Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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".