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.

All units have access to the shooting rules.
Interceptor grants them permission to be used at the end of the movement phase if fired at specific targets.

You can sequence the permission however you like it doesn't change what order they ultimately fire in.

Clearly you cannot contest this so you have chosen to make light of it.

Your example assumes weapons are being fired at the same time, without using the shooting sequence rules.
You cannot explain this and refuse to explain this.
You don't have a valid reason to sequence but you invent one.

Your example is wrong because you have to break the shooting sequence rules in order to perform it.
The first rule of the sequence is to nominate a unit but your explanation dictates that what is chosen is forced by the active player. The sequence rule does not have permission to break the shooting sequence rules. Which means your example is flawed because you have to break rules in order to do it.

My "magical" example is not breaking any rules.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Let me show you what happens three times.

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

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

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

You do not get to sequence the firing.
The firing follows the rules for shooting sequences.

You want to sequence, the order, they gain permission to fire? LOL.
That does nothing ultimately, they still fire in the order of controllers choice, you sequencing the permission to fire does not sequence the firing.
The rule permits them to fire, it does not make them fire at the same time.

You are trying to assert control over when they fire, which you are not permitted to do because they do not fire at the same time.

The Sequencing rule mandates that the multiple Interceptor rules are sequenced in the order of the ACTIVE players choosing.

So the controlling player has the permissions to fire Interceptor while that particular Interceptor rule instance is being resolved.

@Col_Impact then according to your interpretation of sequencing and multiple instances of a same rule happening. How many weapons can a Tau Stormsurge ( GMC model) using an Early warning system ( grants Interceptor to all the weapons of the model) fire with Interceptor then?

Because you interpretation claims that Stormsurge it's being bestowed several times the same special rule wich obviusly it's not possible.

Lord Perversor wrote:
@Col_Impact then according to your interpretation of sequencing and multiple instances of a same rule happening. How many weapons can a Tau Stormsurge ( GMC model) using an Early warning system ( grants Interceptor to all the weapons of the model) fire with Interceptor then?

Because you interpretation claims that Stormsurge it's being bestowed several times the same special rule wich obviusly it's not possible.

Your example is flawed.
The WEAPONS gain the rule, just like you could have a vehicle that has two Melta weapons.
Each weapon has the rule, the model doesn't have the rule.

However the rules for a shooting sequence allow you to pick a weapon, so his interpretation breaks the rules for shooting sequences.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Spoiler:

I was mostly talking about Initiative Step Pile In, but End Phase works, too.

And nothing in the Initiative Step Pile In is talking about an "entire collective of models". It mentions those models that are in the combat, but that's no more the same type of "collective" than the "collective" of models which are carrying Interceptor Weapons.

All movement in here is by the model, and provided an order:
1) Any models that would Pile In to base contact.
2) Any models that would Pile In to engage.
3) Any other models that are in the combat but cannot engage.

It's all the same rule dealing with models moving in the same Initiative Step which may or may not be part of the same unit, much less the same owner.

If the Active Player can determine which Interceptor shoots first, then he can determine which of his enemy's models can Pile In first (out of the steps).

Why is this important? Because a certain point of sequencing can leave certain models from being in Step 2 out to Step 3. So, too, determining the sequencing of Interceptor shots can lead to undesired results on the part of the controlling player. Not to mention, there is no permission to go outside the shooting process established in the Shooting Sequence like Split Fire does.

Edit: The sequencing mentioned above is not a reference to the Sequencing paragraph in The Turn, but just the general term. I know that some people get confused by that.

Spoiler:

Charistoph,

so are you actively participating in this thread? IE, do you have some participants on ignore or not? If I am on ignore you are not actively participating.

Assuming I am not on ignore than I will point out that I think you failed to notice that in the basic Pile In instructions it includes instructions for dealing with the entirety of the units under control of each of the players for that combat.

[spoiler]When making Pile In moves, the player whose turn it is moves his unit(s) first.

