We are all well aware that they are all firing, at the same time, at the end of the movement phase. You do not need to repeat it like an automaton. The requirement for sequencing that you keep cutting off of your quote, is that they have to resolve at the same time, not occur at the same time.
In order for them to resolve at the time, the end result would consist of you rolling all of the dice, at one time, for each attack.
The question, is to show us HOW to resolve two shooting attacks, at the same time.
Demonstrate this please, step by step, like that old "explain to someone how to open a jar".
We are all well aware that they are all firing, at the same time, at the end of the movement phase. You do not need to repeat it like an automaton. The requirement for sequencing that you keep cutting off of your quote, is that they have to resolve at the same time, not occur at the same time.
In order for them to resolve at the time, the end result would consist of you rolling all of the dice, at one time, for each attack.
The question, is to show us HOW to resolve two shooting attacks, at the same time.
Demonstrate this please, step by step, like that old "explain to someone how to open a jar".
Are you reading my responses? I just answered your question in my previous post.
A single Interceptor rule resolves a single Interceptor shooting attack.
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 you think you have two Interceptor shooting attacks to resolve then you must actually be dealing with two or more Interceptor rules to resolve.
If you have two Interceptor rules to resolve then they will resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") so then you must use 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.
So the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
This is how it works 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 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).
So from the looks of it, you are resolving each shooting attack, one at a time, not at the same time.
Resolving one.
Resolving two.
Resolving three.
They cannot resolve at the same time since you cannot declare two or more shooting attacks at the same time nor can you roll to hit or wound on two units at the same time.
It is explicitly telling you "fired at any one unit".
So you are sequencing, because you feel like it.
Shooting attacks cannot resolve at the same time.
Ceann wrote: So from the looks of it, you are resolving each shooting attack, one at a time, not at the same time.
Resolving one.
Resolving two.
Resolving three.
They cannot resolve at the same time since you cannot declare two or more shooting attacks at the same time nor can you roll to hit or wound on two units at the same time.
So you are sequencing, because you feel like it.
Shooting attacks cannot resolve at the same time.
Are you even reading my responses?
A single Interceptor rule only allows for a single shooting attack.
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.
I can only make a single shooting attack while resolving an Interceptor rule.
So you want me to deal with the case of two Interceptor shooting attacks.
Well, in that case, we are dealing with two Interceptor rules.
When you deal with two Interceptor rules then you are dealing with two rules hammering each other to resolve at the same time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase").
The Sequencing rule applies 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 ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
One Interceptor rule will completely resolve before the other Interceptor rule resolves in the order of the ACTIVE player's choosing.
I am not sequencing this because I feel like it. We have to sequence it like that because the Sequencing rule tells us to do it that way and we cannot ignore its application in this case.
No shooting attacks are resolving at the same time because the Sequencing rule has necessarily sequenced the order of the two Interceptor rules so that one rule resolves before the other one in an order of the ACTIVE player's choosing.
The Sequencing rule has made it so that the one Interceptor rule completely resolves before the next Interceptor rule resolves.
The shots OCCUR at the same time "at the end of the movement phase". They are all happening at the same "moment in time".
They hammer each other to "fire" at the same time, not to "resolve" at the same time.
The actions of resolution only allow you to explicitly pick one of them.
The sequencing rule is when a particular resolution cannot be determined over another rule.
Ex.
A Skitarii Vanguard charges another Skitarii Vanguard.
They both have Rad Saturation. - 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 unit gets -1 Toughness first?
Each instance of the rule has no way to identify itself as resolving first, so they must be sequenced.
Interceptor tells you exactly what you said.
col_impact wrote:
I can only make a single shooting attack while resolving an Interceptor rule.
That is the answer to your question, you can only resolve ONE at a time, they cannot resolve at the same time, the shooting attack rules prevent them from resolving at the same time.
But don't worry, they still fire at the same time.
I hope you finally understand now.
Ceann wrote: You can't see the forest for the trees.
The shots OCCUR at the same time "at the end of the movement phase". They are all happening at the same "moment in time".
They hammer each other to "fire" at the same time, not to "resolve" at the same time.
The actions of resolution only allow you to explicitly pick one of them.
The sequencing rule is when a particular resolution cannot be determined over another rule.
Ex.
A Skitarii Vanguard charges another Skitarii Vanguard.
They both have Rad Saturation. - 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 unit gets -1 Toughness first?
Each instance of the rule has no way to identify itself as resolving first, so they must be sequenced.
Interceptor tells you exactly what you said.
col_impact wrote:
I can only make a single shooting attack while resolving an Interceptor rule.
That is the answer to your question, you can only resolve ONE at a time, they cannot resolve at the same time, the shooting attack rules prevent them from resolving at the same time.
But don't worry, they still fire at the same time.
I hope you finally understand now.
You are the one who is confused.
I can only make a single shooting attack while resolving an Interceptor rule because the Interceptor rule only permits a single firing.
Read the rule.
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.
"A weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve" only permits a single shooting attack.
So if we are dealing with the case of intending to accomplish two Interceptor shooting attacks then we are actually dealing with resolving two Interceptor rules.
As I have pointed out several times already, multiple Interceptor rules hammer each other to try to resolve at the same time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase").
The Sequencing rule applies 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 ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
Since each Interceptor rule governs a solitary shooting attack, the ordering of the rules by the ACTIVE player is also the ordering of the solitary shooting attacks.
The Sequencing rules prevent the Interceptor rules from resolving at the same time and with that the solitary shooting attacks associated with each Interceptor rule are prevented from resolving at the same time.
This is how it works 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 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 can only make a single shooting attack while resolving an Interceptor rule because the Interceptor rule only permits a single firing."
There you have it, so only one resolves at a time.
They all fire at the same time, they resolve one at a time.
Once you CHOOSE a weapon to fire, the other weapons CANNOT fire.
Because they explicitly resolve, one at a time, sequencing does not need to occur.
Considering like 10 different people have tried to explain this to you and you keep going on and on about some other strange method, it would seem you are the one confused.
If you cannot prove that two weapons resolve shooting attacks at the same time, then you have forfeit.
Ceann wrote: "I can only make a single shooting attack while resolving an Interceptor rule because the Interceptor rule only permits a single firing."
There you have it, so only one resolves at a time.
They all fire at the same time, they resolve one at a time.
Once you CHOOSE a weapon to fire, the other weapons CANNOT fire.
Because they explicitly resolve, one at a time, sequencing does not need to occur.
Considering like 10 different people have tried to explain this to you and you keep going on and on about some other strange method, it would seem you are the one confused.
If you cannot prove that two weapons resolve shooting attacks at the same time, then you have forfeit.
Your confusion continues.
You keep confusing 'resolve a shot' with 'resolve a rule'.
The Sequencing rule applies to rules.
The Sequencing rule applies when multiple rules are hammering each other to resolve AT THE SAME TIME
All of the multiple Interceptor rules are hammering to resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencing rule applies to dictate an order to their resolution.
You cannot choose to fire an Interceptor weapon until after the order of all of the multiple Interceptor rules has already been dictated the ACTIVE Player.
It is only after the Sequencing rule has been applied to order the multiple permissions that you know which weapon is able to be fired first.
This is how it works 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 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: "I can only make a single shooting attack while resolving an Interceptor rule because the Interceptor rule only permits a single firing."
There you have it, so only one resolves at a time.
They all fire at the same time, they resolve one at a time.
Once you CHOOSE a weapon to fire, the other weapons CANNOT fire.
Because they explicitly resolve, one at a time, sequencing does not need to occur.
Considering like 10 different people have tried to explain this to you and you keep going on and on about some other strange method, it would seem you are the one confused.
If you cannot prove that two weapons resolve shooting attacks at the same time, then you have forfeit.
Your confusion continues.
You keep confusing 'resolve a shot' with 'resolve a rule'.
The Sequencing rule applies to rules.
The Sequencing rule applies when multiple rules are hammering each other to resolve AT THE SAME TIME
All of the multiple Interceptor rules are hammering to resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencing rule applies to dictate an order to their resolution.
You cannot choose to fire an Interceptor weapon until after the order of all of the multiple Interceptor rules has already been dictated the ACTIVE Player.
It is only after the Sequencing rule has been applied to order the multiple permissions that you know which weapon is able to be fired first.
This is how it works 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 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 can only make a single shooting attack while resolving an Interceptor rule."
All interceptor rules explicitly identify a model, with a weapon, that is firing, at a unit.
So two of them cannot resolve at the same time, because two shooting attacks cannot resolve at the same time.
Once a rule is being processed you cannot stop and process another.
Once you begin using a single interceptor, then one has been identified to go first.
Sequencing reads the wording of rules to validate that only one will resolve first before a conflict takes place.
Hence, sequencing would see the explicitly identified aforementioned and take no action.
Sequencing only cares that one has been explicitly identified to resolve first, it doesn't care if they are "hammering the same moment".
"I can only make a single shooting attack while resolving an Interceptor rule."
All interceptor rules explicitly identify a model, with a weapon, that is firing, at a unit.
So two of them cannot resolve at the same time, because two shooting attacks cannot resolve at the same time.
Once a rule is being processed you cannot stop and process another.
Once you begin using a single interceptor, then one has been identified to go first.
Sequencing reads the wording of rules to validate that only one will resolve first before a conflict takes place.
Hence, sequencing would see the explicitly identified aforementioned and take no action.
Sequencing only cares that one has been explicitly identified to resolve first, it doesn't care if they are "hammering the same moment".
You are not reading what I am posting.
All of the multiple Interceptor rules are hammering to resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencing rule applies to dictate an order to their resolution.
You cannot choose to fire an Interceptor weapon until AFTER the order of all of the multiple Interceptor rules has already been dictated the ACTIVE Player.
It is only AFTER the Sequencing rule has been applied to order the multiple permissions that you know which weapon is able to be fired first.
Ceann wrote: Once you begin using a single interceptor, then one has been identified to go first.
The controlling player does not identify which weapon can fire first. Per the Sequencing rule, the ACTIVE player identifies which weapon can fire first.
Them's the rules! You can't ignore the Sequencing rules.
Ceann wrote: That's right we can't ignore the sequencing rules.
Your "at the same time" and "at the end of the movement phase" and hammering hammering hammer timing - do not matter at all.
"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."
Sequencing reads the wording.
It understands prior to anything being ordered whether or not the rule in question is explicit.
Interceptor is explicit - model, weapon, unit.
Sequencing doesn't intervene because there will be explicit resolutions.
If there is just one Interceptor rule then there is no sequencing problem.
If there is more than one Interceptor rule then there is a sequencing problem.
The Sequencing rule intervenes because all the multiple Interceptor rules compete to resolve AT THE SAME TIME "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Are you able to point to any other moment in time besides the singular moment ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") for the multiple Interceptor rules to resolve?
Since you cannot, then the Sequencing rule mandatorily applies and the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
This is how it works . . .
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, col_impact, you do realise this thread is now 11 pages and probably around 8-9 of those are purely you guys arguing backwards and forwards without any actual progress being made? The same can be said of a lot of the longer threads in YMDC. Here's a serious question for you:
Have either of you ever successfully changed the other person's mind in any of these debates? If not, what makes you think post #138 on the same subject is magically going to make any difference?
There are no new points being brought up here, and haven't been for a very long time. There's a point where it's OK to just agree to disagree.
Ceann wrote: That's right we can't ignore the sequencing rules.
Your "at the same time" and "at the end of the movement phase" and hammering hammering hammer timing - do not matter at all.
"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."
Sequencing reads the wording.
It understands prior to anything being ordered whether or not the rule in question is explicit.
Interceptor is explicit - model, weapon, unit.
Sequencing doesn't intervene because there will be explicit resolutions.
If there is just one Interceptor rule then there is no sequencing problem.
If there is more than one Interceptor rule then there is a sequencing problem.
The Sequencing rule intervenes because all the multiple Interceptor rules compete to resolve AT THE SAME TIME "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Are you able to point to any other moment in time besides the singular moment ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") for the multiple Interceptor rules to resolve?
Since you cannot, then the Sequencing rule mandatorily applies and the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
This is how it works . . .
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).
Rinse and Repeat.
Back to the classic "a moment in time".
Harry got his finger cut off while he and Tom were chopping fire wood so you have to drive him to the ER but you already finished the first interceptor shot.
In the game it is still "a moment in time, forever timeless, church bells,gentle music, at the end of the enemy movement phase, with all interceptor units firing, bullets frozen mid air".
In real life you resolved the first Interceptor rule hours ago while sitting in the ER with Tom. Resolving rules is a player action and doesn't apply to the time or phase of the game.
They all fire at the same time.
They do not resolve at the same time.
Sequencing is to prevent a player from resolving rules, at the same time in situations where which would resolve first is unclear.
Resolution is a player action taken in which you are performing the process of applying the rules in whatever matter needed to the physical game to complete them. Applying wounds, removing models from the table, pile in moves etc.
These things cannot occur at the same physical time "irl" and have no bearing on "game time" such as "a moment in time" at the magical "at the end of the movement phase".
Hence, to resolve them at the same time you would have to roll "as a player and physical entity " all interceptor hit dice and wound dice at the same time, physically, in order to be attempting to resolve them "at the same time".
The act of shooting forces you to choose a physical action to take first.
You cannot perform all 3, "at the same time".
Slipspace wrote: Ceann, col_impact, you do realise this thread is now 11 pages and probably around 8-9 of those are purely you guys arguing backwards and forwards without any actual progress being made? The same can be said of a lot of the longer threads in YMDC. Here's a serious question for you:
Have either of you ever successfully changed the other person's mind in any of these debates? If not, what makes you think post #138 on the same subject is magically going to make any difference?
There are no new points being brought up here, and haven't been for a very long time. There's a point where it's OK to just agree to disagree.
I think they're just trying for record troll now, this discussion lost all meaning after the first page.
col_impact wrote: "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.
It doesn't matter that it's happening all at the end of the Movement phase. These can not be resolved without using the shooting rules. The rules for shooting ensure that the different units and different types of weapons in the unit do not fire at the same time which means you are not resolving everything at the, as you put it, EXACT same time. Therefore, sequencing does not apply. You have to look at all the rules that have to be resolved, not merely cherry pick one phrase from one rule, especially when it invokes a series of other rules that already have a process laid out. Ignoring these other rules for your claims means you are not following the rules.
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".
You ignore the shooting rules. They give a process where the weapons and the units fire in an order. Different units literally can not fire at the same time without being in violation of the shooting rules. Different types of weapons withing the same unit leterially can not fire at the same time because they would be in violation of the shooting rules. There is nothing in the Interceptor rule that changes the rules for the shooting process. Therefore, since it is literally impossible for different units to fire at the same time, it is literally impossible for the units to resolve their actions at the same time, which makes it literally impossible to invoke sequencing to dicatata the order of the units or the different types of weapons firing.
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").
Actually the burden of proof is on you to prove that they are, but since you want proof that they don't.
Stiplulation: "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." We already have permission to fire. So, we only have to day that we are firing. How is this handled?
"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 the shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence." (page 30).
The sequence (giving only the headers, not all the listing for it from tha table
"The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot
2. Choose a Target
3. Select a Weapon
4. Roll To Hit
5. Roll To Wound
6. Alocate Wounds & Remove Casualties
7. Select Another Weapon."
From this, you can not have the shooting all happening at the same time. They specify the shooting for different units, and different weapons within the same unit, happening at different times. And, since they tell you to roll all shooting for the same weapon within the same unit all at once, there is no order there either for sequencing to affect - it does not override that permission either. With the resolution of the shooting of different units happening in an order, it is not at the same time - there is a clear order established for this which the sequencing rule states you must not have in order to apply sequencing. If you even accept the malarkey that you can use sequencing to resolve only one rule (one rule on multiple units is still only one rule).
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.
No, he hasn't. He hasn't proven that he knows what it means to resolve a rule. If he did, he would not be claiming this can be sequenced.
This isn't the Shooting phase. Where do you see permission to use the Shooting Sequence rules?
From the Interceptor rule telling you that you can fire a weapon, and page 30 detailing the process for firing weapons. Where do you permission to ignore the shooting sequence when dealing with multiple units firing weapons. We already have that permission if there are multiple units with Interceptor
Automatically Appended Next Post:
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.
col impact never agrees to disagree. I've tried before in other threads but he refuses. You are left with the choice of continuing the argument or walking away. It seems like col impact considers making the other side walk away because neither side can agree as a victory on his part (he has trotted out the "from his silence I can only assume..." type argument in other threads before. If someone isn't going to give him that satisfaction, the only way to stop the argument is for the thread to get locked.
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.
.
Ah, so it gets to invoke some of the rules for shooting, but notall of the rules for shooting. How con-veeeeeennient!!
No, if the rules for shooting are invoked, all the rules for shooting apply, including there being a process for handling the order in which different units and different types of weapons are fired. You do not have permission to ignore these rules while you go try to cherry pick other rules from the shooting section.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote: Ceann, col_impact, you do realise this thread is now 11 pages and probably around 8-9 of those are purely you guys arguing backwards and forwards without any actual progress being made? The same can be said of a lot of the longer threads in YMDC. Here's a serious question for you:
Have either of you ever successfully changed the other person's mind in any of these debates? If not, what makes you think post #138 on the same subject is magically going to make any difference?
There are no new points being brought up here, and haven't been for a very long time. There's a point where it's OK to just agree to disagree.
Neither one agrees to disagree. I've tried with both before when on opposite sides, and they don't agree. Locking is the only way to finish it.
There, that catches up the last 3 days of posts, with us pretty much being at the same point.
What he is failing to acknowledge is that sequencing cares nothing about time in regards to the game. It only cares that players do not perform rules resolutions at the same time, in real time.
Resolution of rules is done IRL by the players.
The only way to resolve multiple rules at the same time in this case would be to roll all the dice per shooting attack at the same time, which you cannot do.
If we perform one Interceptor resolution at 6 pm and then go have dinner and come back at 8 pm, it is still "at the end of the movement step" according to the game. We resolved the first shot 2 hours ago, we can now do the 2nd shot, the resolution only cares about player time not game time.
Tom,
I agree with you that he cannot agree to disagree, if you attempt to do so he just claims you "gave up and lost". The issue is that fairly resolving the rules isn't his objective, it is to "win" or make you give up.
Harry got his finger cut off while he and Tom were chopping fire wood so you have to drive him to the ER but you already finished the first interceptor shot.
In the game it is still "a moment in time, forever timeless, church bells,gentle music, at the end of the enemy movement phase, with all interceptor units firing, bullets frozen mid air".
In real life you resolved the first Interceptor rule hours ago while sitting in the ER with Tom. Resolving rules is a player action and doesn't apply to the time or phase of the game.
They all fire at the same time.
They do not resolve at the same time.
Sequencing is to prevent a player from resolving rules, at the same time in situations where which would resolve first is unclear.
Resolution is a player action taken in which you are performing the process of applying the rules in whatever matter needed to the physical game to complete them. Applying wounds, removing models from the table, pile in moves etc.
These things cannot occur at the same physical time "irl" and have no bearing on "game time" such as "a moment in time" at the magical "at the end of the movement phase".
Hence, to resolve them at the same time you would have to roll "as a player and physical entity " all interceptor hit dice and wound dice at the same time, physically, in order to be attempting to resolve them "at the same time".
The act of shooting forces you to choose a physical action to take first.
You cannot perform all 3, "at the same time".
Ceann wrote: What he is failing to acknowledge is that sequencing cares nothing about time in regards to the game. It only cares that players do not perform rules resolutions at the same time, in real time.
Resolution of rules is done IRL by the players.
The only way to resolve multiple rules at the same time in this case would be to roll all the dice per shooting attack at the same time, which you cannot do.
If we perform one Interceptor resolution at 6 pm and then go have dinner and come back at 8 pm, it is still "at the end of the movement step" according to the game. We resolved the first shot 2 hours ago, we can now do the 2nd shot, the resolution only cares about player time not game time.
Ceann,
There is a fundamental confusion of terms in your argument where you are confusing 'real life' time versus game time.
The confusion in your argument speaks for itself.
Suffice it to say that the Sequencing rule is dealing with game time and at no point is the game referencing 'real time'.
The BRB makes absolutely no mention 'of real time' except for the occasional places in the BRB where it talks about games taking a few hours.
The Sequencing rule is an entirely in-game mechanic. It's preposterous to argue that the Sequencing rule applies to real time.
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.
Ah, so it gets to invoke some of the rules for shooting, but notall of the rules for shooting. How con-veeeeeennient!!
No, if the rules for shooting are invoked, all the rules for shooting apply, including there being a process for handling the order in which different units and different types of weapons are fired. You do not have permission to ignore these rules while you go try to cherry pick other rules from the shooting section.
An interesting point. Where does it state in Interceptor to only use part of the Shooting Sequence and not all of it? Do we stop with the To Wound process and leave out Saves? What if a unit has two Interceptor Weapons, how is it determined by Interceptor which fires first when the Shooting Sequence already provides it?
An interesting point. Where does it state in Interceptor to only use part of the Shooting Sequence and not all of it? Do we stop with the To Wound process and leave out Saves? What if a unit has two Interceptor Weapons, how is it determined by Interceptor which fires first when the Shooting Sequence already provides it?
Charistoph and doctortom,
This isn't the Shooting phase. Where do you see permission to use the Shooting Sequence rules at all?
How are you even using the Shooting Sequence rules? There is no rule telling you to use the Shooting Sequence rules and you don't need them to resolve an Interceptor shot.
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.
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.
In fact, you do not need the Shooting Sequence rules at all to resolve Interceptor.
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 (pg. 32) and a Roll to Wound (pg. 34), but that is it, no more is required. Each Intercepting rule only permits a single solitary Interceptor shot so nothing justifies the inclusion of the Shooting Sequence rules. There is never more than one Interceptor shooting attack for an Interceptor rule to resolve.
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.
Overwatch is a basic rule, it need explicit instructions.
Interceptor is a special rule.
It doesnt care what overwatch has and neither does anyone else, so stop bringing it up. It's a useless giant block of text.
The rules for shooting apply to all models.
Nothing has removed those rules.
Interceptor can use its status as a special rule to access the shooting sequence to fire. Any phase conflicts with the shooting sequence are over ridden.
Col_Impact wrote:
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 (pg. 32) and a Roll to Wound (pg. 34), but that is it, no more is required. Each Intercepting rule only permits a single solitary Interceptor shot so nothing justifies the inclusion of the Shooting Sequence rules. There is never more than one Interceptor shooting attack for an Interceptor rule to resolve.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your UNITSthat is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The UNIT it can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing UNITis 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.
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.
The rules you CLAIM to use, have references back to the firing unit, which the model is in.
There is no rule allowing you to pick out specific parts of a shooting sequence.
Interceptor doesn't say to do this, you assume it does and start making up rules as is your tendency.
Furthermore...
The Start and End of a Phase
During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens at
the start of a particular phase, such as ‘at the start of your Movement phase’ or ‘at the
start of your Shooting phase’. These are always resolved before anything else during that
phase. Likewise, any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular
phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase,
before the next phase (if any) starts.
It says NOTHING about "a moment in time" that you use as your argument. They are merely times before and after the actions of a phase have occurred, they are not "a moment in time".
It's "discussions" like this that make me want 8th to come all that much faster...
Also the fact that this debate is going when literally in just a few weeks, none of this will even matter a little bit. It's like whole volumes of text were created for absolutely nothing.
Ceann wrote: Overwatch is a basic rule, it need explicit instructions.
Interceptor is a special rule.
It doesnt care what overwatch has and neither does anyone else, so stop bringing it up. It's a useless giant block of text.
The rules for shooting apply to all models.
Nothing has removed those rules.
Interceptor can use its status as a special rule to access the shooting sequence to fire. Any phase conflicts with the shooting sequence are over ridden.
Interceptor doesn't need to access the Shooting Sequence rules. A weapon has already been designated (and along with that a firing model and a firing unit). Each interceptor rule gives permission for a single solitary Interceptor fire. Further, Interceptor has its own targeting criteria and directly references the BRB rules for range and line of sight. The only thing Interceptor needs is a To Hit roll (pg. 32). Any hits will leads automatically to a To Wound roll. And any wounds will also lead automatically to wound allocation. So again, all that Interceptor requires is a To Hit roll.
It's a good thing that Interceptor does not need the Shooting Sequence rules because the Shooting Sequence rules require a Shooting Phase and "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is not a Shooting phase and Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permissions to have an out of sequence Shooting phase.
The rules you CLAIM to use, have references back to the firing unit, which the model is in.
This is not a problem. Interceptor has already designated a weapon and along with that a firing model and a firing unit.
Ceann wrote: There is no rule allowing you to pick out specific parts of a shooting sequence.
Interceptor doesn't say to do this, you assume it does and start making up rules as is your tendency.
The To Hit roll is a rule all on its own. Interceptor only requires a To Hit roll. The Interceptor rule "can be fired" directly justifies the To Hit roll.
Nothing in the Interceptor rule justifies accessing the Shooting Sequence rules. It's not a Shooting Phase. The Shooting Sequence rules BREAK if it's not a Shooting phase. In the context of resolving a single Interceptor rule, we are only ever dealing with a solitary shooting attack so there is nothing to sequence.
Why are you insisting on accessing the Shooting Sequence rules when you have no justification for doing so? Are you aware that the Shooting Sequence rules BREAK when you try to use them with Interceptor since it's not a Shooting phase?
The only thing that Interceptor needs is a To Hit roll to be able to complete its permissions.
The Start and End of a Phase
During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens at
the start of a particular phase, such as ‘at the start of your Movement phase’ or ‘at the
start of your Shooting phase’. These are always resolved before anything else during that
phase. Likewise, any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular
phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase,
before the next phase (if any) starts.
It says NOTHING about "a moment in time" that you use as your argument. They are merely times before and after the actions of a phase have occurred, they are not "a moment in time".
The Sequencing rule itself explicitly indicates that "at THE START of the Movement phase" and anything similar to that is a singular moment in time. We can come to no other conclusion than that "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is similar to "at THE START of the Movement phase". Therefore "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is also a singular moment in time.
The rules do not agree with your argument. So unless you are going to start calling the Sequencing rule a liar, it looks like we are going to have to accept what the Sequencing rule says about "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" - that it's a singular moment in time.
lordwellingstone wrote: It's "discussions" like this that make me want 8th to come all that much faster...
Also the fact that this debate is going when literally in just a few weeks, none of this will even matter a little bit. It's like whole volumes of text were created for absolutely nothing.
The sad part is that due to a certain person's esoteric grasp on English, I rather doubt it.
I do wonder if Interceptor will be a standard rule, or just one for a few units like the Hydra and Stalker...
lordwellingstone wrote: It's "discussions" like this that make me want 8th to come all that much faster...
Also the fact that this debate is going when literally in just a few weeks, none of this will even matter a little bit. It's like whole volumes of text were created for absolutely nothing.
The sad part is that due to a certain person's esoteric grasp on English, I rather doubt it.
I do wonder if Interceptor will be a standard rule, or just one for a few units like the Hydra and Stalker...
I hope they do, even if it's just vs flyers. That never made any sense to me that a hydra couldn't intercept a flyer once they gave us that rule.
An interesting point. Where does it state in Interceptor to only use part of the Shooting Sequence and not all of it? Do we stop with the To Wound process and leave out Saves? What if a unit has two Interceptor Weapons, how is it determined by Interceptor which fires first when the Shooting Sequence already provides it?
Charistoph and doctortom,
This isn't the Shooting phase. Where do you see permission to use the Shooting Sequence rules at all?
Permission to fire weapons as granted by Interceptor. If you are shooting you have to use the shooting process. These are basic rules for shooting. It is especially given if you are dealing with multiple units or multiple types of weapons firing. The shooting process dictates how these are handled. "When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first" is a requirement for sequencing. There is wording in the shooting process that is explicit how to handle it. Therefore you do not get to use sequencing in this case.
col_impact wrote: In fact, you do not need the Shooting Sequence rules at all to resolve Interceptor.
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).
Incorrect. When you invoke the rules for shooting you invoke the rules for the shooting process. You do not have permission to cherry pick the portion of the basic rules you want to use here and ignore ones you find inconvenient. The proof of this? The Interceptor rule provides permission to fire the weapon. Technically, if you do not have permission to use the shooting process, firing the weapon would cover only rolling to hit - it does not give permission to see if any shots that successfully hit do any damage. And, I see you even left the Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties part from what Interceptor only needs to do - it's your subconscious trying to point out to you the fallacy of your thought here.
