The ACTIVE player chooses the order.
Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each Interceptor rule resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
The default status for a movement phase is that nothing is firing.
Permission to fire is determined by the player doing the firing.
Your entire premise is built upon an illusion that all of the units are firing by default and they are electing to use the rule to not fire.
The situation is exactly the opposite. They decide what is firing, and if they haven't decided what is firing then there is nothing for you to sequence.
You don't have permission to assume they are firing and start sequencing them, firing is not mandatory, so they cannot happen at the same time.
You are attempting to preemptively sequence something that has yet to even occur.
The rules for a shooting sequence inherently prevents them from occurring at the same time, so there is no reason to sequence them because two rules are not happening at the same time.
The default status for a movement phase is that nothing is firing.
Permission to fire is determined by the player doing the firing.
Your entire premise is built upon an illusion that all of the units are firing by default and they are electing to use the rule to not fire.
The situation is exactly the opposite. They decide what is firing, and if they haven't decided what is firing then there is nothing for you to sequence.
You don't have permission to assume they are firing and start sequencing them, firing is not mandatory, so they cannot happen at the same time.
You are attempting to preemptively sequence something that has yet to even occur.
The rules for a shooting sequence inherently prevents them from occurring at the same time, so there is no reason to sequence them because two rules are not happening at the same time.
There is no Shooting Phase that happens in the enemy Movement phase.
There is no Shooting Sequence that happens in the enemy Movement phase.
So the player controlling the Intercepting units has no permission in the phase to fire.
The controlling player only has permission to fire an Interceptor unit once the ACTIVE player has directed the order in which the Interceptor permissions are to resolve. It is only in the context of those ordered permissions that the controlling player can fire.
This is how it works . . .
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Rinse and Repeat.
I have worked out EXACTLY how my argument works. And it it completely validated by the rules.
Extended example
Spoiler:
You have units A, B, and C that have Interceptor.
It's the end of the opponent's movement phase.
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for C.
You resolve Interceptor for C (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for B.
You resolve Interceptor for B (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for A
You resolve Interceptor for A (by firing and yet failing to destroy the target).
You have exhausted all Interceptor shooting at this point and CANNOT REVISIT B and C and proceed to fire Interceptor for B and C (even if you want to)
You have failed to produce a counter argument that details how otherwise it could work. So far you are insisting that a Shooting Phase happens magically in the enemy Movement phase when clearly it does not, as there is no permission for a Shooting Phase to happen at the end of the enemy Movement phase.
If you cannot in detail show how your counter argument works then it is not valid. You won't be able to provide a solution that does not involve the controlling player deciding the order in which to resolve the Interceptor rule permissions, which directly contradicts the Sequencing rule that requires the ACTIVE player to order the Interceptor rule permissions.
Ceann wrote: Show us the rules that allow multiple units to fire at the same time.
If you cannot demonstrate this, then it is impossible for the units to use the rule at the same time.
If they can't use the rule at the same time they cannot be sequenced.
There are 2 or more Interceptor rules that are happening at "the end of the Enemy movement phase".
Remember, the Sequencing rule is ordering entire rule permissions, not the action (firing or whatever) that happens in the context of a rule permission.
Spoiler:
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the Interceptor rules happen. Remember you cannot fire until after the Interceptor rules have already been sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
col_impact, since you appear to be adamant that we cannot use the rules for Shooting Sequence (since we do not have permission to refer to the shooting phase), without referencing any step of the shooting sequence, please explain how to resolve the shots from a single unit, with a single weapon with the Interceptor special rule.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact, since you appear to be adamant that we cannot use the rules for Shooting Sequence (since we do not have permission to refer to the shooting phase), without referencing any step of the shooting sequence, please explain how to resolve the shots from a single unit, with a single weapon with the Interceptor special rule.
It should also be noted also the Shooting Phase introduces the Shooting Sequence as "the shooting process". Even when Split Fire alters the Sequence, it doesn't alter the other aspects of the Shooting Sequence/process.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact, since you appear to be adamant that we cannot use the rules for Shooting Sequence (since we do not have permission to refer to the shooting phase), without referencing any step of the shooting sequence, please explain how to resolve the shots from a single unit, with a single weapon with the Interceptor special rule.
You misunderstand. I am saying that there is no Shooting Sequence that comes as part of the enemy Movement phase. This is obvious. It's not the Shooting Phase.
The only time you have permission to have a Shooting Sequence is when you have chosen to fire using the permission in the Interceptor rule to fire and there is then a shooting attack to resolve with the Shooting Sequence rules.
By the time you are doing that, the permissions for the Interceptor rules have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player.
This is all clearly delineated below . . .
This is how it works . . .
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Rinse and Repeat.
Happyjew, maybe you should focus on finding what exactly is wrong with the resolution presented above? I am clearly referencing the Shooting Sequence rules and have been for quite some time. So your criticism simply does not apply to my argument. Obviously, as highlighted in red, I have been using the Shooting Sequence rules.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact, since you appear to be adamant that we cannot use the rules for Shooting Sequence (since we do not have permission to refer to the shooting phase), without referencing any step of the shooting sequence, please explain how to resolve the shots from a single unit, with a single weapon with the Interceptor special rule.
You misunderstand. I am saying that there is no Shooting Sequence that comes as part of the enemy Movement phase. This is obvious. It's not the Shooting Phase.
The only time you have permission to have a Shooting Sequence is when you have chosen to fire using the permission in the Interceptor rule to fire and there is then a shooting attack to resolve with the Shooting Sequence rules.
By the time you are doing that, the permissions for the Interceptor rules have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player.
So the active player gets to choose which units may fire Interceptor?
If I have two units with Interceptor, I choose if they are using the Interceptor rule, right? Where does it say I have to choose at the same time? You want me to fire Unit A first, but I might decide not to fire Unit A. After firing with Unit B, it is still the end of the movement phase, is it not? At this point I decide I do want to fire with Unit A. It's almost like changing your mind.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact, since you appear to be adamant that we cannot use the rules for Shooting Sequence (since we do not have permission to refer to the shooting phase), without referencing any step of the shooting sequence, please explain how to resolve the shots from a single unit, with a single weapon with the Interceptor special rule.
You misunderstand. I am saying that there is no Shooting Sequence that comes as part of the enemy Movement phase. This is obvious. It's not the Shooting Phase.
The only time you have permission to have a Shooting Sequence is when you have chosen to fire using the permission in the Interceptor rule to fire and there is then a shooting attack to resolve with the Shooting Sequence rules.
By the time you are doing that, the permissions for the Interceptor rules have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player.
So the active player gets to choose which units may fire Interceptor?
If I have two units with Interceptor, I choose if they are using the Interceptor rule, right? Where does it say I have to choose at the same time? You want me to fire Unit A first, but I might decide not to fire Unit A. After firing with Unit B, it is still the end of the movement phase, is it not? At this point I decide I do want to fire with Unit A. It's almost like changing your mind.
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor rules happen.
So the ACTIVE player says the Interceptor rule happens in the order of B,A,C.
If you, the controlling player, choose not to fire B or A and then fire C that is fine. But you cannot go back and fire B or A after firing for C. The time for those Interceptor rules has already passed.
Two units cannot shoot at the same time.
There are no rules for two units to shoot at the same time.
Therefore they cannot be sequenced.
The rules for Interceptor require you to perform a shooting sequence.
There is no rule for two shooting sequences to occur at the same time.
The requirement to sequence is never met.
You are the one that is "misunderstanding".
There is ALWAYS a shooting sequence, anytime there is.... shooting.
Shooting rules are granted to all models and are never removed unless stated otherwise and it hasn't been stated otherwise.
Interceptor allows you to fire them.
There is ALWAYS a shooting sequence, anytime there is.... shooting.
Shooting rules are granted to all models and are never removed unless stated otherwise and it hasn't been stated otherwise.
Interceptor allows you to fire them.
Not in disagreement.
Here is how it works . . .
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Rinse and Repeat.
As you can see Ceann, in the highlighted red parts I am allowing for shooting to happen in the context of each Interceptor rule permission as dictated by the order that the ACTIVE player provides, per the Sequencing rule.
Ceann, do you have some alternate proposal for how to resolve the case at hand?
You haven't presented a complete counter argument.
How are you in a Shooting Sequence if you are not already in the process of resolving an Interceptor rule permission in the order dictated by the ACTIVE player?
You are cherry picking one sentence and repeating it over and over.
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If
this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
At the end of the enemy movement phase, a weapon can be fired.
So I choose a weapon to fire and proceed to fire it.
I am done firing it.
It is still the end of the movement phase, I choose another weapon to fire.
Your fake argument is based on the false premise that there is a trigger allowing you to sequence interceptor attacks at the end of your movement phase. However they do not trigger unless I elect to shoot with them. Once I am shooting with one there is only one rule and there is nothing to sequence. The only way your premise would be true is that all of the weapons were required to fire, and at the same time. There are no rules for weapons to fire at the same time.
"At the end of the movement phase" is a CONDITION to fire, not a trigger to prompt you to sequence.
Your entire argument is a fabrication.
The active player does nothing.
At the end of the enemy movement phase, a weapon can be fired.
So I choose a weapon to fire and proceed to fire it.
I am done firing it.
It is still the end of the movement phase, I choose another weapon to fire.
In the scenario above, you have chosen to resolve the mulitple Interceptor rules that happen "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" in an order of your choosing.
However, that goes against the Sequencing rule. The Sequencing rule mandates that the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the Interceptor rules are resolved.
Your argument is invalid since it violates the Sequencing rule in the BRB.
In order for the sequencing rule to take effect, two rules have to be occurring at the same time.
The shooting sequence creates a scenario where only one can occur at a time.
There are NO rules to fire two weapons at the same time.
If two weapons are not being fired at the same time there is nothing to sequence.
If you want to demonstrate my point false you need to provide rules showing that two weapons would be firing at the same time, in order to have a reason to sequence.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact, since you appear to be adamant that we cannot use the rules for Shooting Sequence (since we do not have permission to refer to the shooting phase), without referencing any step of the shooting sequence, please explain how to resolve the shots from a single unit, with a single weapon with the Interceptor special rule.
You misunderstand. I am saying that there is no Shooting Sequence that comes as part of the enemy Movement phase. This is obvious. It's not the Shooting Phase.
The only time you have permission to have a Shooting Sequence is when you have chosen to fire using the permission in the Interceptor rule to fire and there is then a shooting attack to resolve with the Shooting Sequence rules.
By the time you are doing that, the permissions for the Interceptor rules have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player.
So the active player gets to choose which units may fire Interceptor?
If I have two units with Interceptor, I choose if they are using the Interceptor rule, right? Where does it say I have to choose at the same time? You want me to fire Unit A first, but I might decide not to fire Unit A. After firing with Unit B, it is still the end of the movement phase, is it not? At this point I decide I do want to fire with Unit A. It's almost like changing your mind.
I agree, HappyJew. That's an odd distinction there. The Active Player is not the one shooting Interceptor, indeed, the Active Player cannot use Interceptor, even against Deathmarks. It triggers at the end of the enemy Movement Phase.
I wonder if Col_Impact thinks the Active Player can determine the order in which enemy models can Pile In.
Ceann wrote: It doesn't go against the sequencing rule.
In order for the sequencing rule to take effect, two rules have to be occurring at the same time.
The shooting sequence creates a scenario where only one can occur at a time.
There are NO rules to fire two weapons at the same time.
If two weapons are not being fired at the same time there is nothing to sequence.
If you want to demonstrate my point false you need to provide rules showing that two weapons would be firing at the same time, in order to have a reason to sequence.
But such a rule doesn't exist.
In your own proposal you show that the multiple Intercepting is all happening "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
Do not confuse the sequencing of rules with the sequencing of 'firing'.
I am talking about the sequencing of the Interceptor rules themselves since that is what the Sequencer rule is concerned with and that is what we are dealing with (multiple rules to be resolved at the same time).
The Sequencer rule is ordering the multiple Interceptor rules.
Per the Sequencing rule, the ACTIVE player dictates the order of the multiple Interceptor rules.
This is how it works . . .
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
"the end of the movement phase" is not "at the same time".
This is not how it works.
Your "this is how it works" only "works" for rules that are automatically prompted to function.
Interceptor is an option for the owning player, you don't get to dictate how they use the rule you get to decide the order if two would happen at the same time.
In order to use interceptor you have to use the rules for the shooting sequence because you are required to nominate a unit before selecting a target and a weapon. You cannot interrupt the shooting sequence to "sequence" anything because there is only one rule currently being used.
Interceptor is providing you the opportunity to fire should you choose to do so. There is nothing for you to sequence because it is optional, not mandatory and nothing requires us to tell you which units we are firing with.
If it was mandatory then the effects would be pending and an order would be required to be determined. This would be the case for rules that automatically took effect without a player choice.
Ceann wrote: "the end of the movement phase" is not "at the same time".
This is not how it works.
Your "this is how it works" only "works" for rules that are automatically prompted to function.
Interceptor is an option for the owning player, you don't get to dictate how they use the rule you get to decide the order if two would happen at the same time.
In order to use interceptor you have to use the rules for the shooting sequence because you are required to nominate a unit before selecting a target and a weapon. You cannot interrupt the shooting sequence to "sequence" anything because there is only one rule currently being used.
Interceptor is providing you the opportunity to fire should you choose to do so. There is nothing for you to sequence because it is optional, not mandatory and nothing requires us to tell you which units we are firing with.
If it was mandatory then the effects would be pending and an order would be required to be determined. This would be the case for rules that automatically took effect without a player choice.
It doesn't matter whether the choices made in the context of the rules are mandatory or not.
The Sequencing rule is ordering the rules that resolve at the same time.
In this case, all of the Interceptor rules are resolving "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" so the Sequencing rule applies and an ordering to those rules must be established by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving a rule involves in this case providing the player the opportunity to make a choice, not forcing a particular choice.
If the player decides to not Intercept then that resolves the Intercept rule and the choice cannot be revisited later once the opportunity has passed.
Extended example
Spoiler:
You have units A, B, and C that have Interceptor.
It's the end of the opponent's movement phase.
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for C.
You resolve Interceptor for C (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for B.
You resolve Interceptor for B (by choosing not to fire)
Your opponent tells you to resolve Interceptor for A
You resolve Interceptor for A (by firing and yet failing to destroy the target).
You have exhausted all Interceptor shooting at this point and CANNOT REVISIT B and C and proceed to fire Interceptor for B and C (even if you want to)
Ceann wrote: And they DO NOT resolve at the same time.
So you don't get to sequence them.
They are already sequenced using the shooting sequence rules.
The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target.
3. Select a Weapon.
Do you see two of them happening at the same time?
I don't.
Then you can't sequence them.
Again, you keep putting the cart in front of the horse.
There is no Shooting Sequence that happens automatically in the enemy Movement phase.
So you are completely confusing your argument to simply say look at the Shooting Sequence rules. Those aren't in play in the enemy Movement phase. So explain how they come into play.
The Shooting Sequence only comes into play when you are busy resolving one of the Interceptor rules. At that time, the multiple Interceptor rules, which resolve "at the end of the enemy Movement phase", will have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player, per the Sequencing rule.
I have worked it out all here . . .
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Rinse and Repeat.
My argument works and is validated by the rules. There are multiple Interceptor rules resolving at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencer rule mandates that the Active player dictates the order of resolution for those rules.
Ceann wrote: And they DO NOT resolve at the same time.
So you don't get to sequence them.
They are already sequenced using the shooting sequence rules.
The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target.
3. Select a Weapon.
Do you see two of them happening at the same time?
I don't.
Then you can't sequence them.
Again, you keep putting the cart in front of the horse.
There is no Shooting Sequence that happens automatically in the enemy Movement phase.
So you are completely confusing your argument to simply say look at the Shooting Sequence rules. Those aren't in play in the enemy Movement phase. So explain how they come into play.
The Shooting Sequence only comes into play when you are busy resolving one of the Interceptor rules. At that time, the multiple Interceptor rules, which resolve "at the end of the enemy Movement phase", will have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player, per the Sequencing rule.
I have worked it out all here . . .
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Rinse and Repeat.
My argument works and is validated by the rules. There are multiple Interceptor rules resolving at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencer rule mandates that the Active player dictates the order of resolution for those rules.
In same way you often defend your interpretation of the rules i'll just stick to RAW.
For Sequencing you need TWO RULES happening at the same time.
Interceptor it's a single rule.
Sequencing it's not triggered here. Just provideproof in the rulebook that a single rule happening several times must be treated as TWO different rules for sequencing.
In same way you often defend your interpretation of the rules i'll just stick to RAW.
For Sequencing you need TWO RULES happening at the same time.
Interceptor it's a single rule.
Sequencing it's not triggered here.
There are two or more Interceptor rules in the case we are debating.
The just provide proof within the Rulebook that the same rule happening several times at once must be resolved as 2 different ones and thus need to be sequenced.
In same way you often defend your interpretation of the rules i'll just stick to RAW.
For Sequencing you need TWO RULES happening at the same time.
Interceptor it's a single rule.
Sequencing it's not triggered here.
There are two or more Interceptor rules in the case we are debating.
The just provide proof within the Rulebook that the same rule happening several times at once must be resolved as 2 different ones and thus need to be sequenced.
Why? There are two or more Interceptor rules in the case we are debating. The Sequencing rule applies. It doesn't care if the multiple rules are worded the same, only that there are multiple rules scheduled to resolve at the same time.
We know that they are multiple because there are multiple Interceptor shots to be potentially made and a single Interceptor rule only provides permission for a single shot.
Read the Interceptor rule. It only allows one firing. So you need to have 2 Interceptor rules being resolved to allow for 2 firings, and so on.
It's the case of two or more Interceptor rules to resolve that we are dealing with here. The Sequencing rule dictate that the ACTIVE player sequences those rule resolutions.
There is no Shooting Sequence that happens in the enemy Movement phase.
If there's no shooting sequence then the Interceptor shots never get resolved as the shooting sequence is how the shots are resolved. Interceptor does not state anything that overrides the rules for the shooting sequence. Feel free to explain how the shots are resolved without following the shooting sequence. (Please note that your saying the active player chooses does not explain how the shots are resolves. How do you know if the shots hit? Do you roll to wound? How does the unit being shot make saves? These are all parts of the shooting sequence.)
Happyjew wrote: col_impact, since you appear to be adamant that we cannot use the rules for Shooting Sequence (since we do not have permission to refer to the shooting phase), without referencing any step of the shooting sequence, please explain how to resolve the shots from a single unit, with a single weapon with the Interceptor special rule.
You misunderstand. I am saying that there is no Shooting Sequence that comes as part of the enemy Movement phase. This is obvious. It's not the Shooting Phase.
The only time you have permission to have a Shooting Sequence is when you have chosen to fire using the permission in the Interceptor rule to fire and there is then a shooting attack to resolve with the Shooting Sequence rules.
By the time you are doing that, the permissions for the Interceptor rules have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player.
So the active player gets to choose which units may fire Interceptor?
If I have two units with Interceptor, I choose if they are using the Interceptor rule, right? Where does it say I have to choose at the same time? You want me to fire Unit A first, but I might decide not to fire Unit A. After firing with Unit B, it is still the end of the movement phase, is it not? At this point I decide I do want to fire with Unit A. It's almost like changing your mind.
I agree, HappyJew. That's an odd distinction there. The Active Player is not the one shooting Interceptor, indeed, the Active Player cannot use Interceptor, even against Deathmarks. It triggers at the end of the enemy Movement Phase.
I wonder if Col_Impact thinks the Active Player can determine the order in which enemy models can Pile In.
That's a good observation, Charistoph, and one that col impact has not chosen to comment upon yet. Col impact, do you think the active player can determine the order in which enemy models can Pile In? It's a case of the same rule being invoked multiple times, like you say for Interceptor.
I had been making Happyjew's observations but col impact handwaves them off, just noting that units have the interceptor rule. We'll see if he treats Pile-In moves in the same fashion.
In same way you often defend your interpretation of the rules i'll just stick to RAW.
For Sequencing you need TWO RULES happening at the same time.
Interceptor it's a single rule.
Sequencing it's not triggered here.
There are two or more Interceptor rules in the case we are debating.
The just provide proof within the Rulebook that the same rule happening several times at once must be resolved as 2 different ones and thus need to be sequenced.
Why? There are two or more Interceptor rules in the case we are debating. The Sequencing rule applies. It doesn't care if the multiple rules are worded the same, only that there are multiple rules scheduled to resolve at the same time.
We know that they are multiple because there are multiple Interceptor shots to be potentially made and a single Interceptor rule only provides permission for a single shot.
Read the Interceptor rule. It only allows one firing. So you need to have 2 Interceptor rules being resolved to allow for 2 firings, and so on.
It's the case of two or more Interceptor rules to resolve that we are dealing with here. The Sequencing rule dictate that the ACTIVE player sequences those rule resolutions.
The sequencing rule means jack all.
You are trying to treat interceptor as a horse race.
*bang* 3 horses in a race and now you have to determine what place "sequence" each one is in.
Interceptor is a choice by the owning player, it is not 3 horses racing at once.
Each is a individual circumstance that runs by itself, with nothing else running "at the same time".
Your arument is that when they run alone they all end up in first place, but they all ran their own races, they didn't do it at the same time.
In order to use interceptor you have to nominate a unit.
Once you have nominated a unit, there is no 2nd Interceptor rule trying to function, because Interceptor is attached to choosing a weapon to fire.
Each weapon waits to be chosen, these weapons don't have minds of their own and all attempt to fire at the same time on their own in a frenzy, weapons are not sentient Col.
A weapon is fired, by a unit, a unit must follow the shooting sequence.
If one unit is following the shooting sequence then another unit cannot follow the shooting sequence while one is already happening.
You have provided no rule support to demonstrate two weapons are trying to fire at the same time and thus need to be "sequenced".
Show us a SHOOTING RULE that allows two weapons to be fired at once.
Don't show interceptor, interceptor isn't a shooting rule, it allows us to access the shooting rules.
There is no Shooting Sequence that happens in the enemy Movement phase.
If there's no shooting sequence then the Interceptor shots never get resolved as the shooting sequence is how the shots are resolved. Interceptor does not state anything that overrides the rules for the shooting sequence. Feel free to explain how the shots are resolved without following the shooting sequence. (Please note that your saying the active player chooses does not explain how the shots are resolves. How do you know if the shots hit? Do you roll to wound? How does the unit being shot make saves? These are all parts of the shooting sequence.)
I have already answered this. Multiple times in fact.
There is no Shooting Sequence that happens automatically in the enemy Movement phase.
So you are completely confusing your argument to simply say look at the Shooting Sequence rules. Those aren't in play in the enemy Movement phase. So explain how they come into play.
The Shooting Sequence only comes into play when you are busy resolving one of the Interceptor rules. At that time, the multiple Interceptor rules, which resolve "at the end of the enemy Movement phase", will have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player, per the Sequencing rule.
I have worked it out all here . . .
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Rinse and Repeat.
My argument works and is validated by the rules. There are multiple Interceptor rules resolving at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencer rule mandates that the Active player dictates the order of resolution for those rules.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact, since you appear to be adamant that we cannot use the rules for Shooting Sequence (since we do not have permission to refer to the shooting phase), without referencing any step of the shooting sequence, please explain how to resolve the shots from a single unit, with a single weapon with the Interceptor special rule.
You misunderstand. I am saying that there is no Shooting Sequence that comes as part of the enemy Movement phase. This is obvious. It's not the Shooting Phase.
The only time you have permission to have a Shooting Sequence is when you have chosen to fire using the permission in the Interceptor rule to fire and there is then a shooting attack to resolve with the Shooting Sequence rules.
By the time you are doing that, the permissions for the Interceptor rules have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player.
So the active player gets to choose which units may fire Interceptor?
If I have two units with Interceptor, I choose if they are using the Interceptor rule, right? Where does it say I have to choose at the same time? You want me to fire Unit A first, but I might decide not to fire Unit A. After firing with Unit B, it is still the end of the movement phase, is it not? At this point I decide I do want to fire with Unit A. It's almost like changing your mind.
I agree, HappyJew. That's an odd distinction there. The Active Player is not the one shooting Interceptor, indeed, the Active Player cannot use Interceptor, even against Deathmarks. It triggers at the end of the enemy Movement Phase.
I wonder if Col_Impact thinks the Active Player can determine the order in which enemy models can Pile In.
That's a good observation, Charistoph, and one that col impact has not chosen to comment upon yet. Col impact, do you think the active player can determine the order in which enemy models can Pile In? It's a case of the same rule being invoked multiple times, like you say for Interceptor.
I had been making Happyjew's observations but col impact handwaves them off, just noting that units have the interceptor rule. We'll see if he treats Pile-In moves in the same fashion.
Charistoph has my responses on ignore so he really isn't participating in this thread. If you or he want to present an argument about Pile In then feel free to do so. As it looks, the comprehensive instructions for Pile In do not present a case of multiple times. The single set of instructions covers the entire collective of models. So I imagine you would have trouble proving there was more than one Pile In rule to contend with. But feel free to try and prove that first. And make sure all participants in the discussion are not on ignore.
An actual similar case that you should think about would be the case of Ethereal Interception involving more than one unit of Deathmarks all responding to the same enemy Deep Strike trigger. That would resolve in a manner similar to what I am describing for Interceptor with the Active player sequencing the rules that are scheduled at the same time.
Everything that I am proposing should come as no surprise. The player controlling the Interceptor is trying to do something in the ACTIVE player's turn. By default, the controlling player in that scenario does not have 'priority' and any sequencing issues introduced to the game are sequenced by the ACTIVE player, not the controlling player. The Interceptor rule itself lacks the explicit instruction for what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules happening at the same time. Overwatch has instructions for what to do in these cases. Interceptor does not.
What rule is permitting two weapons to fired at the same time and thus prompting to be sequenced?
"At the end of turn" is a condition to fire, not a trigger to fire, none of the weapons fire by default.
The shooting sequence is followed even in the case of a single weapon firing (unless you can point to some alternative set of rules in the BRB to be followed). So my argument still stands as completely validated by the rules.
Ceann, you have failed to present a viable alternative.
Happyjew wrote: col_impact, since you appear to be adamant that we cannot use the rules for Shooting Sequence (since we do not have permission to refer to the shooting phase), without referencing any step of the shooting sequence, please explain how to resolve the shots from a single unit, with a single weapon with the Interceptor special rule.
You misunderstand. I am saying that there is no Shooting Sequence that comes as part of the enemy Movement phase. This is obvious. It's not the Shooting Phase.