So there is no way you can have more than one copy of the Pile In instructions conflicting with another. The one set of instructions marches along and covers ALL models in ALL units in ALL combats for ALL players leaving nothing for a Sequencing rule to sequence. If you have trouble following along how all models in all units are comprehensively covered make sure to read the instructions for the entire Fight sub-phase. We can open up a new thread if you need me to help show you line by line.[/spoiler]

Well, even if he has you on ignore he'll manage to read your comments pertinent to him due to my quoting them here.

Well, sometimes. I will often ignore him and Caenn's responses even when quoted. I will often respond at the point that I do normally read. If a respondent I do read says some interesting points, I will read what they quoted to make sure I understand the context. A certain person would know that if he actually bothered to read what others wrote instead of just going off quarter-cocked on their crusade.

And I do think I can participate in a discussion based on that, except for the inane back and forth that he usually produces and Caenn gets sucked in to. There are no rules stating that I cannot.

 doctortom wrote:
I do have to point out that you are wrong in your assertion that you can not have multiple pile in instructions. Multiple comments dictates each unit makes its pile in move. Going by the standard you have claimed for how you play Interceptor, that would mean each unit has a pile in rule. Since we are talking multiple combat here, at least one side will have two or more units that will make pile in moves. According to the standard you have claimed for Interceptor, this would mean that each of these units has the pile in rule, which means that, according to the logic you established, there are multiple pile in rules on at least one side. That makes your comment about the player whose turn it is moving his units firsts irrelevant, as it does not deal with how to handle the order in which he moves multiple units. According to your claims, the active player would get to choose which unit of the non-active player piles in first, and the order of pile in for any units after that.

Actually, you DO have multiple Pile In instructions, however, it is all part of the same rule.

I do agree that the point that Col_Ignored does not seem to realize, though, is that you have multiple entities all responding to the same instruction at the same time, just like Interceptor. It is this "same instruction" factor which does not engage "Sequencing". "Sequencing" involves two or more rules being resolved at the same time, not the same rule being called by different units at the same time.

Even then, it would require a special rule of some sort to allow your opponent to decide the actions you take with your models. Your opponent cannot interact with Interceptor (aside from Saves and Morale Check, obviously), as it happens after he has performed all his moves and it doesn't involve any more choices on his part.

Ceann wrote:
All units have access to the shooting rules.
Interceptor grants them permission to be used at the end of the movement phase if fired at specific targets.

You can sequence the permission however you like it doesn't change what order they ultimately fire in.

Clearly you cannot contest this so you have chosen to make light of it.

Your example assumes weapons are being fired at the same time, without using the shooting sequence rules.
You cannot explain this and refuse to explain this.
You don't have a valid reason to sequence but you invent one.

Your example is wrong because you have to break the shooting sequence rules in order to perform it.
The first rule of the sequence is to nominate a unit but your explanation dictates that what is chosen is forced by the active player. The sequence rule does not have permission to break the shooting sequence rules. Which means your example is flawed because you have to break rules in order to do it.

My "magical" example is not breaking any rules.

Oh, you were actually being serious. How odd. I actually seriously thought that you were joking.

The Sequencing rule dictates the order in which multiple rules that are scheduled to happen at the same time are resolved. In this case we are dealing with "a weapon" that "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

It can be straightforwardly shown that your example is trying to break up the resolution of the rule into more than one time step without any basis in the Interceptor rule itself for doing so. Your example is saying that the rule is resolved by somehow (without any rule support for doing so) writing a static ability to the weapon at one point in time so that the weapon can be used outside of the rule resolution time frame and then allowing the weapon to be fired at an entirely different point in time after the rule resolution. However, neither the writing of the static ability nor the creation of a separate time step are justified in the Interceptor rule. In other words, you are just making junk up to obfuscate the fact that everything in your solution is still happening "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" which necessitates the intervention of the Sequencing rule to order the entire resolution.