No, you get permission to use the shooting process, especially in a case where multiple units have permission to fire. You have to prove that the Interceptor rules override the basic permissions involved with using the shooting procedure to shoot.
Your saying that you don't use the shooting sequence (actually it's the shooting process - the shooting sequence is merely a table summarizing the process) is the equivalent of saying you don't apply unit coherency rules when a unit runs because the unit coherency rules only apply during the movement phase.
lordwellingstone wrote: It's "discussions" like this that make me want 8th to come all that much faster...
Also the fact that this debate is going when literally in just a few weeks, none of this will even matter a little bit. It's like whole volumes of text were created for absolutely nothing.
The sad part is that due to a certain person's esoteric grasp on English, I rather doubt it.
I do wonder if Interceptor will be a standard rule, or just one for a few units like the Hydra and Stalker...
Probably just for a few units or possibly some weapons. It will be one of those rules that will show up on the specfic datasheets though I imagine.
It wouldn't surprise me to see some wording changes for sequencing though.
An interesting point. Where does it state in Interceptor to only use part of the Shooting Sequence and not all of it? Do we stop with the To Wound process and leave out Saves? What if a unit has two Interceptor Weapons, how is it determined by Interceptor which fires first when the Shooting Sequence already provides it?
Charistoph and doctortom,
This isn't the Shooting phase. Where do you see permission to use the Shooting Sequence rules at all?
Permission to fire weapons as granted by Interceptor. If you are shooting you have to use the shooting process. These are basic rules for shooting. It is especially given if you are dealing with multiple units or multiple types of weapons firing. The shooting process dictates how these are handled. "When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first" is a requirement for sequencing. There is wording in the shooting process that is explicit how to handle it. Therefore you do not get to use sequencing in this case.
col_impact wrote: In fact, you do not need the Shooting Sequence rules at all to resolve Interceptor.
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).
Incorrect. When you invoke the rules for shooting you invoke the rules for the shooting process. You do not have permission to cherry pick the portion of the basic rules you want to use here and ignore ones you find inconvenient. The proof of this? The Interceptor rule provides permission to fire the weapon. Technically, if you do not have permission to use the shooting process, firing the weapon would cover only rolling to hit - it does not give permission to see if any shots that successfully hit do any damage. And, I see you even left the Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties part from what Interceptor only needs to do - it's your subconscious trying to point out to you the fallacy of your thought here.
No, you get permission to use the shooting process, especially in a case where multiple units have permission to fire. You have to prove that the Interceptor rules override the basic permissions involved with using the shooting procedure to shoot.
Your saying that you don't use the shooting sequence (actually it's the shooting process - the shooting sequence is merely a table summarizing the process) is the equivalent of saying you don't apply unit coherency rules when a unit runs because the unit coherency rules only apply during the movement phase.
How I see it is the Shooting Sequence is the process for shooting, especially as it is specifically introduced as such in the second paragraph of the Shooting Phase. There is no difference between performing Overwatch or Interceptor in this regards. Indeed, the language isn't that much different. The rulebook never states to treat Overwatch as using the rules Shooting Phase any more than Interceptor. And the Shooting Phase rules are not limited to only Shooting. Not even considering the fact that Morale intrudes itself in to it, we also have Running.
So, unless a certain person is suggesting that his opponents are stating we are also allowing Running to happen with Interceptor and Overwatch, he is way off the mark. But then, he usually makes overreaching assumptions about what people write, be it rulebook or posts here, so it wouldn't surprise me that thought is lurking somewhere in that brain.
I hope they do, even if it's just vs flyers. That never made any sense to me that a hydra couldn't intercept a flyer once they gave us that rule.
More than likely, but GW has done some weird things before. I wouldn't put anything past them.
I doubt we will see much change in the terminology on its sequencing. If nothing else, it will be after all enemy units have moved and before any Bravery Checks are made due to Dangerous Terrain (if that even remains a thing).
I can appreciate it being an anti-Flyer thing, only, though. The whole point of a Drop Pod is that you hit too fast and hard to be tracked, and that doesn't even consider the other forms of Deep Strike like teleportation or under-surface emergence like the Mawlock.
I can appreciate it being an anti-Flyer thing, only, though. The whole point of a Drop Pod is that you hit too fast and hard to be tracked, and that doesn't even consider the other forms of Deep Strike like teleportation or under-surface emergence like the Mawlock.
Given that Flyers will be their own battlefield role type (and keyword), I can see it being set to work with keyword Flyer only, or possibly also working with some other keyword that Drop Pods and anything else coming from orbit without teleportation.
col_impact wrote: In fact, you do not need the Shooting Sequence rules at all to resolve Interceptor.
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).
Incorrect. When you invoke the rules for shooting you invoke the rules for the shooting process.
How are you even justifying this statement? This amounts to a House Rule on your part.
No rule tells you to use the rules for the Shooting Sequence (aka shooting process).
The Shooting Sequence is tied to the Shooting phase and BREAKS if you attempt to use it "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" in the Nominate a Unit to Shoot step.
The Interceptor rule already designates a weapon and a firing model and a firing unit. The Interceptor rule provides its own targeting criteria and directly references range and line of sight in the BRB.
The only thing that the Interceptor rule requires to resolve the single solitary shooting attack is the To Hit roll.
doctortom wrote: You do not have permission to cherry pick the portion of the basic rules you want to use here and ignore ones you find inconvenient.
No one is cherry-picking. The Interceptor "can be fired" only requires a To Hit roll. This isn't a shooting phase and there is no collective of firings to resolve so the Shooting Sequence rules are not required.
Remember a single Interceptor rule only gives permission to resolve a single solitary Interceptor shot.
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. Ifthis 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.
"A weapon" "can be fired" is a single shooting attack. So there is no set of shots from multiple Interceptor weapons to sequence. There is absolutely no need for the Shooting Sequence rules.
doctortom wrote: The proof of this? The Interceptor rule provides permission to fire the weapon. Technically, if you do not have permission to use the shooting process, firing the weapon would cover only rolling to hit
Exactly. You technically only have permission to Roll to Hit. I am glad you are admitting to what is 'technically' going on here. So we have the rules as written giving justification to roll To Hit and nothing more.
You are House Ruling to go beyond that direct justification to roll To Hit when you say you can use the Shooting Sequence rules. Nothing in the Interceptor rule justifies the Shooting Sequence.
It's not a bad House Rule to say that an Interceptor shot uses the Shooting Sequence rules, but it is a House Rule nonetheless.
I am going to stick to the Rules As Written.
doctortom wrote: - it does not give permission to see if any shots that successfully hit do any damage. And, I see you even left the Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties part from what Interceptor only needs to do - it's your subconscious trying to point out to you the fallacy of your thought here.
Permission is not required for those.
Once a To Hit roll generates hits then those hits themselves justify a To Wound roll just as easily as the hits auto generated by a Vehicle Explodes! result in a To Wound roll. Also once wounds are generated then those wounds justify Wound Allocation (just as in Explodes!).
So the To Hit roll generates hits that then technically justifies To Wound that then technically justifies Wound allocation.
doctortom wrote: No, you get permission to use the shooting process, especially in a case where multiple units have permission to fire. You have to prove that the Interceptor rules override the basic permissions involved with using the shooting procedure to shoot.
A single Interceptor does not give permission for multiple units to fire, only a single weapon. So again, rules as written only justifies a single weapon firing. If you apply the Shooting Sequence rules then you are going beyond the rules as written and are House Ruling.
doctortom wrote: Your saying that you don't use the shooting sequence (actually it's the shooting process - the shooting sequence is merely a table summarizing the process) is the equivalent of saying you don't apply unit coherency rules when a unit runs because the unit coherency rules only apply during the movement phase.
Nice try. The unit coherency rules are applied "when you are moving a unit' so it applies outside the Movement phase whenever you are moving a unit.
If you are going to propose a slippery slope argument make sure you read the rules involved first.
Let's stick to what the rules as written justify for Interceptor, shall we? As you admit, Interceptor only technically justifies a To Hit roll and nothing more. So let's stick to that. I am not interested in discussing House Rules.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
What rule tells you to break up the shooting sequence?
None.
Does interceptor care "being a special rule" that part of the sequence breaks? No, it overrides the conflict.
If YOU are going to propose a slippery slope argument you read the rules first. The rules for the application of Wounds and removed casualties directly refer back to the firing UNIT. You need to nominate a unit so that when removing models you know which model in the unit receiving fire to be removed as casualties. Wounds are applied to the closest model in the unit taking fire to the unit firing.
You are inventing house rules of your own by breaking up the shooting sequence and then accusing others of doing the very thing you are doing.
A standard hypocritical argument that defeats itself.
If you were following the RAW then you couldn't allocate wounds or remove models because no unit fired.
Only units select a weapon, only units declare a target .
But by all means play word soup some more and break more rules.
doctortom wrote: The proof of this? The Interceptor rule provides permission to fire the weapon. Technically, if you do not have permission to use the shooting process, firing the weapon would cover only rolling to hit
Exactly. You technically only have permission to Roll to Hit. I am glad you are admitting to what is 'technically' going on here. So we have the rules as written giving justification to roll To Hit and nothing more.
That's not what you said before. You said roll to hit and roll to wound. You didn't even mention Wound Allocation and remove casualties in your last post. The fact that you are thinking that this is all you are permitted shows how screwed up your argument is. If you have only permission to roll to hit, as you just stated, you do not have permission to roll to wound (or to penetrate if it['s a vehicle) or to allocate wounds (or resolve the damage on vehicles) or remove casualties. That means if we go by what you say is only allowed for permission, Interceptor fire can never damage anything. That's the consequence of your assumption that only the roll to hit is allowed, that the rule is useless. In the normal world, however, In order to shoot, you have to follow the shooting process. It is mainly for the shooting phase, granted, just as movement is primarily for the movement phase, but the basic rules for shooting still apply when you are told to shoot in other phases by special rules.
col_impact wrote:Once a To Hit roll generates hits then those hits themselves justify a To Wound roll just as easily as the hits auto generated by a Vehicle Explodes! result in a To Wound roll. Also once wounds are generated then those wounds justify Wound Allocation (just as in Explodes!).
No, that is merely an assumption of yours - one based on following the shooting process. If you only have permission to fire the weapon without using the shooting process, you only have permission to roll to hit, as that is what they refer to as firing the weapon (in weapons that can fire in more than one mode). That you do not get to resolve the hits to a wound roll is merely an assumption on your part. You are invoking parts of the shooting process when, by your claim, you do not have permission to use those parts.
col impact wrote:So the To Hit roll generates hits that then technically justifies To Wound that then technically justifies Wound allocation.
Another way to look at it is that if you technically have permission to make the to wound rolls, you also technically have permission to use the shooting sequence rules for cases when more than one unit or more than one type of weapon is firing. If the to wound roll is implicit as a basic rule for resolving it, so is the rest of the shooting process...a BASIC rule you do not have permission to override except that you get to shoot at the end of the movement phase. You don't get to ignore the basic rules that are there that dictate an order for resolultion, then claim there are no rules for the order of resolution and therefore the active player gets to dictate it - one weapon at a time. Pack a lunch if one side has Coteaz.
What rule tells you to break up the shooting sequence?
None.
Does interceptor care "being a special rule" that part of the sequence breaks? No, it overrides the conflict.
If YOU are going to propose a slippery slope argument you read the rules first. The rules for the application of Wounds and removed casualties directly refer back to the firing UNIT. You need to nominate a unit so that when removing models you know which model in the unit receiving fire to be removed as casualties. Wounds are applied to the closest model in the unit taking fire to the unit firing.
You are inventing house rules of your own by breaking up the shooting sequence and then accusing others of doing the very thing you are doing.
A standard hypocritical argument that defeats itself.
If you were following the RAW then you couldn't allocate wounds or remove models because no unit fired.
Only units select a weapon, only units declare a target .
But by all means play word soup some more and break more rules.
Good point. He forgot "select a target" from his list, so I guess you don't get to select a target because he claims it isn't part of the shooting rules specified. Or, by his standards, he is house ruling it so that a model and not a unit selects the target.
I was wrong about all the weapons can fire only one at a time, however. The "select a weapon' stage states that "all models in the unit that are equipped with the selected weapon can now shoot at the target unit with that weapon." However, you do have the other rule "When firing with a unit, completely resolve all attacks from the same weapons at the same time before moving onto any differently names weapons", Since GW has stated that if a model in a unit has fired the unit has fired, this has some negative implications if you try to resolve the weapons one at a time. It also means that with the col's assumption, a consequence would be that only one weapon type in the unit could fire (even if you get to fire that weapon type all at once as per the first paragraph), because by the time he invokes Interceptor again the unit the model is in is considered to have already fired. Following the actual written rules and following the shooting process means that you get to resolve all the weapons before moving on to the next unit.
OK I have some questions, if a model has multiple weapons, with the Interceptor special rule, can he fire both?
For example, let's say that a mission has a Mystery Objective that gives Interceptor to all weapons in the controlling unit. Would a Tac squad be able to fire both their Bolt Pistols and Bolters? After all the restriction on firing multiple weapons is only in the Shooting phase.
Furthermore, since Interceptor happens at the end of the Movement phase, the preceding movement phase would be the firing model's movement phase. Does that mean if the model moved and is carrying a Heavy weapon the shots are fired as Snap Shots? Or does that rule only apply to the Shooting phase as well?
What if a model whose weapon has the Interceptor special rule is locked in combat? can they still fire? After all the restrictions on firing while locked in combat only restrict the Shooting phase and Overwatch.
What rule tells you to break up the shooting sequence?
None.
You have this backwards. No rule is telling you to use the Shooting Sequence.
Interceptor is only telling you to resolve a solitary shot (i.e. to make a To Hit roll).
Ceann wrote: Does interceptor care "being a special rule" that part of the sequence breaks? No, it overrides the conflict.
There is no conflict because Interceptor does not require the Shooting Sequence rules. Interceptor does not care any more about the Shooting Sequence rules than it cares about the Charging rules. Interceptor does not involve more than one shooting attack so there is nothing to sequence in a Shooting Sequence.
Ceann wrote: If YOU are going to propose a slippery slope argument you read the rules first. The rules for the application of Wounds and removed casualties directly refer back to the firing UNIT. You need to nominate a unit so that when removing models you know which model in the unit receiving fire to be removed as casualties. Wounds are applied to the closest model in the unit taking fire to the unit firing.
You are inventing house rules of your own by breaking up the shooting sequence and then accusing others of doing the very thing you are doing.
A standard hypocritical argument that defeats itself.
If you were following the RAW then you couldn't allocate wounds or remove models because no unit fired.
Only units select a weapon, only units declare a target .
But by all means play word soup some more and break more rules.
The Interceptor rule already designates a weapon and along with that a firing model and a firing unit. I guess you just didn't realize that. So any To Wound roll rule or Wound Allocation rule already has everything it needs.
Ceann wrote: You are inventing house rules of your own by breaking up the shooting sequence and then accusing others of doing the very thing you are doing.
I am not breaking up anything. There is a single shooting attack to resolve. That only justifies a To Hit roll.
If you go beyond what Interceptor directly justifies then you are House Ruling.
col_impact wrote: I am not breaking up anything. There is a single shooting attack to resolve. That only justifies a To Hit roll.
If you go beyond what Interceptor directly justifies then you are House Ruling.
Okay, so it can never wound. Got it-since Hit Rolls don't lead into Wound Rolls, unless you're using the Shooting Sequence, which we're not, according to you.
col_impact wrote: I am not breaking up anything. There is a single shooting attack to resolve. That only justifies a To Hit roll.
If you go beyond what Interceptor directly justifies then you are House Ruling.
Okay, so it can never wound. Got it-since Hit Rolls don't lead into Wound Rolls, unless you're using the Shooting Sequence, which we're not, according to you.
So Interceptor never does anything!
Nope. The hits produced by the To Hit roll directly justify a To Wound roll in the same way the auto hits of an Explodes! result justifies To Wound rolls.
Remember, the Explodes! rule does not use the Shooting Sequence. The hits Explodes! produces directly justify a To Wound roll.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew wrote: OK I have some questions, if a model has multiple weapons, with the Interceptor special rule, can he fire both?
For example, let's say that a mission has a Mystery Objective that gives Interceptor to all weapons in the controlling unit. Would a Tac squad be able to fire both their Bolt Pistols and Bolters? After all the restriction on firing multiple weapons is only in the Shooting phase.
Furthermore, since Interceptor happens at the end of the Movement phase, the preceding movement phase would be the firing model's movement phase. Does that mean if the model moved and is carrying a Heavy weapon the shots are fired as Snap Shots? Or does that rule only apply to the Shooting phase as well?
What if a model whose weapon has the Interceptor special rule is locked in combat? can they still fire? After all the restrictions on firing while locked in combat only restrict the Shooting phase and Overwatch.
These are all good questions but are entirely separate from the case at hand.
By no stretch of the imagination is an Interceptor weapon fired in a Shooting phase.
So any restrictions that apply in a shooting phase do not apply to Interceptor weapons according to the Rules As Written.
There is a very popular house rule to treat Interceptor like an out of sequence Shooting phase but it's nothing more than a house rule.
Remember, the Explodes! rule does not use the Shooting Sequence. The hits Explodes! produces directly justify a To Wound roll.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew wrote: OK I have some questions, if a model has multiple weapons, with the Interceptor special rule, can he fire both?
For example, let's say that a mission has a Mystery Objective that gives Interceptor to all weapons in the controlling unit. Would a Tac squad be able to fire both their Bolt Pistols and Bolters? After all the restriction on firing multiple weapons is only in the Shooting phase.
Furthermore, since Interceptor happens at the end of the Movement phase, the preceding movement phase would be the firing model's movement phase. Does that mean if the model moved and is carrying a Heavy weapon the shots are fired as Snap Shots? Or does that rule only apply to the Shooting phase as well?
What if a model whose weapon has the Interceptor special rule is locked in combat? can they still fire? After all the restrictions on firing while locked in combat only restrict the Shooting phase and Overwatch.
These are all good questions but are entirely separate from the case at hand.
By no stretch of the imagination is an Interceptor weapon fired in a Shooting phase.
So any restrictions that apply in a shooting phase do not apply to Interceptor weapons according to the Rules As Written.
There is a very popular house rule to treat Interceptor like an out of sequence Shooting phase but it's nothing more than a house rule.
Obfuscation and dishonesty is what your argument consists of.
Basic rules apply to all models in the game. Period. Full stop.
In fact there are no other rules in the game to perform a shooting attack other than the shooting sequence.
You seek to dissect the sequence into it's individual explained parts claiming them to all be individual rules, they are not.
A Shooting Sequence is thus... a particular order in which related events, movements, or things follow each other.
You cannot choose part of the sequence. If you do then it is no longer a sequence and you cannot use any of it.
Nothing is removing the permissions granted to the model to use the shooting sequence to fire.
Interceptor is a special rule and is permitted to override any conflict you can put to words to use the shooting sequence.
The shooting sequence is explicit.
The Sequencing rule has satisfied by explicit rules and rests.
Ceann wrote: Obfuscation and dishonesty is what your argument consists of.
Basic rules apply to all models in the game. Period. Full stop.
In fact there are no other rules in the game to perform a shooting attack other than the shooting sequence.
Not correct. The To Hit roll will process a shooting attack in this case just fine.
Remember, the Interceptor rule has already designated a firing weapon, a firing model, a firing unit, targeting criteria, range, and line of sight.
The Shooting Sequence rules are not required. We are only dealing with a single solitary shot and everything has already been specified by the Interceptor rule.
Only a roll To Hit is required.
Ceann wrote: You seek to dissect the sequence into it's individual explained parts claiming them to all be individual rules, they are not.
A Shooting Sequence is thus... a particular order in which related events, movements, or things follow each other.
You cannot choose part of the sequence. If you do then it is no longer a sequence and you cannot use any of it.
Incorrect. The To Hit roll is a rule all by itself and it resolves on its own just fine.
Ceann wrote: Nothing is removing the permissions granted to the model to use the shooting sequence to fire.
Interceptor is a special rule and is permitted to override any conflict you can put to words to use the shooting sequence.
The shooting sequence is explicit.
The Sequencing rule has satisfied by explicit rules and rests.
You have this all backwards. A model only has permission to use the Shooting Sequence in a Shooting phase. This is not a Shooting phase, and no rule is telling us to use the Shooting Sequence. If you are using the Shooting Sequence to resolve Interceptor then you are House Ruling.
The Interceptor rule only narrowly requires us to resolve an "a weapon" "can be fired" permission. We resolve that with a To Hit roll.
Ceann wrote: Obfuscation and dishonesty is what your argument consists of.
Basic rules apply to all models in the game. Period. Full stop.
In fact there are no other rules in the game to perform a shooting attack other than the shooting sequence.
Not correct. The To Hit roll will process a shooting attack in this case just fine.
Remember, the Interceptor rule has already designated a firing weapon, a firing model, a firing unit, targeting criteria, range, and line of sight.
The Shooting Sequence rules are not required. We are only dealing with a single solitary shot and everything has already been specified by the Interceptor rule.
Only a roll To Hit is required.
Ceann wrote: You seek to dissect the sequence into it's individual explained parts claiming them to all be individual rules, they are not.
A Shooting Sequence is thus... a particular order in which related events, movements, or things follow each other.
You cannot choose part of the sequence. If you do then it is no longer a sequence and you cannot use any of it.
Incorrect. The To Hit roll is a rule all by itself and it resolves on its own just fine.
Ceann wrote: Nothing is removing the permissions granted to the model to use the shooting sequence to fire.
Interceptor is a special rule and is permitted to override any conflict you can put to words to use the shooting sequence.
The shooting sequence is explicit.
The Sequencing rule has satisfied by explicit rules and rests.
You have this all backwards. A model only has permission to use the Shooting Sequence in a Shooting phase. No rule is telling us to use the Shooting Sequence and this is not a Shooting phase. If you are using the Shooting Sequence to resolve Interceptor then you are House Ruling.
The Interceptor rule only narrowly requires us to resolve an "a weapon" "can be fired" permission. We resolve that with a To Hit roll.
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 only thing that is specific here is that it is notating the specifics of Interceptor, which is the weapon must have the rule and that it can fire on a unit that arrived this turn.
It says nothing here about "resolving with a To Hit roll".
Doing so IS YOUR OPINION and I am surprised you would make such an argument.
Again a demonstration of how you are the one "house ruling" and then making hypocritical statements.
Basic rules apply to all models in the game, this includes the rules for making a shooting attack, which is the shooting sequence.
Nothing has removed the rules for the shooting sequence that dictate how to fire/perform a shooting attack.
We don't CARE that it isn't a shooting phase, stating that over and over doesn't help your argument at all.
Interceptor is a special rule is permitted to override a conflict dictating when it can fire.
And before you go pulling your dusty beaten old "this isn't overwatch" out of your pocket, overwatch is basic rule and is required to have explicit permission, because it cannot override.
Interceptor is a special rule and overrides conflicts.
Nothing is removing the REQUIREMENT of the model to use the shooting sequence to fire.
Interceptor is a special rule and is permitted to override any conflict you can put to words to use the shooting sequence.
The shooting sequence is explicit and you must follow the sequence.
The Sequencing rule has been satisfied by explicit rules and rests.
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 only thing that is specific here is that it is notating the specifics of Interceptor, which is the weapon must have the rule and that it can fire on a unit that arrived this turn.
It says nothing here about "resolving with a To Hit roll".
Doing so IS YOUR OPINION and I am surprised you would make such an argument.
Again a demonstration of how you are the one "house ruling" and then making hypocritical statements.
Basic rules apply to all models in the game, this includes the rules for making a shooting attack, which is the shooting sequence.
Nothing has removed the rules for the shooting sequence that dictate how to fire/perform a shooting attack.
We don't CARE that it isn't a shooting phase, stating that over and over doesn't help your argument at all.
Interceptor is a special rule is permitted to override a conflict dictating when it can fire.
And before you go pulling your dusty beaten old "this isn't overwatch" out of your pocket, overwatch is basic rule and is required to have explicit permission, because it cannot override.
Interceptor is a special rule and overrides conflicts.
Nothing is removing the REQUIREMENT of the model to use the shooting sequence to fire.
Interceptor is a special rule and is permitted to override any conflict you can put to words to use the shooting sequence.
The shooting sequence is explicit and you must follow the sequence.
The Sequencing rule has been satisfied by explicit rules and rests.
The Shooting Sequence rules are not used to fire. They are used to schedule all of the shooting in a Shooting phase.
The rule for the To Hit roll is what is actually specifically used to fire.
The Interceptor rule ("a weapon" "can be fired") directly justifies a To Hit roll and only justifies a To Hit roll and nothing more. There are no other shooting attacks to sequence.
If you are using the Shooting Sequence rules to resolve an Interceptor shot then you are House Ruling. This is not a Shooting phase so you do not have permission to use the Shooting Sequence rules.
No rule has granted permission for you to use the Shooting Sequence rules.
The Interceptor rule only grants permission for a To Hit roll.
Ceann wrote: Nothing is removing the REQUIREMENT of the model to use the shooting sequence to fire.
This is utter nonsense. There is absolutely no requirement in the BRB for the model to use the Shooting Sequence to fire.
You are making this up. When you make things up like this it only broadcasts that your argument has no basis in the rules.
Feel free to prove there is a requirement in the BRB for a model to use the Shooting Sequence to fire by pointing to the actual rule saying so.
Oh wait, you can't.
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 only thing that is specific here is that it is notating the specifics of Interceptor, which is the weapon must have the rule and that it can fire on a unit that arrived this turn.
It says nothing here about "resolving with a To Hit roll".
Doing so IS YOUR OPINION and I am surprised you would make such an argument.
Again a demonstration of how you are the one "house ruling" and then making hypocritical statements.
Basic rules apply to all models in the game, this includes the rules for making a shooting attack, which is the shooting sequence.
Nothing has removed the rules for the shooting sequence that dictate how to fire/perform a shooting attack.
We don't CARE that it isn't a shooting phase, stating that over and over doesn't help your argument at all.
Interceptor is a special rule is permitted to override a conflict dictating when it can fire.
And before you go pulling your dusty beaten old "this isn't overwatch" out of your pocket, overwatch is basic rule and is required to have explicit permission, because it cannot override.
Interceptor is a special rule and overrides conflicts.
Nothing is removing the REQUIREMENT of the model to use the shooting sequence to fire.
Interceptor is a special rule and is permitted to override any conflict you can put to words to use the shooting sequence.
The shooting sequence is explicit and you must follow the sequence.
The Sequencing rule has been satisfied by explicit rules and rests.
The Shooting Sequence rules are not used to fire. They are used to schedule all of the shooting in a Shooting phase.
The rule for the To Hit roll is what is actually specifically used to fire.
The Interceptor rule ("a weapon" "can be fired") directly justifies a To Hit roll and only justifies a To Hit roll and nothing more. There are no other shooting attacks to sequence.
If you are using the Shooting Sequence rules to resolve an Interceptor shot then you are House Ruling. This is not a Shooting phase so you do not have permission to use the Shooting Sequence rules.
No rule has granted permission for you to use the Shooting Sequence rules.
The Interceptor rule only grants permission for a To Hit roll.
The rule for "to hit" is part of the shooting sequence.
Nothing has given you permission to single it out of the sequence and start there, except your personal opinion.
During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy.
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.
Interceptor is overriding "during the shooting phase" the other rules associated with shooting process are still attached to "can fire at the enemy" and you are required to follow them.
The shooting rules are not optional, they are basic rules and you must follow them.
Please stop using rampant claims of "house ruling" in place of an argument, it is quite sad to a reduction of discourse on your part.
You have been reduced to screaming "you are house ruling, you are house ruling" at everyone. Seems like you have lost.
You cannot point to any literal part of Interceptor and claim it tells you to use "to hit roll" you are making this up as is normal for your arguments, invent things until people give up so you claim "victory".
The rule for "to hit" is part of the shooting sequence.
Nothing has given you permission to single it out of the sequence and start there, except your personal opinion.
Incorrect. The To Hit roll is a rule on its own.
