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.

 ductvader wrote:
I'd like to see where you think you can ignore the whole process.

What am I ignoring?

The overwatch rule explicitly states that it uses the normal shooting rules...but for your opponent's assault phase.

Correct!

And automatically decides...using the normal rules for shooting.

Correct!

...which you're throwing out the window.

Incorrect! I'm applying every written rule. You're selectively ignoring one for no reason and refusing to cite a reason.

We're talking in circles.

Well, one of us has provided rules every time he's been asked. The other one of us has not. Therefore only one of us has a rules based argument. Which one of us is that?

At the very least can you see where this requires an FAQ?

Not at all. You're making assumptions that the rules don't support to create a false environment where a FAQ would be good. If you don't make those false assumptions everything works fine.

No, I do not think this was intentionally written to be this way by GW. Yes, I think it's perfectly legal and befitting the game that a unit can only fire once per turn.

I couldn't care less one way or the other - I have literally no Interceptor models available to me in my primary army.
I think the right place to look for an FAQ would be that firing Interceptor forbids more shooting including Overwatch, not just in the next shooting phase.

Ha, you can see where that would be difficult to interpret...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And rgeld, you've been asking me to provide rules for points I don't believe or wish to back up.

I personally feel like you've convoluted the argument left and right because you've taken this personally in some way.

I've already stated my belief in its most simple form time and time again you've continuously dodged it in favor of witch hunt questions.

 ductvader wrote:
Ha, you can see where that would be difficult to interpret...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And rgeld, you've been asking me to provide rules for points I don't believe or wish to back up.

I personally feel like you've convoluted the argument left and right because you've taken this personally in some way.

I've already stated my belief in its most simple form time and time again you've continuously dodged it in favor of witch hunt questions.

You are saying that even though the Overwatch rules pick the unit to fire, you must meet the nomination requirements to be able to fire (that is, you must not have fired this turn). Is that correct?
I'd hate to put words in your mouth and don't mean to.

I am saying that overwatch picks the unit that can fire based on the normal rules for shooting with the exception of it occuring in your enemy's assault phase.

 ductvader wrote:
I am saying that overwatch picks the unit that can fire based on the normal rules for shooting with the exception of it occuring in your enemy's assault phase.

Yes, we're aware of the fact that you're attempting a shooting attack in the enemy's assault phase. You have permission to attempt that. Now, can you do me a favor and list the requirements for nomination and what - exact - rule satisfies or denies which requirement?

I want to make sure we're on the same page.

If a model fires intercept in movement phase, and is not allowed to fire in the next shooting phase,

and the rules for overwatch follow the rules for shooting it would make sense that the model could not fire overwatch as it may not fire until after its next shooting phase.

However RAW there is no statement ruling on intercept versus overwatch so despite the fact logic shows that it should not be able to fire overwatch, it is still allowed to fire overwatch and may not fire in its next shooting phase until a FAQ comes out and says otherwise.

RAI- If a model fires intercept and is now allowed to fire in its next turn, it shouldn't be firing overwatch before that as well as overwatch follows all the rules for shooting. However it does state if the model has another weapon it can be fired in the next turn, its the weapon that cannot fire not the model.

RAW- it doesnt say it cannot fire at all, interceptor is a special rule and special rules modify normal rules. Overwatch is not a special rule, it is a normal rule, and it should follow all the rules for shooting. Interceptor does modify shooting in the next turn, and the rules as written have overwatch as a normal rule, so we should consider that as written interceptor was written with overwatch considered and if they wanted to include overwatch, they would have. However, they did not.

For the third time, that is not the question in play.

rigeld, I will respond when I have both the resources and time to do so, I sincerely apologize as I am currently preoccupied and thoroughly enjoy the track we're currently on.

blaktoof wrote:
If a model fires intercept in movement phase, and is not allowed to fire in the next shooting phase,

and the rules for overwatch follow the rules for shooting it would make sense that the model could not fire overwatch as it may not fire until after its next shooting phase.

