Interceptor and Markerlights

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.

**Elric Greywolf**

Brainstorming for a new Tau player came up with the idea of Intercepting Riptide supported by Intercepting markerlights. I thought up a potential rules problem for the Tau, and bring it here for confirmation.

First, the relevant rules:

Sequencing
"You'll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time.... The player whose turn it is chooses the order."

Interceptor:
"At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired...."

Markerlights:
"Markerlight counters remain next to their unit until the end of the current phase."

While the Shooting phase has instructions on how to sequentially resolve each unit's shooting attack, Interceptor doesn't have this. Therefore, all the Interceptor attacks happen at the same time, at the end of the phase.
The Tau can decide what order to shoot the weapons. Markerlights go first so that Riptide can benefit.
Markerlights expire at the same time Interceptor shots are made, at the end of the pase. Since it's the enemy player's turn and these two things happen at the same time, he can say that Markerlights expire before Riptide fires.

Yes?

**Quanar**

a) What unit has an Intercepting Markerlight?

b) Both Intercepting units "happen" at the same time, due to the Sequencing rule you've already mentioned, the deep striking player could just force the Riptide to fire first and then whatever the Markerlight unit is?

**Elric Greywolf**

a) Not sure, not a Tau player myself. Someone was talking about some sort of Buffmander who can hand it out?

b) Sequencing refers to when different rules conflict. Interceptor is the same rule, and with two dfft units both using the same rule, the controlling player (ie. the Tau player) gets to decide which unit shoots first. The enemy player cannot force the controlling player to shoot units in a certain order.

**Kommissar Kel**

Sequenceing is not limited to different rules.

Reserves/deepstrike is a good example of multiple instances of the same rule that all resolve at the same time in which the Sequencing rule comes into effect. You roll for all your reserves at the beginning of your turn and they then come in "simultaneously" at the start of your movement phase. You choose the order in which those units arrive because it is your turn.

In the case of multiple interceptors; the active player does technically get to dictate the order in which you fire(although I know of no one who actually plays it this way)

In function, while RAW, forcing a tau player to fire the markerlights last is kind of a TFG move.

**Dakka Wolf**

Kommissar Kel wrote:
Sequenceing is not limited to different rules.

Reserves/deepstrike is a good example of multiple instances of the same rule that all resolve at the same time in which the Sequencing rule comes into effect. You roll for all your reserves at the beginning of your turn and they then come in "simultaneously" at the start of your movement phase. You choose the order in which those units arrive because it is your turn.

In the case of multiple interceptors; the active player does technically get to dictate the order in which you fire(although I know of no one who actually plays it this way)

In function, while RAW, forcing a tau player to fire the markerlights last is kind of a TFG move.

Playing Tau in general revolves around being TFG, if you aren't TFG you lose.
In casual I'd let him have his marker lights and shots, in a tournament I'd be forcing the expiry first. Cover is one of the best protective measures for deep-striking units and you risk it big to get that cover, no way am I letting the Tau player get ignores cover on interceptor fire and most judges I've encountered will go with RAW on that one.

**die toten hosen**

Dakka Wolf wrote:
Kommissar Kel wrote:
Sequenceing is not limited to different rules.

Reserves/deepstrike is a good example of multiple instances of the same rule that all resolve at the same time in which the Sequencing rule comes into effect. You roll for all your reserves at the beginning of your turn and they then come in "simultaneously" at the start of your movement phase. You choose the order in which those units arrive because it is your turn.

In the case of multiple interceptors; the active player does technically get to dictate the order in which you fire(although I know of no one who actually plays it this way)

In function, while RAW, forcing a tau player to fire the markerlights last is kind of a TFG move.

Playing Tau in general revolves around being TFG, if you aren't TFG you lose.
In casual I'd let him have his marker lights and shots, in a tournament I'd be forcing the expiry first. Cover is one of the best protective measures for deep-striking units and you risk it big to get that cover, no way am I letting the Tau player get ignores cover on interceptor fire and most judges I've encountered will go with RAW on that one.

So you're totally not biased against Tau in anyway?
Basically you would just throw a hissy-fit till you got your way is what im getting from this?

Saying all tau players have to have a TFG mindset is horribly incorrect, maybe your local players are TFG i dont know.
I play a very competitive Tau list and am generally well liked and wouldn't consider myself a TFG in the least, and my gaming group is such that if i was one they would tell me.
so slow your roll there.

Back to topic, I have always read it as you declare intercepting units and then start creating hit/wound pools starting where-ever as, unless i missed a section, you are not told which unit has to interceptor first.

