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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Not really - it just says to use Interceptor you have to have LOS. Ignores LOS means it ignores, when firing, the requirement to have LOS

Specific Codex trumps specific BRB. Tau Codex says that Smart Missile Systems do not need Line of Sight to fire and ignore Cover saves while shooting. It doesn't specify ignores LoS only during the shooting phase but not during Overwatch or Interceptor, it simply does not need LoS to fire on a target.

Again, only when there is a conflict. It says it ignores LOS when shooting - does it say it ignores LOS when using the Interceptor Rule to determine if it is allowed to fire at all?

If it does - then great. THat is the question I am asking. Please do not simply repeat codex trumps rulebook, as that is not a strictly true statement, and the nuance (only when there is a conflict) that you are ignoring is the entire crux of the argument

Just so you know:

Page 7 is completely broken and can never be reliably used as an argument. Because weapon profiles are advanced rules, it leads to situations where any unique weapon detailed in the codex break on contact with Basic Rule Book special rules. Not only does that happen, but thanks to page 7 having no way to address conflicts between rules in the same Codex or the Basic Rule Book, it generates 'no-rule zones' between all weapon profiles and special rules in the majority of cases. As nothing in the special rule section would have permission to affect codex weapons if page 7 was universally applied, so no AP2 from smash or the dozen other weapon modifying special rules, and their interaction with Basic Rule Book weapon profiles is also in doubt it clearly highlights that page 7 leads to unintended consequences.

For this reason it isn't given serious consideration on this website. The only exception to this would be if one can prove, without a doubt, that the two rules in question are to be applied simultaneously. Only in those situations, where you can not form a clear order of events and the two rules would change the outcome depending on which is applied first, do you have a conflict which can be addressed by page 7... hopefully. If one rule can be applied before the other rule take affect then you have a clear order of operations and page 7 can never be evoked.

In this case you need to meet the requirements for interceptor before you move on to the requirements to fire the weapon, so no conflict exists.

OMG.. my brain is hurting trying to understand some people on here...

of course the SMS can shoot interceptor without LOS
Thats why its a special rule..

If you look at shooting in general.. compared to shooting in interceptor..
they both say you need range and LOS

so to deny interceptor would be ridiculous...

also it says.. rules in the codex trump the rulebook

Like it was said before.. you cant ignore a weapons special ability during interceptor...

Let us try and simplify it:

I have permission to do A
B is a situation similar to A
The permission granted for A does not mention the situation B
Do I have permission to do B?

that didnt strike me as simple...
but lets try this..
A = Interceptor
B = LOS
C = Range

B + C = A

SMS ignore LOS rule = X

X = B (they cancel eachother out)

Therefore

X + C = A

therefore.. you can use SMS during interceptor HAHA

I disagree because you are overlooking a whole subset of rules in your equation. In short you jumped to an unsupported conclusion by having X apply to B when it is written for D, something you have not even addressed. In order to better explain this I have placed the following formula below:

Interceptor broken down -
A = Unit arrives from reserves
B = Line of sight for interceptor
C = Range to unit

Firing said weapon is broken down -
D = Line of Sight to fire weapon
E = Range to unit

The Homing special rule will be simply X, as it has one veritable in that it overwrites line of sight for the weapons standard firing process. Given that we are looking at a true or false statement, the answer will either be 1 or 0. 1 being that the statement is true and the weapon fires, while 0 being that the statement is false and the weapon fails to fire, obviously.

So I will agree with you that the statement 1 = A+B+C+D+E and 1 = A+B+C+X+E are the same you still are left with the statement 0 = A+X+C+D+E when you try and switch B and X instead of D and X. What you need to do is prove that B and X are interchangeable, but the only way do so X will need to state that it is interchangeable with B in all situations, not just the one it directly addresses. So while X states it can be switched for D, it has no mention of B in the slightest and you do not have permission to switch X for B.

Regardless to the fact that B and D look so very alike.

I disagree...
If you are saying the because Interceptor itself says you need line of sight...
Then in any shooting phase... in any shooting attack.. you are saying that to make a shooting attack you also need range and line of sight..
therefore..
if you were to take out the fact that it says interceptor..
your formula would still apply to a regular shooting phase attack. and thus it would still need line of sight..

