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.

Lord Perversor wrote:
@ Col-impact.

Interceptor it's a single rule all it's states it's a weapon with it can be fire at end of enemy movement phase vs units arriving from reserves.

It's not multiple instances happening, just one and all weapons with it can be fired or not up to the controlling player choice Period.


You are convoluting yourself with *several instances* of a special rule as several rules happening at once when it's just one that affect all weapons with it.

Incorrect. Any unit/model/weapon that is going to fire as Interceptor needs to have its own instance of the Interceptor rule in order to itself have the ability to Intercept.

If I have two units with Interceptor and one unit without Interceptor I cannot fire the unit without Interceptor as if it had Interceptor.

So the ability of a unit to fire with Interceptor is tied to an instance of the Interceptor rule being on the Army List Entry.

So the instances of Interceptor on Army List Entries and the order in which those instances happen is what we are concerned with sorting out.

The Interceptor permissions are all happening at the same time ("at the end of the opponent's movement phase") so the Sequencing rule kicks in.

Per the Sequencing rule, the ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions happen.

There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).

In the absence of such permission, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.



Extended example

The sequencing rule doesn't "kick in".
"At the end of the movement phase" isn't a trigger, its conditional.

IF you use it, you have to use it at the end of movement.
You don't get to sequence anything because they cannot occur at the same time. There is no requirement to announce all of your uses of interceptor, you are assuming there is one and prompting yourself to sequence.

Skyfire
Skyfire weapons excel at shooting down enemy aircraft and skimmers. A model with this special rule, or that is firing a weapon with this special rule, fires using its normal Ballistic Skill when shooting at Flyers, Flying Monstrous Creatures and Skimmers, but it can only fire Snap Shots against other targets.

Anything with interceptor also has skyfire and skyfire permits us to shoot, using the shooting the rules.

Interceptor allows you to select a weapon to fire.

There is no sequencing, there is shooting sequence after shooting sequence.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
There are not two or more rules, there is one rule.
Whether or not it is being used multiple times is irrelevant.

The Sequence rule does not specify that the rules have to be separate rules.

We are talking about two or more instances of Interceptor on separate Army List Entries.

The Interceptor rule on unit A plus the Interceptor rule on unit B equals two rules being invoked.

The Interceptor rule that triggers for unit A does not apply to unit B. Unit B has its own Interceptor rule and is separably invoked.

We then simply resolve the Sequence based on who the active player is in this case.

The sequencing rules are never invoked. Only if all units that were using Interceptor had to declare that they were firing before any of the units actually resolved their interceptor fire would there be an opportunity for sequencing. Without this statement, the player who is firing can choose one unit, then resolve that unit's firing. After that he can choose another unit that can fire Interceptor, then resolve that. And so on, and so on. Since he doesn't have to declare a second unit is using Interceptor before completely resolving the first unit's actions, the player whose turn it is doesn't get to use the sequencing rule to choose which one is firing. He doesn't get to use sequencing to choose units that can poentially fire. At any time there is only one unit designated as firing using the Interceptor rules, so even if the sequencing rule is invoked, you get to choose the one unit that's been selected to fire Interceptor at that time. When that's done and he selects another one, the player whose turn is it has only that unit to be able to select under sequencing rules.

In order to do what you say, you have to provide a rules quotation that states that Interceptor fire must all be declared before any of the shots are resolved.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And, while we're at it, let's examine col impact's evidence for what he is saying - the sequencing rule, not hidden behind a spoiler tag so that it will be evident to everyone.

"SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to [which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in."

We have one rule involved here - Interceptor, not two rules. This does not even meet the bar required to be able to invoke sequencing, which is for resolving two or more separate rules. This isn't for resolving one rule.

Even if it were to be invoked, you don't get to invoke it based on every unit that can potentially use the rule; you have to use it on ones where the rule is actively being used. As you don't state all the units that will be firing Interceptor before resolving any (you do follow the basic shooting sequence - whether or not you want to consider it a shooting phase , you do have permission from Interceptor to fire, which would follow the shooting sequence as there are no rules overriding it as to how to handle shooting Interceptor other than it's not in the regular shooting phase.

doctortom,

The Sequencing rules do not specify distinctly worded rules, so it will apply to the case of two or more instances of the same rule just fine.

