To start off, here are the pertinent sections of the given rules required for interpretation.

Game turn vs Player turn, pg9

"Whenever a rule refers to 'a turn' it always means 'player turn' unless it specifically refers to a 'game turn'."

Overwatch, pg 21

"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. ..."

Interceptor, pg 38

"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 as it's read, if a model fires a weapon using interceptor during the enemy movement phase, it cannot fire that weapon during the next *player* turn. Then the assault phase rolls around and the interceptor unit finds itself getting charged. It wishes to fire overwatch, so per normal shooting rules, follows the sequence of shooting.

This is the important part. Pg 12, the shooting sequence is outlined in the grey box in the bottom left corner.

First bullet point says this: "1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to, BUT HAS NOT YET, fire this turn."


And as mentioned before regarding player turn vs game turn, that situation refers to player turn.


So, if a model wishes to fire overwatch at a charging enemy, but has shot previously this *player* turn due to Interceptor, it cannot fire overwatch because that goes against the normal rules for shooting, which overwatch much follow.



I'm sorry tau players.

 Caboose wrote:
To start off, here are the pertinent sections of the given rules required for interpretation.

Game turn vs Player turn, pg9

"Whenever a rule refers to 'a turn' it always means 'player turn' unless it specifically refers to a 'game turn'."

Overwatch, pg 21

"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. ..."

Interceptor, pg 38

"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 as it's read, if a model fires a weapon using interceptor during the enemy movement phase, it cannot fire that weapon during the next *player* turn. Then the assault phase rolls around and the interceptor unit finds itself getting charged. It wishes to fire overwatch, so per normal shooting rules, follows the sequence of shooting.

This is the important part. Pg 21, the shooting sequence is outlined in the grey box in the bottom left corner.

First bullet point says this: "1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to, BUT HAS NOT YET, fire this turn."


And as mentioned before regarding player turn vs game turn, that situation refers to player turn.


So, if a model wishes to fire overwatch at a charging enemy, but has shot previously this *player* turn due to Interceptor, it cannot fire overwatch because that go against the normal rules for shooting, which overwatch much follow.



I'm sorry tau players.

Cute, but wrong.

Movement Phase - Interceptor
Shooting Phase - Can do nothing, as it is not your player turn
Assault Phase - Overwatch

that comprises a "turn".

You are forgetting the rule of overwatch which dictates the phase in where it happens. Note that the overwatch rules says "resolve". It specifically dictates which unit you have to target (the unit assaulting) you, so it skips step 1, and moves right to step 2. As this all happens in the same turn, it's perfectly legal to shoot overwatch the turn you intercept.

RAW, however would not let you shoot overwatch the turn *after* you intercept, because of the restriction on firing due to interceptor

It's the fact that it is the same turn that means you can't...

 djdarknoise wrote:
But it's the same turn.

Movement Phase - Interceptor
Shooting Phase - Can do nothing, as it is not your player turn
Assault Phase - Overwatch

You are forgetting the rule of overwatch which dictates the phase in where it happens. Note that the overwatch rules says "resolve". It specifically dictates which unit you have to target (the unit assaulting) you, so it skips step 1, and moves right to step 2. As this all happens in the same turn, it's perfectly legal to shoot overwatch the turn you intercept.

RAW, however would not let you shoot overwatch the turn *after* you intercept, because of the restriction on firing due to interceptor

No. Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack, taken in the enemy assault phase. Rules for a shooting attack follow the shooting sequence, which clearly states that you may only select a unit to shoot for a shooting attack if it has not already shot this *player* turn. Each player turn comprises of 3 phases, yes. The movement, shooting, and assault phases. Unfortunately it doesnt matter which 'phase' said shooting action occurs in. What matters is the player turn as a whole. If you shoot with interceptor in the movement phase, and then shoot in the assault phase using overwatch, you are still shooting in the same *player* turn, which is clearly not allowed according to the shooting sequence.

And resolve only enforces the point further. And you cant skip step one because step two is predetermined. How do you resolve an overwatch shooting attack? Step 1: pick a unit to shoot at the assaulter. Has that unit shot this *player* turn? Yes, if fired interceptor. Ok, overwatch resolved...

The only restriction on "turn" is for nominating a unit. Overwatch skips this step - or rather changes the requirements to "the unit being assaulted".

rigeld2 wrote:
The only restriction on "turn" is for nominating a unit. Overwatch skips this step - or rather changes the requirements to "the unit being assaulted".

Nominating the unit doing the shooting yes. Target nomination is predetermined, but that doesnt entitle you to skip the previous steps... Just because a weapon ignores armor saves doesnt entitle you to skip the process to get there... You dont auto hit and wound because it ignores armor saves... Not good logic there.

Target nomination isn't even predetermined. If you're being assaulted by three units you can still choose who to overwatch.

If the first unit gets to you though, you miss the boat on overwatching though.

 Caboose wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The only restriction on "turn" is for nominating a unit. Overwatch skips this step - or rather changes the requirements to "the unit being assaulted".

Nominating the unit doing the shooting yes. Target nomination is predetermined, but that doesnt entitle you to skip the previous steps... Just because a weapon ignores armor saves doesnt entitle you to skip the process to get there... You dont auto hit and wound because it ignores armor saves... Not good logic there.

Target nomination and which unit is firing are predetermined.

Or am I allowed to Overwatch with a unit that is not being charged?

With Tau you are...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, I guess none of the shooting sequence is predetermined. Moot point about skipping steps then.

 Caboose wrote:
With Tau you are...

Maybe you should re-read the rule involved. They're allowed to shoot Overwatch as if they were the unit being charged, correct?

So, I guess none of the shooting sequence is predetermined. Moot point about skipping steps then.

Sure, if you ignore rules maybe.

 Caboose wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The only restriction on "turn" is for nominating a unit. Overwatch skips this step - or rather changes the requirements to "the unit being assaulted".

Nominating the unit doing the shooting yes. Target nomination is predetermined, but that doesnt entitle you to skip the previous steps... Just because a weapon ignores armor saves doesnt entitle you to skip the process to get there... You dont auto hit and wound because it ignores armor saves... Not good logic there.

You are trying to make a technical argument out of a bullet point box. If you actually look at the section "Nomintate Unit to Shoot" (which, by the way, is the same verbage as the bullet point you are trying to use), the actual rules for nominating says "Other game rules or special rules can sometimes affect a unit's ability to shoot - this is explained thoroughly when it occurs." (pg 12)

As the rules for overwatch explain thoroughly when you are allowed, and who is allowed to shoot, it overrules the summed up/bullet point. Specific rules on page 12 trump truncated bullet box.

Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack...if you start from there then you realize...did I shoot this turn? Yes, the unit I am nominating/that has been nominated...can't shoot.

This affects the unit's ability to shoot...overwatch.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Caboose wrote:
With Tau you are...

Maybe you should re-read the rule involved. They're allowed to shoot Overwatch as if they were the unit being charged, correct?

So, I guess none of the shooting sequence is predetermined. Moot point about skipping steps then.

Sure, if you ignore rules maybe.

1. I just reread the rule. it states that all may fire overwatch as if they were also targets of the assault. Moot point, follows rules for overwatch and other shooting restrictions. Falls in line with my previous arguments.

2. No, in fact I'm trying to incorporate all rules, INCLUDING BULLET POINTS. Which are in fact, rules.

 djdarknoise wrote:
You are trying to make a technical argument out of a bullet point box. If you actually look at the section "Nomintate Unit to Shoot" (which, by the way, is the same verbage as the bullet point you are trying to use), the actual rules for nominating says "Other game rules or special rules can sometimes affect a unit's ability to shoot - this is explained thoroughly when it occurs." (pg 12)

As the rules for overwatch explain thoroughly when you are allowed, and who is allowed to shoot, it overrules the summed up/bullet point. Specific rules on page 12 trump truncated bullet
box.

There is no trumping different aspects of the same rule. Bullet points are rules too. Overwatch "trumps" nothing. It follows the rules for shooting. You don't ignore any aspects of the rules because you dont like them. Nothing in the shooting rules contradict. You don't omit an aspect of the rules because you THINK something "trumps" it. It doesnt state that you ignore the normal process of shooting and just blast away, so you dont.

 ductvader wrote:
Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack...if you start from there then you realize...did I shoot this turn? Yes, the unit I am nominating/that has been nominated...can't shoot.

This affects the unit's ability to shoot...overwatch.

You're missing the point. Only in the truncated bullet box does it say "but has not yet". This is a summary and a paraphrase of the actual rules, listed opposite on page 12. As the rules listed opposite (and not in the paraphrase box) specifically state that other rules trump and override unit's ability to shoot. Ovewatch is one of those rules. You are picking the paraphrased summary of the sequence because it fits your mindset.

And yes, one rule trumps another. Lets see;

Bullet Point 2, the last line "Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot." Yet, the full rules say "if no models have line of sight, then a different target must be chosen" and "if no weapons are in range, a different target must be chosen". So which is it? Can a unit not fire at all? Can they choose a different target? It clearly can't be both.

 Caboose wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Caboose wrote:
With Tau you are...

Maybe you should re-read the rule involved. They're allowed to shoot Overwatch as if they were the unit being charged, correct?

So, I guess none of the shooting sequence is predetermined. Moot point about skipping steps then.

Sure, if you ignore rules maybe.

1. I just reread the rule. it states that all may fire overwatch as if they were also targets of the assault. Moot point, follows rules for overwatch and other shooting restrictions. Falls in line with my previous arguments.

2. No, in fact I'm trying to incorporate all rules, INCLUDING BULLET POINTS. Which are in fact, rules.

So we agree we skip nominating a unit - Overwatch rules determine that.
We agree we skip determining the target - Overwatch rules determine that.
Where is there a restriction now? Your previous arguments only cited a restriction when nominating a unit. We skip that step.

How do you shoot at all if you have not chosen a unit to shoot with?

 ductvader wrote:
How do you shoot at all if you have not chosen a unit to shoot with?

p21 wrote:As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker - it doesn't have to, but it's often a good idea.

Because the Overwatch rules dictate what unit can fire. We don't elect units, we make the choice to fire or not.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
How do you shoot at all if you have not chosen a unit to shoot with?

p21 wrote:As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker - it doesn't have to, but it's often a good idea.

Because the Overwatch rules dictate what unit can fire. We don't elect units, we make the choice to fire or not.

So the overwatch rule nominates the unit by default.

Overwatch follows the same rules for shooting.

Then, the overwatch rule can only come into effect/nominate a unit for a unit that has not yet fired.

djdarknoise wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack...if you start from there then you realize...did I shoot this turn? Yes, the unit I am nominating/that has been nominated...can't shoot.

This affects the unit's ability to shoot...overwatch.

You're missing the point. Only in the truncated bullet box does it say "but has not yet". This is a summary and a paraphrase of the actual rules, listed opposite on page 12. As the rules listed opposite (and not in the paraphrase box) specifically state that other rules trump and override unit's ability to shoot. Ovewatch is one of those rules. You are picking the paraphrased summary of the sequence because it fits your mindset.

And yes, one rule trumps another. Lets see;

Bullet Point 2, the last line "Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot." Yet, the full rules say "if no models have line of sight, then a different target must be chosen" and "if no weapons are in range, a different target must be chosen". So which is it? Can a unit not fire at all? Can they choose a different target? It clearly can't be both.

You are correct, there are precedents for some rules overruling others. BUT I dont see anywhere that Overwatch does. I see the opposite. It states that it follows the normal rules for shooting. Also, whats wrong with citing a bullet point? They are rules too. What are you, a bullet-pointist? Dont be prejudiced against them because you dont like them... Thats rude and ignorant. They are a shorter version of the rule that you can read so you dont have to spend the time reading 4 paragraphs.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Caboose wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Caboose wrote:
With Tau you are...

Maybe you should re-read the rule involved. They're allowed to shoot Overwatch as if they were the unit being charged, correct?

So, I guess none of the shooting sequence is predetermined. Moot point about skipping steps then.

Sure, if you ignore rules maybe.

1. I just reread the rule. it states that all may fire overwatch as if they were also targets of the assault. Moot point, follows rules for overwatch and other shooting restrictions. Falls in line with my previous arguments.

2. No, in fact I'm trying to incorporate all rules, INCLUDING BULLET POINTS. Which are in fact, rules.

So we agree we skip nominating a unit - Overwatch rules determine that.
We agree we skip determining the target - Overwatch rules determine that.
Where is there a restriction now? Your previous arguments only cited a restriction when nominating a unit. We skip that step.

No, there is no agreement, You dont get to skip steps because part of it determined. Like I said, you dont skip the rest of process because your weapon ignores armor saves, why would you skip the rest of the shooting sequence because half of step one and step 2 are covered? Bullets are a summary of the rules. You read a bullet point because you dont want to read a whole paragraph. Youre chosing to ignore and bypass it because you dont like what it tells you to do. Thats not how the game is played. Weak argument.

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
How do you shoot at all if you have not chosen a unit to shoot with?

p21 wrote:As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker - it doesn't have to, but it's often a good idea.

Because the Overwatch rules dictate what unit can fire. We don't elect units, we make the choice to fire or not.

So the overwatch rule nominates the unit by default.

Overwatch follows the same rules for shooting.

Then, the overwatch rule can only come into effect/nominate a unit for a unit that has not yet fired.

Interesting - can you cite - in the overwatch rules - where that restriction is? I don't see it.
The overwatch rules don't just "nominate the unit by default" - they skip the nomination entirely. A unit has been nominated, a target has been set, move on. You're attempting to apply restrictions on things that aren't even involved in the process.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
How do you shoot at all if you have not chosen a unit to shoot with?

p21 wrote:As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker - it doesn't have to, but it's often a good idea.

Because the Overwatch rules dictate what unit can fire. We don't elect units, we make the choice to fire or not.

So the overwatch rule nominates the unit by default.

Overwatch follows the same rules for shooting.

Then, the overwatch rule can only come into effect/nominate a unit for a unit that has not yet fired.

Interesting - can you cite - in the overwatch rules - where that restriction is? I don't see it.
The overwatch rules don't just "nominate the unit by default" - they skip the nomination entirely. A unit has been nominated, a target has been set, move on. You're attempting to apply restrictions on things that aren't even involved in the process.

Sure "overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack"

See normal shooting attack for the restriction.

Heres how it goes. Unit gets assaulted. It wishes to fire overwatch at attacker. Begin shooting sequence.

Select unit to fire that has not already fired.

Cannot....

End of overwatch.


I dont see how this is hard.

 Caboose wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Caboose wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Caboose wrote:
With Tau you are...

Maybe you should re-read the rule involved. They're allowed to shoot Overwatch as if they were the unit being charged, correct?

So, I guess none of the shooting sequence is predetermined. Moot point about skipping steps then.

Sure, if you ignore rules maybe.

1. I just reread the rule. it states that all may fire overwatch as if they were also targets of the assault. Moot point, follows rules for overwatch and other shooting restrictions. Falls in line with my previous arguments.

2. No, in fact I'm trying to incorporate all rules, INCLUDING BULLET POINTS. Which are in fact, rules.

So we agree we skip nominating a unit - Overwatch rules determine that.
We agree we skip determining the target - Overwatch rules determine that.
Where is there a restriction now? Your previous arguments only cited a restriction when nominating a unit. We skip that step.

No, there is no agreement, You dont get to skip steps because part of it determined. Like I said, you dont skip the rest of process because your weapon ignores armor saves, why would you skip the rest of the shooting sequence because half of step one and step 2 are covered? Bullets are a summary of the rules. You read a bullet point because you dont want to read a whole paragraph. Youre chosing to ignore and bypass it because you dont like what it tells you to do. Thats not how the game is played. Weak argument.

I'm not ignoring anything actually.

So please cite - in the overwatch rules, because that's how we're nominating a unit - where there is a restriction. Please cite - in the overwatch rules - where you get to pick a target (since we can't skip that step).

Steps 1 and 2 are satisfied in the Overwatch rules. According to you I do not have the option of firing. The Overwatch rules give me the option. Please cite the denial and remember that Overwatch is more specific than the shooting phase rules.

I think you're misunderstanding.

Shooting is not an extension of overwatch rules.

Overwatch is an extension of shooting rules.

Overwatch is only allowed to happen while keeping in line with all of the rules of a normal shooting attack.

 ductvader wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding.

Shooting is not an extension of overwatch rules.

Overwatch is an extension of shooting rules.

Really? That's an interesting assertion. What page of the shooting rules does Overwatch appear on?

Overwatch is only allowed to happen while keeping in line with all of the rules of a normal shooting attack.

Oh - so Overwatch can cause Morale or Pinning tests?

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding.

Shooting is not an extension of overwatch rules.

Overwatch is an extension of shooting rules.

Really? That's an interesting assertion. What page of the shooting rules does Overwatch appear on?

Overwatch is only allowed to happen while keeping in line with all of the rules of a normal shooting attack.

Oh - so Overwatch can cause Morale or Pinning tests?

Where in overwatch are you allowed to roll dice?

Odd way to look at it. However firing interceptor and over watch don't conflict since it's being done in the same player turn and interceptor says next turn.

Lungpickle wrote:
Odd way to look at it. However firing interceptor and over watch don't conflict since it's being done in the same player turn and interceptor says next turn.

That's not really the semantic question in play here.

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding.

Shooting is not an extension of overwatch rules.

Overwatch is an extension of shooting rules.