I do not see where you are coming from. If we apply the formula to a regular shooting attack then you wouldn't need to take A B or C into account, as they are unique to interceptor. You can not simply state 'remove this factor and you have a problem' without removing everything related to that factor. Removing interceptor from the equation means you would just be left with D and E in the formula. As we have already established that X states it is interchangeable with D there is no problem there.

1 = X+E and 1 = D+E both equal 1 in this situation, so the weapon can fire without a problem.

The issue you keep overlooking is the fact B and D are completely different veritable as they are found in two completely different rules. You are still trying to state that B = D therefore B = X. As the rule does not state it ignores Line of Sight in all situations we can only conclude it ignores line of sight in any situation other then the one instance it actually addresses. That one situation it talks about is directly related to the veritable of firing the weapon, not the veritable of targeting a unit using a separate special rule.

In closing:
I can see them FAQ'ing the matter, if they got around it, to add the clause that B = D but until they do just that you can not state B = D in any rule as written perspective.

I dont see any confusion when reading the rule at all..
The rule says.. does not need LOS
Its pretty straight forward..
Shooting attacks need LOS..
Weapon doesnt need LOS..
Therefore.. does not require LOS

Interceptor needs LOS
Weapon doesnt need LOS
Therefore.. does not require LOS

Youre still using the same weapon.. with the same special rule.. i dont see where D becomes B..
Im not confused about X.. if youre still following me...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Not really - it just says to use Interceptor you have to have LOS. Ignores LOS means it ignores, when firing, the requirement to have LOS

Actually no Interceptor, says "a weapon with *the rule* can be fired ..... within its range and LOS."

If a weapon does not require LOS, than it's LOS is obvious. It doesn't need it.

 Miri wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Not really - it just says to use Interceptor you have to have LOS. Ignores LOS means it ignores, when firing, the requirement to have LOS

Specific Codex trumps specific BRB. Tau Codex says that Smart Missile Systems do not need Line of Sight to fire and ignore Cover saves while shooting. It doesn't specify ignores LoS only during the shooting phase but not during Overwatch or Interceptor, it simply does not need LoS to fire on a target.

But does it ignore cover against vehicles, since they can't be wounded? Haha.

Im siding with the "you cant"-people.

To have permission to shoot at a unit with interceptor you need line of sight. Thats specified in the rule itself. Therefor you dont get to the point where your "ignore line of sight" rule comes into place.

Thats a completely different situation than shooting in your own shooting phase. If you shoot in your own phase you have permission to shoot your weapon at targets. You need specific permission to do that in any other phase in the game. You get that permission to shoot in a phase other than your own shooting phase by interceptor. This rule has a restriction of having "line of sight" to the target. You dont have that line of sight, you dont shoot because you dont meet the restrictions and therefor dont get permission to shoot.

HIWPI it in a friendly:
Shoot if you want. You give up your shooting in your own phase after all and i think RAI and logic applied the weapon can shoot.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Not really - it just says to use Interceptor you have to have LOS. Ignores LOS means it ignores, when firing, the requirement to have LOS

Actually no Interceptor, says "a weapon with *the rule* can be fired ..... within its range and LOS."

If a weapon does not require LOS, than it's LOS is obvious. It doesn't need it.

It does not need it to fire. Does it need it to use the Interceptor rule to fire when it otherwise wouldnt?

That is waht I have asked you to find a number of times now, and you have simply repeated the same sentences over and over. Try a different tack potentially.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Not really - it just says to use Interceptor you have to have LOS. Ignores LOS means it ignores, when firing, the requirement to have LOS

Actually no Interceptor, says "a weapon with *the rule* can be fired ..... within its range and LOS."

If a weapon does not require LOS, than it's LOS is obvious. It doesn't need it.

It does not need it to fire. Does it need it to use the Interceptor rule to fire when it otherwise wouldnt?

That is what I have asked you to find a number of times now, and you have simply repeated the same sentences over and over. Try a different tack potentially.

A weapon that does not need LOS to fire, Hiveguard for example.
Clearly the rules say they need LOS to fire in the BRB, however HG's special rule overrides.
Now if Interceptor follows rules for shooting, they again do not need LOS.

