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:
If nomination never occurs, then you also wouldn't be allowed to choose a unit to shoot when one unit is charging two of your shooting units.

Does it happen simultaneously? If so are you then required to roll all the shooting for both units in the same hand? If not, it's not simultaneous and one unit had to have been nominated to shoot first. How do you decide after that which models to pull first? The models that are closest to unit A or unit B?

The nomination step is integral in deciding overwatch.

the ONLY time this can currently happen is with the Tau, and in that instance you would refer to the specific rules that allow this to happen, in this instance, the supporting fire SR which dictates that the units within the area of effect can fire overwatch too as if they were being charged, this is an exception to the normal rules for overwatch, in this instance although the shots happen simultaneously as at any one time they are all 'counted' as being charged, this is the only occasion where the shooting player orders the units resolutions, as you may only resolve one unit at a time with the normal rules for shooting due to there being no all encompassing rule for multiple units firing overwatch on the same target.

it is worth adding that despite an apparent 'order' the shooting player is still not 'nominating' as per the shooting nomination process, but is resolving each unit's action.

A unit of 30 termagants could assault 6 units if it wanted to...

It still has not been shown where overwatch supersedes the ability to only fire once per turn or the nomination rule as you've just stated it has clear cause to use.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
This is why I called this argument "pants-on-head" (the argument you're making, not you personally, I don't know you at all).

Actually, what you said was that I am pants-on-head:

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

Just so we're clear.

1. Make a leap of logic with no basis in the text: Assume that because you (sometimes) don't have a choice in which unit is shooting, you get to skip restrictions that are spelled out in the step where you pick which unit is shooting, even though you are completely assuming this and it is not stated anywhere that you should actually skip this step.

So you're told that the unit can shoot (not that you pick the unit to shoot) and somehow that's having a choice in which unit shoots?

2a. Make a really narrow interpretation in spite of solid evidence in the text: Since "albeit [this shooting attack is] resolved in the enemy's Assault phase" means "although [this shooting attack is] resolved in the enemy's Assault phase" it clearly means where the rules say you nominate a unit during your Shooting phase everything must break, in spite of pretty clear permission to resolve our shooting attack in the enemy's Assault phase.

You can think that's what they intended, but that is not the words used. It's almost like words matter or something.

2b. Followed by another enormous leap of logic to back up point 1: Now that we have twisted the excerpt in 2a. to suit our own ends, we can use the fact that it breaks step 1 of the shooting sequence to support our invented notion that we are meant to entirely ignore step 1 of the shooting sequence!

Um. No. I'm twisting nothing at all. I've asserted, repeatedly, that the Overwatch rules satisfy step 1 and step 2 of the shooting attack rules. Because, well... they do.
It was brought up that no, they just allow nomination. I countered with, if they just allow nomination then no overwatch works. I'm not using that as a basis for my argument, I'm using it to show why that assertion cannot be correct. The basis for my argument is the actual Overwatch rules. Have you read the thread?

You can try to argue that permission isn't clear enough to use the shooting rules at all because the shooting rules are meant for the shooting phase, in which case all of overwatch is broken. But you can't turn around and use that to support the idea that permission is somehow implied to skip the first step in the shooting sequence, even though the book never says that or anything similar to that. Either you're interpreting the rules narrowly, or you're doing whatever you feel like and searching for things that support it.

No, I'm sure you haven't read the thread.

The overwatch rules allow you to skip the nomination step. People claiming otherwise are free to claim so, but they're somehow not okay with admitting that their assertion breaks overwatch. As soon as someone is consistent and agrees with that it's fine - that'll be relegated to the same level of useless rule as models without eyes being unable to fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ductvader wrote:
Does it happen simultaneously? If so are you then required to roll all the shooting for both units in the same hand? If not, it's not simultaneous and one unit had to have been nominated to shoot first. How do you decide after that which models to pull first? The models that are closest to unit A or unit B?

The nomination step is integral in deciding overwatch.

No, it's not. You decide based on page 9 and the FAQ thereof that allows you to determine the order of simultaneous events - exactly like rolling reserves and casting blessings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ductvader wrote:
A unit of 30 termagants could assault 6 units if it wanted to...

It still has not been shown where overwatch supersedes the ability to only fire once per turn or the nomination rule as you've just stated it has clear cause to use.