The only time you have permission to have a Shooting Sequence is when you have chosen to fire using the permission in the Interceptor rule to fire and there is then a shooting attack to resolve with the Shooting Sequence rules.
By the time you are doing that, the permissions for the Interceptor rules have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player.
So the active player gets to choose which units may fire Interceptor?
If I have two units with Interceptor, I choose if they are using the Interceptor rule, right? Where does it say I have to choose at the same time? You want me to fire Unit A first, but I might decide not to fire Unit A. After firing with Unit B, it is still the end of the movement phase, is it not? At this point I decide I do want to fire with Unit A. It's almost like changing your mind.
I agree, HappyJew. That's an odd distinction there. The Active Player is not the one shooting Interceptor, indeed, the Active Player cannot use Interceptor, even against Deathmarks. It triggers at the end of the enemy Movement Phase.
I wonder if Col_Impact thinks the Active Player can determine the order in which enemy models can Pile In.
That's a good observation, Charistoph, and one that col impact has not chosen to comment upon yet. Col impact, do you think the active player can determine the order in which enemy models can Pile In? It's a case of the same rule being invoked multiple times, like you say for Interceptor.
I had been making Happyjew's observations but col impact handwaves them off, just noting that units have the interceptor rule. We'll see if he treats Pile-In moves in the same fashion.
Charistoph has my responses on ignore so he really isn't participating in this thread. If you or he want to present an argument about Pile In then feel free to do so. As it looks, the comprehensive instructions for Pile In do not present a case of multiple times. The single set of instructions covers the entire collective of models. So I imagine you would have trouble proving there was more than one Pile In rule to contend with. But feel free to try and prove that first. And make sure all participants in the discussion are not on ignore.
An actual similar case that you should think about would be the case of Ethereal Interception involving more than one unit of Deathmarks all responding to the same enemy Deep Strike trigger. That would resolve in a manner similar to what I am describing for Interceptor with the Active player sequencing the rules that are scheduled at the same time.
What rule is permitting two weapons to fired at the same time and thus prompting to be sequenced?
"At the end of turn" is a condition to fire, not a trigger to fire, none of the weapons fire by default.
The shooting sequence is followed even in the case of a single weapon firing (unless you can point to some alternative set of rules in the BRB to be followed). So my argument still stands as completely validated by the rules.
Ceann, you have failed to present a viable alternative.
Your argument isn't validated by anything.
If anything you have defeated your own argument by admission.
If the shooting sequence is followed then it is impossible for two iterations to occur at the same time.
If two cannot occur at the same time then nothing needs to be sequenced.
FIFY
I have worked it out all here . . .
Controlling player chooses a unit.
1.That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Controlling player chooses a unit.
2.That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Controlling player chooses a unit.
3.That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Controller player chooses a unit.
1.That interceptor rule is resolved ["at the end of the enemy Movement phase"] using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Controller player chooses a unit.
2.That interceptor rule is resolved ["at the end of the enemy Movement phase"] using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Controller player chooses a unit.
3.That interceptor rule is resolved ["at the end of the enemy Movement phase"] using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Rinse and Repeat.
All of those choices for the multiple Interceptor rules that you are making are resolving at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase"). According to the solution you propose, you (the controlling player) have dictated the order of their resolution.
The Sequencing rule however is fairly specific that in the case of rules resolving at the same time that the ACTIVE player dictates the order of resolution for the rules.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
Therefore, your counter proposal is in direct violation of the Sequencing rule and is not validated by the rules in the BRB.
This is how it works out according to the rules . . .
Spoiler:
I have worked it out all here . . .
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
There is no Shooting Sequence that happens in the enemy Movement phase.
If there's no shooting sequence then the Interceptor shots never get resolved as the shooting sequence is how the shots are resolved. Interceptor does not state anything that overrides the rules for the shooting sequence. Feel free to explain how the shots are resolved without following the shooting sequence. (Please note that your saying the active player chooses does not explain how the shots are resolves. How do you know if the shots hit? Do you roll to wound? How does the unit being shot make saves? These are all parts of the shooting sequence.)
I have already answered this. Multiple times in fact.
There is no Shooting Sequence that happens automatically in the enemy Movement phase.
That is not what you said above, though. Since you seem to have missed your own quote, I'll copy it. "There is no Shooting Sequence that happens in the enemy Movement phase." No "automatically" in it. When using Interceptor, however, there is a shooting sequence in the enemy Movement phase.
col_impact wrote: So you are completely confusing your argument to simply say look at the Shooting Sequence rules. Those aren't in play in the enemy Movement phase. So explain how they come into play.
"At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight." (page 167, Interceptor)
"The shooting process can be summarized in seven steps, as described below." (page39 - the summary is the Shooting Sequence summary below the statement). Feel free to explain how you fire the weapon without following the shooting process. I asked you before yet you don't want to tell us how to handle it without following the shooting sequence. Silence on your part will be considered you agreeing that you follow the rules for the shooting process.
col_impact wrote: The Shooting Sequence only comes into play when you are busy resolving one of the Interceptor rules.
No kidding, Sherlock. Nobody has disputed this.
col_impact wrote: At that time, the multiple Interceptor rules, which resolve "at the end of the enemy Movement phase", will have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player, per the Sequencing rule.
(NOTE: (cut and paste yadda yadda yadda cut out due to excessive redundancy)
My argument works and is validated by the rules.
Wrong.
col_impact wrote: There are multiple Interceptor rules resolving at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencer rule mandates that the Active player dictates the order of resolution for those rules.
No. There is one interceptor rule, not multiple rules. You ignored my challenge to you to answer whether the active player gets to choose the order that units pile in during assault. I can only guess that you don't play it that way but don't want to admit it because it points out you are being inconsistent. Please give us an answer to this, as we are forced to assume that you are just trying to avoid answering because you don't like the answer you would have to give.
There is only one rule, not two rules in effect - the Interceptor rule. This means that sequencing does not apply. As Ceann, Happyjew and myself have pointed out, the actions do not happen at the same time - you must choose which ones will use the rule, and there is no statment saying all must be declared before resolving any. The shooting does not happen all at once, so sequencing does not apply, just as units don't pile in all at once and there is only one rule - pile in - that is in effect, so sequencing does not apply there either.
One other point, please lay off your copy-and-paste about sequencing - people have seen it in more than enough of your posts in this thread, and just cutting and pasting it gives the appearance of you trying to spam anyone that disagrees with you. That type of behavior is one leading reason for threads getting locked down; you're been particularly guilty of that behavior in the other threads that got locked. If you do wish to continue with an honest discussion please don't just copy and paste like you've been doing. EDIT: I see you did the copy and paste again responding to Ceann after doing it to me. Please, just stop it. Try to argue with a different tack or different words. You look like you aren't considering what the other people are saying at all, which suggests disrespect.
No. There is one interceptor rule, not multiple rules. You ignored my challenge to you to answer whether the active player gets to choose the order that units pile in during assault. I can only guess that you don't play it that way but don't want to admit it because it points out you are being inconsistent. Please give us an answer to this, as we are forced to assume that you are just trying to avoid answering because you don't like the answer you would have to give.
I have addressed this above. Are you reading my posts?
Spoiler:
Charistoph has my responses on ignore so he really isn't participating in this thread. If you or he want to present an argument about Pile In then feel free to do so. As it looks, the comprehensive instructions for Pile In do not present a case of multiple times. The single set of instructions covers the entire collective of models. So I imagine you would have trouble proving there was more than one Pile In rule to contend with. But feel free to try and prove that first. And make sure all participants in the discussion are not on ignore.
An actual similar case that you should think about would be the case of Ethereal Interception involving more than one unit of Deathmarks all responding to the same enemy Deep Strike trigger. That would resolve in a manner similar to what I am describing for Interceptor with the Active player sequencing the rules that are scheduled at the same time.
Everything that I am proposing should come as no surprise. The player controlling the Interceptor is trying to do something in the ACTIVE player's turn. By default, the controlling player in that scenario does not have 'priority' and any sequencing issues introduced to the game are sequenced by the ACTIVE player, not the controlling player. The Interceptor rule itself lacks the explicit instruction for what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules happening at the same time. Overwatch has instructions for what to do in these cases. Interceptor does not.
There is only one rule, not two rules in effect - the Interceptor rule. This means that sequencing does not apply. As Ceann, Happyjew and myself have pointed out, the actions do not happen at the same time - you must choose which ones will use the rule, and there is no statment saying all must be declared before resolving any. The shooting does not happen all at once, so sequencing does not apply, just as units don't pile in all at once and there is only one rule - pile in - that is in effect, so sequencing does not apply there either.
This has also already been addressed.
Spoiler:
There are two or more Interceptor rules in the case we are debating. The Sequencing rule applies. It doesn't care if the multiple rules are worded the same, only that there are multiple rules scheduled to resolve at the same time.
We know that they are multiple because there are multiple Interceptor shots to be potentially made and a single Interceptor rule only provides permission for a single shot.
Read the Interceptor rule. It only allows one firing. So you need to have 2 Interceptor rules being resolved to allow for 2 firings, and so on.
It's the case of two or more Interceptor rules to resolve that we are dealing with here. The Sequencing rule dictate that the ACTIVE player sequences those rule resolutions.
doctortom, I have presented a valid proposal for how things work out.
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
You have not demonstrated that they are happening at the same time.
You need to demonstrate this in order to invoke sequencing.
You will not and apparently cannot demonstrate how they are happening at the same time.
In order to use an iteration of Interceptor, you have to follow the rules for shooting sequences.
The first rule for a shooting sequence is to nominate a unit.
Anytime prior to a unit being nominated, no rule is pending to be used.
Anytime after a unit has been nominated the shooting sequence has already started and must be completed.
You are not provided any opportunity for two rules to be used at once to sequence.
You seem to have a very hard time understanding this even though so many people are explaining it to you.
Your argument is based on a grammatical failure.
No. There is one interceptor rule, not multiple rules. You ignored my challenge to you to answer whether the active player gets to choose the order that units pile in during assault. I can only guess that you don't play it that way but don't want to admit it because it points out you are being inconsistent. Please give us an answer to this, as we are forced to assume that you are just trying to avoid answering because you don't like the answer you would have to give.
I have addressed this above. Are you reading my posts?
Spoiler:
Charistoph has my responses on ignore so he really isn't participating in this thread. If you or he want to present an argument about Pile In then feel free to do so. As it looks, the comprehensive instructions for Pile In do not present a case of multiple times. The single set of instructions covers the entire collective of models. So I imagine you would have trouble proving there was more than one Pile In rule to contend with. But feel free to try and prove that first. And make sure all participants in the discussion are not on ignore.
An actual similar case that you should think about would be the case of Ethereal Interception involving more than one unit of Deathmarks all responding to the same enemy Deep Strike trigger. That would resolve in a manner similar to what I am describing for Interceptor with the Active player sequencing the rules that are scheduled at the same time.
Everything that I am proposing should come as no surprise. The player controlling the Interceptor is trying to do something in the ACTIVE player's turn. By default, the controlling player in that scenario does not have 'priority' and any sequencing issues introduced to the game are sequenced by the ACTIVE player, not the controlling player. The Interceptor rule itself lacks the explicit instruction for what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules happening at the same time. Overwatch has instructions for what to do in these cases. Interceptor does not.
From Assault results under the Multiple Combats section (page 55) "After determining assault results, all remaining units - those that fourht in the multiple combat but aren't Falling Back or making a Sweeping Advance - must make Pile In moves towars each other." Sure looks like they're talking about units and not just models there.
Ceann wrote: You have not demonstrated that they are happening at the same time.
You need to demonstrate this in order to invoke sequencing.
You will not and apparently cannot demonstrate how they are happening at the same time.
In order to use an iteration of Interceptor, you have to follow the rules for shooting sequences.
The first rule for a shooting sequence is to nominate a unit.
Anytime prior to a unit being nominated, no rule is pending to be used.
Anytime after a unit has been nominated the shooting sequence has already started and must be completed.
You are not provided any opportunity for two rules to be used at once to sequence.
You seem to have a very hard time understanding this even though so many people are explaining it to you.
Your argument is based on a grammatical failure.
Controller player chooses a unit.
1.That interceptor rule is resolved ["at the end of the enemy Movement phase"] using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Controller player chooses a unit.
2.That interceptor rule is resolved ["at the end of the enemy Movement phase"] using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Controller player chooses a unit.
3.That interceptor rule is resolved ["at the end of the enemy Movement phase"] using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Rinse and Repeat.
Highlighted in orange are the rules you are trying to resolve at the same time (indicated in red). The Sequencing rule has instructions that you cannot ignore for you to follow in this case
Ceann wrote: You have not demonstrated that they are happening at the same time.
You need to demonstrate this in order to invoke sequencing.
You will not and apparently cannot demonstrate how they are happening at the same time.
In order to use an iteration of Interceptor, you have to follow the rules for shooting sequences.
The first rule for a shooting sequence is to nominate a unit.
Anytime prior to a unit being nominated, no rule is pending to be used.
Anytime after a unit has been nominated the shooting sequence has already started and must be completed.
You are not provided any opportunity for two rules to be used at once to sequence.
You seem to have a very hard time understanding this even though so many people are explaining it to you.
Your argument is based on a grammatical failure.
Controller player chooses a unit.
1.That interceptor rule is resolved ["at the end of the enemy Movement phase"] using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Controller player chooses a unit.
2.That interceptor rule is resolved ["at the end of the enemy Movement phase"] using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Controller player chooses a unit.
3.That interceptor rule is resolved ["at the end of the enemy Movement phase"] using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Rinse and Repeat.
Highlighted in red are the rules you are trying to resolve at the same time. The Sequencing rule has instructions that you cannot ignore for you to follow in this case
What you have shown here is that you don't understand what "at the same time" means.
I wonder if we can request a forum to be opened to help with grammatical issues.
In order to better assist you I will demonstrate for you.
------------------------------------
A Skitarii Vanguard unit charges another Skitarii Vanguard unit.
Both of these units have...
Rad-saturation: While a unit is locked in combat with one or more models with this special rule all models in that unit subtract 1 from their Toughness (to a minimum of 1).
Which one resolves first?
------------------------------------
This is a clear example of things happening at the same time.
What you are failing to demonstrate is how two units are firing at the same time.
They all get PERMISSION to fire at the same time, they however do all fire at the same time, the rules for the shooting sequence prevent this.
However in order to create a pretense that your fake argument holds water you keep cutting off "a weapon can be fired" off of your quotation of Interceptor.
Dropping the curtain in front of our eyes and painting a picture over it called "at the same time" does not mean that actually happens.
Hence...
You have not demonstrated that they are happening at the same time.
You need to demonstrate this in order to invoke sequencing.
You will not and apparently cannot demonstrate how they are happening at the same time.
Controller player chooses a unit.
1.That interceptor rule is resolved ["at the end of the enemy Movement phase"] using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Controller player chooses a unit.
2.That interceptor rule is resolved ["at the end of the enemy Movement phase"] using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Controller player chooses a unit.
3.That interceptor rule is resolved ["at the end of the enemy Movement phase"] using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Rinse and Repeat.
Highlighted in orange are the rules you are trying to resolve at the same time (indicated in red). The Sequencing rule has instructions that you cannot ignore (in yellow below) for you to follow in this case.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
The Sequencing rule is telling us that the ACTIVE player chooses the order. Why do you ignore this rule? So long as you ignore this rule your argument is invalid.
Here is a valid solution that is supported by the rules.
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved since they occur at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase").
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
1. At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired...
2. At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired...
3. At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired...
You do not get to sequence the firing.
The firing follows the rules for shooting sequences.
You want to sequence, the order, they gain permission to fire? LOL.
That does nothing ultimately, they still fire in the order of controllers choice, you sequencing the permission to fire does not sequence the firing.
The rule permits them to fire, it does not make them fire at the same time.
You are trying to assert control over when they fire, which you are not permitted to do because they do not fire at the same time.
Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can
be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight.
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved since they occur at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase").
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved the weapon gains "can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight."
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve.That interceptor rule is resolved the weapon gains "can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight."
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved the weapon gains "can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight."
All done?
Perform a shooting sequence.
Perform a shooting sequence.
Perform a shooting sequence.
No. There is one interceptor rule, not multiple rules. You ignored my challenge to you to answer whether the active player gets to choose the order that units pile in during assault. I can only guess that you don't play it that way but don't want to admit it because it points out you are being inconsistent. Please give us an answer to this, as we are forced to assume that you are just trying to avoid answering because you don't like the answer you would have to give.
I have addressed this above. Are you reading my posts?
Spoiler:
Charistoph has my responses on ignore so he really isn't participating in this thread. If you or he want to present an argument about Pile In then feel free to do so. As it looks, the comprehensive instructions for Pile In do not present a case of multiple times. The single set of instructions covers the entire collective of models. So I imagine you would have trouble proving there was more than one Pile In rule to contend with. But feel free to try and prove that first. And make sure all participants in the discussion are not on ignore.
An actual similar case that you should think about would be the case of Ethereal Interception involving more than one unit of Deathmarks all responding to the same enemy Deep Strike trigger. That would resolve in a manner similar to what I am describing for Interceptor with the Active player sequencing the rules that are scheduled at the same time.
Everything that I am proposing should come as no surprise. The player controlling the Interceptor is trying to do something in the ACTIVE player's turn. By default, the controlling player in that scenario does not have 'priority' and any sequencing issues introduced to the game are sequenced by the ACTIVE player, not the controlling player. The Interceptor rule itself lacks the explicit instruction for what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules happening at the same time. Overwatch has instructions for what to do in these cases. Interceptor does not.
From Assault results under the Multiple Combats section (page 55) "After determining assault results, all remaining units - those that fourht in the multiple combat but aren't Falling Back or making a Sweeping Advance - must make Pile In moves towars each other." Sure looks like they're talking about units and not just models there.
I was mostly talking about Initiative Step Pile In, but End Phase works, too.
And nothing in the Initiative Step Pile In is talking about an "entire collective of models". It mentions those models that are in the combat, but that's no more the same type of "collective" than the "collective" of models which are carrying Interceptor Weapons.
All movement in here is by the model, and provided an order:
1) Any models that would Pile In to base contact.
2) Any models that would Pile In to engage.
3) Any other models that are in the combat but cannot engage.
It's all the same rule dealing with models moving in the same Initiative Step which may or may not be part of the same unit, much less the same owner.
If the Active Player can determine which Interceptor shoots first, then he can determine which of his enemy's models can Pile In first (out of the steps).
Why is this important? Because a certain point of sequencing can leave certain models from being in Step 2 out to Step 3. So, too, determining the sequencing of Interceptor shots can lead to undesired results on the part of the controlling player. Not to mention, there is no permission to go outside the shooting process established in the Shooting Sequence like Split Fire does.
Edit: The sequencing mentioned above is not a reference to the Sequencing paragraph in The Turn, but just the general term. I know that some people get confused by that.
Ceann wrote: Let me show you what happens three times.
1. At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired...
2. At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired...
3. At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired...
You do not get to sequence the firing.
The firing follows the rules for shooting sequences.
You want to sequence, the order, they gain permission to fire? LOL.
That does nothing ultimately, they still fire in the order of controllers choice, you sequencing the permission to fire does not sequence the firing.
The rule permits them to fire, it does not make them fire at the same time.
You are trying to assert control over when they fire, which you are not permitted to do because they do not fire at the same time.
The Sequencing rule mandates that the multiple Interceptor rules are sequenced in the order of the ACTIVE players choosing.
So the controlling player has the permissions to fire Interceptor while that particular Interceptor rule instance is being resolved.
There is no shooting sequence native to the end of the enemy Movement phase so each individual Interceptor firing is its own shooting sequence that is completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor rule.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor firing into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of such permission, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the active players choosing.
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved since they occur at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase").
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved the weapon gains "can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight."
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve.That interceptor rule is resolved the weapon gains "can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight."
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved the weapon gains "can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight."
All done?
Perform a shooting sequence.
Perform a shooting sequence.
Perform a shooting sequence.
Rinse and repeat.
This is your idea of a joke, right? Obviously the rules do not transpose to this odd creation of yours with text magically being written to the weapons and an entirely magically separate set of 3 shooting sequences hanging outside of the context of the Interceptor rules. Or are you being serious? Please clarify. As is, your bizarre solution featuring entirely unjustified steps and temporally displaced shooting sequences only highlights how my solution is the correct one.
I was mostly talking about Initiative Step Pile In, but End Phase works, too.
And nothing in the Initiative Step Pile In is talking about an "entire collective of models". It mentions those models that are in the combat, but that's no more the same type of "collective" than the "collective" of models which are carrying Interceptor Weapons.
All movement in here is by the model, and provided an order:
1) Any models that would Pile In to base contact.
2) Any models that would Pile In to engage.
3) Any other models that are in the combat but cannot engage.
It's all the same rule dealing with models moving in the same Initiative Step which may or may not be part of the same unit, much less the same owner.
If the Active Player can determine which Interceptor shoots first, then he can determine which of his enemy's models can Pile In first (out of the steps).
Why is this important? Because a certain point of sequencing can leave certain models from being in Step 2 out to Step 3. So, too, determining the sequencing of Interceptor shots can lead to undesired results on the part of the controlling player. Not to mention, there is no permission to go outside the shooting process established in the Shooting Sequence like Split Fire does.
Edit: The sequencing mentioned above is not a reference to the Sequencing paragraph in The Turn, but just the general term. I know that some people get confused by that.
Charistoph,
so are you actively participating in this thread? IE, do you have some participants on ignore or not? If I am on ignore you are not actively participating.
Assuming I am not on ignore than I will point out that I think you failed to notice that in the basic Pile In instructions it includes instructions for dealing with the entirety of the units under control of each of the players for that combat.
Spoiler:
When making Pile In moves, the player whose turn it is moves his unit(s) first.
So there is no way you can have more than one copy of the Pile In instructions conflicting with another. The one set of instructions marches along and covers ALL models in ALL units in ALL combats for ALL players leaving nothing for a Sequencing rule to sequence. If you have trouble following along how all models in all units are comprehensively covered make sure to read the instructions for the entire Fight sub-phase. We can open up a new thread if you need me to help show you line by line.
All units have access to the shooting rules.
Interceptor grants them permission to be used at the end of the movement phase if fired at specific targets.
You can sequence the permission however you like it doesn't change what order they ultimately fire in.
Clearly you cannot contest this so you have chosen to make light of it.
Your example assumes weapons are being fired at the same time, without using the shooting sequence rules.
You cannot explain this and refuse to explain this.
You don't have a valid reason to sequence but you invent one.
Your example is wrong because you have to break the shooting sequence rules in order to perform it.
The first rule of the sequence is to nominate a unit but your explanation dictates that what is chosen is forced by the active player. The sequence rule does not have permission to break the shooting sequence rules. Which means your example is flawed because you have to break rules in order to do it.
Ceann wrote: Let me show you what happens three times.
1. At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired...
2. At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired...
3. At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired...
You do not get to sequence the firing.
The firing follows the rules for shooting sequences.
You want to sequence, the order, they gain permission to fire? LOL.
That does nothing ultimately, they still fire in the order of controllers choice, you sequencing the permission to fire does not sequence the firing.
The rule permits them to fire, it does not make them fire at the same time.
You are trying to assert control over when they fire, which you are not permitted to do because they do not fire at the same time.
The Sequencing rule mandates that the multiple Interceptor rules are sequenced in the order of the ACTIVE players choosing.
So the controlling player has the permissions to fire Interceptor while that particular Interceptor rule instance is being resolved.
No, the firing is not done at the same time. Shooting follows the shooting process, and those rules do not happen at the same time; therefore, sequencing would not apply to resolving the shooting. You do not have permission to break the shooting rules.
col_impact wrote: There is no shooting sequence native to the end of the enemy Movement phase so each individual Interceptor firing is its own shooting sequence that is completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor rule.
There is a shooting sequence involved due to Interceptor. The shooting sequence does not involve shooting at the same time, however, so sequencing does not apply to the shooting any more than it does to pile in. There is no permission to ignore the shooting process rules (which ares used due to the permission to fire weapons in the first place), so you must follow the shooting process, which means following the shooting sequence.
col_impact wrote: There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor firing into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
Permission is given for weapons to fire; therefore this permission covers having a shooting sequence at the end of the movement phase. To the contrary, it could be said that you have no permission to break up the shooting sequence already invoked by the pemission to fire from Interceptor into separate shooting sequences.
I was mostly talking about Initiative Step Pile In, but End Phase works, too.
And nothing in the Initiative Step Pile In is talking about an "entire collective of models". It mentions those models that are in the combat, but that's no more the same type of "collective" than the "collective" of models which are carrying Interceptor Weapons.
All movement in here is by the model, and provided an order:
1) Any models that would Pile In to base contact.
2) Any models that would Pile In to engage.
3) Any other models that are in the combat but cannot engage.
It's all the same rule dealing with models moving in the same Initiative Step which may or may not be part of the same unit, much less the same owner.
If the Active Player can determine which Interceptor shoots first, then he can determine which of his enemy's models can Pile In first (out of the steps).
Why is this important? Because a certain point of sequencing can leave certain models from being in Step 2 out to Step 3. So, too, determining the sequencing of Interceptor shots can lead to undesired results on the part of the controlling player. Not to mention, there is no permission to go outside the shooting process established in the Shooting Sequence like Split Fire does.
Edit: The sequencing mentioned above is not a reference to the Sequencing paragraph in The Turn, but just the general term. I know that some people get confused by that.
Charistoph,
so are you actively participating in this thread? IE, do you have some participants on ignore or not? If I am on ignore you are not actively participating.
Assuming I am not on ignore than I will point out that I think you failed to notice that in the basic Pile In instructions it includes instructions for dealing with the entirety of the units under control of each of the players for that combat.
Spoiler:
When making Pile In moves, the player whose turn it is moves his unit(s) first.
So there is no way you can have more than one copy of the Pile In instructions conflicting with another. The one set of instructions marches along and covers ALL models in ALL units in ALL combats for ALL players leaving nothing for a Sequencing rule to sequence. If you have trouble following along how all models in all units are comprehensively covered make sure to read the instructions for the entire Fight sub-phase. We can open up a new thread if you need me to help show you line by line.
Well, even if he has you on ignore he'll manage to read your comments pertinent to him due to my quoting them here.