Really? That's an interesting assertion. What page of the shooting rules does Overwatch appear on?

Overwatch is only allowed to happen while keeping in line with all of the rules of a normal shooting attack.

Oh - so Overwatch can cause Morale or Pinning tests?

Where in overwatch are you allowed to roll dice?

After the unit has been nominated and target decided you follow the rules for a shooting attack. So either Overwatch cannot ever work (your position) or you can Intercept and Overwatch (what the rules say).

Lungpickle wrote:
Odd way to look at it. However firing interceptor and over watch don't conflict since it's being done in the same player turn and interceptor says next turn.

That is the question stated in the origional post...

Please don't state your opinion and what you interpret me to be saying as facts.

You're also saying the unit has been nominated...a thorough "fact" you were attempting to disprove.

rigeld2 wrote:

After the unit has been nominated and target decided you follow the rules for a shooting attack. So either Overwatch cannot ever work (your position) or you can Intercept and Overwatch (what the rules say).

OR the third option (what the rules actually say) of you cant use both interceptor and overwatch in the same *player* turn because youre only allowed to make one shooting action per *player* turn... You skipped that option...

ductvader wrote:Please don't state your opinion and what you interpret me to be saying as facts.

You're also saying the unit has been nominated...a thorough "fact" you were attempting to disprove.

I apologize - I was taking your argument as what you said. You said,

Overwatch is an extension of shooting rules.

The shooting rules say,

During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks.

Since we aren't in the Shooting phase we can't nominate the unit - according to your argument. This means Overwatch can never work.
I'm stating that the rules say

As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker - it doesn't have to, but it's often a good idea.

Which means that the unit has been nominated. You can't choose not to nominate it meaning any restrictions that exist in the Shooting phase do not exist here.

Caboose wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

After the unit has been nominated and target decided you follow the rules for a shooting attack. So either Overwatch cannot ever work (your position) or you can Intercept and Overwatch (what the rules say).

OR the third option (what the rules actually say) of you cant use both interceptor and overwatch in the same *player* turn because youre only allowed to make one shooting action per *player* turn... You skipped that option...

Because that option leads to Overwatch not ever working, meaning it's really the first option.

Please stop taking phrases out of context and stop being the devil's advocate.

While overwatch follows the rules for shooting it itself has stated certain exclusions to those rules but has never stated that it forgoes the nomination process but merely shows how to go about it.

 ductvader wrote:
Please stop taking phrases out of context and stop being the devil's advocate.

Even in context my response applies.

While overwatch follows the rules for shooting it itself has stated certain exclusions to those rules but has never stated that it forgoes the nomination process but merely shows how to go about it.

Well, no - it must forgo the nomination process. One of the requirements (the one I quoted) for nomination is that you're in the Shooting Phase. If you must meet all requirements then Overwatch can never happen.

And Tada!

"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"

 ductvader wrote:
And Tada!

"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"

And that proves ... ?
Your assertion is that all nomination requirements be met. One of the nomination requirements is that you must be in the shooting phase. That sentence does not change that fact.
You can resolve the Overwatch fire trivially - it's not allowed to happen. Resolved!

 Caboose wrote:
First bullet point says this: "1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to, BUT HAS NOT YET, fire this turn."

In context that applies to the shooting phase as a unit can only make one attack in the shooting phase.

It does not restrict Overwatch at all.

I'm sorry tau players.

You should be as your argument is incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
And Tada!

"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"

And that proves ... ?
Your assertion is that all nomination requirements be met. One of the nomination requirements is that you must be in the shooting phase. That sentence does not change that fact.
You can resolve the Overwatch fire trivially - it's not allowed to happen. Resolved!

It is met, albeit in the enemy's assault phase.

 DeathReaper wrote:
In context that applies to the shooting phase as a unit can only make one attack in the shooting phase.

Actually it applies to the shooting sequence, which is how you resolve a shooting attack, which are the rules that overwatch follows...

And yes, I am sorry, because I knew a great deal of them would be sore about this new information and react as you and several other have. Denial is the first stage.

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
And Tada!

"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"

And that proves ... ?
Your assertion is that all nomination requirements be met. One of the nomination requirements is that you must be in the shooting phase. That sentence does not change that fact.
You can resolve the Overwatch fire trivially - it's not allowed to happen. Resolved!

It is met, albeit in the enemy's assault phase.

I wasn't aware that the enemy's assault phase was your shooting phase. Thanks for setting me straight!

...

In case you couldn't tell, that was sarcasm. Overwatch gives you permission to make a shooting attack when you normally wouldn't be able to. According to you we still need to meet all the requirements to nominate the unit (even though Overwatch nominates that unit for us, but we'll ignore that rule for now).
1). It must be the Shooting Phase. Not met ever in the assault phase.
2). Must be armed with ranged weapons. We'll assume this is true.
3). Must not have fired this turn. We'll assume they fired Interceptor.

Your argument is that, somehow, the phrase "albeit one resolved in the enemy's assault phase" somehow means you can ignore restriction number 1. Please explain how.

 Caboose wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
In context that applies to the shooting phase as a unit can only make one attack in the shooting phase.

Actually it applies to the shooting sequence, which is how you resolve a shooting attack, which are the rules that overwatch follows...

And yes, I am sorry, because I knew a great deal of them would be sore about this new information and react as you and several other have. Denial is the first stage.

Please do not ignore the context.

I could tell from the first post this was simply a case of "I think tau overwatch is OP, wait loophole through logic hoops!"

So yea, You can still overwatch if you intercept. Blame matt ward and GW, not tau players. Of course, you can always blame tau players that are playing meta lists too.

 Caboose wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
In context that applies to the shooting phase as a unit can only make one attack in the shooting phase.

Actually it applies to the shooting sequence, which is how you resolve a shooting attack, which are the rules that overwatch follows...

And yes, I am sorry, because I knew a great deal of them would be sore about this new information and react as you and several other have. Denial is the first stage.

Accusation of bias is seriously a bad idea. I'm 99% sure DR doesn't play Tau and I don't either. We discuss rules, not what we want rules to be.
I'm offended by your accusation as it has no basis and only serves to attempt to undermine my arguments by putting them in a bad light. Why not be polite and stick to the rules?

rigeld2 wrote:

Your argument is that, somehow, the phrase "albeit one resolved in the enemy's assault phase" somehow means you can ignore restriction number 1. Please explain how.

Have you ever used overwatch?

It really seems like you're the one trying to say that overwatch is impossible.

Follows the rules for shooting...but is in the assault phase.

I cannot simplify that further.

Does not need to be in my shooting phase because overwatch explicitly states...normal shooting rules...but in the assault phase.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Why not be polite

Mind your own advice.

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Your argument is that, somehow, the phrase "albeit one resolved in the enemy's assault phase" somehow means you can ignore restriction number 1. Please explain how.

Have you ever used overwatch?

It really seems like you're the one trying to say that overwatch is impossible.

Follows the rules for shooting...but is in the assault phase.

I cannot simplify that further.

Does not need to be in my shooting phase because overwatch explicitly states...normal shooting rules...but in the assault phase.

And what are the normal shooting rules?
I'm using your argument to show you the consequences of your argument. The actual rules (and my argument) show that the nomination is done for us, so we move to the next step and do not have to satisfy other requirements.

rigeld2 wrote:
Why not be polite

Mind your own advice.

FYI, cutting a sentence in half is rude. Please use full quotes in the future.
And I am being polite. I haven't insulted you at all. I've been accused of bias in a thread I've shown none. That's not polite (although it wasn't you that did that).

Just because nomination is automatic doesn't mean that it doesn't follow the rules that have been stated that it needs to follow.

 ductvader wrote:
Just because nomination is automatic doesn't mean that it doesn't follow the rules that have been stated that it needs to follow.

...
No, that's exactly what it means. I'm Fearless - I don't have to roll to test Morale, I just automatically pass. According to you I'd roll and then disregard the roll and assume I passed.
Either the nomination being automatic skips requirements, or you have to show how - somehow - it's your shooting phase during the enemy's assault phase.

Isn't this all a mott point as the restriction from firing Interceptor does not go into effect until the next player turn?

"If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn..."

Since Overwatch is still the same turn as Interceptor was fired, there should be no restriction. Seems pretty clear.

Sure...it automatically follows the rules for fearless.

As overwatch automatically follows the rules for normal shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Isn't this all a mott point as the restriction from firing Interceptor does not go into effect until the next player turn?

"If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn..."

Since Overwatch is still the same turn as Interceptor was fired, there should be no restriction. Seems pretty clear.

That's not actually the question at hand.

The real question is if a unit is allowed to shoot twice in one player turn. Which is not explicitly stated in overwatch.

 ductvader wrote:
Sure...it automatically follows the rules for fearless.

As overwatch automatically follows the rules for normal shooting.

So you have no actual argument to prove that the shooting phase is your enemy's assault phase? Thought not. I've been waiting for one.
Since you can't provide one, do you agree that your argument means that Overwatch can never be attempted?

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Isn't this all a mott point as the restriction from firing Interceptor does not go into effect until the next player turn?

"If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn..."

Since Overwatch is still the same turn as Interceptor was fired, there should be no restriction. Seems pretty clear.

That is not the point I am challenging. I found a line in a rule in the shooting sequence that states that a unit cannot shoot if it has already shot this *player* turn. Since overwatch and interceptor happen in the same player turn, i believe the rules support that interceptor and overwatch are mutually exclusive.



To those whom I accused of being biased, I appologize. It was not my intention. I just figured this out and expected mostly Tau players looking break everything in their favor to jump down my throat. Thank you for being courteous. Other than that, I am enjoying this discussion.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
Sure...it automatically follows the rules for fearless.

As overwatch automatically follows the rules for normal shooting.

So you have no actual argument to prove that the shooting phase is your enemy's assault phase? Thought not. I've been waiting for one.
Since you can't provide one, do you agree that your argument means that Overwatch can never be attempted?

No, I don't believe either and you already know that. Please stop trying to change the argument to your own benefit.

I believe that you refuse to accept that overwatch uses the normal rules for shooting during your opponent's assault phase.

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
Sure...it automatically follows the rules for fearless.

As overwatch automatically follows the rules for normal shooting.

So you have no actual argument to prove that the shooting phase is your enemy's assault phase? Thought not. I've been waiting for one.
Since you can't provide one, do you agree that your argument means that Overwatch can never be attempted?

No, I don't believe either and you already know that. Please stop trying to change the argument to your own benefit.

So do you have a rules basis for ignoring one requirement for nomination but not ignoring another one? I'd love to see it - you've failed to provide one so far when I've asked.

I believe that you refuse to accept that overwatch uses the normal rules for shooting during your opponent's assault phase.

That'd be incorrect. Overwatch does use the normal rules for shooting - it just automatically decides the first two steps and starts you on step 3 (modifying by requiring Snap Shots).

 ductvader wrote:

The real question is if a unit is allowed to shoot twice in one player turn. Which is not explicitly stated in overwatch.

Except overwatch tells you you can make a shooting attack, this is more specific than the shooting phase rules and as such are allowed to shoot.

The restriction on page 12, taken in context, means that we are only allowed to nominate a unit to fire its weapons once in the shooting phase. This restriction does not affect overwatch.


P.S. Rig is correct, I do not play Tau. (I play several different Marines, and Orks).

I'd like to see where you think you can ignore the whole process.

The overwatch rule explicitly states that it uses the normal shooting rules...but for your opponent's assault phase.

And automatically decides...using the normal rules for shooting.

...which you're throwing out the window.



We're talking in circles.

At the very least can you see where this requires an FAQ?

No, I do not think this was intentionally written to be this way by GW. Yes, I think it's perfectly legal and befitting the game that a unit can only fire once per turn.

 ductvader wrote:
I'd like to see where you think you can ignore the whole process.

The overwatch rule explicitly states that it uses the normal shooting rules...but for your opponent's assault phase.

And automatically decides...using the normal rules for shooting.

...which you're throwing out the window.



We're talking in circles.

At the very least can you see where this requires an FAQ?

No, I do not think this was intentionally written to be this way by GW. Yes, I think it's perfectly legal and befitting the game that a unit can only fire once per turn.

No FAQ needed, the rules are clear if you do not ignore the context.

Thanks for backing up my point then.

Caboose,

As a Tau player and a Rule Lawyer I do not take any offense and accept your apology on behalf of the Greater Good. I understand fully well that there are 'those ******* guys' out there whom saw some of the interesting, and indeed broken, things we Tau could do and selected our faction for no other reason then to exploit this fact. To want to see these people brought down a few notches is only understandable, and I believe the primary reason for this web-site is to discuss the rules and find out just how to legally do that when it is justified. Bringing what you saw as a possible way to reduce the amount of damage the Tau can do during their enemy turn to this forums attention was the right thing to do.

I don't think you have a good case with this one though, but it was enjoying and fresh unlike the much rehashed topics we usually see here.

 ductvader wrote:
Thanks for backing up my point then.

Your point ignores the context, so that is explicitly not what I was doing...

 ductvader wrote:
I'd like to see where you think you can ignore the whole process.

What am I ignoring?

The overwatch rule explicitly states that it uses the normal shooting rules...but for your opponent's assault phase.

Correct!

And automatically decides...using the normal rules for shooting.

Correct!

...which you're throwing out the window.

Incorrect! I'm applying every written rule. You're selectively ignoring one for no reason and refusing to cite a reason.

We're talking in circles.

Well, one of us has provided rules every time he's been asked. The other one of us has not. Therefore only one of us has a rules based argument. Which one of us is that?

At the very least can you see where this requires an FAQ?

Not at all. You're making assumptions that the rules don't support to create a false environment where a FAQ would be good. If you don't make those false assumptions everything works fine.

No, I do not think this was intentionally written to be this way by GW. Yes, I think it's perfectly legal and befitting the game that a unit can only fire once per turn.

I couldn't care less one way or the other - I have literally no Interceptor models available to me in my primary army.
I think the right place to look for an FAQ would be that firing Interceptor forbids more shooting including Overwatch, not just in the next shooting phase.

Ha, you can see where that would be difficult to interpret...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And rgeld, you've been asking me to provide rules for points I don't believe or wish to back up.

I personally feel like you've convoluted the argument left and right because you've taken this personally in some way.

I've already stated my belief in its most simple form time and time again you've continuously dodged it in favor of witch hunt questions.

 ductvader wrote:
Ha, you can see where that would be difficult to interpret...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And rgeld, you've been asking me to provide rules for points I don't believe or wish to back up.

I personally feel like you've convoluted the argument left and right because you've taken this personally in some way.

I've already stated my belief in its most simple form time and time again you've continuously dodged it in favor of witch hunt questions.

You are saying that even though the Overwatch rules pick the unit to fire, you must meet the nomination requirements to be able to fire (that is, you must not have fired this turn). Is that correct?
I'd hate to put words in your mouth and don't mean to.

I am saying that overwatch picks the unit that can fire based on the normal rules for shooting with the exception of it occuring in your enemy's assault phase.

 ductvader wrote:
I am saying that overwatch picks the unit that can fire based on the normal rules for shooting with the exception of it occuring in your enemy's assault phase.

Yes, we're aware of the fact that you're attempting a shooting attack in the enemy's assault phase. You have permission to attempt that. Now, can you do me a favor and list the requirements for nomination and what - exact - rule satisfies or denies which requirement?

I want to make sure we're on the same page.

If a model fires intercept in movement phase, and is not allowed to fire in the next shooting phase,

and the rules for overwatch follow the rules for shooting it would make sense that the model could not fire overwatch as it may not fire until after its next shooting phase.

However RAW there is no statement ruling on intercept versus overwatch so despite the fact logic shows that it should not be able to fire overwatch, it is still allowed to fire overwatch and may not fire in its next shooting phase until a FAQ comes out and says otherwise.

RAI- If a model fires intercept and is now allowed to fire in its next turn, it shouldn't be firing overwatch before that as well as overwatch follows all the rules for shooting. However it does state if the model has another weapon it can be fired in the next turn, its the weapon that cannot fire not the model.

RAW- it doesnt say it cannot fire at all, interceptor is a special rule and special rules modify normal rules. Overwatch is not a special rule, it is a normal rule, and it should follow all the rules for shooting. Interceptor does modify shooting in the next turn, and the rules as written have overwatch as a normal rule, so we should consider that as written interceptor was written with overwatch considered and if they wanted to include overwatch, they would have. However, they did not.

For the third time, that is not the question in play.

rigeld, I will respond when I have both the resources and time to do so, I sincerely apologize as I am currently preoccupied and thoroughly enjoy the track we're currently on.

blaktoof wrote:
If a model fires intercept in movement phase, and is not allowed to fire in the next shooting phase,

and the rules for overwatch follow the rules for shooting it would make sense that the model could not fire overwatch as it may not fire until after its next shooting phase.

However RAW there is no statement ruling on intercept versus overwatch so despite the fact logic shows that it should not be able to fire overwatch, it is still allowed to fire overwatch and may not fire in its next shooting phase until a FAQ comes out and says otherwise.

RAI- If a model fires intercept and is now allowed to fire in its next turn, it shouldn't be firing overwatch before that as well as overwatch follows all the rules for shooting. However it does state if the model has another weapon it can be fired in the next turn, its the weapon that cannot fire not the model.