It has - you're ignoring it. That doesn't mean it hasn't been shown.

What hasn't been shown is support for your stance of selectively ignoring requirements.

rigeld2 wrote:
Um. No. I'm twisting nothing at all. I've asserted, repeatedly, that the Overwatch rules satisfy step 1 and step 2 of the shooting attack rules. Because, well... they do.

To clarify: This is still an interpretation and not a valid fact at this point.

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Um. No. I'm twisting nothing at all. I've asserted, repeatedly, that the Overwatch rules satisfy step 1 and step 2 of the shooting attack rules. Because, well... they do.

To clarify: This is still an interpretation and not a valid fact at this point.

No, it is valid fact. Well - The only other option is that Overwatch is useless, meaning that it is as valid a fact as me saying "Wraithknights are allowed to fire weapons."

 nutty_nutter wrote:
again, second paragraph, please show me how this is not an automatic nomination of the target and the shooter and where the restriction in the overwatch rule restrictions state that this is the case.

"As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker - it doesn't have to, but it's often a good idea."

This gives you permission to fire Overwatch and nothing else. How does Overwatch work? It works "like a normal shooting attack... and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on." (checking line of sight and range are part of "Choose a Target", so we must not be completely ignoring that step either)

Nowhere here has anything happened "automatically". When the rules want something to happen automatically, they say "automatically". Things may be happening by default, but that is the same as deciding to shoot during your shooting phase when you and your opponent each have one unit left on the board. Just because your choice has been narrowed to a single option does not make that choice automatic in the sense that you have permission to skip the steps called "nominate unit to shoot" and "choose a target", and all the restrictions that come with them.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
as I have already pointed to these factors I'm not going to keep repeating it after this post, but the fact of the matter is, this is an out of sequence shooting attack and permission has already been given to shoot in it, the permission to shoot trumps a blanket restriction to shoot even if you were nominating (which you are not) as this is how a permissive ruleset works, I have permission until something specifically tells me not to OR I cannot do this unless something specifically tells me I can.

The "permission to shoot" trumps exactly nothing when it comes to all the other rules on shooting that are described in the shooting phase, all of which we are instructed to follow. You have permission to shoot until something in the rules for shooting say that you can't shoot. You don't have permission to skip any steps in the shooting sequence, but you seem pretty confident that you're allowed to for some reason.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Um. No. I'm twisting nothing at all. I've asserted, repeatedly, that the Overwatch rules satisfy step 1 and step 2 of the shooting attack rules. Because, well... they do.

To clarify: This is still an interpretation and not a valid fact at this point.

No, it is valid fact. Well - The only other option is that Overwatch is useless, meaning that it is as valid a fact as me saying "Wraithknights are allowed to fire weapons."

Oh, sorry...didn't realize you were the rules king whose assertions were made fact out of thin air.

If you want to have a real discussion then please be prepared to have one.

It would be much better than this "stomping of your foot and screaming nuh-uh" that your conversations appears to me as.

Personally, I was ready to concede my entire argument if overwatch could be used multiple times in a turn as it would have at least subtly shown that overwatch denies the rule for shooting twice. At this point I believe you are offering nothing to the conversation besides a continuous and loudly heard "No."

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Um. No. I'm twisting nothing at all. I've asserted, repeatedly, that the Overwatch rules satisfy step 1 and step 2 of the shooting attack rules. Because, well... they do.

To clarify: This is still an interpretation and not a valid fact at this point.

No, it is valid fact. Well - The only other option is that Overwatch is useless, meaning that it is as valid a fact as me saying "Wraithknights are allowed to fire weapons."

Oh, sorry...didn't realize you were the rules king whose assertions were made fact out of thin air.

If you want to have a real discussion then please be prepared to have one.

It would be much better than this "stomping of your foot and screaming nuh-uh" that your conversations appears to me as.

I'm sorry - have you disproved any of my assertions?
Have you come up with rules to support your stance of ignoring one requirement but not another?

Either one would be appreciated. I've supported my stance with actual rules and invented nothing. You've made claim after claim and refused to back them up with rules support.

edit:

Personally, I was ready to concede my entire argument if overwatch could be used multiple times in a turn as it would have at least subtly shown that overwatch denies the rule for shooting twice. At this point I believe you are offering nothing to the conversation besides a continuous and loudly heard "No."

I'm offering rules citations. And you are ... ?