My solution does not involve making junk up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:



So the controlling player has the permissions to fire Interceptor while that particular Interceptor rule instance is being resolved.

No, the firing is not done at the same time. Shooting follows the shooting process, and those rules do not happen at the same time; therefore, sequencing would not apply to resolving the shooting. You do not have permission to break the shooting rules.

col_impact wrote:
There is no shooting sequence native to the end of the enemy Movement phase so each individual Interceptor firing is its own shooting sequence that is completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor rule.

There is a shooting sequence involved due to Interceptor. The shooting sequence does not involve shooting at the same time, however, so sequencing does not apply to the shooting any more than it does to pile in. There is no permission to ignore the shooting process rules (which ares used due to the permission to fire weapons in the first place), so you must follow the shooting process, which means following the shooting sequence.

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

Permission is given for weapons to fire; therefore this permission covers having a shooting sequence at the end of the movement phase. To the contrary, it could be said that you have no permission to break up the shooting sequence already invoked by the pemission to fire from Interceptor into separate shooting sequences.

doctortom,

the shooting process happens entirely in the context of resolving one of the Interceptor rule permissions. By the time any shooting process happens the order for the multiple Interceptor rule resolutions will have already been determined by the ACTIVE player since everything is attempting to happen "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" and there is no avoiding the application of the Sequencing rule.

My challenge to you is to provide a complete step by step counter argument. You keep saying that the shooting process allows you to avoid rule scheduling conflicts but have yet to show a worked out proposal. When I pressed Ceann to do so he presented a proposal with obvious problems where he is literally making up steps and presenting a 'magical' solution. Do you agree with his proposed solution? Or are you going to propose something different? Remember, there is no shooting sequence that happens by default at the end of the enemy Movement phase so it is important for you to show how the multiple shooting attacks actually get resolved. My solution works when described in detail and is validated by the rules. You have yet to propose a solution that works according to the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Actually, you DO have multiple Pile In instructions, however, it is all part of the same rule.

I do agree that the point that Col_Ignored does not seem to realize, though, is that you have multiple entities all responding to the same instruction at the same time, just like Interceptor. It is this "same instruction" factor which does not engage "Sequencing". "Sequencing" involves two or more rules being resolved at the same time, not the same rule being called by different units at the same time.

After the player works his way through the instructions one time there are NO units or models left to pile in. All units and models have been accounted for. So even if there was somehow a second set of instructions to work through it wouldn't do anything as ALL units and models have already resolved the instructions.

So basically your straw man of my argument didn't work. You have failed to show multiple rules to resolve when (as you admit in red in your quote above) there is just the one rule with comprehensive instructions.

If you want an actually comparable example in the rules we should discuss the case of multiple Deathmark units with Ethereal Interception responding to the same Deep Strike trigger.

col impact.

Since Interceptor gives permission to fire, you use the shooting process to resolve. The shooting process clearly indicates that the shots are not resolved at the same time, which means that you do not have multiple uses of Interceptor attempting to be resolved at the same time. This by itself indicates that sequencing does not apply.

Then, there is the fact that it is one rule, not two or more rules. As Charistoph and myself have shown, there must be two rules to apply. The same rule on multiple units is not the same as two rules. That is merely cognitive dissonance on your part. Not having two rules means that sequencing does not apply. I refer you to Charistoph's reply above. I also with to point out that I indicated the flaw in your Pile In argument, yet you have not come back to address that yet - is that because it shows you are not treating Pile In for multiple combats and Interceptor consistently by the standards you are claiminig?

And you want a worked out proposal about how the shooting process doesn't involve sequencing? It's on page 30 of the rulebook - the Shooting Sequence. Note how when following the shooting sequence weapons are not fired at the same time.

EDIT - and you dodged the point with your later addendum responding to Charistoph. Multiple combat = multiple units on one side having to pile in. Does the Active Player choose the order in which the units pile in?

 doctortom wrote:
col impact.