Interceptor "a weapon" "can be fired" directly justifies a To Hit roll.
Ceann wrote: During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy.
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.
Interceptor is overriding "during the shooting phase" the other rules associated with shooting process are still attached to "can fire at the enemy" and you are required to follow them.
The shooting rules are not optional, they are basic rules and you must follow them.
There is no rule telling you to use the Shooting Sequence or to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
Interceptor only requires you to resolve a shot. The To Hit roll rule is the rule you use to resolve a shot.
Ceann wrote: Please stop using rampant claims of "house ruling" in place of an argument, it is quite sad to a reduction of discourse on your part.
You have been reduced to screaming "you are house ruling, you are house ruling" at everyone. Seems like you have lost.
You cannot point to any literal part of Interceptor and claim it tells you to use "to hit roll" you are making this up as is normal for your arguments, invent things until people give up so you claim "victory".
For the Interceptor rule you have a single solitary shot to resolve. The weapon that is firing, the model that is firing, the unit that is firing, and the unit you are targeting have all been resolved.
This is not a Shooting phase. No rule tells you to use the Shooting Sequence rules. And Interceptor does not require the Shooting Sequence rules.
The To Hit roll is the specific rule that resolves shots.
Interceptor only justifies a To Hit roll. Remember, the weapon that is firing, the model that is firing, the unit that is firing, and the unit you are targeting have all already been resolved by Interceptor.
If you are using the Shooting Sequence rule when that rule is not directly justified by Interceptor then you are House Ruling.
We are concerned in YMDC with sorting out what the Rules As Written dictate.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
The rule for "to hit" is part of the shooting sequence.
Nothing has given you permission to single it out of the sequence and start there, except your personal opinion.
Incorrect. The To Hit roll is a rule on its own.
Interceptor "a weapon" "can be fired" directly justifies a To Hit roll.
Ceann wrote: During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy.
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.
Interceptor is overriding "during the shooting phase" the other rules associated with shooting process are still attached to "can fire at the enemy" and you are required to follow them.
The shooting rules are not optional, they are basic rules and you must follow them.
There is no rule telling you to use the Shooting Sequence or to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
Interceptor only requires you to resolve a shot. The To Hit roll rule is the rule you use to resolve a shot.
Ceann wrote: Please stop using rampant claims of "house ruling" in place of an argument, it is quite sad to a reduction of discourse on your part.
You have been reduced to screaming "you are house ruling, you are house ruling" at everyone. Seems like you have lost.
You cannot point to any literal part of Interceptor and claim it tells you to use "to hit roll" you are making this up as is normal for your arguments, invent things until people give up so you claim "victory".
For the Interceptor rule you have a single solitary shot to resolve. The weapon that is firing, the model that is firing, the unit that is firing, and the unit you are targeting have all been resolved.
This is not a Shooting phase. No rule tells you to use the Shooting Sequence rules. And Interceptor does not require the Shooting Sequence rules.
The To Hit roll is the specific rule that resolves shots.
Interceptor only justifies a To Hit roll. Remember, the weapon that is firing, the model that is firing, the unit that is firing, and the unit you are targeting have all already been resolved by Interceptor.
If you are using the Shooting Sequence rule when that rule is not directly justified by Interceptor then you are House Ruling.
We are concerned in YMDC with sorting out what the Rules As Written dictate.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
Oh well excuse me, I wasn't aware you were YMDC official representative.
Maybe you could try following the rules and stating your precedence that " to hit is a rule on its own."
"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 summarized in seven steps, as described below."
Does it say "in the seven rules below"? No. Seven steps, to one rule, the shooting sequence.
Basic rules apply to all models, nothing has removed the above rules and in order to "fire at the enemy" you have to follow the seven steps.
Can be fired permits you to "fire at the enemy".
The only conflict to "fire at the enemy" is "during the shooting phase" which is overidden by Interceptor as a special rule.
There is no other rule for firing at the enemy, this is the only one.
The process for firing at the enemy is summarized in seven steps.
Your only goal at this point is to try to separate the explicit nature of shooting from firing.
Which frankly is just silly.
Oh well excuse me, I wasn't aware you were YMDC official representative.
Maybe you could try following the rules and stating your precedence that " to hit is a rule on its own."
"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 summarized in seven steps, as described below."
Does it say "in the seven rules below"? No. Seven steps, to one rule, the shooting sequence.
The To Hit roll has its own heading and section with independent instructions and is therefore a free standing rule
The Shooting Sequence itself is not explicitly identified as a rule. We only know that the Shooting Sequence is itself a rule because it has its own heading and section with independent instructions.
Explodes! results have no trouble accessing the To Wound roll rule as a free standing rule. The To Hit roll rule is just as free standing as the To Wound roll rule.
Ceann wrote: Basic rules apply to all models, nothing has removed the above rules and in order to "fire at the enemy" you have to follow the seven steps.
Can be fired permits you to "fire at the enemy".
The only conflict to "fire at the enemy" is "during the shooting phase" which is overidden by Interceptor as a special rule.
There is no other rule for firing at the enemy, this is the only one.
Incorrect.
The Interceptor rule grants permission to fire an Interceptor weapon at the enemy.
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 Interceptor rule already provides all that the Shooting Sequence provides.
The weapon that is firing, the model that is firing, the unit that is firing, and the unit you are targeting have all been designated by Interceptor already.
The Interceptor rule does not require the Shooting Sequence rules.
You don't get to start adding rules to Interceptor that are not required. Shall we start allowing Interceptor shots to be Twin-linked for the heck of it?
Remember, for the Interceptor rule you have a single solitary shot to resolve.
The only thing that the Interceptor rule needs is a To Hit roll to resolve its single solitary shot by a firing weapon.
The only thing that can be justified directly by the Rules As Written is a To Hit roll.
If you are using the Shooting Sequence rule when that rule is not directly justified by Interceptor then you are House Ruling.
Oh well excuse me, I wasn't aware you were YMDC official representative.
Maybe you could try following the rules and stating your precedence that " to hit is a rule on its own."
"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 summarized in seven steps, as described below."
Does it say "in the seven rules below"? No. Seven steps, to one rule, the shooting sequence.
The To Hit roll has its own heading and section with independent instructions and is therefore a free standing rule
The Shooting Sequence itself is not explicitly identified as a rule. We only know that the Shooting Sequence is itself a rule because it has its own heading and section with independent instructions.
Explodes! results have no trouble accessing the To Wound roll rule as a free standing rule. The To Hit roll rule is just as free standing as the To Wound roll rule.
Ceann wrote: Basic rules apply to all models, nothing has removed the above rules and in order to "fire at the enemy" you have to follow the seven steps.
Can be fired permits you to "fire at the enemy".
The only conflict to "fire at the enemy" is "during the shooting phase" which is overidden by Interceptor as a special rule.
There is no other rule for firing at the enemy, this is the only one.
Incorrect.
The Interceptor rule grants permission to fire an Interceptor weapon at the enemy.
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 Interceptor rule already provides all that the Shooting Sequence provides.
The weapon that is firing, the model that is firing, the unit that is firing, and the unit you are targeting have all been designated by Interceptor already.
The Interceptor rule does not require the Shooting Sequence rules.
You don't get to start adding rules to Interceptor that are not required. Shall we start allowing Interceptor shots to be Twin-linked for the heck of it?
Remember, for the Interceptor rule you have a single solitary shot to resolve.
The only thing that the Interceptor rule needs is a To Hit roll to resolve its single solitary shot by a firing weapon.
The only thing that can be justified directly by the Rules As Written is a To Hit roll.
If you are using the Shooting Sequence rule when that rule is not directly justified by Interceptor then you are House Ruling.
Could you be anymore wrong? This is a joke now. Next the sun won't shine, it will be a house rule.
Basic rules APPLY to all models...UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
Explodes is the result of a penetrating hit, which is the result of a weapon being fired, one that followed the shooting sequence.
Explodes is also a rule about VEHICLES not a rule about shooting.
More obfuscation and distraction by you, from your poor argument.
"To wound" is not a free standing rule, just like "To hit" is not a free standing rule.
Any circumstance that pertains to them will direct you to them SPECIFICALLY.
You have not been directed to steps specifically. Another invention by you.
At this point you are inventing your own rules for every post because you don't have any arguments left.
Interceptor grants the WEAPON permission to fire, it does not make the weapon fire.
Units fire weapons, weapons do not fire themselves.
Again... Basic rules APPLY to all models...UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
Has it been stated otherwise that you do not use shooting sequence to fire at an enemy?
No.
We are not "adding rules" all interceptor does is permit you to fire at the enemy, firing at the enemy using the shooting sequence.
All of the rules for a shooting sequence still apply and must be obeyed because they are applied to all models.
The shooting sequence rules permit the Interceptor weapon to fire in every manner it is requesting to do so.
That does NOT mean that the other rules for shooting are ignored, they are still applied.
Special rules only ignore rules that conflict with them, none of the other sequence rules are conflicting with what Interceptor wishes to do, so they are still applied because...
Basic rules APPLY to all models...UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE, and it hasn't been stated otherwise.
Summarized by your joke of "oh he is housing ruling because I am wrong".
Please keep throwing it into every post, it helps your argument so much.
Rolsheen wrote: Saying rolling to hit is not part of the shooting sequence is just ridiculous and proves that your just trolling.
Roll to Hit is a rule all its own. In addition it is a step in the Shooting Sequence.
The Shooting Sequence rule will access the To Hit roll rule as one of its scheduled steps. In addition, a special rule can directly access the To Hit roll rule.
Interceptor has no need of the Shooting Sequence rule. The weapon that is firing, the model that is firing, the unit that is firing, and the unit you are targeting have all already been designated by Interceptor.
Interceptor only requires the To Hit roll in order to fulfill the permissions it grants.
Basic rules APPLY to all models...UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE
It hasn't been stated otherwise, so all of the rules still apply to firing. A special rule only ignores conflicts it does not ignore all other rules to exclusion of itself.
All of the other rules still apply because there is no conflicts.
Could you be anymore wrong? This is a joke now. Next the sun won't shine, it will be a house rule.
Basic rules APPLY to all models...UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
Explodes is the result of a penetrating hit, which is the result of a weapon being fired, one that followed the shooting sequence.
Explodes is also a rule about VEHICLES not a rule about shooting.
More obfuscation and distraction by you, from your poor argument.
"To wound" is not a free standing rule, just like "To hit" is not a free standing rule.
Any circumstance that pertains to them will direct you to them SPECIFICALLY.
You have not been directed to steps specifically. Another invention by you.
At this point you are inventing your own rules for every post because you don't have any arguments left.
Interceptor grants the WEAPON permission to fire, it does not make the weapon fire.
Units fire weapons, weapons do not fire themselves.
Again... Basic rules APPLY to all models...UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
Has it been stated otherwise that you do not use shooting sequence to fire at an enemy?
No.
We are not "adding rules" all interceptor does is permit you to fire at the enemy, firing at the enemy using the shooting sequence.
All of the rules for a shooting sequence still apply and must be obeyed because they are applied to all models.
The shooting sequence rules permit the Interceptor weapon to fire in every manner it is requesting to do so.
That does NOT mean that the other rules for shooting are ignored, they are still applied.
Special rules only ignore rules that conflict with them, none of the other sequence rules are conflicting with what Interceptor wishes to do, so they are still applied because...
Basic rules APPLY to all models...UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE, and it hasn't been stated otherwise.
Summarized by your joke of "oh he is housing ruling because I am wrong".
Please keep throwing it into every post, it helps your argument so much.
The Basic rules that are applied to all models includes the To Hit roll rule.
Interceptor already grants permission for "a weapon" "can be fired".
The Interceptor rule already provides all that the Shooting Sequence provides.
The weapon that is firing, the model that is firing, the unit that is firing, and the unit you are targeting have all been designated by Interceptor already.
The Interceptor rule does not require the Shooting Sequence rules.
Special rules have the ability to access the Basic rules that they require to fulfill their permissions.
Only a To Hit roll is required.
Remember, only a single solitary weapon firing is allowed by a single Interceptor rule.
Even if, for the sake of argument, the entire Shooting Sequence rules were accessed . . .
Spoiler:
I should remind you that the Shooting Sequence rules wouldn't do anything further than a To Hit roll rule would. A firing weapon, model, and unit have already been determined by that single Interceptor rule and only a single solitary firing is permitted. The single solitary Interceptor shot is resolved and that is the end of it. If there are additional Interceptor weapons to fire they are resolved in the context of the ensuing Interceptor rule's solitary firing permissions. By the time you are firing your first Interceptor weapon then the order of the various Interceptor rule permissions will have been sequenced by the ACTIVE player per the Sequencing rule. 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 your proposed 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 even if we entertain your notion that somehow a Shooting Sequence happens, you still have the Sequencing rule dictating the order in which multiple Interceptor weapons fire. A single Interceptor rule only permits a solitary firing. So the shooting sequence that is permitted to happen in the context of one of those Interceptor rules can only resolve a solitary Interceptor firing. The multiple Interceptor weapon firings are necessarily accomplished by multiple Interceptor rules resolving in the order of the ACTIVE players choosing, per the Sequencing rule.
Anyway, just wanted to point out that you are arguing something that has no consequence to the larger argument at hand. The Sequencing rule still applies whether a To Hit roll happens or a Shooting Sequence happens while resolving a single Interceptor rule.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Interceptor grants permission to fire.
The basic rules are applied to all models.
All of the rules for the shooting sequence apply.
You are "firing at the enemy" so all of the rules are applied.
There is no conflict with what interceptor is asking for so none are overridden.
What is required is irrelevant, all special rules care about is that all of their own conditions are met. They are non-exclusive to rules that do not conflict.
The rules for the shooting sequence are explicit.
So none of the "at the same time" nonsense matters.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first
Sequencing does not apply because the rules explicitly dictate the order of resolution.
Interceptor grants permission to fire.
The basic rules are applied to all models.
All of the rules for the shooting sequence apply.
You are "firing at the enemy" so all of the rules are applied.
There is no conflict with what interceptor is asking for so none are overridden.
What is required is irrelevant, all special rules care about is that all of their own conditions are met. They are non-exclusive to rules that do not conflict.
The rules for the shooting sequence are explicit.
So none of the "at the same time" nonsense matters.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first
Sequencing does not apply because the rules explicitly dictate the order of resolution.
The Sequencing rule has to apply. Remember, a single Interceptor rule only permits a single solitary firing.
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 ffired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Whether you accomplish the single solitary firing with a To Hit roll or a Shooting Sequence you still have only accomplished a single solitary firing.
Multiple Interceptor firings require multiple Interceptor rules to resolve. By the time you know which Interceptor weapon among a multitude of Interceptor weapons can be fired first, the Sequencing rule will have already been applied to order the Interceptor weapons in a sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
The ACTIVE player chooses which Interceptor weapon has the ability to be fired first.
No matter what you do, Ceann, you will always have a cart before the horse problem.
Interceptor grants permission to fire.
The basic rules are applied to all models.
All of the rules for the shooting sequence apply.
You are "firing at the enemy" so all of the rules are applied.
There is no conflict with what interceptor is asking for so none are overridden.
What is required is irrelevant, all special rules care about is that all of their own conditions are met. They are non-exclusive to rules that do not conflict.
The rules for the shooting sequence are explicit.
So none of the "at the same time" nonsense matters.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first
Sequencing does not apply because the rules explicitly dictate the order of resolution.
The Sequencing rule has to apply. Remember, a single Interceptor rule only permits a single solitary firing.
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 ffired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Whether you accomplish the single solitary firing with a To Hit roll or a Shooting Sequence you still have only accomplished a single solitary firing.
Multiple Interceptor firings require multiple Interceptor rules to resolve. By the time you know which Interceptor weapon among a multitude of Interceptor weapons can be fired first, the Sequencing rule will have already been applied to order the Interceptor weapons in a sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
The ACTIVE player chooses which Interceptor weapon has the ability to be fired first.
No matter what you do, Ceann, you will always have a cart before the horse problem.
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.
Sequencing PROOF READS the rules prior to resolution, it checks the WORDING for explicit nature.
A specific weapon will be chosen and the shooting sequence forces one to resolve before the others.
It doesn't matter if there is 10 or 1000 of them.
As the shooting sequence is explicit, Sequencing does nothing, because there is no need for it to intervene.
It only intervenes when which one would resolve first cannot be determined by the rules themselves.
Such as a Skitarii Vanguard charging another Skitarri Vanguard.
Rad Saturation as a rule provides no way to sequence the resolution, so sequencing is forced upon it.
Interceptor allows you to choose which one resolves by the selection of a weapon, making it explicit.
The only "out" you have is to prove the shooting sequence isn't explicit, good luck with that.
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.
Sequencing PROOF READS the rules prior to resolution, it checks the WORDING for explicit nature.
A specific weapon will be chosen and the shooting sequence forces one to resolve before the others.
It doesn't matter if there is 10 or 1000 of them.
As the shooting sequence is explicit, Sequencing does nothing, because there is no need for it to intervene.
It only intervenes when which one would resolve first cannot be determined by the rules themselves.
You are putting the cart before the horse.
You only have permission to fire a single solitary shot in the context of resolving a single Interceptor rule.
So there is no sequencing to be done internally to an Interceptor rule. A To Hit roll or a Shooting Sequence only resolves a single solitary shot.
Rather all the sequencing problems happen at the level of the Interceptor rules themselves. All of the Interceptor permissions are hammering to be able to fire AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule applies and dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor permissions are resolved. By the time you go to fire an Interceptor weapon, the order of which Interceptor weapon can be fired first will have been dictated by the ACTIVE player.
In order to avoid the cart before the horse problem you have to prove that a Shooting Sequence is naturally happening outside the context of the multiple Interceptor rules. Since everything is occurring "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" there is no Shooting Sequence naturally occurring outside of the context of the Interceptor rule permission.
You are back to the "at the same time" nonsense again?
This is a busted argument.
As you stated...
"You only have permission to fire a single solitary shot in the context of resolving a single Interceptor rule. "
You know what that is? That is EXPLICIT.
I don't have to prove anything, sequencing knows that only one weapon will fire, assuring there is no simultaneous resolution. That is ALL it cares about.
That two rules don't resolve at the same time.
Such as a Skitarii Vanguard charging another Skitarri Vanguard.
Rad Saturation as a rule provides no way to sequence the resolution, so sequencing is forced upon it.
There is no player choice involved to have one before the other.
This is simultaneous resolution and requires sequencing.
Choosing a weapon to fire, is not a simultaneous resolution.
Ceann wrote: You are back to the "at the same time" nonsense again?
This is a busted argument.
As you stated...
"You only have permission to fire a single solitary shot in the context of resolving a single Interceptor rule. "
You know what that is? That is EXPLICIT.
I don't have to prove anything, sequencing knows that only one weapon will fire, assuring there is no simultaneous resolution. That is ALL it cares about.
That two rules don't resolve at the same time.
Such as a Skitarii Vanguard charging another Skitarri Vanguard.
Rad Saturation as a rule provides no way to sequence the resolution, so sequencing is forced upon it.
There is no player choice involved to have one before the other.
This is simultaneous resolution and requires sequencing.
Choosing a weapon to fire, is not a simultaneous resolution.
Nope. In the case of multiple Interceptor rules, all those "can be fired" statements for the single solitary weapon firing are competing for the EXACT SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule necessarily applies to sequence those "can be fired" permissions which are trying to resolve AT THE SAME TIME.
The ACTIVE player dictates which of those permissions resolves first. The ACTIVE player will tell the controlling player which of the weapons "can be fired" first, and which "can be fired" second. and so on.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Ceann wrote: Exact same time is irrelevant.
The shooting sequence is explicit.
Can two Rad Saturation be resolved at the same time?
Yes, so they must be sequenced.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first...
Can two Interceptor shooting attacks be resolved at the same time? No, once you choose a weapon no other weapon can fire.
You keep putting the cart before the horse. You keep arguing as if there is a Shooting Sequence that is happening outside of the context of a single Interceptor rule, but there is not.
There is no explicit wording as to which of the multiple Interceptor rules resolve first.
You can't choose a weapon until the ACTIVE player has told you which "can be fired" permission in the multiple Interceptor rules is resolving first, and which is second, and so on.
Sure there is, whichever one you choose.
That is explicit.
You keep ignoring my example because it is correct.
Skitarri Vanguard charges a Skitarii Vanguard.
Is there any method at all open to the player in order to determine which one resolves first on their own?
No. So sequencing is required.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first...
If two weapons want to fire at the same time...
Is there any method at all open to the player in order to determine which one resolves first on their own?
Yes, once you choose a weapon the other cannot fire. Thus prevent simultaneous resolution.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first...
Explicit is determined by lack of player ability to determine resolution, when a player cannot determine clearly which one would resolve first, then they are sequenced.
Ceann wrote: Sure there is, whichever one you choose.
That is explicit.
You keep ignoring my example because it is correct.
Skitarri Vanguard charges a Skitarii Vanguard.
Is there any method at all open to the player in order to determine which one resolves first on their own?
No. So sequencing is required.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first...
If two weapons want to fire at the same time...
Is there any method at all open to the player in order to determine which one resolves first on their own?
Yes, once you choose a weapon the other cannot fire. Thus prevent simultaneous resolution.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first...
Explicit is determined by lack of player ability to determine resolution, when a player cannot determine clearly which one would resolve first, then they are sequenced.
You keep forgetting that any firing happens solely in the context of a single Interceptor rule resolving.
We are dealing with multiple Interceptor rules resolving AT THE SAME TIME.
You can't choose a weapon until the ACTIVE player has resolved the multiple Interceptor time conflicts (per the Sequencing rule) and has told you which "can be fired" permission in the multiple Interceptor rules is resolving first, and which is second, and so on.
If you choose a weapon that the ACTIVE player has told you can be fired second, then you cannot go back and fire the weapon that the ACTIVE player has told you can be fired first.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
I am not forgetting anything, you are.
At the same time DOES NOT MATTER.
Because the Interceptor rule is explicit.
What is the end result of sequencing?
That an order of resolution has been determined.
What is the end result of sequencing 4 instances of Rad Saturation?
Instead of having 4 resolving at the same time, you have 4 individual resolutions.
If I have a Skitarii Vanguard split charge 3 other Vanguards, you have 4 instances of Rad Saturation attempting to resolve or "hammering the same moment" as you like to put it.
There is nothing in the wording of rad saturation that is explicit which allows you to determine which one would resolve first.
If you try to resolve one first, the others are also still trying to resolve.
What is the end result of sequencing 4 instances of Interceptor?
Nothing. The only thing that gets changed is the order, because the rule explicitly determines which one would resolve first.
Meaning it is impossible for them to resolve at the same time, whereas rad saturation it is impossible for them to not resolve at the same time and sequencing being required.
Once one is chosen, the others are prevented from "hammering the same moment".
Hence we have an explicit rule so no sequencing is required, there will never be a simultaneous resolution.
What is the end result of sequencing 4 instances of Interceptor?
Nothing. The only thing that gets changed is the order, because the rule explicitly determines which one would resolve first.
Meaning it is impossible for them to resolve at the same time, whereas rad saturation it is impossible for them to not resolve at the same time and sequencing being required.
Once one is chosen, the others are prevented from "hammering the same moment".
Hence we have an explicit rule so no sequencing is required, there will never be a simultaneous resolution.
Cool. So you are agreeing that the Sequencing rule applies an order to the Interceptor permissions dictated by the ACTIVE player.
Only after the Sequencing rule has been applied has a rule explicitly determined which Interceptor rule "can be fired" permission resolves first.
So the controlling player is presented with an order in which he can fire his weapons by the ACTIVE player.
If the controlling player skips ahead in order and chooses a weapon to fire first that the ACTIVE player has dictated can be fired second then the controlling player cannot go back and fire the weapon deemed first by the ACTIVE player.
So there definitely is a consequence to the order dictated by the Sequencing rule and the ACTIVE player.
"Can be fired", "can be fired", "can be fired", "can be fired" - all resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") which is a singular moment in time.
The problem is that all of the multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase").
The controlling player can't fire until after all of the multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions have been resolved.
The controlling player has no idea which Interceptor weapon "can be fired" first.
The Sequencing rule mandatorily applies to order the multiple permissions to resolve in a sequence of the ACTIVE player's choosing.
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.
Once the Sequencing rule is applied then the controlling player knows which Interceptor weapon to resolve first, second, third, and so on. The order is dictated by the ACTIVE player per the Sequencing rule. In this case, the ACTIVE player is the opponent rather than the controlling player.
So the ACTIVE player informs the controlling player that he needs to order his Interceptor shooting attacks in some order, let's say a 'B, A, D, C' order.
If the controlling player skips ahead to firing D then the controlling player officially opts not to fire 'B' and 'A' and cannot revisit the decision to fire 'B' or 'A' after firing 'D'.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
col_impact wrote: "Can be fired", "can be fired", "can be fired", "can be fired" - all resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") which is a singular moment in time.
The problem is that all of the multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase").
The controlling player can't fire until after all of the multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions have been resolved.
The controlling player has no idea which Interceptor weapon "can be fired" first.
The Sequencing rule mandatorily applies to order the multiple permissions to resolve in a sequence of the ACTIVE player's choosing.
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.
Once the Sequencing rule is applied then the controlling player knows which Interceptor weapon to resolve first, second, third, and so on. The order is dictated by the ACTIVE player per the Sequencing rule. In this case, the ACTIVE player is the opponent rather than the controlling player.
So the ACTIVE player informs the controlling player that he needs to order his Interceptor shooting attacks in some order, let's say a 'B, A, D, C' order.
If the controlling player skips ahead to firing D then the controlling player officially opts not to fire 'B' and 'A' and cannot revisit the decision to fire 'B' or 'A' after firing 'D'.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
The Start and End of a Phase
During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens at
the start of a particular phase, such as ‘at the start of your Movement phase’ or ‘at the
start of your Shooting phase’. These are always resolved before anything else during that
phase. Likewise, any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular
phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase,
before the next phase (if any) starts.
Does is say anything about "a moment in time" here?
No? It doesn't exist.
"The problem is that all of the multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"). "
This ^? Means nothing Col. Nothing.
You keep forgetting the caveat for sequencing... When this happens....and the wording is not explicit...
The sequencing rule doesn't apply because Interceptor is explicit.
It is explicit so sequencing does nothing.
Demonstrate it is not explicit.
Repeating your failed argument like a broken record does nothing.
1. Do you actually play 40k?
2. if yes, Do you play in a GW store?
1. Yes
2. Yes
How do manage to concentrate on a game when your opponent is laughing so hard at you.
Next time your in a GW ask the manager to run you through a demo game.
Without using the shooting process, this is merely an assumption on your part, which means it is a house rule on your part if you are assuming that you get to ignore the shooting process. So, that's two assumptions right there leading to house rules for someone supposedly going only by the Rules as Written.
col_impact wrote: Remember, the Explodes! rule does not use the Shooting Sequence. The hits Explodes! produces directly justify a To Wound roll.
They still say roll to hit as normal. That means you still get the to hit roll. You aren't instructed by Interceptor to resolve damage though, so you never get to resolve vehicle damage any more than you get to resolve wounds, at least going by your assumption. Remember, even without the shooting process, you agreed that technically you only get to roll to hit. That does not cover anything else in the shooting process or things that are outlined as alternatives to the shooting process. (Note that the vehicle rules do not invalidate not using the shooting process for non-vehicles, which is what you are assuming here also).
Happyjew wrote: OK I have some questions, if a model has multiple weapons, with the Interceptor special rule, can he fire both?
For example, let's say that a mission has a Mystery Objective that gives Interceptor to all weapons in the controlling unit. Would a Tac squad be able to fire both their Bolt Pistols and Bolters? After all the restriction on firing multiple weapons is only in the Shooting phase.
Furthermore, since Interceptor happens at the end of the Movement phase, the preceding movement phase would be the firing model's movement phase. Does that mean if the model moved and is carrying a Heavy weapon the shots are fired as Snap Shots? Or does that rule only apply to the Shooting phase as well?
What if a model whose weapon has the Interceptor special rule is locked in combat? can they still fire? After all the restrictions on firing while locked in combat only restrict the Shooting phase and Overwatch.
These are all good questions but are entirely separate from the case at hand.
By no stretch of the imagination is an Interceptor weapon fired in a Shooting phase.