I do have to point out that you are wrong in your assertion that you can not have multiple pile in instructions. Multiple comments dictates each unit makes its pile in move. Going by the standard you have claimed for how you play Interceptor, that would mean each unit has a pile in rule. Since we are talking multiple combat here, at least one side will have two or more units that will make pile in moves. According to the standard you have claimed for Interceptor, this would mean that each of these units has the pile in rule, which means that, according to the logic you established, there are multiple pile in rules on at least one side. That makes your comment about the player whose turn it is moving his units firsts irrelevant, as it does not deal with how to handle the order in which he moves multiple units. According to your claims, the active player would get to choose which unit of the non-active player piles in first, and the order of pile in for any units after that.
@Col_Impact then according to your interpretation of sequencing and multiple instances of a same rule happening. How many weapons can a Tau Stormsurge ( GMC model) using an Early warning system ( grants Interceptor to all the weapons of the model) fire with Interceptor then?
Because you interpretation claims that Stormsurge it's being bestowed several times the same special rule wich obviusly it's not possible.
Lord Perversor wrote: @Col_Impact then according to your interpretation of sequencing and multiple instances of a same rule happening. How many weapons can a Tau Stormsurge ( GMC model) using an Early warning system ( grants Interceptor to all the weapons of the model) fire with Interceptor then?
Because you interpretation claims that Stormsurge it's being bestowed several times the same special rule wich obviusly it's not possible.
Your example is flawed.
The WEAPONS gain the rule, just like you could have a vehicle that has two Melta weapons.
Each weapon has the rule, the model doesn't have the rule.
However the rules for a shooting sequence allow you to pick a weapon, so his interpretation breaks the rules for shooting sequences.
I was mostly talking about Initiative Step Pile In, but End Phase works, too.
And nothing in the Initiative Step Pile In is talking about an "entire collective of models". It mentions those models that are in the combat, but that's no more the same type of "collective" than the "collective" of models which are carrying Interceptor Weapons.
All movement in here is by the model, and provided an order:
1) Any models that would Pile In to base contact.
2) Any models that would Pile In to engage.
3) Any other models that are in the combat but cannot engage.
It's all the same rule dealing with models moving in the same Initiative Step which may or may not be part of the same unit, much less the same owner.
If the Active Player can determine which Interceptor shoots first, then he can determine which of his enemy's models can Pile In first (out of the steps).
Why is this important? Because a certain point of sequencing can leave certain models from being in Step 2 out to Step 3. So, too, determining the sequencing of Interceptor shots can lead to undesired results on the part of the controlling player. Not to mention, there is no permission to go outside the shooting process established in the Shooting Sequence like Split Fire does.
Edit: The sequencing mentioned above is not a reference to the Sequencing paragraph in The Turn, but just the general term. I know that some people get confused by that.
Spoiler:
Charistoph,
so are you actively participating in this thread? IE, do you have some participants on ignore or not? If I am on ignore you are not actively participating.
Assuming I am not on ignore than I will point out that I think you failed to notice that in the basic Pile In instructions it includes instructions for dealing with the entirety of the units under control of each of the players for that combat.
[spoiler]When making Pile In moves, the player whose turn it is moves his unit(s) first.
So there is no way you can have more than one copy of the Pile In instructions conflicting with another. The one set of instructions marches along and covers ALL models in ALL units in ALL combats for ALL players leaving nothing for a Sequencing rule to sequence. If you have trouble following along how all models in all units are comprehensively covered make sure to read the instructions for the entire Fight sub-phase. We can open up a new thread if you need me to help show you line by line.[/spoiler]
Well, even if he has you on ignore he'll manage to read your comments pertinent to him due to my quoting them here.
Well, sometimes. I will often ignore him and Caenn's responses even when quoted. I will often respond at the point that I do normally read. If a respondent I do read says some interesting points, I will read what they quoted to make sure I understand the context. A certain person would know that if he actually bothered to read what others wrote instead of just going off quarter-cocked on their crusade.
And I do think I can participate in a discussion based on that, except for the inane back and forth that he usually produces and Caenn gets sucked in to. There are no rules stating that I cannot.
doctortom wrote: I do have to point out that you are wrong in your assertion that you can not have multiple pile in instructions. Multiple comments dictates each unit makes its pile in move. Going by the standard you have claimed for how you play Interceptor, that would mean each unit has a pile in rule. Since we are talking multiple combat here, at least one side will have two or more units that will make pile in moves. According to the standard you have claimed for Interceptor, this would mean that each of these units has the pile in rule, which means that, according to the logic you established, there are multiple pile in rules on at least one side. That makes your comment about the player whose turn it is moving his units firsts irrelevant, as it does not deal with how to handle the order in which he moves multiple units. According to your claims, the active player would get to choose which unit of the non-active player piles in first, and the order of pile in for any units after that.
Actually, you DO have multiple Pile In instructions, however, it is all part of the same rule.
I do agree that the point that Col_Ignored does not seem to realize, though, is that you have multiple entities all responding to the same instruction at the same time, just like Interceptor. It is this "same instruction" factor which does not engage "Sequencing". "Sequencing" involves two or more rules being resolved at the same time, not the same rule being called by different units at the same time.
Even then, it would require a special rule of some sort to allow your opponent to decide the actions you take with your models. Your opponent cannot interact with Interceptor (aside from Saves and Morale Check, obviously), as it happens after he has performed all his moves and it doesn't involve any more choices on his part.
Ceann wrote: All units have access to the shooting rules.
Interceptor grants them permission to be used at the end of the movement phase if fired at specific targets.
You can sequence the permission however you like it doesn't change what order they ultimately fire in.
Clearly you cannot contest this so you have chosen to make light of it.
Your example assumes weapons are being fired at the same time, without using the shooting sequence rules.
You cannot explain this and refuse to explain this.
You don't have a valid reason to sequence but you invent one.
Your example is wrong because you have to break the shooting sequence rules in order to perform it.
The first rule of the sequence is to nominate a unit but your explanation dictates that what is chosen is forced by the active player. The sequence rule does not have permission to break the shooting sequence rules. Which means your example is flawed because you have to break rules in order to do it.
My "magical" example is not breaking any rules.
Oh, you were actually being serious. How odd. I actually seriously thought that you were joking.
The Sequencing rule dictates the order in which multiple rules that are scheduled to happen at the same time are resolved. In this case we are dealing with "a weapon" that "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
It can be straightforwardly shown that your example is trying to break up the resolution of the rule into more than one time step without any basis in the Interceptor rule itself for doing so. Your example is saying that the rule is resolved by somehow (without any rule support for doing so) writing a static ability to the weapon at one point in time so that the weapon can be used outside of the rule resolution time frame and then allowing the weapon to be fired at an entirely different point in time after the rule resolution. However, neither the writing of the static ability nor the creation of a separate time step are justified in the Interceptor rule. In other words, you are just making junk up to obfuscate the fact that everything in your solution is still happening "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" which necessitates the intervention of the Sequencing rule to order the entire resolution.
So the controlling player has the permissions to fire Interceptor while that particular Interceptor rule instance is being resolved.
No, the firing is not done at the same time. Shooting follows the shooting process, and those rules do not happen at the same time; therefore, sequencing would not apply to resolving the shooting. You do not have permission to break the shooting rules.
col_impact wrote: There is no shooting sequence native to the end of the enemy Movement phase so each individual Interceptor firing is its own shooting sequence that is completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor rule.
There is a shooting sequence involved due to Interceptor. The shooting sequence does not involve shooting at the same time, however, so sequencing does not apply to the shooting any more than it does to pile in. There is no permission to ignore the shooting process rules (which ares used due to the permission to fire weapons in the first place), so you must follow the shooting process, which means following the shooting sequence.
col_impact wrote: There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor firing into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
Permission is given for weapons to fire; therefore this permission covers having a shooting sequence at the end of the movement phase. To the contrary, it could be said that you have no permission to break up the shooting sequence already invoked by the pemission to fire from Interceptor into separate shooting sequences.
doctortom,
the shooting process happens entirely in the context of resolving one of the Interceptor rule permissions. By the time any shooting process happens the order for the multiple Interceptor rule resolutions will have already been determined by the ACTIVE player since everything is attempting to happen "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" and there is no avoiding the application of the Sequencing rule.
My challenge to you is to provide a complete step by step counter argument. You keep saying that the shooting process allows you to avoid rule scheduling conflicts but have yet to show a worked out proposal. When I pressed Ceann to do so he presented a proposal with obvious problems where he is literally making up steps and presenting a 'magical' solution. Do you agree with his proposed solution? Or are you going to propose something different? Remember, there is no shooting sequence that happens by default at the end of the enemy Movement phase so it is important for you to show how the multiple shooting attacks actually get resolved. My solution works when described in detail and is validated by the rules. You have yet to propose a solution that works according to the rules.
Actually, you DO have multiple Pile In instructions, however, it is all part of the same rule.
I do agree that the point that Col_Ignored does not seem to realize, though, is that you have multiple entities all responding to the same instruction at the same time, just like Interceptor. It is this "same instruction" factor which does not engage "Sequencing". "Sequencing" involves two or more rules being resolved at the same time, not the same rule being called by different units at the same time.
After the player works his way through the instructions one time there are NO units or models left to pile in. All units and models have been accounted for. So even if there was somehow a second set of instructions to work through it wouldn't do anything as ALL units and models have already resolved the instructions.
So basically your straw man of my argument didn't work. You have failed to show multiple rules to resolve when (as you admit in red in your quote above) there is just the one rule with comprehensive instructions.
If you want an actually comparable example in the rules we should discuss the case of multiple Deathmark units with Ethereal Interception responding to the same Deep Strike trigger.
Since Interceptor gives permission to fire, you use the shooting process to resolve. The shooting process clearly indicates that the shots are not resolved at the same time, which means that you do not have multiple uses of Interceptor attempting to be resolved at the same time. This by itself indicates that sequencing does not apply.
Then, there is the fact that it is one rule, not two or more rules. As Charistoph and myself have shown, there must be two rules to apply. The same rule on multiple units is not the same as two rules. That is merely cognitive dissonance on your part. Not having two rules means that sequencing does not apply. I refer you to Charistoph's reply above. I also with to point out that I indicated the flaw in your Pile In argument, yet you have not come back to address that yet - is that because it shows you are not treating Pile In for multiple combats and Interceptor consistently by the standards you are claiminig?
And you want a worked out proposal about how the shooting process doesn't involve sequencing? It's on page 30 of the rulebook - the Shooting Sequence. Note how when following the shooting sequence weapons are not fired at the same time.
EDIT - and you dodged the point with your later addendum responding to Charistoph. Multiple combat = multiple units on one side having to pile in. Does the Active Player choose the order in which the units pile in?
Since Interceptor gives permission to fire, you use the shooting process to resolve. The shooting process clearly indicates that the shots are not resolved at the same time, which means that you do not have multiple uses of Interceptor attempting to be resolved at the same time. This by itself indicates that sequencing does not apply.
Then, there is the fact that it is one rule, not two or more rules. As Charistoph and myself have shown, there must be two rules to apply. The same rule on multiple units is not the same as two rules. That is merely cognitive dissonance on your part. Not having two rules means that sequencing does not apply.
You still have not provided a counter proposal. Work it out step by step. The Interceptor rule gives permission for "a weapon" (in the the singular) to be fired so how exactly are you getting permission to fire multiple Interceptor weapons unless there are indeed multiple Interceptor rules and their corresponding permissions floating around?
Also, you keep putting the cart before the horse. The shooting attack for the Interceptor weapon is resolved entirely within the context of a single Interceptor rule resolution ("a weapon" "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase").
Again my challenge to you is to provide a complete counter proposal. Where is it? Or do you accept Ceann's counter proposal? At least he was able to work out his solution in detail. You can't challenge my solution unless you actually offer a counter solution.
The big problem that you have is that your argument simply does not work in detail. If you disagree with that then prove me wrong.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of such permission, the multiple Interceptor rules are resolved in piecemeal fashion with each Interceptor rule resolved separably based on the sequence of the active players choosing.
Spoiler:
The Shooting Sequence only comes into play when you are busy resolving one of the Interceptor rules. At that time, the multiple Interceptor rules, which resolve "at the end of the enemy Movement phase", will have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player, per the Sequencing rule.
I have worked it out all here . . .
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Rinse and Repeat.
My argument works and is validated by the rules. There are multiple Interceptor rules resolving at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencer rule mandates that the Active player dictates the order of resolution for those rules.
EDIT - and you dodged the point with your later addendum responding to Charistoph. Multiple combat = multiple units on one side having to pile in. Does the Active Player choose the order in which the units pile in?
Again, you are failing to show more than one rule at play. The rule for the Fight Sub Phase amounts to a single time marching through the instructions with NO models and NO units left over. Neither you nor Charistoph has shown rule collision.
Deal with the issue of it being one rule, not two rules (the same rule on multiple units is not the same as two rules), and why Pile In in multiple combats is not handled the same way. You're dodging that part yet again.
I dealt with your claim about "no permission to lump all instances of Interceptor together" showing why it is discredited in an earleir post. You have not shown how you have permission to treat each firing as a separate shooting process when the process already handles firing multiple weapons and shows that you are not taking the actions at the same time.
EDIT: I see your addendum "Again, you are failing to show more than one rule at play. The rule for the Fight Sub Phase amounts to a single time marching through the instructions with NO models and NO units left over. Neither you nor Charistoph has shown rule collision."
According to your standard, there are multiple units piling in, which would be multiple instances of the Pile In rule being applied. This would be the same standard that you are applying to the Interceptor rule, saying that each unit (or each weapon) with Interceptor is treated as a different rule. So, you are being inconsistent in your argument. Personally, I agree with you that there is not more than one rule at play here - merely the Pile In rule. You damn your own argument, however - by the same standard, there is only one rule in play - Interceptor - not more than one rule in play. Only one rule in play = no sequencing involved.
Deal with the issue of it being one rule, not two rules (the same rule on multiple units is not the same as two rules), and why Pile In in multiple combats is not handled the same way. You're dodging that part yet again.
I dealt with your claim about "no permission to lump all instances of Interceptor together" showing why it is discredited in an earleir post. You have not shown how you have permission to treat each firing as a separate shooting process when the process already handles firing multiple weapons and shows that you are not taking the actions at the same time.
Where is your counter proposal?
My solution is here.
Spoiler:
The Shooting Sequence only comes into play when you are busy resolving one of the Interceptor rules. At that time, the multiple Interceptor rules, which resolve "at the end of the enemy Movement phase", will have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player, per the Sequencing rule.
I have worked it out all here . . .
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Rinse and Repeat.
My argument works and is validated by the rules. There are multiple Interceptor rules resolving at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencer rule mandates that the Active player dictates the order of resolution for those rules.
If you cannot articulate a counter proposal then you are done here as I remain the only one in this thread who is actually presenting a complete solution that is validated by the rules.
P.S. I have already addressed that we have multiple Interceptor rules. If we didn't then you only get a single Interceptor shot altogether.
Spoiler:
There are two or more Interceptor rules in the case we are debating. The Sequencing rule applies. It doesn't care if the multiple rules are worded the same, only that there are multiple rules scheduled to resolve at the same time.
We know that they are multiple because there are multiple Interceptor shots to be potentially made and a single Interceptor rule only provides permission for a single shot.
Read the Interceptor rule. It only allows one firing. So you need to have 2 Interceptor rules being resolved to allow for 2 firings, and so on.
It's the case of two or more Interceptor rules to resolve that we are dealing with here. The Sequencing rule dictate that the ACTIVE player sequences those rule resolutions.
EDIT: I see your addendum "Again, you are failing to show more than one rule at play. The rule for the Fight Sub Phase amounts to a single time marching through the instructions with NO models and NO units left over. Neither you nor Charistoph has shown rule collision."
According to your standard, there are multiple units piling in, which would be multiple instances of the Pile In rule being applied. This would be the same standard that you are applying to the Interceptor rule, saying that each unit (or each weapon) with Interceptor is treated as a different rule. So, you are being inconsistent in your argument. Personally, I agree with you that there is not more than one rule at play here - merely the Pile In rule. You damn your own argument, however - by the same standard, there is only one rule in play - Interceptor - not more than one rule in play. Only one rule in play = no sequencing involved.
Would you care to quote the Pile In move rule in its entireity? The rule is simply comprehensive all in itself. If the rule in a single application resolves ALL models in ALL units then it cannot conflict with a second Pile In rule even if there was somehow a second one to contend with.
Start quoting rules and prove that there is rule collision. If you cannot prove that there is rule collision then you have no slippery slope argument since my argument deals with actual rule collisions.
The shooting process can be summarized in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting
sequence with ONE of your units, select another and repeat the sequence.
The rules for shooting dictate only ONE of your units at a time can use them.
You are required to demonstrate two units firing at the same time in order to sequence.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn. 2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon.
Your "proposal" breaks the rules for the shooting sequence.
Hence your "proposal" is discarded.
The first rule of the sequence is to nominate a unit that is able to shoot, we can nominate ANY of our units with Interceptor.
From "Assauit Results" for the Multiple Combats section, page 55
"After determining assault results, all remaining units - those that fought in the multiple combat but aren't Falling Back or making a Sweeping Advance - must make Pile In moves towards each other."
Multiple units having to use the Pile In rule. You cite that for Interceptor as multiple rules.
As for my counter-proposal, I have pointed out how you have failed to meet the criteria of sequencing in the first place, and that you follow the shooting process rules, which covers units firing and weapons firing - not at the same time. Do not act as if there is no counter proposal. You might not like the form it is presented in, but it is still there.
EDIT: And, when your last line in your thread was only "If you cannot articulate a counter proposal then you are done here" I sent a report to the moderator not only about the continuous rut we are in (especially with the cut and paste), and with the tone that took - if you're going to decide who is done here, we have obviously reached a point where the thread should not continue.
Ceann wrote: The shooting process can be summarized in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting
sequence with ONE of your units, select another and repeat the sequence.
The rules for shooting dictate only ONE of your units at a time can use them.
You are required to demonstrate two units firing at the same time in order to sequence.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn. 2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon.
Your "proposal" breaks the rules for the shooting sequence.
Hence your "proposal" is discarded.
The first rule of the sequence is to nominate a unit that is able to shoot, we can nominate ANY of our units.
Ceann, there is no shooting sequence that happens at the end of the enemy Movement phase. How do the shooting sequence rules even come into play?
Ceann, you need to provide a complete counter proposal as I have done. You cannot simply say "but the shooting sequence!". How do you even get to the shooting sequence? Work it out step-by-step please.
It comes into play from the singular rule Interceptor coming into play. When Interceptor comes into play, you have the shooting process rules - which are summarized in the Shooting Sequence table - which detail how to handle the shooting. As these rules indicate no conflict with any unit trying to use and resolve Interceptor at the same time, sequencing does not apply.
Ceann does not need to provide a step-by-step proposal. That is a fallacy on your part. You need to demonstrate the requirement for sequencing to be able to be invoked in the first place, and we have shown why sequencing does not apply.
Please actually address what we are saying instead of insisting on a counter proposal from us - we have dealt with your issues before, and have seen you ignore what we have asked. We have pointed out why your argument is irrelevant, and have provided a counter proposal - FOLLOWING THE SHOOTING PROCESS RULES that are never stated to be overridden by Interceptor, and due to the shooting sequence rules showing we are not having "two rules" at the same time (which is actually one rule on multiple units), then the shooting sequence rules cover things.
doctortom wrote: From "Assauit Results" for the Multiple Combats section, page 55
"After determining assault results, all remaining units - those that fought in the multiple combat but aren't Falling Back or making a Sweeping Advance - must make Pile In moves towards each other."
Multiple units having to use the Pile In rule. You cite that for Interceptor as multiple rules.
The pile in instructions already cover multiple units. One time application of the pile in instructions covers ALL units and ALL models with nothing left over. Read the entire Fight Sub Phase section.
Ceann wrote: The shooting process can be summarized in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting
sequence with ONE of your units, select another and repeat the sequence.
The rules for shooting dictate only ONE of your units at a time can use them.
You are required to demonstrate two units firing at the same time in order to sequence.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn. 2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon.
Your "proposal" breaks the rules for the shooting sequence.
Hence your "proposal" is discarded.
The first rule of the sequence is to nominate a unit that is able to shoot, we can nominate ANY of our units.
Ceann, there is no shooting sequence that happens at the end of the enemy Movement phase. How do the shooting sequence rules even come into play?
Ceann, you need to provide a complete counter proposal as I have done. You cannot simply say "but the shooting sequence!". How do you even get to the shooting sequence? Work it out step-by-step please.
Col, there is no "at the same time" that happens when units are firing with Interceptor. How does sequencing even come into play?
Col, you need to provide a complete counter proposal as I have done, You cannot simply say "they happen at the same time!". How do you even get two units to fire at the same time? Work it out step-by-step please.
The assertion they are happening at the same time is yours and unproven, I don't need to counter proposing anything, you are assuming your argument is valid by default.
If we aren't using the shooting sequence then units can't fire.
_____________________________________________
Q: Do abilities that allow a model to fire an extra weapon
in the Shooting phase allow them to fire an extra weapon in
Overwatch or while intercepting (e.g. Monstrous Creatures and
Tau multi-trackers)?
A: Yes. In the case of Interceptor, only weapons with the
Interceptor rule can be fired.
_____________________________________________
The FAQ even demonstrates for us that Overwatch AND intercepting use the shooting phase rules, even when it isn't the shooting phase.
_____________________________________________
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire
Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the
firing units’ controlling player.
_____________________________________________
The rules for multi Overwatch's tell us that unit's firing are resolved SEPARATELY.
Nothing says anything about "at the same time" except you.
As for my counter-proposal, I have pointed out how you have failed to meet the criteria of sequencing in the first place, and that you follow the shooting process rules, which covers units firing and weapons firing - not at the same time. Do not act as if there is no counter proposal. You might not like the form it is presented in, but it is still there.
EDIT: And, when your last line in your thread was only "If you cannot articulate a counter proposal then you are done here" I sent a report to the moderator not only about the continuous rut we are in (especially with the cut and paste), and with the tone that took - if you're going to decide who is done here, we have obviously reached a point where the thread should not continue.
So basically instead of showing how your argument works in a step by step fashion you are going to message an Admin to shut the thread down? That's quite the dodge there.
When you go to work out your counter proposal you will be faced with a few problems.
1) You claim there is only one Interceptor rule to resolve. That one Interceptor rule only allows for a single firing of an Interceptor weapon. How are you getting to multiple firings with one Interceptor rule?
2) You have a cart before the horse problem. You only have permission to do a shooting attack while you are resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules that are being scheduled at the same time. By the time you are working through the shooting sequence the Sequencing rule will already have dictated the order of the multiple Interceptor rules that are trying to schedule "a weapon""can be fired""at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
doctortom wrote: From "Assauit Results" for the Multiple Combats section, page 55
"After determining assault results, all remaining units - those that fought in the multiple combat but aren't Falling Back or making a Sweeping Advance - must make Pile In moves towards each other."
Multiple units having to use the Pile In rule. You cite that for Interceptor as multiple rules.
The pile in instructions already cover multiple units. One time application of the pile in instructions covers ALL units and ALL models with nothing left over. Read the entire Fight Sub Phase section.
That merely states all models are making a pile in move. Multiple combats states specifically that the units plural must make pile in moves - plural - indicating multiple instances of pile in moves for the units. This would mean the same rule being used for each of the "all units" as mentioned in Multiple Combats.
As for my counter-proposal, I have pointed out how you have failed to meet the criteria of sequencing in the first place, and that you follow the shooting process rules, which covers units firing and weapons firing - not at the same time. Do not act as if there is no counter proposal. You might not like the form it is presented in, but it is still there.
EDIT: And, when your last line in your thread was only "If you cannot articulate a counter proposal then you are done here" I sent a report to the moderator not only about the continuous rut we are in (especially with the cut and paste), and with the tone that took - if you're going to decide who is done here, we have obviously reached a point where the thread should not continue.
So basically instead of showing how your argument works in a step by step fashion you are going to message an Admin to shut the thread down? That's quite the dodge there.
When you go to work out your counter proposal you will be faced with a few problems.
1) You claim there is only one Interceptor rule to resolve. That one Interceptor rule only allows for a single firing of an Interceptor weapon. How are you getting to multiple firings with one Interceptor rule?
2) You have a cart before the horse problem. You only have permission to do a shooting attack while you are resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules that are being scheduled at the same time. By the time you are working through the shooting sequence the Sequencing rule will already have dictated the order of the multiple Interceptor rules that are trying to schedule "a weapon""can be fired""at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
1) Actually, Interceptor says "a weapon" may fire. Are you now going to say that the sequencing rules allow you to dictate the order in which every weapon with Interceptor is fired?
2) No, I am not resolving the Interceptor rules at the same time. The Interceptor rules are resolved by the weapons with Interceptor being fired. The shooting process rules clearly indicate that these do not happen at the same time. No cart before the horse.
The Sequencing rules do not specify distinctly worded rules, so it will apply to the case of two or more Interceptor rules just fine.
If I have one unit with Interceptor and another unit with Interceptor then I have two Interceptor rules to resolve not one. If I only have one then I only get one firing. Read the rule!
Also, as I have already stated it is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those permissions are accessed by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the permissions but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those permissions.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
Spoiler:
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Spoiler:
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
The pile in instructions already cover multiple units. One time application of the pile in instructions covers ALL units and ALL models with nothing left over. Read the entire Fight Sub Phase section.
That merely states all models are making a pile in move. Multiple combats states specifically that the units plural must make pile in moves - plural - indicating multiple instances of pile in moves for the units. This would mean the same rule being used for each of the "all units" as mentioned in Multiple Combats.
Incorrect. The pile in instructions comprehensively cover ALL units. Are you reading the bolded parts of the Pile In instructions?
Demonstrate, step by step, two interceptor rules in action.
Where they occur at the same time and why they need to be sequenced.
Interceptor is RESOLVED by using the shooting sequence rules.
Demonstrate TWO shooting sequences occurring at the same time, because that is what is required in order to be sequenced.
These units are no more "firing at the same time" than two units firing overwatch in a multi charge, they are resolved separably.
Per the FAQ both Overwatch and Interceptor reference the shooting rules.
Q: Do abilities that allow a model to fire an extra weapon
in the Shooting phase allow them to fire an extra weapon in
Overwatch or while intercepting (e.g. Monstrous Creatures and
Tau multi-trackers)?
A: Yes. In the case of Interceptor, only weapons with the
Interceptor rule can be fired.
_____________________________________________
The FAQ even demonstrates for us that Overwatch AND intercepting use the shooting phase rules, even when it isn't the shooting phase.
_____________________________________________
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire
Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the
firing units’ controlling player.