**jeffersonian000**

The Drone-Net formation grants intercept to it's Drones, of which you can start off with 4 squads of Marker Drones.

SJ

**Vector Strike**

AFAIK, there's only 2 ways to get Interceptor MLs:
- Drone-Net VX0-1, from Mont'ka and Farsight Enclaves supplements.
- One of the Crisis armor variants from Imperial Armour 3. It comes with a Networked ML, and you can gice interceptor to the Crisis using it (or the Commander, as it can buy the variant).

**Lord Perversor**

Kommissar Kel wrote:
Sequenceing is not limited to different rules.

Reserves/deepstrike is a good example of multiple instances of the same rule that all resolve at the same time in which the Sequencing rule comes into effect. You roll for all your reserves at the beginning of your turn and they then come in "simultaneously" at the start of your movement phase. You choose the order in which those units arrive because it is your turn.

In the case of multiple interceptors; the active player does technically get to dictate the order in which you fire(although I know of no one who actually plays it this way)

In function, while RAW, forcing a tau player to fire the markerlights last is kind of a TFG move.

albeit with some exceptions about sequencing like this Faq shows.

https://scontent.fmad3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/s960x960/13497611_1640088732978426_7616278738916625067_o.jpg

**kambien**

Kommissar Kel wrote:
Sequenceing is not limited to different rules.

Reserves/deepstrike is a good example of multiple instances of the same rule that all resolve at the same time in which the Sequencing rule comes into effect. You roll for all your reserves at the beginning of your turn and they then come in "simultaneously" at the start of your movement phase. You choose the order in which those units arrive because it is your turn.

In the case of multiple interceptors; the active player does technically get to dictate the order in which you fire(although I know of no one who actually plays it this way)

In function, while RAW, forcing a tau player to fire the markerlights last is kind of a TFG move.

So according to your logic , a unit charging the tau line and the tau player chooses to overwatch the charging player gets to determine who shoots overwatch in what order ?

**Dakka Wolf**

die toten hosen wrote:
Dakka Wolf wrote:
Kommissar Kel wrote:
Sequenceing is not limited to different rules.

Reserves/deepstrike is a good example of multiple instances of the same rule that all resolve at the same time in which the Sequencing rule comes into effect. You roll for all your reserves at the beginning of your turn and they then come in "simultaneously" at the start of your movement phase. You choose the order in which those units arrive because it is your turn.

In the case of multiple interceptors; the active player does technically get to dictate the order in which you fire(although I know of no one who actually plays it this way)

In function, while RAW, forcing a tau player to fire the markerlights last is kind of a TFG move.

Playing Tau in general revolves around being TFG, if you aren't TFG you lose.
In casual I'd let him have his marker lights and shots, in a tournament I'd be forcing the expiry first. Cover is one of the best protective measures for deep-striking units and you risk it big to get that cover, no way am I letting the Tau player get ignores cover on interceptor fire and most judges I've encountered will go with RAW on that one.

So you're totally not biased against Tau in anyway?
Basically you would just throw a hissy-fit till you got your way is what im getting from this?

Saying all tau players have to have a TFG mindset is horribly incorrect, maybe your local players are TFG i dont know.
I play a very competitive Tau list and am generally well liked and wouldn't consider myself a TFG in the least, and my gaming group is such that if i was one they would tell me.
so slow your roll there.

Back to topic, I have always read it as you declare intercepting units and then start creating hit/wound pools starting where-ever as, unless i missed a section, you are not told which unit has to interceptor first.

Nope, not biased against Tau in any way, I hate most xenos equally just for different reasons, including my own Tyranids, only exception is Orcs, Orc players are so regularly awesome, talkative and colourful, that it's hard not to look forwards to Orc matches.
I stand by that TFG jab. Every successful Tau player I've encountered in competitive grinds the rules to the extreme, demands a re-check on every rule that grants an extra inch to movement - sometimes several times in a match on the same rule and same squad, complains about night fighting, claims that Deep Strike on the first turn is broken, sets up terrain so they're effectively in a fortress and makes weird little choking noises whenever you manage to destroy one of their expensive guns on the first turn. So yeah, forcing them to abide by anything they don't like is damn good fun and rather satisfying, best part is I'm rarely the one who calls the judge over so watching the face as the judge disagrees with them is just a cherry.

Back on topic.
What your opponent would be saying is that all these units firing with interceptor would be firing at the same time, all triggers being pulled at the same time for the same triggering event there wouldn't be two sub phases where the marker light units hit then the other units can aim and fire, just a single triggering event and reaction.