As stated above, if you look at the simplest form of shooting attack (done in your own shooting phase) you'll see that it TOO requires Range and Line of Sight. So now, by the logic presented by the people who say Interceptor also requires Range and Line of Sight, smart Missile systems may never fire during ANY phase at models out of LOS, even though they have a rule (homing) that specifically overrides this requirement.

Long story short - boil it down to GW kept the wording for Interceptor congruous with the wording for normal shooting attacks. SMS systems have a special rule that overrides 1/2 of the targeting requirements for both cases of shooting, thus can fire regardless of LOS in both cases (but still require to be in range, obviously).

Again, JD - two different rules. Being allowed to assault after disembarking does not mean you can assault after deploying from reserves.

You have a restriction in shooting (requires LOS) that is raised by the SMS. You have another restriction in Interceptor which states you need LOS - is this specifically raised by the SMS?

IF so, page and para.

You're leaving out a key element, that it is your opponents turn and he chooses the order in which things get resolved. I believe you can make an argument that your opponent chooses the line of sight require for interceptor prior to you applying the ignores line of sight rule.
But the only thing that makes Tau really strong right now is that they play by a completely different set of rules that don't have hard definitions to what their limitations really so hopefully we will see more FAQs for Tau

Kisada - you're misquoting the rule.
The active player decides order when both players have something to do at the same time.

Wow. Some of the arguments have quickly gotten weird. I'm going to ignore them rather than point out how strange some of them are. Let's just look at the rules themselves:

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. - BRB page 38

Interceptor is a USR that applies to a weapon, not a model. LOS is drawn from the model, but its the weapon that needs it.

Homing: Smart missile systems can be fired at targets out of the unit's line of sight. - Codex: Tau Empire page 66

Homing clearly states you can fire the weapon at targets that aren't in LOS. It doesn't dictate when. Simply if you "fire" the weapon, it doesn't need LOS to their target.

Note that both Interceptor and Homing even use the same language. When the weapon is "fired" or when you "fire" the weapon. It doesn't say "shooting" or anything else that can even be confused as a "Shooting Phase only" action. Just any time you fire the weapon. That means Homing works with Interceptor and Overwatch as well as the normal Shooting Phase.


There is no conflict here if you have read the actual rules. If you haven't before, well I quoted them directly so luckily for you they're in italics above.

delete

 cowmonaut wrote:
Wow. Some of the arguments have quickly gotten weird. I'm going to ignore them rather than point out how strange some of them are. Let's just look at the rules themselves:

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. - BRB page 38

Interceptor is a USR that applies to a weapon, not a model. LOS is drawn from the model, but its the weapon that needs it.

Homing: Smart missile systems can be fired at targets out of the unit's line of sight. - Codex: Tau Empire page 66

Homing clearly states you can fire the weapon at targets that aren't in LOS. It doesn't dictate when. Simply if you "fire" the weapon, it doesn't need LOS to their target.

Note that both Interceptor and Homing even use the same language. When the weapon is "fired" or when you "fire" the weapon. It doesn't say "shooting" or anything else that can even be confused as a "Shooting Phase only" action. Just any time you fire the weapon. That means Homing works with Interceptor and Overwatch as well as the normal Shooting Phase.


There is no conflict here if you have read the actual rules. If you haven't before, well I quoted them directly so luckily for you they're in italics above.

Your signature points to Codex does not always trump Rulebook -a good post from Yak with advise for this very situation. I think everyone on the 'Yes' side should read.

rigeld2 wrote:
Kisada - you're misquoting the rule.
The active player decides order when both players have something to do at the same time.

Check the rule book FAQ, p.7

But I'm not falling on either side of this argument I believe an FAQ is needed for them all the Yes arguments are good but not concrete, the main problem is your getting an interceptor phase (what ever you want to call it) from wanting to use the interceptor rule and at the same time ignore the requirements set by that rule (which the weapon clearly does) so it's fuzzy if my opponent wanted to I would let him but I don't think it's clear one way or the other.
It's the same problem with trying to outflank a unit with an IC attached and the unit only has the infiltrate special rule the IC has neither, you can't clearly say you can, and chances are you can't so don't count on it.

 Nem wrote:
Your signature points to Codex does not always trump Rulebook -a good post from Yak with advise for this very situation. I think everyone on the 'Yes' side should read.