Since Interceptor gives permission to fire, you use the shooting process to resolve. The shooting process clearly indicates that the shots are not resolved at the same time, which means that you do not have multiple uses of Interceptor attempting to be resolved at the same time. This by itself indicates that sequencing does not apply.

Then, there is the fact that it is one rule, not two or more rules. As Charistoph and myself have shown, there must be two rules to apply. The same rule on multiple units is not the same as two rules. That is merely cognitive dissonance on your part. Not having two rules means that sequencing does not apply.

You still have not provided a counter proposal. Work it out step by step. The Interceptor rule gives permission for "a weapon" (in the the singular) to be fired so how exactly are you getting permission to fire multiple Interceptor weapons unless there are indeed multiple Interceptor rules and their corresponding permissions floating around?

Also, you keep putting the cart before the horse. The shooting attack for the Interceptor weapon is resolved entirely within the context of a single Interceptor rule resolution ("a weapon" "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase").

Again my challenge to you is to provide a complete counter proposal. Where is it? Or do you accept Ceann's counter proposal? At least he was able to work out his solution in detail. You can't challenge my solution unless you actually offer a counter solution.

The big problem that you have is that your argument simply does not work in detail. If you disagree with that then prove me wrong.


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 among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).

In the absence of such permission, the multiple Interceptor rules are resolved in piecemeal fashion with each Interceptor rule resolved separably based on the sequence of the active players choosing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


EDIT - and you dodged the point with your later addendum responding to Charistoph. Multiple combat = multiple units on one side having to pile in. Does the Active Player choose the order in which the units pile in?

Again, you are failing to show more than one rule at play. The rule for the Fight Sub Phase amounts to a single time marching through the instructions with NO models and NO units left over. Neither you nor Charistoph has shown rule collision.

Deal with the issue of it being one rule, not two rules (the same rule on multiple units is not the same as two rules), and why Pile In in multiple combats is not handled the same way. You're dodging that part yet again.

I dealt with your claim about "no permission to lump all instances of Interceptor together" showing why it is discredited in an earleir post. You have not shown how you have permission to treat each firing as a separate shooting process when the process already handles firing multiple weapons and shows that you are not taking the actions at the same time.

EDIT: I see your addendum "Again, you are failing to show more than one rule at play. The rule for the Fight Sub Phase amounts to a single time marching through the instructions with NO models and NO units left over. Neither you nor Charistoph has shown rule collision."

According to your standard, there are multiple units piling in, which would be multiple instances of the Pile In rule being applied. This would be the same standard that you are applying to the Interceptor rule, saying that each unit (or each weapon) with Interceptor is treated as a different rule. So, you are being inconsistent in your argument. Personally, I agree with you that there is not more than one rule at play here - merely the Pile In rule. You damn your own argument, however - by the same standard, there is only one rule in play - Interceptor - not more than one rule in play. Only one rule in play = no sequencing involved.

 doctortom wrote:

Deal with the issue of it being one rule, not two rules (the same rule on multiple units is not the same as two rules), and why Pile In in multiple combats is not handled the same way. You're dodging that part yet again.

I dealt with your claim about "no permission to lump all instances of Interceptor together" showing why it is discredited in an earleir post. You have not shown how you have permission to treat each firing as a separate shooting process when the process already handles firing multiple weapons and shows that you are not taking the actions at the same time.

Where is your counter proposal?

My solution is here.



If you cannot articulate a counter proposal then you are done here as I remain the only one in this thread who is actually presenting a complete solution that is validated by the rules.

P.S. I have already addressed that we have multiple Interceptor rules. If we didn't then you only get a single Interceptor shot altogether.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

EDIT: I see your addendum "Again, you are failing to show more than one rule at play. The rule for the Fight Sub Phase amounts to a single time marching through the instructions with NO models and NO units left over. Neither you nor Charistoph has shown rule collision."