**jeffersonian000**

Except the "one event, everone fires so no marklights" is not how it works in the BRB. Per the recent FAQs, interceptor is treated is its own shooting phase, which means weapon groups and supporting fire. If your intercepting markerlights are in range to supporting fire, you can legally shoot those first, then the other intercepting units can fire using the markerlight tokens.

SJ

**Kommissar Kel**

kambien wrote:
Kommissar Kel wrote:
Sequenceing is not limited to different rules.

Reserves/deepstrike is a good example of multiple instances of the same rule that all resolve at the same time in which the Sequencing rule comes into effect. You roll for all your reserves at the beginning of your turn and they then come in "simultaneously" at the start of your movement phase. You choose the order in which those units arrive because it is your turn.

In the case of multiple interceptors; the active player does technically get to dictate the order in which you fire(although I know of no one who actually plays it this way)

In function, while RAW, forcing a tau player to fire the markerlights last is kind of a TFG move.

So according to your logic , a unit charging the tau line and the tau player chooses to overwatch the charging player gets to determine who shoots overwatch in what order ?

That is exactly what the BRB says in plain language, yes.

But note how I also say that no one actually plays it that way; and to force the weapon order(for all overwatch, not just tau) is a tfg move.

**chalkobob**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
Except the "one event, everone fires so no marklights" is not how it works in the BRB. Per the recent FAQs, interceptor is treated is its own shooting phase, which means weapon groups and supporting fire. If your intercepting markerlights are in range to supporting fire, you can legally shoot those first, then the other intercepting units can fire using the markerlight tokens.

SJ

Yup, as of the FAQ Tau player chooses the order for interceptor. Pre FAQ the opposing player chose.

**barnowl**

While I don't have it in fron tof me at the moment, I believe the rules for Markerlights cover this. Even though all shooting happens at the same time, Markerlights fire "first".

**Mulletdude**

barnowl wrote:
While I don't have it in fron tof me at the moment, I believe the rules for Markerlights cover this. Even though all shooting happens at the same time, Markerlights fire "first".

All shooting does NOT happen at the same time. Otherwise how are you supposed to kill a transport and the dudes that pop out in the same turn?

**Elric Greywolf**

I don't remember reading that FAQ. Can someone point it out?

**Charistoph**

Mulletdude wrote:
barnowl wrote:
While I don't have it in fron tof me at the moment, I believe the rules for Markerlights cover this. Even though all shooting happens at the same time, Markerlights fire "first".

All shooting does NOT happen at the same time. Otherwise how are you supposed to kill a transport and the dudes that pop out in the same turn?

Correct. All of a weapon group shooting happens at the same time. If they are different Weapons, there are considered shooting at different times.

I will note that all of a unit's shooting was done at the same time in the previous edition.

Elric Greywolf wrote:I don't remember reading that FAQ. Can someone point it out?

It's on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page, and there is a rather large thread on it here.

**Elric Greywolf**

That was completely unhelpful. I am aware of the existence of the Draft FAQ.
Where is the answer that was referenced in this thread?

**Kommissar Kel**

Teach a man to fish.

You know where the FAQ is, you know the topic of discussion here.

So go to the faq and look under relevant topics.

Questions to ask yourself:

Is there an FAQ just on interceptor?

What topic would interceptor be under?

And finally; is there any other topics that might involve what I am looking for?

**Elric Greywolf**

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a single night.
Light a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

I didn't realise how unhelpful Dakka had grown lately. I dislike the change in attitude.

Since asking didn't work, I'll claim that I do not believe that FAQ exists. Can anyone cite a reference for me?

**Kriswall**

Elric Greywolf wrote:
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a single night.
Light a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

I didn't realise how unhelpful Dakka had grown lately. I dislike the change in attitude.

Since asking didn't work, I'll claim that I do not believe that FAQ exists. Can anyone cite a reference for me?

Amen brother. This isn't an example of someone asking for rules that are normally only available in a source requiring payment. I'd post the answer for you, but couldn't find it. Both Facebook and the link earlier in the thread are work blocked for me, so I can't go to the source.

Maybe one of the others will feel a hint of benevolence and post the actual rules they're talking about.

**Quanar**

I'd also like a reference. We haven't had the Tau FAQ yet, and there doesn't seem to anything relevant under:
Weapons (since Interceptor is nominally a "weapon" rule, I checked here)
Special Rules
Skyfire and Interceptor
Shooting Phase
Overwatch

Couldn't find anything pertinent.