Your assertions and individual interpretation of semantics is not proof to me.

I am simply looking to further the conversation. I have not seen solid refutations to the great points brought up by Calgarspimphand in the last few pages.

And here we go, one point at a time:

rigeld2 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
This is why I called this argument "pants-on-head" (the argument you're making, not you personally, I don't know you at all).

Actually, what you said was that I am pants-on-head:

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

Just so we're clear.

Quite right, I apologize. Your argument is still contorted as all hell though.

rigeld2 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

1. Make a leap of logic with no basis in the text: Assume that because you (sometimes) don't have a choice in which unit is shooting, you get to skip restrictions that are spelled out in the step where you pick which unit is shooting, even though you are completely assuming this and it is not stated anywhere that you should actually skip this step.

So you're told that the unit can shoot (not that you pick the unit to shoot) and somehow that's having a choice in which unit shoots?

Like I said, just because you can only pick from one option doesn't mean you can skip the step where you pick. Everything about line of sight and checking range are in Step 2, the "choose a target" step, but we aren't skipping that, are we? No, we're following all the rules in it even though you only have one target to choose. Why? Because overwatch specifically tells us to resolve this as a normal shooting attack, plus a few additional restrictions like snap firing.

rigeld2 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

2a. Make a really narrow interpretation in spite of solid evidence in the text: Since "albeit [this shooting attack is] resolved in the enemy's Assault phase" means "although [this shooting attack is] resolved in the enemy's Assault phase" it clearly means where the rules say you nominate a unit during your Shooting phase everything must break, in spite of pretty clear permission to resolve our shooting attack in the enemy's Assault phase.

You can think that's what they intended, but that is not the words used. It's almost like words matter or something.

You're missing my point. The exact words matter a great deal to you in this one phrase (where their intent is obvious but their wording is sloppy), while everywhere else in your argument (where GW's intent is unclear) you feel fine just assuming we can ignore things with no text to support that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

2b. Followed by another enormous leap of logic to back up point 1: Now that we have twisted the excerpt in 2a. to suit our own ends, we can use the fact that it breaks step 1 of the shooting sequence to support our invented notion that we are meant to entirely ignore step 1 of the shooting sequence!

Um. No. I'm twisting nothing at all. I've asserted, repeatedly, that the Overwatch rules satisfy step 1 and step 2 of the shooting attack rules. Because, well... they do.
It was brought up that no, they just allow nomination. I countered with, if they just allow nomination then no overwatch works. I'm not using that as a basis for my argument, I'm using it to show why that assertion cannot be correct. The basis for my argument is the actual Overwatch rules. Have you read the thread?

Overwatch gives a unit being charged permission to shoot the unit charging it. That alone doesn't actually satisfy step 1 OR 2 of the shooting process, which involves making sure the target is a legal target by checking range and line of sight. If that step happens automatically, shouldn't we skip over all those restrictions? No, because we are supposed to follow the normal shooting rules.

The basis for your argument is conjecture (we can skip these steps and everything they entail!), and the evidence you're using to support it relies on twisting around a sentence with a fairly obvious meaning (use the rules for shooting even though it isn't the shooting phase). I have read the thread, have you read the rulebook?

rigeld2 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

You can try to argue that permission isn't clear enough to use the shooting rules at all because the shooting rules are meant for the shooting phase, in which case all of overwatch is broken. But you can't turn around and use that to support the idea that permission is somehow implied to skip the first step in the shooting sequence, even though the book never says that or anything similar to that. Either you're interpreting the rules narrowly, or you're doing whatever you feel like and searching for things that support it.

No, I'm sure you haven't read the thread.

Dude, I've read the thread. Show me anywhere in the book that says "skip the first two steps of the shooting sequence", or "skip anything at all in the rules for shooting".

rigeld2 wrote:
The overwatch rules allow you to skip the nomination step. People claiming otherwise are free to claim so, but they're somehow not okay with admitting that their assertion breaks overwatch. As soon as someone is consistent and agrees with that it's fine - that'll be relegated to the same level of useless rule as models without eyes being unable to fire.

Absolutely nothing in the overwatch rules allow you to skip the nomination step. Nowhere, period. You can claim it's IMPLIED because your options for which units can shoot are limited, but then you'd be skipping the "choose a target" step for the same reason, and THAT step includes checking range and line of sight.

