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.
Highlight where it states " a moment in time".
I have quoted the rules for the phases and that word isn't there.
Awfully uncouth to call me a liar for quoting the brb, when the terms you are using are not there.
Ceann wrote: Highlight where it states " a moment in time".
I have quoted the rules for the phases and that word isn't there.
Awfully uncouth to call me a liar for quoting the brb, when the terms you are using are not there.
The one being dishonest is you, as usual.
Highlighted in red my argument below.
The Sequencing rule directly contradicts what you are saying.
The Sequencing rule treats "at THE START of the movement phase" and "similar" time statements as single moment in times such that two rules resolving at those times are resolving "at the same time".
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally similar to "at THE START of the movement phase".
So the Sequencing rule itself validates "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a single moment in time. Two or more rules that are to be resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" are to be resolved "at the same time".
The Sequencing rule defeats your argument.
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is explicitly identified by the Sequencing rule as a time such that when two rules are to be resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" they are to be resolved "at the same time". That means that "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase must be a single moment in time.
Of course, there is also simple English semantics. "The start" and "the end" of a duration of time are singular moments in time defining the furthest extremes. So both the rules and semantics defeat your argument.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means following the Interceptor instructions and choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must resolve one of the Interceptor rules so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the rules are resolved by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That rule must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor rule since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the order multiple Interceptor rules are resolved but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence the multiple Interceptor rules.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 08:41:45
Excellent, a moment in time is gone.
You can't highlight it so you are making it up.
Why does that not surprise me?
Guess you aren't following RAW.
Here are the BRB RULES for "end of a phase", page 18.
Likewise, any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase, before the next phase (if any) starts.
So in this case... movement.
It states they are resolved after all other actions have been performed during the phase.
Nothing about a singular moment in time is described or explained.
This is how it works, RAW.
Since according to you and your secret details of how to resolve interceptor...
Interceptor needs to resolve, we don't have permission to fire.
3 sets of Interceptor are now pending to resolve to provide permission to fire, we cannot fire as part of the resolution as it hasn't resolved yet and we still don't have permission until it actually resolves.
Col_Impact sequences our permissions.
All of the permissions resolve.
We now have permission to fire.
Shooting sequence,
Shooting sequence,
Shooting sequence.
All rules have been followed, no rule has been broken.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 13:22:02
This is shaping up to become dakkas version of the eye of terror.
With the mods playing some game none of us mortals understand. Maybe they think the forum as a whole will thrive by keeping them locked in eternal battle lol.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 15:41:38
Until you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.
That is a valid part of his argument, asking for how firing two different types of weapons happens at the same time. If you can't show how it happens, you haven't proven that they're happening at the same time without wording that is explict as to which is resolved first.
You have this backwards. You are unable to point to any other time for the multiple Interceptor rules "to be resolved" than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase". The only rule that provides explicit wording as to which rule is to resolve first is the Sequencing rule. Therefore, the explicit conditions of the Sequencing rule have been met and the Sequencing rule applies.
If you feel otherwise then prove how the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" at some time other than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
I have. They are resolved using the shooting process that are the basic shooting rules and are invoked by having weapons that can fire Interceptor. As part of the shooting process, you select units to fire, select a target then select weapons to fire. The shooting process is not limited to the shooting phase as it is invoked by Overwatch and by Interceptor. As there is an explicit sequence in the shooting process, sequencing does not apply.
In order to be able to use sequencing, you have to prove that two rules resolve at the same time and that there are not rules for handling the order in which they resolve.
We have:
1 rule - Interceptor - that has already granted permission for weapons to fire Interceptor. But, weapons don't fire, models within units fire. Which means you are using the shooting sequence.
A shooting sequence that dictates an order for weapon fire to occur. You don't have permission to use only part of the shooting sequence, the basic rule for firing at the enemy. Invoking shooting at a time other than the shooting phase means using the shooting process - the basic rule for handling shooting. You don't get to assume that the basic rule for shooting does not apply, then make further assumptions that some parts of the shooting process must logically follow the step before and therefore must be followed. That is cherry picking part of the rules, and the assumptions for the different steps are unwarranted given the initial assumption that the shooting process doesn't apply. The shooting process was given as the process to resolve firiing. Without that you don't get to assume that firing includes rolling to hit, rolling to damage, allocating wounds and removing casualties.
You agreed that firing Interceptor gives permission to fire at the enemy. GW established that the shooting process is used for firing at the enemy. You use the shooting process when you fire Interceptor. Interceptor does not contain any advanced rules to override the basic rules for the shooting process except that it occurs outside the shooting phase.