_____________________________________________
1) You claim there is only one Interceptor rule to resolve. That one Interceptor rule only allows for a single firing of an Interceptor weapon. How are you getting to multiple firings with one Interceptor rule?
2) You have a cart before the horse problem. You only have permission to do a shooting attack while you are resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules that are being scheduled at the same time. By the time you are working through the shooting sequence the Sequencing rule will already have dictated the order of the multiple Interceptor rules that are trying to schedule "a weapon""can be fired""at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
1) Actually, Interceptor says "a weapon" may fire. Are you now going to say that the sequencing rules allow you to dictate the order in which every weapon with Interceptor is fired?
Yes, and this should come as no surprise. The controlling player is attempting to do something in the ACTIVE player's turn without the special permissions that Overwatch has. The ACTIVE player dictates the order of all the multiple Interceptor rules, however many of them. The Sequencing rule applies and must be obeyed.
doctortom wrote: 2) No, I am not resolving the Interceptor rules at the same time. The Interceptor rules are resolved by the weapons with Interceptor being fired. The shooting process rules clearly indicate that these do not happen at the same time. No cart before the horse.
How do you get the permission to have a shooting sequence at the end of the enemy Movement phase unless you are already resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules? That's the cart before horse problem you STILL fail to address.
1) You claim there is only one Interceptor rule to resolve. That one Interceptor rule only allows for a single firing of an Interceptor weapon. How are you getting to multiple firings with one Interceptor rule?
2) You have a cart before the horse problem. You only have permission to do a shooting attack while you are resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules that are being scheduled at the same time. By the time you are working through the shooting sequence the Sequencing rule will already have dictated the order of the multiple Interceptor rules that are trying to schedule "a weapon""can be fired""at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
1) Actually, Interceptor says "a weapon" may fire. Are you now going to say that the sequencing rules allow you to dictate the order in which every weapon with Interceptor is fired?
Yes, and this should come as no surprise. The controlling player is attempting to do something in the ACTIVE player's turn without the special permissions that Overwatch has.
doctortom wrote: 2) No, I am not resolving the Interceptor rules at the same time. The Interceptor rules are resolved by the weapons with Interceptor being fired. The shooting process rules clearly indicate that these do not happen at the same time. No cart before the horse.
How do you get the permission to have a shooting sequence at the end of the enemy Movement phase unless you are already resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules? That's the cart before horse problem you STILL fail to address.
How do you get permission to sequence Interceptor attacks when they are resolved using the shooting sequence and cannot occur at the same time?
How do you get permission to sequence Interceptor attacks when they are resolved using the shooting sequence and cannot occur at the same time?
The Sequencing rule dictates the order of multiple rules (not attacks) resolving at the same time. Each rule resolution involves a single Interceptor attack that the controlling player opts to do or not to do. There is no sequencing of Interceptor attacks since each rule only affords one. Rather, per the Sequencing rule, the Intercepting rule itself (and its corresponding permission) is being sequenced in relation to other Interceptor rules competing to resolve at the same time.
Spoiler:
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
The Sequencing rule finds that multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the same time, "at the end of the enemy Movement phase". The Sequencing rule mandates that the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules apply.
None of this should come as any surprise. The controlling player is trying to do something in the ACTIVE player's turn without special permission to take control of the ordering of conflicting rule resolutions. Overwatch has these permissions. Interceptor does not.
Interceptor deals with firing weapons. As specified in the shooting process, weapons fire at different times. This means that you are not resolving the rules at the same time. Therefore, as you are not resolving them at the same time, sequencing does not apply.
They are all permitted to fire at the same time.
They resolve ONE at a time.
Two shooting attacks would have to take place at the same time in order to be "competing" and thus needing to be sequenced.
Per the shooting rules this situation cannot occur.
So the situation you are proposing as a solution is impossible.
doctortom wrote: From "Assauit Results" for the Multiple Combats section, page 55
"After determining assault results, all remaining units - those that fought in the multiple combat but aren't Falling Back or making a Sweeping Advance - must make Pile In moves towards each other."
Multiple units having to use the Pile In rule. You cite that for Interceptor as multiple rules.
The pile in instructions already cover multiple units. One time application of the pile in instructions covers ALL units and ALL models with nothing left over. Read the entire Fight Sub Phase section.
That merely states all models are making a pile in move. Multiple combats states specifically that the units plural must make pile in moves - plural - indicating multiple instances of pile in moves for the units. This would mean the same rule being used for each of the "all units" as mentioned in Multiple Combats.
As usual, he misses the point of the reference, even when explained explicitly and directly.
Sure, the rule covers all units and models in the Pile In. But there are multiple models that need to be moved, and they cannot be all moved at once, nor are we instructed to move all of them first. Which ones are moved first, and who makes that call? By using his assertion on Interceptor, he is saying that he can determine if my Initiate A3 gets to Pile In before Initiate A4.
As for my counter-proposal, I have pointed out how you have failed to meet the criteria of sequencing in the first place, and that you follow the shooting process rules, which covers units firing and weapons firing - not at the same time. Do not act as if there is no counter proposal. You might not like the form it is presented in, but it is still there.
EDIT: And, when your last line in your thread was only "If you cannot articulate a counter proposal then you are done here" I sent a report to the moderator not only about the continuous rut we are in (especially with the cut and paste), and with the tone that took - if you're going to decide who is done here, we have obviously reached a point where the thread should not continue.
So basically instead of showing how your argument works in a step by step fashion you are going to message an Admin to shut the thread down? That's quite the dodge there.
When you go to work out your counter proposal you will be faced with a few problems.
1) You claim there is only one Interceptor rule to resolve. That one Interceptor rule only allows for a single firing of an Interceptor weapon. How are you getting to multiple firings with one Interceptor rule?
2) You have a cart before the horse problem. You only have permission to do a shooting attack while you are resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules that are being scheduled at the same time. By the time you are working through the shooting sequence the Sequencing rule will already have dictated the order of the multiple Interceptor rules that are trying to schedule "a weapon""can be fired""at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
1) Actually, Interceptor says "a weapon" may fire. Are you now going to say that the sequencing rules allow you to dictate the order in which every weapon with Interceptor is fired?
2) No, I am not resolving the Interceptor rules at the same time. The Interceptor rules are resolved by the weapons with Interceptor being fired. The shooting process rules clearly indicate that these do not happen at the same time. No cart before the horse.
I'm curious how he is to prove that the Interceptor on a Hydra is different from the Interceptor on a Riptide.
And he is quite incorrect. The Sequence rule would have to be initiated before we go in to the Shooting Sequence, not while it is being done. The Sequence rule still only applies when two or more rules are involved, not two or more instances of a rules being involved. The addressing of the nouns by The Sequence rule is sufficiently specific. It is just better to ignore the one who is consistently out of context than to entertain him and his notions.
You are presenting me with a task that does not apply to the case at hand.
The Sequencing rule applies when there are two rules to be resolved at the same time. There are multiple Interceptor rules to be resolved "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
Try as I might I cannot find any mention of 'shooting attack' in the Sequencing rule. The Sequencing rule applies to rules, not shooting attacks.
By the time the controlling player is making a Interceptor shooting attack the multiple Interceptor rules will have already been necessarily ordered by the Sequencing rule.
doctortom wrote: From "Assauit Results" for the Multiple Combats section, page 55
"After determining assault results, all remaining units - those that fought in the multiple combat but aren't Falling Back or making a Sweeping Advance - must make Pile In moves towards each other."
Multiple units having to use the Pile In rule. You cite that for Interceptor as multiple rules.
The pile in instructions already cover multiple units. One time application of the pile in instructions covers ALL units and ALL models with nothing left over. Read the entire Fight Sub Phase section.
That merely states all models are making a pile in move. Multiple combats states specifically that the units plural must make pile in moves - plural - indicating multiple instances of pile in moves for the units. This would mean the same rule being used for each of the "all units" as mentioned in Multiple Combats.
As usual, he misses the point of the reference, even when explained explicitly and directly.
Sure, the rule covers all units and models in the Pile In. But there are multiple models that need to be moved, and they cannot be all moved at once, nor are we instructed to move all of them first. Which ones are moved first, and who makes that call? By using his assertion on Interceptor, he is saying that he can determine if my Initiate A3 gets to Pile In before Initiate A4.
Since the single rule covers all units and model in the Pile in, as you admit, then there cannot be any multiple rules competing to resolve at the same time. You have failed to show multiple rule collision so the Sequencing rule does not even factor in to this case.
Again, if you want a similar case then you should pick up the case of multiple Ethereal Interceptions.
You are presenting me with a task that does not apply to the case at hand.
The Sequencing rule applies when there are two rules to be resolved at the same time. There are multiple Interceptor rules to be resolved "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
Try as I might I cannot find any mention of 'shooting attack' in the Sequencing rule. The Sequencing rule applies to rules. not shooting attacks.
The resolution of Interceptor is contingent upon following a shooting sequence.
If you have not followed a shooting sequence then the rule has not resolved.
The rules for shooting only allow one unit to fire at a time.
So there is NO circumstance where two rules are to be resolved at the same time.
Demonstrate the scenario where they are resolving at the same time.
Highlighting "at the end of the movement phase" does nothing for your case.
You are providing a section of a rule, not the resolution of one.
And he is quite incorrect. The Sequence rule would have to be initiated before we go in to the Shooting Sequence, not while it is being done. The Sequence rule still only applies when two or more rules are involved, not two or more instances of a rules being involved. The addressing of the nouns by The Sequence rule is sufficiently specific. It is just better to ignore the one who is consistently out of context than to entertain him and his notions.
Already addressed. If we do not have multiple Interceptor rules to resolve then we only get a single Interceptor firing altogether. Read the rule.
Spoiler:
There are two or more Interceptor rules in the case we are debating. The Sequencing rule applies. It doesn't care if the multiple rules are worded the same, only that there are multiple rules scheduled to resolve at the same time.
We know that they are multiple because there are multiple Interceptor shots to be potentially made and a single Interceptor rule only provides permission for a single shot.
Read the Interceptor rule. It only allows one firing. So you need to have 2 Interceptor rules being resolved to allow for 2 firings, and so on.
It's the case of two or more Interceptor rules to resolve that we are dealing with here. The Sequencing rule dictate that the ACTIVE player sequences those rule resolutions.
The resolution of Interceptor is contingent upon following a shooting sequence.
If you have not followed a shooting sequence then the rule has not resolved.
The rules for shooting only allow one unit to fire at a time.
So there is NO circumstance where two rules are to be resolved at the same time.
You have that backwards. The shooting sequence does not happen naturally at the end of the enemy Movement phase.
So the shooting sequence is contingent upon the controller being in the process of resolving an Interceptor rule. Only in the context of an Interceptor rule being resolved does the controlling player have a shooting attack to run through the shooting sequence.
This has been pointed out several times.
Feel free to keep bringing it up since each time you do so it broadcasts a rather basic logical problem in your counter argument.
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs. The opportunity to fire or not to fire is occurring "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced. The Sequencing rule applies and cannot be ignored.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those permissions are accessed by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the permissions but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those permissions.
You have done nothing to demonstrate two rules are resolving at once and all you are doing now is ignoring demonstrating that so you can avoid explaining your flawed argument.
Please show all of us how two rules are being resolved at the same time in order for sequencing to be required.
The onus is on you to provide proof.
The FAQ demonstrates that Interceptor uses the shooting rules.
You are presenting me with a task that does not apply to the case at hand.
Actually, it does. You are the only one not recognizing that.
col_impact wrote: The Sequencing rule applies when there are two rules to be resolved at the same time. There are multiple Interceptor rules to be resolved "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
There is only one Interceptor rule. It is on page167 of the main rulebook.
col_impact wrote: Try as I might I cannot find any mention of 'shooting attack' in the Sequencing rule. The Sequencing rule applies to rules, not shooting attacks.
This has been explained to you before, yet you still plead ignorance. "A weapon with the Interceptor rule can be fired" is clearly in the Interceptor rule. This means you have a ranged weapon firing. What are the rules for a ranged weapon firing? "The shooting process can be summarized in seven steps, as described below? (page 30). The Shooting Sequence is the summary, providing the rules for shooting which include not firing different weapons at the same time. As sequencing on page 17 clearly states "you'll occasionally find two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time
" Since you can not resolve Interceptor without firing the weapon, and the shooting process indicates that you are not firing the different weapons at the same time, you are not resolving them at the same time. Not resolving them at the same time meaning sequencing does not apply.
You have that backwards. The shooting sequence does not happen naturally at the end of the enemy Movement phase.
So the shooting sequence is contingent upon the controller being in the process of resolving an Interceptor rule. Only in the context of an Interceptor rule being resolved does the controlling player have a shooting attack to run through the shooting sequence.
If multiple rules are triggered, then it is required to determine if they are resolved at the same time or not. Because of the shooting sequence, it is clear that they are not resolved at the same time. Therefore, since they are not actually resolved at the same time (even if you want to say they are triggered at the same time, which there is debate earlier about), sequencing does not apply since it only applies with two rules being resolved at the same time.
doctortom wrote: Since you can not resolve Interceptor without firing the weapon, and the shooting process indicates that you are not firing the different weapons at the same time, you are not resolving them at the same time. Not resolving them at the same time meaning sequencing does not apply.
Incorrect. Resolving a single Interceptor rule involves making the decision to fire or not to fire. If you decide not to fire and do some other actions then you cannot go back and revisit that Interceptor rule permission, unless your opponent gives you permission to go back to that permission. That ship has sailed and the moment has passed.
In fact, this is the single point of confusion for both you and Ceann.
You are confusing the act of firing with the decision to fire or not to fire.
Interceptor is resolved when the controlling player makes his decision about whether or not to take the opportunity to Intercept (which could involve firing or not firing).
Interceptor is not resolved only when the player fires an Interceptor weapon. Interceptor is also resolved when the controlling player elects to not fire an Interceptor weapon.
I am glad that we have that sorted out. The two of you were simply confused as to what resolving a rule actually means.
Not incorrect. It is not only making the decision, but actually firing the weapons for those that are firing. As Ceann pointed out, the FAQ demonstrates Interceptor uses the shooting rules. The shooting rules use the shooting sequence, This means that Interceptor is not resolved when the controlling player elects to fire a weapon. It includes any resolution of the firing of the weapons themselves, which means you are following the shooting sequence - where the different weapons are not fired at the same time.
I am glad we have that sorted out. You are simply confused as to what resolving a rule actually means.
You have that backwards. The shooting sequence does not happen naturally at the end of the enemy Movement phase.
So the shooting sequence is contingent upon the controller being in the process of resolving an Interceptor rule. Only in the context of an Interceptor rule being resolved does the controlling player have a shooting attack to run through the shooting sequence.
If multiple rules are triggered, then it is required to determine if they are resolved at the same time or not. Because of the shooting sequence, it is clear that they are not resolved at the same time. Therefore, since they are not actually resolved at the same time (even if you want to say they are triggered at the same time, which there is debate earlier about), sequencing does not apply since it only applies with two rules being resolved at the same time.
Again, you are confusing firing with resolving a rule. The Sequencing rule is concerned with sequencing rule resolutions that are scheduled at the same time.
The multiple Interceptor rules are competing to be resolved "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
doctortom wrote: Not incorrect. It is not only making the decision, but actually firing the weapons for those that are firing. As Ceann pointed out, the FAQ demonstrates Interceptor uses the shooting rules. The shooting rules use the shooting sequence, This means that Interceptor is not resolved when the controlling player elects to fire a weapon. It includes any resolution of the firing of the weapons themselves, which means you are following the shooting sequence - where the different weapons are not fired at the same time.
I am glad we have that sorted out. You are simply confused as to what resolving a rule actually means.
Incorrect. If you pass on the opportunity to fire when you had the chance then you resolve the Interceptor rule. You don't need to actively fire to resolve the rule. The controlling player has the option to not fire and its the option that is presented to the controlling player by the Interceptor rule.
Again, the Sequencing rule is sequencing the resolutions of the multiple rules.
So is the Sequencing rule concerned with sequencing 'firings' or sequencing rules? Testing your comprehension. I will quote the rule to make it easy for you.
Spoiler:
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
doctortom wrote: Since you can not resolve Interceptor without firing the weapon, and the shooting process indicates that you are not firing the different weapons at the same time, you are not resolving them at the same time. Not resolving them at the same time meaning sequencing does not apply.
Incorrect. Resolving a single Interceptor rule involves making the decision to fire or not to fire. If you decide not to fire and do some other actions then you cannot go back and revisit that Interceptor rule permission, unless your opponent gives you permission to go back to that permission. That ship has sailed and the moment has passed.
In fact, this is the single point of confusion for both you and Ceann.
You are confusing the act of firing with the decision to fire or not to fire.
Interceptor is resolved when the controlling player makes his decision about whether or not to take the opportunity to Intercept (which could involve firing or not firing).
Interceptor is not resolved only when the player fires an Interceptor weapon. Interceptor is also resolved when the controlling player elects to not fire an Interceptor weapon.
I am glad that we have that sorted out. The two of you were simply confused as to what resolving a rule actually means.
Demonstrate, step-by-step.
Two Interceptor rules resolving at the same time, thus needing to be sequenced.
You keep avoiding doing this so apparently you cannot and your argument is forfeit.
Interceptor permits them to fire, it does not ask them if they are firing.
Q: Do abilities that allow a model to fire an extra weapon
in the Shooting phase allow them to fire an extra weapon in
Overwatch or while intercepting (e.g. Monstrous Creatures and
Tau multi-trackers)?
A: Yes. In the case of Interceptor, only weapons with the
Interceptor rule can be fired
This FAQ demonstrates that intercepting uses the same rules as the shooting phase. Because an effect pertinent to the shooting phase still applies when intercepting.
Demonstrate, step-by-step.
Two Interceptor rules resolving at the same time, thus needing to be sequenced.
You keep avoiding doing this so apparently you cannot and your argument is forfeit.
Interceptor permits them to fire, it does not ask them if they are firing.
Already addressed.
Spoiler:
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those permissions are accessed by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the permissions but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those permissions.
The Shooting Sequence only comes into play when you are busy resolving one of the Interceptor rules. At that time, the multiple Interceptor rules, which resolve "at the end of the enemy Movement phase", will have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player, per the Sequencing rule.
I have worked it out all here . . .
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Rinse and Repeat.
My argument works and is validated by the rules. There are multiple Interceptor rules resolving at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencer rule mandates that the Active player dictates the order of resolution for those rules.
Demonstrate, step-by-step.
Two Interceptor rules resolving at the same time, thus needing to be sequenced.
You keep avoiding doing this so apparently you cannot and your argument is forfeit.
Interceptor permits them to fire, it does not ask them if they are firing.
Already addressed.
Spoiler:
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those permissions are accessed by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the permissions but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those permissions.
The Shooting Sequence only comes into play when you are busy resolving one of the Interceptor rules. At that time, the multiple Interceptor rules, which resolve "at the end of the enemy Movement phase", will have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player, per the Sequencing rule.
I have worked it out all here . . .
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Rinse and Repeat.
My argument works and is validated by the rules. There are multiple Interceptor rules resolving at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencer rule mandates that the Active player dictates the order of resolution for those rules.
Not addressed.
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Breaking first rule of a shooting sequence.
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Breaking first rule of a shooting sequence.
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Breaking first rule of a shooting sequence.
Demonstrate, step-by-step.
Two Interceptor rules resolving at the same time, thus needing to be sequenced.
You keep avoiding doing this so apparently you cannot and your argument is forfeit.
Interceptor permits them to fire, it does not ask them if they are firing.
Already addressed.
Spoiler:
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those permissions are accessed by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the permissions but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those permissions.
The Shooting Sequence only comes into play when you are busy resolving one of the Interceptor rules. At that time, the multiple Interceptor rules, which resolve "at the end of the enemy Movement phase", will have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player, per the Sequencing rule.
I have worked it out all here . . .
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Rinse and Repeat.
My argument works and is validated by the rules. There are multiple Interceptor rules resolving at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencer rule mandates that the Active player dictates the order of resolution for those rules.
Not addressed.
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)
Breaking first rule of a shooting sequence.
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Breaking first rule of a shooting sequence.
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
Breaking first rule of a shooting sequence.
Your example is breaking rules, it is discarded.
You are going to have to explain yourself. Exactly what rule am I breaking?
We can nominate any of our units with Interceptor.
You have no rule to allow you to force a specific unit to fire.
You are trying to use sequencing to force a unit to be nominated.
I have never stated that I am forcing a specific unit to fire.
The controlling player is in the process of resolving a single Interceptor rule. That single Interceptor rule is resolved when the controlling player makes his choice to fire OR not to fire. If he chooses to fire then a shooting process will kick off to resolve the Interceptor shooting attack.
Remember, we are resolving rules, not firings, when we are talking about the Sequencing rule. You are confusing the two. We are concerned with multiple Interceptor rules in schedule conflict.
All of the multiple Interceptor rules are competing to be resolved "at the end of the enemy Movement phase". The Sequencing rule applies and cannot be ignored.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).
IS RESOLVED using the rules for shooting.
The rules for shooting allow us to pick a Unit to fire, so we are not constrained to whatever sequence you claim that exists.
If you are trying to sequence units A,B and C.
I can choose whichever one of them I wish to fire.
The shooting rules permit this to happen.
Are you asserting that firing doesn't take place as a part of the resolution now? That contradicts your own argument.
When does the firing take place if not?
You explanation is unclear.
Since you have gotten confused let's break this down into simpler steps.
Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
If the controlling player is presented with the choice to fire an Interceptor weapon and he chooses not to fire then the rule has been resolved and game play proceeds with that rule having been resolved, correct?
In other words . . the time for a rule to happen comes up (e.g. "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"). The rule happens and a choice is presented to the player (e.g. "can be fired"). The player makes a choice ('not going to fire'). The time for the Interceptor rule passes. The Interceptor rule is resolved. Correct?
You are trying to sequence when there is no reason to do so.
Two Interceptors cannot be resolved at the same time.
You need PERMISSION to sequence.
You only gain that permission if two rules resolve at the same time.
As you described it yourself, the rules resolve using the shooting rules.
They therefore cannot resolve at the same time.
You are never given permission to sequence.
The criteria for "at the same time" is not that they becoming PENDING at the same time.
But that they are RESOLVING at the same time, which they are not.
You are trying to sequence when there is no reason to do so.
Two Interceptors cannot be resolved at the same time.
You need PERMISSION to sequence.
You only gain that permission if two rules resolve at the same time.
As you described it yourself, the rules resolve using the shooting rules.
They therefore cannot resolve at the same time.
You are never given permission to sequence.
The criteria for "at the same time" is not that they becoming PENDING at the same time.
But that they are RESOLVING at the same time, which they are not.
Just answer the question.
An Interceptor rule is resolved when the controlling player elects not to fire the Interceptor weapon, correct? A decision is made to not fire the Interceptor weapon which resolves the Interceptor rule, correct?
All weapons are not firing by default.
Interceptor grants them the option to fire, gaining access to the rules below.
Shooting Sequence
Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack...
You will only know which ones are NOT firing, when we have completed all shooting sequences and ended the phase.
There is nothing in the interceptor rule that states an intent to fire or not fire must be declared.
You assume intent must be declared and then start with your sequencing nonsense, which is incorrect.
All weapons are not firing by default.
Interceptor grants them the option to fire, gaining access to the rules below.
Shooting Sequence
Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack...
You will only know which ones are NOT firing, when we have completed all shooting sequences and ended the phase.
There is nothing in the interceptor rule that states an intent to fire or not fire must be declared.
You assume intent must be declared and then start with your sequencing nonsense, which is incorrect.
You don't understand what 'resolve' a rule means. Resolve means marching through a rule as it comes up and making decisions 'for the record' for the rule that come up. The controlling player is presented with the opportunity to fire by an Interceptor rule and chooses to fire or not to fire. After the player chooses one or the other then the Interceptor rule is resolved.
Otherwise the game comes to a screeching halt waiting for the controlling player to make a decision. If a player skips or passes on the Intercept rule then a decision 'not to fire' is committed 'for the record' on his behalf. The decision in the Interceptor rule must be resolved one way or the other.
Considering no one agrees with you, I would say that you are the one who is misunderstanding.
If we're using the shooting sequence rules, which we are, then each iteration of interceptor allows any unit with interceptor to fire because we are free to nominate any unit.
This leaves one of two scenarios.
We either follow the shooting rules and fire with any unit with interceptor that we wish; or you are breaking the nomination rule for shooting.
Ceann wrote: Considering no one agrees with you, I would say that you are the one who is misunderstanding.
If we're using the shooting sequence rules, which we are, then each iteration of interceptor allows any unit with interceptor to fire because we are free to nominate any unit.
This leaves one of two scenarios.
We either follow the shooting rules and fire with any unit with interceptor that we wish; or you are breaking the nomination rule for shooting.
Take your pick.
Okay. So you avoid the discussion of what 'resolve a rule' means. That must mean it is beyond your comprehension
However, if you don't know what 'resolve a rule' means then you cannot comprehend what the Sequencing rule means.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
What does it mean to 'resolve a rule'?
'Resolve a rule' means marching through a rule as it comes up, implementing the things the rule tells you to do, and making decisions 'for the record' for the rule that come up, correct?
You cannot ignore this question. If you do then you tacitly accept that I can apply the Sequencing rule to the case at hand and you will then concede the whole argument of the thread to me. You can't argue against my use of the Sequencing rule unless you know what 'resolve a rule' means, since the Sequencing rule depends on a knowledge of what that means.
Ceann wrote: You are claiming to have singular knowledge of what resolving a rule means. Any assertion you towards that point is your opinion.
Does your definition of resolving this rule require a shooting sequence or not?
I am not claiming to have singular knowledge of what resolving a rule means.
'Resolving a rule' is straightforward English and not mysterious at all.
'Resolve a rule' means marching through a rule as it comes up, implementing the things the rule tells you to do, and making decisions 'for the record' for the rule that come up.
You are refusing to answer the question because it will show to the world that you have all this time been confusing 'resolve a rule' with 'resolve a shot'.
I, on the other hand, haven't been confused. The multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase"). Therefore, the Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those multiple Interceptor rules resolve. The controlling player must resolve the Interceptor rules in an order of the ACTIVE players choosing. This is what I have been asserting since page 1.
My argument is based on a simple and straightforward application of the rules.
It means no such thing, this is your normal obfuscation and word soup when you are losing. You pick a point you know is incorrect and then fabricate your own interpretations and claim them to be the truth, no one agrees with you, the thread goes on for 12 pages and gets locked.
The shooting sequence, in this circumstance, is part of the resolution.