So any restrictions that apply in a shooting phase do not apply to Interceptor weapons according to the Rules As Written.
There is a very popular house rule to treat Interceptor like an out of sequence Shooting phase but it's nothing more than a house rule.
Ah, so every weapon a model in an intercepting unit can fire. How conveeeenient. At least, if you are assuming that you get to ignore the shooting process which are the rules for governing shooting, but this is nothing more than a house rule.
There is no rule telling you to use the Shooting Sequence or to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
Actually though, there is. Note that the first sentence states "fire at the enemy". How do you "fire at the enemy?" The next sentence states "the shooting process" - it is telling you how to fire at the enemy. That means when you have permission to fire a weapon, you have permission to use the shooting process, because they indicate that the shooting process is how you fire at an enemy. If you stick with the claim that that applies only to the shooting phase, then you have no rules at all for firing at the enemy when using Interceptor, and therefore can not ever resolve Interceptor. Therefore, either Interceptor never resolves, or you are wrong in your assumption that you do not use the shooting sequence.
(note - edits to get the quotations showing right
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Roknar wrote: First thing I do every day is to check if this thread has been locked yet. To my surprise it has not lol.
I know. It's not like it wasn't asked of a mod days ago, so I'm guessing they heven't recovered yet from rolling on the floor laughing.
To be fair, we are getting new revelations, like col impact allowing every single weapon on a model to fire Interceptor because he says the normal firing rules don't apply, so it looks like there is some humor to be mined from this.
Roknar wrote: First thing I do every day is to check if this thread has been locked yet. To my surprise it has not lol.
I know. It's not like it wasn't asked of a mod days ago, so I'm guessing they heven't recovered yet from rolling on the floor laughing.
To be fair, we are getting new revelations, like col impact allowing every single weapon on a model to fire Interceptor because he says the normal firing rules don't apply, so it looks like there is some humor to be mined from this.
I linked to a post from another of these ceann vs. impact threads where the mod lock post said essentially "if it's more than 5 pages, and only two people going back and forth, it's time to close the thread."
Maybe it didn't go through in the report, but here we are like 6 pages after that. I hope someone is getting humor out of this. At least my reading the thread is fast, because there's only 3-5 posts to a page that I can see
Roknar wrote: First thing I do every day is to check if this thread has been locked yet. To my surprise it has not lol.
I know. It's not like it wasn't asked of a mod days ago, so I'm guessing they heven't recovered yet from rolling on the floor laughing.
To be fair, we are getting new revelations, like col impact allowing every single weapon on a model to fire Interceptor because he says the normal firing rules don't apply, so it looks like there is some humor to be mined from this.
I linked to a post from another of these ceann vs. impact threads where the mod lock post said essentially "if it's more than 5 pages, and only two people going back and forth, it's time to close the thread."
Maybe it didn't go through in the report, but here we are like 6 pages after that. I hope someone is getting humor out of this. At least my reading the thread is fast, because there's only 3-5 posts to a page that I can see
Well, technically if I'm responding as well as Ceann and occasionally others to col impact, it's not just two people.
I'm sure the continual cut and paste helps to skim some of the posts faster also.
Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
How will Ceann and Col_Impact resolve it. Justify and provide argumentations for your answers.
The Start and End of a Phase
During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens at
the start of a particular phase, such as ‘at the start of your Movement phase’ or ‘at the
start of your Shooting phase’. These are always resolved before anything else during that
phase. Likewise, any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular
phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase,
before the next phase (if any) starts.
Does is say anything about "a moment in time" here?
No? It doesn't exist.
As I have pointed out multiple times already, the Sequencing rule itself identifies "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a singular moment in time such that two or more resolving at hat time are competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME. The Sequencing rule explicitly identifies "at THE START of the Movement phase" and anything "similar" as a singular moment in time. We have no choice but to accept "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as similar and therefore a singular moment in time.
The Sequencing rule proves you wrong.
Ceann wrote: "The problem is that all of the multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"). "
This ^? Means nothing Col. Nothing.
You keep forgetting the caveat for sequencing... When this happens....and the wording is not explicit...
The sequencing rule doesn't apply because Interceptor is explicit.
It is explicit so sequencing does nothing.
Demonstrate it is not explicit.
Repeating your failed argument like a broken record does nothing.
You have this backwards.
explicit - stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
You have to show that wording exists somewhere that explicitly tells the players what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules resolving AT THE SAME TIME.
No such wording exists in the rules you have been suggesting. No wording anywhere in your suggestions mentions multiple Interceptor rules.
The only rule that actually explicitly addresses the case at hand is the Sequencing rule which explicitly addresses the case of multiple 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.
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" so without a doubt the Sequencing rule applies. The Interceptor rule contains no wording as to which Interceptor rule to resolve first in the case of multiple Interceptor rules so we have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
Lord Perversor wrote: Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
I don't know how they will answer it, I will submit what I stated in the second post:
* Interceptor never states any level of order of operations.
* The Shooting Phase does provide an outline for when any group of units are Shooting through the Shooting Sequence.
* Since the basic rules of the Shooting Sequence cover all aspects of any basic shooting process, we will turn to that.
That means we already have a unit chosen, so it gets to fire. If we have an option of units to shoot at, then we select which units which arrived will be targets. We then declare which Weapon name we fire first and its specific target(s), go through the To-Hit to Remove Casualties process, and then Choose another Weapon until we run out of Weapons to Shoot or choose to stop (because we want it to shoot SOMETHING in our turn).
Lord Perversor wrote: Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
How will Ceann and Col_Impact resolve it. Justify and provide argumentations for your answers.
I have already answered this scenario multiple times.
This is simply the case of 5 weapons with the Interceptor rule.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
Since I have always been forthcoming with a detailed analysis on how it all works, my guess is you are challenging Ceann to do the same.
But, if for some reason you want me to provide additional clarification to the answer I provide above, let me know your issues and I will address them.
Lord Perversor wrote: Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
I don't know how they will answer it, I will submit what I stated in the second post:
* Interceptor never states any level of order of operations.
* The Shooting Phase does provide an outline for when any group of units are Shooting through the Shooting Sequence.
* Since the basic rules of the Shooting Sequence cover all aspects of any basic shooting process, we will turn to that.
That means we already have a unit chosen, so it gets to fire. If we have an option of units to shoot at, then we select which units which arrived will be targets. We then declare which Weapon name we fire first and its specific target(s), go through the To-Hit to Remove Casualties process, and then Choose another Weapon until we run out of Weapons to Shoot or choose to stop (because we want it to shoot SOMETHING in our turn).
By no stretch of imagination is "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" a Shooting phase.
So you are proposing a House Rule solution to the case at hand (which is obvious if you look at the rationale in your argument highlighted in red above).
The House Rule you are proposing is to treat Interceptor like an out of sequence Shooting phase.
It's fine that you are proposing a House Rule solution. However, please mark your proposal as a House Rule per the YMDC rules.
I want to point out that my solution is not a House Rule solution. It's a Rules As Written solution.
Without using the shooting process, this is merely an assumption on your part, which means it is a house rule on your part if you are assuming that you get to ignore the shooting process. So, that's two assumptions right there leading to house rules for someone supposedly going only by the Rules as Written.
You have this backwards. We are ignoring the Shooting Sequence because it is not a Shooting phase and no rule is telling us to use the Shooting Sequence rules.
If we were to use the Shooting Sequence rules then we would be House Ruling that we can treat Interceptor as an out of sequence Shooting phase.
They still say roll to hit as normal. That means you still get the to hit roll. You aren't instructed by Interceptor to resolve damage though, so you never get to resolve vehicle damage any more than you get to resolve wounds, at least going by your assumption. Remember, even without the shooting process, you agreed that technically you only get to roll to hit. That does not cover anything else in the shooting process or things that are outlined as alternatives to the shooting process. (Note that the vehicle rules do not invalidate not using the shooting process for non-vehicles, which is what you are assuming here also).
Interceptor "can be fired" directly justifies a To Hit roll.
Any hits that are produced by a To Hit roll directly justify a To Wound roll. Remember a To Wound Roll, which processes hits, is a basic rule that every model knows.
Happyjew wrote: OK I have some questions, if a model has multiple weapons, with the Interceptor special rule, can he fire both?
For example, let's say that a mission has a Mystery Objective that gives Interceptor to all weapons in the controlling unit. Would a Tac squad be able to fire both their Bolt Pistols and Bolters? After all the restriction on firing multiple weapons is only in the Shooting phase.
Furthermore, since Interceptor happens at the end of the Movement phase, the preceding movement phase would be the firing model's movement phase. Does that mean if the model moved and is carrying a Heavy weapon the shots are fired as Snap Shots? Or does that rule only apply to the Shooting phase as well?
What if a model whose weapon has the Interceptor special rule is locked in combat? can they still fire? After all the restrictions on firing while locked in combat only restrict the Shooting phase and Overwatch.
These are all good questions but are entirely separate from the case at hand.
By no stretch of the imagination is an Interceptor weapon fired in a Shooting phase.
So any restrictions that apply in a shooting phase do not apply to Interceptor weapons according to the Rules As Written.
There is a very popular house rule to treat Interceptor like an out of sequence Shooting phase but it's nothing more than a house rule.
Ah, so every weapon a model in an intercepting unit can fire. How conveeeenient. At least, if you are assuming that you get to ignore the shooting process which are the rules for governing shooting, but this is nothing more than a house rule.
You have this backwards.
You are the one who is House Ruling.
The Shooting Sequence rules don't apply since this is not a Shooting phase.
Similarly, restrictions that apply during the Shooting phase do not apply to Interceptor weapons since Interceptor does not fire during the Shooting phase.
This is following the Rules As Written.
Unless you can somehow show that "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is a "Shooting phase" you are the one who is House Ruling here that you get to magically treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
There is no rule telling you to use the Shooting Sequence or to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
Actually though, there is. Note that the first sentence states "fire at the enemy". How do you "fire at the enemy?" The next sentence states "the shooting process" - it is telling you how to fire at the enemy. That means when you have permission to fire a weapon, you have permission to use the shooting process, because they indicate that the shooting process is how you fire at an enemy. If you stick with the claim that that applies only to the shooting phase, then you have no rules at all for firing at the enemy when using Interceptor, and therefore can not ever resolve Interceptor. Therefore, either Interceptor never resolves, or you are wrong in your assumption that you do not use the shooting sequence.
The Shooting Sequence provides rule for firing DURING THE SHOOTING PHASE. This is not my claim. This is what the Rules As Written unequivocally say.
So we cannot use the Shooting Sequence rules and can only use rules that Interceptor directly justifies.
Interceptor "can be fired" directly justifies a To Hit roll.
But, doctortom, I want to point out that you are arguing a completely irrelevant point to the argument at hand.
Even if, for the sake of argument, the entire Shooting Sequence rules were accessed . . .
Spoiler:
I should remind you that the Shooting Sequence rules wouldn't do anything further than a To Hit roll rule would. A firing weapon, model, and unit have already been determined by that single Interceptor rule and only a single solitary firing is permitted. The single solitary Interceptor shot is resolved and that is the end of it. If there are additional Interceptor weapons to fire they are resolved in the context of the ensuing Interceptor rule's solitary firing permissions. By the time you are firing your first Interceptor weapon then the order of the various Interceptor rule permissions will have been sequenced by the ACTIVE player per the Sequencing rule. 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 your proposed 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 even if we entertain your notion that somehow a Shooting Sequence happens, you still have the Sequencing rule dictating the order in which multiple Interceptor weapons fire. A single Interceptor rule only permits a solitary firing. So the shooting sequence that is permitted to happen in the context of one of those Interceptor rules can only resolve a solitary Interceptor firing. The multiple Interceptor weapon firings are necessarily accomplished by multiple Interceptor rules resolving in the order of the ACTIVE players choosing, per the Sequencing rule.
Anyway, just wanted to point out that you are arguing something that has no consequence to the larger argument at hand. The Sequencing rule still applies whether a To Hit roll happens or a Shooting Sequence happens while resolving a single Interceptor rule.
You are conflating the argument to hide it's faults.
You are wrong and as usual simply refuse to admit it, nothing new.
The shooting rules dictate the rules to fire at an enemy, you must use them. The rules are applied to all models per BvA.
Per BvA interceptor overrides the out of phase conflict.
The shooting sequence outlines a specific weapon to resolve, which is explicit.
All of the at the same time, moment in time, hammering the moment is all garbage in a trash can.
I will lay out my still uncontested example.
A skitarii vanguard split charges 2 other vanguards, all rad saturation attempts to resolve at the same time. The wording for that rule provides no explicit wording to allow one instance to be chosen, hence they get sequenced.
Each iteration of interceptor is unique to each weapon that needs to fire, picking one is explicit.
Interceptor is explicit, sequencing is not invoked.
The caveat for sequence rule is a rule being explicit.
Mash your mental deny button all you wish, obfuscate all you wish, you are still wrong, as usual.
Lord Perversor wrote: Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
I don't know how they will answer it, I will submit what I stated in the second post:
* Interceptor never states any level of order of operations.
* The Shooting Phase does provide an outline for when any group of units are Shooting through the Shooting Sequence.
* Since the basic rules of the Shooting Sequence cover all aspects of any basic shooting process, we will turn to that.
That means we already have a unit chosen, so it gets to fire. If we have an option of units to shoot at, then we select which units which arrived will be targets. We then declare which Weapon name we fire first and its specific target(s), go through the To-Hit to Remove Casualties process, and then Choose another Weapon until we run out of Weapons to Shoot or choose to stop (because we want it to shoot SOMETHING in our turn).
So as summarising it, you threat interceptor as a single Special rule (despite how many iterations of itself it may present) wich triggers shooting attacks (should the player choose to resolve it ) and you resolve it following the shooting sequence.
Col_Impact wrote:
I have already answered this scenario multiple times.
This is simply the case of 5 weapons with the Interceptor rule.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
Ok so several Special rules happening at once (Or iterations of same one on this case) each one must be fully resolved before the next one comes into play (it means even the shooting attack related to it)
Then for the shake of argumentation can you explain me how to work around this small snippet of rules then?
*Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.*
Because as i see it you are claiming that specific Stormsurge it's gaining the benefit of Intercept up to 5 times with your resolution.
P.S: waiting for Ceann resolve of this situation btw as his example it's pretty much irrelevant wich Rad saturation applies first don't apply any tangible effect.
Ok so several Special rules happening at once (Or iterations of same one on this case) each one must be fully resolved before the next one comes into play (it means even the shooting attack related to it)
Then for the shake of argumentation can you explain me how to work around this small snippet of rules then?
*Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.*
Because as i see it you are claiming that specific Stormsurge it's gaining the benefit of Intercept up to 5 times with your resolution.
Interceptor is a special rule applied to a weapon.
Interceptor
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
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.
Just as the Stormsurge can have multiple weapons with Twin Linked or Destroyer or Melta, the Stormsurge can have multiple weapons with Interceptor.
Lord Perversor wrote: Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
I don't know how they will answer it, I will submit what I stated in the second post:
* Interceptor never states any level of order of operations.
* The Shooting Phase does provide an outline for when any group of units are Shooting through the Shooting Sequence.
* Since the basic rules of the Shooting Sequence cover all aspects of any basic shooting process, we will turn to that.
That means we already have a unit chosen, so it gets to fire. If we have an option of units to shoot at, then we select which units which arrived will be targets. We then declare which Weapon name we fire first and its specific target(s), go through the To-Hit to Remove Casualties process, and then Choose another Weapon until we run out of Weapons to Shoot or choose to stop (because we want it to shoot SOMETHING in our turn).
So as summarising it, you threat interceptor as a single Special rule (despite how many iterations of itself it may present) wich triggers shooting attacks (should the player choose to resolve it ) and you resolve it following the shooting sequence.
Considering that Interceptor is a special rule applied to a weapon and "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is not a Shooting phase (so the Shooting Sequence rules do not apply), Charistoph's proposal should be marked as a House Rule
Ok so several Special rules happening at once (Or iterations of same one on this case) each one must be fully resolved before the next one comes into play (it means even the shooting attack related to it)
Then for the shake of argumentation can you explain me how to work around this small snippet of rules then?
*Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.*
Because as i see it you are claiming that specific Stormsurge it's gaining the benefit of Intercept up to 5 times with your resolution.
Interceptor is a special rule applied to a weapon.
Interceptor
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
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.
Just as the Stormsurge can have multiple weapons with Twin Linked or Destroyer or Melta, the Stormsurge can have multiple weapons with Interceptor.
Lord Perversor wrote: Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
I don't know how they will answer it, I will submit what I stated in the second post:
* Interceptor never states any level of order of operations.
* The Shooting Phase does provide an outline for when any group of units are Shooting through the Shooting Sequence.
* Since the basic rules of the Shooting Sequence cover all aspects of any basic shooting process, we will turn to that.
That means we already have a unit chosen, so it gets to fire. If we have an option of units to shoot at, then we select which units which arrived will be targets. We then declare which Weapon name we fire first and its specific target(s), go through the To-Hit to Remove Casualties process, and then Choose another Weapon until we run out of Weapons to Shoot or choose to stop (because we want it to shoot SOMETHING in our turn).
So as summarising it, you threat interceptor as a single Special rule (despite how many iterations of itself it may present) wich triggers shooting attacks (should the player choose to resolve it ) and you resolve it following the shooting sequence.
Considering that Interceptor is a special rule applied to a weapon and "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is not a Shooting phase (so the Shooting Sequence rules do not apply), Charistoph's proposal should be marked as a House Rule
More nonsense from Col, Wrongpact.
The rules to "fire a weapon at an enemy" are specifically notated as the shooting sequence.
Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict.
The shooting sequence does apply because BvA dictates that basic rules are applied to ALL models, unless otherwise.
Has it been stated otherwise? No.
You keep rehashing defeated arguments and pretending valid ones do not exist.
will lay out my still uncontested example.
A skitarii vanguard split charges 2 other vanguards, all rad saturation attempts to resolve at the same time. The wording for that rule provides no explicit wording to allow one instance to be chosen, hence they get sequenced.
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
If we choose a unit, what is preventing the other two iterations from resolving? Nothing. So they must be sequenced.
Each iteration of interceptor is unique to each weapon that needs to fire, picking one is explicit.
If we choose a weapon, what is preventing the other iterations from resolving? The shooting sequence.
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.
Interceptor is explicit, sequencing is not invoked.
The caveat for sequenced rule, is a rule being explicit.
Mash your mental deny button all you wish, obfuscate all you wish, you are still wrong, as usual.
Ok so several Special rules happening at once (Or iterations of same one on this case) each one must be fully resolved before the next one comes into play (it means even the shooting attack related to it)
Then for the shake of argumentation can you explain me how to work around this small snippet of rules then?
*Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.*
Because as i see it you are claiming that specific Stormsurge it's gaining the benefit of Intercept up to 5 times with your resolution.
Interceptor is a special rule applied to a weapon.
Interceptor
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
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.
Just as the Stormsurge can have multiple weapons with Twin Linked or Destroyer or Melta, the Stormsurge can have multiple weapons with Interceptor.
Largely irrelevant as i can make a Painboy with access to 2x Different FnP saves, doesn't mean he can benefit from 2x FnP saves. In the game it's not the weapon or wargear taking advantage of the Intercept rule (since as far i know weapons can't be fire by themselves alone) but the model firing the weapon.
Largely irrelevant as i can make a Painboy with access to 2x Different FnP saves, doesn't mean he can benefit from 2x FnP saves. In the game it's not the weapon or wargear taking advantage of the Intercept rule (since as far i know weapons can't be fire by themselves alone) but the model firing the weapon.
You are proposing something preposterous. So a model with two Twin Linked weapons can only choose to fire one of the weapons as twin-linked?
The Interceptor special rule is applied to the weapon.
Interceptor - " . . . a weapon with the Interceptor special rule . . ."
If you are applying Interceptor to the model then you are simply not adhering to the Rules As Written.
It is time to reassess your argument based on the fact that you have been misreading the rules involved at a fundamental level.
Lord Perversor wrote: Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
I don't know how they will answer it, I will submit what I stated in the second post:
* Interceptor never states any level of order of operations.
* The Shooting Phase does provide an outline for when any group of units are Shooting through the Shooting Sequence.
* Since the basic rules of the Shooting Sequence cover all aspects of any basic shooting process, we will turn to that.
That means we already have a unit chosen, so it gets to fire. If we have an option of units to shoot at, then we select which units which arrived will be targets. We then declare which Weapon name we fire first and its specific target(s), go through the To-Hit to Remove Casualties process, and then Choose another Weapon until we run out of Weapons to Shoot or choose to stop (because we want it to shoot SOMETHING in our turn).
So as summarising it, you threat interceptor as a single Special rule (despite how many iterations of itself it may present) wich triggers shooting attacks (should the player choose to resolve it ) and you resolve it following the shooting sequence.
Correct. There is only one Special Rule. It may be several instances, but it still just one single rule in the end.
It seems that a certain ignored one doesn't seem to recognize that it is models that fire. The Weapons just defines the shooting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Perversor wrote: Largely irrelevant as i can make a Painboy with access to 2x Different FnP saves, doesn't mean he can benefit from 2x FnP saves. In the game it's not the weapon or wargear taking advantage of the Intercept rule (since as far i know weapons can't be fire by themselves alone) but the model firing the weapon.
Not exactly a fair comparison. Feel No Pain does not allow for a model to use multiple instances of it, and special rules do not stack without it.
The rules to "fire a weapon at an enemy" are specifically notated as the shooting sequence.
Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict.
The shooting sequence does apply because BvA dictates that basic rules are applied to ALL models, unless otherwise.
Has it been stated otherwise? No.
The Shooting Sequence rules only apply to the Shooting phase.
This is not a Shooting phase.
Interceptor already provides a permission to fire a weapon at an enemy. So the Shooting Sequence is not required at all.
The only thing that Interceptor requires is a To Hit roll.
Ceann wrote: You keep rehashing defeated arguments and pretending valid ones do not exist.
will lay out my still uncontested example.
A skitarii vanguard split charges 2 other vanguards, all rad saturation attempts to resolve at the same time. The wording for that rule provides no explicit wording to allow one instance to be chosen, hence they get sequenced.
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
If we choose a unit, what is preventing the other two iterations from resolving? Nothing. So they must be sequenced.
Each iteration of interceptor is unique to each weapon that needs to fire, picking one is explicit.
If we choose a weapon, what is preventing the other iterations from resolving? The shooting sequence.
You keep failing to address your 'cart before the horse' problem.
The controlling player can't pick a weapon to fire until the multiple Interceptor rules have resolved which weapon is able to be fired first.
By the time you have picked a weapon the Sequencing rule will already have mandatorily dictated the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
Ceann wrote: 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.
Interceptor is explicit, sequencing is not invoked.
The caveat for sequenced rule, is a rule being explicit.
Mash your mental deny button all you wish, obfuscate all you wish, you are still wrong, as usual.
You keep failing to point to a rule that explicitly deals with the sequencing problem of two Interceptor "can be fired" rules competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase")
The only rule that explicitly deals with the sequencing problem of two Interceptor rules is the Sequencing rule. The Sequencing rule is explicit since "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which has been explicitly identified as a singular moment in time.
So we adhere to the BRB and follow the rules that the BRB explicitly tells us to apply which is the Sequencing rule.
Correct. There is only one Special Rule. It may be several instances, but it still just one single rule in the end.
It seems that a certain ignored one doesn't seem to recognize that it is models that fire. The Weapons just defines the shooting.
You are just failing to actually read the rule. The rule itself indicates that the Special Rule is applied to the weapon.
Interceptor
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
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 you aren't going to adhere to what the rules say then your argument is simply invalid. Until you adjust your argument to reflect what the rules actually say we can simply ignore your argument.
So there are as many Interceptor rules to resolve as there are weapons with the Interceptor rule.
Lord Perversor wrote: Largely irrelevant as i can make a Painboy with access to 2x Different FnP saves, doesn't mean he can benefit from 2x FnP saves. In the game it's not the weapon or wargear taking advantage of the Intercept rule (since as far i know weapons can't be fire by themselves alone) but the model firing the weapon.
Not exactly a fair comparison. Feel No Pain does not allow for a model to use multiple instances of it, and special rules do not stack without it.
Again, we are dealing with a weapon Special Rule, so to make apt comparisons we need to compare to other weapon Special Rules, obviously.
The rules to "fire a weapon at an enemy" are specifically notated as the shooting sequence.
Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict.
The shooting sequence does apply because BvA dictates that basic rules are applied to ALL models, unless otherwise.
Has it been stated otherwise? No.
The Shooting Sequence rules only apply to the Shooting phase.
This is not a Shooting phase.
Interceptor already provides a permission to fire a weapon at an enemy. So the Shooting Sequence is not required at all.
The only thing that Interceptor requires is a To Hit roll.
Ceann wrote: You keep rehashing defeated arguments and pretending valid ones do not exist.
will lay out my still uncontested example.
A skitarii vanguard split charges 2 other vanguards, all rad saturation attempts to resolve at the same time. The wording for that rule provides no explicit wording to allow one instance to be chosen, hence they get sequenced.
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
If we choose a unit, what is preventing the other two iterations from resolving? Nothing. So they must be sequenced.
Each iteration of interceptor is unique to each weapon that needs to fire, picking one is explicit.
If we choose a weapon, what is preventing the other iterations from resolving? The shooting sequence.
You keep failing to address your 'cart before the horse' problem.
The controlling player can't pick a weapon to fire until the multiple Interceptor rules have resolved which weapon is able to be fired first.
By the time you have picked a weapon the Sequencing rule will already have mandatorily dictated the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
Ceann wrote: 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.
Interceptor is explicit, sequencing is not invoked.
The caveat for sequenced rule, is a rule being explicit.
Mash your mental deny button all you wish, obfuscate all you wish, you are still wrong, as usual.
You keep failing to point to a rule that explicitly deals with the sequencing problem of two Interceptor "can be fired" rules competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase")
The only rule that explicitly deals with the sequencing problem of two Interceptor rules is the Sequencing rule. The Sequencing rule is explicit since "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which has been explicitly identified as a singular moment in time.
So we adhere to the BRB and follow the rules that the BRB explicitly tells us to apply which is the Sequencing rule.
Correct. There is only one Special Rule. It may be several instances, but it still just one single rule in the end.
It seems that a certain ignored one doesn't seem to recognize that it is models that fire. The Weapons just defines the shooting.
You are just failing to actually read the rule. The rule itself indicates that the Special Rule is applied to the weapon.
Interceptor
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
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 you aren't going to adhere to what the rules say then your argument is simply invalid. Until you adjust your argument to reflect what the rules actually say we can simply ignore your argument.
So there are as many Interceptor rules to resolve as there are weapons with the Interceptor rule.
Lord Perversor wrote: Largely irrelevant as i can make a Painboy with access to 2x Different FnP saves, doesn't mean he can benefit from 2x FnP saves. In the game it's not the weapon or wargear taking advantage of the Intercept rule (since as far i know weapons can't be fire by themselves alone) but the model firing the weapon.
Not exactly a fair comparison. Feel No Pain does not allow for a model to use multiple instances of it, and special rules do not stack without it.
Again, we are dealing with a weapon Special Rule, so to make apt comparisons we need to compare to other weapon Special Rules, obviously.
More garbage.
Do even think about your arguments or you just post until everyone else gives up?
1. The shooting sequence is a basic rule, it applies to all models in the game.
Interceptor provides permission to fire at an enemy, does it state that it ignores the rules for the shooting sequence? No, it does not. Which means that those rules still apply in any situation you would "fire at the enemy".
A special rule ONLY overrides conflicts, nothing the shooting sequence is asking for conflicts with anything Interceptor wishes to do, so all shooting sequence rules are still followed per BvA.
Interceptor grants permission to fire, it does not remove the requirement of firing to follow the shooting sequence. The only conflict is "shooting phase" which is overridden.
Unless you can clearly dispute this then don't mention this argument again it has already been demolished.
2. The controlling player can choose any weapon they wish, you still have not refuted my example, so we must accept that as a tacit acceptance that it is correct.
The sequencing rule only applies PER ITSELF to rules that attempt to resolve at the same time that are not explicit.
In order to better help you since you clearly don't understand "as usual" I will provide my example below that you have tacitly accepted.
