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.

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....