If I have one unit with Interceptor and another unit with Interceptor then I have two Interceptor rules to resolve not one.


Also, as I have already stated it is the permissions to Intercept that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.

Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.

The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the various copies of the Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.

Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.

The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those permissions are accessed by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.

That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.

Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the permissions but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those permissions.


Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.

Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .





. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.

There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).

In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.


Piecemeal fashion

The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.

The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)

Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).

Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).

Rinse and Repeat.

col_impact wrote:
doctortom,

The Sequencing rules do not specify distinctly worded rules, so it will apply to the case of two or more instances of the same rule just fine.


If I have one unit with Interceptor and another unit with Interceptor then I have two Interceptor rules to resolve not one.

Incorrect. You have one rule that you're dealing with. You may have more than one unit with the rule, but it is one rule, not two rules. You are making an unwarranted assumption here.

col_impact wrote:
Also, as I have already stated it is the permissions to Intercept that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.

You could have cited the rules for Smash and it would have had the exact same relevance to the situation - none.

col_impact wrote:
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" need to be sequenced.

An unwarranted assumption on your part. Where is your quotation to back this up? The Sequencing rule does not back this up.

col_impact wrote:
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must invoke one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order those Interceptor permissions.

Yes, you must invoke one of the interceptor permissions. If you have more than one unit, however, where is the requirement for all the permissions for all the intercepting units to be invoked before resolving any of the intercepting fire? There is no statement in Interceptor for this. "At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If this rule is used , the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model may fire a different weapon if it has one."

Nope, no mention of declaring all interceptor fire before resolving one. Let's compare to Multiple Overwatch, as you like to point out the differences between overwatch and other shooting. Overwatch tells you to resolve sequentially and how to handle the order. Here there is no statement except for the weapon may fire. That means you follow the rules for firing a weapon. This means you use the Shooting Sequence for firinig a weapon, (not The Shooting Phase, but the Shooting Sequence). Here you are dealing with one unit. You resolve the steps in order, then you are done with the unit. Here you have the unit choosing its target. You do not have any statements that you choose all units that will be firing and all units that will be fired at before resolving any of the fire (unlike multiple Overwatch). You do not have this mentioned in Interceptor either. Multiple Overwatch is different, but they specify how you handle it. Lacking those instructions, yuo must fall back on the normal shooting sequence. Insisting that all units that will fire must commit to firing is not in the rules. Using sequencing rules, stated to cover resolving two or more rules, to try to resolve one rule is an unwarranted assumption. You have not provided a rules quotation to back up these unwarranted assumptions. The sequencing rules do not back it up; the section you highlighted in the rules is trumped by the section I highlighted which indicated the rule is irrelevant in this case. Go back and provide more proof.

"

col_impact wrote:
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).

You have this exactly backwards. Interceptor is one rule. You do not have permission to apply a rule that states it is for two rules You do not have permission to treat one rule as two rules. You have permission to fire a weapon, and you have the standard rules, the Shooting Sequence, for handling firing a weapon. You do not get to claim "sequencing" when you do not have permission to use it - it is for resolving two rules at the same time, not resolving one rule. As a stickler for RAW, you should realize that.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
doctortom,

The Sequencing rules do not specify distinctly worded rules, so it will apply to the case of two or more instances of the same rule just fine.


If I have one unit with Interceptor and another unit with Interceptor then I have two Interceptor rules to resolve not one.

Incorrect. You have one rule that you're dealing with. You may have more than one unit with the rule, but it is one rule, not two rules. You are making an unwarranted assumption here.

Incorrect. I have a special rule named Interceptor showing up on one Army List Entry and I have a special rule named Interceptor showing up on another Army List Entry so I have 2 rules to resolve. If I somehow only have one rule instance between the two rules then the controlling player will only get to fire ONE Interceptor unit altogether since the rule applies to "a weapon".

There are two rules to resolve. The Sequencing rule does not have us check to see if they are worded the same.

Yes, you have A rule named Interceptor. You have one rule to resolve. You resolve it using the rules that have been established - the shooting sequence rules.

You are not required to state all of the units using Interceptor before resolving any one of them. Therefore, when you invoke the rule, you only have one rule taking place. It is resolved before you even have to choose to invoke another unit using the same rule. Therefore, sequencing does not apply, unlike Overwatch where they specifically are saying which units are doing overwatch and resolving them sequentially.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" need to be sequenced.