However RAW there is no statement ruling on intercept versus overwatch so despite the fact logic shows that it should not be able to fire overwatch, it is still allowed to fire overwatch and may not fire in its next shooting phase until a FAQ comes out and says otherwise.

RAI- If a model fires intercept and is now allowed to fire in its next turn, it shouldn't be firing overwatch before that as well as overwatch follows all the rules for shooting. However it does state if the model has another weapon it can be fired in the next turn, its the weapon that cannot fire not the model.

RAW- it doesnt say it cannot fire at all, interceptor is a special rule and special rules modify normal rules. Overwatch is not a special rule, it is a normal rule, and it should follow all the rules for shooting. Interceptor does modify shooting in the next turn, and the rules as written have overwatch as a normal rule, so we should consider that as written interceptor was written with overwatch considered and if they wanted to include overwatch, they would have. However, they did not.

Please do people the courtesy of actually reading the thread - including the OP - and not just making assumptions based on the title.

This is actually fairly simple. Interceptor says "...the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn...", thus you can fire the weapons as normal until the next (player) turn.

If you used interceptor on your opponent's movement phase, your weapon can not be fired on your turn. However, you are still able to overwatch with that weapon since it is still the same turn you used interceptor.

If you use interceptor on your movement phase due to Necron Deathmarks, you would still be able to fire your weapons normally in your shooting phase since it is still the same turn you used interceptor. However, you would not be able to use interceptor on your opponent's movement phase, or overwatch unless you has another weapon you can fire.

Since interceptor says you can't fire the weapon in the next (player) turn, it doesn't matter if the model can fire or not, it is the weapon that is restricted.

EDIT: I'm not sure you are even allowed to nominate any other targets with overwatch. The only way I can think you can bypass that is by using a Target Lock, but that is really sketchy. With the Tau Supporting Fire special rule says you count as being charged so you follow all rules for overwatch as normal.

I need to reread the overwatch rule, but I think it states that you skip the nomination step because you can't fire at any other unit then the one you are charging.

 Nilok wrote:
Since interceptor says you can't fire the weapon in the next (player) turn, it doesn't matter if the model can fire or not, it is the weapon that is restricted.

Please read the OP - the argument being made has literally nothing to do with the rules for Interceptor.

EDIT: I'm not sure you are even allowed to nominate any other targets with overwatch. The only way I can think you can bypass that is by using a Target Lock, but that is really sketchy. With the Tau Supporting Fire special rule says you count as being charged so you follow all rules for overwatch as normal.

Reading the thread is fundamental.

Read all the pages, not sure why you are saying its not pertinent.

[OP summary] "overwatch cannot be fired on the same turn as interceptor"

whats the problem?

blaktoof wrote:
Read all the pages, not sure why you are saying its not pertinent.

[OP summary] "overwatch cannot be fired on the same turn as interceptor"

whats the problem?

Because you missed his point. The point he's bringing up isn't that interceptor denies overwatch - it doesn't.
It's that a unit is only allowed to be nominated to fire a shooting attack if it hasn't already fired that (player) turn.

By continuing to harp on the rules for interceptor you have completely failed to actually understand what you read.

actually the OP was referring to the interceptor rules, he is putting forward that the interceptor rules prevent the over-watch from being able to shoot having already shot that turn using intercept.

I have read through the thread and to be honest you guys lost me around halfway down page two when you went off on tangents about nominating targets and whatnot.

the OP was surmising that if you have intercepted that you cannot overwatch if you are charged in the subsequent assault phase, to which he is inaccurate in his summation.

so with interceptor only appliying it's restriction in the following turn, overwatch is resolved normally, as there is no restriction in place to use the weapon, Overwatch has it's list of restrictions on p21, ergo having fired interceptor is neither on that list nor a preventative factor there.

the shooting rules for nomination do not apply, you are 'resolving a shooting attack' to resolve a shooting attack an attack must be made, in a permissive ruleset specific permission is granted to shoot by the overwatch rule itself.

hell the overwatch rule even lists what rules are used, range, LOS, cover, and so on. all of which come in after the initial steps.

in conclusion, overwatch as a rule trumps the standard restrictions by granting permission and has its own set of restrictions, neither intercept nor overwatch care if the unit has done or will do the other, the rules on page 12 even state that examples of special rules will explain thoroughly when oddities occur to which overwatch does.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Read all the pages, not sure why you are saying its not pertinent.