"At the same time" is straightforward English but you seem to be having a real hard time with that one.
Ceann wrote: It means no such thing, this is your normal obfuscation and word soup when you are losing. You pick a point you know is incorrect and then fabricate your own interpretations and claim them to be the truth, no one agrees with you, the thread goes on for 12 pages and gets locked.
The shooting sequence, in this circumstance, is part of the resolution.
"At the same time" is straightforward English but you seem to be having a real hard time with that one.
If 'resolve a rule' does not mean what I say it means then what does it mean?
If you cannot answer that question then you cannot argue against my using the Sequencing rule.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
Knowing what 'resolve a rule' means is critical to knowing whether the Sequencing rule applies or not.
If you cannot answer then you will have to take my word for it.
Taking my word for it in this case means my argument wins out.
During the shooting sequence resolution contained within B, I use the "nominate a Unit" rule within the shooting sequence to nominate Unit A to fire.
Interceptor B is finished.
During the shooting sequence resolution contained within A, I use the "nominate a Unit" rule within the shooting sequence to nominate Unit B to fire.
Interceptor A is finished.
If we perform the rules as you state, then we are removing the option to nominate a Unit in a shooting sequence, so your interpretation is breaking the nomination rule.
If you assert these fire in another manner then you need to explain it.
During the shooting sequence resolution contained within B, I use the "nominate a Unit" rule within the shooting sequence to nominate Unit A to fire. [this is not correct. A does not have permission to fire - its Interceptor rule has yet to come up.]
Interceptor B is finished.
During the shooting sequence resolution contained within A, I use the "nominate a Unit" rule within the shooting sequence to nominate Unit B to fire. [this is not correct. B no longer has permission to fire - its Interceptor rule has already been resolved]
Interceptor A is finished.
See the notes in red above. The ACTIVE player has already broken up the time collision of "the end of the enemy Movement phase" into a sequence of Interceptor rules arranged back to back. A can only choose to fire when its Interceptor rule is being resolved. B can only choose to fire when its Interceptor rule is being resolved. And so on.
Remember the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
So you are saying that the shooting sequence rule to nominate a unit is being overridden by the sequencing rule?
Or are you saying we are ignoring the shooting sequence rule, to nominate a unit?
The Interceptor rule is attached to a weapon, when the weapon fires the only thing it is looking for is "are we at the end of the movement phase" it doesn't care about anything else.
Its demands are met. The weapon doesn't care about what the "active" player is doing, or trying to do. If it can fire, which it can since we are "at the end of the movement phase"
Then it can fire, the resolution of any pending sequencing is irrelevant.
Well it was games night here at the local GW last night and I explained this discussion to the manager and the dozen or so guys there, when they stopped laughing they all agreed that yes it's an out of turn shooting phase (just like overwatch) and sequencing had nothing to do with it.
Ceann wrote: So you are saying that the shooting sequence rule to nominate a unit is being overridden by the sequencing rule?
Or are you saying we are ignoring the shooting sequence rule, to nominate a unit?
The Interceptor rule is attached to a weapon, when the weapon fires the only thing it is looking for is "are we at the end of the movement phase" it doesn't care about anything else.
Its demands are met.
The Sequencing rule has made it so that competing rule resolutions for "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" happens in a sequence dictated by the ACTIVE player.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
The controlling player can only fire an Interceptor weapon when that Interceptor rule is being resolved, ie when that Interceptor weapon has its turn in the sequence provided by the ACTIVE player.
Rolsheen wrote: Well it was games night here at the local GW last night and I explained this discussion to the manager and the dozen or so guys there, when they stopped laughing they all agreed that yes it's an out of turn shooting phase (just like overwatch) and sequencing had nothing to do with it.
Yeah, once certain people get involved in a rules debate, it's best to just start ignoring it entirely.
Rolsheen wrote: Well it was games night here at the local GW last night and I explained this discussion to the manager and the dozen or so guys there, when they stopped laughing they all agreed that yes it's an out of turn shooting phase (just like overwatch) and sequencing had nothing to do with it.
Look up 'argumentum ad populum' and let the thread know what that means.
They just have a collective house rule to treat Interceptor like Overwatch. That's not a bad house rule, but it's a house rule nonetheless.
However, no where do you see these specific permissions granted to Interceptor.
Spoiler:
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Spoiler:
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
Only Overwatch has these permissions. Interceptor does not have those permissions.
Rolsheen wrote: Well it was games night here at the local GW last night and I explained this discussion to the manager and the dozen or so guys there, when they stopped laughing they all agreed that yes it's an out of turn shooting phase (just like overwatch) and sequencing had nothing to do with it.
Yeah, once certain people get involved in a rules debate, it's best to just start ignoring it entirely.
Glad it was easy for you to resolve!
Feel free to jump in and provide a challenge to my argument by backing up your statements with rules.
I really don't need to-other people have, and as usual, you've ignored them entirely. I suggest rereading what the others have written, if you want an argument.
JNAProductions wrote: I really don't need to-other people have, and as usual, you've ignored them entirely. I suggest rereading what the others have written, if you want an argument.
Here's a question for you, what does 'resolve a rule' mean exactly? That question wins the argument for me. The other side was confusing 'resolve a rule' with 'resolve a shot'.
Resolving a rule is taking a rule and applying it to the tabletop.
For instance, resolving a shooting attack would use the shooting sequence, or resolving a hit in close combat would follow the basic roll-to-hit, if successful, to-wound, if successful, to-save, if failed, apply wound(s).
JNAProductions wrote: Resolving a rule is taking a rule and applying it to the tabletop.
For instance, resolving a shooting attack would use the shooting sequence, or resolving a hit in close combat would follow the basic roll-to-hit, if successful, to-wound, if successful, to-save, if failed, apply wound(s).
Okay. So if the Interceptor rule presents a player with a choice to shoot a weapon and that player declines to shoot and the time for shooting passes then the Interceptor rule is resolved, correct?
Well sure. You take the Interceptor rule, which pretty much just gives you a shooting phase in your opponent's turn. Which you'd then resolve like any other shooting phase.
Question for you now! Would you actually PLAY IT how you're suggesting? As in, the opposing player chooses the order in which you fire your interceptor guns?
JNAProductions wrote: Well sure. You take the Interceptor rule, which pretty much just gives you a shooting phase in your opponent's turn. Which you'd then resolve like any other shooting phase.
Cool. Well your answer just proves that the Sequencing rule is necessarily applied to sequence the multiple Interceptor rules which are all to be resolved "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
JNAProductions wrote: Question for you now! Would you actually PLAY IT how you're suggesting? As in, the opposing player chooses the order in which you fire your interceptor guns?
Yes absolutely. And its come up in the case of multiple Ethereal Interceptions responding to the same Deep Strike unit.
It really is no surprise that the ACTIVE player is in control of how permissions play out for the other player. Remember, in this case you are not the ACTIVE player.
You do know what it means to be the ACTIVE player, right?
JNAProductions wrote: Okay, so when combat ends on my turn, I decide which order your models pile in.
Well, no. The instructions for Pile In comprehensively affect ALL models in ALL units. So after one application of the Pile In instructions there is nothing left over.
Remember for the Sequencing rule to apply you need to have two or more rules happening at the same time.
In the case of Pile In the one rule handles everything.
However, when it comes to Ethereal Interception you do get to decide which order my two Deathmark units Deep Strike in and what order they fire in. You are the ACTIVE player.
No, there is one rule-Interceptor. If you'd like to claim Interceptor is two rules, feel free to point to the page indicating that one rule counts as two.
JNAProductions wrote: No, there is one rule-Interceptor. If you'd like to claim Interceptor is two rules, feel free to point to the page indicating that one rule counts as two.
Already addressed. If we do not have multiple Interceptor rules to resolve then we only get a single Interceptor firing altogether. Read the rule.
Spoiler:
There are two or more Interceptor rules in the case we are debating. The Sequencing rule applies. It doesn't care if the multiple rules are worded the same, only that there are multiple rules scheduled to resolve at the same time.
We know that they are multiple because there are multiple Interceptor shots to be potentially made and a single Interceptor rule only provides permission for a single shot.
Read the Interceptor rule. It only allows one firing. So you need to have 2 Interceptor rules being resolved to allow for 2 firings, and so on.
It's the case of two or more Interceptor rules to resolve that we are dealing with here. The Sequencing rule dictate that the ACTIVE player sequences those rule resolutions.
Did you want to revisit any other points that I have already proven?
The controlling player can only fire an Interceptor weapon when that Interceptor rule is being resolved, ie when that Interceptor weapon has its turn in the sequence provided by the ACTIVE player.
This is a false claim, you have no rule to support you that states this. The only criteria to fire a weapon with Interceptor is that we are "at the end of the movement phase". If there is any conflict with sequencing then Interceptor ignores it, as Interceptor is a special rule. If I wish to fire any of the weapons using the shooting the sequence I have all the permission I need from Interceptor.
Active player sequences two Interceptor rules to be B and then A.
During the shooting sequence resolution contained within B, I use the "nominate a Unit" rule within the shooting sequence to nominate Unit A to fire.
Interceptor B is finished.
During the shooting sequence resolution contained within A, I use the "nominate a Unit" rule within the shooting sequence to nominate Unit B to fire.
Interceptor A is finished.
No rules have been broken.
Sequence rule has been followed, shooting sequence rule has been followed.
You claim to prove a lot. Your claims don't hold much water.
You are more than welcome to prove any of my claims wrong. It won't be easy since I back every claim up with a lot of rules. So be prepared to sling rule quotes around!
Have you actually read the rules for the Fight Sub Phase and Piling In?
After you follow those instructions how many units/models are left over?
Nothing is left over. ALL units and ALL models are taken care of by a single application of the one rule.
In order for the Sequencing rule to apply you have show that there are two or more rules competing to be resolved at the same time.
In the case of Pile In the one rule comprehensively handles everything.
Just read the rules in question and if you feel you have something different to say than what I have already said then feel free to prove your case.
The controlling player can only fire an Interceptor weapon when that Interceptor rule is being resolved, ie when that Interceptor weapon has its turn in the sequence provided by the ACTIVE player.
This is a false claim, you have no rule to support you that states this. The only criteria to fire a weapon with Interceptor is that we are "at the end of the movement phase". If there is any conflict with sequencing then Interceptor ignores it, as Interceptor is a special rule. If I wish to fire any of the weapons using the shooting the sequence I have all the permission I need from Interceptor.
Active player sequences two Interceptor rules to be B and then A.
During the shooting sequence resolution contained within B, I use the "nominate a Unit" rule within the shooting sequence to nominate Unit A to fire.
Interceptor B is finished.
During the shooting sequence resolution contained within A, I use the "nominate a Unit" rule within the shooting sequence to nominate Unit B to fire.
Interceptor A is finished.
No rules have been broken.
Sequence rule has been followed, shooting sequence rule has been followed.
No. The Interceptor rule resolutions must happen in the order which the ACTIVE player has dictated or you are violating the Sequencing rule.
Spoiler:
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
During the shooting sequence resolution contained within B, I use the "nominate a Unit" rule within the shooting sequence to nominate Unit A to fire. [this is not correct. A does not have permission to fire - its Interceptor rule has yet to come up.]
Interceptor B is finished.
During the shooting sequence resolution contained within A, I use the "nominate a Unit" rule within the shooting sequence to nominate Unit B to fire. [this is not correct. B no longer has permission to fire - its Interceptor rule has already been resolved]
Interceptor A is finished.
See the notes in red above. The ACTIVE player has already broken up the time collision of "the end of the enemy Movement phase" into a sequence of Interceptor rules arranged back to back. A can only choose to fire when its Interceptor rule is being resolved. B can only choose to fire when its Interceptor rule is being resolved. And so on.
Remember the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
It seems you are still confused. You keep offering solutions that violate a basic understanding of rule resolution. Let's go back to the basics here.
The issue Col is that you are using sequencing without cause.
The shooting sequence in the case of Interceptor "because the rule is for a shooting weapon" is tied directly to the weapon firing.
Because of this, it is impossible for two of them to resolve at the same time.
Yet you try to sequence them and then say "look if I line them all up in a row, there is a conflict"
The only reason there IS a conflict is because you sequenced them without cause in the first place.
You might have multiple iterations of Interceptor, but only one can resolve at a time.
You have failed to demonstrate HOW two resolve at the same time and thus require being sequenced.
Ceann wrote: The issue Col is that you are using sequencing without cause.
The shooting sequence in the case of Interceptor "because the rule is for a shooting weapon" is tied directly to the weapon firing.
Because of this, it is impossible for two of them to resolve at the same time.
Yet you try to sequence them and then say "look if I line them all up in a row, there is a conflict"
The only reason there IS a conflict is because you sequenced them without cause in the first place.
You might have multiple iterations of Interceptor, but only one can resolve at a time.
You have failed to demonstrate HOW two resolve at the same time and thus require being sequenced.
Simple question:
Spoiler:
Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
The above rule is only resolved if the unit fires, IF the rule is used. If it isn't used then it doesn't resolve, you didn't use it.
By your definition choosing to not fire would be "using the rule" so are you now claiming that Interceptor weapons can never fire on the owners turn?
Do you roll for Get's Hot on a Plasma Gun if you didn't fire it?
No.
If you fire the bolter on a Combi-Melta, do you roll Melta penetration?
No, you didn't fire it.
Ceann wrote: The above rule is only resolved if the unit fires, IF the rule is used. If it isn't used then it doesn't resolve, you didn't use it.
By your definition choosing to not fire would be "using the rule" so are you now claiming that Interceptor weapons can never fire on the owners turn?
Do you roll for Get's Hot on a Plasma Gun if you didn't fire it?
No.
If you fire the bolter on a Combi-Melta, do you roll penetration?
No, you didn't fire it.
Looks like you are still confusing 'resolving a rule' with 'resolving a shot'.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means marching through the rule at the appropriate time. In this case it means presenting the controlling player with the option to fire an Interceptor weapon at the end of the enemy Movement phase.
The Interceptor rule is resolved after the player chooses to fire (and resolving the consequences of that choice to fire) or the player chooses not to fire.
Otherwise the game comes to a screeching halt waiting for the controlling player to make a decision. If a player skips or passes on the Intercept rule then a decision 'not to fire' is committed 'for the record' on his behalf. The decision in the Interceptor rule must be resolved one way or the other.
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those permissions are accessed by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the permissions but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those permissions.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
In this case resolving a shot IS resolving a rule.
If you do not fire you are not using the rule.
If I have 3 units with Interceptor.
How do YOU know to sequence them, prior to knowing if they will fire? You cannot, it is impossible.
You can only sequence things that happen at the same time, you are trying to sequence something that MIGHT happen at the same time. You cannot sequence them until two are trying to resolve at the same time.
As you have to access the Interceptor rules to fire, and only one unit can fire at a time per the shooting sequence rules.
There are NEVER two firing at the same time in order to validate the use of sequencing.
The "appropriate time" is when it is being fired.
"At the end of the movement phase" is a condition to fire, not a trigger to fire.
Ceann wrote: In this case resolving a shot IS resolving a rule.
If you do not fire you are not using the rule.
If I have 3 units with Interceptor.
How do YOU know to sequence them, prior to knowing if they will fire? You cannot, it is impossible.
You can only sequence things that happen at the same time, you are trying to sequence something that MIGHT happen at the same time. You cannot sequence them until two are trying to resolve at the same time.
As you have to access the Interceptor rules to fire, and only one unit can fire at a time per the shooting sequence rules.
There are NEVER two firing at the same time in order to validate the use of sequencing.
Again you keep confusing 'resolve a rule' with 'resolve a shot'.
The Sequencer rule is not sequencing the shots but the multiple Interceptor rules.
Read the Sequencer rule . . .
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
Here is how it works . . .
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor rules are resolved since they all happen at the same time "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Rolsheen wrote: Well it was games night here at the local GW last night and I explained this discussion to the manager and the dozen or so guys there, when they stopped laughing they all agreed that yes it's an out of turn shooting phase (just like overwatch) and sequencing had nothing to do with it.
Look up 'argumentum ad populum' and let the thread know what that means.
Congratulations you know a bit of Latin, maybe try that language to make your argument cause your not managing it in English.
We don't use "house rules" in our GW store, so I'm not sure what your going on about.
Ceann wrote: That is not "how it works"
That is how you "think it works".
The sequencer rule does nothing, it only becomes activated when there are resolutions occurring at the same time.
The resolution of any single interceptor is directly tied into completing the firing. If you are not firing then you are not using the rule.
As only one can ever be firing at any one time, there is never two to sequence.
There is no declaration in Interceptor where you are required to state whether you will fire or not. You are inventing it in order to use sequencing.
You are getting confused.
Ceann, what does 'resolve a rule' mean?
Considering there is no page in the BRB stating the rules for "resolve a rule" you can only state your opinion on such a matter.
In this case we are talking about rules for weapons.
In order to resolve a rule on a weapon profile, you have to use the weapon.
Melta, Get's Hot, Shred, Interceptor, these are all rules that are used when a weapon is fired.
You are attempting to claim that the rules are being used prior to being fired, which is impossible.
Interceptor grants weapons the ability to fire at the end of the movement step. In order to resolve any iteration of Interceptor, you must FIRE the weapon.
As only one weapon can be fired at a time it is impossible for them to occur at the same time.
You have been avoiding explaining how two of these happen at the same time and allow you to invoke sequencing.
Ceann wrote: That is not "how it works"
That is how you "think it works".
The sequencer rule does nothing, it only becomes activated when there are resolutions occurring at the same time.
The resolution of any single interceptor is directly tied into completing the firing. If you are not firing then you are not using the rule.
As only one can ever be firing at any one time, there is never two to sequence.
There is no declaration in Interceptor where you are required to state whether you will fire or not. You are inventing it in order to use sequencing.
You are getting confused.
Ceann, what does 'resolve a rule' mean?
Considering there is no page in the BRB stating the rules for "resolve a rule" you can only state your opinion on such a matter.
In this case we are talking about rules for weapons.
In order to resolve a rule on a weapon profile, you have to use the weapon.
Melta, Get's Hot, Shred, Interceptor, these are all rules that are used when a weapon is fired.
You are attempting to claim that the rules are being used prior to being fired, which is impossible.
Interceptor grants weapons the ability to fire at the end of the movement step. In order to resolve any iteration of Interceptor, you must FIRE the weapon.
As only one weapon can be fired at a time it is impossible for them to occur at the same time.
You have been avoiding explaining how two of these happen at the same time and allow you to invoke sequencing.
Ok. I will help you in your confusion over what 'resolve' means.
'resolve' and 'use' are not synonymous.
When you are 'resolving damage' you are not 'using damage'.
When you are 'resolving' something you are 'sorting out' or 'settling' what happens based on the decisions that a player makes and any consequences that happens from those decisions.
When you resolve the Interceptor rule you 'sort out' if the player is firing or not and settling the consequences of that decision.
A rule that is resolved is one that has been fully settled, any decisions have been made, and its fate sealed.
The multiple Interceptor rules are scheduled to be resolved at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase"). The controlling player must make a decision and sort out what happens for multiple Interceptor weapons at the same time. The Sequencer rule applies and the ACTIVE player necessarily dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules are going to be resolved. The controlling player will sort out what happens in each Interceptor rule instance in the order dictated by the ACTIVE player.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
Here is how it works . . .
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor rules are resolved since they all happen at the same time "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
I know what resolving means, I have played many games that have much more complicated rules than this.
What I will not do, is let you lead me to your definition.
"When you resolve the Interceptor rule you 'sort out' if the player is firing or not and settling the consequences of that decision."
This is incorrect.
Interceptor provides a permission for the "end of the movement phase" permitting weapons with the rule to fire.
A weapon with the rule only resolves the rule if they actually decide to fire, which is dictated by a shooting sequence.
The shooting sequence will dictate which weapon firing resolves first.
You have not, and still have not, and likely cannot, clearly demonstrate how two interceptor rules are resolving at the same time.
Your "decide whether they fire" is a fabrication, the rule does not state anywhere that you have to do this, it merely states that they can fire.
------------------------
Example...
A Skitarii Vanguard charges another Skitarii Vanguard.
They both have Rad Saturation which gives models in combat with them -1 Toughness.
This is a situation where the rules would have to be sequenced because there is no way to determine which resolves first.
------------------------
Interceptor does not have this problem because it is a rule on a weapon and rules on weapons are sequenced by shooting or assaulting rules.
More continued confusion on your part. You keep confusing 'resolve a rule' with 'resolve a fired shot'.
My definition of 'resolve' is the one supported by the use of 'resolve' in the BRB and by the English dictionary.
Resolving means 'sorting out' what happens with something. In the case of a rule, it means 'sorting out' what happens in the rule, 'seeing [a rule] to its completion', and 'settling' all the things that happen in the rule.
Resolving the Interceptor rule is 'settling' whether or not the Interceptor weapon is going to fire and if it fires does it hit, wound, etc.
If the player opts not to fire then that is a quick trip down decision-making lane. The Interceptor rule is quickly resolved. The player chooses not to use the ability and the opportunity becomes a thing of the past.
If the player opts instead to fire then that kicks off more stuff to resolve. The shot itself then needs to get resolved which involves resolving the hit, resolving the damage, and resolving morale (if applicable) etc.
Resolving means sorting things out to their completion.
I challenge you to find a more appropriate definition than this one for the BRB usage of resolve.
The important thing though is that the multiple Interceptor rules are all scheduled to be resolved at the same time "at the end of the enemy Movement phase". That means the Sequencing rule necessarily dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor rules are resolved since they all happen at the same time "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
If you feel otherwise, then let's start with the basics.
Ceann, what does 'resolve a rule' mean exactly?
If you don't know what 'resolve a rule' means then your argument can not possibly be valid.
The rule for Interceptor is not invoked "at the end of the enemy movement phase".
It is invoked when... " A weapon is fired, at the end of the enemy movement phase".
You are prematurely deciding that they are being used in order to use sequencing. The weapon is the subject of the entire rule, which you are ignoring and only paying attention to the part you care about.
If a weapon is not fired, then the rule isn't used.
If deciding to fire was a part of the resolution then even weapons that didn't fire, couldn't fire, on their owners turn, because they still used the rule even if they didn't fire.
The rule, just as any other weapon profile rule, is contingent upon the weapon being used in the described manner.
Which in this case is fired.
Col, what does "at the same time" mean exactly?
If you don't know what "at the same time" means then your argument can not possibly be valid.
The rule for Interceptor is not invoked "at the end of the enemy movement phase".
It is invoked when... " A weapon is fired, at the end of the enemy movement phase".
More continued confusion.
You keep putting the cart before the horse.
How are you even firing an Interceptor weapon "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" if the Interceptor rule is not already 'invoked' to make it so that the weapon "can be fired"?
Insisting that Interceptor is invoked only after firing will prevent Interceptor from ever happening since Interceptor ("can be fired") needs to be present in order for a firing to happen at all. Cart before horse problem.
Remember, there is no permission to fire any weapons "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" outside of the Interceptor rule which must actually be in the process of being resolved to grant any permissions to fire.
By necessity the multiple Interceptor rules resolve "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" to enable the Interceptor weapons to fire.
The decision to fire or not to fire can only be made while an Interceptor rule is in the process of being resolved.
If the player decides not to fire the Interceptor weapon then that particular Interceptor rule will resolve quickly. The end of the enemy movement phase will pass quickly to the beginning of the enemy Shooting phase if that's the only Interceptor rule to resolve.
If the player decides to fire the Interceptor weapon then the shot will then in turn need to be resolved (the hit resolved, any damage resolved, etc.) before the Interceptor rule itself resolves to completion and game play moves to the beginning of the enemy Shooting phase.
Of course as we know, if we have multiple Interceptor rules, all those multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencer rule applies and mandates that the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the multiple Instancer permissions are resolved.
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those permissions are accessed by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the permissions but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those permissions.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
They don't resolve at the same time.
At the end of movement is a condition to fire, not a trigger to fire.
They resolve when fired, there is nothing to sequence.
This isn't chapter tactics or Canticles. This is a rule on a weapon, it is always there, it is STATIC. It doesn't need to trigger.
If a unit gets charged that has two plasma weapons do you get to sequence the Gets Hot rolls for both? No. Because they are resolved within a shooting sequence, just like any other weapon ability.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Units 1,2 and 3 have interceptor.
You finish moving.
All three unit's go " me,me, me, I want to fire"
The shooting sequence only allows us to ever pick one of them at a time.
They can all fire at the same time, just like any other time that unit's can fire.
However the shooting sequence rules prevent them from resolving at the same time.
The need to use sequencing never comes up.
No where, in any of this, was it possible for two of them to resolve a shooting sequence at the same time.
The requirement for "at the same time" occurring and sequencing being required never happened.
Because the shooting sequence forces them to resolve one at a time.
Because these are weapons being fired.
This isn't "argumentum ad populum"by us, this is "argumentum ad Iignorantiam" by you.
You make an untrue claim and then demand people prove you wrong.
Your claim is not credible in the first place.
So is the Sequencing rule concerned with sequencing 'firings' or sequencing rules? Testing your comprehension. I will quote the rule to make it easy for you.
Spoiler:
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
Why thanks for the cut and paste yet again. but you miss the point with that question. Sequencing is not about sequencing rules or sequencing fire, it's about sequencing the resolution of rule when the resolution of the rules would happen at the same time. Since interceptor involves firing the weapon, which means following the shooting process, we have to see what the shooting process is to see if they try to resolve at the same time. Since the shooting process clearly indicates that you do not shoot at the same time, you are not resolving the shots at the same time, which if you are shooting means you are not resolving the Interceptors at the same time. But, thank you for the question, it seems you were the one having an issue with comprehension.
We can nominate any of our units with Interceptor.
You have no rule to allow you to force a specific unit to fire.
You are trying to use sequencing to force a unit to be nominated.
I have never stated that I am forcing a specific unit to fire.
col_impact wrote: the shooting process happens entirely in the context of resolving one of the Interceptor rule permissions. By the time any shooting process happens the order for the multiple Interceptor rule resolutions will have already been determined by the ACTIVE player since everything is attempting to happen "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" and there is no avoiding the application of the Sequencing rule.
You are forcing the order of firing as well as whether or not the unit can fire. If you wish I can go back and dig up quotes from when you claimed we have no permission to combine the shooting sequences all into one shooting sequence (which shows you are not reading what it says for the shooting process). Would you care to retract this statement?
The controlling player is in the process of resolving a single Interceptor rule. That single Interceptor rule is resolved when the controlling player makes his choice to fire OR not to fire. If he chooses to fire then a shooting process will kick off to resolve the Interceptor shooting attack.