Everyone should read his post on the matter. But your implication is false. This is not a case where the Codex does not trump the Rulebook. There is no inherit conflict with the rules here. I suggest you re-read my post, specifically the bullet points in italics. Failing that, look up the exact text of the rules in the Codex and Rulebook for the Homing and Interceptor rules. Nothing in those rules conflict with one another.

The rules are very clear, so in all honesty I do not understand why there is any doubt they work together. I haven't seen any argument for the "they can't ignore LOS using Intercept" side that actually points to any rules or facts.


Let's see if I can be more clear: Interceptor lets you "fire" (GW's words) a weapon in the enemy Movement phase, provided the weapon is in range and you can draw LOS to the target. The weapon in this specific case has an additional special rule specifically stating LOS to the target is not needed when you "fire" it.


You've failed to understand what yakface was stating. Specifically, that General < Advanced and Rulebook < Codex are not absolute terms, just like Restrictions > Permissions is not an absolute term. By your logic, Homing is a rule that never does anything. After all, LOS is a "restriction". It must be a restriction in the Shooting Phase if its a restriction during Intercept or Overwatch, since those "sdvanced tules" only state that they use the LOS "basic rules", which are detailed in the Shooting Phase section.

If that is the case, then Homing is a rule that does nothing. Which clearly cannot be the case, particularly in a brand new Codex.

So we have an 'advanced codex rule' trumping a "basic rulebook rule" that is being used by an "advanced rulebook rule". Specifically, we have a rule from a Codex that is specifically designed to make an exception to the basic rules found in the rulebook.

There is no rules conflict here. A weapon with "Homing" can be fired at targets outside of a unit/model's LOS. That's what the rule does, no more and no less. Interceptor says you can fire at a target that is in range and LOS. So does the basic rules for Shooting found on page 12 (see "Choosing a Target"). Clearly if it works for normal Shooting, it must work for Interceptor and Overwatch. After all, the rules are written the same when it comes to picking or being able to shoot at a target.

 cowmonaut wrote:

(SNIP)

Let's see if I can be more clear: Interceptor lets you "fire" (GW's words) a weapon in the enemy Movement phase, provided the weapon is in range and you can draw LOS to the target. The weapon in this specific case has an additional special rule specifically stating LOS to the target is not needed when you "fire" it.

(SNIP)

But this isn't what interceptor says. Interceptor lets you fire at a unit which arrive from reserve in LOS and within range. It's a restriction on which unit can be targeted.

The fact that homing would normally let you ignore LOS restrictions does not imply it *always* lets you ignore *every* los restriction.

 cowmonaut wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Your signature points to Codex does not always trump Rulebook -a good post from Yak with advise for this very situation. I think everyone on the 'Yes' side should read.

Everyone should read his post on the matter. But your implication is false. This is not a case where the Codex does not trump the Rulebook. There is no inherit conflict with the rules here. I suggest you re-read my post, specifically the bullet points in italics. Failing that, look up the exact text of the rules in the Codex and Rulebook for the Homing and Interceptor rules. Nothing in those rules conflict with one another.

The rules are very clear, so in all honesty I do not understand why there is any doubt they work together. I haven't seen any argument for the "they can't ignore LOS using Intercept" side that actually points to any rules or facts.


Let's see if I can be more clear: Interceptor lets you "fire" (GW's words) a weapon in the enemy Movement phase, provided the weapon is in range and you can draw LOS to the target. The weapon in this specific case has an additional special rule specifically stating LOS to the target is not needed when you "fire" it.


You've failed to understand what yakface was stating. Specifically, that General < Advanced and Rulebook < Codex are not absolute terms, just like Restrictions > Permissions is not an absolute term. By your logic, Homing is a rule that never does anything. After all, LOS is a "restriction". It must be a restriction in the Shooting Phase if its a restriction during Intercept or Overwatch, since those "sdvanced tules" only state that they use the LOS "basic rules", which are detailed in the Shooting Phase section.

If that is the case, then Homing is a rule that does nothing. Which clearly cannot be the case, particularly in a brand new Codex.

So we have an 'advanced codex rule' trumping a "basic rulebook rule" that is being used by an "advanced rulebook rule". Specifically, we have a rule from a Codex that is specifically designed to make an exception to the basic rules found in the rulebook.