The assertion that "following Step 1 is broken" only arises if you are obtuse enough to say "albeit.. during the enemy's Assault phase" is not permission to shoot even though it's the enemy's assault phase. It is not iron-clad wording, but it's close enough and the intent is obvious. You're really reaching here and no one in their right mind would buy that interpretation unless they needed it to shore up a weak argument.

rigeld2 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ductvader wrote:
Does it happen simultaneously? If so are you then required to roll all the shooting for both units in the same hand? If not, it's not simultaneous and one unit had to have been nominated to shoot first. How do you decide after that which models to pull first? The models that are closest to unit A or unit B?

The nomination step is integral in deciding overwatch.

No, it's not. You decide based on page 9 and the FAQ thereof that allows you to determine the order of simultaneous events - exactly like rolling reserves and casting blessings.

Actually, wrong. Page 27, disordered charge, the order of Overwatch shooting is determined by the target unit's controlling player. I still don't think this gets you off the hook for the restrictions in step 1 any more than only having one target to shoot at gets you off the restrictions in step 2 on range and line of sight. You don't have choice in target, but you still have to "choose" a valid target. Just like you don't have a choice in what unit you're nominating to shoot, but you still have to follow any restrictions for "nominating" a valid unit to shoot with.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:
A unit of 30 termagants could assault 6 units if it wanted to...

It still has not been shown where overwatch supersedes the ability to only fire once per turn or the nomination rule as you've just stated it has clear cause to use.

It has - you're ignoring it. That doesn't mean it hasn't been shown.

What hasn't been shown is support for your stance of selectively ignoring requirements.

Selectively ignoring requirements is what your whole argument is based on, literally. Reading the rules straight down, you aren't given permission to skip any part of the shooting phase rules, other than the bit that says "in the shooting phase".

I contend that RAW you are allowed to fire shots in the opponents phase using interceptors [during their movement phase]

I put forth that the people who wrote the main rulebook, wrote it in knowledge of all the rules contained therein.

I put forth that the rules for interceptor state a future restriction on shooting the weapon used to fire interceptor shots on your next player turn.

I put forth the people who wrote the rules knew full well that overwatch can happen between the phase in which interceptor was fired, and the return to the interceptor players turn.

With that in mind, there is no restriction on firing overwatch from interceptor.

As this rule allows you to fire during your opponents turn and does not disallow overwatch It shows that you may fire during your opponents turn for overwatch even if you have already fired during your oppponents turn.

If they had intended to not allow a player to do so, they would have said something along the lines of "may not fire that weapon again until after the intecepting models next shooting phase" or "may not fire overwatch with that weapon, and may not fire during that models next shooting phase"

but they did not.

blaktoof wrote:
I contend that RAW you are allowed to fire shots in the opponents phase using interceptors [during their movement phase]

I put forth that the people who wrote the main rulebook, wrote it in knowledge of all the rules contained therein.

I put forth that the rules for interceptor state a future restriction on shooting the weapon used to fire interceptor shots on your next player turn.

I put forth the people who wrote the rules knew full well that overwatch can happen between the phase in which interceptor was fired, and the return to the interceptor players turn.

With that in mind, there is no restriction on firing overwatch from interceptor.

As this rule allows you to fire during your opponents turn and does not disallow overwatch It shows that you may fire during your opponents turn for overwatch even if you have already fired during your oppponents turn.

If they had intended to not allow a player to do so, they would have said something along the lines of "may not fire that weapon again until after the intecepting models next shooting phase" or "may not fire overwatch with that weapon, and may not fire during that models next shooting phase"

but they did not.

I personally believe that this issue is so obscure that they didn't write the rules one way or another for it. Otherwise Interceptor or overwatch would have explained this thoroughly...but they don't.

blaktoof wrote:
I contend that RAW you are allowed to fire shots in the opponents phase using interceptors [during their movement phase]

I put forth that the people who wrote the main rulebook, wrote it in knowledge of all the rules contained therein.

I put forth that the rules for interceptor state a future restriction on shooting the weapon used to fire interceptor shots on your next player turn.

I put forth the people who wrote the rules knew full well that overwatch can happen between the phase in which interceptor was fired, and the return to the interceptor players turn.

That's all well and good.

blaktoof wrote:
With that in mind, there is no restriction on firing overwatch from interceptor.