=============================================
Three iterations of the below rule provide no method in the wording of the rule to choose one to resolve first, they are all attempting to resolve at the same time, thus must be sequenced.
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.
Three iterations of the below rule do not need to be sequenced, once you have chosen a weapon the other weapons wishing to fire can no longer resolve, the shooting rules prevent this.
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.
============================================
There is no issue of "cart before the horse" you are inventing this because you cannot explain away the above. The sequencing rule reads the WORDING of rules prior to resolution to confirm whether or not there will one that can be identified to resolve before the others. It doesn't go "oh it says at the same time let me automatically apply myself".
The shooting sequence allows us to resolve one first without sequencing being invoked, so it is not invoked.
You need to demonstrate HOW two shooting attacks would resolve at the same time, but as the rules for shooting only allow one weapon to fire at a time, that is impossible.
We can easily demonstrate how two Rad Saturation would resolve at the same time, they both have a static effect that occurs simultaneously and no way to separate them without sequencing.
col_impact wrote:
For the Interceptor rule you have a single solitary shot to resolve. The weapon that is firing, the model that is firing, the unit that is firing, and the unit you are targeting have all been resolved.
More garbage.
Do even think about your arguments or you just post until everyone else gives up?
1. The shooting sequence is a basic rule, it applies to all models in the game.
Interceptor provides permission to fire at an enemy, does it state that it ignores the rules for the shooting sequence? No, it does not. Which means that those rules still apply in any situation you would "fire at the enemy".
A special rule ONLY overrides conflicts, nothing the shooting sequence is asking for conflicts with anything Interceptor wishes to do, so all shooting sequence rules are still followed per BvA.
Interceptor grants permission to fire, it does not remove the requirement of firing to follow the shooting sequence. The only conflict is "shooting phase" which is overridden.
The Shooting Sequence rules only work "during a Shooting phase". This isn't a Shooting phase.
The Interceptor rule already provides permission to fire at an enemy. The Interceptor rule has identified a firing weapon, a firing model, and a firing unit. Further, the Interceptor has its own targeting criteria and directly references the rules for range and line of sight.
So the Shooting Sequence rule are not required by the Interceptor rule.
The only thing that the Interceptor rule requires is a To Hit roll. The To Hit roll is a basic rule and Interceptor has no problem accessing it. The Interceptor "can be fired" statement directly justifies the To Hit roll.
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
1. BvA states basic rules apply to all models unless otherwise stated, has it been otherwise stated? No.
You are house ruling that they don't apply.
2. Interceptor provides permission to fire a weapon, it does not state it can be fired at an enemy, it states that it is activated during the enemy movement phase. The only rules it can reference to "fire at an enemy" is the shooting sequence, which is a rule that is applied to the model, so it uses the rule and Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict.
3. You have no permission to pick apart, nor ignore the rules of the shooting sequence, they apply to all models. A special rule only overrides conflicts, of which there are none between it at the shooting sequence.
In order to better help you since you clearly don't understand "as usual" I will provide my example below that you have tacitly accepted.
Which you still have ignored because you cannot refute it, so you are now attempting to removing the explicit shooting sequence from interceptor.
=============================================
Three iterations of the below rule provide no method in the wording of the rule to choose one to resolve first, they are all attempting to resolve at the same time, thus must be sequenced.
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.
Three iterations of the below rule do not need to be sequenced, once you have chosen a weapon the other weapons wishing to fire can no longer resolve, the shooting rules prevent this.
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.
2. The controlling player can choose any weapon they wish, you still have not refuted my example, so we must accept that as a tacit acceptance that it is correct.
The controlling player can choose any weapon they wish but only after the ACTIVE player has resolved which "can be fired" permission is resolved first, which is resolved second, and so on.
The controlling player can't pick a weapon to fire until the multiple Interceptor rules have resolved which weapon is able to be fired first.
By the time you have picked a weapon the Sequencing rule will already have mandatorily dictated the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
Ceann wrote: The sequencing rule only applies PER ITSELF to rules that attempt to resolve at the same time that are not explicit.
You have failed to point to a rule that explicitly details what to do when multiple Interceptor rules compete to resolve AT THE SAME TIME.
The only rule that explicitly deals with multiple Interceptor rules competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME is the Sequencing rule.
So we have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
Ceann wrote: In order to better help you since you clearly don't understand "as usual" I will provide my example below that you have tacitly accepted.
=============================================
Three iterations of the below rule provide no method in the wording of the rule to choose one to resolve first, they are all attempting to resolve at the same time, thus must be sequenced.
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.
Three iterations of the below rule do not need to be sequenced, once you have chosen a weapon the other weapons wishing to fire can no longer resolve, the shooting rules prevent this.
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.
============================================
There is no issue of "cart before the horse" you are inventing this because you cannot explain away the above. The sequencing rule reads the WORDING of rules prior to resolution to confirm whether or not there will one that can be identified to resolve before the others. It doesn't go "oh it says at the same time let me automatically apply myself".
The Sequencing rule applies because the explicit conditions for its application have been met. The rules offer us no choice.
Ceann wrote: The shooting sequence allows us to resolve one first without sequencing being invoked, so it is not invoked.
Nonsense. The shooting sequence does nothing to resolve which "can be fired" permission resolves first, and that is what needs sequencing.
Remember, until a weapon can actually be fired, neither a To Hit roll or the Shooting Sequence rules can be applied.
This is your 'cart before the horse' problem. You keep trying to fire a weapon before it "can be fired", ie prior to sorting out when the "can be fired" permissions resolve.
Ceann wrote: You need to demonstrate HOW two shooting attacks would resolve at the same time, but as the rules for shooting only allow one weapon to fire at a time, that is impossible.
I don't need to demonstrate how two shooting attacks resolve at the same time. A single Interceptor rule only permits a single solitary shooting attack. So any talk of more than one Interceptor weapon firing necessarily involves sorting out how multiple Interceptor rules resolve. The BRB mandates that we apply the Sequencing rule in this case. So once the Sequencing rule has been applied then the controlling player can choose to fire his Interceptor weapons in an order of the ACTIVE player's choosing.
I don't need to demonstrate how two shooting attacks resolve at the same time. A single Interceptor rule only permits a single solitary shooting attack. So any talk of more than one Interceptor weapon firing necessarily involves sorting out how multiple Interceptor rules resolve. The BRB mandates that we apply the Sequencing rule in this case. So once the Sequencing rule has been applied then the controlling player can choose to fire his Interceptor weapons in an order of the ACTIVE player's choosing.
Have you hit your head?
Except you do, that is the only way to apply sequencing, if they WOULD resolve at the same time. Not if they are currently attempting too.
You need to explain how they WOULD resolve at the same time if they were NOT sequenced.
Sequencing reads the rules, so it knows what the end result will be, there is no "cart before the horse".
It KNOWS exactly what you said. It doesn't care about what is currently happening, it cares about what the end result is.
The end result is exactly as you stated...
"A single Interceptor rule only permits a single solitary shooting attack." - Col_Impact 2017
If it permits only a single attack, then two cannot resolve at the same time, because the shooting sequence only allows one weapon firing to resolve at a time.
They never needed to be sequenced in the first place, you just feel like doing it.
This is how it works...
You apparently accept this.
=============================================
Rule attempting to resolve at the same time.
Three iterations of the below rule provide no method in the wording of the rule to choose one to resolve first, they are all attempting to resolve at the same time, thus must be sequenced.
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.
Rule resolving explicitly.
Three iterations of the below rule do not need to be sequenced, once you have chosen a weapon the other weapons wishing to fire can no longer resolve, the shooting rules prevent this.
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.
Except you do, that is the only way to apply sequencing, if they WOULD resolve at the same time. Not if they are currently attempting too.
You need to explain how they WOULD resolve at the same time if they were NOT sequenced.
Sequencing reads the rules, so it knows what the end result will be, there is no "cart before the horse".
It KNOWS exactly what you said. It doesn't care about what is currently happening, it cares about what the end result is.
The end result is exactly as you stated...
"A single Interceptor rule only permits a single solitary shooting attack." - Col_Impact 2017
If it permits only a single attack, then two cannot resolve at the same time, because the shooting sequence only allows one weapon firing to resolve at a time.
They never needed to be sequenced in the first place, you just feel like doing it.
This is how it works...
You apparently accept this.
You keep lamely obfuscating the issue.
Obviously, we aren't just dealing with a single Interceptor rule.
We are dealing with multiple Interceptor rules conflicting to resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase")
The Sequencing rule applies because the conditions for its application have been explicitly met. The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the multiple Interceptor permissions resolve.
Rule resolving explicitly.
Three iterations of the below rule do not need to be sequenced, once you have chosen a weapon the other weapons wishing to fire can no longer resolve, the shooting rules prevent this.
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.
Again, you keep putting the 'cart before the horse'.
You cannot choose a weapon unless it 'can be fired'. All of the multiple Interceptor 'can be fired' permissions are all resolving AT THE SAME TIME. Therefore, the Sequencing rule intervenes to sort out which "can be fired" resolves first, which "can be fired" resolves second, and so on.
By the time you have chosen a weapon, the Sequencing rule will already have dictated the sequence in which the weapons can be fired; the weapons "can be fired" in an order of the ACTIVE players choosing, per the Sequencing rule.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
At THE SAME TIME AT THE END OF THE TURN does not matter.
Multiple Interceptor rules does not matter.
Unless these two below things are met, you are not permitted to use sequencing.
That being a factor is entirely contingent upon TWO things.
1. They WOULD resolve at the same time.
2. The rule in question is not EXPLICIT as to which would resolve first.
Do you meet this criteria? No, never have the entire time.
Only one question needs to be answered and you cannot answer it, you ignore it and do your copy paste and fake argument dance, over and over.
If you DIDN'T sequence them, WOULD two resolve at the same time? No.
"A single Interceptor rule only permits a single solitary shooting attack." - Col_Impact 2017
If you DIDN'T sequence this rule, WOULD two resolve at the same time? Yes.
A Skitarii Vanguard charges a Skitarii Vanguard.
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.
That being a factor is entirely contingent upon TWO things.
1. They WOULD resolve at the same time.
2. The rule in question is not EXPLICIT as to which would resolve first.
1) Multiple Interceptor rules would resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") so (1) is satisfied.
2)The Interceptor rule makes no mention of how to deal with the case of multiple Interceptor rules competing to resolve at the same time, so the rule in question is not explicit as to which Interceptor rule among multiple Interceptor rules resolves first. So (2) is satisfied.
If you DIDN'T sequence them, WOULD two resolve at the same time? No.
"A single Interceptor rule only permits a single solitary shooting attack." - Col_Impact 2017
The answer is yes.
If multiple Interceptor rules are not sequenced then the multiple Interceptor rules conflict to resolve "can be fired" AT THE SAME TIME "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Remember, no firing can happen at all until it's been sorted out which of the multiple Interceptor weapons "can be fired" first, which "can be fired" second, and so on.
The Sequencing rule applies since all of the conditions for its application have been explicitly met. We don't have a choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
When the Sequencing rule is applied, the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the "can be fired" permissions resolve.
Them's the rules as they are written.
At this point I think you need to respond to Lord Pervesor's request and provide a detailed explanation of how your counter proposal works.
Your argument as revealed by you so far logically falls apart. So take the time to walk all of us through how your counter proposal works. I am curious how you will tackle your 'cart before the horse' problem once you are confronted with the task of working everything out in detail.
More garbage, you just keep making things up.
It never ends.
Demonstrate how two shooting attacks resolve at the same time.
And please none of this "hammering the same moment"
Demonstrate the actual resolution, including dice rolls, wounds, removing casualties etc, occurring, at the same time.
You say they literally occur at the same time, demonstrate them literally at the same time, two different weapons.
You can't because no rules support them resolving at the same time.
You keep pointing to them WANTING to resolve at the same time, you don't demonstrate how they would actually do it, if sequencing wasn't applied.
Nothing cares if they WANT to resolve at the same time, only that they actually would without being sequenced.
The rule is explicit, a weapon can be fired.
Can two weapons be fired at the same time?
No, they cannot.
I have demonstrated the difference, you keep ignoring it because it is correct.
=============================================
Rule attempting to resolve at the same time.
Three iterations of the below rule provide no method in the wording of the rule to choose one to resolve first, they are all attempting to resolve at the same time, thus must be sequenced.
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.
Rule resolving explicitly.
Three iterations of the below rule do not need to be sequenced, once you have chosen a weapon the other weapons wishing to fire can no longer resolve, the shooting rules prevent this.
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.
Ceann wrote: More garbage, you just keep making things up.
It never ends.
Demonstrate how two shooting attacks resolve at the same time.
And please none of this "hammering the same moment"
Demonstrate the actual resolution, including dice rolls, wounds, removing casualties etc, occurring, at the same time.
You say they literally occur at the same time, demonstrate them literally at the same time, two different weapons.
You can't because no rules support them resolving at the same time.
You keep pointing to them WANTING to resolve at the same time, you don't demonstrate how they would actually do it, if sequencing wasn't applied.
Nothing cares if they WANT to resolve at the same time, only that they actually would without being sequenced.
You keep struggling, endlessly.
Let's go back to something basic. Every critique you pose betrays fundamental logical problems in your reasoning. So let's address your logical shortcomings.
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.
At what point in game time is the above Interceptor rule resolved?
Apparently I don't keep struggling endlessly, you keep endlessly avoiding explaining why my example is wrong.
So you seek to change the topic to something else.
Sequencing only applies if you can demonstrate two shooting attacks resolving at the same time.
"A single Interceptor rule only permits a single solitary shooting attack." - Col_Impact 2017
You have already stated it was not possible, so now you backtrack.
This is how sequencing is applied.
=============================================
Rule attempting to resolve at the same time.
A Skitarii Vanguard split charges two Skitarii Vanguard.
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.
Three iterations of the rule provide no method in the wording of the rule to choose one to resolve first, they are all attempting to resolve at the same time, thus must be sequenced.
Rule resolving explicitly.
An enemy unit deep strikes.
Three iterations of the rule do not need to be sequenced.
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.
Once you have chosen a weapon the other weapons wishing to fire can no longer resolve, the shooting rules prevent this.
I am not changing the topic. I am asking a simple question that proves that your argument logically fails.
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.
At what point in time is the above Interceptor rule resolved?
If you cannot answer a simple question then you have logical problems in your argument.
There is no logical problem.
The problem is obvious, you refuse to prove my example wrong because it is correct, so you revert to a previously defeated argument.
The crux of the issue is sequencing and as I have explained below, two Interceptor cannot resolve at the same time.
This is how sequencing is applied.
=============================================
Rule attempting to resolve at the same time.
A Skitarii Vanguard split charges two Skitarii Vanguard.
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.
Three iterations of the rule provide no method in the wording of the rule to choose one to resolve first, they are all attempting to resolve at the same time, thus must be sequenced.
Rule resolving explicitly.
An enemy unit deep strikes.
Three iterations of the rule do not need to be sequenced.
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.
Once you have chosen a weapon the other weapons wishing to fire can no longer resolve, the shooting rules prevent this.
This forces one to resolve first.
Ceann wrote: There is no logical problem.
The problem is obvious, you refuse to prove my example wrong because it is correct, so you revert to a previously defeated argument.
If you previously defeated this argument then you can do so again.
Why are you avoiding a simple question?
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.
At what point in time is the above Interceptor rule resolved?
If you cannot answer a simple question then you have logical problems in your argument.
I did, the issue is you seek to engage in rabbit chase to run away from answering my example, which you have been ignoring for quite some time.
In order for Interceptor to resolve, it would have to be USED.
If it is used then it would resolve once the weapon is fired.
"At the end" is when the rule can be used, not when it resolves.
This is clearly outlined in my example below.
=============================================
Rule attempting to resolve at the same time.
A Skitarii Vanguard split charges two Skitarii Vanguard.
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.
Three iterations of the rule provide no method in the wording of the rule to choose one to resolve first, they are all attempting to resolve at the same time, thus must be sequenced.
Rule resolving explicitly.
An enemy unit deep strikes.
Three iterations of the rule do not need to be sequenced.
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.
Once you have chosen a weapon the other weapons wishing to fire can no longer resolve, the shooting rules prevent this.
This forces one to resolve first.
Ceann wrote: I did, the issue is you seek to engage in rabbit chase to run away from answering my example, which you have been ignoring for quite some time.
In order for Interceptor to resolve, it would have to be USED.
If it is used then it would resolve once the weapon is fired.
"At the end" is when the rule can be used, not when it resolves.
You haven't answered the question yet.
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.
At what point in time is the above Interceptor rule resolved?
If you have trouble answering the question maybe you need to look up definitions for 'resolve' and 'use'. You are conflating the two terms.
Until you use the term 'resolve' correctly, your argument is not valid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: There is no logical problem.
The problem is obvious, you refuse to prove my example wrong because it is correct, so you revert to a previously defeated argument.
The crux of the issue is sequencing and as I have explained below, two Interceptor cannot resolve at the same time.
This is how sequencing is applied.
=============================================
Rule attempting to resolve at the same time.
A Skitarii Vanguard split charges two Skitarii Vanguard.
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.
Three iterations of the rule provide no method in the wording of the rule to choose one to resolve first, they are all attempting to resolve at the same time, thus must be sequenced.
Rule resolving explicitly.
An enemy unit deep strikes.
Three iterations of the rule do not need to be sequenced.
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.
Once you have chosen a weapon the other weapons wishing to fire can no longer resolve, the shooting rules prevent this.
This forces one to resolve first.
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.
At what point in time is the above Interceptor rule resolved?
If you have trouble answering the question maybe you need to look up definitions for 'resolve' and 'use'. You are conflating the two terms.
Until you use the term 'resolve' correctly, your argument is not valid.
If your argument is not valid then we can ignore it in this thread.
A Skitarii Vanguard split charges two Skitarii Vanguard.
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.
Three iterations of the rule provide no method in the wording of the rule to choose one to resolve first, they are all attempting to resolve at the same time, thus must be sequenced.
1. Are these, or are these not resolving at the same time?
Ceann wrote: Except you haven't.
Let me make it easy for you.
A Skitarii Vanguard split charges two Skitarii Vanguard.
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.
Three iterations of the rule provide no method in the wording of the rule to choose one to resolve first, they are all attempting to resolve at the same time, thus must be sequenced.
1. Are these, or are these not resolving at the same time?
I am not going to take the bait and re-open that issue in this thread. The Mods have forbidden further discussion on that topic.
If you want to open a new thread on that topic feel free to do so.
Meanwhile make sure to answer the simple question I have posed.
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.
At what point in time is the above Interceptor rule resolved?
The question has nothing to do with that topic.
You are just finding more ways to not answer it.
You are the one talking about sequencing.
So I am asking you about sequencing.
I have removed any discussion of stacking from the equation.
A Skitarii Vanguard charges a Skitarii Vanguard.
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.
Two iterations of the rule provide no method in the wording of the rule to choose one to resolve first, they are all attempting to resolve at the same time, thus must be sequenced.
1. Are these, or are these not resolving at the same time?
Ceann wrote: The question has nothing to do with that topic.
You are just finding more ways to not answer it.
You are the one talking about sequencing.
So I am asking you about sequencing.
Skitarii Vanguard split charges two Skitarii Vanguard.
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.
Three iterations of the rule provide no method in the wording of the rule to choose one to resolve first, they are all attempting to resolve at the same time, thus must be sequenced.
1. Are these, or are these not resolving at the same time?
Ok, so long as you do not open a can of worms I will answer it.
Also, we can set aside the fact that there is no practical reason to sequence these resolutions.
The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.
So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.
There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.
Meanwhile make sure to answer the simple question I have posed.
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.
At what point in time is the above Interceptor rule resolved?
Ceann wrote: The question has nothing to do with that topic.
You are just finding more ways to not answer it.
You are the one talking about sequencing.
So I am asking you about sequencing.
Skitarii Vanguard split charges two Skitarii Vanguard.
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.
Three iterations of the rule provide no method in the wording of the rule to choose one to resolve first, they are all attempting to resolve at the same time, thus must be sequenced.
1. Are these, or are these not resolving at the same time?
Ok, so long as you do not open a can of worms I will answer it.
Also, we can set aside the fact that there is no practical reason to sequence these resolutions.
The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.
So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.
There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.
Meanwhile make sure to answer the simple question I have posed.
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.
At what point in time is the above Interceptor rule resolved?
It doesn't say "at the same time" anywhere here.
So they don't get sequenced then right?
LOCKED IN COMBAT
If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any
reason), then it is locked in combat. Units that are locked in close combat must fight
in the Assault phase. Units are no longer locked in combat if, at end of any phase, they no
longer have any models in base contact with an enemy model.
Units that are locked in combat cannot move in the Movement phase, Run or
shoot in the Shooting phase, and cannot fire Overwatch if charged. Similarly,
models cannot shoot at units locked in close combat – while some commanders
may wish their warriors to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats in the
hopes of hitting the enemy, this is not permitted. The events in a close combat move too
quickly and the warriors themselves will be understandably hesitant about firing on their
comrades. While blast markers and templates cannot be deliberately placed such that
they cover any models locked in combat, they may end up there after scattering and will
then cause hits on any units they touch (friends and foes!) as normal.
Units that are locked in close combat do not take Morale checks or Pinning
tests caused by shooting attacks and cannot go to ground; they are much too
focused on fighting to be worried about being shot at!
It doesn't say "at the same time" anywhere here.
So they don't get sequenced then right?
LOCKED IN COMBAT
If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any
reason), then it is locked in combat.
You are incredibly confused. The Sequencing rule is not scanning for the phrase "at the same time".
"At the same time" is a descriptor acknowledged as applying to multiple rules by the Sequencing rule and not a phrase occurring internally to any one rule's wording.
The Sequencing rule is looking for two or more rules that are resolving at the same time.
In this case the two rules will try to resolve simultaneously at the inception of the Locked in Combat state.
The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.
If unit A is Locked in Combat with unit B then the state of Locked in Combat is mutual and starts AT THE SAME TIME.
So your example is answered.
Let's get back to the actual topic.
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.
At what point in time is the above Interceptor rule resolved?
So what is the "same time" according you because its unclear.
If I have 2 Skitarii Vanguard and my opponent also has two.
Such as...
A Skitarii Vanguard charges a Skitarii Vanguard.
Then I do it again
A Skitarii Vanguard charges a Skitarii Vanguard.
Did all four of these resolve at the same time...
or did two resolve "at the same time" when they got locked in combat.
Then two more resolved "at the same time" when they got locked in combat.
Previously you were alluding to "at the same time" covering a specific moment, now here you are referencing an individual event.
Ceann wrote: two resolve "at the same time" when they got locked in combat.
Then two more resolved "at the same time" when they got locked in combat.
Previously you were alluding to "at the same time" covering a specific moment, now here you are referencing an individual event.
Units are locked in combat at THE END of a successful charge move (see the Charge rules).
So in your example the two units will be locked in combat at THE END of the first charge and then two more will be locked in combat at THE END of the second charge.
Again, your example has been answered.
Let's get back to the actual topic.
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.
At what point in time is the above Interceptor rule resolved?
Basic rules apply to all models in the game, unless otherwise stated.
Interceptor has not stated otherwise, so the rules are still applied.
*During the Shooting* phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy.
As we need to fire a weapon, and the shooting rules are used to fire a weapon, Interceptor overrides "during the shooting phase" as it conflicts with firing the weapon.
Basic rules apply to all models in the game, unless otherwise stated.
*During the Shooting* phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy.
As we need to fire a weapon, and the shooting rules are used to fire a weapon, Interceptor overrides "during the shooting phase" as it conflicts with firing the weapon.
You misunderstood the question.
You cannot fire an Interceptor weapon without the Interceptor rule resolving the "can be fired" permissions, correct?
In fact, Interceptor has nothing to do with the actual firing of a weapon. The rule for actually firing a weapon is found in the To Hit roll rule.
The Interceptor rule concerns itself with providing "can be fired" permissions to weapons at a time in the game when they would otherwise be unable to fire, correct?
The actual work that the Interceptor rule accomplishes is the generation of "can be fired" permissions.
When it comes to actually firing the weapon some other rule (the To Hit roll rule) actually accomplishes the firing.
So "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" all of the multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions conflict to resolve AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule necessarily intervenes to dictate an order to those resolutions so that we know which weapon "can be fired" first, which "can be fired" second, and so on.
The order that is set by the Sequencing rule is an order of the ACTIVE player's choosing.
Plasma Gun always has "Get's Hot"
Meltagun always has "Melta".
Interceptor" always has "Interceptor".
The rule is used when the weapon is fired.
There is no permission to resolve.
In each circumstance they already have permission.
Resolving the rule is when they USE the permission.
If you don't fire the weapon, the weapon still has the rule.
Ceann wrote: Plasma Gun always has "Get's Hot"
Meltagun always has "Melta".
Interceptor" always has "Interceptor".
The rule is used when the weapon is fired.
If you don't fire the weapon, the weapon still has the rule.
The multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are resolving AT THE SAME TIME. The Sequencing rule intervenes whenever multiple rules are resolving AT THE SAME TIME.
Ceann wrote: Plasma Gun always has "Get's Hot"
Meltagun always has "Melta".
Interceptor" always has "Interceptor".
The rule is used when the weapon is fired.
If you don't fire the weapon, the weapon still has the rule.
The multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are resolving AT THE SAME TIME. The Sequencing rule intervenes whenever multiple rules are resolving AT THE SAME TIME.
Except they aren't.
They ALWAYS have the permission.
At the end of movement is WHEN they can use the permission.
They do not resolve at the same time, they TRY to resolve at the same time, there is a difference.
Skitarii Vanguard charged a Skitarii Vanguard.
They both became LOCKED in combat "at the same time".
Can a Quad Gun and Icarus Dunecrawler shoot at the same time? No.
So they can't resolve at the same time.
Ceann wrote: Plasma Gun always has "Get's Hot"
Meltagun always has "Melta".
Interceptor" always has "Interceptor".
The rule is used when the weapon is fired.
There is no permission to resolve.
In each circumstance they already have permission.
Resolving the rule is when they USE the permission.
If you don't fire the weapon, the weapon still has the rule.
So we are back to the problem that you do not know what 'resolve' means.
Interceptor has nothing to do with the actual act of firing a Weapon.
Resolving Interceptor means resolving the "can be fired" permissions.
A bolter without Interceptor is identical to a bolter with Interceptor as far as the actual firing goes. One simply has the permission to fire at a time when the other one does not. But each bolter will roll the same To Hit roll at the same BS.
They ALWAYS have the permission.
At the end of movement is WHEN they can use the permission.
Incorrect. Interceptor weapons only have the "can be fired" permission "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Ceann wrote: They do not resolve at the same time, they TRY to resolve at the same time, there is a difference.
The multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are resolving AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"). The Sequencing rule necessarily applies.
Ceann wrote: Plasma Gun always has "Get's Hot"
Meltagun always has "Melta".
Interceptor" always has "Interceptor".
The rule is used when the weapon is fired.
There is no permission to resolve.
In each circumstance they already have permission.
Resolving the rule is when they USE the permission.
If you don't fire the weapon, the weapon still has the rule.
So we are back to the problem that you do not know what 'resolve' means.
Interceptor has nothing to do with the actual act of firing a Weapon.
Resolving Interceptor means resolving the "can be fired" permissions.
A bolter without Interceptor is identical to a bolter with Interceptor as far as the actual firing goes. One simply has the permission to fire at a time when the other one does not. But each bolter will roll the same To Hit roll at the same BS.
You don't resolve a weapons rule for permissions.
They already have permission.
Conditions are what they have.
Do you roll the d6 for melta before measuring?
No, you have to meet the 1/2 distance condition.
Do you roll an armor save for Gets Hot before you roll to hit?
No, it has a condition of rolling a 1.
Do you resolve interceptor to fire before firing?
No, it has a condition of "at the end of the movement phase".
IF we have 3 interceptor rules.
A rule is only resolved when you have followed it through its entirety.
They all can fire at the same time.
They all cannot resolve shooting at the same time.
There will be a point in time, where one has finished shooting and the others have not because only one can perform that part of the rule at a time.
The others have not read through the rule in its entirety, so the rule has not resolved for them.
Only the one that has fired a shot has completed the rule.
Per interceptor, if you are not firing a weapon you are not using the rule.