RAW- it doesnt say it cannot fire at all, interceptor is a special rule and special rules modify normal rules. Overwatch is not a special rule, it is a normal rule, and it should follow all the rules for shooting. Interceptor does modify shooting in the next turn, and the rules as written have overwatch as a normal rule, so we should consider that as written interceptor was written with overwatch considered and if they wanted to include overwatch, they would have. However, they did not.

Please do people the courtesy of actually reading the thread - including the OP - and not just making assumptions based on the title.

This is actually fairly simple. Interceptor says "...the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn...", thus you can fire the weapons as normal until the next (player) turn.

If you used interceptor on your opponent's movement phase, your weapon can not be fired on your turn. However, you are still able to overwatch with that weapon since it is still the same turn you used interceptor.

If you use interceptor on your movement phase due to Necron Deathmarks, you would still be able to fire your weapons normally in your shooting phase since it is still the same turn you used interceptor. However, you would not be able to use interceptor on your opponent's movement phase, or overwatch unless you has another weapon you can fire.

Since interceptor says you can't fire the weapon in the next (player) turn, it doesn't matter if the model can fire or not, it is the weapon that is restricted.

EDIT: I'm not sure you are even allowed to nominate any other targets with overwatch. The only way I can think you can bypass that is by using a Target Lock, but that is really sketchy. With the Tau Supporting Fire special rule says you count as being charged so you follow all rules for overwatch as normal.

I need to reread the overwatch rule, but I think it states that you skip the nomination step because you can't fire at any other unit then the one you are charging.

 Nilok wrote:
Since interceptor says you can't fire the weapon in the next (player) turn, it doesn't matter if the model can fire or not, it is the weapon that is restricted.

Please read the OP - the argument being made has literally nothing to do with the rules for Interceptor.

EDIT: I'm not sure you are even allowed to nominate any other targets with overwatch. The only way I can think you can bypass that is by using a Target Lock, but that is really sketchy. With the Tau Supporting Fire special rule says you count as being charged so you follow all rules for overwatch as normal.

Reading the thread is fundamental.

Read all the pages, not sure why you are saying its not pertinent.

[OP summary] "overwatch cannot be fired on the same turn as interceptor"

whats the problem?

blaktoof wrote:
Read all the pages, not sure why you are saying its not pertinent.

[OP summary] "overwatch cannot be fired on the same turn as interceptor"

whats the problem?

Because you missed his point. The point he's bringing up isn't that interceptor denies overwatch - it doesn't.
It's that a unit is only allowed to be nominated to fire a shooting attack if it hasn't already fired that (player) turn.

By continuing to harp on the rules for interceptor you have completely failed to actually understand what you read.

actually the OP was referring to the interceptor rules, he is putting forward that the interceptor rules prevent the over-watch from being able to shoot having already shot that turn using intercept.

I have read through the thread and to be honest you guys lost me around halfway down page two when you went off on tangents about nominating targets and whatnot.

the OP was surmising that if you have intercepted that you cannot overwatch if you are charged in the subsequent assault phase, to which he is inaccurate in his summation.

so with interceptor only appliying it's restriction in the following turn, overwatch is resolved normally, as there is no restriction in place to use the weapon, Overwatch has it's list of restrictions on p21, ergo having fired interceptor is neither on that list nor a preventative factor there.

the shooting rules for nomination do not apply, you are 'resolving a shooting attack' to resolve a shooting attack an attack must be made, in a permissive ruleset specific permission is granted to shoot by the overwatch rule itself.

hell the overwatch rule even lists what rules are used, range, LOS, cover, and so on. all of which come in after the initial steps.

in conclusion, overwatch as a rule trumps the standard restrictions by granting permission and has its own set of restrictions, neither intercept nor overwatch care if the unit has done or will do the other, the rules on page 12 even state that examples of special rules will explain thoroughly when oddities occur to which overwatch does.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Read all the pages, not sure why you are saying its not pertinent.

[OP summary] "overwatch cannot be fired on the same turn as interceptor"

whats the problem?

Because you missed his point. The point he's bringing up isn't that interceptor denies overwatch - it doesn't.
It's that a unit is only allowed to be nominated to fire a shooting attack if it hasn't already fired that (player) turn.

By continuing to harp on the rules for interceptor you have completely failed to actually understand what you read.

you complain that people are not reading the OP

people replying read the OP, and you and the OP are arguing about nominating units starting page 2.

Then your upset that people are discussing the OP.

You need to calm down.

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Read all the pages, not sure why you are saying its not pertinent.

[OP summary] "overwatch cannot be fired on the same turn as interceptor"

whats the problem?

Because you missed his point. The point he's bringing up isn't that interceptor denies overwatch - it doesn't.
It's that a unit is only allowed to be nominated to fire a shooting attack if it hasn't already fired that (player) turn.

By continuing to harp on the rules for interceptor you have completely failed to actually understand what you read.

you complain that people are not reading the OP

people replying read the OP, and you and the OP are arguing about nominating units starting page 2.

Then your upset that people are discussing the OP.

You need to calm down.

So I'm just imagining this in the OP?

This is the important part. Pg 21, the shooting sequence is outlined in the grey box in the bottom left corner.

First bullet point says this: "1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to, BUT HAS NOT YET, fire this turn."


And as mentioned before regarding player turn vs game turn, that situation refers to player turn.


So, if a model wishes to fire overwatch at a charging enemy, but has shot previously this *player* turn due to Interceptor, it cannot fire overwatch because that goes against the normal rules for shooting, which overwatch much follow.

So again - the rules for interceptor have literally nothing to do with this. Stop bringing them up.

So, if a model wishes to fire overwatch at a charging enemy, but has shot previously this *player* turn due to Interceptor, it cannot fire overwatch because that goes against the normal rules for shooting, which overwatch much follow.

I fail to see how you say intercept has no bearing on this discussion when you quote the above.

blaktoof wrote:

So, if a model wishes to fire overwatch at a charging enemy, but has shot previously this *player* turn due to Interceptor, it cannot fire overwatch because that goes against the normal rules for shooting, which overwatch much follow.

I fail to see how you say intercept has no bearing on this discussion when you quote the above.

The rules for interceptor don't. The fact that it fires does. Again, a failure to understand.

edit:

blaktoof wrote:
If a model fires intercept in movement phase, and is not allowed to fire in the next shooting phase,

and the rules for overwatch follow the rules for shooting it would make sense that the model could not fire overwatch as it may not fire until after its next shooting phase.

Here you're discussing the issue using the rules for interceptor - I bolded where you brought them up. It's an irrelevant statement.

Gah, Why did the OP have to mention interceptor at all? The original post has nothing to do with the interceptor rules. They are superfluous to his point.

The general point of contention, and the OP's entire argument, is that a unit cannot fire overwatch in the same turn that it has already fired, for any reason including, but not limited to having fired an interceptor weapon.

Here is the problem. "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."

What exactly does "and so on" cover? Does it include a restriction to fire if the unit has already fired? Is that restriction only part of nominating that unit to fire? Do we still technically pick a unit to fire from a set of 1? None of these are answerable in RAW becouse "and so on" is wonderfully vague. That means its an RAI discussion. If the intent was to limit overwatch to units that have not fired this turn why not say that in the overwatch restrictions? They specifically deny units that have already fired other overwatch shots, a sub set of units that have already fired for any reason. If the intent was for 'and so on' to limit overwatch to units that have not fired that turn then wouldn't that line in the overwatch restrictions have mentioned that instead of just previous overwatch shots?

Seems pretty clear. You can Overwatch and use Interceptor in the same turn.

I find your statements highly irrelevant. as they have nothing to do with the OP and other people have replied with comments on the OP.

The OP brought up Intercept as did you, and the things you have quoted and responded to all regard intercept, which this discussion is hinged upon.

if interecept was not part of this discussion it would simply be a discussion on Overwatch, which it obviously isn't.

Can you return to discussing intercept/overwatch and stop complaining about what you think is relevant?

 Caboose wrote:


OR the third option (what the rules actually say) of you cant use both interceptor and overwatch in the same *player* turn because youre only allowed to make one shooting action per *player* turn... You skipped that option...

Blaktoof, this is the original poster's contention from midway through the thread. The nomination discussion is relevant to the section which I've bolded.

blaktoof wrote:
I find your statements highly irrelevant. as they have nothing to do with the OP and other people have replied with comments on the OP.

The OP brought up Intercept as did you, and the things you have quoted and responded to all regard intercept, which this discussion is hinged upon.

if interecept was not part of this discussion it would simply be a discussion on Overwatch, which it obviously isn't.

Can you return to discussing intercept/overwatch and stop complaining about what you think is relevant?

Not sure if you are trolling or what. Have you really read ALL the posts in this thread? It seems evident that you haven't.

extremefreak17 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
I find your statements highly irrelevant. as they have nothing to do with the OP and other people have replied with comments on the OP.

The OP brought up Intercept as did you, and the things you have quoted and responded to all regard intercept, which this discussion is hinged upon.

if interecept was not part of this discussion it would simply be a discussion on Overwatch, which it obviously isn't.

Can you return to discussing intercept/overwatch and stop complaining about what you think is relevant?

Not sure if you are trolling or what. Have you really read ALL the posts in this thread? It seems evident that you haven't.

Not sure if you are trolling, I dont think you read my post.

Interceptor was brought up by OP and others throughout thread because it is one of the few ways you can fire during opponents turn.

Overwatch says you may fire during opponents turn following the shooting rules.

The conflict the OP suggest is that because you have already fired you may not fire overwatch because its on the same turn, shooting rules state you fire once during a turn.

In my post I stated RAW interceptor doesnt say you may not fire overwatch, its int he same book and RAW goes on to discuss the future ie your next shooting phase. As intercept shots happen before overwatch and in the same book wherein the two rules exist there is no rule stating that you may not fire overwatch shots, it shows that RAW there is no conflict between the two.

If there is no conflict between the two then there is no problem with firing more than once in a turn, in regards to overwatch firing after already previously firing in the turn [interceptor]




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Selicate wrote:

 Caboose wrote:


OR the third option (what the rules actually say) of you cant use both interceptor and overwatch in the same *player* turn because youre only allowed to make one shooting action per *player* turn... You skipped that option...

Blaktoof, this is the original poster's contention from midway through the thread. The nomination discussion is relevant to the section which I've bolded.

yep...

thats what I was replying to.

I understand what the argument is about, but I don't think it really works.

#1 IMO, the 'rule' you're quibbling about is in a summary box, and as such is a paraphrasing of the 'actual' rules.
#2 The 'actual' rules (those outside the summary box) follow nearly identical wording to the rules for eg Movement.
#3 If you apply the same logic to other actions - that performing a similar action 'out of phase' is beholden to the restrictions and limits in the 'correct phase' - you might find that you are similarly unable to 'move' your models in the shooting/assault phase because they have already moved their maximum movement distance that turn.



(#4 - the wording in the reference section is different again, and says 'choose one of your units that has not yet acted in this Shooting phase...' )

Im not buying the assumption that you skip the nomination step. Mostly because its situational that the nomination is automatic. Lets use Tau as its the best example.

You have a broadside with inteceptor, a crisis suit with interceptor, and a unit of fire warriors, all with in 6 inches of each other. You have two unit of assault marines in 7 inches.

The Broadside and the crisis suit fired interceptor in the marines movement phase.

First unit of assault marines declares a charge at the broadside.

Now, nominations take place for overwatch... Potential of multiple targets, and potential of multiple shooters...

No longer "automatic" as several people have assumed.

Discuss.

 Caboose wrote:
Im not buying the assumption that you skip the nomination step. Mostly because its situational that the nomination is automatic. Lets use Tau as its the best example.

Even in your example its not situational. It's still automatic - it's just that all 3 happen at the same time. I'm really not sure why you think that's "situational."
The rules used don't change based on the number of assaulters, so it can't be situational.

edit: And again - assuming you do not skip the nomination step, why are you ignoring one of the requirements for a normal overwatch shot?

Yes it does. You have to choose the order of shooters, if they will shoot, who gets shot at, and in what order... I dont see how thats an automatic decision.

By your logic, there are no choices to the shooting phase, because its automatic that you you must shoot one of your units at one of the enemies.

Automatic means you have no choice. I understand your argument if there is one shooter and one assaulter, but when presented with multiples of each, you must make choices, hence the situational aspect and removal of the "automatic" resolution.


EDIT: Im not ignoring the "requirements" for a "normal" overwatch shot. Im showing why your argument of "automatic nomination" is invalid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:
#1 IMO, the 'rule' you're quibbling about is in a summary box, and as such is a paraphrasing of the 'actual' rules.

Well, if you take that perspective of ignoring summary boxes and bullet points, then you might as well stop using Look Out Sir, Ballistic SKill 6+, Go to Ground, etc, which are all in side of page boxes, and have bullet points.

Even if there is only one unit eligible to fire overwatch, I would say the nomination isn't any more automatic than it is if it's your shooting phase and you only have one unit left on the board. You still have to nominate that unit to shoot, and meet the requirements set forth on page 12 for nominating a unit.

The fact that the "Shooting Sequence" box on page 12 is a summary of the shooting sequence doesn't make the words written there meaningless. It just means we need to see the relevant section of the chapter to get the complete rules and all the caveats for that step in the sequence. Incidentally, step one of the shooting sequence in that box is the only place I can see that specifically says you cannot shoot twice in one turn with a unit, so it better be important (or else my turn 1 shooting phase will consist of two basilisks taking turns firing until your whole army is dead).

Now that we have established that the verbiage of that summary box is indeed important, on to the "Nominate Unit to Shoot" section of the chapter to see what additional information we can find beyond what's in the summary. This section is about 7 sentences long and only says a few things:
- "During the Shooting Phase"
- unit must be armed with ranged weapons
- unit cannot be locked in close combat
- unit cannot be running
- "This is not a comprehensive list"

The overwatch rules provide an exception to the Shooting Phase requirement, even if it isn't lawyer-like enough for rigeld2 (I'm sorry, but you're pants-on-head if you think RAW prevents you from firing overwatch at all because it isn't the Shooting Phase). It doesn't provide exceptions for anything else, including nominating which unit is shooting (which is good, because Tau supporting fire potentially makes things messy in that regard). Just because only one unit is eligible to shoot does not mean you skip the first step in the shooting sequence, it just means you're nominating a unit to shoot from a pool of 1 eligible units.

I wouldn't call this clear-cut but I would say there's a good case to be made that overwatch follows the normal shooting rules and the normal shooting rules say you can shoot once per player turn.

You dont choose WHO they will shoot at, as the charges are declared, and resolved, one at a time. There is no choice in the matter - if marine unit A declares a charge, and you declare you will overwatch, you WILL overwatch that unit. No choice is possible in which unit you shoot at.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You dont choose WHO they will shoot at, as the charges are declared, and resolved, one at a time. There is no choice in the matter - if marine unit A declares a charge, and you declare you will overwatch, you WILL overwatch that unit. No choice is possible in which unit you shoot at.

The issue is not who you're shooting at. It's step 1 of the Shooting Sequence:

"Nominate Unit to Shoot: Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire [sic] this turn"

Whether you have 1 unit eligible to shoot or 10, doesn't matter, you still have to nominate them to shoot.

Except with Overwatch, you cannot do so - the unit nomination is provided through overwatch; all you can do is choose to use Overwatch or not. From that point on you are locked into it, and you bypass step one by definition.

If I pass a morale check automatically, do I still roll the dice? No.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except with Overwatch, you cannot do so - the unit nomination is provided through overwatch; all you can do is choose to use Overwatch or not. From that point on you are locked into it, and you bypass step one by definition.

If I pass a morale check automatically, do I still roll the dice? No.

Because you'd be following the correct rules for passing said test. You do not pass the test automatically without referring to the rule that allows you to do so.

You do not nominate an overwatching unit without following the rules that allow you to do so.

your ignoring the fact that the overwatch sentence and indeed rule goes on to list, very specifically, the restrictions that are in place for it.

having shot interceptor is not one of them, the indication to use the normal rules for shooting are listed primarily as the LoS, cover ect.

I have a question I only need to ask because I currently don't have a set of rules on me.

Is a unit allowed to shoot overwatch multiple times in a turn? (Assuming the first charge failed)

(I actually do not know)

Duct - and the overwatch rules define the nomination. The nomination IS automatic - there is no choice in the matter. The choice is firing overwatch, or not. Once you choose to use Overwatch, the nomination is defined for you - you cannot follow the shooting rules for that step, it is literally impossible.

there is no loophole here. You CAN fire interceptor and then overwatch


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Duct - no, the overatch rule states you can only Overatch once per turn. With the caveat of "unless told otherwise" - like the tau tank commander.

no you may only fire it once per turn, as defined within it's own context.

this does mean that the charging unit can elect to go to ground, failing the charge automatically but providing a better cover save than what they have.

So even overwatch takes into account that you can only fire once per turn...in it's nomination rules.

So why do people believe that this would not be included as per "follows the normal rules for shooting"?

Because, as pointed out, you bypass that step entirely. You dont get to follow step one, as the nomination is done for you. Same as you dont get to roll dice for a morale check if you are fearless - fearless does it for you.
Same concept.

Are you now arguing RAI?

Caboose wrote:Yes it does. You have to choose the order of shooters, if they will shoot, who gets shot at, and in what order... I dont see how thats an automatic decision.

Because they're automatically nominated... as the Overwatch rules say.

By your logic, there are no choices to the shooting phase, because its automatic that you you must shoot one of your units at one of the enemies.