An unwarranted assumption on your part. Where is your quotation to back this up? The Sequencing rule does not back this up.

The Sequencing rule does back this up. When does "can be fired" happen? "At the end of the enemy Movement phase"

If I have two or more Interceptor rules happening "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" then I have the occasion for the use of the Sequencing rule. The wording in Interceptor is not explicit as to the case of two or more Interceptor rules happening at the same time. In the case of Multiple Overwatch the controlling player is specifically given the power to choose the order.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
Yes, you have A rule named Interceptor. You have one rule to resolve.

That one rule only allows for "one weapon" to be fired.

So are you saying that if a player has 3 units with Interceptor then only one weapon among them all gets to fire Interceptor?

In the case of 3 units with Interceptor we have 3 Interceptor rules to resolve which result in 3 shots possibly fired, not one.

check my second paragraph that I added as an edit. It was something that I had in my earlier post that you want to overlook.

It also deals with your added message where you try to set up a straw man argument.

 doctortom wrote:

You are not required to state all of the units using Interceptor before resolving any one of them. Therefore, when you invoke the rule, you only have one rule taking place. It is resolved before you even have to choose to invoke another unit using the same rule. Therefore, sequencing does not apply, unlike Overwatch where they specifically are saying which units are doing overwatch and resolving them sequentially.

The "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" permissions need to be sequenced. You can't do them at the same time. The rules dictate that the ACTIVE player is in charge of sequencing the Interceptor rules that happen at the same time. The controlling player is not in charge of the order in which he resolves the Interceptor rules.

The controlling player invokes the rules for things happening at the same time in the order of the ACTIVE players choosing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


It also deals with your added message where you try to set up a straw man argument.

No strawman. Read the Interceptor rule. It only allows one firing. So you need to have 2 Interceptor rules being resolved to allow for 2 firings, and so on.

It's the case of two or more Interceptor firing permissions to resolve that we are dealing with here. The rules dictate that the ACTIVE player sequences those permissions to fire.

"Can be fired" does not need to be sequenced. You are not required to invoke them, either all or some, before resolving anything. Acitve opposing player does not get to dictate the sequence in which you might do stuff, only when dealing with multiple rules (not one rule) do you deal with sequencing the multiple (not the one) rule. As you do not have permission to resolve the shot before invoking the rule for another unit, you must resolve the rule for the unit that has invoked the rule before doing anything else. You follow the shooting sequence rules.

 doctortom wrote:
"Can be fired" does not need to be sequenced. You are not required to invoke them, either all or some, before resolving anything. Acitve opposing player does not get to dictate the sequence in which you might do stuff, only when dealing with multiple rules (not one rule) do you deal with sequencing the multiple (not the one) rule. As you do not have permission to resolve the shot before invoking the rule for another unit, you must resolve the rule for the unit that has invoked the rule before doing anything else. You follow the shooting sequence rules.

No. There is no rule for "invoking" such that a rule magically appears or disappears.

The Interceptor rules are always present.

The Interceptor rules happen at the same time and so must be sequenced.

The question that the ACTIVE player resolves is which of those Interceptor rules happen first, second, and so on.

Per the Sequencing rule, the ACTIVE player chooses which Interceptor rule happens first, second, and so on.

The controlling player must abide by that order.

If the controlling player fires the Interceptor weapon the ACTIVE player has deemed second in order then he cannot go back and fire the Interceptor weapon deemed first by the ACTIVE player.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

You are not required to state all of the units using Interceptor before resolving any one of them. Therefore, when you invoke the rule, you only have one rule taking place. It is resolved before you even have to choose to invoke another unit using the same rule. Therefore, sequencing does not apply, unlike Overwatch where they specifically are saying which units are doing overwatch and resolving them sequentially.

The "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" permissions need to be sequenced. You can't do them at the same time. The rules dictate that the ACTIVE player is in charge of sequencing the Interceptor rules that happen at the same time. The controlling player is not in charge of the order in which he resolves the Interceptor rules.

Maybe if we use your own words you will understand. Do you see where you said you can't do them at the same time? We agree with you!

Since you can't do them at the same time, they can't be sequenced, you are trying to sequence things that can't be done at the same time.
You cannot simultaneously fire two weapons, since you cannot do this, there is no precedence to sequence.