[OP summary] "overwatch cannot be fired on the same turn as interceptor"

whats the problem?

Because you missed his point. The point he's bringing up isn't that interceptor denies overwatch - it doesn't.
It's that a unit is only allowed to be nominated to fire a shooting attack if it hasn't already fired that (player) turn.

By continuing to harp on the rules for interceptor you have completely failed to actually understand what you read.

you complain that people are not reading the OP

people replying read the OP, and you and the OP are arguing about nominating units starting page 2.

Then your upset that people are discussing the OP.

You need to calm down.

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Read all the pages, not sure why you are saying its not pertinent.

[OP summary] "overwatch cannot be fired on the same turn as interceptor"

whats the problem?

Because you missed his point. The point he's bringing up isn't that interceptor denies overwatch - it doesn't.
It's that a unit is only allowed to be nominated to fire a shooting attack if it hasn't already fired that (player) turn.

By continuing to harp on the rules for interceptor you have completely failed to actually understand what you read.

you complain that people are not reading the OP

people replying read the OP, and you and the OP are arguing about nominating units starting page 2.

Then your upset that people are discussing the OP.

You need to calm down.

So I'm just imagining this in the OP?

This is the important part. Pg 21, the shooting sequence is outlined in the grey box in the bottom left corner.

First bullet point says this: "1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to, BUT HAS NOT YET, fire this turn."


And as mentioned before regarding player turn vs game turn, that situation refers to player turn.


So, if a model wishes to fire overwatch at a charging enemy, but has shot previously this *player* turn due to Interceptor, it cannot fire overwatch because that goes against the normal rules for shooting, which overwatch much follow.

So again - the rules for interceptor have literally nothing to do with this. Stop bringing them up.

So, if a model wishes to fire overwatch at a charging enemy, but has shot previously this *player* turn due to Interceptor, it cannot fire overwatch because that goes against the normal rules for shooting, which overwatch much follow.

I fail to see how you say intercept has no bearing on this discussion when you quote the above.

blaktoof wrote:

So, if a model wishes to fire overwatch at a charging enemy, but has shot previously this *player* turn due to Interceptor, it cannot fire overwatch because that goes against the normal rules for shooting, which overwatch much follow.

I fail to see how you say intercept has no bearing on this discussion when you quote the above.

The rules for interceptor don't. The fact that it fires does. Again, a failure to understand.

edit:

blaktoof wrote:
If a model fires intercept in movement phase, and is not allowed to fire in the next shooting phase,

and the rules for overwatch follow the rules for shooting it would make sense that the model could not fire overwatch as it may not fire until after its next shooting phase.

Here you're discussing the issue using the rules for interceptor - I bolded where you brought them up. It's an irrelevant statement.

Gah, Why did the OP have to mention interceptor at all? The original post has nothing to do with the interceptor rules. They are superfluous to his point.

The general point of contention, and the OP's entire argument, is that a unit cannot fire overwatch in the same turn that it has already fired, for any reason including, but not limited to having fired an interceptor weapon.

Here is the problem. "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."

What exactly does "and so on" cover? Does it include a restriction to fire if the unit has already fired? Is that restriction only part of nominating that unit to fire? Do we still technically pick a unit to fire from a set of 1? None of these are answerable in RAW becouse "and so on" is wonderfully vague. That means its an RAI discussion. If the intent was to limit overwatch to units that have not fired this turn why not say that in the overwatch restrictions? They specifically deny units that have already fired other overwatch shots, a sub set of units that have already fired for any reason. If the intent was for 'and so on' to limit overwatch to units that have not fired that turn then wouldn't that line in the overwatch restrictions have mentioned that instead of just previous overwatch shots?