Nope, never said that. At all. Don't put words in my mouth please. The shooting phase is different because you have the choice to nominate. Overwatch doesn't give you that choice - you just have the choice to fire or not.

Automatic means you have no choice. I understand your argument if there is one shooter and one assaulter, but when presented with multiples of each, you must make choices, hence the situational aspect and removal of the "automatic" resolution.

You do not have a choice - the unit has been nominated to make a shooting attack. You can choose not to make that shooting attack but that doesn't change that unit was nominated.

EDIT: Im not ignoring the "requirements" for a "normal" overwatch shot. Im showing why your argument of "automatic nomination" is invalid.

So please, show me where in the Overwatch rules it is the shooting phase?

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:Even if there is only one unit eligible to fire overwatch, I would say the nomination isn't any more automatic than it is if it's your shooting phase and you only have one unit left on the board. You still have to nominate that unit to shoot, and meet the requirements set forth on page 12 for nominating a unit.

The Overwatch rules take care of that nomination for you, as I've said. You have zero choice as to that.

Now that we have established that the verbiage of that summary box is indeed important, on to the "Nominate Unit to Shoot" section of the chapter to see what additional information we can find beyond what's in the summary. This section is about 7 sentences long and only says a few things:
- "During the Shooting Phase"
- unit must be armed with ranged weapons
- unit cannot be locked in close combat
- unit cannot be running
- "This is not a comprehensive list"

The overwatch rules provide an exception to the Shooting Phase requirement, even if it isn't lawyer-like enough for rigeld2 (I'm sorry, but you're pants-on-head if you think RAW prevents you from firing overwatch at all because it isn't the Shooting Phase). It doesn't provide exceptions for anything else, including nominating which unit is shooting (which is good, because Tau supporting fire potentially makes things messy in that regard). Just because only one unit is eligible to shoot does not mean you skip the first step in the shooting sequence, it just means you're nominating a unit to shoot from a pool of 1 eligible units.

The bolded is insulting and not warranted, at all. Please try to be polite.

As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker - it doesn't have to, but it's often a good idea.

That unit can immediately fire means it's been nominated. I'm not sure how you can take it otherwise.
As far as the rule that brought your insult out,

albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase

You are told to resolve a shooting attack in the enemy's assault phase. I've asked before and have never been shown where in the enemy's assault phase your shooting phase is. The rule does not say "Resolve the shooting attack as if it was your shooting phase". You're inventing rules to pretend your stance is more correct or has some legitimacy when in fact your stance requires you to ignore a rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because, as pointed out, you bypass that step entirely. You dont get to follow step one, as the nomination is done for you. Same as you dont get to roll dice for a morale check if you are fearless - fearless does it for you.
Same concept.

Are you now arguing RAI?

I am arguing that nomination, even if automatic, was given a ruleset to follow. "Normal rules for shooting" and even has an exception, "used during the enemy's assault phase" in order to follow that ruleset.

 ductvader wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because, as pointed out, you bypass that step entirely. You dont get to follow step one, as the nomination is done for you. Same as you dont get to roll dice for a morale check if you are fearless - fearless does it for you.
Same concept.

Are you now arguing RAI?

I am arguing that nomination, even if automatic, was given a ruleset to follow. "Normal rules for shooting" and even has an exception, "used during the enemy's assault phase" in order to follow that ruleset.

"albiet" is not an exception. At all. It means "although". So it tells you to resolve a normal shooting attack in the enemy's assault phase. If you are forcing a nomination to take place, no unit can be nominated because it is not the shooting phase, although you're resolving it in the enemy's assault phase.

Yes, and step 1 cannot occur. Do yopu roll dice for a fearless unit? No, because passing was automatic. Do you nominate the unit, after stating that it will fire overwatch? No, because the unit is now locked into shooting, prior to getting to step one, becasue that is what overwatch does.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
your ignoring the fact that the overwatch sentence and indeed rule goes on to list, very specifically, the restrictions that are in place for it.

having shot interceptor is not one of them, the indication to use the normal rules for shooting are listed primarily as the LoS, cover ect.

Ok, two points:

First, when the overwatch section says to use the normal rules for shooting, it provides a few examples, not a complete list: "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack... and uses
all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on." (emphasis added) Unless you can figure out an exhaustive list of things that "and so on" is meant to cover, we just treat it like a normal shooting attack, "albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase". That phrase is the only exception they give to the normal shooting rules, while everything else is an additional restriction on the normal shooting rules imposed when using overwatch.

Second, the additional restrictions placed on overwatch do not invalidate anything about the normal rules for shooting, they're just in addition. In "Nominate Unit to Shoot" on p. 12, it says: "This is not a comprehensive list. Other game rules or special rules can sometimes affect a unit's ability to shoot - this is explained thoroughly when it occurs." Overwatch would be one of those times when it occurs, so restrictions on firing overwatch are added to the normal restrictions on what units are eligible to shoot.

Barring any instructions to skip step 1 of the shooting sequence, I don't think you can. Saying that your unit is "automatically" nominated is not supported by anything in the rulebook, unlike the example of Fearless units "automatically" passing morale checks, which is explicitly stated in the rules for Fearless.

It's not cut-and-dry either way. Games Workshop writes complex rules in conversational language. This is what happens.

Albeit also means, notwithstanding, even though, nevertheless, in spite of. without being opposed or prevented by.

A singular definition of a word does not prove your case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

It's not cut-and-dry either way. Games Workshop writes complex rules in conversational language. This is what happens.

I agree completely.

 ductvader wrote:
Albeit also means, notwithstanding, even though, nevertheless, in spite of. without being opposed or prevented by.

Those are synonyms, not definitions. You do understand the difference, right?

A singular definition of a word does not prove your case.

When that word only has one definition... and none of your synonyms prove your case either.

 ductvader wrote:
So even overwatch takes into account that you can only fire once per turn...in it's nomination rules.

So why do people believe that this would not be included as per "follows the normal rules for shooting"?

no...it says that you may only fire 'overwatch' once per turn, it does not say 'you may only fire once per turn, ever and forever once'.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
So even overwatch takes into account that you can only fire once per turn...in it's nomination rules.

So why do people believe that this would not be included as per "follows the normal rules for shooting"?

no...it says that you may only fire 'overwatch' once per turn, it does not say 'you may only fire once per turn, ever and forever once'.

That was not my point.

It was what you were aiming at though.

The overwatch restriction interacts not one jot with the shooting phase restriction.

It is why I asked if you were arguing RAI

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It was what you were aiming at though.

The overwatch restriction interacts not one jot with the shooting phase restriction.

It is why I asked if you were arguing RAI

I was simply stating that it keeps being argued that the rule for shooting once per game is somehow not covered by "normal rules for shooting."

Even when overwatch takes it into account somewhat. It just seemed arbitrary from the opposition.



p. 12, it says: "This is not a comprehensive list. Other game rules or special rules can sometimes affect a unit's ability to shoot - this is explained thoroughly when it occurs."

I don't see anywhere in overwatch where it "thoroughly explains" where it denies this "normal rule for shooting"

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
your ignoring the fact that the overwatch sentence and indeed rule goes on to list, very specifically, the restrictions that are in place for it.

having shot interceptor is not one of them, the indication to use the normal rules for shooting are listed primarily as the LoS, cover ect.

Ok, two points:

First, when the overwatch section says to use the normal rules for shooting, it provides a few examples, not a complete list: "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack... and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on." (emphasis added) Unless you can figure out an exhaustive list of things that "and so on" is meant to cover, we just treat it like a normal shooting attack, "albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase". That phrase is the only exception they give to the normal shooting rules, while everything else is an additional restriction on the normal shooting rules imposed when using overwatch.

not true at all, considering that the examples they give you all happen during the actual shooting of the weapon, the trigger for overwatch to take place is a unit being charged and the target of the attack is the unit that is charging or trigger unit if you will, resolved as a normal shooting attack is rolling to hit, rolling to wound, taking saves and removing casualties. the shooting phase deals with nominating a unit to fire, nominating a target and then shooting them, since we need to dumb it down a bit, since we are not the ones nominating nor are we selecting a target, neither sets of restrictions and or rules are used.

Second, the additional restrictions placed on overwatch do not invalidate anything about the normal rules for shooting, they're just in addition. In "Nominate Unit to Shoot" on p. 12, it says: "This is not a comprehensive list. Other game rules or special rules can sometimes affect a unit's ability to shoot - this is explained thoroughly when it occurs." Overwatch would be one of those times when it occurs, so restrictions on firing overwatch are added to the normal restrictions on what units are eligible to shoot.

not true at all, the restrictions are for an overwatch shooting attack, which is what we are discussing, the shooting phase rules are for attacks made in the shooting phase, the resolution of a shooting attack would be the rolling to hit, rolling to wound, rolling saves and removal of casualties.

Barring any instructions to skip step 1 of the shooting sequence, I don't think you can. Saying that your unit is "automatically" nominated is not supported by anything in the rulebook, unlike the example of Fearless units "automatically" passing morale checks, which is explicitly stated in the rules for Fearless.

again untrue, they are indeed supported, p21 second paragraph of the overwatch rule, the chargee may shoot the charger.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
again untrue, they are indeed supported, p21 second paragraph of the overwatch rule, the chargee may shoot the charger.

And where in overwatch does it say, even if the chargee has already shot this turn?

It's certainly not thoroughly explained that they're allowed to do so.

 ductvader wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
again untrue, they are indeed supported, p21 second paragraph of the overwatch rule, the chargee may shoot the charger.

And where in overwatch does it say, even if the chargee has already shot this turn?

It's certainly not thoroughly explained that they're allowed to do so.

permissive ruleset, show me where in the overwatch rule it says I cannot

Overwatch rules are more specific than the Shooting phase rules.
Overwatch rules give permission to shoot.
Nothing denies that permission to shoot.

Specific > General.

This is all in addition to the fact that you're chasing a rule that doesn't exist.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
again untrue, they are indeed supported, p21 second paragraph of the overwatch rule, the chargee may shoot the charger.

And where in overwatch does it say, even if the chargee has already shot this turn?

It's certainly not thoroughly explained that they're allowed to do so.

permissive ruleset, show me where in the overwatch rule it says I cannot

"follows the rules for normal shooting"

normal shooting does not allow a unit to fire more than once per player turn

no, the nomination process does not a allow you to nominate a unit that has already shot this turn to fire, you are not nominating them, they are selected for you by your opponent when he charged and overwatch allows you to shoot, specific permission trumps blanket denial.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
no, the nomination process does not a allow you to nominate a unit that has already shot this turn to fire, you are not nominating them, they are selected for you by your opponent when he charged and overwatch allows you to shoot, specific permission trumps blanket denial.

It's not specific, it is not thoroughly explained that the shooting supercedes normal shooting rules or the nomination process altogether.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because, as pointed out, you bypass that step entirely. You dont get to follow step one, as the nomination is done for you. Same as you dont get to roll dice for a morale check if you are fearless - fearless does it for you.
Same concept.

Are you now arguing RAI?

I am arguing that nomination, even if automatic, was given a ruleset to follow. "Normal rules for shooting" and even has an exception, "used during the enemy's assault phase" in order to follow that ruleset.

"albiet" is not an exception. At all. It means "although". So it tells you to resolve a normal shooting attack in the enemy's assault phase. If you are forcing a nomination to take place, no unit can be nominated because it is not the shooting phase, although you're resolving it in the enemy's assault phase.

This is why I called this argument "pants-on-head" (the argument you're making, not you personally, I don't know you at all).

Your entire justification for skipping the first step of the shooting phase boils down to:

1. Make a leap of logic with no basis in the text: Assume that because you (sometimes) don't have a choice in which unit is shooting, you get to skip restrictions that are spelled out in the step where you pick which unit is shooting, even though you are completely assuming this and it is not stated anywhere that you should actually skip this step.
2a. Make a really narrow interpretation in spite of solid evidence in the text: Since "albeit [this shooting attack is] resolved in the enemy's Assault phase" means "although [this shooting attack is] resolved in the enemy's Assault phase" it clearly means where the rules say you nominate a unit during your Shooting phase everything must break, in spite of pretty clear permission to resolve our shooting attack in the enemy's Assault phase.
2b. Followed by another enormous leap of logic to back up point 1: Now that we have twisted the excerpt in 2a. to suit our own ends, we can use the fact that it breaks step 1 of the shooting sequence to support our invented notion that we are meant to entirely ignore step 1 of the shooting sequence!

You can try to argue that permission isn't clear enough to use the shooting rules at all because the shooting rules are meant for the shooting phase, in which case all of overwatch is broken. But you can't turn around and use that to support the idea that permission is somehow implied to skip the first step in the shooting sequence, even though the book never says that or anything similar to that. Either you're interpreting the rules narrowly, or you're doing whatever you feel like and searching for things that support it.

If nomination never occurs, then you also wouldn't be allowed to choose a unit to shoot when one unit is charging two of your shooting units.

Does it happen simultaneously? If so are you then required to roll all the shooting for both units in the same hand? If not, it's not simultaneous and one unit had to have been nominated to shoot first. How do you decide after that which models to pull first? The models that are closest to unit A or unit B?

The nomination step is integral in deciding overwatch.

again, second paragraph, please show me how this is not an automatic nomination of the target and the shooter and where the restriction in the overwatch rule restrictions state that this is the case.

as I have already pointed to these factors I'm not going to keep repeating it after this post, but the fact of the matter is, this is an out of sequence shooting attack and permission has already been given to shoot in it, the permission to shoot trumps a blanket restriction to shoot even if you were nominating (which you are not) as this is how a permissive ruleset works, I have permission until something specifically tells me not to OR I cannot do this unless something specifically tells me I can.

rigeld2 wrote:
Overwatch rules are more specific than the Shooting phase rules.
Overwatch rules give permission to shoot.
Nothing denies that permission to shoot.

Specific > General.

This is all in addition to the fact that you're chasing a rule that doesn't exist.

Overwatch rules give permission to shoot following all the rules for normal shooting.

Your specific permission to shoot simply references the general rules for shooting as far as how to carry out said shooting. It adds other caveats but doesn't exempt you from anything else in the rules for the Shooting phase, with the one exception that you are clearly allowed to do it in the enemy's Assault phase.

 ductvader wrote:
If nomination never occurs, then you also wouldn't be allowed to choose a unit to shoot when one unit is charging two of your shooting units.

Does it happen simultaneously? If so are you then required to roll all the shooting for both units in the same hand? If not, it's not simultaneous and one unit had to have been nominated to shoot first. How do you decide after that which models to pull first? The models that are closest to unit A or unit B?

The nomination step is integral in deciding overwatch.

the ONLY time this can currently happen is with the Tau, and in that instance you would refer to the specific rules that allow this to happen, in this instance, the supporting fire SR which dictates that the units within the area of effect can fire overwatch too as if they were being charged, this is an exception to the normal rules for overwatch, in this instance although the shots happen simultaneously as at any one time they are all 'counted' as being charged, this is the only occasion where the shooting player orders the units resolutions, as you may only resolve one unit at a time with the normal rules for shooting due to there being no all encompassing rule for multiple units firing overwatch on the same target.

it is worth adding that despite an apparent 'order' the shooting player is still not 'nominating' as per the shooting nomination process, but is resolving each unit's action.

A unit of 30 termagants could assault 6 units if it wanted to...

It still has not been shown where overwatch supersedes the ability to only fire once per turn or the nomination rule as you've just stated it has clear cause to use.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
This is why I called this argument "pants-on-head" (the argument you're making, not you personally, I don't know you at all).

Actually, what you said was that I am pants-on-head:

I'm sorry, but you're pants-on-head if you think RAW prevents you from firing overwatch at all because it isn't the Shooting Phase

Just so we're clear.

1. Make a leap of logic with no basis in the text: Assume that because you (sometimes) don't have a choice in which unit is shooting, you get to skip restrictions that are spelled out in the step where you pick which unit is shooting, even though you are completely assuming this and it is not stated anywhere that you should actually skip this step.

So you're told that the unit can shoot (not that you pick the unit to shoot) and somehow that's having a choice in which unit shoots?

2a. Make a really narrow interpretation in spite of solid evidence in the text: Since "albeit [this shooting attack is] resolved in the enemy's Assault phase" means "although [this shooting attack is] resolved in the enemy's Assault phase" it clearly means where the rules say you nominate a unit during your Shooting phase everything must break, in spite of pretty clear permission to resolve our shooting attack in the enemy's Assault phase.

You can think that's what they intended, but that is not the words used. It's almost like words matter or something.

2b. Followed by another enormous leap of logic to back up point 1: Now that we have twisted the excerpt in 2a. to suit our own ends, we can use the fact that it breaks step 1 of the shooting sequence to support our invented notion that we are meant to entirely ignore step 1 of the shooting sequence!

Um. No. I'm twisting nothing at all. I've asserted, repeatedly, that the Overwatch rules satisfy step 1 and step 2 of the shooting attack rules. Because, well... they do.
It was brought up that no, they just allow nomination. I countered with, if they just allow nomination then no overwatch works. I'm not using that as a basis for my argument, I'm using it to show why that assertion cannot be correct. The basis for my argument is the actual Overwatch rules. Have you read the thread?

You can try to argue that permission isn't clear enough to use the shooting rules at all because the shooting rules are meant for the shooting phase, in which case all of overwatch is broken. But you can't turn around and use that to support the idea that permission is somehow implied to skip the first step in the shooting sequence, even though the book never says that or anything similar to that. Either you're interpreting the rules narrowly, or you're doing whatever you feel like and searching for things that support it.