I also checked the current FAQ, nothing there either.

So, please do tell us, which ruling are you referring to? Without me trawling through the entire lot with a fine-tooth-comb, tell me the page title at least?

**jeffersonian000**

Do you mean someone should repost the citation from earlier in this thread? Or do you mean someone should repost the link that is already posted in it's own thread?

Pretty sure the lack of acquiescence has more to do with forum tenets than general unhelpfulness.

SJ

**Quanar**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
Do you mean someone should repost the citation from earlier in this thread? Or do you mean someone should repost the link that is already posted in it's own thread?

~~The Blood Angels quote? Where the decision is made by the active player on the order it resolves using the sequencing rule so that he gets the rules happening in his desired order?~~ {Edit} Misread your statement, sorry. You were referring to the link in the FAQ thread {/Edit}

Really, was after a direction to the "Per the recent FAQs, interceptor is treated is its own shooting phase" and "Yup, as of the FAQ Tau player chooses the order for interceptor." lines.

**Kriswall**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
Do you mean someone should repost the citation from earlier in this thread? Or do you mean someone should repost the link that is already posted in it's own thread?

Pretty sure the lack of acquiescence has more to do with forum tenets than general unhelpfulness.

SJ

Which forum tenet prevents someone from posting a FAQ quote? Here are the YMDC Forum Tenets, for convenience.

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

NOPE

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

NOPE

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

NOPE

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

NOPE

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

NOPE

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

NOPE

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

NOPE

7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

NOPE

Hmmm... looks like there isn't an actual tenet against citing freely available FAQs. Not everyone has access to Facebook at all moments of the day and the link posted earlier in this thread is work blocked for many people.

This sub-forum really has developed a hostile attitude towards simply answering questions.

If anything, Tenet#1 would require you to post the actual citation and not rely on your audience to go find it themselves.

**Charistoph**

Elric Greywolf wrote:
That was completely unhelpful. I am aware of the existence of the Draft FAQ.
Where is the answer that was referenced in this thread?

I was unaware you knew of the Draft FAQ and were asking which section it was in.

Your responses since have only added fuel towards this attitude you perceive.

**jeffersonian000**

Kriswall wrote:
jeffersonian000 wrote:
Do you mean someone should repost the citation from earlier in this thread? Or do you mean someone should repost the link that is already posted in it's own thread?

Pretty sure the lack of acquiescence has more to do with forum tenets than general unhelpfulness.

SJ

Which forum tenet prevents someone from posting a FAQ quote? Here are the YMDC Forum Tenets, for convenience.

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

NOPE

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

NOPE

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

NOPE

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

NOPE

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

NOPE

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

NOPE

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

NOPE

7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

NOPE

Hmmm... looks like there isn't an actual tenet against citing freely available FAQs. Not everyone has access to Facebook at all moments of the day and the link posted earlier in this thread is work blocked for many people.

This sub-forum really has developed a hostile attitude towards simply answering questions.

If anything, Tenet#1 would require you to post the actual citation and not rely on your audience to go find it themselves.

Looks like #5 covers this response.

SJ

**Kriswall**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
Kriswall wrote:
jeffersonian000 wrote:
Do you mean someone should repost the citation from earlier in this thread? Or do you mean someone should repost the link that is already posted in it's own thread?

Pretty sure the lack of acquiescence has more to do with forum tenets than general unhelpfulness.

SJ

Which forum tenet prevents someone from posting a FAQ quote? Here are the YMDC Forum Tenets, for convenience.

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

NOPE

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

NOPE

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

NOPE

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

NOPE

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

NOPE

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

NOPE

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

NOPE

7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

NOPE

Hmmm... looks like there isn't an actual tenet against citing freely available FAQs. Not everyone has access to Facebook at all moments of the day and the link posted earlier in this thread is work blocked for many people.

This sub-forum really has developed a hostile attitude towards simply answering questions.

If anything, Tenet#1 would require you to post the actual citation and not rely on your audience to go find it themselves.

Looks like #5 covers this response.

SJ

#5 prevents someone from citing the specific FAQ quote? I don't see how.

**jeffersonian000**

I was referencing the "attacking the poster" part.

And my point was about not using the forum as an on-line rulebook by feeding rules to people. As a forum, we generally answer a question with simple responses, followed up with pointing out where to find specific answers, and then finally citing exact lanquage if there is a debate. There is no debate here, though, and the relevent ruling has been cited.

SJ