At the end of the movement phase is a condition to fire, not a trigger to fire.
We are not required to fire you cannot decide which unit will be firing.

You have lost here but you twist the words to your meaning. The issue is you don't understand the words.

Ceann wrote:


Maybe if we use your own words you will understand. Do you see where you said you can't do them at the same time? We agree with you!

Since you can't do them at the same time, they can't be sequenced, you are trying to sequence things that can't be done at the same time.
You cannot simultaneously fire two weapons, since you cannot do this, there is no precedence to sequence.

At the end of the movement phase is a condition, not a trigger.

You have lost here but you twist the words to your meaning. The issue is you don't understand the words.

Twisting my words won't help you here. At the end of the day we have to follow the rules in the BRB and on this matter the BRB is clear.

The rules have it such that the Interceptor rules will clash and try to happen at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase").

In the case of rules happening at the same time the Sequencer rule applies to prevent rules from happening at the same time.

A sequence is necessarily imposed by the Sequencing rule.

The Sequencing rules means the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the controlling player resolves his Interceptor rule permissions.

Does it say on interceptor that...

The active player will ask you if your unit is firing and you need to tell them.

No, it doesn't say that anywhere and you are assuming some fairy tale situation that you have permission to do this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh please you are cherry picking one statement out of context of the entire rule. The entire rule requires you to perform shooting which two things cannot do at the same time and the rules for shooting are covered by the shooting sequence.

You can't use sequencing because two shooting sequences cannot occur at the same time.

You are laughably trying to cut out a one liner of the rule and use it as justification.

Ceann wrote:
Does it day on interceptor that...

The active player will ask you if your unit is firing and you need to tell them.

No, it doesn't say that anywhere and you are assuming some fairy tale situation that you have permission to do this.

The Interceptor does not say anything about the case of multiple weapons with their own Interceptor rules firing at the same time.

So when you have a case of multiple Interceptor rules competing to happen at the same time then the Sequencer rule applies (because Interceptor does not provide its own rules that would override the Sequencer rule).

Interceptor uses the shooting sequence.

Ceann wrote:

Oh please you are cherry picking one statement out of context of the entire rule. The entire rule requires you to perform shooting which two things cannot do at the same time and the rules for shooting are covered by the shooting sequence.

You can't use sequencing because two shooting sequences cannot occur at the same time.

You are laughably trying to cut out a one liner of the rule and use it as justification.

You are failing to keep track of when specifically you can shoot.

It's not the shooting phase so you can only be resolving a shooting sequence IN THE CONTEXT of resolving an instance of the Interceptor rule.

Since you are not the ACTIVE player you do not get to order how you resolve the Interceptor rules.

The ACTIVE player will inform you of the order in which you will resolve the Interceptor rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:
Interceptor uses the shooting sequence.

Sure.

Each separate Interceptor rule will call up a shooting attack (and the Shooting Sequence rules) for just that one Interceptor attack. After you resolve that one attack you then get to resolve the next Interceptor rule.

The problem is the controlling player does not get to choose the order in which he resolves his Interceptor rule permissions. The ACTIVE player chooses the order.



Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each Interceptor rule resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.


Piecemeal fashion

The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.

The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)

Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).

Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).

Rinse and Repeat.

There is no "piecemeal fashion" Col.

The default status for a movement phase is that nothing is firing.

Permission to fire is determined by the player doing the firing.

Your entire premise is built upon an illusion that all of the units are firing by default and they are electing to use the rule to not fire.

The situation is exactly the opposite. They decide what is firing, and if they haven't decided what is firing then there is nothing for you to sequence.
You don't have permission to assume they are firing and start sequencing them, firing is not mandatory, so they cannot happen at the same time.

You are attempting to preemptively sequence something that has yet to even occur.

The rules for a shooting sequence inherently prevents them from occurring at the same time, so there is no reason to sequence them because two rules are not happening at the same time.

Ceann wrote:
There is no "piecemeal fashion" Col.

The default status for a movement phase is that nothing is firing.

Permission to fire is determined by the player doing the firing.

Your entire premise is built upon an illusion that all of the units are firing by default and they are electing to use the rule to not fire.

The situation is exactly the opposite. They decide what is firing, and if they haven't decided what is firing then there is nothing for you to sequence.
You don't have permission to assume they are firing and start sequencing them, firing is not mandatory, so they cannot happen at the same time.