Once you have fired a weapon, the rule is resolved because there is nothing else to do.
Sequencing only cares about resolution actually occurring at the same time.
Not that they wanted it too.
Ceann wrote: IF we have 3 interceptor rules.
A rule is only resolved when you have followed it through its entirety.
They all can fire at the same time.
They all cannot resolve shooting at the same time.
There will be a point in time, where one has finished shooting and the others have not because only one can perform that part of the rule at a time.
The others have not read through the rule in its entirety, so the rule has not resolved for them.
Only the one that has fired a shot has completed the rule.
Per interceptor, if you are not firing a weapon you are not using the rule.
Once you have fired a weapon, the rule is resolved because there is nothing else to do.
Sequencing only cares about resolution actually occurring at the same time.
Not that they wanted it too.
Again you keep confusing 'resolve a rule' with 'resolve a shot'.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means granting the permission to the weapon to fire "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
If the controlling player opts to fire then there will be an opportunity to resolve 'a shot' using the rules for a shooting attack.
Resolving a 'rule' is entirely different than resolving 'a shot'.
The Sequencing rule is concerned with rules, not shooting, that "are to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME".
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.
In the case of multiple Interceptor weapons, the multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions "are TO BE resolved at the same time".
Whether or not a player actually fires or not is irrelevant. The multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions "are TO BE resolved at the same time" and so the Sequencing rule applies.
The Sequencing rule intervenes and dictates that the ACTIVE player orders the "can be fired" permissions such that the ACTIVE player decides which Interceptor weapon "can be fired" first and which Interceptor weapon "can be fired" second, and so on.
This again? We circled the wagon so you could go back to the can vs may argument?
Can be fired is this circumstance is used as "able to fire" not as "May I fire" it is a statement of ability not a request for permission.
As far as I am aware there is no circumstance of ANY rule asking for permission. They state when they CAN be used, not when they MAY be used.
Please don't tell me we are on to "hammering the same moment" again next.
If anything this exercise demonstrates you cannot prove the rules are not explicit. So you have lost.
Back to spamming your broken argument.
The only part of sequencing that matters is this "When this happens, and the wording is not explicit "
It doesn't care that they are TO BE resolved it cares about WHEN it would happen, which is never, because of the shooting rules.
col_impact wrote:
Also, we can set aside the fact that there is no practical reason to sequence these resolutions.
The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.
So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.
There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.
YOU demonstrated three rules resolving at the same time with my example.
There might be no practical consequence, you still technically follow the rules either way.
Can YOU now demonstrate three Interceptor resolving at the same time?
No, you can't. Because three weapons cannot fire at the same time.
The rules to "fire a weapon at an enemy" are specifically notated as the shooting sequence.
Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict.
The shooting sequence does apply because BvA dictates that basic rules are applied to ALL models, unless otherwise.
Has it been stated otherwise? No.
The Shooting Sequence rules only apply to the Shooting phase.
This is not a Shooting phase.
Already debunked (the "can only apply to the Shooting phase" statement) in my post that you quoted me from last night, yet managed to ignore.
doctortom wrote:Actually though, there is. Note that the first sentence states "fire at the enemy". How do you "fire at the enemy?" The next sentence states "the shooting process" - it is telling you how to fire at the enemy. That means when you have permission to fire a weapon, you have permission to use the shooting process, because they indicate that the shooting process is how you fire at an enemy. If you stick with the claim that that applies only to the shooting phase, then you have no rules at all for firing at the enemy when using Interceptor, and therefore can not ever resolve Interceptor. Therefore, either Interceptor never resolves, or you are wrong in your assumption that you do not use the shooting sequence.
Sorry, but you don't get to spout bilge like "it only applies to the shooting phase" when it's been debunked without you dealing with the issue that they invoke the shooting process for firing at an enemy. You're firing at an enemy with Interceptor, therefore you use the shooting process. This is also where they say "fire" in relation to a model, unit or weapon firing, so by RAW would actually be the only thing indicating that you roll to hit (the only other thing mentioning fire is that they mention weapons have multiple fire modes). Your saying you are justified to a "to wound" roll and and an "Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties step" is also not true if you are not going by the shooting process. It is the shooting process that allows you go go from the Roll to Hit stage to the other stages. There is nothing other than the shooting process, though, to indicate that you go from rolling to hit to rolling to wound (or determining if it's a penetrating or glancing hit - the vehicle equivalent of causing a wound), so even if you want to claim that despite "firing a weapon" only having a definition in the shooting rules as defined by the shooting process that lets you roll to hit in the first place, there is no process without you making an unwarranted assumption that you get to roll to wound. You say making a to hit roll directly justifies making a to wound roll, but you have offered no proof to substantiate that claim. All it is is an assumption on your part. When you go to the roll to wound, you are following the shooting process. This means that your assumption that you don't use the shooting process, yet you are allowed to use the parts of it you want to cherry pick is an incorrect assumption. Your claim means nothing more than a picture of unicorns to the rules - both are an equal product of fantasy. If you say you don't follow the shooting process, you don't get to proceed to rolling to wound. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Apparently I don't keep struggling endlessly, you keep endlessly avoiding explaining why my example is wrong.
Well, technically you are struggling endlessly, you are struggling endlessly to get col impact to explain why your example is wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: I am not changing the topic. I am asking a simple question that proves that your argument logically fails.
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.
At what point in time is the above Interceptor rule resolved?
If you cannot answer a simple question then you have logical problems in your argument.
The Interceptor rules are resolved when the models and units who have the weapons to fire Interceptor have fired them, which is resolved using the shooting process (as GW has designated the shooting process as how to handle firing at an enemy), which does explicitly provide a framework for making sure the shots from different units and different types of weapons from the same unit do not happen at the same time. Sequencing does not apply in this case. If you say that the shooting sequence only applies in the shooting phase one more time, then you also have to provide proof by rules quotations that "firing a weapon" is the same as at least getting to roll to hit (without using the shooting process),, and also provide quotes from the book to back up your claim that you you are justified to roll for damage, to allocate the wounds and to remove casualties without using the shooting process. Even if you can show with a quote that firing a weapon is the same as rolling to hit, that would mean that resolving firing a weapon would be only the rolling to hit - it does not automatically mean you get to move on to other steps in the shooting process.
Ceann wrote: Plasma Gun always has "Get's Hot"
Meltagun always has "Melta".
Interceptor" always has "Interceptor".
The rule is used when the weapon is fired.
If you don't fire the weapon, the weapon still has the rule.
The multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are resolving AT THE SAME TIME. The Sequencing rule intervenes whenever multiple rules are resolving AT THE SAME TIME.
Incorrect. You already have the permissions, they are in a continuous state for the weapons. Interceptor is not resolved until after the weapons are fired. There are explicitly stated basic rules that indicate how to handle the order of firing weapons. Nothing has taken away these basic rules; Interceptor does not revoke any permissions.
So we are back to the problem that you do not know what 'resolve' means.
Interceptor has nothing to do with the actual act of firing a Weapon.
Resolving Interceptor means resolving the "can be fired" permissions.
Resolving Interceptor has EVERYTHING to do with the actual act of firing the weapon. This is where you are confused. Resolving a rule means taking it to its conclusion, which for interceptor means firing the weapon. It is not merely sequencing the permission to fire, it includes the actual act of firing. Rules governing the entire process apply, so you must consider those rules as well, so rules concerning firing at the enemy apply. This thinking that you only resolve the permission without considering the shootins aspect is your fundamental misconception (well, one of them - not "having permission" to use the shooting process rules is the other big one for this topic).
The rules to "fire a weapon at an enemy" are specifically notated as the shooting sequence.
Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict.
The shooting sequence does apply because BvA dictates that basic rules are applied to ALL models, unless otherwise.
Has it been stated otherwise? No.
The Shooting Sequence rules only apply to the Shooting phase.
This is not a Shooting phase.
Already debunked (the "can only apply to the Shooting phase" statement) in my post that you quoted me from last night, yet managed to ignore.
Interesting that he presents that. GW has stated in their FAQ that many things that go along with Shooting in the Shooting Phase can be used outside the Shooting Phase, such as a Monstrous Creature firing two Weapons in Overwatch. Since I know he considers that a gold standard and actually replaces rules, I wonder how he can continue to justify this hypocritical argument.
The rules to "fire a weapon at an enemy" are specifically notated as the shooting sequence.
Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict.
The shooting sequence does apply because BvA dictates that basic rules are applied to ALL models, unless otherwise.
Has it been stated otherwise? No.
The Shooting Sequence rules only apply to the Shooting phase.
This is not a Shooting phase.
Already debunked (the "can only apply to the Shooting phase" statement) in my post that you quoted me from last night, yet managed to ignore.
Interesting that he presents that. GW has stated in their FAQ that many things that go along with Shooting in the Shooting Phase can be used outside the Shooting Phase, such as a Monstrous Creature firing two Weapons in Overwatch. Since I know he considers that a gold standard and actually replaces rules, I wonder how he can continue to justify this hypocritical argument.
By ignoring it when it's pointed out and continuing to cut and paste old arguments without referencing that other people have provided evidence to refute statements.
doctortom wrote: By ignoring it when it's pointed out and continuing to cut and paste old arguments without referencing that other people have provided evidence to refute statements.
I meant justify it to himself. For us, he will continue to either ignore it or find some other vacillating justification that no one else would consider valid.
Really, everyone, it is best not to engage him. He doesn't care what you say and considers himself the most intelligent person in the room. He does not actually read all of what is written in the book or what you write, and has often misquoted and misrepresented what others have written. It is just best to leave him under the bridge waiting for either the call of the Orruk Warboss or the Chaos Lord.
Ceann wrote: This again? We circled the wagon so you could go back to the can vs may argument?
Can be fired is this circumstance is used as "able to fire" not as "May I fire" it is a statement of ability not a request for permission.
As far as I am aware there is no circumstance of ANY rule asking for permission. They state when they CAN be used, not when they MAY be used.
Please don't tell me we are on to "hammering the same moment" again next.
If anything this exercise demonstrates you cannot prove the rules are not explicit. So you have lost.
Back to spamming your broken argument.
The only part of sequencing that matters is this "When this happens, and the wording is not explicit "
It doesn't care that they are TO BE resolved it cares about WHEN it would happen, which is never, because of the shooting rules.
col_impact wrote:
Also, we can set aside the fact that there is no practical reason to sequence these resolutions.
The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.
So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.
There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.
YOU demonstrated three rules resolving at the same time with my example.
There might be no practical consequence, you still technically follow the rules either way.
Can YOU now demonstrate three Interceptor resolving at the same time?
No, you can't. Because three weapons cannot fire at the same time.
Ceann,
all of the multiple Interceptor rules are "to be resolved at the same time" ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
You are unable to point to any other time the rules "are to be resolved"
You are also unable to point to any rule that explicitly deals with the case of multiple Interceptor rules.
I am able to point to the Sequencing rule which explicitly applies in the case of multiple rules are "to be resolved at the same time".
Therefore, the Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
The rules to "fire a weapon at an enemy" are specifically notated as the shooting sequence.
Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict.
The shooting sequence does apply because BvA dictates that basic rules are applied to ALL models, unless otherwise.
Has it been stated otherwise? No.
The Shooting Sequence rules only apply to the Shooting phase.
This is not a Shooting phase.
Already debunked (the "can only apply to the Shooting phase" statement) in my post that you quoted me from last night, yet managed to ignore.
doctortom wrote:Actually though, there is. Note that the first sentence states "fire at the enemy". How do you "fire at the enemy?" The next sentence states "the shooting process" - it is telling you how to fire at the enemy. That means when you have permission to fire a weapon, you have permission to use the shooting process, because they indicate that the shooting process is how you fire at an enemy. If you stick with the claim that that applies only to the shooting phase, then you have no rules at all for firing at the enemy when using Interceptor, and therefore can not ever resolve Interceptor. Therefore, either Interceptor never resolves, or you are wrong in your assumption that you do not use the shooting sequence.
Sorry, but you don't get to spout bilge like "it only applies to the shooting phase" when it's been debunked without you dealing with the issue that they invoke the shooting process for firing at an enemy. You're firing at an enemy with Interceptor, therefore you use the shooting process. This is also where they say "fire" in relation to a model, unit or weapon firing, so by RAW would actually be the only thing indicating that you roll to hit (the only other thing mentioning fire is that they mention weapons have multiple fire modes). Your saying you are justified to a "to wound" roll and and an "Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties step" is also not true if you are not going by the shooting process. It is the shooting process that allows you go go from the Roll to Hit stage to the other stages. There is nothing other than the shooting process, though, to indicate that you go from rolling to hit to rolling to wound (or determining if it's a penetrating or glancing hit - the vehicle equivalent of causing a wound), so even if you want to claim that despite "firing a weapon" only having a definition in the shooting rules as defined by the shooting process that lets you roll to hit in the first place, there is no process without you making an unwarranted assumption that you get to roll to wound. You say making a to hit roll directly justifies making a to wound roll, but you have offered no proof to substantiate that claim. All it is is an assumption on your part. When you go to the roll to wound, you are following the shooting process. This means that your assumption that you don't use the shooting process, yet you are allowed to use the parts of it you want to cherry pick is an incorrect assumption. Your claim means nothing more than a picture of unicorns to the rules - both are an equal product of fantasy. If you say you don't follow the shooting process, you don't get to proceed to rolling to wound. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars.
doctortom,
the Shooting Sequence rule only works "during the Shooting phase".
This isn't a Shooting phase.
You have yet to explain how you are using the Shooting Sequence rules when this isn't a Shooting phase.
The Interceptor rules do not require the Shooting Sequence rules. The Interceptor rule already designates a firing weapon, a firing model, and a firing unit. The Interceptor rule provides its own targeting criteria and directly references range and line of sight.
The only thing that the Interceptor rule requires is the To Hit roll rule.
The only thing that can be directly justified by the Rules As Written is a To Hit roll.
Interesting that he presents that. GW has stated in their FAQ that many things that go along with Shooting in the Shooting Phase can be used outside the Shooting Phase, such as a Monstrous Creature firing two Weapons in Overwatch. Since I know he considers that a gold standard and actually replaces rules, I wonder how he can continue to justify this hypocritical argument.
Let's start with what the FAQ actually says.
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 item narrowly allows models to fire an extra weapon in Overwatch or while Intercepting.
The FAQ item does not say to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
Why do you insist on misreading things? First, I have to point out that Interceptor is a weapon special rule and now I am pointing out what a FAQ item actually says.
By ignoring it when it's pointed out and continuing to cut and paste old arguments without referencing that other people have provided evidence to refute statements.
You should start with actually reading what the FAQ item says. Charistoph's and your argument is based on a misread of the FAQ.
the Shooting Sequence rules only work "during the Shooting phase".
This isn't a Shooting phase.
You have yet to explain how you are using the Shooting Sequence rules when this isn't a Shooting phase.
The Interceptor rules do not require the Shooting Sequence rules. The Interceptor rule already designates a firing weapon, a firing model, and a firing unit. The Interceptor rule provides its own targeting criteria and directly references range and line of sight.
The only thing that the Interceptor rule requires is the To Hit roll rule.
The only thing that can be directly justified by the Rules As Written is a To Hit roll.
I cited the reference that clearly links "firing at the enemy" with the shooting process. With your comment "you have yet to explain" you show that you just wish to ignore it.. As such, your argument is still invalid since you have not disproven what I stated, merely made the same stale assertions.
How exactly does Interceptor require the To Hit roll rule? Where does it say that "firing a weapon" = "rolling to hit?" Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that rolling to hit justifies making a to wound roll if you are not using the shooting process rules? Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that you then get to Allocate wounds and remove casualties if not using the shooting process? Rules quotation please.
You also ignored where I typed:
Sequencing does not apply in this case. If you say that the shooting sequence only applies in the shooting phase one more time, then you also have to provide proof by rules quotations that "firing a weapon" is the same as at least getting to roll to hit (without using the shooting process),, and also provide quotes from the book to back up your claim that you you are justified to roll for damage, to allocate the wounds and to remove casualties without using the shooting process. Even if you can show with a quote that firing a weapon is the same as rolling to hit, that would mean that resolving firing a weapon would be only the rolling to hit - it does not automatically mean you get to move on to other steps in the shooting process.
You did not provide any proof. You merely made assertions again without the proof. Show the rules quotations. I provided the quotation that does show that if you are firing at an enemy, you are using the shooting process. That means that whenever you fire at the enemy, you use the shooting process. You haven't provided any backup for your assertions of firing a weapon, only claim ours aren't valid without any proof. Come back with proof.
One other thing - "The Interceptor rule already designates a firing weapon, a firing model, and a firing unit." - where does the Intercepotr rule specify a firing unit? You did not claim that before, yet now you are. It seems you can't even keep your own arguments straight.
the Shooting Sequence rules only work "during the Shooting phase".
This isn't a Shooting phase.
You have yet to explain how you are using the Shooting Sequence rules when this isn't a Shooting phase.
The Interceptor rules do not require the Shooting Sequence rules. The Interceptor rule already designates a firing weapon, a firing model, and a firing unit. The Interceptor rule provides its own targeting criteria and directly references range and line of sight.
The only thing that the Interceptor rule requires is the To Hit roll rule.
The only thing that can be directly justified by the Rules As Written is a To Hit roll.
I cited the reference that clearly links "firing at the enemy" with the shooting process. With your comment "you have yet to explain" you show that you just wish to ignore it.. As such, your argument is still invalid since you have not disproven what I stated, merely made the same stale assertions.
How exactly does Interceptor require the To Hit roll rule? Where does it say that "firing a weapon" = "rolling to hit?" Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that rolling to hit justifies making a to wound roll if you are not using the shooting process rules? Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that you then get to Allocate wounds and remove casualties if not using the shooting process? Rules quotation please.
You also ignored where I typed:
Sequencing does not apply in this case. If you say that the shooting sequence only applies in the shooting phase one more time, then you also have to provide proof by rules quotations that "firing a weapon" is the same as at least getting to roll to hit (without using the shooting process),, and also provide quotes from the book to back up your claim that you you are justified to roll for damage, to allocate the wounds and to remove casualties without using the shooting process. Even if you can show with a quote that firing a weapon is the same as rolling to hit, that would mean that resolving firing a weapon would be only the rolling to hit - it does not automatically mean you get to move on to other steps in the shooting process.
You did not provide any proof. You merely made assertions again without the proof. Show the rules quotations. I provided the quotation that does show that if you are firing at an enemy, you are using the shooting process. That means that whenever you fire at the enemy, you use the shooting process. You haven't provided any backup for your assertions of firing a weapon, only claim ours aren't valid without any proof. Come back with proof.
You have this backwards. You have not provided any proof. You have failed to show the Shooting Sequence rules working in any other context than a Shooting phase.
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.
The Interceptor rule already provides "can be fired" permission "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" and so only requires a To Hit roll "to see if the firing model has hit its target"
Interesting that he presents that. GW has stated in their FAQ that many things that go along with Shooting in the Shooting Phase can be used outside the Shooting Phase, such as a Monstrous Creature firing two Weapons in Overwatch. Since I know he considers that a gold standard and actually replaces rules, I wonder how he can continue to justify this hypocritical argument.
Let's start with what the FAQ actually says.
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 item narrowly allows models to fire an extra weapon in Overwatch or while Intercepting.
The FAQ item does not say to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
Why do you insist on misreading things? First, I have to point out that Interceptor is a weapon special rule and now I am pointing out what a FAQ item actually says.
The FAQ doesn't say that you get to ignore the shooting rules either. It does sync up the rules for overwatch or intercepting with the regular rules, however. What I do see, though, is an implicit restriction on the model not getting to fire more weapons than it normally gets to do in the shooting phase. You claimed earlier that by RAW a model could fire Interceptor with as many weapons with the Interceptor rule that it had. The "extra weapon" question has the basic rule that normally the model gets to fire only one weapon included in the question, and in the answer. If anything, it looks bad for your claim that "shooting phase" rules don't apply to other shooting.
By ignoring it when it's pointed out and continuing to cut and paste old arguments without referencing that other people have provided evidence to refute statements.
You should start with actually reading what the FAQ item says. Charistoph's and your argument is based on a misread of the FAQ.
I have. For what it's worth, I wasn't merely referring to the FAQ, I was referring to other ignoring of arguments that you're done - my last couple of posts alone have shown where you have ignored things I have said said that refute you - your last post even dared to claim I didn't present any evidence when I clearly gave a quotation from the main rulebook. I haven't needed the FAQ at all to discredit what you say, but I find it highly amusing that you maanaged to show that your assumptions were wrong when reading the FAQ. I went back to the main rulebook and discredited you, where you merely ignore it and act like the argument doesn't exist. That does absolutely nothing for your side of the argument.
Interesting that he presents that. GW has stated in their FAQ that many things that go along with Shooting in the Shooting Phase can be used outside the Shooting Phase, such as a Monstrous Creature firing two Weapons in Overwatch. Since I know he considers that a gold standard and actually replaces rules, I wonder how he can continue to justify this hypocritical argument.
Let's start with what the FAQ actually says.
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 item narrowly allows models to fire an extra weapon in Overwatch or while Intercepting.
The FAQ item does not say to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
Why do you insist on misreading things? First, I have to point out that Interceptor is a weapon special rule and now I am pointing out what a FAQ item actually says.
The FAQ doesn't say that you get to ignore the shooting rules either. It does sync up the rules for overwatch or intercepting with the regular rules, however. What I do see, though, is an implicit restriction on the model not getting to fire more weapons than it normally gets to do in the shooting phase. You claimed earlier that by RAW a model could fire Interceptor with as many weapons with the Interceptor rule that it had. The "extra weapon" question has the basic rule that normally the model gets to fire only one weapon included in the question, and in the answer. If anything, it looks bad for your claim that "shooting phase" rules don't apply to other shooting.
The FAQ does not say to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
The FAQ does not support your argument. In fact, the FAQ underscores that we are to continue to differentiate Interceptor from the Shooting phase. The permission granted to monstrous creatures to fire an additional weapon for Interceptor is a permission granted in a piecemeal fashion.
the Shooting Sequence rules only work "during the Shooting phase".
This isn't a Shooting phase.
You have yet to explain how you are using the Shooting Sequence rules when this isn't a Shooting phase.
The Interceptor rules do not require the Shooting Sequence rules. The Interceptor rule already designates a firing weapon, a firing model, and a firing unit. The Interceptor rule provides its own targeting criteria and directly references range and line of sight.
The only thing that the Interceptor rule requires is the To Hit roll rule.
The only thing that can be directly justified by the Rules As Written is a To Hit roll.
I cited the reference that clearly links "firing at the enemy" with the shooting process. With your comment "you have yet to explain" you show that you just wish to ignore it.. As such, your argument is still invalid since you have not disproven what I stated, merely made the same stale assertions.
How exactly does Interceptor require the To Hit roll rule? Where does it say that "firing a weapon" = "rolling to hit?" Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that rolling to hit justifies making a to wound roll if you are not using the shooting process rules? Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that you then get to Allocate wounds and remove casualties if not using the shooting process? Rules quotation please.
You also ignored where I typed:
Sequencing does not apply in this case. If you say that the shooting sequence only applies in the shooting phase one more time, then you also have to provide proof by rules quotations that "firing a weapon" is the same as at least getting to roll to hit (without using the shooting process),, and also provide quotes from the book to back up your claim that you you are justified to roll for damage, to allocate the wounds and to remove casualties without using the shooting process. Even if you can show with a quote that firing a weapon is the same as rolling to hit, that would mean that resolving firing a weapon would be only the rolling to hit - it does not automatically mean you get to move on to other steps in the shooting process.
You did not provide any proof. You merely made assertions again without the proof. Show the rules quotations. I provided the quotation that does show that if you are firing at an enemy, you are using the shooting process. That means that whenever you fire at the enemy, you use the shooting process. You haven't provided any backup for your assertions of firing a weapon, only claim ours aren't valid without any proof. Come back with proof.
You have this backwards. You have not provided any proof. You have failed to show the Shooting Sequence rules working in any other context than a Shooting phase.
During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy.
The Interceptor rule already provides "can be fired" permission "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" and so only requires a To Hit roll "to see if the firing model has hit its target"
Denial isn't merely a river in Egypt. I showed where "firing at the enemy" is following the shooting procedure. You haven't shown anything that prevents the use of the shooting procedure - a BASIC RULE that you rollow when you shoot. Whenever shooting is invoked you must follow the shooting procedure.
I cited the reference that clearly links "firing at the enemy" with the shooting process. With your comments here it merely shows that you are choosing to deliberately ignore it... As such, your argument is still invalid since you have not disproven what I stated, merely made the same stale assertions.
How exactly does Interceptor require the To Hit roll rule? Where does it say that "firing a weapon" = "rolling to hit?" Rules quotation please
Where is the rules citation that rolling to hit justifies making a to wound roll if you are not using the shooting process rules? Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that you then get to Allocate wounds and remove casualties if not using the shooting process? Rules quotation please.
Why does the shooting procedure not apply when "firie at the enemy" is shown by GW to be the shooting process? You have to demonstrate how to resolve firing the weapon without using the shooting process, using rules quotations to back you up.
I have. For what it's worth, I wasn't merely referring to the FAQ, I was referring to other ignoring of arguments that you're done - my last couple of posts alone have shown where you have ignored things I have said said that refute you - your last post even dared to claim I didn't present any evidence when I clearly gave a quotation from the main rulebook. I haven't needed the FAQ at all to discredit what you say, but I find it highly amusing that you maanaged to show that your assumptions were wrong when reading the FAQ. I went back to the main rulebook and discredited you, where you merely ignore it and act like the argument doesn't exist. That does absolutely nothing for your side of the argument.
Your problems with actually reading the FAQ also affect your ability to read the BRB.
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.
The rules for the Shooting Sequence only apply to the Shooting phase.
Interesting that he presents that. GW has stated in their FAQ that many things that go along with Shooting in the Shooting Phase can be used outside the Shooting Phase, such as a Monstrous Creature firing two Weapons in Overwatch. Since I know he considers that a gold standard and actually replaces rules, I wonder how he can continue to justify this hypocritical argument.
Let's start with what the FAQ actually says.
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 item narrowly allows models to fire an extra weapon in Overwatch or while Intercepting.
The FAQ item does not say to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
Why do you insist on misreading things? First, I have to point out that Interceptor is a weapon special rule and now I am pointing out what a FAQ item actually says.
The FAQ doesn't say that you get to ignore the shooting rules either. It does sync up the rules for overwatch or intercepting with the regular rules, however. What I do see, though, is an implicit restriction on the model not getting to fire more weapons than it normally gets to do in the shooting phase. You claimed earlier that by RAW a model could fire Interceptor with as many weapons with the Interceptor rule that it had. The "extra weapon" question has the basic rule that normally the model gets to fire only one weapon included in the question, and in the answer. If anything, it looks bad for your claim that "shooting phase" rules don't apply to other shooting.
The FAQ does not say to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
Irrelevant strawman argument, because of your faulty assumption that the shooting rules apply only in the shooting phase. The FAQ clearly illistrates that GW does not consider your claim to be worth a hill of beans.
col_impact wrote: [The FAQ does not support your argument. In fact, the FAQ underscores that we are to continue to differentiate Interceptor from the Shooting phase. The permission granted to monstrous creatures to fire an additional weapon for Interceptor is a permission granted in a piecemeal fashion.
I see nothing underscoring that you differentiate Interceptor from the shooting PROCESS.. Talk about the shooting PROCESS without talking about the shooting PHASE.
I have. For what it's worth, I wasn't merely referring to the FAQ, I was referring to other ignoring of arguments that you're done - my last couple of posts alone have shown where you have ignored things I have said said that refute you - your last post even dared to claim I didn't present any evidence when I clearly gave a quotation from the main rulebook. I haven't needed the FAQ at all to discredit what you say, but I find it highly amusing that you maanaged to show that your assumptions were wrong when reading the FAQ. I went back to the main rulebook and discredited you, where you merely ignore it and act like the argument doesn't exist. That does absolutely nothing for your side of the argument.
Your problems with actually reading the FAQ also affect your ability to read the BRB.
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.
The rules for the Shooting Sequence only apply to the Shooting phase.
This isn't a Shooting phase.