Remember, we are resolving rules, not firings, when we are talking about the Sequencing rule. You are confusing the two. We are concerned with multiple Interceptor rules in schedule conflict.
If you are resolving the rule and the unit fires, resolving the firing is included with the rule. You haven't resolved the interceptor rule without the shooting sequence, which includes choose a unit and choose a weapon. These are not done at the same time.
[/quoteAll of the multiple Interceptor rules are competing to be resolved "at the end of the enemy Movement phase". The Sequencing rule applies and cannot be ignored.
These are not resolved at the same time at the end of the enemy Movement phase, however, as the shooting rules make clear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rolsheen wrote: Well it was games night here at the local GW last night and I explained this discussion to the manager and the dozen or so guys there, when they stopped laughing they all agreed that yes it's an out of turn shooting phase (just like overwatch) and sequencing had nothing to do with it.
Did you explain the part where col impact said that since the interceptor rule says it applies to a weapon, that the active player not only gets to determine the order of the units firing interceptor, but gets to dicate the order of each weapon firing in the units themselves?
Rolsheen wrote: Well it was games night here at the local GW last night and I explained this discussion to the manager and the dozen or so guys there, when they stopped laughing they all agreed that yes it's an out of turn shooting phase (just like overwatch) and sequencing had nothing to do with it.
Look up 'argumentum ad populum' and let the thread know what that means.
They just have a collective house rule to treat Interceptor like Overwatch. That's not a bad house rule, but it's a house rule nonetheless.
Look up "unwarranted, unsupported assumptions" and let the thread know what that means. You just have a house rule to treat Interceptor as a rule that is sequenced. I'll leave it to others to judge for themselves if it's a bad house rule.
You claim to prove a lot. Your claims don't hold much water.
You are more than welcome to prove any of my claims wrong. It won't be easy since I back every claim up with a lot of rules. So be prepared to sling rule quotes around!
Again, you have it backwards. You claim you have proven this, but have not shown the proof. You have to prove that there are two rules that would be resolved at the same time in order to be covered by sequencing. So far, you have not proven that one rule counts as two rules, and you have not proven that even if they were two rules you would apply sequencing because you have not proven that they resolve at the same time when there has been evidence and rules quotations provided to indicate that Interceptor fire from multiple units is in fact not resolved at the same time.
You don't understand what 'resolve' a rule means. Resolve means marching through a rule as it comes up and making decisions 'for the record' for the rule that come up. The controlling player is presented with the opportunity to fire by an Interceptor rule and chooses to fire or not to fire. After the player chooses one or the other then the Interceptor rule is resolved.
re·solve
rəˈzälv/
verb
1.
settle or find a solution to (a problem, dispute, or contentious matter).
"the firm aims to resolve problems within 30 days"
synonyms: settle, sort out, solve, find a solution to, fix, straighten out, deal with, put right, put to rights, rectify;
rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
No where that I can find does your definition of "resolve a rule" exist, can you please link to the source for the above quoted definition? Otherwise all you have is a house rule on what it means to resolve a rule.
You don't understand what 'resolve' a rule means. Resolve means marching through a rule as it comes up and making decisions 'for the record' for the rule that come up. The controlling player is presented with the opportunity to fire by an Interceptor rule and chooses to fire or not to fire. After the player chooses one or the other then the Interceptor rule is resolved.
re·solve
rəˈzälv/
verb
1.
settle or find a solution to (a problem, dispute, or contentious matter).
"the firm aims to resolve problems within 30 days"
synonyms: settle, sort out, solve, find a solution to, fix, straighten out, deal with, put right, put to rights, rectify;
rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
No where that I can find does your definition of "resolve a rule" exist, can you please link to the source for the above quoted definition? Otherwise all you have is a house rule on what it means to resolve a rule.
He is also experiencing an inherent problem of "can vs may".
Can a weapon be fired?
I don't know, can it?
Can, is referencing ability.
May a weapon be fired?
Yes it may, no it may not.
May, is referencing permission.
The rule for interceptor does not say "a weapon may fire" it states "a weapon can fire".
It is not asking for permission and you are not given leave to ask about whether it will or will not.
You don't understand what 'resolve' a rule means. Resolve means marching through a rule as it comes up and making decisions 'for the record' for the rule that come up. The controlling player is presented with the opportunity to fire by an Interceptor rule and chooses to fire or not to fire. After the player chooses one or the other then the Interceptor rule is resolved.
re·solve
rəˈzälv/
verb
1.
settle or find a solution to (a problem, dispute, or contentious matter).
"the firm aims to resolve problems within 30 days"
synonyms: settle, sort out, solve, find a solution to, fix, straighten out, deal with, put right, put to rights, rectify;
rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
No where that I can find does your definition of "resolve a rule" exist, can you please link to the source for the above quoted definition? Otherwise all you have is a house rule on what it means to resolve a rule.
He is also experiencing an inherent problem of "can vs may".
Can a weapon be fired?
I don't know, can it?
Can, is referencing ability.
May a weapon be fired?
Yes it may, no it may not.
May, is referencing permission.
The rule for interceptor does not say "a weapon may fire" it states "a weapon can fire".
It is not asking for permission and you are not given leave to ask about whether it will or will not.
My 8yo got this after asking "can I leave the table" a few times, to be told yes, then told no when she went to leave, maybe she could message Col
You claim to prove a lot. Your claims don't hold much water.
You are more than welcome to prove any of my claims wrong. It won't be easy since I back every claim up with a lot of rules. So be prepared to sling rule quotes around!
Have you actually read the rules for the Fight Sub Phase and Piling In?
After you follow those instructions how many units/models are left over?
Nothing is left over. ALL units and ALL models are taken care of by a single application of the one rule.
In order for the Sequencing rule to apply you have show that there are two or more rules competing to be resolved at the same time.
In the case of Pile In the one rule comprehensively handles everything.
Just read the rules in question and if you feel you have something different to say than what I have already said then feel free to prove your case.
We have read the pile in rules. We have also read the rules dealing with in in multiple combats, where it deals with all units making pile in moves. This means each unit is responsible for making pile in moves, which according to you is multiple units trying to use the same rule at the same time. You HAVE to look at the part in Multiple Combats, as the part you reference only deals with one unit from each side of the combat. It does not deal with one side of the combat having two or more units in the combat - the rules you cite do not handle what order the units on the one side move in. According to your claims for Interceptor, in order to be consistent you would have to treat each unit in the multiple combat as having to follow a separate pile in rule, with all the units on one side piling in at the same time. This means, according to your standard, the active player is allowed to dictate the order in which those multiple units on one side make their pile in moves. That you fail to see the inconsistency in how you handle the two is sad.
You don't understand what 'resolve' a rule means. Resolve means marching through a rule as it comes up and making decisions 'for the record' for the rule that come up. The controlling player is presented with the opportunity to fire by an Interceptor rule and chooses to fire or not to fire. After the player chooses one or the other then the Interceptor rule is resolved.
re·solve
rəˈzälv/
verb
1.
settle or find a solution to (a problem, dispute, or contentious matter).
"the firm aims to resolve problems within 30 days"
synonyms: settle, sort out, solve, find a solution to, fix, straighten out, deal with, put right, put to rights, rectify;
rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
No where that I can find does your definition of "resolve a rule" exist, can you please link to the source for the above quoted definition? Otherwise all you have is a house rule on what it means to resolve a rule.
He is also experiencing an inherent problem of "can vs may".
Can a weapon be fired?
I don't know, can it?
Can, is referencing ability.
May a weapon be fired?
Yes it may, no it may not.
May, is referencing permission.
The rule for interceptor does not say "a weapon may fire" it states "a weapon can fire".
It is not asking for permission and you are not given leave to ask about whether it will or will not.
Good catch. Col impact, being such a stickler for the language, should acknowledge the difference between "can" and "may". "Can" certainly puts it out of the purview of what he claims you need to resolve it sequentially. You merely have to say a unit's firing, then follow the shooting procedure.
You don't understand what 'resolve' a rule means. Resolve means marching through a rule as it comes up and making decisions 'for the record' for the rule that come up. The controlling player is presented with the opportunity to fire by an Interceptor rule and chooses to fire or not to fire. After the player chooses one or the other then the Interceptor rule is resolved.
re·solve
rəˈzälv/
verb
1.
settle or find a solution to (a problem, dispute, or contentious matter).
"the firm aims to resolve problems within 30 days"
synonyms: settle, sort out, solve, find a solution to, fix, straighten out, deal with, put right, put to rights, rectify;
rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
No where that I can find does your definition of "resolve a rule" exist, can you please link to the source for the above quoted definition? Otherwise all you have is a house rule on what it means to resolve a rule.
I am fine with the English definitions for 'resolve a rule' you are referencing here. In fact I was implementing them as you can see below.
My definition of 'resolve' is the one supported by the use of 'resolve' in the BRB and by the English dictionary.
Resolving means 'sorting out' what happens with something. In the case of a rule, it means 'sorting out' what happens in the rule, 'seeing [a rule] to its completion', and 'settling' all the things that happen in the rule.
Resolving the Interceptor rule is 'settling' whether or not the Interceptor weapon is going to fire and if it fires does it hit, wound, etc.
If the player opts not to fire then that is a quick trip down decision-making lane. The Interceptor rule is quickly resolved. The player chooses not to use the ability and the opportunity becomes a thing of the past.
If the player opts instead to fire then that kicks off more stuff to resolve. The shot itself then needs to get resolved which involves resolving the hit, resolving the damage, and resolving morale (if applicable) etc.
Resolving means sorting things out to their completion.
I challenge you to find a more appropriate definition than this one for the BRB usage of resolve.
The important thing to recognize here is that the multiple Interceptor rules are all scheduled to be resolved at the same time "at the end of the enemy Movement phase". That means the Sequencing rule necessarily dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor rules are resolved since they all happen at the same time "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
"Sorting out" means all the shooting has to be "sorted out" in order to resolve the rules too; with the shooting rules indicating that the shooting does not happen at the same time, then they are not resolved at the same time. "Can shoot" vs. "May shoot" also means that you are not resolving Interceptor at the same time, the "can" means they already have permission and you are not seeking permission at the same time. You are saying which ones with Interceptor are firing, and that is governed by the already existing rules for the shooting process, which does not resolve the shots from separate units at the same time. So, even going by your definition of "resolve" you have failed to meet the criteria needed to use sequencing.
He is also experiencing an inherent problem of "can vs may".
Can a weapon be fired?
I don't know, can it?
Can, is referencing ability.
May a weapon be fired?
Yes it may, no it may not.
May, is referencing permission.
The rule for interceptor does not say "a weapon may fire" it states "a weapon can fire".
It is not asking for permission and you are not given leave to ask about whether it will or will not.
You are presenting a false issue here.
Can means "be able to", "have the opportunity or possibility to", "be permitted to", etc.
The controlling player only has the ability or permission to fire "at the end of the enemy Movement phase". Prior to that time, no permission or ability to fire in the rules. After that time, no permission or ability to fire in the rules.
All of the multiple Interceptor rules are trying to resolve the "can be fired" ability at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase"). The multiple Interceptor rules cannot be sorted out to happen at the same time. The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the rules resolve.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doctortom wrote: "Sorting out" means all the shooting has to be "sorted out" in order to resolve the rules too; with the shooting rules indicating that the shooting does not happen at the same time, then they are not resolved at the same time. "Can shoot" vs. "May shoot" also means that you are not resolving Interceptor at the same time, the "can" means they already have permission and you are not seeking permission at the same time. You are saying which ones with Interceptor are firing, and that is governed by the already existing rules for the shooting process, which does not resolve the shots from separate units at the same time. So, even going by your definition of "resolve" you have failed to meet the criteria needed to use sequencing.
Incorrect. The multiple Interceptor rules are all trying to resolve at the same time "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
"At the end of the enemy Movement phase" isn't a duration of time (ie it isn't a phase). It's a moment in time between the enemy Movement phase (which is a duration) and the enemy Shooting phase (which is a duration).
The multiple Interceptor rules are all hammering the exact same moment in time.
Even the encapsulated shooting processes that get kicked off when a shot is fired are all scheduled to happen "at THE end of the enemy Movement phase" and so are also hammering the exact same moment in time. "At THE end of" is one moment in time, not a stretch of time.
The Sequencing rule applies to dictate an order to what otherwise would be multiple rule resolution scheduled for the exact same moment in time. That order is dictated by the ACTIVE player.
Incorrect. The multiple Interceptor rules are all trying to resolve at the same time "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
"At the end of the enemy Movement phase" isn't a duration of time (ie it isn't a phase). It's a moment in time between the enemy Movement phase (which is a duration) and the enemy Shooting phase (which is a duration).
The multiple Interceptor rules are all hammering the exact same moment in time.
Even the encapsulated shooting processes that get kicked off when a shot is fired are all scheduled to happen "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" and are also hammering the exact same moment in time.
The Sequencing rule applies to dictate an order to what otherwise would be multiple rule resolution scheduled for the exact same moment in time. That order is dictated by the ACTIVE player.
Incorrect. "at the end of the movement phase is not merely one moment in time in which everything happens - it is able to encompass actions happening at different points for actions that are defined such that they can not happen at the same time as similar actions - firing weapons in particular. - obviously, since the shooting rules do not let you resolve shooting for different units or different weapons within the same unit at the same time. They are not "hammering the exact same moment in time". The multiple interceptor rules already give permission to fire, no permission needed, so in order to resolve Interceptor you resolve firing the weapons - which follows the shooting process as outlined in the shooting sequence. Since there is already a sequence established and they don't happen at the same time, Sequencing does not apply. Interceptor does not contain any special rules to indicate that sequencing would come into play, which would be needed to ignore the standard rules for the shooting process. Your argument here has absolutely no validity.
And, you still have to get back where the rules state where applying one rule with different units (or different weapons) counts as multiple rules. We haven't forgotten that you're ignoring that.
Incorrect. "at the end of the movement phase is not merely one moment in time in which everything happens - it is able to encompass actions happening at different points for actions that are defined such that they can not happen at the same time as similar actions - firing weapons in particular. - obviously, since the shooting rules do not let you resolve shooting for different units or different weapons within the same unit at the same time. They are not "hammering the exact same moment in time". The multiple interceptor rules already give permission to fire, no permission needed, so in order to resolve Interceptor you resolve firing the weapons - which follows the shooting process as outlined in the shooting sequence. Since there is already a sequence established and they don't happen at the same time, Sequencing does not apply. Interceptor does not contain any special rules to indicate that sequencing would come into play, which would be needed to ignore the standard rules for the shooting process. Your argument here has absolutely no validity..
"At the end of the enemy movement phase" is a distinct point in time. It's not a duration. There is no 'beginning of the "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"' and there is no 'middle of the "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"' and there is no 'end of the "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"'
"At the end of the enemy movement phase" is a distinct point in time. It's not a duration. "At THE end" is a point in time.
All of the multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the exact same point in time ("at THE end"). Even any shooting process is trying to resolve everything at the exact same ("at THE end"). The Sequencing rule necessarily applies as you cannot have multiple rules to be resolved at the same time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Can, is not asking for permission.
Once the active player finishes moving, they are permitted to fire. No asking is involved.
May, is asking for permission.
May, requires permission to be expressed.
The rule does not say "may fire" it states "can fire".
"At the end of the movement phase" is when they CAN fire, not when the firing resolves.
Each firing resolves independently, you have not demonstrated them resolving at the same time.
All of the rules are trying to resolve "at THE end of the enemy Movement phase" which is a distinct point in time. The multiple rules are literally hammering each other to happen at THE end of the enemy Movement phase.
Ceann wrote: No, they are not "literally" hammering each other.
You have multiple interceptor rules line up to resolve.
There is a tunnel, the entrance is "unresolved" rules.
In the middle is "resolving" rules.
At the end is "resolved" rules.
The tunnel named for "shooting sequences" had a width that only allows ONE to pass at a time.
Try as they might, TWO cannot pass through at once, it is impossible.
The only way two of them "resolve at the same time" is if the tunnel had a width that would allow TWO through.
At the end of the movement phase is WHEN a WEAPON can fire. They are allowed to fire AT THE SAME TIME.
But only ONE can resolve at a time.
Your fake argument is done.
You have admitted (highlighted in red and orange above) that all of the multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the exact same moment in time ("at THE end of of the enemy movement phase").
Spoiler:
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
The Sequencing rule applies when multiple rules are to be resolved at the exact same moment in time.
The Sequencing rule mandates that the ACTIVE player orders the multiple rule resolutions.
Your argument right now is that you don't have to follow the rules in the BRB. The Sequencing rule is in the BRB and applies in this case. You have admitted to the conditions required for its application (highlighted in orange and red in your response and in the Sequencing rule above) and you are willingly refusing to apply the correction prescribed by the Sequencing rule (highlighted in yellow). You are houseruling that you get to ignore the Sequencing rule.
My argument follows the rules as they are. The Sequencing rule is applied since, as you yourself note, all of the multiple Interceptor rules are due to be resolved at the same time.
I have admitted nothing.
Being given permission to take an action at the same time.
Is not the same as RESOLVING at the same time.
All units are given permission to perform moving, shooting and assaults at the exact same time every single turn. There is no need to sequence them because they can only resolve one at a time.
" you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time"
This is your issue.
You THINK they resolve at the same time and cannot demonstrate HOW they resolve at the same time.
I have admitted nothing.
Being given permission to take an action at the same time.
Is not the same as RESOLVING at the same time.
All units are given permission to perform moving, shooting and assaults at the exact same time every single turn. There is no need to sequence them because they can only resolve one at a time.
The movement phase is a phase. The phase is a division of a turn. A phase is a duration of time, not a point in time. The end of a movement phase is a point in time. The end of a stretch of time is always after the last thing that occurred in the phase.
Multiple things scheduled to happen during the Shooting phase is not going to cause hammering since a phase is a duration of time.
Multiple things scheduled to happen "at THE end of the enemy Movement phase" is going to cause hammering since THE end is a point in time. The Sequencing rule itself provides an example "at the start of the Movement phase" which is just as much a single point in time as "the end of the enemy Movement phase".
Ceann wrote: " you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time"
This is your issue.
You THINK they resolve at the same time and cannot demonstrate HOW they resolve at the same time.
Incorrect. The rules are clear that all the multiple Interceptor rules here are hammering the exact same moment in time.
If unit A fires an Interceptor weapon, when does that happen? At THE end of the enemy Movement phase.
If unit B fires an Interceptor weapon, when does that happen? At THE end of the enemy Movement phase.
If unit C decides to not fire an Interceptor weapon, when does that happen? At THE end of the enemy Movement phase.
You are unable to show anything resolving at any moment in time other than "at THE end of the enemy Movement phase".
When you have multiple rules to be resolved at the same time, then the Sequencing rule applies. Per the Sequencing rule, The ACTIVE player dictates the order of their resolution.
There is no "exact moment" for shooting sequences.
There is no rule for "exact moment".
Stop making things up.
The exact reason you go on, and on, and on, and on, about "at the end of the movement" is because you cannot demonstrate how they resolve at the same time.
Your argument is invalid and has been the entire time.
You should thank all of these people for humoring you.
Movement Player 1 in control
Interceptor Player 2 in control ( Out of turn shooting phase )
Psychic Player 1 in control
Shooting Player 1 in control
Charging Player 1 in control
Overwatch Player 2 in control ( Out of turn shooting phase )
Assault Player 1 in control
Is this really that hard to understand?
No rule conflicts, no sequencing problems, no house rules.
There is no "exact moment" for shooting sequences.
There is no rule for "exact moment".
Stop making things up.
The exact reason you go on, and on, and on, and on, about "at the end of the movement" is because you cannot demonstrate how they resolve at the same time.
Your argument is invalid and has been the entire time.
You should thank all of these people for humoring you.
Uh no.
All of the multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the same time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"). "At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is a moment in time similar to "at the start of the Movement phase" so the Sequencing rule itself recognizes that we are talking about the same time.
The Sequencing rule applies . . .
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
The burden of proof is on you to show how those multiple Interceptor rules are somehow resolving at different times when they are all being specifically resolved at the exact same time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase").
Good luck with that. The language of the Interceptor rule requires the resolution to happen at the exact moment at THE END of the enemy Movement phase.
Multiple Interceptor rules necessarily cause the Sequencing rule to apply.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rolsheen wrote: Movement Player 1 in control
Interceptor Player 2 in control ( Out of turn shooting phase )
Psychic Player 1 in control
Shooting Player 1 in control
Charging Player 1 in control
Overwatch Player 2 in control ( Out of turn shooting phase )
Assault Player 1 in control
Is this really that hard to understand?
No rule conflicts, no sequencing problems, no house rules.
Overwatch has permission to have an out of turn shooting phase.
Spoiler:
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Spoiler:
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
Interceptor does not.
If you treat Interceptor like Overwatch by giving Interceptor permissions that it does not have then you are house ruling. I imagine its a popular house rule to treat Interceptor like Overwatch and many people probably don't recognize that they are house ruling, but it is indeed a house rule.
This is your argumentum ad ignorantiam, "prove me wrong" with no evidence that you are correct.
You are the one that wants to use sequencing rule, not us.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate HOW you resolve two iterations of the rule at once.
You haven't demonstrated how two shooting attacks resolve at the same time. You cannot demonstrate this which is why you explain it away, because you are incapable. You haven't been proven right in the first place.
The classic "Col" move to shift the burden of proof that you NEVER provide.
The shooting sequence prevents simultaneous resolution.
Ceann wrote: This is your argumentum ad ignorantiam, "prove me wrong" with no evidence that you are correct.
You are the one that wants to use sequencing rule, not us.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate HOW you resolve two iterations of the rule at once.
You haven't demonstrated how two shooting attacks resolve at the same time. You cannot demonstrate this which is why you explain it away, because you are incapable. You haven't been proven right in the first place.
The shooting sequence prevents simultaneous resolution.
You have failed to show the multiple Interceptor rules resolving at any time other than the exact same time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase")
I don't have a choice but to apply the Sequencing rule. The language of the Sequencing rule makes it unequivocally clear that the rule applies in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.
If you can show somehow that an Interceptor rule resolves at some other time than this exact time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") then you would have an argument.
But at present you have no argument.
In order to avoid using the Sequencing rule I need to have the multiple Interceptor rules resolving at times different than the same time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase").
So please tell me what those different moments in time are. I am open to any serious answers you have to offer.
You have not demonstrated HOW (as a process) they resolve at the same time.
Until you can demonstrate resolution, you aren't permitted to use sequencing.
The burden of proof belongs to you, stop handing it off.
You have not demonstrated HOW (as a process) they resolve at the same time.
Until you can demonstrate resolution, you aren't permitted to use sequencing.
The burden of proof belongs to you, stop handing it off.
All of the multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the same time "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
We know this by simple reading of the Interceptor rule itself.
Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Interceptor cannot be resolved at any time except for "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Therefore multiple Interceptor rules will hammer each other to resolve at the exact same time.
Therefore the Sequencing rule applies.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
Multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the same time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"). The Sequencing rule identifies "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as SIMILAR to 'at THE START of the Movement phase'. I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
If you think otherwise then show how the Interceptor rule is to be resolved at some time other than 'at THE END of the enemy Movement phase'.
The rules do not care if things happen at the same time.
They care if the RESOLVE at the same time.
The shooting sequence provides a method to resolve the rules one at time. You have yet to demonstrate them resolving at the same time.
By your thinking.
1. Interceptor B
2. Interceptor A
3. Interceptor C
Without sequencing...
1. Interceptor A
2. Interceptor B
3. Interceptor C
The ONLY THING you are changing IS THE ORDER.
They CANNOT resolve at the same time.
Celestine revival...
At the start of your next turn, place Saint Celestine back on the battlefield
Canticle of the Omnissiah...
At the start of each of your turns, you can choose one Canticle of the Omnissiah from the
list below.
These attempt to resolve "at the same time".
Interceptor does not, because the shooting sequence forces singular resolutions.
Incorrect. The multiple Interceptor rules are all resolving AT THE SAME TIME.
The same time in this case is "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
If the player fire an Interceptor shot, the rule resolves "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"
If the player passes on firing an Interceptor shot the rule resolves "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
No matter what, multiple Interceptor rules will hammer on top of each other to resolve AT THE SAME TIME.
Therefore the Sequencing rule applies.
I don't have a choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
No one has been able to successfully show an Interceptor rule resolving at any time except for the exact moment described as "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"
Overwatch has permission to have an out of turn shooting phase.
Interceptor does not.
If you treat Interceptor like Overwatch by giving Interceptor permissions that it does not have then you are house ruling. I imagine its a popular house rule to treat Interceptor like Overwatch and many people probably don't recognize that they are house ruling, but it is indeed a house rule.
Point to the rule that shows Interceptor is not anything to do with shooting.
It's not a house rule, I know this because I only play in GW stores and they don't house rule their own rules.
Overwatch has permission to have an out of turn shooting phase.
Interceptor does not.
If you treat Interceptor like Overwatch by giving Interceptor permissions that it does not have then you are house ruling. I imagine its a popular house rule to treat Interceptor like Overwatch and many people probably don't recognize that they are house ruling, but it is indeed a house rule.
Point to the rule that shows Interceptor is not anything to do with shooting.
It's not a house rule, I know this because I only play in GW stores and they don't house rule their own rules.
I have never made the claim that Interceptor has not anything to do with shooting.
I have successfully pointed out that all the multiple Interceptor rules are hammering each other to be resolved AT THE SAME whether their rule resolution involves shooting or not.
Overwatch has permission to have an out of turn shooting phase.
Interceptor does not.
If you treat Interceptor like Overwatch by giving Interceptor permissions that it does not have then you are house ruling. I imagine its a popular house rule to treat Interceptor like Overwatch and many people probably don't recognize that they are house ruling, but it is indeed a house rule.
Point to the rule that shows Interceptor is not anything to do with shooting.
It's not a house rule, I know this because I only play in GW stores and they don't house rule their own rules.
I have never made the claim that Interceptor has not anything to do with shooting.
I have successfully pointed out that all the multiple Interceptor rules are hammering each other to be resolved AT THE SAME whether their rule resolution involves shooting or not.
Still Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
"at the end" is never described anyway as an "exact moment"
There is no rule called "exact moment".
You are making things up for your argument.
Then asking to be proved wrong.
You have not demonstrated simultaneous resolution.
All of the firing is queued at the end of the movement phase.
The resolutions are not performed at the same time.
Your enacting of sequencing only changes the order, it doesn't resolve any conflicts of "at the same time".