No, I'm sure you haven't read the thread.

The overwatch rules allow you to skip the nomination step. People claiming otherwise are free to claim so, but they're somehow not okay with admitting that their assertion breaks overwatch. As soon as someone is consistent and agrees with that it's fine - that'll be relegated to the same level of useless rule as models without eyes being unable to fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ductvader wrote:
Does it happen simultaneously? If so are you then required to roll all the shooting for both units in the same hand? If not, it's not simultaneous and one unit had to have been nominated to shoot first. How do you decide after that which models to pull first? The models that are closest to unit A or unit B?

The nomination step is integral in deciding overwatch.

No, it's not. You decide based on page 9 and the FAQ thereof that allows you to determine the order of simultaneous events - exactly like rolling reserves and casting blessings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ductvader wrote:
A unit of 30 termagants could assault 6 units if it wanted to...

It still has not been shown where overwatch supersedes the ability to only fire once per turn or the nomination rule as you've just stated it has clear cause to use.

It has - you're ignoring it. That doesn't mean it hasn't been shown.

What hasn't been shown is support for your stance of selectively ignoring requirements.

rigeld2 wrote:
Um. No. I'm twisting nothing at all. I've asserted, repeatedly, that the Overwatch rules satisfy step 1 and step 2 of the shooting attack rules. Because, well... they do.

To clarify: This is still an interpretation and not a valid fact at this point.

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Um. No. I'm twisting nothing at all. I've asserted, repeatedly, that the Overwatch rules satisfy step 1 and step 2 of the shooting attack rules. Because, well... they do.

To clarify: This is still an interpretation and not a valid fact at this point.

No, it is valid fact. Well - The only other option is that Overwatch is useless, meaning that it is as valid a fact as me saying "Wraithknights are allowed to fire weapons."

 nutty_nutter wrote:
again, second paragraph, please show me how this is not an automatic nomination of the target and the shooter and where the restriction in the overwatch rule restrictions state that this is the case.

"As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker - it doesn't have to, but it's often a good idea."

This gives you permission to fire Overwatch and nothing else. How does Overwatch work? It works "like a normal shooting attack... and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on." (checking line of sight and range are part of "Choose a Target", so we must not be completely ignoring that step either)

Nowhere here has anything happened "automatically". When the rules want something to happen automatically, they say "automatically". Things may be happening by default, but that is the same as deciding to shoot during your shooting phase when you and your opponent each have one unit left on the board. Just because your choice has been narrowed to a single option does not make that choice automatic in the sense that you have permission to skip the steps called "nominate unit to shoot" and "choose a target", and all the restrictions that come with them.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
as I have already pointed to these factors I'm not going to keep repeating it after this post, but the fact of the matter is, this is an out of sequence shooting attack and permission has already been given to shoot in it, the permission to shoot trumps a blanket restriction to shoot even if you were nominating (which you are not) as this is how a permissive ruleset works, I have permission until something specifically tells me not to OR I cannot do this unless something specifically tells me I can.

The "permission to shoot" trumps exactly nothing when it comes to all the other rules on shooting that are described in the shooting phase, all of which we are instructed to follow. You have permission to shoot until something in the rules for shooting say that you can't shoot. You don't have permission to skip any steps in the shooting sequence, but you seem pretty confident that you're allowed to for some reason.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Um. No. I'm twisting nothing at all. I've asserted, repeatedly, that the Overwatch rules satisfy step 1 and step 2 of the shooting attack rules. Because, well... they do.

To clarify: This is still an interpretation and not a valid fact at this point.

No, it is valid fact. Well - The only other option is that Overwatch is useless, meaning that it is as valid a fact as me saying "Wraithknights are allowed to fire weapons."

Oh, sorry...didn't realize you were the rules king whose assertions were made fact out of thin air.

If you want to have a real discussion then please be prepared to have one.

It would be much better than this "stomping of your foot and screaming nuh-uh" that your conversations appears to me as.

Personally, I was ready to concede my entire argument if overwatch could be used multiple times in a turn as it would have at least subtly shown that overwatch denies the rule for shooting twice. At this point I believe you are offering nothing to the conversation besides a continuous and loudly heard "No."

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Um. No. I'm twisting nothing at all. I've asserted, repeatedly, that the Overwatch rules satisfy step 1 and step 2 of the shooting attack rules. Because, well... they do.

To clarify: This is still an interpretation and not a valid fact at this point.

No, it is valid fact. Well - The only other option is that Overwatch is useless, meaning that it is as valid a fact as me saying "Wraithknights are allowed to fire weapons."

Oh, sorry...didn't realize you were the rules king whose assertions were made fact out of thin air.

If you want to have a real discussion then please be prepared to have one.

It would be much better than this "stomping of your foot and screaming nuh-uh" that your conversations appears to me as.

I'm sorry - have you disproved any of my assertions?
Have you come up with rules to support your stance of ignoring one requirement but not another?

Either one would be appreciated. I've supported my stance with actual rules and invented nothing. You've made claim after claim and refused to back them up with rules support.

edit:

Personally, I was ready to concede my entire argument if overwatch could be used multiple times in a turn as it would have at least subtly shown that overwatch denies the rule for shooting twice. At this point I believe you are offering nothing to the conversation besides a continuous and loudly heard "No."

I'm offering rules citations. And you are ... ?

Your assertions and individual interpretation of semantics is not proof to me.

I am simply looking to further the conversation. I have not seen solid refutations to the great points brought up by Calgarspimphand in the last few pages.

And here we go, one point at a time:

rigeld2 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
This is why I called this argument "pants-on-head" (the argument you're making, not you personally, I don't know you at all).

Actually, what you said was that I am pants-on-head:

I'm sorry, but you're pants-on-head if you think RAW prevents you from firing overwatch at all because it isn't the Shooting Phase

Just so we're clear.

Quite right, I apologize. Your argument is still contorted as all hell though.

rigeld2 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

1. Make a leap of logic with no basis in the text: Assume that because you (sometimes) don't have a choice in which unit is shooting, you get to skip restrictions that are spelled out in the step where you pick which unit is shooting, even though you are completely assuming this and it is not stated anywhere that you should actually skip this step.

So you're told that the unit can shoot (not that you pick the unit to shoot) and somehow that's having a choice in which unit shoots?

Like I said, just because you can only pick from one option doesn't mean you can skip the step where you pick. Everything about line of sight and checking range are in Step 2, the "choose a target" step, but we aren't skipping that, are we? No, we're following all the rules in it even though you only have one target to choose. Why? Because overwatch specifically tells us to resolve this as a normal shooting attack, plus a few additional restrictions like snap firing.

rigeld2 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

2a. Make a really narrow interpretation in spite of solid evidence in the text: Since "albeit [this shooting attack is] resolved in the enemy's Assault phase" means "although [this shooting attack is] resolved in the enemy's Assault phase" it clearly means where the rules say you nominate a unit during your Shooting phase everything must break, in spite of pretty clear permission to resolve our shooting attack in the enemy's Assault phase.

You can think that's what they intended, but that is not the words used. It's almost like words matter or something.

You're missing my point. The exact words matter a great deal to you in this one phrase (where their intent is obvious but their wording is sloppy), while everywhere else in your argument (where GW's intent is unclear) you feel fine just assuming we can ignore things with no text to support that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

2b. Followed by another enormous leap of logic to back up point 1: Now that we have twisted the excerpt in 2a. to suit our own ends, we can use the fact that it breaks step 1 of the shooting sequence to support our invented notion that we are meant to entirely ignore step 1 of the shooting sequence!

Um. No. I'm twisting nothing at all. I've asserted, repeatedly, that the Overwatch rules satisfy step 1 and step 2 of the shooting attack rules. Because, well... they do.
It was brought up that no, they just allow nomination. I countered with, if they just allow nomination then no overwatch works. I'm not using that as a basis for my argument, I'm using it to show why that assertion cannot be correct. The basis for my argument is the actual Overwatch rules. Have you read the thread?

Overwatch gives a unit being charged permission to shoot the unit charging it. That alone doesn't actually satisfy step 1 OR 2 of the shooting process, which involves making sure the target is a legal target by checking range and line of sight. If that step happens automatically, shouldn't we skip over all those restrictions? No, because we are supposed to follow the normal shooting rules.

The basis for your argument is conjecture (we can skip these steps and everything they entail!), and the evidence you're using to support it relies on twisting around a sentence with a fairly obvious meaning (use the rules for shooting even though it isn't the shooting phase). I have read the thread, have you read the rulebook?

rigeld2 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

You can try to argue that permission isn't clear enough to use the shooting rules at all because the shooting rules are meant for the shooting phase, in which case all of overwatch is broken. But you can't turn around and use that to support the idea that permission is somehow implied to skip the first step in the shooting sequence, even though the book never says that or anything similar to that. Either you're interpreting the rules narrowly, or you're doing whatever you feel like and searching for things that support it.

No, I'm sure you haven't read the thread.

Dude, I've read the thread. Show me anywhere in the book that says "skip the first two steps of the shooting sequence", or "skip anything at all in the rules for shooting".

rigeld2 wrote:
The overwatch rules allow you to skip the nomination step. People claiming otherwise are free to claim so, but they're somehow not okay with admitting that their assertion breaks overwatch. As soon as someone is consistent and agrees with that it's fine - that'll be relegated to the same level of useless rule as models without eyes being unable to fire.

Absolutely nothing in the overwatch rules allow you to skip the nomination step. Nowhere, period. You can claim it's IMPLIED because your options for which units can shoot are limited, but then you'd be skipping the "choose a target" step for the same reason, and THAT step includes checking range and line of sight.

The assertion that "following Step 1 is broken" only arises if you are obtuse enough to say "albeit.. during the enemy's Assault phase" is not permission to shoot even though it's the enemy's assault phase. It is not iron-clad wording, but it's close enough and the intent is obvious. You're really reaching here and no one in their right mind would buy that interpretation unless they needed it to shore up a weak argument.

rigeld2 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ductvader wrote:
Does it happen simultaneously? If so are you then required to roll all the shooting for both units in the same hand? If not, it's not simultaneous and one unit had to have been nominated to shoot first. How do you decide after that which models to pull first? The models that are closest to unit A or unit B?

The nomination step is integral in deciding overwatch.

No, it's not. You decide based on page 9 and the FAQ thereof that allows you to determine the order of simultaneous events - exactly like rolling reserves and casting blessings.

Actually, wrong. Page 27, disordered charge, the order of Overwatch shooting is determined by the target unit's controlling player. I still don't think this gets you off the hook for the restrictions in step 1 any more than only having one target to shoot at gets you off the restrictions in step 2 on range and line of sight. You don't have choice in target, but you still have to "choose" a valid target. Just like you don't have a choice in what unit you're nominating to shoot, but you still have to follow any restrictions for "nominating" a valid unit to shoot with.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
A unit of 30 termagants could assault 6 units if it wanted to...

It still has not been shown where overwatch supersedes the ability to only fire once per turn or the nomination rule as you've just stated it has clear cause to use.

It has - you're ignoring it. That doesn't mean it hasn't been shown.

What hasn't been shown is support for your stance of selectively ignoring requirements.

Selectively ignoring requirements is what your whole argument is based on, literally. Reading the rules straight down, you aren't given permission to skip any part of the shooting phase rules, other than the bit that says "in the shooting phase".

I contend that RAW you are allowed to fire shots in the opponents phase using interceptors [during their movement phase]

I put forth that the people who wrote the main rulebook, wrote it in knowledge of all the rules contained therein.

I put forth that the rules for interceptor state a future restriction on shooting the weapon used to fire interceptor shots on your next player turn.

I put forth the people who wrote the rules knew full well that overwatch can happen between the phase in which interceptor was fired, and the return to the interceptor players turn.

With that in mind, there is no restriction on firing overwatch from interceptor.

As this rule allows you to fire during your opponents turn and does not disallow overwatch It shows that you may fire during your opponents turn for overwatch even if you have already fired during your oppponents turn.

If they had intended to not allow a player to do so, they would have said something along the lines of "may not fire that weapon again until after the intecepting models next shooting phase" or "may not fire overwatch with that weapon, and may not fire during that models next shooting phase"

but they did not.

blaktoof wrote:
I contend that RAW you are allowed to fire shots in the opponents phase using interceptors [during their movement phase]

I put forth that the people who wrote the main rulebook, wrote it in knowledge of all the rules contained therein.

I put forth that the rules for interceptor state a future restriction on shooting the weapon used to fire interceptor shots on your next player turn.

I put forth the people who wrote the rules knew full well that overwatch can happen between the phase in which interceptor was fired, and the return to the interceptor players turn.

With that in mind, there is no restriction on firing overwatch from interceptor.

As this rule allows you to fire during your opponents turn and does not disallow overwatch It shows that you may fire during your opponents turn for overwatch even if you have already fired during your oppponents turn.

If they had intended to not allow a player to do so, they would have said something along the lines of "may not fire that weapon again until after the intecepting models next shooting phase" or "may not fire overwatch with that weapon, and may not fire during that models next shooting phase"

but they did not.

I personally believe that this issue is so obscure that they didn't write the rules one way or another for it. Otherwise Interceptor or overwatch would have explained this thoroughly...but they don't.

blaktoof wrote:
I contend that RAW you are allowed to fire shots in the opponents phase using interceptors [during their movement phase]

I put forth that the people who wrote the main rulebook, wrote it in knowledge of all the rules contained therein.

I put forth that the rules for interceptor state a future restriction on shooting the weapon used to fire interceptor shots on your next player turn.

I put forth the people who wrote the rules knew full well that overwatch can happen between the phase in which interceptor was fired, and the return to the interceptor players turn.

That's all well and good.

blaktoof wrote:
With that in mind, there is no restriction on firing overwatch from interceptor.

As this rule allows you to fire during your opponents turn and does not disallow overwatch It shows that you may fire during your opponents turn for overwatch even if you have already fired during your oppponents turn.

This does not logically follow from your previous statements. If the rulebook disallows overwatch on its own in this case, there's no reason to include a separate restriction on it except as a reminder. It's no different than saying "RAW interceptor doesn't prevent you from shooting again during your opponent's shooting phase, so therefore you must be able to". The rulebook already restricts that separately and we don't need a random reminder of it tacked on to Interceptor.

Permissive ruleset, without permission to do something we can't do it. With permission, and without a subsequent restriction, we can do it.

Example:
Unit A gets charged by Unit B. You are given permission for Unit A to fire at Unit B. You are told to use the rules from the Shooting phase, and given permission to do so even though it is the enemy's Assault phase.

You are not given permission to skip any steps, rules, or restrictions in the Shooting rules, so even though Step 1 is "Nominate unit to shoot", we still have to do it. We nominate one unit out of our possible one units that can shoot. Why is it important that we do this? Because there are restrictions on what units can be nominated. Just like we go through Step 2, "Choose a target", and choose our target out of the possible one units we can shoot at. Why is it important we do this? Again, because there are restrictions on what units can be chosen, such as range and line of sight, which are checked in Step 2.

Without permission to ignore parts of the rules, we can't just skip over the things we find inconvenient.

Hey OP, can you add a poll? It might be kind of interesting.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Hey OP, can you add a poll? It might be kind of interesting.

I agree. I think the RAW argument for no overwatch after interceptor is much stronger than the argument that you can fire both, but I think the rules are very unclear on this and it's an oversight. I could see an FAQ going either way because I imagine this situation was a total oversight.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Hey OP, can you add a poll? It might be kind of interesting.

The only problem I could see with that is that as we have seen about 25-30% of the people who come to this question misunderstand and oversimplify the argument being made.

I agree that it would definitely be interesting though!

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You dont choose WHO they will shoot at, as the charges are declared, and resolved, one at a time. There is no choice in the matter - if marine unit A declares a charge, and you declare you will overwatch, you WILL overwatch that unit. No choice is possible in which unit you shoot at.

The issue is not who you're shooting at. It's step 1 of the Shooting Sequence:

"Nominate Unit to Shoot: Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire [sic] this turn"

Whether you have 1 unit eligible to shoot or 10, doesn't matter, you still have to nominate them to shoot.

This line "Nominate Unit to Shoot: Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire [sic] this turn", when taken in context, tells us that a unit can not be nominated more than once per shooting phase. They only get to fire once in the shooting phase. That is all this rule is saying.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Selectively ignoring requirements is what your whole argument is based on, literally. Reading the rules straight down, you aren't given permission to skip any part of the shooting phase rules, other than the bit that says "in the shooting phase".

The bolded is incorrect - you're never, ever given that permission. Or rather - if you have, not a single person has quoted it. You sure as hell are hanging your argument on that fact though so please - quote it.

Or at least admit you're arguing RAI because you sure use that Intent word a lot.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You dont choose WHO they will shoot at, as the charges are declared, and resolved, one at a time. There is no choice in the matter - if marine unit A declares a charge, and you declare you will overwatch, you WILL overwatch that unit. No choice is possible in which unit you shoot at.

The issue is not who you're shooting at. It's step 1 of the Shooting Sequence:

"Nominate Unit to Shoot: Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire [sic] this turn"

Whether you have 1 unit eligible to shoot or 10, doesn't matter, you still have to nominate them to shoot.