Are you or are you not firing at the enemy when you invoke Interceptor to fire the weapon? That should be a simple enough question for you to answer concisely.
A second queston, more complex - where in the rules does it state "firing a weapon" is either making a To-Hit roll? And where is the quotation in the rules to allow you to go any further than making a To-Hit roll?
Denial isn't merely a river in Egypt. I showed where "firing at the enemy" is following the shooting procedure. You haven't shown anything that prevents the use of the shooting procedure - a BASIC RULE that you rollow when you shoot.
You have pointed to a permission that works only "during the Shooting phase".
This isn't the Shooting phase.
doctortom wrote: Whenever shooting is invoked you must follow the shooting procedure.
Nonsense. Do you have any rule to back up this claim?
This is a House Rule on your part.
doctortom wrote: I cited the reference that clearly links "firing at the enemy" with the shooting process.
Only during the Shooting phase.
During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy.
Why do you continually ignore the restriction imposed on the permission?
With your comments here it merely shows that you are choosing to deliberately ignore it... As such, your argument is still invalid since you have not disproven what I stated, merely made the same stale assertions.
How exactly does Interceptor require the To Hit roll rule? Where does it say that "firing a weapon" = "rolling to hit?" Rules quotation please
Where is the rules citation that rolling to hit justifies making a to wound roll if you are not using the shooting process rules? Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that you then get to Allocate wounds and remove casualties if not using the shooting process? Rules quotation please.
The To Hit roll, the To Wound roll, and the Allocate Wounds rule are all basic rules that every model knows and they all logically justify each other. Those rules are also not restricted to happen only in the Shooting phase, unlike the Shooting Sequence rule which only happens in the Shooting phase.
Interceptor already provides the permission "can be fired" and so does not need the Shooting Sequence. A firing weapon has been designated and with that a firing model and a firing unit is also designated. Interceptor also has its own targeting criteria and directly accesses the range and line of sight rules in the BRB.
With the permission to fire granted by Interceptor, the controlling player rolls To Hit "to determine if the firing model has hit its target".
If a hit is generated by the To Hit roll, the controlling player Rolls to Wound "to determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage".
The controlling player keeps track of the Wound Pool per the To Wound roll rule by totaling "up the number of Wounds you have caused with the weapons that are firing".
The controlling player "allocate[s] the Wounds from the Wound pool and resolve[s] any saving throws the target is allowed . . . to determine how many casualties are caused".
Each rule logically justifies the next one.
doctortom wrote: Why does the shooting procedure not apply when "firie at the enemy" is shown by GW to be the shooting process? You have to demonstrate how to resolve firing the weapon without using the shooting process, using rules quotations to back you up.
The Shooting Sequence is restricted to the Shooting phase.
The To Hit roll, the To Wound roll, and Wound Allocation are not restricted to the Shooting phase.
Any hits generated by the To Hit roll directly justify the To Wound roll. Any wounds generated by the To Wound roll directly justify Wound Allocation.
The FAQ does not say to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
Irrelevant strawman argument, because of your faulty assumption that the shooting rules apply only in the shooting phase. The FAQ clearly illistrates that GW does not consider your claim to be worth a hill of beans.
Are you reading the rules?
During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy.
The "can fire at the enemy" permission for the Shooting Sequence only applies "during the Shooting phase".
Also, are you reading the FAQ?
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.
No where in that FAQ does it say to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
I see nothing underscoring that you differentiate Interceptor from the shooting PROCESS.. Talk about the shooting PROCESS without talking about the shooting PHASE.
The shooting process is tied inextricably to the Shooting phase.
During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy.
This isn't a Shooting phase so I am not allowed to talk about the shooting process. There is no rule that removes the "during the Shooting phase" restriction on the shooting process.
Are you or are you not firing at the enemy when you invoke Interceptor to fire the weapon? That should be a simple enough question for you to answer concisely.
The Interceptor rule has granted the permission to fire at the enemy.
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.
So indeed Interceptor is using its own permissions to fire at the enemy.
doctortom wrote: A second queston, more complex - where in the rules does it state "firing a weapon" is either making a To-Hit roll?
The controlling player has access to the To Hit basic rule which he uses "To determine if the firing model has hit its target".
doctortom wrote: And where is the quotation in the rules to allow you to go any further than making a To-Hit roll?
The controlling player has access to the To Wound basic rule which he uses "to determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage".
This is what you do when you are losing, circle the camp and change the conversation.
Your games are obvious to everyone.
The resolution of Interceptor has nothing to do with permission, the resolution happens when "weapon can fire" which involves resolution of the weapon firing.
This whole "resolution grants permission" is a construct of your own creation, Col's house rule.
Can is ability.
May is permission.
Nothing is asking for permission, you are being told when it is capable of firing.
I asked you about a Skitarri Vanguard charging a Skitarii Vanguard.
col_impact wrote:
The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.
So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.
There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.
A charge places them in base contact with each other, AT THE SAME TIME.
Now.
DEMONSTRATE two Interceptors "can fire a weapon" resolving at the same time.
And no, it isn't permission, it is two firings.
You have never proven two Interceptors actually resolve at the same time.
Q: Can Tau models that are able to shoot multiple weapons in
the Shooting phase also fire multiple weapons in Overwatch and
multiple weapons with the Interceptor rule?
A: When firing Overwatch or weapons with the
Interceptor special rule, a model can fire all of the
weapons it could usually fire in the Shooting phase.
You have never proven two Interceptors actually resolve 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. 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.
Are you able to point to any other point in time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for an Interceptor "to be resolved"?
Until you can point to some other time, the Sequencing rule applies.
You have never proven two Interceptors actually resolve 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. 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.
Are you able to point to any other point in time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for an Interceptor "to be resolved"?
Until you can point to some other time, the Sequencing rule applies.
Garbage, more garbage.
So you are asserting that the entirety of "at the end" is always "the same time"?
IF that was true, even after you sequenced them they would still be resolving at the same time.
You would be stuck in a loop of sequencing them indefinitely because they would always resolve at the same time.
This fallacy clearly demonstrates that "at the end" is not a set point in time.
The Start and End of a Phase
During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens at
the start of a particular phase, such as ‘at the start of your Movement phase’ or ‘at the
start of your Shooting phase’. These are always resolved before anything else during that
phase. Likewise, any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular
phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase,
before the next phase (if any) starts.
Says nothing about a "special moment" where all of the things happen together.
You already demonstrated via two separate charges that each one meets the criteria of "at the same time" when it resolves, not when all charges are done.
Which means each instance of Interceptor will never resolve at the same time as another.
You got anything else to invent?
Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
You clearly cannot and you have been avoiding show how it would happen for the entire thread.
col_impact wrote:
The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.
So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.
There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.
You can explain two Skitarii Vanguard resolutions occurring at the same time just fine.
But you can't do it for two weapons firing.
Is it too difficult for you?
So you are asserting that the entirety of "at the end" is always "the same time"?
IF that was true, even after you sequenced them they would still be resolving at the same time.
You would be stuck in a loop of sequencing them indefinitely because they would always resolve at the same time.
This fallacy clearly demonstrates that "at the end" is not a set point in time.
"At the start or end of a phase" describes it as being before and after the actions of the phase have taken place.
You already demonstrated via two separate charges that each one meets the criteria of "at the same time" when it resolves, not when all charges are done.
Which means each instance of Interceptor will never resolve at the same time as another.
You got anything else to invent?
Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
You clearly cannot and you have been avoiding show how it would happen for the entire thread.
I have demonstrated that multiple Interceptor rules are "to be resolved at the same time" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"
Therefore I have demonstrated the explicit conditions for the application of 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.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player chooses which of the multiple Interceptor rules resolves first, and which resolves second, and so on.
Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
You clearly cannot and you have been avoiding show how it would happen for the entire thread.
Q: Can Tau models that are able to shoot multiple weapons in
the Shooting phase also fire multiple weapons in Overwatch and
multiple weapons with the Interceptor rule?
A: When firing Overwatch or weapons with the
Interceptor special rule, a model can fire all of the
weapons it could usually fire in the Shooting phase.
col_impact wrote:
The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.
So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.
There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.
You can explain two Skitarii Vanguard resolutions occurring at the same time just fine.
But you can't do it for two weapons firing.
All you do is talk about sequencing, you can't demonstrate the failing of Interceptor.
Interesting that he presents that. GW has stated in their FAQ that many things that go along with Shooting in the Shooting Phase can be used outside the Shooting Phase, such as a Monstrous Creature firing two Weapons in Overwatch. Since I know he considers that a gold standard and actually replaces rules, I wonder how he can continue to justify this hypocritical argument.
Let's start with what the FAQ actually says.
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 item narrowly allows models to fire an extra weapon in Overwatch or while Intercepting.
The FAQ item does not say to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
Why do you insist on misreading things? First, I have to point out that Interceptor is a weapon special rule and now I am pointing out what a FAQ item actually says.
The FAQ doesn't say that you get to ignore the shooting rules either. It does sync up the rules for overwatch or intercepting with the regular rules, however. What I do see, though, is an implicit restriction on the model not getting to fire more weapons than it normally gets to do in the shooting phase. You claimed earlier that by RAW a model could fire Interceptor with as many weapons with the Interceptor rule that it had. The "extra weapon" question has the basic rule that normally the model gets to fire only one weapon included in the question, and in the answer. If anything, it looks bad for your claim that "shooting phase" rules don't apply to other shooting.
See what I mean about him not actually reading what other people write? He focused only on the FAQ without bothering to consider everything that was connected to it, which is what I was actually addressing. He is always ignoring context.
The rules that are referenced in the FAQ (i.e. MC and multi-trackers) specifically state that they are for the Shooting Phase and do not give permission for these rules to be used at any other point in time. By considering the context of the FAQ and the rules in question, we can consider any directions to firing or shooting to be performing the action as if it was happening in the Shooting Phase.
This is only when we actually go to Shoot, though. As pointed out in the FAQ, Intercept Shooting only works with Interceptor Weapons, and it doesn't take any high level genius to understand that Running is not considered an option, either. But considering that the Shooting Phase only discusses the Shooting process/Sequence and Running, that isn't too much of a stretch.
Ceann wrote: Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
You clearly cannot and you have been avoiding show how it would happen for the entire thread.
Q: Can Tau models that are able to shoot multiple weapons in
the Shooting phase also fire multiple weapons in Overwatch and
multiple weapons with the Interceptor rule?
A: When firing Overwatch or weapons with the
Interceptor special rule, a model can fire all of the
weapons it could usually fire in the Shooting phase.
col_impact wrote:
The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.
So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.
There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.
You can explain two Skitarii Vanguard resolutions occurring at the same time just fine.
But you can't do it for two weapons firing.
All you do is talk about sequencing, you can't demonstrate the failing of Interceptor.
Is it too difficult for you?
The Sequencing rule applies when two rules "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven this in the case of Interceptor. Therefore the Sequencing rule applies.
Until you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.
So by all means let us know if you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".
How exactly does Interceptor require the To Hit roll rule? Where does it say that "firing a weapon" = "rolling to hit?" Rules quotation please
Where is the rules citation that rolling to hit justifies making a to wound roll if you are not using the shooting process rules? Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that you then get to Allocate wounds and remove casualties if not using the shooting process? Rules quotation please.
The To Hit roll, the To Wound roll, and the Allocate Wounds rule are all basic rules that every model knows and they all logically justify each other. Those rules are also not restricted to happen only in the Shooting phase, unlike the Shooting Sequence rule which only happens in the Shooting phase.
Ah, the old "logically justify each other" argument. How do they justify each other? Only by following the shooting process. You are making an assumption that they naturally follow. That is not proof that they follow without using the shooting procedure.
col impact wrote:Interceptor already provides the permission "can be fired" and so does not need the Shooting Sequence. A firing weapon has been designated and with that a firing model and a firing unit is also designated. Interceptor also has its own targeting criteria and directly accesses the range and line of sight rules in the BRB.
It does not "not need" the Shooting Sequence. In fact, since the shooting sequence is a basic rule for firing at the enemy, you have to show that a rule overrides following the Shooting Sequence. You have not done that.
col impact wrote:With the permission to fire granted by Interceptor, the controlling player rolls To Hit "to determine if the firing model has hit its target".
If a hit is generated by the To Hit roll, the controlling player Rolls to Wound "to determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage".
Without the shooting process, you have to show you have access to the To Wound section in the first place outside the Shooting Phase. All of the sections you are trying to access are part of "Each step is explained in greater detail in this section", referring to the steps in the Shooting sequence, which according to you you don't get to use outside the shooting phase. Therefore, you must be following the shooting sequence in order to do what you're doing.
I see nothing underscoring that you differentiate Interceptor from the shooting PROCESS.. Talk about the shooting PROCESS without talking about the shooting PHASE.
The shooting process is tied inextricably to the Shooting phase..
Codswallop. Firing at the enemy is not tied inxtricably to the shooting phase, not if firing at the enemy also happens with Overwatch and with Interceptor fire.. The shooting process is what they have shown to be the process for resolving firing at the enemy.
Ceann wrote: Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
You clearly cannot and you have been avoiding show how it would happen for the entire thread.
Q: Can Tau models that are able to shoot multiple weapons in
the Shooting phase also fire multiple weapons in Overwatch and
multiple weapons with the Interceptor rule?
A: When firing Overwatch or weapons with the
Interceptor special rule, a model can fire all of the
weapons it could usually fire in the Shooting phase.
col_impact wrote:
The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.
So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.
There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.
You can explain two Skitarii Vanguard resolutions occurring at the same time just fine.
But you can't do it for two weapons firing.
All you do is talk about sequencing, you can't demonstrate the failing of Interceptor.
Is it too difficult for you?
The Sequencing rule applies when two rules "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven this in the case of Interceptor. Therefore the Sequencing rule applies.
Until you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.
So by all means let us know if you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".
Obfuscation.
It does not apply when they ARE to be resolved at the same time.
It is applied when they WOULD be resolved at the same, if they were not sequenced.
The fact of the matter is that they wouldn't resolve at the same time.
But you want to sequence them anyway.
col_impact wrote:
The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.
So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.
There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.
You demonstrated it clearly when I asked you about it.
The requirement for Sequencing is that they WOULD resolve.
You can lay out a clear example for Skitarii Vanguard.
Lay out an example of two Dunecrawlers resolving Interceptor at the same time.
If you could actually lay out a credible example people might consider you were correct.
IF they WOULD resolve then demonstrate it.
Or is it too hard for you?
See what I mean about him not actually reading what other people write?
What other people write is not a source of authority here. What other people write is only authoritative if its substantiated by the rules.
If you want me to adhere to what you write then back up what you say with rules and I will gladly adhere to what you write.
Charistoph wrote: He focused only on the FAQ without bothering to consider everything that was connected to it, which is what I was actually addressing. He is always ignoring context.
The rules that are referenced in the FAQ (i.e. MC and multi-trackers) specifically state that they are for the Shooting Phase and do not give permission for these rules to be used at any other point in time. By considering the context of the FAQ and the rules in question, we can consider any directions to firing or shooting to be performing the action as if it was happening in the Shooting Phase.
This is only when we actually go to Shoot, though. As pointed out in the FAQ, Intercept Shooting only works with Interceptor Weapons, and it doesn't take any high level genius to understand that Running is not considered an option, either. But considering that the Shooting Phase only discusses the Shooting process/Sequence and Running, that isn't too much of a stretch.
The FAQ only provides a narrow permission for "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"
If you are extrapolating from that narrow permission to an unconstrained permission to allow players to treat Intercepting as a Shooting phase then you are House Ruling.
I will stick to adhering to what the FAQ actually says.
See what I mean about him not actually reading what other people write?
What other people write is not a source of authority here. What other people write is only authoritative if its substantiated by the rules.
If you want me to adhere to what you write then back up what you say with rules and I will gladly adhere to what you write.
Charistoph wrote: He focused only on the FAQ without bothering to consider everything that was connected to it, which is what I was actually addressing. He is always ignoring context.
The rules that are referenced in the FAQ (i.e. MC and multi-trackers) specifically state that they are for the Shooting Phase and do not give permission for these rules to be used at any other point in time. By considering the context of the FAQ and the rules in question, we can consider any directions to firing or shooting to be performing the action as if it was happening in the Shooting Phase.
This is only when we actually go to Shoot, though. As pointed out in the FAQ, Intercept Shooting only works with Interceptor Weapons, and it doesn't take any high level genius to understand that Running is not considered an option, either. But considering that the Shooting Phase only discusses the Shooting process/Sequence and Running, that isn't too much of a stretch.
The FAQ only provides a narrow permission for "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"
If you are extrapolating from that narrow permission to an unconstrained permission to allow players to treat Intercepting as a Shooting phase then you are House Ruling.
I will stick to adhering to what the FAQ actually says.
Stick to this FAQ then.
Q: Can Tau models that are able to shoot multiple weapons in
the Shooting phase also fire multiple weapons in Overwatch and
multiple weapons with the Interceptor rule?
A: When firing Overwatch or weapons with the
Interceptor special rule, a model can fire all of the
weapons it could usually fire in the Shooting phase
In the case of Interceptor, only weapons with the
Interceptor rule can be fired.
Until you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.
That is a valid part of his argument, asking for how firing two different types of weapons happens at the same time. If you can't show how it happens, you haven't proven that they're happening at the same time without wording that is explict as to which is resolved first.
It does not apply when they ARE to be resolved at the same time.
It is applied when they WOULD be resolved at the same, if they were not sequenced.
The Sequencing rule directly contradicts you.
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 says "are to be resolved at the same time" and does not say "would be resolved at the same time".
When your argument has reading comprehension problems it is not valid. The actual words of the Sequencing rule disproves you.
Q: Can Tau models that are able to shoot multiple weapons in
the Shooting phase also fire multiple weapons in Overwatch and
multiple weapons with the Interceptor rule?
A: When firing Overwatch or weapons with the
Interceptor special rule, a model can fire all of the
weapons it could usually fire in the Shooting phase
In the case of Interceptor, only weapons with the
Interceptor rule can be fired.
Another problem with your reading comprehension.
This FAQ also only provides a narrow permission for "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". It is just a codex specific reminder of the same narrow permission.
No where in any FAQ is there a permission to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
LMAO. WOW.
Do you have like the most expensive blinders on in the world?
Where is the cognition in your argument?
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...
!
!
!
When WHAT HAPPENS????
...you find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time...
OK.
Lets demonstrate WHEN that would happen.
col_impact wrote:
The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.
So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.
There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.
So WHEN it happens, at the same time.
So... DEMONSTRATE WHEN it happens with two interceptor weapons.
You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.
Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
If three units are "subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then demonstrate "a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME".
Until you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.
That is a valid part of his argument, asking for how firing two different types of weapons happens at the same time. If you can't show how it happens, you haven't proven that they're happening at the same time without wording that is explict as to which is resolved first.
You have this backwards. You are unable to point to any other time for the multiple Interceptor rules "to be resolved" than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase". The only rule that provides explicit wording as to which rule is to resolve first is the Sequencing rule. Therefore, the explicit conditions of the Sequencing rule have been met and the Sequencing rule applies.
If you feel otherwise then prove how the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" at some time other than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
LMAO. WOW.
Do you have like the most expensive blinders on in the world?
Where is the cognition in your argument?
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...
!
!
!
When WHAT HAPPENS????
find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time...
OK.
Lets demonstrate WHEN that would happen.
col_impact wrote:
The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.
So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.
There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.
So WHEN it happens, at the same time.
So... DEMONSTRATE WHEN it happens with two interceptor weapons.
You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.
Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
Simply read the Interceptor rule.
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.
In the case of multiple Interceptor rules, the rules "are to be resolved" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
I have asked you several times and you have failed to indicate any other time that an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved" than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
Therefore, the Sequencing rule applies and we have no choice but to apply it.
I have proven that the Sequencing rule applies and you have yet to disprove that.
Until you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.
That is a valid part of his argument, asking for how firing two different types of weapons happens at the same time. If you can't show how it happens, you haven't proven that they're happening at the same time without wording that is explict as to which is resolved first.
You have this backwards. You are unable to point to any other time for the multiple Interceptor rules "to be resolved" than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase". The only rule that provides explicit wording as to which rule is to resolve first is the Sequencing rule. Therefore, the explicit conditions of the Sequencing rule have been met and the Sequencing rule applies.
If you feel otherwise then prove how the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" at some time other than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
No one needs to do anything.
You need to do something.
In order to have PERMISSION to use sequencing.
You need to PROVE that two resolutions occur at the same time.
Your argument is nonsense, just because they CAN FIRE at the same time, does not mean they RESOLVE at the same time.
You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.
col_impact wrote:
The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.
So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.
There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.
Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
The shooting rules prevent this.
You can't because "firing a weapon" state cannot happen AT THE SAME TIME for all weapons involved.
If you can demonstrate "If three units are subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then demonstrate "three, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME".
No one needs to do anything.
You need to do something.
In order to have PERMISSION to use sequencing.
You need to PROVE that two resolutions occur at the same time.
Your argument is nonsense, just because they CAN FIRE at the same time, does not mean they RESOLVE at the same time.
You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.
Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
The shooting rules prevent this.
If you can demonstrate "If three units are subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then demonstrate "three, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME".
Are you able to point to some other time that an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved" than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"?
If you cannot then the Sequencing rule applies in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have shown this in the case of multiple Interceptor rules. Each interceptor rule is only provided "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time to resolve its rule.
Since the explicit conditions for the Sequencing rule have been met, I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
No one needs to do anything.
You need to do something.
In order to have PERMISSION to use sequencing.
You need to PROVE that two resolutions occur at the same time.
Your argument is nonsense, just because they CAN FIRE at the same time, does not mean they RESOLVE at the same time.
You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.
Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
The shooting rules prevent this.
If you can demonstrate "If three units are subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then demonstrate "three, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME".
Are you able to point to some other time that an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved" than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"?
If you cannot then the Sequencing rule applies in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.
Again, you are alluding to "at the end" as being a finite moment.
If it was a finite moment, then all rules would resolve at the same time, even if you sequenced them, they would all still occur at the same time.
This is how it is defined...
"Likewise, any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular
phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase,
before the next phase (if any) starts."
"at the end" is not = "at the same time".
Nor is it "hammering the same moment"
"at the end" is merely after all movement has been performed, in this circumstance.
The only requisite is that all other actions performed during the phase have already been performed.
You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.
Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
The shooting rules prevent this.
If you can demonstrate "If three units are subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then demonstrate "three, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME"
Again, you are alluding to "at the end" as being a finite moment.
If it was a finite moment, then all rules would resolve at the same time, even if you sequenced them, they would all still occur at the same time.
This is how it is defined...
"Likewise, any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular
phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase,
before the next phase (if any) starts."
"at the end" is not = "at the same time".
Again you simply need to read the rules. In this case you simply need to read the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule explicitly identifies "at THE START of the Movement phase" and anything "similar" as a time for resolution that would lead multiple rules to resolve "at the same time".
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase"; therefore, the Sequencing rule itself explicitly indicates that multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time".
Since the explicit conditions for the application of the Sequencing rule have been met, the Sequencing rule must be applied.
Until you or anyone can provide some other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for Interceptor "to be resolved" I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule. So if you know of some other time then please share it.
Again, you are alluding to "at the end" as being a finite moment.
If it was a finite moment, then all rules would resolve at the same time, even if you sequenced them, they would all still occur at the same time.
This is how it is defined...
"Likewise, any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular
phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase,
before the next phase (if any) starts."
"at the end" is not = "at the same time".
Again you simply need to read the rules. In this case you simply need to read the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule explicitly identifies "at THE START of the Movement phase" and anything "similar" as a time for resolution that would lead multiple rules to resolve "at the same time".
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase"; therefore, the Sequencing rule itself explicitly indicates that multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time".
Since the explicit conditions for the application of the Sequencing rule have been met, the Sequencing rule must be applied.
Until you or anyone can provide some other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for Interceptor "to be resolved" I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule. So if you know of some other time then please share it.
No, it does not, it says NORMALLY. Which does not mean ALWAYS.
Maybe you should read the rule since you keep coming to false conclusions that requires the entire forum to explain it to you and you still get it wrong.
If anything I think this would demonstrate a long term learning issue of the rules on your part and a loss of credibility at forming any credible argument.
This is merely a case that is an exception because the shooting sequence clearly identifies a single resolution.
You are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone, which is your MO.
Rules are just like math problems. If 2 + 3 = 5, we can "check our work" by taking 5 - 3 = 2.
When we take what you assert and work it backwards it falls apart, so clearly your premise is wrong.
You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.
Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
The shooting rules prevent this.
If you can demonstrate "If three units are subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then why CAN'T YOU demonstrate "three, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME"
Avoiding demonstrating this is called dodging the question.
Which I will accept as your concession.
No, it does not, it says NORMALLY. Which does not mean ALWAYS.
Maybe you should read the rule since you keep coming to false conclusions that requires the entire forum to explain it to you and you still get it wrong.
If anything I think this would demonstrate a long term learning issue of the rules on your part and a loss of credibility at forming any credible argument.
This is merely a case that is an exception because the shooting sequence clearly identifies a single resolution.
You are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone, which is your MO.
Rules are just like math problems. If 2 + 3 = 5, we can "check our work" by taking 5 - 3 = 2.
When we take what you assert and work it backwards it falls apart, so clearly your premise is wrong.
You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.
Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
The shooting rules prevent this.
If you can demonstrate "If three units are subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then why CAN'T YOU demonstrate "three, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME"
Avoiding demonstrating this is called dodging the question.
Which I will accept as your concession.
There is no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" in which multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".
If you know of some other time then please share it with the thread.
Since you cannot, I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule since the conditions for its application have been explicitly met.
That is ignored because interceptor is explicit.
It clearly isolates a single weapon.
The isolated weapon resolves first.
"at the same time" is irrelevant.
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.
We have an explicitly identified "at the end" of when we "a weapon" with the special rule "can be fired" at "any one unit".
If something about this is unclear to you, then no one can help you with that.
Ceann wrote: That is ignored because interceptor is explicit.
It clearly isolates a single weapon.
The isolated weapon resolves first.
"at the same time" is irrelevant.
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.
We have an explicitly identified "at the end" of when we "a weapon" with the special rule "can be fired" at "any one unit".
If something about this is unclear to you, then no one can help you with that.
Interceptor is not explicit as to what happens in the case of multiple Interceptor weapons.
The Interceptor rule only provides "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time for Interceptor "to be resolved".
Therefore, multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time" ("at the end of the Enemy movement phase").
There is no explicit wording in any rule to indicate which Interceptor rule would resolve first except for the Sequencing rule.
Therefore, the Sequencing rule applies and I have no choice but to apply it.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".
"The Interceptor rule only provides "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time for Interceptor "to be resolved".
If they resolve at the same time no matter what interceptor does.
Then they still resolve at the same time, even if you sequence them.
That means you aren't listening to the sequencing rule.
Sequence them again.
They still all resolve at the same time.
Sequence them again.
Repeat ad infinitum.
"at the end of the enemy Movement phase"
Is no different than "movement phase" or "assault phase"
But you aren't trying to sequence all of those.
Your logical failure is these are WEAPON rules, not Unit rules or Model rules.
"at the end" is when they can fire, not when they resolve.
They resolve A SHOOTING ATTACK, when a weapon is fired, not "at the end of the movement phase".
"The Interceptor rule only provides "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time for Interceptor "to be resolved".
If they resolve at the same time no matter what interceptor does.
Then they still resolve at the same time, even if you sequence them.
That means you aren't listening to the sequencing rule.
Sequence them again.
They still all resolve at the same time.
Sequence them again.
Repeat ad infinitum.
Once the Sequencing rule has been applied then the ACTIVE player will have dictated an order to the multiple Interceptor rule resolutions.
The ACTIVE player will say resolve this Interceptor first. The controlling player completely resolves that Interceptor.
The ACTIVE player will say resolve this Interceptor second. The controlling player completely resolves that Interceptor.
And so on for as many Interceptor rules that the ACTIVE player has sequenced.
You aren't resolving Interceptor, you are resolving shooting attacks.
The shooting sequence is explicit.
The shooting sequence is already... sequenced.
The sequencing rule cannot override another rule.
Special Rules
The type section of a weapon’s profile also includes any special rules that apply to the
weapon in question. More information on these can be found either in the special rules
section or in the codex or army list entry the weapon is found in.