Seems pretty clear. You can Overwatch and use Interceptor in the same turn.

I find your statements highly irrelevant. as they have nothing to do with the OP and other people have replied with comments on the OP.

The OP brought up Intercept as did you, and the things you have quoted and responded to all regard intercept, which this discussion is hinged upon.

if interecept was not part of this discussion it would simply be a discussion on Overwatch, which it obviously isn't.

Can you return to discussing intercept/overwatch and stop complaining about what you think is relevant?

 Caboose wrote:


OR the third option (what the rules actually say) of you cant use both interceptor and overwatch in the same *player* turn because youre only allowed to make one shooting action per *player* turn... You skipped that option...

Blaktoof, this is the original poster's contention from midway through the thread. The nomination discussion is relevant to the section which I've bolded.

blaktoof wrote:
I find your statements highly irrelevant. as they have nothing to do with the OP and other people have replied with comments on the OP.

The OP brought up Intercept as did you, and the things you have quoted and responded to all regard intercept, which this discussion is hinged upon.

if interecept was not part of this discussion it would simply be a discussion on Overwatch, which it obviously isn't.

Can you return to discussing intercept/overwatch and stop complaining about what you think is relevant?

Not sure if you are trolling or what. Have you really read ALL the posts in this thread? It seems evident that you haven't.

extremefreak17 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
I find your statements highly irrelevant. as they have nothing to do with the OP and other people have replied with comments on the OP.

The OP brought up Intercept as did you, and the things you have quoted and responded to all regard intercept, which this discussion is hinged upon.

if interecept was not part of this discussion it would simply be a discussion on Overwatch, which it obviously isn't.

Can you return to discussing intercept/overwatch and stop complaining about what you think is relevant?

Not sure if you are trolling or what. Have you really read ALL the posts in this thread? It seems evident that you haven't.

Not sure if you are trolling, I dont think you read my post.

Interceptor was brought up by OP and others throughout thread because it is one of the few ways you can fire during opponents turn.

Overwatch says you may fire during opponents turn following the shooting rules.

The conflict the OP suggest is that because you have already fired you may not fire overwatch because its on the same turn, shooting rules state you fire once during a turn.

In my post I stated RAW interceptor doesnt say you may not fire overwatch, its int he same book and RAW goes on to discuss the future ie your next shooting phase. As intercept shots happen before overwatch and in the same book wherein the two rules exist there is no rule stating that you may not fire overwatch shots, it shows that RAW there is no conflict between the two.

If there is no conflict between the two then there is no problem with firing more than once in a turn, in regards to overwatch firing after already previously firing in the turn [interceptor]




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Selicate wrote:

 Caboose wrote:


OR the third option (what the rules actually say) of you cant use both interceptor and overwatch in the same *player* turn because youre only allowed to make one shooting action per *player* turn... You skipped that option...

Blaktoof, this is the original poster's contention from midway through the thread. The nomination discussion is relevant to the section which I've bolded.

yep...

thats what I was replying to.

I understand what the argument is about, but I don't think it really works.

#1 IMO, the 'rule' you're quibbling about is in a summary box, and as such is a paraphrasing of the 'actual' rules.
#2 The 'actual' rules (those outside the summary box) follow nearly identical wording to the rules for eg Movement.
#3 If you apply the same logic to other actions - that performing a similar action 'out of phase' is beholden to the restrictions and limits in the 'correct phase' - you might find that you are similarly unable to 'move' your models in the shooting/assault phase because they have already moved their maximum movement distance that turn.



(#4 - the wording in the reference section is different again, and says 'choose one of your units that has not yet acted in this Shooting phase...' )

Im not buying the assumption that you skip the nomination step. Mostly because its situational that the nomination is automatic. Lets use Tau as its the best example.

You have a broadside with inteceptor, a crisis suit with interceptor, and a unit of fire warriors, all with in 6 inches of each other. You have two unit of assault marines in 7 inches.

The Broadside and the crisis suit fired interceptor in the marines movement phase.

First unit of assault marines declares a charge at the broadside.