This line "Nominate Unit to Shoot: Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire [sic] this turn", when taken in context, tells us that a unit can not be nominated more than once per shooting phase. They only get to fire once in the shooting phase. That is all this rule is saying.

The line doesn't even mention phases, just the turn. The entire chapter is written in the context of the Shooting phase, but we're still sent here for rules on how to shoot Overwatch, so the context of the chapter can't really be relevant. Otherwise you could use that to arbitrarily throw out anything you wanted, because hey, the rule for allocating wounds is written in the context of the shooting phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Selectively ignoring requirements is what your whole argument is based on, literally. Reading the rules straight down, you aren't given permission to skip any part of the shooting phase rules, other than the bit that says "in the shooting phase".

The bolded is incorrect - you're never, ever given that permission. Or rather - if you have, not a single person has quoted it. You sure as hell are hanging your argument on that fact though so please - quote it.

Or at least admit you're arguing RAI because you sure use that Intent word a lot.

I will admit I'm arguing RAI when you do the same. You haven't provided any textual support for your interpretation at all. I am referring to this line on page 21:

The Rules wrote:"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."

As written, this gives you instruction to resolve your overwatch shooting using all the normal rules for shooting. You are to do so during the enemy's Assault phase. That is plain english.

It causes conflict with the first sentence of the section "Nominate Unit to Shoot", page 12, which states:

The Rules wrote:"During the Shooting phase,a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks".

This conflict cannot arbitrarily be bypassed; shooting follows a sequence and Step 1 of that sequence appears to have issues. That is, unless you interpret "albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase" as permission to follow the rules for shooting in spite of normal restrictions on phase. This is a reasonable RAW interpretation (although not as clear as it could be).

If you can point to anything, anything at all, that gives you permission to skip any portion of the shooting sequence, please point it out. Otherwise admit that you think Step 1 is broken during Overwatch, and you are skipping it simply because it's broken.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You dont choose WHO they will shoot at, as the charges are declared, and resolved, one at a time. There is no choice in the matter - if marine unit A declares a charge, and you declare you will overwatch, you WILL overwatch that unit. No choice is possible in which unit you shoot at.

The issue is not who you're shooting at. It's step 1 of the Shooting Sequence:

"Nominate Unit to Shoot: Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire [sic] this turn"

Whether you have 1 unit eligible to shoot or 10, doesn't matter, you still have to nominate them to shoot.

This line "Nominate Unit to Shoot: Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire [sic] this turn", when taken in context, tells us that a unit can not be nominated more than once per shooting phase. They only get to fire once in the shooting phase. That is all this rule is saying.

The line doesn't even mention phases, just the turn. The entire chapter is written in the context of the Shooting phase, but we're still sent here for rules on how to shoot Overwatch, so the context of the chapter can't really be relevant. Otherwise you could use that to arbitrarily throw out anything you wanted, because hey, the rule for allocating wounds is written in the context of the shooting phase.

Context, Do not ignore it.

That line, taken in context, is talking about the Shooting phase and the fact that you cannot nominate the same unit twice for a shooting attack in the shooting phase.

If you take the context into account you can clearly see that firing Interceptor and overwatch in the same turn is perfectly legal.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Hey OP, can you add a poll? It might be kind of interesting.

I agree. I think the RAW argument for no overwatch after interceptor is much stronger than the argument that you can fire both, but I think the rules are very unclear on this and it's an oversight. I could see an FAQ going either way because I imagine this situation was a total oversight.

100% agree. Arguments based on nomination are splitting hairs that aren't there. I see RAW and RAI not allowing Interceptor and overwatch on the same player turn. I do need to sit down and look at the language to see if it's the weapon or the model or the unit that loses overwatch.

 Lobukia wrote:
100% agree. Arguments based on nomination are splitting hairs that aren't there. I see RAW and RAI not allowing Interceptor and overwatch on the same player turn. I do need to sit down and look at the language to see if it's the weapon or the model or the unit that loses overwatch.

Do not ignore the context of the shooting rules.

You cannot nominate the same unit twice for a shooting attack in the shooting phase. That is what that line is saying. This has no affect on overwatch.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
100% agree. Arguments based on nomination are splitting hairs that aren't there. I see RAW and RAI not allowing Interceptor and overwatch on the same player turn. I do need to sit down and look at the language to see if it's the weapon or the model or the unit that loses overwatch.

Do not ignore the context of the shooting rules.

You cannot nominate the same unit twice for a shooting attack in the shooting phase. That is what that line is saying. This has no affect on overwatch.

Ok, I'm going to try to be gentle with you here, but I just want to copy and paste the word "wrong" like 500 times in a row, because no matter how many times you write that rule out with the word "phase" instead of "turn", it doesn't make it so. "That is what that line is saying" in your head maybe, but what it actually says on the page is different.

The "context of the shooting phase" is that it's written in the shooting phase chapter. Fantastic. But step one in the shooting sequence, the line says "Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire[d] this turn". Not phase, turn. Turn. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you think they intended that to only apply during the shooting phase because of the overall context of the chapter, then you're arguing RAI. RAW that line says you can't pick a unit to shoot that's already shot that turn, and that's all there is to it.

Overwatch is resolved using the normal shooting rules. Your only recourse is to argue that somehow, RAW, you don't do step one in the shooting sequence at all when you are shooting overwatch, so that line doesn't matter. You and rigeld2 can work on finding something in the text to support that. Me, I'm going to go drink bourbon and play a game with a clearly-written ruleset.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
100% agree. Arguments based on nomination are splitting hairs that aren't there. I see RAW and RAI not allowing Interceptor and overwatch on the same player turn. I do need to sit down and look at the language to see if it's the weapon or the model or the unit that loses overwatch.

Do not ignore the context of the shooting rules.

You cannot nominate the same unit twice for a shooting attack in the shooting phase. That is what that line is saying. This has no affect on overwatch.

Ok, I'm going to try to be gentle with you here, but I just want to copy and paste the word "wrong" like 500 times in a row, because no matter how many times you write that rule out with the word "phase" instead of "turn", it doesn't make it so. "That is what that line is saying" in your head maybe, but what it actually says on the page is different.

The "context of the shooting phase" is that it's written in the shooting phase chapter. Fantastic. But step one in the shooting sequence, the line says "Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire[d] this turn". Not phase, turn. Turn. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you think they intended that to only apply during the shooting phase because of the overall context of the chapter, then you're arguing RAI. RAW that line says you can't pick a unit to shoot that's already shot that turn, and that's all there is to it.

Overwatch is resolved using the normal shooting rules. Your only recourse is to argue that somehow, RAW, you don't do step one in the shooting sequence at all when you are shooting overwatch, so that line doesn't matter. You and rigeld2 can work on finding something in the text to support that. Me, I'm going to go drink bourbon and play a game with a clearly-written ruleset.

Using this logic and "normal shooting rules" you can fire at a target that is not the charging target. Normal shooting and all.

Poll is up for those who would like to cast their opinion without words.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
100% agree. Arguments based on nomination are splitting hairs that aren't there. I see RAW and RAI not allowing Interceptor and overwatch on the same player turn. I do need to sit down and look at the language to see if it's the weapon or the model or the unit that loses overwatch.

Do not ignore the context of the shooting rules.

You cannot nominate the same unit twice for a shooting attack in the shooting phase. That is what that line is saying. This has no affect on overwatch.

Ok, I'm going to try to be gentle with you here, but I just want to copy and paste the word "wrong" like 500 times in a row, because no matter how many times you write that rule out with the word "phase" instead of "turn", it doesn't make it so. "That is what that line is saying" in your head maybe, but what it actually says on the page is different.

The "context of the shooting phase" is that it's written in the shooting phase chapter. Fantastic. But step one in the shooting sequence, the line says "Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire[d] this turn". Not phase, turn. Turn. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you think they intended that to only apply during the shooting phase because of the overall context of the chapter, then you're arguing RAI. RAW that line says you can't pick a unit to shoot that's already shot that turn, and that's all there is to it.

Overwatch is resolved using the normal shooting rules. Your only recourse is to argue that somehow, RAW, you don't do step one in the shooting sequence at all when you are shooting overwatch, so that line doesn't matter. You and rigeld2 can work on finding something in the text to support that. Me, I'm going to go drink bourbon and play a game with a clearly-written ruleset.

This Logic is seriously flawed. If it were to work they way you say its does, the first time overwatch is initiated in a given turn, ALL of that players units could fire on ANY target. This would be following the normal rules for shooting, right?

I think what people are not grasping here is that we DO NOT have permission to nominate a unit to shoot. Overwatch takes that permission away.

"As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire overwatch at the would-be attacker - it doesn't have to, but it's often a good idea."

"that unit" There is no chance to nominate, the unit is already chosen.

If we were required to then nominate a unit, I could chose any of my units on the board that isn't locked in combat and DIDN'T fire interceptor that turn, per the rules for "a normal shooting attack."

Intercept and overwatch must work together for the rules to function.

extremefreak17 wrote:

This Logic is seriously flawed. If it were to work they way you say its does, the first time overwatch is initiated in a given turn, ALL of that players units could fire on ANY target. This would be following the normal rules for shooting, right?

No it doesn't, the overwatch rules specifically state that it must be the charged unit and charger respectively. You even go on to quote the rule!

Ricter wrote:

extremefreak17 wrote:

This Logic is seriously flawed. If it were to work they way you say its does, the first time overwatch is initiated in a given turn, ALL of that players units could fire on ANY target. This would be following the normal rules for shooting, right?

No it doesn't, the overwatch rules specifically state that it must be the charged unit and charger respectively. You even go on to quote the rule!

How can it follow the normal rules for shooting when you have to skip two steps of the normal rules for shooting ? Or do you call it semi normal rules for shooting.

Fragile wrote:

Ricter wrote:

extremefreak17 wrote:

This Logic is seriously flawed. If it were to work they way you say its does, the first time overwatch is initiated in a given turn, ALL of that players units could fire on ANY target. This would be following the normal rules for shooting, right?

No it doesn't, the overwatch rules specifically state that it must be the charged unit and charger respectively. You even go on to quote the rule!

How can it follow the normal rules for shooting when you have to skip two steps of the normal rules for shooting ? Or do you call it semi normal rules for shooting.

"As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire overwatch at the would-be attacker - it doesn't have to, but it's often a good idea."

Step 1: Nominate a unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire this turn.

Which units do you have that are *able to* fire? The unit that has been charged. No other unit is able to fire, because it is your opponent's assault phase and they don't have permission.

And now what is step 2. Choose a target. So I can choose any unit i can see that is in range.

Trasvi wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Ricter wrote:

extremefreak17 wrote:

This Logic is seriously flawed. If it were to work they way you say its does, the first time overwatch is initiated in a given turn, ALL of that players units could fire on ANY target. This would be following the normal rules for shooting, right?

No it doesn't, the overwatch rules specifically state that it must be the charged unit and charger respectively. You even go on to quote the rule!

How can it follow the normal rules for shooting when you have to skip two steps of the normal rules for shooting ? Or do you call it semi normal rules for shooting.

"As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire overwatch at the would-be attacker - it doesn't have to, but it's often a good idea."

Step 1: Nominate a unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire this turn.

Which units do you have that are *able to* fire? The unit that has been charged. No other unit is able to fire, because it is your opponent's assault phase and they don't have permission.

Good so the unit in question is being charged and thus has been given permission to fire overwatch

You are claiming that the "normal rules for shooting" take away the permission overwatch gives us to shoot in this case. By that logic, they would also take away the restriction on which units can fire and be fired upon.

I'll break down your logic

uses intercept-> gets charged-> attempts overwatch-> does not fire VIA normal shooting rules. (EVEN THOUGH OVERWATCH ALLOWS US TO SHOOT)

again using your logic...

does not use intercept-> gets charged-> attempts overwatch-> shoots at any target in range and LoS VIA normal shooting rules (EVEN THOUGH OVERWATCH DISALLOWS SHOOTING AT ANY OTHER TARGET)

There is no indication anywhere that you can pick and chose which parts of the normal rules for shooting to use. When using them, you must use them in their entirety. So if you determine that the rules for "Nominate Unit to Shoot" override overwatch's permission to let the unit shoot, then the rules for "Choose a Target" would also override overwatch's restriction on who can be shot.

Badly worded poll, removing context, is badly worded.

The context is that page 12 only occurs when you are nominating a unit. I never nominate the unit to fire when firing overwatch, as the Overwatch rule sets that for me. I literally cannot follow that line, as the unit to fire has already been selected.

So no, it does not prevent you from firing interceptor then firing overwatch.

extremefreak17 wrote:

There is no indication anywhere that you can pick and chose which parts of the normal rules for shooting to use. When using them, you must use them in their entirety. So if you determine that the rules for "Nominate Unit to Shoot" override overwatch's permission to let the unit shoot, then the rules for "Choose a Target" would also override overwatch's restriction on who can be shot.

Sorry, I'm only playing devil's advocate...
I don't personally buy the argument here... but then again, i think the real RAI is that interceptor can't fire overwatch because of the interceptor rules even if that is not supported by RAW.
The real problem, someone stated before: GW writes complex rules in conversational tone. Sometimes , $#!+ happens and trying to divine what 'should' happen is an exercise in futility (see, top of Pg8).


For people who believe that pg12 disallows interceptor+overwatch twice in a turn: What about units like Longstrike which are allowed to overwatch (or otherwise fire) mutliple times per turn?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Badly worded poll, removing context, is badly worded.

The context is that page 12 only occurs when you are nominating a unit. I never nominate the unit to fire when firing overwatch, as the Overwatch rule sets that for me. I literally cannot follow that line, as the unit to fire has already been selected.

So no, it does not prevent you from firing interceptor then firing overwatch.

Disagree. I'd say you can follow that line, however, your only choice is the unit that was charged. Basically, I would argue it doesn't say to skip that step, but rather that when you come to that step, the only unit you can pick is the one that is charged and the only target you can pick is the charger. Otherwise, you wouldn't need LoS or range, because those things are also checked at those steps. And as far as I know, no one plays that way.

So it's either:
A) You can fire Interceptor and Overwatch in the same turn, because you skip steps 1&2, but then range and LoS don't matter
-or-
B) You cannot fire Interceptor and Overwatch in the same turn, because you have to follow steps 1&2, even if you only have a single choice at each step.

Ricter wrote:
Disagree. I'd say you can follow that line, however, your only choice is the unit that was charged. Basically, I would argue it doesn't say to skip that step, but rather that when you come to that step, the only unit you can pick is the one that is charged and the only target you can pick is the charger. Otherwise, you wouldn't need LoS or range, because those things are also checked at those steps. And as far as I know, no one plays that way.

So it's either:
A) You can fire Interceptor and Overwatch in the same turn, because you skip steps 1&2, but then range and LoS don't matter
-or-
B) You cannot fire Interceptor and Overwatch in the same turn, because you have to follow steps 1&2, even if you only have a single choice at each step.

I'll agree to those choice. I lean towards B because thats how I read it, but I think its definitely something that needs to be ruled on either way.

Or Option C

C) You can fire Interceptor and overwatch in the same turn because you ignore elements of steps 1&2 while not skipping them entirely.

Circles within circles.

When it comes right down to it.

There is no proof or one true answer.

It needs clarification.

This is a tricky issue. I can honestly see both sides of this. My initial thought is that you should NOT be able to fire both Interceptor and Overwatch, but I'm not sure.

Overwatch tells you to follow the normal rules for shooting, with certain restrictions. These restrictions are things like firing Snap Shots, and the unit that can fire. The Overwatch rules make no mention of disregarding the shooting rule which tells you that a unit can make only one shooting attack per player turn. It seems to logically follow that you then have to abide by that shooting restriction.

On the other hand...

Interceptor essentially "moves" your unit's Shooting attack from your own turn into your enemy's Movement phase. That unit is restricted from firing again during it's controlling player's turn.

So basically how I see it is that...

If you take the entire GAME TURN into account, a unit that fires both Interceptor AND Overwatch fires the same number of times as a unit who did NOT use Interceptor. You still get one normal shooting attack, and one overwatch attack either way. I don't see a problem with both Interceptor and Overwatch. If you rob the Interceptor player's ability to fire Overwatch, you are denying that player one of his normal two shooting attacks per GAME TURN. He only gets to fire Interceptor that turn, and that's all. However... that could just be an intended consequence of using Interceptor. It's a powerful ability.

If you are looking at the PLAYER TURN, it doesn't make sense. You've got a unit that has gotten to fire twice in a single turn, which goes against the rules. The exception to the shooting rule for only firing once a turn is NOT spelled out. It seems like the player who wants to fire both Interceptor and Overwatch is making a large assumption that restriction has been lifted.

Murrdox wrote:
So basically how I see it is that...

If you take the entire GAME TURN into account, a unit that fires both Interceptor AND Overwatch fires the same number of times as a unit who did NOT use Interceptor. You still get one normal shooting attack, and one overwatch attack either way. I don't see a problem with both Interceptor and Overwatch. If you rob the Interceptor player's ability to fire Overwatch, you are denying that player one of his normal two shooting attacks per GAME TURN. He only gets to fire Interceptor that turn, and that's all. However... that could just be an intended consequence of using Interceptor. It's a powerful ability.

If you are looking at the PLAYER TURN, it doesn't make sense. You've got a unit that has gotten to fire twice in a single turn, which goes against the rules. The exception to the shooting rule for only firing once a turn is NOT spelled out. It seems like the player who wants to fire both Interceptor and Overwatch is making a large assumption that restriction has been lifted.