You are attempting to preemptively sequence something that has yet to even occur.

The rules for a shooting sequence inherently prevents them from occurring at the same time, so there is no reason to sequence them because two rules are not happening at the same time.

There is no Shooting Phase that happens in the enemy Movement phase.

There is no Shooting Sequence that happens in the enemy Movement phase.

So the player controlling the Intercepting units has no permission in the phase to fire.

The controlling player only has permission to fire an Interceptor unit once the ACTIVE player has directed the order in which the Interceptor permissions are to resolve. It is only in the context of those ordered permissions that the controlling player can fire.


This is how it works . . .

The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.

The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)

Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).

Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).

Rinse and Repeat.


I have worked out EXACTLY how my argument works. And it it completely validated by the rules.


Extended example






You have failed to produce a counter argument that details how otherwise it could work. So far you are insisting that a Shooting Phase happens magically in the enemy Movement phase when clearly it does not, as there is no permission for a Shooting Phase to happen at the end of the enemy Movement phase.

If you cannot in detail show how your counter argument works then it is not valid. You won't be able to provide a solution that does not involve the controlling player deciding the order in which to resolve the Interceptor rule permissions, which directly contradicts the Sequencing rule that requires the ACTIVE player to order the Interceptor rule permissions.

Show us the rules that allow multiple units to fire at the same time.

If you cannot demonstrate this, then it is impossible for the units to use the rule at the same time.

If they can't use the rule at the same time they cannot be sequenced.

Ceann wrote:
Show us the rules that allow multiple units to fire at the same time.

If you cannot demonstrate this, then it is impossible for the units to use the rule at the same time.

If they can't use the rule at the same time they cannot be sequenced.

There are 2 or more Interceptor rules that are happening at "the end of the Enemy movement phase".

Remember, the Sequencing rule is ordering entire rule permissions, not the action (firing or whatever) that happens in the context of a rule permission.




The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the Interceptor rules happen. Remember you cannot fire until after the Interceptor rules have already been sequenced by the ACTIVE player.

col_impact, since you appear to be adamant that we cannot use the rules for Shooting Sequence (since we do not have permission to refer to the shooting phase), without referencing any step of the shooting sequence, please explain how to resolve the shots from a single unit, with a single weapon with the Interceptor special rule.

 Happyjew wrote:
col_impact, since you appear to be adamant that we cannot use the rules for Shooting Sequence (since we do not have permission to refer to the shooting phase), without referencing any step of the shooting sequence, please explain how to resolve the shots from a single unit, with a single weapon with the Interceptor special rule.

It should also be noted also the Shooting Phase introduces the Shooting Sequence as "the shooting process". Even when Split Fire alters the Sequence, it doesn't alter the other aspects of the Shooting Sequence/process.

 Happyjew wrote:
col_impact, since you appear to be adamant that we cannot use the rules for Shooting Sequence (since we do not have permission to refer to the shooting phase), without referencing any step of the shooting sequence, please explain how to resolve the shots from a single unit, with a single weapon with the Interceptor special rule.

You misunderstand. I am saying that there is no Shooting Sequence that comes as part of the enemy Movement phase. This is obvious. It's not the Shooting Phase.

The only time you have permission to have a Shooting Sequence is when you have chosen to fire using the permission in the Interceptor rule to fire and there is then a shooting attack to resolve with the Shooting Sequence rules.

By the time you are doing that, the permissions for the Interceptor rules have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player.

This is all clearly delineated below . . .


This is how it works . . .

The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.

The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)

Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).

Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).

Rinse and Repeat.


Happyjew, maybe you should focus on finding what exactly is wrong with the resolution presented above? I am clearly referencing the Shooting Sequence rules and have been for quite some time. So your criticism simply does not apply to my argument. Obviously, as highlighted in red, I have been using the Shooting Sequence rules.

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
col_impact, since you appear to be adamant that we cannot use the rules for Shooting Sequence (since we do not have permission to refer to the shooting phase), without referencing any step of the shooting sequence, please explain how to resolve the shots from a single unit, with a single weapon with the Interceptor special rule.

You misunderstand. I am saying that there is no Shooting Sequence that comes as part of the enemy Movement phase. This is obvious. It's not the Shooting Phase.