Now, nominations take place for overwatch... Potential of multiple targets, and potential of multiple shooters...

No longer "automatic" as several people have assumed.

Discuss.

 Caboose wrote:
Im not buying the assumption that you skip the nomination step. Mostly because its situational that the nomination is automatic. Lets use Tau as its the best example.

Even in your example its not situational. It's still automatic - it's just that all 3 happen at the same time. I'm really not sure why you think that's "situational."
The rules used don't change based on the number of assaulters, so it can't be situational.

edit: And again - assuming you do not skip the nomination step, why are you ignoring one of the requirements for a normal overwatch shot?

Yes it does. You have to choose the order of shooters, if they will shoot, who gets shot at, and in what order... I dont see how thats an automatic decision.

By your logic, there are no choices to the shooting phase, because its automatic that you you must shoot one of your units at one of the enemies.

Automatic means you have no choice. I understand your argument if there is one shooter and one assaulter, but when presented with multiples of each, you must make choices, hence the situational aspect and removal of the "automatic" resolution.


EDIT: Im not ignoring the "requirements" for a "normal" overwatch shot. Im showing why your argument of "automatic nomination" is invalid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:
#1 IMO, the 'rule' you're quibbling about is in a summary box, and as such is a paraphrasing of the 'actual' rules.

Well, if you take that perspective of ignoring summary boxes and bullet points, then you might as well stop using Look Out Sir, Ballistic SKill 6+, Go to Ground, etc, which are all in side of page boxes, and have bullet points.

Even if there is only one unit eligible to fire overwatch, I would say the nomination isn't any more automatic than it is if it's your shooting phase and you only have one unit left on the board. You still have to nominate that unit to shoot, and meet the requirements set forth on page 12 for nominating a unit.

The fact that the "Shooting Sequence" box on page 12 is a summary of the shooting sequence doesn't make the words written there meaningless. It just means we need to see the relevant section of the chapter to get the complete rules and all the caveats for that step in the sequence. Incidentally, step one of the shooting sequence in that box is the only place I can see that specifically says you cannot shoot twice in one turn with a unit, so it better be important (or else my turn 1 shooting phase will consist of two basilisks taking turns firing until your whole army is dead).

Now that we have established that the verbiage of that summary box is indeed important, on to the "Nominate Unit to Shoot" section of the chapter to see what additional information we can find beyond what's in the summary. This section is about 7 sentences long and only says a few things:
- "During the Shooting Phase"
- unit must be armed with ranged weapons
- unit cannot be locked in close combat
- unit cannot be running
- "This is not a comprehensive list"

The overwatch rules provide an exception to the Shooting Phase requirement, even if it isn't lawyer-like enough for rigeld2 (I'm sorry, but you're pants-on-head if you think RAW prevents you from firing overwatch at all because it isn't the Shooting Phase). It doesn't provide exceptions for anything else, including nominating which unit is shooting (which is good, because Tau supporting fire potentially makes things messy in that regard). Just because only one unit is eligible to shoot does not mean you skip the first step in the shooting sequence, it just means you're nominating a unit to shoot from a pool of 1 eligible units.

I wouldn't call this clear-cut but I would say there's a good case to be made that overwatch follows the normal shooting rules and the normal shooting rules say you can shoot once per player turn.

You dont choose WHO they will shoot at, as the charges are declared, and resolved, one at a time. There is no choice in the matter - if marine unit A declares a charge, and you declare you will overwatch, you WILL overwatch that unit. No choice is possible in which unit you shoot at.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You dont choose WHO they will shoot at, as the charges are declared, and resolved, one at a time. There is no choice in the matter - if marine unit A declares a charge, and you declare you will overwatch, you WILL overwatch that unit. No choice is possible in which unit you shoot at.

The issue is not who you're shooting at. It's step 1 of the Shooting Sequence:

"Nominate Unit to Shoot: Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire [sic] this turn"

Whether you have 1 unit eligible to shoot or 10, doesn't matter, you still have to nominate them to shoot.