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.

So when we fire overwatch out of phase rules do not work.

Does that include everything? Like lethal, sustain hits? Torrent?

From what I can tell about out of phase actions is that a rule that is triggered because the action takes place does not trigger as it is out of phase.

For example if a unit had a rule that when it fired in the shooting phase it can move 6 inches it would not activate as the action of shooting is taking place out of phase.

This does not effect rules that modify the action. So for example a rule like torrent that modifies the action of shooting by making any to hit roll hit automatically still works. This is also tru for other weapon rules.

It is all confusing and the out of phase rules need to be cleared up.

If a rule doesn't reference a phase, it is not a phase dependent rule and thus can be used out of phase. So anything that affects a shooting attack is fine when doing Overwatch unless it says it happens during the shooting phase.

All the weapon abilities work because none of them reference the shooting phase. The Firing Deck rule states "Each time such a model is selected to shoot in the Shooting phase...". It therefore does not work out of phase as it is limited to the actual shooting phase only.

Got you.

 alextroy wrote:
If a rule doesn't reference a phase, it is not a phase dependent rule and thus can be used out of phase. So anything that affects a shooting attack is fine when doing Overwatch unless it says it happens during the shooting phase.

All the weapon abilities work because none of them reference the shooting phase. The Firing Deck rule states "Each time such a model is selected to shoot in the Shooting phase...". It therefore does not work out of phase as it is limited to the actual shooting phase only.

Phase dependent rule isn't a term

The out of phase rule refers to rules that normally trigger in the phase

Many rules that are normally used in a phase don't name the phase their used In

It's a clearly ambiguous rule

The term trigger is also ambiguous

Some things such as those that name the phase are clearly included

But many other rules vary based on interpretation

The detailed thread on this is here

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/810810.page

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You can certainly over complicate the ideas if you want to. Or you can follow an easy-to-follow ground rule until GW clarifies their rule.

there are clearly different opinions on what that rule should be

But the point of the rules thread is to get at the correct RAW answer or as close to it as possible. Not a simple one that is only loosely based on the rules text because its convenient.

That’s a misrepresentation of a rules thread. Rules threads should be about how to play the game. That’s often RAW, but RAW ad absurdum serves no-one.

How we play the game is RAW or as close to it as possible. Anything else is RAI at best and anything you say is intended your opponent can say is not. That's why we try and ignore RAI as much as possible. Not to mention most of the non raw side statements in this context are not really even RAI arguments their hiwpi simplifications.

No one has suggested RAW ad absurdam in this context - it is a badly written rule that relies on an understanding of two terms that are partially defined in only some contexts.

We just have a contrast between the alextroy style make up an interpretation that doesnt follow RAW- because it makes it easier and more intuitive to understand. (Yes I say make it up because "phase dependent rule" etc is not a thing mentioned anywhere in the rules it is a HIWPI statement masqueradeing as a RAW argument). (Yes I say HIWPI because it is clearly unclear exactly how restrictive this answer should be. They gave one example and it is about as clear cut an example as you could find so it doesn't clear anything up)

Vs

Following the standard convention of playing the RAW how it is actually written whether we like the outcome or not. Which means acknowledgeing that there are some clear cases everyone agrees on like the example. Some answers that are clear under RAW but are unintuitive like meteoric descent not working and a few edge cases that are open to interpretation depending on exactly what counts as a trigger or normally during a phase. Which is of course an unsatisfying answer but the correct answer to a badly written rule often is.