Game turn vs Player turn, pg9

"Whenever a rule refers to 'a turn' it always means 'player turn' unless it specifically refers to a 'game turn'."

Yeah, that's the very reason it's a conundrum.

Murrdox wrote:
If you rob the Interceptor player's ability to fire Overwatch, you are denying that player one of his normal two shooting attacks per GAME TURN. He only gets to fire Interceptor that turn, and that's all. However... that could just be an intended consequence of using Interceptor. It's a powerful ability.

Actually, Interceptor restricts the weapon used during the players next turn. Taking a shooting action during the movement phase is what restricts the player from firing again that player turn, using overwatch. You are only allow ONE shooting action per PLAYER turn, not TWO per GAME turn.

And this assertion, as proven, renders Overwatch impossible to ever use. Have fun with that.

Now now...let's not be so ridiculously loose with the term "proven."

rigeld2 wrote:
And this assertion, as proven, renders Overwatch impossible to ever use. Have fun with that.

Untrue. You keep saying "as proven" but you have proved nothing. Your assuming because the shooting rules say "in the shooting phase" and the overwatch rule says"albeit in the assault phase" that there is no correlation, and you must ignore the amendment regarding the assault phase UNLESS you get to skip steps 1 and 2 of the shooting sequence happening in the assault phase.

Answer this, If unit A is charging unit B from 8 inches away and behind an obscuring wall, does unit A get to shoot its melta/grav pistols at the unseen out of range enemy?


Its simple. You have to choose... Intercept, or overwatch as both are a shooting attack, both occur during the same player turn, and you are only allowed to make one shooting action per player turn.

You dont get to ignore 50% of a rule because the other half is already taken care of. You still have to take into account that other half. There are two parts to the rule on pg12 for nominating a unit. Selection and ability. Same with step two. Selection, range and LOS. You can't skip all of step one when only part A is accounted for. Overwatch selects the shooter, is the shooter able? No, it shot previously this turn. Cannot complete overwatch per normal shooting rules.

Caboose, do not ignore the context of the rule.

"Nominate Unit to Shoot
During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks" (12)

and the shooting sequence box:

"Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet fire[sic] this turn" (12)

These rules are talking about how you can only Nominate a Unit to Shoot, once in the shooting phase. This has no bearing on the unit firing Overwatch.

Do not ignore context and you will see the OP's argument is incorrect.

ductvader wrote:Now now...let's not be so ridiculously loose with the term "proven."

Well, I made assertions and quoted rules to show my side of the argument. I've asked for rules quotes from you and you've refused to provide any. Is that good enough?

Caboose wrote:Untrue. You keep saying "as proven" but you have proved nothing.

Really? Maybe you should re-read the thread.

Your assuming because the shooting rules say "in the shooting phase" and the overwatch rule says"albeit in the assault phase" that there is no correlation, and you must ignore the amendment regarding the assault phase UNLESS you get to skip steps 1 and 2 of the shooting sequence happening in the assault phase.

No, don't put words in my mouth. I've explained this before.
"albeit in the assault phase" does not give you permission to treat the shooting attack as being in the shooting phase. You have asserted it does without providing any support.
Therefore your argument that you must meet all requirements to nominate means you must also be in the shooting phase. As I've proven.

Answer this, If unit A is charging unit B from 8 inches away and behind an obscuring wall, does unit A get to shoot its melta/grav pistols at the unseen out of range enemy?

Since you cannot declare a charge at an enemy you cannot see, no you would not get overwatch because the charge would not happen.

Its simple. You have to choose... Intercept, or overwatch as both are a shooting attack, both occur during the same player turn, and you are only allowed to make one shooting action per player turn.

Assertion without rules support - demonstrably false. I say demonstrably because you continue to fail to show rules that support your viewpoint.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Or Option C

C) You can fire Interceptor and overwatch in the same turn because you ignore elements of steps 1&2 while not skipping them entirely.

I don't really see the rules support that says "follow these rules but ignore part of the text in these sections but make sure to follow the others". That seems like a much bigger stretch than either A or B, rules-wise. Granted, that may be RAI.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Caboose, do not ignore the context of the rule.

"Nominate Unit to Shoot
During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks" (12)

and the shooting sequence box:

"Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet fire[sic] this turn" (12)

These rules are talking about how you can only Nominate a Unit to Shoot, once in the shooting phase. This has no bearing on the unit firing Overwatch.

Do not ignore context and you will see the OP's argument is incorrect.

Deathreaper, I understand your "Context" argument, but you have to admit that it's clear in the shooting rules that a unit can only shoot if is "has not yet fired this (player)turn".

If you've fired Interceptor, you've fired this turn. That seems to prevent your unit from firing Overwatch. Overwatch specifically tells you to follow the normal rules for shooting, and then it defines a few key differences and restrictions for that shooting attack. However, it does NOT say anything about the normal restriction from firing twice in a turn.

You're making an ASSUMPTION that restriction SHOULD be part of the Overwatch rule, but it's not written there.

For what it's worth, I think I agree with you that you should be able to fire both Interceptor and Overwatch. I think the Interceptor and/or the Overwatch rules weren't written taking each other into consideration.

And even though it was brought up nobody has answered the question regarding Longstrike.

 Happyjew wrote:
And even though it was brought up nobody has answered the question regarding Longstrike.

I missed that comment, please, reiterate?

If a unit can only be nominated once per turn to shoot, how can Longstrike fire multiple Overwatch?

 Happyjew wrote:
If a unit can only be nominated once per turn to shoot, how can Longstrike fire multiple Overwatch?

Does his rule say he's allowed to?

Because then his only rule supersedes even the normal rules of overwatch.

Just as Coteaz's "I've been expecting you" rule allows him to make an out of sequence shooting attack against multiple enemies that enter reserves near him. His own rule gives specific exception.

So you choose, but have thick that unit? How is that a choice?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you choose, but have thick that unit? How is that a choice?

It's not about the person choosing so much as the process includes choosing.

If I'm asked if I want a steak or...the same steak and I must choose. I pick the steak.

 ductvader wrote:
You dont get to ignore 50% of a rule because the other half is already taken care of. You still have to take into account that other half. There are two parts to the rule on pg12 for nominating a unit. Selection and ability. Same with step two. Selection, range and LOS. You can't skip all of step one when only part A is accounted for. Overwatch selects the shooter, is the shooter able? No, it shot previously this turn. Cannot complete overwatch per normal shooting rules.

You keep saying that selection is required - it's not because it's done for you.
The range and LoS comments are the ones in place for each model to fire - if the dude with the grav gun can't see through the wall he can't shoot. If I'm 8" away and all you have are melta pistols, you can't shoot.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you choose, but have thick that unit? How is that a choice?

It's a choice from a list of one. It comes up in programming, math, and more importantly, games, all the time.

For example, frequently in games you'll be given the option to pick from a list of options, but that list may only be 1 option.

If you want a 40k example let's pick, say, the Inquisitorial Relic. However, the list reduces in size to 1 eventually. Would you say that if there is only option left on that list, he couldn't choose it, because that's not a choice? After all, since he has to pick the only option available, how is that a choice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

You keep saying that selection is required - it's not because it's done for you.
The range and LoS comments are the ones in place for each model to fire - if the dude with the grav gun can't see through the wall he can't shoot. If I'm 8" away and all you have are melta pistols, you can't shoot.

You're ignoring the counter-argument. That you still do those steps, you just can't pick anything else. There is nothing saying you skip those steps.

Ricter wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You keep saying that selection is required - it's not because it's done for you.
The range and LoS comments are the ones in place for each model to fire - if the dude with the grav gun can't see through the wall he can't shoot. If I'm 8" away and all you have are melta pistols, you can't shoot.

You're ignoring the counter-argument. That you still do those steps, you just can't pick anything else. There is nothing saying you skip those steps.

The counter argument that hinged that assertion on the range and LoS notes? The one that had no other rules to quote - instead just making things up?
That counter argument? Yes, I feel safe ignoring that.

Murrdox wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Caboose, do not ignore the context of the rule.

"Nominate Unit to Shoot
During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks" (12)

and the shooting sequence box:

"Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet fire[sic] this turn" (12)

These rules are talking about how you can only Nominate a Unit to Shoot, once in the shooting phase. This has no bearing on the unit firing Overwatch.

Do not ignore context and you will see the OP's argument is incorrect.

Deathreaper, I understand your "Context" argument, but you have to admit that it's clear in the shooting rules that a unit can only shoot if is "has not yet fired this (player)turn".

And taken in context that means they can not be nominated to make a shooting attack more than once per player turn in the shooting phase.

This of course has zero effect on Overwatch.

What other rules do you want?

Overwatch says make a shooting attack following the normal shooting rules with the exception of it being in the assault phase instead of the shooting phase.

Shooting rules say that you can only make one shooting action per player turn.

Edit: And you seem to think that because you have a pool of 1 shooter and 1 target that you or even Overwatch picks from, that means that you can pick an ineligible unit to be the shooter with no rule backing for ignoring said requirement.

No mention of ignoring certain shooting rules save for substituting the shooting phase with the assault phase, and whos not providing rules to back their arguement?


What else do you want?

Rigeld2's counter argument is essentially that when an Overwatch is triggered, the rules for Overwatch automatically make the Overwatching unit capable of firing, no matter what the shooting rules say.

He's essentially saying that the text in Overwatch:

"As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units,
that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be
attacker"

Basically supersedes the rule for selecting a valid unit to shoot:

"Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fired this turn"

Essentially the Overwatch rules say the unit can shoot, so it can shoot. And, it's possible, and I think it's likely that it is actually as simple as that (how it was intended).

However, the Overwatch rules also say it is "resolved like a normal shooting attack".

A normal shooting attack is subject to the text that says you can't fire with a unit that has already fired this turn.

By RAW, in my mind, that means that the Overwatch rules make the unit ABLE to fire. But because it has fired this turn... it can't. There is nothing in the Overwatch rules that tell you it's OK to skip this.

So rigeld2, I think it's a bit disingenuous to say people are making up arguments here. Clearly there is rule text to support the interpretation that you can't fire both Overwatch and Interceptor in the same turn.

Personally I think the purpose of Interceptor is to move your shooting phase from your own turn into your opponent's movement phase. I don't think the intent was to also disrupt your ability to fire Overwatch. I think Interceptor should have an errata saying that "A unit that fires Interceptor may still fire Overwatch as normal".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
[

And taken in context that means they can not be nominated to make a shooting attack more than once per player turn in the shooting phase.

This of course has zero effect on Overwatch.

But that's not really true, is it? A unit that fires Overwatch is subject to ALL the normal shooting rules, except as modified by Overwatch.

If a unit does not have LoS, it can't fire Overwatch just because the Overwatch rules say it can fire.
If a unit is out of range, it can't fire Overwatch just because the Overwatch rules say it can fire.

The restriction on already having fired once that turn is right there, in the exact same context. It's hard to justify that you are subject to the LoS rules and the Range rules, but not the Already Fired this Turn rule, when all three of those rules are right there on the same page.

If you interpret the Overwatch rule that way, then you could fire Overwatch, even if you don't have LoS... except for the fact that the Overwatch rule specifically mentions it... and "ALL THE NORMAL RULES".

rigeld2 wrote:

The counter argument that hinged that assertion on the range and LoS notes? The one that had no other rules to quote - instead just making things up?
That counter argument? Yes, I feel safe ignoring that.

I would encourage you to take a deep breath. You're coming across as rather belligerent. You're obviously convinced that the other side doesn't have an argument and aren't willing to listen, which seems to make your continued posting pointless. Simply claiming the other side is making things up doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you type it.

Regardless, I'll humor you and assume you're not just trolling at this point. According to the rules, "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack ..."

Okay, so how do we know how to resolve a shooting attack? We go to page 12, where it describes the steps you take, in full text. Part of the text there specifically states that some situations will prevent your unit from firing, and the box describes such a situation.

Able but not eligible. Good way of putting it. And you put both of the opposing arguments in a neat and well phrased paragraph instead of the convoluted mess it was through out the thread.

So, if summaries are rules, does that mean I can use the summaries at the back of the codices instead of the actual rules?

Murrdox wrote:
But that's not really true, is it? A unit that fires Overwatch is subject to ALL the normal shooting rules, except as modified by Overwatch.

And there is where your argument falls apart. The normal shooting rules are modified by Overwatch, which states that you are allowed to shoot and who you can shoot at.

Murrdox wrote:
However, the Overwatch rules also say it is "resolved like a normal shooting attack".

A normal shooting attack is subject to the text that says you can't fire with a unit that has already fired this turn.

By RAW, in my mind, that means that the Overwatch rules make the unit ABLE to fire. But because it has fired this turn... it can't. There is nothing in the Overwatch rules that tell you it's OK to skip this.

So rigeld2, I think it's a bit disingenuous to say people are making up arguments here. Clearly there is rule text to support the interpretation that you can't fire both Overwatch and Interceptor in the same turn.

Personally I think the purpose of Interceptor is to move your shooting phase from your own turn into your opponent's movement phase. I don't think the intent was to also disrupt your ability to fire Overwatch. I think Interceptor should have an errata saying that "A unit that fires Interceptor may still fire Overwatch as normal".

Your argument literally ignores one of the restrictions on firing. If you're trying to enforce the number of shots/turn rule why are you not enforcing the shooting phase rule?
It also breaks Longstrike - he has permission to make multiple Overwatch shots, but your argument means that any after the first would fail as he's already fired once that turn.

That's what I mean by unsupported by rules - you have to ignore rules to make your interpretation work. Which means it cannot be correct.

But that's not really true, is it? A unit that fires Overwatch is subject to ALL the normal shooting rules, except as modified by Overwatch.

If a unit does not have LoS, it can't fire Overwatch just because the Overwatch rules say it can fire.
If a unit is out of range, it can't fire Overwatch just because the Overwatch rules say it can fire.

The restriction on already having fired once that turn is right there, in the exact same context. It's hard to justify that you are subject to the LoS rules and the Range rules, but not the Already Fired this Turn rule, when all three of those rules are right there on the same page.

If you interpret the Overwatch rule that way, then you could fire Overwatch, even if you don't have LoS... except for the fact that the Overwatch rule specifically mentions it... and "ALL THE NORMAL RULES".

Actually, the LoS and range callouts address the fact that you have to check range and LoS per model as normal - otherwise the entire unit could fire regardless of LoS and range.

rigeld2 wrote:

Your argument literally ignores one of the restrictions on firing. If you're trying to enforce the number of shots/turn rule why are you not enforcing the shooting phase rule?
It also breaks Longstrike - he has permission to make multiple Overwatch shots, but your argument means that any after the first would fail as he's already fired once that turn.

That's what I mean by unsupported by rules - you have to ignore rules to make your interpretation work. Which means it cannot be correct.

Actually my argument ignores neither of those facts. The Overwatch rule specifically says it is resolved as a normal shooting attack during the opponent's Assault phase. So that is supported by the text.

Longstrike doesn't factor into the equation either. Those rules are covered by the standard Codex >= BRB rules. That's not the subject we're talking about.

Murrdox wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Your argument literally ignores one of the restrictions on firing. If you're trying to enforce the number of shots/turn rule why are you not enforcing the shooting phase rule?
It also breaks Longstrike - he has permission to make multiple Overwatch shots, but your argument means that any after the first would fail as he's already fired once that turn.

That's what I mean by unsupported by rules - you have to ignore rules to make your interpretation work. Which means it cannot be correct.

Actually my argument ignores neither of those facts. The Overwatch rule specifically says it is resolved as a normal shooting attack during the opponent's Assault phase. So that is supported by the text.

Actually that's not what it says. I've shown in this thread how your statement is incorrect - perhaps you'd like to read it?

Longstrike doesn't factor into the equation either. Those rules are covered by the standard Codex >= BRB rules. That's not the subject we're talking about.

It's not actually covered - all Longstrike does is contradict the "only one Overwatch allowed" rule. Since your assertion is that the shooting rule is completely separate and must be satisfied, your assertion breaks Longstrike.

rigeld, so when we "ignore" a rule as you put it, it invalidates our argument. But when you ignore the rule of only being able to shoot once per turn, its just a valid rules interpretation?

Also, please stop saying "Go back and read it " If you wouldn't mind reiterating it in about 4 sentences or less.

rigeld2 wrote:

Murrdox wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Your argument literally ignores one of the restrictions on firing. If you're trying to enforce the number of shots/turn rule why are you not enforcing the shooting phase rule?
It also breaks Longstrike - he has permission to make multiple Overwatch shots, but your argument means that any after the first would fail as he's already fired once that turn.

That's what I mean by unsupported by rules - you have to ignore rules to make your interpretation work. Which means it cannot be correct.

Actually my argument ignores neither of those facts. The Overwatch rule specifically says it is resolved as a normal shooting attack during the opponent's Assault phase. So that is supported by the text.

Actually that's not what it says. I've shown in this thread how your statement is incorrect - perhaps you'd like to read it?

Pg 21 clearly states, "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy's assault phase)". I don't see anything in your posts that would contradict the fact that this rule is written in the book.

Longstrike doesn't factor into the equation either. Those rules are covered by the standard Codex >= BRB rules. That's not the subject we're talking about.

It's not actually covered - all Longstrike does is contradict the "only one Overwatch allowed" rule. Since your assertion is that the shooting rule is completely separate and must be satisfied, your assertion breaks Longstrike.

