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.

Can weapons with the Homing rule shoot Interceptor without LoS?

Homing, Tau p66: "Smart missile systems can be fired at targets out of the unit's line of sight."
Interceptor, BRB p38: "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."

After giving your RAW reading, I'd also like HIWPI.

Interceptor won't trigger without LoS, so the SMS' ability doesn't come into consideration.

I'd play it the same way unless a TO change the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
Interceptor won't trigger without LoS, so the SMS' ability doesn't come into consideration.

I'd play it the same way unless a TO change the rules.

That's how I see it too.

Rule as Written :-
I am still back and forth over the direct meaning of the interceptor rule when it talks about line of sight.

On the side that line of sight is ignored in this situation:
The first part of the rule talks about a weapon and the later half also mentions range, something also talking about weapon profiles, right before it puts forth the line of sight restriction. This does set the ground that the line of sight limitation is also weapon related. This is supported by the inclusion of the word it's, creating the clause that the two limitations afterwards are in direct relation to the weapon and not the model, as it was the subject of the rule. If the line of sight requirements are a factor of the weapon, and the weapon allows you to fire regardless of what is in between the weapon and the target, then it stands to reason it can still fire at a target even during the enemies movement phase if a rule allows the model to fire a weapon during this period.

On the side against line of sight:
This falls apart when you take a look at how line of sight is determined and conclude it is independent of weapon. After all, the rules for determining line of sight have nothing to do with the weapons themselves but are something you determine by the model. If the line of sight rules in question are independent of the weapon, then it can not be possible for a weapon to have 'line of sight' in the first place. This would mean any line of sight requirements are not directly linked to a weapon*, and are therefore stand alone limitations that must also be met on their own grounds. This creates a timing issue, meaning you can not use the smart missile systems 'ignore line of sight' special rule because you first have to meet the requirement to evoke the interceptor rule in which the line of sight limitation is stated.

* I am ignoring vehicle based weapon in this situation, as they do have line of sight rules directly linked to the weapon, as interceptor in this case is on a non-vehicle mounted weapon.

How I would play it:
As I play the Tau I will have my opponent make the decision.

If pushed to put forth an answer of my own; I would allow line of sight to be ignored for all purposes if the weapon states it ignores line of sight for any reason, and not pay heed to the timing issue. This is because the line of sight rules are completely broken when it comes to weapons capable of ignoring them. If you do no allow a concessions that all line of sight requirements are ignored by these weapons then you end up in silly situations. Such as the infamous 'can not allocate wounds to models out of line of sight' that plagues the vast majority of weapons capable of ignoring line of sight.