No one needs to do anything.
You need to do something.
In order to have PERMISSION to use sequencing.
You need to PROVE that two resolutions occur at the same time.
Your argument is nonsense, just because they CAN FIRE at the same time, does not mean they RESOLVE at the same time.
You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.
Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
The shooting rules prevent this.
If you can demonstrate "If three units are subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then demonstrate "three, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME".
Are you able to point to some other time that an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved" than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"?
If you cannot then the Sequencing rule applies in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have shown this in the case of multiple Interceptor rules. Each interceptor rule is only provided "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time to resolve its rule.
Since the explicit conditions for the Sequencing rule have been met, I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
Yet the shooting rules used for Resolving the Interceptor fire clearly state that only one unit fires at a time, and only one weapon group within a unit fires at one time. This means that the rules are not resolved at the same time. No sequencing for you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 14:32:17
doctortom wrote: I have. They are resolved using the shooting process that are the basic shooting rules and are invoked by having weapons that can fire Interceptor. As part of the shooting process, you select units to fire, select a target then select weapons to fire. The shooting process is not limited to the shooting phase as it is invoked by Overwatch and by Interceptor. As there is an explicit sequence in the shooting process, sequencing does not apply.
Don't forget the Psychic Phase for Witchfires.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Permission is not granted in resolution. You must be having a hard time reading the rules. Interceptor is already applied to the weapon on its profile, it doesn't need permission.
You are making all of this up. You have no quotes to back up any of this. And you are using some non-English definition of 'resolve' that does not correspond the BRB usage.
Then provide the BRB definition of "resolve" to prove him wrong. From what I can see, you were the one having problems with understanding what "resolve" means.
Ceann wrote: No... you haven't proven it, which is precisely the problem.
You claim things you haven't proven.
I don't have to point to another time.
The rules to resolve an iteration of Interceptor are explicit.
You have to point to a rule that explicitly resolves multiple Interceptor rules.
You should start telling the truth. This isn't it. He has pointed to rules. You don't wish to accept them, but everyone else here agrees with it. Saying he hasn't pointed to a rule, even if you don't want to believe the rule, is a gross misrepresentiation of the facts.
Ceann wrote: Two shooting attacks cannot resolve at the same time.
Demonstrate two shooting attacks resolving simultaneously.
You already demonstrated two iterations of Rad Saturation resolving at the same time.
You refuse to repeat the exercise for shooting two weapons now.
Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
What does this have to do with the Sequencing rule?
The Sequencing rule applies to rules, not shooting attacks.
You don't resolve the Interceptor rule unless you also resolve the shooting attack. You carry the rule to the conclusion. The conclusion is when the shooting attack is completed. You've already had standing permission to fire, so the only thing to resolve at that point is shooting - the Interceptor fire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Roknar wrote: This is shaping up to become dakkas version of the eye of terror.
With the mods playing some game none of us mortals understand. Maybe they think the forum as a whole will strive on keeping them locked in eternal battle lol.
The mods are already in 8th edition 40k. They all got caught on the other side of the Great Rift so aren't around to moderate the threads any more.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 15:00:06
Roknar wrote: This is shaping up to become dakkas version of the eye of terror.
With the mods playing some game none of us mortals understand. Maybe they think the forum as a whole will strive on keeping them locked in eternal battle lol.
The mods are already in 8th edition 40k. They all got caught on the other side of the Great Rift so aren't around to moderate the threads any more.
I think we need some serious Primaris Marine reinforcement to drag this thread back to reality.
Roknar wrote: This is shaping up to become dakkas version of the eye of terror.
With the mods playing some game none of us mortals understand. Maybe they think the forum as a whole will strive on keeping them locked in eternal battle lol.
The mods are already in 8th edition 40k. They all got caught on the other side of the Great Rift so aren't around to moderate the threads any more.
I think we need some serious Primaris Marine reinforcement to drag this thread back to reality.
Mods please lock this thread
Do you ever add anything of value?
Nearly half of all your posts in YMDC are quips that have no value to a discussion, or asking to have a thread locked.
The others are merely one or two lines.
Clearly you have no interest in debating anything.
No one is making you read this.
If you want to contribute, then do, if not, then say nothing.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 15:46:48
Roknar wrote: This is shaping up to become dakkas version of the eye of terror.
With the mods playing some game none of us mortals understand. Maybe they think the forum as a whole will thrive by keeping them locked in eternal battle lol.
Maybe you're right! If they just fight here until doomsday we can have the rest of our threads be untouched
Galef wrote: If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