AGAIN, the Codex trumps the BRB. If the Longstrike rule says he gets two Overwatches per turn, then he gets two Overwatches per turn. That rule in the codex trumps BOTH rules in the BRB saying that you can a) only fire once per player turn and b) only fire one Overwatch.

My 2 cents...

P12 only refers to a restriction of units firing once in a turn, interceptor only ever refers to weapons firing, and infact calls out that a model using interceptor can still fire using other weapons, so it doesnt create this caveat of the unit having fired that the OP is trying so hard to create.

So I would ask this, does one model in the unit firing, count as the unit having fired?

Cheers

Andrew

Caboose - stop paraphrasing, and totally altering the meaning of, the actual rule. The actual restriction is contained in the nomination step, which is a step you bypass on over watch.

Caboose wrote:rigeld, so when we "ignore" a rule as you put it, it invalidates our argument. But when you ignore the rule of only being able to shoot once per turn, its just a valid rules interpretation?

I'm not ignoring a rule. The rule you're referring to is skipped. Y the Overwatch rules.

Also, please stop saying "Go back and read it " If you wouldn't mind reiterating it in about 4 sentences or less.

I'll try to later. For now, asking you to read the thread is fine. You can even click "Filter Thread" under my name to make it easier.

Murrdox wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Murrdox wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Your argument literally ignores one of the restrictions on firing. If you're trying to enforce the number of shots/turn rule why are you not enforcing the shooting phase rule?
It also breaks Longstrike - he has permission to make multiple Overwatch shots, but your argument means that any after the first would fail as he's already fired once that turn.

That's what I mean by unsupported by rules - you have to ignore rules to make your interpretation work. Which means it cannot be correct.

Actually my argument ignores neither of those facts. The Overwatch rule specifically says it is resolved as a normal shooting attack during the opponent's Assault phase. So that is supported by the text.

Actually that's not what it says. I've shown in this thread how your statement is incorrect - perhaps you'd like to read it?

Pg 21 clearly states, "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy's assault phase)". I don't see anything in your posts that would contradict the fact that this rule is written in the book.

Yes, that's what's written in the book. That's not what you said it said and that does not address what you're pretending it does.

Longstrike doesn't factor into the equation either. Those rules are covered by the standard Codex >= BRB rules. That's not the subject we're talking about.

It's not actually covered - all Longstrike does is contradict the "only one Overwatch allowed" rule. Since your assertion is that the shooting rule is completely separate and must be satisfied, your assertion breaks Longstrike.

AGAIN, the Codex trumps the BRB. If the Longstrike rule says he gets two Overwatches per turn, then he gets two Overwatches per turn. That rule in the codex trumps BOTH rules in the BRB saying that you can a) only fire once per player turn and b) only fire one Overwatch.

I'm sorry, where in Longstrikes rules does it allow him to fire multiple times? According to you, the Overwatch give you the ability to fire, not eligibility. Therefore every Overwatch attempt after the first he'd be able to fire but not be eligible. If the ability to fire multiple Overwatch shots automatically grants an additional shooting attack, why does a single Overwatch not allow it?
Please be consistent and use rules in your replies.

It doesn't.

"Further more, Longstrikes Hammerhead is not limited to firing overwatch once each phase..."

There is no specific allowance for him to disregard the nomination rule.

If the OP reading is correct, the LS overwatch rule (or, that specific portion) is completely moot, as he could never fire overwatch twice anyway.

Ok, there is rule A and rule B, both have two parts. A1 A2 B1 and B2.

Overwatch doesn't skip rule A or rule B, it skips/solves A1 and B1. That doesn't allow you to subsequently skip A2 and B2. Nomination Step is different than nominating a unit. Nomination of a unit occurs during the nomination step. NOT interchangible. Picking Target step is not the same as picking the target. Picking your target occurs during the Picking Target step.

If youre saying you get to bypass the restriction of shooting once per turn because you get to skip the nomination step, then you also get to skip the range and LOS restrictions of the Picking Target step, because your target is picked for you.

And sorry for paraphrasing. I'm at work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which you can't skip the restrictions... because... you can't, those are the normal shooting rules.

 Caboose wrote:
Ok, there is rule A and rule B, both have two parts. A1 A2 B1 and B2.

Overwatch doesn't skip rule A or rule B, it skips/solves A1 and B1. That doesn't allow you to subsequently skip A2 and B2. Nomination Step is different than nominating a unit. Nomination of a unit occurs during the nomination step. NOT interchangible. Picking Target step is not the same as picking the target. Picking your target occurs during the Picking Target step.

So you are saying you must meet every requirement at every step? Just clarifying - I'd rather not be accused of misunderstand or putting words in your mouth.

If youre saying you get to bypass the restriction of shooting once per turn because you get to skip the nomination step, then you also get to skip the range and LOS restrictions of the Picking Target step, because your target is picked for you.

Correct! What's your point?

Which you can't skip the restrictions... because... you can't, those are the normal shooting rules.

If your target is chosen for you, the pick target step is done. Finished - you are unable to have input for that step.

So your out of range target can be shot at? Just because it is preselected?

 Caboose wrote:
So your out of range target can be shot at? Just because it is preselected?

Roll to Hit (the section after picking a target) tells you to roll for every shot in range. So no - if the target unit is out of range you still can't roll to hit even if it's preselected.
I mentioned this last page but you ignored it.

Edit: Even if you could fire, the wound pool would immediately empty so nothing would happen

Nope, read point 2 again in the shooting sequence. Selected unit may only shoot with models that have range and LOS... part of selecting a target. Again, still at work, sorry for paraphrasing. But the LOS and Range restrictions are in the second half of Step 2 which you are more than happy to bypass right along with Step 1.

 Caboose wrote:
Nope, read point 2 again in the shooting sequence. Selected unit may only shoot with models that have range and LOS... part of selecting a target. Again, still at work, sorry for paraphrasing. But the LOS and Range restrictions are in the second half of Step 2 which you are more than happy to bypass right along with Step 1.

Nope? You're saying Roll to Hit doesnt say to roll a die for every shot in range?
Perhaps you should wait until you have a book in front of you - because you're 100% incorrect.
Overwatch skips step 1 and 2 of the shooting sequence in their entirety.

Also, you're not bothering to address the fact (not opinion, demonstrable fact) that your assertion breaks Longstrike. Are you not addressing it on purpose for some reason, or are you trying to come up with a reason?

No, Im sure it does say that in roll to hit section, that makes sense. I said nope because the Shooting sequence, which Ive been refering to, dictates that you must choose a target in range and LOS as part of step 2. I haven't address Long strike, because I haven't really looked at him yet. He's another interesting tidbit, and you make a good case with ability vs eligibility. That is getting awfully semantic though, but I guess so is this whole discussion... Let me finish up at work, and I'll come back later. Consider this pinned for the time being.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I don't see where overwatch skips Steps 1 and 2. Adresses steps 1a and 2a, but not 1b and 2b.

 Caboose wrote:
No, Im sure it does say that in roll to hit section, that makes sense. I said nope because the Shooting sequence, which Ive been refering to, dictates that you must choose a target in range and LOS as part of step 2.

And you have yet to cite something that requires Overwatch to meet those requirements. We've already established it's literally impossible for Overwatch to meet the requirements in step 1 (despite your assertions otherwise - you've cited no rules).

I haven't address Long strike, because I haven't really looked at him yet. He's another interesting tidbit, and you make a good case with ability vs eligibility. That is getting awfully semantic though, but I guess so is this whole discussion... Let me finish up at work, and I'll come back later. Consider this pinned for the time being.

Note that the ability is only useless under your interpretation. Under mine it works fine.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I don't see where overwatch skips Steps 1 and 2. Adresses steps 1a and 2a, but not 1b and 2b.

The rules don't make the distinction you're saying they do.

 Caboose wrote:
Shooting rules say that you can only make one shooting action per player turn.

Close, they actually say:
"Nominate Unit to Shoot During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks" (12)

and the shooting sequence box:

"Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet fire[sic] this turn" (12)

Notice how, during the shooting phase you "Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet fire[sic] this turn" (12)

Notice how you this is a restriction on the shooting phase and has nothing to do with Overwatch...

Murrdox wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


And taken in context that means they can not be nominated to make a shooting attack more than once per player turn in the shooting phase.

This of course has zero effect on Overwatch.

But that's not really true, is it?

It is true...

A unit that fires Overwatch is subject to ALL the normal shooting rules, except as modified by Overwatch.

correct, I dont think I get your point.

If a unit does not have LoS, it can't fire Overwatch just because the Overwatch rules say it can fire.

True.

If a unit is out of range, it can't fire Overwatch just because the Overwatch rules say it can fire.

True.

The restriction on already having fired once that turn is right there, in the exact same context. It's hard to justify that you are subject to the LoS rules and the Range rules, but not the Already Fired this Turn rule, when all three of those rules are right there on the same page.

The restriction on moninating a unit to shoot deals with the Shooting phase, agreed?

If you interpret the Overwatch rule that way, then you could fire Overwatch, even if you don't have LoS... except for the fact that the Overwatch rule specifically mentions it... and "ALL THE NORMAL RULES".

Not sure where you are coming to this conclusion, it seems like quite the non-sequitur. The restriction about nominating a unit is for the shooting phase. It says we may choose one of our units to shoot that has not shot this turn, specifically talking about the shooting phase. This has no bearing on overwatch. (Not that we nominate a unit during Overwatch anyway, we simply do not get the choice to nominate them to make a shooting attack).

Their LOS argument also falls apart since LOS is required to declare a charge.... They cant be in LOS to declare the charge, but out of LOS for overwatch.

Unless their Tau supporting Fire, but then the wound rules would prevent those wounds from occurring anyways, so its moot.

I cant think of a way that a unit could declare a charge, yet not be able to be shot at. If there is a way, my Hormagaunts need to hear it.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Their LOS argument also falls apart since LOS is required to declare a charge.... They cant be in LOS to declare the charge, but out of LOS for overwatch.

Unless their Tau supporting Fire, but then the wound rules would prevent those wounds from occurring anyways, so its moot.

I cant think of a way that a unit could declare a charge, yet not be able to be shot at. If there is a way, my Hormagaunts need to hear it.

While rare, it could be done, typically with big models and ruins.

shouldn't be possible to be able to declare a charge and be out of LoS for every model in the receiving unit, otherwise a charge cannot be declared.

I would also presume that there are 'no' (said with slight hesitation) weapons that are less than 12" range that can fire overwatch that need to roll to hit making the range rules moot for at least a single model in the unit that is being charged.

I honestly don't see this argument progressing anymore, the camp that is saying that overwatch cannot be shot seems to have dug in their heels on it...

 nutty_nutter wrote:
I would also presume that there are 'no' (said with slight hesitation) weapons that are less than 12" range that can fire overwatch that need to roll to hit making the range rules moot for at least a single model in the unit that is being charged.

There are a few weapons with a 6 inch range (Like the Infernus pistol for the Blood Angels).

always one out there....ah well :p

Don't the overwatch rules expressly state that a unit may only fire overwatch once per assault phase?

I understand that that can be countered by the 'they are allowed to pointlessly clarify things' argument, but any instance of taking the time and space to say something that doesn't need to be said makes me suspicious assuming that the clarification is the norm.

not really, it makes sense to only allow a single overwatch vs no restriction on it on the basis that its possible to wipe out the first charging unit and then be charged again.

as has been pointed out, there is a character/unit that can initiate multiple overwatch attacks provided it is able to do so (not locked)

Actually Nutty,

I will need to review the matter again, but I believe there is an interesting loop hole as Longstrike is a vehicle and therefore impossible to lock into combat....

Longstrike is specifically allowed to fire overwatch more then once a turn. In his signature system it says:

Codex:Tau Empire, page 62 wrote: ... Furthermore, Longstrike's Hammerhead is not limited to firing Overwatch once each phase (it can still only fire Overwatch once against each eligible charging unit).

 nutty_nutter wrote:
not really, it makes sense to only allow a single overwatch vs no restriction on it on the basis that its possible to wipe out the first charging unit and then be charged again.

as has been pointed out, there is a character/unit that can initiate multiple overwatch attacks provided it is able to do so (not locked)

There is a restriction on it. Pg 21, "overwatch restrictions" makes it very clear that a unit can only fire overwatch once a turn. Longstrike is not a "pointless clarification", he is an intentional, deliberate exemption.

If the OP's reading is correct, that deliberate, intentional, exemption to the overwatch rules serves zero purpose, and was added knowing full well it could never be used.

I think you have misunderstood my stand point on this one maceria.

I'm aware that there is a restriction, I was providing a reason for that very restriction existence while also referring to an example that bypasses the restriction.

Rapture wrote:
Don't the overwatch rules expressly state that a unit may only fire overwatch once per assault phase?

Yes, they say exactly that.

JinxDragon wrote:
Actually Nutty,

I will need to review the matter again, but I believe there is an interesting loop hole as Longstrike is a vehicle and therefore impossible to lock into combat....

you make an interesting point. that being said p76 under the sub heading of charging a vehicle, if it is to be treated like charging any other unit then you can consider the unit 'locked' for that charge phase, vehicles just automatically removed the locked status at the end of the combat...at least that's how I look at it. otherwise there is no way of stopping longstrike from simply lol storming over all your chargers.

I didn't find anything about vehicles being locked in combat. What page is it on?

making a comparison between charging a normal (i.e. infantry unit) with the charging a vehicle rules on p76.

you basically have to come to some form of educated decision here, technically you cannot lock a vehicle onto the next turn but there is no rule saying that you 'cannot lock' a vehicle in close combat. (although this is starting to derail the thread somewhat even though it is related).

 nutty_nutter wrote:
making a comparison between charging a normal (i.e. infantry unit) with the charging a vehicle rules on p76.

you basically have to come to some form of educated decision here, technically you cannot lock a vehicle onto the next turn but there is no rule saying that you 'cannot lock' a vehicle in close combat. (although this is starting to derail the thread somewhat even though it is related).

But there is. Pg 76 under successive turns. A little oddly places, you would think that would be under the 'assaulting' heading.

That page also specifies that vehicle cannot, unless granted specific permission, fire overwatch. Longstrike is an exception to this, obviously.

Also nutty, apologies for misreading your argument, we may be on the same page here.

So, if i get charged (and don't shoot overwatched as this board claims) and it fails, that means i can shoot my weapons as normal next turn then right?

Because if that's the case, please charge me. I hope you fail it so i can pound you next turn with my weapons at full power.

I have to vote "no" on this poll. No such rule on pg12 exists. There is instruction on how to nominate a unit as part of the shooting sequence but as you do not nominate a unit to fire with for the over-watch rules this instruction has no baring on the matter.

yeah I'm with the OP on this one. You can only fire overwatch if you haven't already fired. Seems pretty straight forward to me and I gotta say this seems like the exact sort of thing GW would do. Sure the restriction to overwatch SEEMS useless until you realize that this is 6th edition and there is way more stuff coming in from reserves. This caveat was clearly designed to cut down on the amount of overwatch a Tau army can put out.

Also I think that if you go with the OP on this one it would add more, oh I don't know... realism?

Why should Tau get to fire overwatch illegally? They have so much of it anyways, what could it hurt if a unit is unable to fire overwatch? Oh wait right! I forgot that if Tau get into CC they melt and go from being Netlist Overlords to just another army!

Maybe that's why everyone wants to ignore the rules for a normal shooting attack. They play Tau. As far as I know the only time you get to fire a weapon twice is when your Failbrute rolls that one half decent crazed rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
So, if i get charged (and don't shoot overwatched as this board claims) and it fails, that means i can shoot my weapons as normal next turn then right?

Because if that's the case, please charge me. I hope you fail it so i can pound you next turn with my weapons at full power.

How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion? Lol

darkcloak wrote:
yeah I'm with the OP on this one. You can only fire overwatch if you haven't already fired. Seems pretty straight forward to me and I gotta say this seems like the exact sort of thing GW would do. Sure the restriction to overwatch SEEMS useless until you realize that this is 6th edition and there is way more stuff coming in from reserves. This caveat was clearly designed to cut down on the amount of overwatch a Tau army can put out.

Also I think that if you go with the OP on this one it would add more, oh I don't know... realism?

Why should Tau get to fire overwatch illegally? They have so much of it anyways, what could it hurt if a unit is unable to fire overwatch? Oh wait right! I forgot that if Tau get into CC they melt and go from being Netlist Overlords to just another army!

Maybe that's why everyone wants to ignore the rules for a normal shooting attack. They play Tau. As far as I know the only time you get to fire a weapon twice is when your Failbrute rolls that one half decent crazed rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
So, if i get charged (and don't shoot overwatched as this board claims) and it fails, that means i can shoot my weapons as normal next turn then right?

Because if that's the case, please charge me. I hope you fail it so i can pound you next turn with my weapons at full power.

How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion? Lol

You didn't get what it was saying. The question is, If a tau unit fires under the interceptor rule, do they also get to fire overwatch?

I.E Tau vs SM. It's the SM turn. He deep strikes Terminators. My Broadsides have interceptor and fire at those terminators. Skip to the assault phase. He has SM combat squad nearby. He charges my Broadsides. Can my broadsides fire overwatch? That's the question. This board says that, no, they can not fire overwatch because it is the "next shooting phase". This would mean that after the overwatch phase, i should be free to fire those weapons in my normal shooting phase.