As this rule allows you to fire during your opponents turn and does not disallow overwatch It shows that you may fire during your opponents turn for overwatch even if you have already fired during your oppponents turn.

This does not logically follow from your previous statements. If the rulebook disallows overwatch on its own in this case, there's no reason to include a separate restriction on it except as a reminder. It's no different than saying "RAW interceptor doesn't prevent you from shooting again during your opponent's shooting phase, so therefore you must be able to". The rulebook already restricts that separately and we don't need a random reminder of it tacked on to Interceptor.

Permissive ruleset, without permission to do something we can't do it. With permission, and without a subsequent restriction, we can do it.

Example:
Unit A gets charged by Unit B. You are given permission for Unit A to fire at Unit B. You are told to use the rules from the Shooting phase, and given permission to do so even though it is the enemy's Assault phase.

You are not given permission to skip any steps, rules, or restrictions in the Shooting rules, so even though Step 1 is "Nominate unit to shoot", we still have to do it. We nominate one unit out of our possible one units that can shoot. Why is it important that we do this? Because there are restrictions on what units can be nominated. Just like we go through Step 2, "Choose a target", and choose our target out of the possible one units we can shoot at. Why is it important we do this? Again, because there are restrictions on what units can be chosen, such as range and line of sight, which are checked in Step 2.

Without permission to ignore parts of the rules, we can't just skip over the things we find inconvenient.

Hey OP, can you add a poll? It might be kind of interesting.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Hey OP, can you add a poll? It might be kind of interesting.

I agree. I think the RAW argument for no overwatch after interceptor is much stronger than the argument that you can fire both, but I think the rules are very unclear on this and it's an oversight. I could see an FAQ going either way because I imagine this situation was a total oversight.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Hey OP, can you add a poll? It might be kind of interesting.

The only problem I could see with that is that as we have seen about 25-30% of the people who come to this question misunderstand and oversimplify the argument being made.

I agree that it would definitely be interesting though!

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

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.

This line "Nominate Unit to Shoot: Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire [sic] this turn", when taken in context, tells us that a unit can not be nominated more than once per shooting phase. They only get to fire once in the shooting phase. That is all this rule is saying.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Selectively ignoring requirements is what your whole argument is based on, literally. Reading the rules straight down, you aren't given permission to skip any part of the shooting phase rules, other than the bit that says "in the shooting phase".

The bolded is incorrect - you're never, ever given that permission. Or rather - if you have, not a single person has quoted it. You sure as hell are hanging your argument on that fact though so please - quote it.

Or at least admit you're arguing RAI because you sure use that Intent word a lot.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

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.

This line "Nominate Unit to Shoot: Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire [sic] this turn", when taken in context, tells us that a unit can not be nominated more than once per shooting phase. They only get to fire once in the shooting phase. That is all this rule is saying.

The line doesn't even mention phases, just the turn. The entire chapter is written in the context of the Shooting phase, but we're still sent here for rules on how to shoot Overwatch, so the context of the chapter can't really be relevant. Otherwise you could use that to arbitrarily throw out anything you wanted, because hey, the rule for allocating wounds is written in the context of the shooting phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Selectively ignoring requirements is what your whole argument is based on, literally. Reading the rules straight down, you aren't given permission to skip any part of the shooting phase rules, other than the bit that says "in the shooting phase".

The bolded is incorrect - you're never, ever given that permission. Or rather - if you have, not a single person has quoted it. You sure as hell are hanging your argument on that fact though so please - quote it.

Or at least admit you're arguing RAI because you sure use that Intent word a lot.

I will admit I'm arguing RAI when you do the same. You haven't provided any textual support for your interpretation at all. I am referring to this line on page 21:

The Rules wrote:"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."

As written, this gives you instruction to resolve your overwatch shooting using all the normal rules for shooting. You are to do so during the enemy's Assault phase. That is plain english.

It causes conflict with the first sentence of the section "Nominate Unit to Shoot", page 12, which states:

The Rules wrote:"During the Shooting phase,a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks".

This conflict cannot arbitrarily be bypassed; shooting follows a sequence and Step 1 of that sequence appears to have issues. That is, unless you interpret "albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase" as permission to follow the rules for shooting in spite of normal restrictions on phase. This is a reasonable RAW interpretation (although not as clear as it could be).