There is no rules conflict here. A weapon with "Homing" can be fired at targets outside of a unit/model's LOS. That's what the rule does, no more and no less. Interceptor says you can fire at a target that is in range and LOS. So does the basic rules for Shooting found on page 12 (see "Choosing a Target"). Clearly if it works for normal Shooting, it must work for Interceptor and Overwatch. After all, the rules are written the same when it comes to picking or being able to shoot at a target.

Your right, I had to read your first post a good few times over to understand what you were conveying, and hereby change my plea to 'You can'
But think a easier way of explaining is

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. - BRB page 38

Interceptor does not say you need LOS. It says it must be within the weapons LOS. Its a subtle difference in common wording which I totally missed.

Yep that is concrete enough for me

jcress410 wrote:
But this isn't what interceptor says. Interceptor lets you fire at a unit which arrive from reserve in LOS and within range. It's a restriction on which unit can be targeted.

Interceptor says exactly what I quoted originally. It says exactly the same thing as the normal rules for shooting does when it comes to picking a target. Let's compare the three rules that result in a unit shooting another unit:

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. - BRB page 38
Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a target for them to shoot at. To do so, you must check the range and line of sight from your unit to the enemy unit you are targeting. - BRB page 12
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. - BRB page 21

In order to pick a target you normally need to have line of sight to it, and the weapons firing must be in range. The only thing that Intercept does is give you the ability to shoot in the enemy Movement phase instead of your next Shooting phase provided the target came in from reserve.

The only new "restrictions" Interceptor is putting on the shooting you do in the enemy's Movement Phase is that the target must have come in from Reserve and you cannot shoot in your next Shooting Phase. The only new "restrictions" Overwatch is putting on the shooting you do in the enemy's Assault Phase is that the target must be charging you, you can only fire Snap Shots, and you can only fire Overwatch once per turn. Beyond those restrictions, both work exactly like Shooting normally does according to the RAW.

jcress410 wrote:
The fact that homing would normally let you ignore LOS restrictions does not imply it *always* lets you ignore *every* los restriction.

Yes it does. If it only let you ignore LOS in the Shooting Phase, it would damn well need to tell you that! It doesn't. Homing tells you that the unit can fire weapons with Homing at targets that are not in line of sight. Period. End of story. There are no other restrictions put on the rule.

If you fire a weapon with Homing, it does not need line of sight. Look at the text of the rule for Interceptor again: What are you doing? You are firing the weapon with the Interceptor USR at a target that came in from Reserve.


I'm glad I was able to make my point to some people. I feel I must not be doing a good enough job explaining it to others, but sometimes I wonder if its me or them!

Except there is a restriction on which units can be targeted. Only units you watch come on the board are eligible for interceptor.

"
has arrived from reserve within its range and line of sight.
"

says legal interceptor targets have to arrive from reserve within line of sight.

So, if something came on the board within line of sight, but moved behind some LOS obscuring terrain, at the end of the movement phase, the SMS doesnt have LOS but can still fire.

But if a model comes on from reserve, and the SMS can never see it, it can't.

You're saying "when I fire the weapon, I don't need LOS" and that's fine. But interceptor isn't about having LOS when you fire the weapon (at the end of the movement phase) it's about having LOS when the unit arrives (at the beginning).

jcress410 wrote:
Except there is a restriction on which units can be targeted. Only units you watch come on the board are eligible for interceptor.

"
has arrived from reserve within its range and line of sight.
"

says legal interceptor targets have to arrive from reserve within line of sight.

So, if something came on the board within line of sight, but moved behind some LOS obscuring terrain, at the end of the movement phase, the SMS doesnt have LOS but can still fire.

But if a model comes on from reserve, and the SMS can never see it, it can't.

You're saying "when I fire the weapon, I don't need LOS" and that's fine. But interceptor isn't about having LOS when you fire the weapon (at the end of the movement phase) it's about having LOS when the unit arrives (at the beginning).

That restriction isn't present in the intercepter rule.

The rule tells you that you can only fire at a unit within the weapon's range and LOS.
Since the SMS tells you that it ignores LOS you only use range.

A unit could arrive from reserves and be in LOS of a weapon, but could use some here unmade special rule to move after arriving and move out of LOS. They would be unable to be targeted by a normal weapon, since intercept only happens at the end of the movement phase.

You don't need to see them arrive, only that you can shoot them at the end of movement.