"at the end" is never described anyway as an "exact moment"
There is no rule called "exact moment".
You are making things up for your argument.
Then asking to be proved wrong.
You have not demonstrated simultaneous resolution.
All of the firing is queued at the end of the movement phase.
The resolutions are not performed at the same time.
Your enacting of sequencing only changes the order, it doesn't resolve any conflicts of "at the same time".
The Sequencing rule proves me right.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
We know by looking at the Sequencing rule that multiple rules scheduled to resolve "At THE START of the Movement phase" will demand the application of the Sequencing rule.
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is similar to "At THE START of the Movement phase" and the Sequencing rule explicitly tells us to apply the same logic to something "similar".
Note the uses of "THE END" or "THE START" to indicate a precise point in time.
All of the multiple Interceptor rules, whether the player chooses to fire or not, are to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME.
I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
No one has been able to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Your ignoring of the Sequencing rule is a house rule.
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those permissions are accessed by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the permissions but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those permissions.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
"at the end" is never described anyway as an "exact moment"
There is no rule called "exact moment".
You are making things up for your argument.
Then asking to be proved wrong.
You have not demonstrated simultaneous resolution.
All of the firing is queued at the end of the movement phase.
The resolutions are not performed at the same time.
Your enacting of sequencing only changes the order, it doesn't resolve any conflicts of "at the same time".
The Sequencing rule proves me right.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is similar to "At THE START of the Movement phase".
Note the uses of "THE END" or "THE START" to indicate a precise point in time.
All of the multiple Interceptor rules, whether the player chooses to fire or not, are to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME.
I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
No one has been able to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Your ignoring of the Sequencing rule is a house rule.
Still Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
You have not shown us a rule that states "at the end" is a singular moment in a game of 40k.
You make things up and then demand to be proved wrong.
The shooting sequence is policing the resolution of the rule.
There is no conflict because two cannot be resolved at once.
You're proved you understand the sequencing rule.
You haven't proved what that has to do with Interceptor.
Your ignoring the fact GW don't house rule their own rules.
Still Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
You have not shown us a rule that states "at the end" is a singular moment in a game of 40k.
You make things up and then demand to be proved wrong.
The shooting sequence is policing the resolution of the rule.
There is no conflict because two cannot be resolved at once.
The Sequencing rule explicitly calls out "at THE START of the Movement phase" as a singular moment in the game of 40k.
The Sequencing rule also explicitly allows us to treat similar time statements as singular moments.
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is a similar time statement to "At THE START of the Movement phase".
Ceann, the Sequencing rule directly defeats your argument.
We have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
If you ignore the Sequencing rule then you are houseruling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rolsheen wrote: You're proved you understand the sequencing rule.
You haven't proved what that has to do with Interceptor.
Your ignoring the fact GW don't house rule their own rules.
Are you able to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"?
If you cannot, then you must apply the Sequencing rule in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.
Ceann wrote: Are you able to show any rule resolving at any other time than "during a game of warhammer"?
Then all rules are resolving at the same time right? Because playing a game is at the same time.
Sarcasm aside.
It states "normally" normally is not, ALWAYS.
It also states that "when the wording is not explicit"
A shooting sequence is explicit.
Nominate a unit.
A UNIT, ONE UNIT.
One unit not equal two unit.
Two unit for same time.
One no same time happen.
You read the words of the rules you like and ignore the rest.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam et infinitum.
You are still confused.
You keep pointing to the shooting sequence rules but fail to see that any shooting involved in the resolution of the multiple Interceptor rules will still be resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
All of the multiple Interceptor rules are hammering one another and trying to resolve AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule directly endorses "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a singular moment in time, since "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which is explicitly identified as a singular moment in time.
Time statements such as "during the Shooting phase" (or "during a Game of Warhammer") do not describe singular moments in time. The shooting phase (or a game of Warhammer) is a duration or stretch or period of time, not a singular moment in time, such as "THE START" or "THE END" of a phase.
Are you able to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"?
If you cannot, then you must apply the Sequencing rule in the case of multiple Interceptor rules that are resolving AT THE SAME TIME.
Failure to apply the Sequencing rule in this case is houseruling.
Your picture means nothing.
You can't even remember that there is a psychic phase after movement.
What you are failing to understand is that the weapons fire at the same time, they all fire "at the end of the movement phase".
But are not resolved at the same time.
Firing is already sequenced by the shooting sequence.
Resolving rules is separate from when they occur.
Celestine revival...
At the start of your next turn, place Saint Celestine back on the battlefield
Canticle of the Omnissiah...
At the start of each of your turns, you can choose one Canticle of the Omnissiah from the
list below.
These attempt to resolve "at the same time", because when they resolve is not explicit.
They still HAPPEN at the same time. The order they resolve in needs to be established.
Interceptor does not, because the shooting sequence IS explicit and prevents two from resolving at the same time.
Ceann wrote: Your picture means nothing.
You can't even remember that there is a psychic phase after movement.
What you are failing to understand is that the weapons fire at the same time, they all fire "at the end of the movement phase".
But are not resolved at the same time.
Firing is already sequenced by the shooting sequence.
Resolving rules is separate from when they occur.
Shooting normally occurs in the context of phases which are durations of time. When shooting happens during the Shooting phase according to the shooting sequence then there is no hammering.
The multiple Interceptor rules however are all trying to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule recognizes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a singular moment in time.
Ceann wrote: What you are failing to understand is that the weapons fire at the same time, they all fire "at the end of the movement phase".
But are not resolved at the same time.
Nonsense. The Interceptor rules are all resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time (as proven by the Sequencer rules).
If you have some other time in mind that is other than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" for when the multiple Interceptor rules are supposedly resolving then by all means tell us what you think that time is!
I have pressed you several times and so far you have been unable to show any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Since you or anyone else has been completely unable to demonstrate the multiple Interceptor rules as resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" then we have no choice but to conclude that the multiple Interceptor rules are trying to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME.
Therefore the Sequencing rule applies.
Therefore anyone how ignores the Sequencing rule in this case is violating the rules and must be houseruling.
Before you post your next response I want to make sure you respond to this . . .
If you have some other time in mind that is other than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" for when the multiple Interceptor rules are supposedly resolving then by all means tell us what you think that time is!
Your continued failure to address this proves my argument as correct.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order.
What part about a shooting sequence is not explicit to you?
Looks pretty explicit to me.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models
equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the
target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one
visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in
range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines
what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the
target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing
weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing
unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target
unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has
one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed
as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to
allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
Interceptor is a out of turn shooting phase following the rules for shooting i.e. pick one unit, shoot with it, pick next unit, shoot with it, rinse and repeat.
No rules conflict, no sequencing.
This is not a house rule.
Ceann wrote: When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order.
What part about a shooting sequence is not explicit to you?
Looks pretty explicit to me.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models
equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the
target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one
visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in
range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines
what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the
target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing
weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing
unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target
unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has
one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed
as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to
allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
If you have some other time in mind that is other than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" for when the multiple Interceptor rules are supposedly resolving then by all means tell us what you think that time is!
Are you able to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"?
Your continued failure to address this proves my argument as correct.
If you cannot show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase", then you must apply the Sequencing rule in the case of multiple Interceptor rules that are resolving AT THE SAME TIME.
Failure to apply the Sequencing rule in this case is houseruling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rolsheen wrote: Interceptor is a out of turn shooting phase following the rules for shooting i.e. pick one unit, shoot with it, pick next unit, shoot with it, rinse and repeat.
No rules conflict, no sequencing.
This is not a house rule.
Where is Interceptor given permission to have an 'out of turn Shooting phase'?
Find a page reference that supports this assumption or admit it's just a house rule on your part.
Ceann wrote: Read all of the Sequencing rule. You only apply it when the order of resolution is not made explicit.
The shooting sequence makes it explicit.
What do you not understand?
In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Are you able to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"?
Ceann wrote: I don't have too. Sequencing is only applied when the order is not made explicit. Which it is, by the shooting sequence.
Explicitly negates sequencing.
You only get to choose an order if the order isn't explicit.
Which it is.
Multiple Interceptor rules are competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME and it is not explicit which is resolved first.
Remember, this is not a Shooting phase. You only have permission to do a shooting attack while you are resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules that are being scheduled AT THE SAME TIME. By the time you are working through the shooting sequence the Sequencing rule will already have dictated the order of the multiple Interceptor rules that are trying to schedule "a weapon""can be fired""at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
So again . . .
In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Are you able to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"?
If you cannot show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" then the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
If you choose to ignore the Sequencing rule in this case then you are houseruling.
Rolsheen wrote: Interceptor is a out of turn shooting phase following the rules for shooting i.e. pick one unit, shoot with it, pick next unit, shoot with it, rinse and repeat.
No rules conflict, no sequencing.
This is not a house rule.
Not quite a Shooting Phase, but a Shooting Sequence or shooting process, you betcha. It's not like you can Run with Interceptor or Overwatch, after all.
The shooting sequence make it explicit. In order to determine if any rule would have a resolution conflict you would have to read them. Prior to resolving one there are no rules to be resolved.
Can vs may, we are not asking for permission to fire.
There is no conflict.
Rolsheen wrote: Interceptor is a out of turn shooting phase following the rules for shooting i.e. pick one unit, shoot with it, pick next unit, shoot with it, rinse and repeat.
No rules conflict, no sequencing.
This is not a house rule.
Not quite a Shooting Phase, but a Shooting Sequence or shooting process, you betcha. It's not like you can Run with Interceptor or Overwatch, after all.
Right. So since its not a Shooting Phase then all the multiple Interceptor rules are hammering each other by trying to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Therefore, the Sequencing rule applies.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
Rolsheen wrote: Interceptor is a out of turn shooting phase following the rules for shooting i.e. pick one unit, shoot with it, pick next unit, shoot with it, rinse and repeat.
No rules conflict, no sequencing.
This is not a house rule.
Not quite a Shooting Phase, but a Shooting Sequence or shooting process, you betcha. It's not like you can Run with Interceptor or Overwatch, after all.
Right. So since its not a Shooting Phase then all the multiple Interceptor rules are hammering each other by trying to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Therefore, the Sequencing rule applies.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
When this happens and the wording is not explicit...
A shooting sequence is explicit. So anything about at the same time is ignored.
Ceann wrote: The shooting sequence make it explicit. In order to determine if any rule would have a resolution conflict you would have to read them. Prior to resolving one there are no rules to be resolved.
Can vs may, we are not asking for permission to fire.
There is no conflict.
Got it. You have been unable to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any time other than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Therefore all the multiple Interceptor rules are trying to resolve AT THE SAME TIME and the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
And if you choose to ignore the Sequencing rule then you are house ruling.
Rolsheen wrote: Interceptor is a out of turn shooting phase following the rules for shooting i.e. pick one unit, shoot with it, pick next unit, shoot with it, rinse and repeat.
No rules conflict, no sequencing.
This is not a house rule.
Not quite a Shooting Phase, but a Shooting Sequence or shooting process, you betcha. It's not like you can Run with Interceptor or Overwatch, after all.
Right. So since its not a Shooting Phase then all the multiple Interceptor rules are hammering each other by trying to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Therefore, the Sequencing rule applies.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
When this happens and the wording is not explicit...
Where do you see a rule that explicitly organizes multiple Interceptor rules that are competing to resolve "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"??
Ceann wrote: The shooting sequence make it explicit. In order to determine if any rule would have a resolution conflict you would have to read them. Prior to resolving one there are no rules to be resolved.
Can vs may, we are not asking for permission to fire.
There is no conflict.
Got it. You have been unable to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any time other than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Therefore all the multiple Interceptor rules are trying to resolve AT THE SAME TIME and the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
And if you choose to ignore the Sequencing rule then you are house ruling.
I am not ignoring anything. They can occur at the same time as long as the order for resolution is explicit.
If it is not explicit then they must be sequenced.
You have for pages and pages failed to demonstrate how a shooting sequence is not explicit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Go read the shooting sequence, nominate a unit, pick a weapon, we now know which one is resolved first.
Ceann wrote: The shooting sequence make it explicit. In order to determine if any rule would have a resolution conflict you would have to read them. Prior to resolving one there are no rules to be resolved.
Can vs may, we are not asking for permission to fire.
There is no conflict.
Got it. You have been unable to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any time other than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Therefore all the multiple Interceptor rules are trying to resolve AT THE SAME TIME and the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
And if you choose to ignore the Sequencing rule then you are house ruling.
I am not ignoring anything. They can occur at the same time as long as the order for resolution is explicit.
If it is not explicit then they must be sequenced.
You have for pages and pages failed to demonstrate how a shooting sequence is not explicit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Go read the shooting sequence, nominate a unit, pick a weapon, we now know which one is resolved first.
Not rocket science.
We have gone over this repeatedly before. You keep naively thrusting a Shooting Sequence forward as an answer when it doesn't solve anything for you.
This isn't the Shooting phase. How are you even doing a shooting sequence?
The shooting sequence does not happen naturally at the end of the enemy Movement phase.
So the shooting sequence is contingent upon the controller being in the process of resolving an Interceptor rule. Only in the context of an Interceptor rule being resolved does the controlling player have a shooting attack to run through the shooting sequence.
The shooting sequence happens entirely in the context of resolving one of the Interceptor rules.
By the time any shooting sequence happens the order for the multiple Interceptor rule resolutions will have already been determined by the ACTIVE player since everything is attempting to happen "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" and there is no avoiding the application of the Sequencing rule.
My challenge to you is to provide a complete step by step counter argument. You keep saying that the shooting sequence allows you to avoid rule scheduling conflicts but have yet to show a worked out proposal.
This is how it works out . . .
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs. The opportunity to fire or not to fire is occurring "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced. The Sequencing rule applies and cannot be ignored.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor rules so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor rules.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those rules are resolved by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That rule must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor rule since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the order of rule resolution but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those rule resolutions.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
@Col_Impact we told you several times but you still refuse to ignore it
Intercept it's not an special rule that forces you to do something when it's triggered it's just a rule granting a permission to do something in a specific time. Intercept works the same way as Open topped or Assault Vehicles it's grant an specific permision to do something and the rule resolves itself BY GRANTING the permission not resolving such permission.
So we don't care if we have 1 or 500 intercept weapons, the rule simply grant a specific permission to fire at the end of the enemy movement phase, so when such time happens it's when we must resolve those firing as a shooting sequence.
Your way of thinking bend rules situations in such way it allows me to claim the special rule open-topped or Assault vehicle isn't resolved until i charge with the unit, thus the special rule happening at same time as Overwatch allowing me to claim those rules need sequencing.
Either way feel free to ignore me or respond with another of your verbatim My statement, my justification. We all know this thread will be locked down due some people not being able to engage in a decent discussion providing examples to their arguments.
In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Where does it say that it's a singular moment in time and all the Interceptor shots happen in that moment? There is no time limit, THE END of the enemy Movement phase can be as long as you want.
Ceann wrote: The shooting sequence make it explicit. In order to determine if any rule would have a resolution conflict you would have to read them. Prior to resolving one there are no rules to be resolved.
Can vs may, we are not asking for permission to fire.
There is no conflict.
Got it. You have been unable to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any time other than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Therefore all the multiple Interceptor rules are trying to resolve AT THE SAME TIME and the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
And if you choose to ignore the Sequencing rule then you are house ruling.
I am not ignoring anything. They can occur at the same time as long as the order for resolution is explicit.
If it is not explicit then they must be sequenced.
You have for pages and pages failed to demonstrate how a shooting sequence is not explicit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Go read the shooting sequence, nominate a unit, pick a weapon, we now know which one is resolved first.
Not rocket science.
We have gone over this repeatedly before. You keep naively thrusting a Shooting Sequence forward as an answer when it doesn't solve anything for you.
This isn't the Shooting phase. How are you even doing a shooting sequence?
The shooting sequence does not happen naturally at the end of the enemy Movement phase.
So the shooting sequence is contingent upon the controller being in the process of resolving an Interceptor rule. Only in the context of an Interceptor rule being resolved does the controlling player have a shooting attack to run through the shooting sequence.
The shooting sequence happens entirely in the context of resolving one of the Interceptor rules.
By the time any shooting sequence happens the order for the multiple Interceptor rule resolutions will have already been determined by the ACTIVE player since everything is attempting to happen "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" and there is no avoiding the application of the Sequencing rule.
My challenge to you is to provide a complete step by step counter argument. You keep saying that the shooting sequence allows you to avoid rule scheduling conflicts but have yet to show a worked out proposal.
This is how it works out . . .
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs. The opportunity to fire or not to fire is occurring "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced. The Sequencing rule applies and cannot be ignored.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor rules so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor rules.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those rules are resolved by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That rule must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor rule since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the order of rule resolution but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those rule resolutions.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
Unwarranted Assertions by Col. all with no rules support.
1. That interceptor is a choice of whether to fire or not based on sequencing.
2. That the sequencing rule has a unique permission to interrupt another rule in progress.
3. That a shooting sequence is not explicit.
4. That there is a special "a moment in time" rule.
Still Argumentum ad ignorantiam Col, you make a bunch of claims with no evidence and then demand to be proved wrong.
Your only defense is to keep trying to shift the burden of proof away from your flimsy argument that you cannot defend.
Your entire argument is predicated upon your premise that you are allowed to sequence.
The only question that needs to be answered here is...
Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not? Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not? Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not?
If they are explicit then you haven't met the qualifications to sequence and are doing so without cause.
col_impact wrote: In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Where does it say that it's a singular moment in time and all the Interceptor shots happen in that moment? There is no time limit, THE END of the enemy Movement phase can be as long as you want.
He is partially correct. Interceptor does coincide with the timing of any Morale Checks caused by Dangerous Terrain failures, for example.
Where his failure is in why we need to recognize multiple calls of Interceptor as multiple rules.
In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Where does it say that it's a singular moment in time and all the Interceptor shots happen in that moment? There is no time limit, THE END of the enemy Movement phase can be as long as you want.
The rule explicitly recognizes "at THE START of the Movement phase" as a singular moment in time and "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally similar.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
The Sequencer rule itself recognizes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a singular moment in time.
col_impact wrote: In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Where does it say that it's a singular moment in time and all the Interceptor shots happen in that moment? There is no time limit, THE END of the enemy Movement phase can be as long as you want.
He is partially correct. Interceptor does coincide with the timing of any Morale Checks caused by Dangerous Terrain failures, for example.
Where his failure is in why we need to recognize multiple calls of Interceptor as multiple rules.
A single Interceptor rule resolving only gives "a weapon" the permission to fire. Unless there are multiple Interceptor rules to resolve you aren't getting multiple Interceptor shots fired.
Spoiler:
There are two or more Interceptor rules in the case we are debating. The Sequencing rule applies. It doesn't care if the multiple rules are worded the same, only that there are multiple rules scheduled to resolve at the same time.
We know that they are multiple because there are multiple Interceptor shots to be potentially made and a single Interceptor rule only provides permission for a single shot.
Read the Interceptor rule. It only allows one firing. So you need to have 2 Interceptor rules being resolved to allow for 2 firings, and so on.
It's the case of two or more Interceptor rules to resolve that we are dealing with here. The Sequencing rule dictate that the ACTIVE player sequences those rule resolutions.
Unwarranted Assertions by Col. all with no rules support.
1. That interceptor is a choice of whether to fire or not based on sequencing.
2. That the sequencing rule has a unique permission to interrupt another rule in progress.
3. That a shooting sequence is not explicit.
4. That there is a special "a moment in time" rule.
Still Argumentum ad ignorantiam Col, you make a bunch of claims with no evidence and then demand to be proved wrong.
Your only defense is to keep trying to shift the burden of proof away from your flimsy argument that you cannot defend.
Your entire argument is predicated upon your premise that you are allowed to sequence.
The only question that needs to be answered here is...
Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not? Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not? Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not?
If they are explicit then you haven't met the qualifications to sequence and are doing so without cause.
I don't think you know what explicit means.
explicit - "1.stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt."
Several things are not clear or worked out in detail, Ceann.
1) It is not clear how you are even using the Shooting Sequence rules since it's not a Shooting phase and no rule is granting any model any permission to shoot.
2) Also, where do you see a rule that explicitly organizes multiple Interceptor rules that are competing to resolve "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"?
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
3) Also, you have yet to show a complete counter proposal working it out in detail what you are doing.
I have done so for my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
So my proposed solution is explicitly worked out in every detail and is fully validated by the rules.
Where is your counter proposal?
Remember - the shooting sequence does not happen naturally at the end of the enemy Movement phase.
So the shooting sequence is contingent upon the controller being in the process of resolving an Interceptor rule. Only in the context of an Interceptor rule being resolved does the controlling player have a shooting attack to run through the shooting sequence.
The shooting sequence happens entirely in the context of resolving one of the Interceptor rules.
By the time any shooting sequence happens the order for the multiple Interceptor rule resolutions will have already been determined by the ACTIVE player since everything is attempting to happen "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" and there is no avoiding the application of the Sequencing rule.
So we don't care if we have 1 or 500 intercept weapons, the rule simply grant a specific permission to fire at the end of the enemy movement phase, so when such time happens it's when we must resolve those firing as a shooting sequence.
Right. And those multiple Interceptor rules are all trying to be resolved at the same singular moment in time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencing rule applies. You can't avoid its application.
In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Where does it say that it's a singular moment in time and all the Interceptor shots happen in that moment? There is no time limit, THE END of the enemy Movement phase can be as long as you want.
The rule explicitly recognizes "at THE START of the Movement phase" as a singular moment in time and "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally similar.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
The Sequencer rule itself recognizes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a singular moment in time.
col_impact wrote: In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Where does it say that it's a singular moment in time and all the Interceptor shots happen in that moment? There is no time limit, THE END of the enemy Movement phase can be as long as you want.
He is partially correct. Interceptor does coincide with the timing of any Morale Checks caused by Dangerous Terrain failures, for example.
Where his failure is in why we need to recognize multiple calls of Interceptor as multiple rules.
A single Interceptor rule resolving only gives "a weapon" the permission to fire. Unless there are multiple Interceptor rules to resolve you aren't getting multiple Interceptor shots fired.
Unwarranted Assertions by Col. all with no rules support.
1. That interceptor is a choice of whether to fire or not based on sequencing.
2. That the sequencing rule has a unique permission to interrupt another rule in progress.
3. That a shooting sequence is not explicit.
4. That there is a special "a moment in time" rule.
Still Argumentum ad ignorantiam Col, you make a bunch of claims with no evidence and then demand to be proved wrong.
Your only defense is to keep trying to shift the burden of proof away from your flimsy argument that you cannot defend.
Your entire argument is predicated upon your premise that you are allowed to sequence.
The only question that needs to be answered here is...
Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not? Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not? Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not?
If they are explicit then you haven't met the qualifications to sequence and are doing so without cause.
I don't think you know what explicit means.
explicit - "1.stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt."
Several things are not clear or worked out in detail, Ceann.
1) It is not clear how you are even using the Shooting Sequence rules since it's not a Shooting phase and no rule is granting any model any permission to shoot.
2) Also, where do you see a rule that explicitly organizes multiple Interceptor rules that are competing to resolve "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"?
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
3) Also, you have yet to show a complete counter proposal working it out in detail what you are doing.
I have done so for my argument . . .
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
So my proposed solution is explicitly worked out in every detail and is fully validated by the rules.
Where is your counter proposal?
The shooting sequence does not happen naturally at the end of the enemy Movement phase.
So the shooting sequence is contingent upon the controller being in the process of resolving an Interceptor rule. Only in the context of an Interceptor rule being resolved does the controlling player have a shooting attack to run through the shooting sequence.
The shooting sequence happens entirely in the context of resolving one of the Interceptor rules.
By the time any shooting sequence happens the order for the multiple Interceptor rule resolutions will have already been determined by the ACTIVE player since everything is attempting to happen "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" and there is no avoiding the application of the Sequencing rule.
So we don't care if we have 1 or 500 intercept weapons, the rule simply grant a specific permission to fire at the end of the enemy movement phase, so when such time happens it's when we must resolve those firing as a shooting sequence.
Right. And those multiple Interceptor rules are all trying to be resolved at the same singular moment in time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencing rule applies. You can't avoid its application.
It doesn't matter if they fire at the same time, or if they even try to resolve at the same time.
The only thing "Sequencing" cares about is whether or not there are explicit instructions that determine the order.
Sequencing only applies in the ABSENCE of explicit instructions.
You are directed to look AT THE WORDING of the rule, prior to resolution to determine if it will provide an order.
Which it does.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
1. Interceptor grants permission for the shooting rules.
We have explicit instructions of from the shooting sequence, such as Nominate a Unit, and Select a Weapon. Leaving no ambiguity about which one will resolve first.
2. Shooting sequence rules are explicit and determine which will resolve first.
3. A counter proposal is not needed, your argument is flawed but you keep repeating it over and over.
We have explicit instructions but you are ignoring them and bludgeoning the world with your argumentum ad ignorantiam.
It doesn't matter if they fire at the same time, or if they even try to resolve at the same time.
The only thing "Sequencing" cares about is whether or not there are explicit instructions that determine the order.
Sequencing only applies in the ABSENCE of explicit instructions.
1. Interceptor grants permission for the shooting rules.
2. Shooting sequence rules are explicit and determine which will resolve first.
3. A counter proposal is not needed, your argument is flawed but you keep repeating it over and over.
The Shooting Sequence rule is not explicit and you have yet to prove that it is explicit.
1) You have yet to show how the Shooting Sequence even comes into play. It's not even clear that the Shooting Sequence applies at all since there is no rule telling us to use the Shooting Sequence. That's a big guess on your part.
2) You have yet to show how it orders the multiple Interceptor permissions so that they do not resolve AT THE SAME TIME "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase". IF all of the rules are resolving AT THE SAME TIME then the Sequencer rule necessarily steps in.
"When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order" refers to the wording in the multiple Interceptor rules which is not explicit as to how to resolve multiple Interceptors, so the Sequencing rule necessarily intervenes to establish a sequence to the multiple events.
3) If you don't present a detailed and completely worked out counter proposal then you are proving that you do not have something "explicit". It's time for you to present your argument in explicit detail or admit that you cannot and therewith admit defeat.
You can't win this argument without spelling out your counter proposal in all of the explicit detail you claim to have.
I have spelled out my proposal in explicit detail and it is fully validated by the rules.
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
If the shooting sequence isn't explicit then no rule in the game is explicit. By your "house rule".
1. "weapon can be fired"
Firing a weapon is directly a part of the resolution and provides access to the shooting sequence rules.
Sequencing rule "proof reads" rules before they resolve to determine there will be no conflict.