If you can point to anything, anything at all, that gives you permission to skip any portion of the shooting sequence, please point it out. Otherwise admit that you think Step 1 is broken during Overwatch, and you are skipping it simply because it's broken.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

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.

This line "Nominate Unit to Shoot: Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire [sic] this turn", when taken in context, tells us that a unit can not be nominated more than once per shooting phase. They only get to fire once in the shooting phase. That is all this rule is saying.

The line doesn't even mention phases, just the turn. The entire chapter is written in the context of the Shooting phase, but we're still sent here for rules on how to shoot Overwatch, so the context of the chapter can't really be relevant. Otherwise you could use that to arbitrarily throw out anything you wanted, because hey, the rule for allocating wounds is written in the context of the shooting phase.

Context, Do not ignore it.

That line, taken in context, is talking about the Shooting phase and the fact that you cannot nominate the same unit twice for a shooting attack in the shooting phase.

If you take the context into account you can clearly see that firing Interceptor and overwatch in the same turn is perfectly legal.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Hey OP, can you add a poll? It might be kind of interesting.

I agree. I think the RAW argument for no overwatch after interceptor is much stronger than the argument that you can fire both, but I think the rules are very unclear on this and it's an oversight. I could see an FAQ going either way because I imagine this situation was a total oversight.

100% agree. Arguments based on nomination are splitting hairs that aren't there. I see RAW and RAI not allowing Interceptor and overwatch on the same player turn. I do need to sit down and look at the language to see if it's the weapon or the model or the unit that loses overwatch.

 Lobukia wrote:
100% agree. Arguments based on nomination are splitting hairs that aren't there. I see RAW and RAI not allowing Interceptor and overwatch on the same player turn. I do need to sit down and look at the language to see if it's the weapon or the model or the unit that loses overwatch.

Do not ignore the context of the shooting rules.

You cannot nominate the same unit twice for a shooting attack in the shooting phase. That is what that line is saying. This has no affect on overwatch.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
100% agree. Arguments based on nomination are splitting hairs that aren't there. I see RAW and RAI not allowing Interceptor and overwatch on the same player turn. I do need to sit down and look at the language to see if it's the weapon or the model or the unit that loses overwatch.

Do not ignore the context of the shooting rules.

You cannot nominate the same unit twice for a shooting attack in the shooting phase. That is what that line is saying. This has no affect on overwatch.

Ok, I'm going to try to be gentle with you here, but I just want to copy and paste the word "wrong" like 500 times in a row, because no matter how many times you write that rule out with the word "phase" instead of "turn", it doesn't make it so. "That is what that line is saying" in your head maybe, but what it actually says on the page is different.

The "context of the shooting phase" is that it's written in the shooting phase chapter. Fantastic. But step one in the shooting sequence, the line says "Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire[d] this turn". Not phase, turn. Turn. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you think they intended that to only apply during the shooting phase because of the overall context of the chapter, then you're arguing RAI. RAW that line says you can't pick a unit to shoot that's already shot that turn, and that's all there is to it.

Overwatch is resolved using the normal shooting rules. Your only recourse is to argue that somehow, RAW, you don't do step one in the shooting sequence at all when you are shooting overwatch, so that line doesn't matter. You and rigeld2 can work on finding something in the text to support that. Me, I'm going to go drink bourbon and play a game with a clearly-written ruleset.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
100% agree. Arguments based on nomination are splitting hairs that aren't there. I see RAW and RAI not allowing Interceptor and overwatch on the same player turn. I do need to sit down and look at the language to see if it's the weapon or the model or the unit that loses overwatch.

Do not ignore the context of the shooting rules.

You cannot nominate the same unit twice for a shooting attack in the shooting phase. That is what that line is saying. This has no affect on overwatch.

Ok, I'm going to try to be gentle with you here, but I just want to copy and paste the word "wrong" like 500 times in a row, because no matter how many times you write that rule out with the word "phase" instead of "turn", it doesn't make it so. "That is what that line is saying" in your head maybe, but what it actually says on the page is different.

The "context of the shooting phase" is that it's written in the shooting phase chapter. Fantastic. But step one in the shooting sequence, the line says "Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire[d] this turn". Not phase, turn. Turn. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you think they intended that to only apply during the shooting phase because of the overall context of the chapter, then you're arguing RAI. RAW that line says you can't pick a unit to shoot that's already shot that turn, and that's all there is to it.