The only time you have permission to have a Shooting Sequence is when you have chosen to fire using the permission in the Interceptor rule to fire and there is then a shooting attack to resolve with the Shooting Sequence rules.

By the time you are doing that, the permissions for the Interceptor rules have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player.

So the active player gets to choose which units may fire Interceptor?

If I have two units with Interceptor, I choose if they are using the Interceptor rule, right? Where does it say I have to choose at the same time? You want me to fire Unit A first, but I might decide not to fire Unit A. After firing with Unit B, it is still the end of the movement phase, is it not? At this point I decide I do want to fire with Unit A. It's almost like changing your mind.

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
col_impact, since you appear to be adamant that we cannot use the rules for Shooting Sequence (since we do not have permission to refer to the shooting phase), without referencing any step of the shooting sequence, please explain how to resolve the shots from a single unit, with a single weapon with the Interceptor special rule.

You misunderstand. I am saying that there is no Shooting Sequence that comes as part of the enemy Movement phase. This is obvious. It's not the Shooting Phase.

The only time you have permission to have a Shooting Sequence is when you have chosen to fire using the permission in the Interceptor rule to fire and there is then a shooting attack to resolve with the Shooting Sequence rules.

By the time you are doing that, the permissions for the Interceptor rules have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player.

So the active player gets to choose which units may fire Interceptor?

If I have two units with Interceptor, I choose if they are using the Interceptor rule, right? Where does it say I have to choose at the same time? You want me to fire Unit A first, but I might decide not to fire Unit A. After firing with Unit B, it is still the end of the movement phase, is it not? At this point I decide I do want to fire with Unit A. It's almost like changing your mind.

The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor rules happen.

So the ACTIVE player says the Interceptor rule happens in the order of B,A,C.

If you, the controlling player, choose not to fire B or A and then fire C that is fine. But you cannot go back and fire B or A after firing for C. The time for those Interceptor rules has already passed.

The ACTIVE player does NOTHING.

Two units cannot shoot at the same time.
There are no rules for two units to shoot at the same time.
Therefore they cannot be sequenced.

The rules for Interceptor require you to perform a shooting sequence.
There is no rule for two shooting sequences to occur at the same time.
The requirement to sequence is never met.

You are the one that is "misunderstanding".

There is ALWAYS a shooting sequence, anytime there is.... shooting.

Shooting rules are granted to all models and are never removed unless stated otherwise and it hasn't been stated otherwise.
Interceptor allows you to fire them.

Ceann wrote:
The ACTIVE player does NOTHING.

Two units cannot shoot at the same time.
There are no rules for two units to shoot at the same time.
Therefore they cannot be sequenced.

You are the one that is "misunderstanding".

Two or more Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase").

The Sequencing rule mandates that the ACTIVE player dictates the order for those Interceptor rules so they don't resolve at the same time.

Ceann wrote:

There is ALWAYS a shooting sequence, anytime there is.... shooting.

Shooting rules are granted to all models and are never removed unless stated otherwise and it hasn't been stated otherwise.
Interceptor allows you to fire them.

Not in disagreement.

Here is how it works . . .

The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.

The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack)

Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).

Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).

Rinse and Repeat.



As you can see Ceann, in the highlighted red parts I am allowing for shooting to happen in the context of each Interceptor rule permission as dictated by the order that the ACTIVE player provides, per the Sequencing rule.


Ceann, do you have some alternate proposal for how to resolve the case at hand?

You haven't presented a complete counter argument.

How are you in a Shooting Sequence if you are not already in the process of resolving an Interceptor rule permission in the order dictated by the ACTIVE player?

Oh please, your argument is a joke.

You are cherry picking one sentence and repeating it over and over.

At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If
this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.

At the end of the enemy movement phase, a weapon can be fired.

So I choose a weapon to fire and proceed to fire it.

I am done firing it.

It is still the end of the movement phase, I choose another weapon to fire.

Your fake argument is based on the false premise that there is a trigger allowing you to sequence interceptor attacks at the end of your movement phase. However they do not trigger unless I elect to shoot with them. Once I am shooting with one there is only one rule and there is nothing to sequence. The only way your premise would be true is that all of the weapons were required to fire, and at the same time. There are no rules for weapons to fire at the same time.

"At the end of the movement phase" is a CONDITION to fire, not a trigger to prompt you to sequence.

Your entire argument is a fabrication.
The active player does nothing.