Whether or not the rule is being used is irrelevant.
2. Nominate a Unit, Select a Weapon. The select weapon will resolve first.
3. No one can win an argument with you, you make up your own rules and argue until the thread is locked even when you are wrong.
Interceptor does not have an "opt to fire" statement.
Grammatical case of "Can vs May".
Ceann wrote: If the shooting sequence isn't explicit then no rule in the game is explicit. By your "house rule".
1. "weapon can be fired"
Firing a weapon is directly a part of the resolution and provides access to the shooting sequence rules.
Sequencing rule "proof reads" rules before they resolve to determine there will be no conflict.
Whether or not the rule is being used is irrelevant.
2. Nominate a Unit, Select a Weapon. The select weapon will resolve first.
3. No one can win an argument with you, you make up your own rules and argue until the thread is locked even when you are wrong.
Interceptor does not have an "opt to fire" statement.
Grammatical case of "Can vs May".
Got it. You aren't able to show how the Shooting Sequence provides an explicitly detailed counter proposal.
Your argument is defeated since you have presented no counter proposal.
Here is what an explicitly detailed proposal looks like . . .
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
My proposal works in detail and is completely validated by the rules.
By the way, Overwatch is explicit as to how it works out the various competing rule permssions so if you need an example of "explicit" in the rules then check out Overwatch.
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
Interceptor does not have those explicit permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing, per the Sequencing rule.
You ignore "Can vs May" in your "argument".
You ignore the shooting sequence rules for "nominate a unit and selecting a weapon".
You invented this "moment in time" that has no rule support.
You ignore that "opting to fire" isn't even in Interceptor.
How is your argument explicit when I can point out all the things you ignore in mere moments not to mention the things you make up. This is always your "closing" argument. Invent as many things as possible.
Are you going to add "sacrificed a goat" into your argument next?
Ceann wrote: You ignore "Can vs May" in your "argument".
I do not. The BRB uses "can" and "may" interchangeably to express permissions. For example, "can" is used to express "be permitted to" in the Movement rules.
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. Note that you don’t have to move all (or any) of your units – indeed, there are several tactical advantages to remaining stationary, as we’ll explain later in the rules. Once you’ve completed a unit’s move, you cannot go back and change it, so think carefully before giving the order to advance.
Clearly the BRB uses 'can' to express permissions and 'cannot' to express restrictions. You are presenting a false dichotomy between "can" and "may" that the BRB does not recognize. If you feel otherwise prove it with an example from the BRB
Ceann wrote: You ignore the shooting sequence rules for "nominate a unit and selecting a weapon".
You have yet to show how the Shooting Sequence rules come into play. This isn't the Shooting Phase or Overwatch so how do they come into play? By the time any Shooting Sequence rules come into play the Sequencing rule will have already intervened and imposed a sequence to the multiple Interceptor rule resolutions in an order of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Ceann wrote: You invented this "moment in time" that has no rule support.
Incorrect. I applied the Sequencing rule's own criteria for determining if the time statement leads to an 'AT THE SAME TIME' condition. I have no choice but to treat "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as SIMILAR to "at THE START of the Movement phase".
Ceann wrote: You ignore that "opting to fire" isn't even in Interceptor.
I am not ignoring anything. "Can be fired" is permission granted by the rule. The problem is all of those multiple Interceptor rules are competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME. The Sequencing rule must be applied. By the time any Interceptor weapon is fired, the Sequencing rule will have already organized the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
Ceann wrote: How is your argument explicit when I can point out all the things you ignore in mere moments not to mention the things you make up. This is always your "closing" argument. Invent as many things as possible.
Are you going to add "sacrificed a goat" into your argument next?
I have addressed everything and as I have shown my proposal is completely validated by the rules.
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
I don't need a sacrificial goat since the rules are on my side here.
Ceann wrote: You ignore "Can vs May" in your "argument".
I do not. The BRB uses "can" and "may" interchangeably to express permissions. For example, "can" is used to express "be permitted to" in the Movement rules.
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. Note that you don’t have to move all (or any) of your units – indeed, there are several tactical advantages to remaining stationary, as we’ll explain later in the rules. Once you’ve completed a unit’s move, you cannot go back and change it, so think carefully before giving the order to advance.
Clearly the BRB uses 'can' to express permissions and 'cannot' to express restrictions. You are presenting a false dichotomy between "can" and "may" that the BRB does not recognize. If you feel otherwise prove it with an example from the BRB
Ceann wrote: You ignore the shooting sequence rules for "nominate a unit and selecting a weapon".
You have yet to show how the Shooting Sequence rules come into play. This isn't the Shooting Phase or Overwatch so how do they come into play?
Ceann wrote: You invented this "moment in time" that has no rule support.
Incorrect. I applied the Sequencing rule's own criteria for determining if the time statement leads to an 'AT THE SAME TIME' condition. I have no choice but to treat "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as SIMILAR to "at THE START of the Movement phase".
Ceann wrote: You ignore that "opting to fire" isn't even in Interceptor.
I am not ignoring anything. "Can be fired" is permission granted by the rule. The problem is all of those multiple Interceptor rules are competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME. The Sequencing rule must be applied. By the time any Interceptor weapon is fired, the Sequencing rule will have already organized the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
Ceann wrote: How is your argument explicit when I can point out all the things you ignore in mere moments not to mention the things you make up. This is always your "closing" argument. Invent as many things as possible.
Are you going to add "sacrificed a goat" into your argument next?
I have addressed everything and as I have shown my proposal is completely validated by the rules.
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
I don't need a sacrificial goat since the rules are on my side here.
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to
be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then
the player whose turn it is chooses the order.
When multiple rules would appear to resolve at the same time. The sequencing rule checks the WORDING to verify if which one will resolve first will be established.
If it is not established then the active player will be tasked with establishing it.
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can
be fired at any one unit...
"at the end of the enemy movement phase", the subject, "a weapon", "can be" the action, "fired."
The action of firing is a "shooting attack" and the resolution of Interceptor.
So does the resolution explicitly tell us which rule will resolve first?
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with.
When we select a weapon as part of the resolution we are singling out a particular weapon with a particular instance of Interceptor.
As the wording has now been checked, and which one will resolve first can be established, the "Sequencing" rule goes back to bed.
There is nothing for it to do.
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to
be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then
the player whose turn it is chooses the order.
When multiple rules would appear to resolve at the same time. The sequencing rule checks the WORDING to verify if which one will resolve first will be established.
If it is not established then the active player will be tasked with establishing it.
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can
be fired at any one unit...
"at the end of the enemy movement phase", the subject, "a weapon", "can be" the action, "fired."
The action of firing is a "shooting attack" and the resolution of Interceptor.
So does the resolution explicitly tell us which rule will resolve first?
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with.
When we select a weapon as part of the resolution we are singling out a particular weapon with a particular instance of Interceptor.
As the wording has now been checked, and which one will resolve first can be established, the "Sequencing" rule goes back to bed.
There is nothing for it to do.
This isn't the Shooting phase. Where do you see permission to use the Shooting Sequence rules?
The Shooting Sequence is tied inextricably to the Shooting phase.
Spoiler:
As armies engage, guns thunder and shrapnel rains down from the sky. In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, a player’s army fires in the Shooting phase of his turn. During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next.
The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.
For example . . .
NOMINATE A UNIT TO SHOOT
During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks.
This isn't "during the shooting phase" so the rules do not allow you to even nominate a unit to shoot. The rules for the Shooting Sequence break.
In the absence of the rules for Shooting Sequence, the multiple Interceptor rules are resolved using just the Interceptor rules provided, in the order dictated by the ACTIVE player.
Overwatch has permission to have an out of sequence Shooting phase. Interceptor does not.
I'm just sitting here wondering how the two of you don't get tired of your endless back and forth in what feels like every other YMDC thread. I would have thought that at some point you'd simply agree to disagree, regardless of who's right, but nope.
Roknar wrote: I'm just sitting here wondering how the two of you don't get tired of your endless back and forth in what feels like every other YMDC thread. I would have thought that at some point you'd simply agree to disagree, regardless of who's right, but nope.
As one who has participated in such a circus many times, I am glad to have had the one on Ignore for some time now.
Unless anyone else has something to say that hasn't already been stated, this should just be locked.
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to
be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then
the player whose turn it is chooses the order.
When multiple rules would appear to resolve at the same time. The sequencing rule checks the WORDING to verify if which one will resolve first will be established.
If it is not established then the active player will be tasked with establishing it.
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can
be fired at any one unit...
"at the end of the enemy movement phase", the subject, "a weapon", "can be" the action, "fired."
The action of firing is a "shooting attack" and the resolution of Interceptor.
So does the resolution explicitly tell us which rule will resolve first?
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with.
When we select a weapon as part of the resolution we are singling out a particular weapon with a particular instance of Interceptor.
As the wording has now been checked, and which one will resolve first can be established, the "Sequencing" rule goes back to bed.
There is nothing for it to do.
This isn't the Shooting phase. Where do you see permission to use the Shooting Sequence rules?
The Shooting Sequence is tied inextricably to the Shooting phase.
Spoiler:
As armies engage, guns thunder and shrapnel rains down from the sky. In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, a player’s army fires in the Shooting phase of his turn. During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next.
The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.
For example . . .
NOMINATE A UNIT TO SHOOT
During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks.
This isn't "during the shooting phase" so the rules do not allow you to even nominate a unit to shoot. The rules for the Shooting Sequence break.
In the absence of the rules for Shooting Sequence, the multiple Interceptor rules are resolved using just the Interceptor rules provided, in the order dictated by the ACTIVE player.
Overwatch has permission to have an out of sequence Shooting phase. Interceptor does not.
It has permission to fire, firing uses the shooting sequence.
There is no conflict.
It has permission to fire, firing uses the shooting sequence.
There is no conflict.
Read the Shooting Sequence rules. The rules are tied to the Shooting phase.
Spoiler:
NOMINATE A UNIT TO SHOOT
During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks.
You cannot nominate a unit to shoot since that action is tied to "during the Shooting phase" and this isn't a Shooting phase. This is "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Further, there is no rule that says that firing uses the Shooting Sequence rules. You have made that up. If you think otherwise, then provide the rule that says so.
Again, how are you even using the Shooting Sequence rules? You don't need them to resolve an Interceptor shot.
We can nominate a unit to shoot.
Interceptor is a special rule that has granted permission to fire.
Using the shooting sequence is the only way to fire a weapon. If you have another method I would be glad to hear it.
Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, SHOOTING, and close combat as well as the rules
for morale.
As you can see they already have access to the rules they are just being granted permission to use them at a time other than when they would normally be used.
Namely "at the end of the movement phase". Nothing has removed these rules from the units and they can still use them with permission.
Ceann wrote: We can nominate a unit to shoot.
Interceptor is a special rule that has granted permission to fire.
Using the shooting sequence is the only way to fire a weapon. If you have another method I would be glad to hear it.
Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, SHOOTING, and close combat as well as the rules
for morale.
As you can see they already have access to the rules they are just being granted permission to use them at a time other than when they would normally be used.
Namely "at the end of the movement phase". Nothing has removed these rules from the units and they can still use them with permission.
Per the Shooting Sequence rules you cannot Nominate a Unit since it's not "during a Shooting phase".
NOMINATE A UNIT TO SHOOT
During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks.
In fact, you do not need the Shooting Sequence rules at all.
The shot from an Interceptor weapon is a solitary shooting attack.
All that is required is a To Hit roll and a To Wound roll.
The Interceptor rule already references a weapon, line of sight, range, and a firing model.
So the Shooting Sequence rules are not required at all.
Which is good, since the Shooting Sequence rules BREAK if you try to use them for Interceptor.
This is the only solution supported by the rules . . .
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Roknar wrote: I'm just sitting here wondering how the two of you don't get tired of your endless back and forth in what feels like every other YMDC thread. I would have thought that at some point you'd simply agree to disagree, regardless of who's right, but nope.
As one who has participated in such a circus many times, I am glad to have had the one on Ignore for some time now.
Unless anyone else has something to say that hasn't already been stated, this should just be locked.
Ceann wrote: A model is a member of a unit.
In order for the model to fire, you have to nominate the unit.
You nominate a unit, and then you select a weapon, that weapon fires.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
3. 3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All MODELS equipped with a weapon with the same name...
It is not a "solitary shot" you have to consult the unit in order to know what the models BS is, in order to resolve the "Hit" roll.
This is hypocrisy...
"using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire). "
What rules are you using for this "shooting attack" ?
The only way to shoot, at all period, is to use the shooting sequence.
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is not a Shooting phase so you don't have permission to Nominate a Unit to Shoot.
And there is no rule telling you to use the rules for a Shooting Sequence.
The Interceptor rule already provides a firing model, a weapon, a targeting criteria, and direct rule references for line of sight and range.
So to fire the Interceptor weapon you only need to Roll to Hit (or the equivalent - e.g., template) and Roll to Wound (or the equivalent - e.g., D Weapon Attack Table roll).
The "can be fired" portion of the Interceptor rule justifies a Roll to Hit and a Roll to Wound, but that is it, no more is required.
So the Shooting Sequence rules are not required at all.
Which is good, since if you try to use the Shooting Sequence rules for Interceptor then the Shooting Sequence rules BREAK since we are not in a Shooting phase.
Remember, Overwatch has explicit permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
Interceptor does not have those explicit permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each Interceptor rule resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Roknar wrote: I'm just sitting here wondering how the two of you don't get tired of your endless back and forth in what feels like every other YMDC thread. I would have thought that at some point you'd simply agree to disagree, regardless of who's right, but nope.
As one who has participated in such a circus many times, I am glad to have had the one on Ignore for some time now.
Unless anyone else has something to say that hasn't already been stated, this should just be locked.
Like EASILY 5 pages ago lol.
Stay out of off-topic for your sanity. I only go there in spurts and i generally regret it due to a few awful people.
Ceann wrote: A model is a member of a unit.
In order for the model to fire, you have to nominate the unit.
You nominate a unit, and then you select a weapon, that weapon fires.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
3. 3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All MODELS equipped with a weapon with the same name...
It is not a "solitary shot" you have to consult the unit in order to know what the models BS is, in order to resolve the "Hit" roll.
This is hypocrisy...
"using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire). "
What rules are you using for this "shooting attack" ?
The only way to shoot, at all period, is to use the shooting sequence.
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is not a Shooting phase so you don't have permission to Nominate a Unit to Shoot.
And there is no rule telling you to use the rules for a Shooting Sequence.
The Interceptor rule already provides a firing model, a weapon, a targeting criteria, and direct rule references for line of sight and range.
So to fire the Interceptor weapon you only need to Roll to Hit (or the equivalent - e.g., template) and Roll to Wound (or the equivalent - e.g., D Weapon Attack Table roll).
The "can be fired" portion of the Interceptor rule justifies a Roll to Hit and a Roll to Wound, but that is it, no more is required.
So the Shooting Sequence rules are not required at all.
Which is good, since if you try to use the Shooting Sequence rules for Interceptor then the Shooting Sequence rules BREAK since we are not in a Shooting phase.
Remember, Overwatch has explicit permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
Interceptor does not have those explicit permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each Interceptor rule resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
You use the shooting rules regardless, they are applied to all models.
They all have access to those rules and nothing has removed them.
I don't care what overwatch has, it is apples to oranges.
Overwatch isn't a special rule so it needs to have explicit permissions to use them outside of the shooting phase.
Interceptor is a special rule so it is permitted to access them, all models have those rules.
Per the FAQ Intercepting uses the same rules as the shooting phase.
Ex.
SHOOTING
Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase
Q: Do abilities that allow a model to fire an extra weapon
in the Shooting phase allow them to fire an extra weapon in
Overwatch or while intercepting (e.g. Monstrous Creatures and
Tau multi-trackers)?
A: Yes. In the case of Interceptor, only weapons with the
Interceptor rule can be fired.
This clearly demonstrates that the rules for the shooting phase are used when intercepting.
SHOOTING
Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase
Q: Do abilities that allow a model to fire an extra weapon
in the Shooting phase allow them to fire an extra weapon in
Overwatch or while intercepting (e.g. Monstrous Creatures and
Tau multi-trackers)?
A: Yes. In the case of Interceptor, only weapons with the
Interceptor rule can be fired.
This clearly demonstrates that the rules for the shooting phase are used when intercepting.
Ceann, I think you need to read the FAQ item again.
The FAQ does not say to treat Intercepting as a Shooting phase.
The FAQ merely says that abilities that allow a models to fire an extra weapon in the Shooting phase will also allow them to fire an extra weapon in Overwatch or while Intercepting.
In fact, the FAQ item underscores that Intercepting is categorically different than the Shooting phase.
Unless you can show me a rule in the BRB (or an FAQ item) that says to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase then the rules are not on your side and my argument wins as the one that is actually supported by the rules.
You need to show me permissions for Interceptor that look like these for Overwatch.
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
Intercept lacks those permissions. If you treat Interceptor like Overwatch then you are making up permissions where none exist, and you are houseruling.
Again you have no idea what you are talking about.
Overwatch is a basic rule, in order to perform out of phase shooting it is required to have explicitly stated.
Interceptor is a special rule and ignores the phase conflict.
Units always have access to the shooting rules, they apply to all models. Overwatch provides explicit permission, Interceptor provides special rule precedence.
There is no other way to perform a shooting attack.
What the FAQ demonstrates is that you use the same rules from the shooting phase, in this circumstance a MC, in overwatch and interceptor.
It doesnt require much thought to read it as "do abilities that allow a model to do X in the shooting phase allow a model to do X in overwatch or intercepting., and the answer was.... Yes.
No one is making up anything you are just living in a permanent state of denial.
Ceann wrote: Again you have no idea what you are talking about.
Overwatch is a basic rule, in order to perform out of phase shooting it is required to have explicitly stated.
Interceptor is a special rule and ignores the phase conflict.
Units always have access to the shooting rules, they apply to all models. Overwatch provides explicit permission, Interceptor provides special rule precedence.
There is no other way to perform a shooting attack.
What the FAQ demonstrates is that you use the same rules from the shooting phase, in this circumstance a MC, in overwatch and interceptor.
It doesnt require much thought to read it as "do abilities that allow a model to do X in the shooting phase allow a model to do X in overwatch or intercepting., and the answer was.... Yes.
No one is making up anything you are just living in a permanent state of denial.
The FAQ narrowly grants the ability for models with Interceptor weapons to fire more than one weapon.
If you use the FAQ to claim that Interceptor generates a Shooting phase then you are House Ruling. The FAQ makes no such claim. You are kidding yourself.
Ceann wrote: There is no other way to perform a shooting attack.
Incorrect. The Interceptor rule itself provides everything it needs to make a shooting attack.
A weapon is already designated by Interceptor (and with that a firing model and a firing unit).
Interceptor has its own targeting criteria and directly references range and line of sight.
Neither a Shooting phase nor a Shooting Sequence are required for Interceptor to perform what amounts to a solitary shooting attack per Interceptor rule.
The shooting attack simply happens based on what Interceptor already provides.
JNAProductions wrote: So where in the Interceptor rules does it tell you how to hit, or wound, or resolve saves?
So Interceptor requires a To Hit Roll and a To Wound roll. Those are rules in the BRB.
I have already indicated that the Interceptor "can be fired" justifies a To Hit Roll and a To Wound Roll.
col_impact wrote:"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is not a Shooting phase so you don't have permission to Nominate a Unit to Shoot.
And there is no rule telling you to use the rules for a Shooting Sequence.
The Interceptor rule already provides a firing model, a weapon, a targeting criteria, and direct rule references for line of sight and range.
So to fire the Interceptor weapon you only need to Roll to Hit (or the equivalent - e.g., template) and Roll to Wound (or the equivalent - e.g., D Weapon Attack Table roll).
The "can be fired" portion of the Interceptor rule justifies a Roll to Hit and a Roll to Wound, but that is it, no more is required.
So the Shooting Sequence rules are not required at all.
Which is good, since if you try to use the Shooting Sequence rules for Interceptor then the Shooting Sequence rules BREAK since we are not in a Shooting phase.
So it looks like we are in agreement then that Interceptor only requires a To Hit Roll and a To Wound roll to perform a shooting attack.
Where in the BRB are these rules located you are using?
A page number would be fantastic.
No one said they agreed with you, we are asking you to clarify what you stated.
You CAN'T be referring to these?
col_impact wrote:"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is not a Shooting phase so you don't have permission to Nominate a Unit to Shoot.
And there is no rule telling you to use the rules for a Shooting Sequence.
The Interceptor rule already provides a firing model, a weapon, a targeting criteria, and direct rule references for line of sight and range.
So to fire the Interceptor weapon you only need to Roll to Hit (or the equivalent - e.g., template) and Roll to Wound (or the equivalent - e.g., D Weapon Attack Table roll).
The "can be fired" portion of the Interceptor rule justifies a Roll to Hit and a Roll to Wound, but that is it, no more is required.
So the Shooting Sequence rules are not required at all.
Which is good, since if you try to use the Shooting Sequence rules for Interceptor then the Shooting Sequence rules BREAK since we are not in a Shooting phase.
The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models
equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the
target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one
visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in
range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines
what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the
target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing
weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing
unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target
unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has
one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed
as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to
allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
Ceann wrote: Where in the BRB are these rules located you are using?
A page number would be fantastic.
No one said they agreed with you, we are asking you to clarify what you stated.
Roll to Hit is on page 32. Roll to Wound is on page 34.
Interceptor "can be fired" justifies a Roll to Hit. And once you have a hit then a Roll to Wound (and any Wound allocation) is justified. Those are the only rules that are required for an Interceptor shot to resolve.
It's good that those are the only actual rules required, since if you try to use the Shooting Sequence rules for Interceptor then the Shooting Sequence rules BREAK since we are not in a Shooting phase.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models
equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the
target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one
visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in
range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines
what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the
target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing
weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing
unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target
unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has
one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed
as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to
allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
You can't use the Shooting Sequence rules.
1) There is no rule telling you to use the Shooting Sequence rules.
2) The Shooting Sequence rules BREAK since it is not a Shooting phase. See spoiler below.
Spoiler:
NOMINATE A UNIT TO SHOOT
During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks.
Those pages explain the STEPS of the shooting sequence.
Nothing in the sequence BREAKS.
Interceptor is a special rule, enabled to break or bend rules.
Notice that Nominate a Unit calls out special rules.
NOMINATE A UNIT TO SHOOT
During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks.
This is not a comprehensive list. Other game rules or special rules can sometimes affect a unit’s ability to shoot...
Choosing a target tells you to pick a unit...
CHOOSE A TARGET
Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at.
Shooting a weapon tells you a unit...
SELECT A WEAPON
When firing with a unit, completely resolve all attacks
from the same weapons...
Regardless you have explained, in detail yourself.
How Interceptor explicitly tells you what to do.
You cannot resolve two shooting attacks at the same time, there are no rules for this.
Sequencing never engages, because Interceptor is explicit.
Those pages explain the STEPS of the shooting sequence.
Nothing in the sequence BREAKS.
Interceptor is a special rule, enabled to break or bend rules.
Notice that Nominate a Unit calls out special rules.
NOMINATE A UNIT TO SHOOT
During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks.
This is not a comprehensive list. Other game rules or special rules can sometimes affect a unit’s ability to shoot...
Choosing a target tells you to pick a unit...
CHOOSE A TARGET
Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at.
Shooting a weapon tells you a unit...
SELECT A WEAPON
When firing with a unit, completely resolve all attacks
from the same weapons...
You don't need the Shooting Sequence rules to resolve the Interceptor shooting attack.
1) No rule is telling us to have a Shooting phase or to use the Shooting Sequence rules.
2) The Shooting Sequence rules only work in a Shooting phase.
3) You are unable to Nominate a Unit to Shoot unless you are in a Shooting Phase
NOMINATE A UNIT TO SHOOT
During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be
nominated to make shooting attacks.
So the Shooting Sequence rules break if you are not in a Shooting phase.
But all that doesn't matter since Interceptor doesn't require the Shooting Sequence rules.
Interceptor does not need to Nominate a Unit to Shoot nor does it need to Select A Weapon.
An Interceptor weapon (along with the associated firing model and firing unit) have already been designated by the Interceptor rule.
Interceptor has its own targeting criteria and direct references range and line of sight rules in the BRB.
The only thing that Interceptor requires is a To Hit roll and a To Wound roll.
The Interceptor "can be fired" justifies a To Hit roll (page 32) and a To Wound roll (page 34).
Ceann wrote: Regardless you have explained, in detail yourself.
How Interceptor explicitly tells you what to do.
You cannot resolve two shooting attacks at the same time, there are no rules for this.
Sequencing never engages, because Interceptor is explicit.
Laugh out loud. Interceptor is most assuredly not explicit with regards to how to resolve multiple Interceptor shots. Overwatch is explicit, but Interceptor is not.
You are aware of what explicit means, right?
explicit - stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt
So it goes without saying that the Interceptor is not explicit with regards to how to resolve multiple Interceptor shots. Multiple Interceptor shots is not discussed at all by the Interceptor rule so it is the opposite of 'explicit'.
If the player decides not to fire the Interceptor weapon then that particular Interceptor rule will resolve quickly. The end of the enemy movement phase will pass quickly to the beginning of the enemy Shooting phase if that's the only Interceptor rule to resolve.
If the player decides to fire the Interceptor weapon then the shot will then in turn need to be resolved (the hit resolved, any damage resolved, etc.) before the Interceptor rule itself resolves to completion and game play moves to the beginning of the enemy Psychic phase.
Of course as we know, if we have multiple Interceptor rules, all those multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencer rule applies and mandates that the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the multiple Instancer permissions are resolved.
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those permissions are accessed by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the permissions but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those permissions.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Ceann wrote: Show us the rules to resolve two shooting attacks simultaneously.
Apply wounds to two separate units at the same time.
All of the dice rolled together.
Each Interceptor rule resolves only a single solitary shooting attack.
So there are never two Interceptor shooting attacks to resolve unless there are two or more Interceptor rules being resolved at the same time.
In the case of two or more Interceptor rules trying to resolve AT THE SAME TIME then the Sequencing rule applies.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
The Sequencing rule is invoked whenever we have two or more rules happening at the same time.
We have two or more Interceptor rules happening "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The opponent is the active player.
There is no statement in the Interceptor rule that the player with the Intercepting units gets to choose the order in the case of multiple units with Interceptor. So nothing is overriding the Sequencing rule.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of such permission, the multiple Interceptor rules are resolved in piecemeal fashion with each Interceptor rule resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