Overwatch is resolved using the normal shooting rules. Your only recourse is to argue that somehow, RAW, you don't do step one in the shooting sequence at all when you are shooting overwatch, so that line doesn't matter. You and rigeld2 can work on finding something in the text to support that. Me, I'm going to go drink bourbon and play a game with a clearly-written ruleset.

Using this logic and "normal shooting rules" you can fire at a target that is not the charging target. Normal shooting and all.

Poll is up for those who would like to cast their opinion without words.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
100% agree. Arguments based on nomination are splitting hairs that aren't there. I see RAW and RAI not allowing Interceptor and overwatch on the same player turn. I do need to sit down and look at the language to see if it's the weapon or the model or the unit that loses overwatch.

Do not ignore the context of the shooting rules.

You cannot nominate the same unit twice for a shooting attack in the shooting phase. That is what that line is saying. This has no affect on overwatch.

Ok, I'm going to try to be gentle with you here, but I just want to copy and paste the word "wrong" like 500 times in a row, because no matter how many times you write that rule out with the word "phase" instead of "turn", it doesn't make it so. "That is what that line is saying" in your head maybe, but what it actually says on the page is different.

The "context of the shooting phase" is that it's written in the shooting phase chapter. Fantastic. But step one in the shooting sequence, the line says "Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire[d] this turn". Not phase, turn. Turn. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you think they intended that to only apply during the shooting phase because of the overall context of the chapter, then you're arguing RAI. RAW that line says you can't pick a unit to shoot that's already shot that turn, and that's all there is to it.

Overwatch is resolved using the normal shooting rules. Your only recourse is to argue that somehow, RAW, you don't do step one in the shooting sequence at all when you are shooting overwatch, so that line doesn't matter. You and rigeld2 can work on finding something in the text to support that. Me, I'm going to go drink bourbon and play a game with a clearly-written ruleset.

This Logic is seriously flawed. If it were to work they way you say its does, the first time overwatch is initiated in a given turn, ALL of that players units could fire on ANY target. This would be following the normal rules for shooting, right?

I think what people are not grasping here is that we DO NOT have permission to nominate a unit to shoot. Overwatch takes that permission away.

"As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire overwatch at the would-be attacker - it doesn't have to, but it's often a good idea."

"that unit" There is no chance to nominate, the unit is already chosen.

If we were required to then nominate a unit, I could chose any of my units on the board that isn't locked in combat and DIDN'T fire interceptor that turn, per the rules for "a normal shooting attack."

Intercept and overwatch must work together for the rules to function.

extremefreak17 wrote:

This Logic is seriously flawed. If it were to work they way you say its does, the first time overwatch is initiated in a given turn, ALL of that players units could fire on ANY target. This would be following the normal rules for shooting, right?

No it doesn't, the overwatch rules specifically state that it must be the charged unit and charger respectively. You even go on to quote the rule!

Ricter wrote:

extremefreak17 wrote:

This Logic is seriously flawed. If it were to work they way you say its does, the first time overwatch is initiated in a given turn, ALL of that players units could fire on ANY target. This would be following the normal rules for shooting, right?

No it doesn't, the overwatch rules specifically state that it must be the charged unit and charger respectively. You even go on to quote the rule!

How can it follow the normal rules for shooting when you have to skip two steps of the normal rules for shooting ? Or do you call it semi normal rules for shooting.

Fragile wrote:

Ricter wrote:

extremefreak17 wrote:

This Logic is seriously flawed. If it were to work they way you say its does, the first time overwatch is initiated in a given turn, ALL of that players units could fire on ANY target. This would be following the normal rules for shooting, right?

No it doesn't, the overwatch rules specifically state that it must be the charged unit and charger respectively. You even go on to quote the rule!

How can it follow the normal rules for shooting when you have to skip two steps of the normal rules for shooting ? Or do you call it semi normal rules for shooting.

"As soon as a charge has been declared against one of your units, that unit can immediately fire overwatch at the would-be attacker - it doesn't have to, but it's often a good idea."

Step 1: Nominate a unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to, but has not yet, fire this turn.

Which units do you have that are *able to* fire? The unit that has been charged. No other unit is able to fire, because it is your opponent's assault phase and they don't have permission.

And now what is step 2. Choose a target. So I can choose any unit i can see that is in range.