Interceptor is already applied to the weapon, for the entire game.
You are resolving shooting attacks granted by Interceptor.
You aren't resolving Interceptor, you are resolving shooting attacks.
The shooting sequence is explicit.
The Sequencing rule deals with 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.
Multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
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.
Therefore, the Sequencing rule applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the Interceptor rules resolve.
Interceptor is already applied to the weapon, for the entire game. It never resolves, it is used.
Does the 4++ save from Terminator armor need to resolve before you before you actually roll the save? No, it is always applied, you USE it.
You seem to have a misunderstanding about the association of rules to wargear.
You are treating them as though they are model or unit rules.
Wargear rules and modifers are ALWAYS on.
You are resolving shooting attacks granted by Interceptor.
Shooting attacks use the shooting sequence.
Ceann wrote: Interceptor is already applied to the weapon, for the entire game. It never resolves, it is used.
Does the 4++ save from Terminator armor need to resolve before you before you actually roll the save? No, it is always applied, you USE it.
You seem to have a misunderstanding about the association of rules to wargear.
Wargear rules and modifers are ALWAYS on.
You are resolving shooting attacks granted by Interceptor.
Shooting attacks use the shooting sequence.
The shooting sequence is explicit.
The Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved" "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"
Multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
You have yet to point to any other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" in which an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved"
Please point to some other point in time in which multiple Interceptor rules "[are] to be resolved"
Until you can point to some other point in time in which multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
I don't have to point at anything.
The shooting sequence is explicit.
Sequencing is never invoked.
FIFY
col_impact wrote:
The Sequencing rule deals with rules.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, ]you’ll occasionally find that two or more 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 are dealing with rules, The Shooting Sequence.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target.
3. Select a Weapon.
4. Roll To Hit.
5. Roll To Wound.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties.
Ceann wrote: I don't have to point at anything.
The shooting sequence is explicit.
Sequencing is never invoked.
FIFY
col_impact wrote:
The Sequencing rule deals with rules.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, ]you’ll occasionally find that two or more 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 are dealing with rules, The Shooting Sequence.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target.
3. Select a Weapon.
4. Roll To Hit.
5. Roll To Wound.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties.
This isn't the Shooting phase so the Shooting Sequence does not apply.
We are firing at an enemy.
We are forced to use the shooting sequence, there is no other choice, this is the only way to fire a weapon, as basic rules are applied to all models per BvA we cannot cut out any of the steps, we are required to use them.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target.
3. Select a Weapon.
4. Roll To Hit.
5. Roll To Wound.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties.
Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict because it is interfering with the resolution of firing a weapon.
These rules are explicit, sequencing is not invoked.
We are firing at an enemy.
We are forced to use the shooting sequence, there is no other choice, this is the only way to fire a weapon, as basic rules are applied to all models per BvA we cannot cut out any of them steps, we are required to use them.
Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict because it is interfering with the rule firing a weapon.
This isn't the Shooting phase.
Only in the context of resolving Interceptor do you have the permission to fire. This is your 'cart before the horse' problem rearing its head again.
By the time that the controlling player is resolving a single Interceptor rule and can fire, the Sequencing rule will have already been applied to set an order to the multiple Interceptor rules since you have multiple Interceptor rules which "are to be resolved" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule dictates that the ACTIVE player set the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve. The controlling player has to adhere to this order.
We are firing at an enemy.
We are forced to use the shooting sequence, there is no other choice, this is the only way to fire a weapon, as basic rules are applied to all models per BvA we cannot cut out any of them steps, we are required to use them.
Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict because it is interfering with the rule firing a weapon.
This isn't the Shooting phase.
Only in the context of resolving Interceptor do you have the permission to fire.
By the time that the controlling player can fire, the Sequencing rule will have already been applied since you have multiple Interceptor rules which "are to be resolved" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule dictates that the ACTIVE player set the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve. The controlling player has to adhere to this order.
You keep making things up.
1. This isn't the Shooting phase.
Ok... and? Interceptor is a special rule, it doesn't care that it isn't the shooting phase. Your statement has no relevance.
2. Only in the context of resolving Interceptor do you have the permission to fire.
Permission is not granted in resolution. You must be having a hard time reading the rules. Interceptor is already applied to the weapon on its profile, it doesn't need permission.
Special Rules
The type section of a weapon’s profile also includes any special rules that apply to the
weapon in question.
You are not giving the weapon "can be fired" ability then firing it.
It already has that rule applied, it can fire the moment it is in the appropriate phase, using the shooting rules.
3. "By the time that the controlling player can fire"
This also means nothing, the shooting sequence is explicit, so sequencing is never invoked.
We are firing at an enemy.
We are forced to use the shooting sequence, there is no other choice, this is the only way to fire a weapon, as basic rules are applied to all models per BvA we cannot cut out any of the steps, we are required to use them.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target.
3. Select a Weapon.
4. Roll To Hit.
5. Roll To Wound.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties.
Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict because it is interfering with the resolution of firing a weapon.
These rules are explicit, sequencing is not invoked.
Permission is not granted in resolution. You must be having a hard time reading the rules. Interceptor is already applied to the weapon on its profile, it doesn't need permission.
You are making all of this up. You have no quotes to back up any of this. And you are using some non-English definition of 'resolve' that does not correspond the BRB usage.
Rules are resolved by following the instructions in the rule. To fire an Interceptor weapon we resolve Interceptor by following the instructions for Interceptor.
This isn't the Shooting phase.
Only in the context of resolving Interceptor do you have the permission to fire. This is your 'cart before the horse' problem rearing its head again.
By the time that the controlling player is resolving a single Interceptor rule and can fire, the Sequencing rule will have already been applied to set an order to the multiple Interceptor rules since you have multiple Interceptor rules which "are to be resolved" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule dictates that the ACTIVE player set the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve. The controlling player has to adhere to this order.
There is no wording in Interceptor that tells us what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules which "are to be resolved at the same time" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule applies and we have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have shown this in the case of multiple Interceptor rules. Each interceptor rule is only provided "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time to resolve its rule.
Since the explicit conditions for the Sequencing rule have been met, I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
If you feel otherwise then prove how the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" at some time other than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
Ceann wrote: I already did, you just didn't like it.
So think what you want.
I don't accept what you said because you have failed to substantiate your argument with rules.
The rules are on my side.
And I will continue to apply the Sequencing rule when there are multiple Interceptor rules which "are to be resolved at the same time" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" since the rules give me no choice but to do so.
Rolsheen wrote: Are the moderators on holiday?
Please lock this thread It's been pages and pages on utter nonsense and has no basis in reality.
My argument is firmly based on the rules.
If you feel otherwise then feel free to provide a counter argument that is substantiated by the rules.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
No... you haven't proven it, which is precisely the problem.
You claim things you haven't proven.
I don't have to point to another time.
The rules to resolve an iteration of Interceptor are explicit.
It identifies a weapon to fire and there are rules attached to firing a weapon. This creates a situation with no ambiguity.
You need to prove the rules for Interceptor are not explicit.
Resolving at the same time is the equivalent of a race.
With no obstacle all of the rules resolve "at the same time".
When that happens they need to be sequenced.
Except it doesn't happen to Interceptor like it did with Rad Sautration. They get to a tunnel named Shooting Sequence.
Once the player nominates a unit, the other rules cannot proceed towards the finish line, they have to wait until whichever unit got nominated to finish the shooting sequence.
At that point that unit will have "resolved" the rule.
You are equating them "firing at the same time" to "resolving at the same time".
They are not the same thing.
And yes I know you will go pull the "but sequencing says"
It says NORMALLY, not ALWAYS.
This is one of the situations that is an exception.
Rolsheen wrote: Are the moderators on holiday?
Please lock this thread It's been pages and pages on utter nonsense and has no basis in reality.
My argument is firmly based on the rules.
If you feel otherwise then feel free to provide a counter argument that is substantiated by the rules.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
Your "argument " hasn't made sense since the first page and just repeating the same irrelevant block of rules is not to going to change that.
You think your right about everything so refuse to listen to anyone else or answer their questions.
Anyone not agreeing with you must be "house ruling" even though it's been explained ad nauseam that GW don't house rule their own rules.
Your "argument " hasn't made sense since the first page and just repeating the same irrelevant block of rules is not to going to change that.
You think your right about everything so refuse to listen to anyone else or answer their questions.
Anyone not agreeing with you must be "house ruling" even though it's been explained ad nauseam that GW don't house rule their own rules.
I have substantiated everything about my argument with rules.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
I have shown in the course of this thread that any counter argument doesn't adhere to the rules.
If a counter argument doesn't adhere to the rules then it is House Ruling by definition.
You seem to have issue with established definitions for what a House Rule is, not with me
Ceann wrote: No... you haven't proven it, which is precisely the problem.
You claim things you haven't proven.
I don't have to point to another time.
The rules to resolve an iteration of Interceptor are explicit.
You have to point to a rule that explicitly resolves multiple Interceptor rules.
The only rule that explicitly resolves multiple Interceptor rules is the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time".
In the case of multiple Interceptor rules, the rules "are to be resolved" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
Until you can point to some other point in time that the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.
If we have 2x
Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a Quad Gun 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 Icarus Array 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.
Two instances, one for each weapon.
It is now the end of the movement phase, nothing has happened yet.
What isn't explicit?
You need to explain what isn't explicit.
Interceptor
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault
squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a Quad Gun 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
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault
squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a Icarus Array 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.
Two instances, one for each weapon.
What isn't explicit?
You need to explain what isn't explicit.
The two Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The Interceptor rule does not tell us what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.
The only rule that explicitly tells us what to do in the case multiple Interceptor rules that are "to be resolved at the same time" is the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven this in the case of multiple Interceptor rules. Each interceptor rule is only provided "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time in which the rule "i[s] to be resolved".
Since the explicit conditions for the Sequencing rule have been met, I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
If you feel otherwise then prove how the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" at some time other than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
Interceptor
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault
squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a Quad Gun 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
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault
squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a Icarus Array 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.
Two instances, one for each weapon.
What isn't explicit?
You need to explain what isn't explicit.
The two Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The Interceptor rule does not tell us what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.
The only rule that explicitly tells us what to do in the case multiple Interceptor rules that are "to be resolved at the same time" is the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven this in the case of multiple Interceptor rules. Each interceptor rule is only provided "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time in which the rule "i[s] to be resolved".
Since the explicit conditions for the Sequencing rule have been met, I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
If you feel otherwise then prove how the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" at some time other than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
No, it doesn't apply "when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time".
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.
ex·plic·it
1.
stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
If you think what I stated wasn't explicit.
Elaborate on what wasn't stated clearly.
Each instance isolates a specific weapon, resolving a weapon firing only allows one to resolve.
Your premise is false until you prove that it isn't explicit.
No, it doesn't apply "when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time".
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.
ex·plic·it
1.
stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
If you think what I stated wasn't explicit.
Elaborate on what wasn't stated clearly.
Each instance isolates a specific weapon, resolving a weapon firing only allows one to resolve.
Your premise is false until you prove that it isn't explicit.
You haven't pointed to a rule that explicitly tells us what to do in the case of two or more Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
I have pointed to the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
Ceann wrote: Two shooting attacks cannot resolve at the same time.
Demonstrate two shooting attacks resolving simultaneously.
You already demonstrated two iterations of Rad Saturation resolving at the same time.
You refuse to repeat the exercise for shooting two weapons now.
Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
What does this have to do with the Sequencing rule?
The Sequencing rule applies to rules, not shooting attacks.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
I have proven this in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.
In the case of multiple Interceptor rules, the rules "are to be resolved" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
Until you can point to some other point in time that the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.
You resolve interceptor by shooting, so in this circumstance it is.
Last I checked shooting was a rule.
Or are you saying shooting doesn't have rules now?
If you do not fire then you are not using the rule.
What does it have to do with sequencing, everything.
You have to prove that the Interceptor is not explicit before applying sequencing.
Ceann wrote: You resolve interceptor by shooting, so in this circumstance it is.
Last I checked shooting was a rule.
Or are you saying shooting doesn't have rules now?
If you do not fire then you are not using the rule.
What does it have to do with sequencing, everything.
You have to prove that the Interceptor is not explicit before applying sequencing.
You have it backwards.
There is nothing in the Interceptor rule that explicitly tells us what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
You haven't pointed to any rule that explicitly tells us what to do in the case of two or more Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time".
Meanwhile, I have pointed to the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven this in the case of multiple Interceptor rules. Each interceptor rule is only provided "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time in which the rule "i[s] to be resolved".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
Until you can point to some other point in time that the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.
Until you can point to a rule (besides the Sequencing rule) that explicitly tells us what to do in the case of two or more Interceptor rules which "are to be resolved at the same time" then you have no argument.
You already demonstrated iterations of Rad Saturation resolving at the same time.
You refuse to repeat the exercise for shooting two weapons now.
Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
We 3 iterations of Rad Saturation were discussed, we both agreed that the moment in which all of the units became locked in combat at the same time, you had simultaneous rules attempting to resolve at the same time.
Rad Saturation provides no method of making each resolution unique from the others.
I keep asking you to demonstrate what you are proposing as 'the way it works" in practice, and you keep avoiding doing so.
Demonstrate the moment where three Interceptors are firing at the same time.
Ceann wrote: Demonstrate them resolving at the same time.
You already demonstrated two iterations of Rad Saturation resolving at the same time.
You refuse to repeat the exercise for shooting two weapons now.
Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved"
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.
In the case of multiple Interceptor rules, I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".
The Interceptor rule makes no mention of what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
Therefore, I have no choice but to apply 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.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven this in the case of multiple Interceptor rules. Each interceptor rule is only provided "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time in which the rule "i[s] to be resolved".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Well apparently we are both missing something then, because your idea fails in practice when followed literally.
In fact you refuse to discuss the actual steps of resolution at all because once you stop giving a high level example and look at the details it falls apart.
Ceann wrote: Well apparently we are both missing something then, because your idea fails in practice when followed literally.
In fact you refuse to discuss the actual steps of resolution at all because once you stop giving a high level example and look at the details it falls apart.
Incorrect. I have since practically the beginning of the thread provided a solution in great detail that works according to the Rules As Written.
My solution works perfectly and is completely validated by the rules.
You are the one who has failed to provide a counter proposal that is worked out in detail according to the Rules As Written.
If you have some wonderful solution that works out in great detail according to the Rules As Written then feel free to share it.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
Spoiler:
I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved"
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.
In the case of multiple Interceptor rules, I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".
The Interceptor rule makes no mention of what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
Therefore, I have no choice but to apply 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.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven this in the case of multiple Interceptor rules. Each interceptor rule is only provided "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time in which the rule "i[s] to be resolved".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means following the Interceptor instructions and 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 resolve one of the Interceptor rules 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 the 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 multiple Interceptor rules are resolved but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence the multiple Interceptor rules.
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
1. It doesn't say on Interceptor that you choose to fire.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
2. "at the end of the movement phase" is WHEN they can fire. The resolutions do not occur at the same time.
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.
3. The weapons fire, not gain permission to fire, there is no rule called "permission" and the word isn't even in Interceptor.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
4. Wow... did you figure that out all on your own? Interceptor is Interceptor and Overwatch is 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.
5. You mean a basic rule has to have explicit wording to break the shooting phase restriction?
. . . 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).
6. Since when does a special rule need specific permissions to override a conflict?
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.
7. This means nothing, Overwatch compared to Interceptor is apples to oranges. BvA
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
8. They don't resolve at the same time
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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
9. BvA states that basic rules apply to all models, you cannot ignore the rest of the shooting sequence.
I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved"
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.
In the case of multiple Interceptor rules, I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".
The Interceptor rule makes no mention of what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
Therefore, I have no choice but to apply 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.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven this in the case of multiple Interceptor rules. Each interceptor rule is only provided "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time in which the rule "i[s] to be resolved".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means following the Interceptor instructions and 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 resolve one of the Interceptor rules 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 the 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 multiple Interceptor rules are resolved but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence the multiple Interceptor rules.
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
col_impact wrote: I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved"
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.
In the case of multiple Interceptor rules, I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".
The Interceptor rule makes no mention of what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
Therefore, I have no choice but to apply 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.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven this in the case of multiple Interceptor rules. Each interceptor rule is only provided "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time in which the rule "i[s] to be resolved".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
You are still treating "at the end of the movement phase" as a single moment in time.
You cannot actually demonstrate the resolutions occurring at the same time so you are hiding behind words.
It is still part of the Movement Phase. Which is a period of time, not a moment of time.
The Start and End of a Phase
During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens at
the start of a particular phase, such as ‘at the start of your Movement phase’ or ‘at the
start of your Shooting phase’. These are always resolved before anything else during that
phase. Likewise, any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular
phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase,
before the next phase (if any) starts.
It says nothing about a moment in time "at the end" is simply after all of the other actions have been performed.
Which means we can resolve all of the Interceptor "permissions" to fire.
Then have a shooting sequence with each of them.
You are still treating "at the end of the movement phase" as a single moment in time.
You cannot actually demonstrate the resolutions occurring at the same time so you are hiding behind words.
It is still part of the Movement Phase. Which is a period of time, not a moment of time.
The Sequencing rule treats "at THE START of the movement phase" and "similar" time statements as single moment in times such that two rules resolving at those times are resolving "at the same time".
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 unequivocally similar to "at THE START of the movement phase".
So the Sequencing rule itself validates "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a single moment in time.
You are still treating "at the end of the movement phase" as a single moment in time.
You cannot actually demonstrate the resolutions occurring at the same time so you are hiding behind words.
It is still part of the Movement Phase. Which is a period of time, not a moment of time.
The Sequencing rule treats "at THE START of the movement phase" and "similar" time statements as single moment in times such that two rules resolving at those times are resolving "at the same time".
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 unequivocally similar to "at THE START of the movement phase".
So the Sequencing rule itself validates "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a single moment in time.
The Sequencing rule defeats your argument.
No, it doesn't.
Sequencing is NOT a special rule.
It cannot override any of this.
The Start and End of a Phase
During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens at
the start of a particular phase, such as ‘at the start of your Movement phase’ or ‘at the
start of your Shooting phase’. These are always resolved before anything else during that
phase. Likewise, any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular
phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase,
before the next phase (if any) starts.
Those are the rules for the start end of phases.
Making them iron clad.
At the start and At the end are triggers for those rules which occur before and after the normal operations of that phase.
Sequencing is NOT a special rule.
It cannot override any of this.
The Start and End of a Phase
During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens at
the start of a particular phase, such as ‘at the start of your Movement phase’ or ‘at the
start of your Shooting phase’. These are always resolved before anything else during that
phase. Likewise, any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular
phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase,
before the next phase (if any) starts.
Those are the rules for the start end of phases.
Making them iron clad.
At the start and At the end are triggers for those rules which occur before and after the normal operations of that phase.
Your precious "a moment in time" doesn't exist.
The Sequencing rule directly contradicts what you are saying.
Spoiler:
The Sequencing rule treats "at THE START of the movement phase" and "similar" time statements as single moment in times such that two rules resolving at those times are resolving "at the same time".
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 unequivocally similar to "at THE START of the movement phase".
So the Sequencing rule itself validates "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a single moment in time. Two or more rules that are to be resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" are to be resolved "at the same time".
The Sequencing rule defeats your argument.
Are you calling the BRB a liar?
That's an awfully awkward position for you to be in if you are calling the BRB a liar.
Me? I will take the BRB at its word.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means following the Interceptor instructions and 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 resolve one of the Interceptor rules 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 the 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 multiple Interceptor rules are resolved but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence the multiple Interceptor rules.
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Highlight where it states " a moment in time".
I have quoted the rules for the phases and that word isn't there.
Awfully uncouth to call me a liar for quoting the brb, when the terms you are using are not there.
Ceann wrote: Highlight where it states " a moment in time".
I have quoted the rules for the phases and that word isn't there.
Awfully uncouth to call me a liar for quoting the brb, when the terms you are using are not there.
The one being dishonest is you, as usual.
Highlighted in red my argument below.
The Sequencing rule directly contradicts what you are saying.
The Sequencing rule treats "at THE START of the movement phase" and "similar" time statements as single moment in times such that two rules resolving at those times are resolving "at the same time".
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 unequivocally similar to "at THE START of the movement phase".
So the Sequencing rule itself validates "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a single moment in time. Two or more rules that are to be resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" are to be resolved "at the same time".
The Sequencing rule defeats your argument.
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is explicitly identified by the Sequencing rule as a time such that when two rules are to be resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" they are to be resolved "at the same time". That means that "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase must be a single moment in time.
Of course, there is also simple English semantics. "The start" and "the end" of a duration of time are singular moments in time defining the furthest extremes. So both the rules and semantics defeat your argument.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means following the Interceptor instructions and 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 resolve one of the Interceptor rules 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 the 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 multiple Interceptor rules are resolved but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence the multiple Interceptor rules.
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Excellent, a moment in time is gone.
You can't highlight it so you are making it up.
Why does that not surprise me?
Guess you aren't following RAW.
Here are the BRB RULES for "end of a phase", page 18.
Likewise, any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase, before the next phase (if any) starts.
So in this case... movement.
It states they are resolved after all other actions have been performed during the phase.
Nothing about a singular moment in time is described or explained.
This is how it works, RAW.
Since according to you and your secret details of how to resolve interceptor...
Interceptor needs to resolve, we don't have permission to fire.
3 sets of Interceptor are now pending to resolve to provide permission to fire, we cannot fire as part of the resolution as it hasn't resolved yet and we still don't have permission until it actually resolves.
Col_Impact sequences our permissions.
All of the permissions resolve.
We now have permission to fire.
Shooting sequence,
Shooting sequence,
Shooting sequence.
All rules have been followed, no rule has been broken.
This is shaping up to become dakkas version of the eye of terror.
With the mods playing some game none of us mortals understand. Maybe they think the forum as a whole will thrive by keeping them locked in eternal battle lol.
Until you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.
That is a valid part of his argument, asking for how firing two different types of weapons happens at the same time. If you can't show how it happens, you haven't proven that they're happening at the same time without wording that is explict as to which is resolved first.
You have this backwards. You are unable to point to any other time for the multiple Interceptor rules "to be resolved" than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase". The only rule that provides explicit wording as to which rule is to resolve first is the Sequencing rule. Therefore, the explicit conditions of the Sequencing rule have been met and the Sequencing rule applies.
If you feel otherwise then prove how the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" at some time other than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
I have. They are resolved using the shooting process that are the basic shooting rules and are invoked by having weapons that can fire Interceptor. As part of the shooting process, you select units to fire, select a target then select weapons to fire. The shooting process is not limited to the shooting phase as it is invoked by Overwatch and by Interceptor. As there is an explicit sequence in the shooting process, sequencing does not apply.
In order to be able to use sequencing, you have to prove that two rules resolve at the same time and that there are not rules for handling the order in which they resolve.
We have:
1 rule - Interceptor - that has already granted permission for weapons to fire Interceptor. But, weapons don't fire, models within units fire. Which means you are using the shooting sequence.
A shooting sequence that dictates an order for weapon fire to occur. You don't have permission to use only part of the shooting sequence, the basic rule for firing at the enemy. Invoking shooting at a time other than the shooting phase means using the shooting process - the basic rule for handling shooting. You don't get to assume that the basic rule for shooting does not apply, then make further assumptions that some parts of the shooting process must logically follow the step before and therefore must be followed. That is cherry picking part of the rules, and the assumptions for the different steps are unwarranted given the initial assumption that the shooting process doesn't apply. The shooting process was given as the process to resolve firiing. Without that you don't get to assume that firing includes rolling to hit, rolling to damage, allocating wounds and removing casualties.
You agreed that firing Interceptor gives permission to fire at the enemy. GW established that the shooting process is used for firing at the enemy. You use the shooting process when you fire Interceptor. Interceptor does not contain any advanced rules to override the basic rules for the shooting process except that it occurs outside the shooting phase.
No one needs to do anything.
You need to do something.
In order to have PERMISSION to use sequencing.
You need to PROVE that two resolutions occur at the same time.
Your argument is nonsense, just because they CAN FIRE at the same time, does not mean they RESOLVE at the same time.
You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.
Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
The shooting rules prevent this.
If you can demonstrate "If three units are subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then demonstrate "three, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME".
Are you able to point to some other time that an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved" than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"?
If you cannot then the Sequencing rule applies in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have shown this in the case of multiple Interceptor rules. Each interceptor rule is only provided "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time to resolve its rule.
Since the explicit conditions for the Sequencing rule have been met, I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
Yet the shooting rules used for Resolving the Interceptor fire clearly state that only one unit fires at a time, and only one weapon group within a unit fires at one time. This means that the rules are not resolved at the same time. No sequencing for you.
doctortom wrote: I have. They are resolved using the shooting process that are the basic shooting rules and are invoked by having weapons that can fire Interceptor. As part of the shooting process, you select units to fire, select a target then select weapons to fire. The shooting process is not limited to the shooting phase as it is invoked by Overwatch and by Interceptor. As there is an explicit sequence in the shooting process, sequencing does not apply.
Permission is not granted in resolution. You must be having a hard time reading the rules. Interceptor is already applied to the weapon on its profile, it doesn't need permission.
You are making all of this up. You have no quotes to back up any of this. And you are using some non-English definition of 'resolve' that does not correspond the BRB usage.
Then provide the BRB definition of "resolve" to prove him wrong. From what I can see, you were the one having problems with understanding what "resolve" means.
Ceann wrote: No... you haven't proven it, which is precisely the problem.
You claim things you haven't proven.
I don't have to point to another time.
The rules to resolve an iteration of Interceptor are explicit.
You have to point to a rule that explicitly resolves multiple Interceptor rules.
You should start telling the truth. This isn't it. He has pointed to rules. You don't wish to accept them, but everyone else here agrees with it. Saying he hasn't pointed to a rule, even if you don't want to believe the rule, is a gross misrepresentiation of the facts.
Ceann wrote: Two shooting attacks cannot resolve at the same time.
Demonstrate two shooting attacks resolving simultaneously.
You already demonstrated two iterations of Rad Saturation resolving at the same time.
You refuse to repeat the exercise for shooting two weapons now.
Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
What does this have to do with the Sequencing rule?
The Sequencing rule applies to rules, not shooting attacks.
You don't resolve the Interceptor rule unless you also resolve the shooting attack. You carry the rule to the conclusion. The conclusion is when the shooting attack is completed. You've already had standing permission to fire, so the only thing to resolve at that point is shooting - the Interceptor fire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Roknar wrote: This is shaping up to become dakkas version of the eye of terror.
With the mods playing some game none of us mortals understand. Maybe they think the forum as a whole will strive on keeping them locked in eternal battle lol.
The mods are already in 8th edition 40k. They all got caught on the other side of the Great Rift so aren't around to moderate the threads any more.
Roknar wrote: This is shaping up to become dakkas version of the eye of terror.
With the mods playing some game none of us mortals understand. Maybe they think the forum as a whole will strive on keeping them locked in eternal battle lol.
The mods are already in 8th edition 40k. They all got caught on the other side of the Great Rift so aren't around to moderate the threads any more.
I think we need some serious Primaris Marine reinforcement to drag this thread back to reality.
Roknar wrote: This is shaping up to become dakkas version of the eye of terror.
With the mods playing some game none of us mortals understand. Maybe they think the forum as a whole will strive on keeping them locked in eternal battle lol.
The mods are already in 8th edition 40k. They all got caught on the other side of the Great Rift so aren't around to moderate the threads any more.
I think we need some serious Primaris Marine reinforcement to drag this thread back to reality.
Mods please lock this thread
Do you ever add anything of value?
Nearly half of all your posts in YMDC are quips that have no value to a discussion, or asking to have a thread locked.
The others are merely one or two lines.
Clearly you have no interest in debating anything.
No one is making you read this.
If you want to contribute, then do, if not, then say nothing.
Roknar wrote: This is shaping up to become dakkas version of the eye of terror.
With the mods playing some game none of us mortals understand. Maybe they think the forum as a whole will thrive by keeping them locked in eternal battle lol.
Maybe you're right! If they just fight here until doomsday we can have the rest of our threads be untouched