According to your standard, there are multiple units piling in, which would be multiple instances of the Pile In rule being applied. This would be the same standard that you are applying to the Interceptor rule, saying that each unit (or each weapon) with Interceptor is treated as a different rule. So, you are being inconsistent in your argument. Personally, I agree with you that there is not more than one rule at play here - merely the Pile In rule. You damn your own argument, however - by the same standard, there is only one rule in play - Interceptor - not more than one rule in play. Only one rule in play = no sequencing involved.

Would you care to quote the Pile In move rule in its entireity? The rule is simply comprehensive all in itself. If the rule in a single application resolves ALL models in ALL units then it cannot conflict with a second Pile In rule even if there was somehow a second one to contend with.

Start quoting rules and prove that there is rule collision. If you cannot prove that there is rule collision then you have no slippery slope argument since my argument deals with actual rule collisions.

The shooting process can be summarized in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting
sequence with ONE of your units, select another and repeat the sequence.


The rules for shooting dictate only ONE of your units at a time can use them.

You are required to demonstrate two units firing at the same time in order to sequence.

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon.


Your "proposal" breaks the rules for the shooting sequence.
Hence your "proposal" is discarded.
The first rule of the sequence is to nominate a unit that is able to shoot, we can nominate ANY of our units with Interceptor.

From "Assauit Results" for the Multiple Combats section, page 55

"After determining assault results, all remaining units - those that fought in the multiple combat but aren't Falling Back or making a Sweeping Advance - must make Pile In moves towards each other."

Multiple units having to use the Pile In rule. You cite that for Interceptor as multiple rules.

As for my counter-proposal, I have pointed out how you have failed to meet the criteria of sequencing in the first place, and that you follow the shooting process rules, which covers units firing and weapons firing - not at the same time. Do not act as if there is no counter proposal. You might not like the form it is presented in, but it is still there.

EDIT: And, when your last line in your thread was only "If you cannot articulate a counter proposal then you are done here" I sent a report to the moderator not only about the continuous rut we are in (especially with the cut and paste), and with the tone that took - if you're going to decide who is done here, we have obviously reached a point where the thread should not continue.

Ceann wrote:
The shooting process can be summarized in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting
sequence with ONE of your units, select another and repeat the sequence.


The rules for shooting dictate only ONE of your units at a time can use them.

You are required to demonstrate two units firing at the same time in order to sequence.

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon.


Your "proposal" breaks the rules for the shooting sequence.
Hence your "proposal" is discarded.
The first rule of the sequence is to nominate a unit that is able to shoot, we can nominate ANY of our units.

Ceann, there is no shooting sequence that happens at the end of the enemy Movement phase. How do the shooting sequence rules even come into play?

Ceann, you need to provide a complete counter proposal as I have done. You cannot simply say "but the shooting sequence!". How do you even get to the shooting sequence? Work it out step-by-step please.

It comes into play from the singular rule Interceptor coming into play. When Interceptor comes into play, you have the shooting process rules - which are summarized in the Shooting Sequence table - which detail how to handle the shooting. As these rules indicate no conflict with any unit trying to use and resolve Interceptor at the same time, sequencing does not apply.

Ceann does not need to provide a step-by-step proposal. That is a fallacy on your part. You need to demonstrate the requirement for sequencing to be able to be invoked in the first place, and we have shown why sequencing does not apply.

Please actually address what we are saying instead of insisting on a counter proposal from us - we have dealt with your issues before, and have seen you ignore what we have asked. We have pointed out why your argument is irrelevant, and have provided a counter proposal - FOLLOWING THE SHOOTING PROCESS RULES that are never stated to be overridden by Interceptor, and due to the shooting sequence rules showing we are not having "two rules" at the same time (which is actually one rule on multiple units), then the shooting sequence rules cover things.

 doctortom wrote:
From "Assauit Results" for the Multiple Combats section, page 55

"After determining assault results, all remaining units - those that fought in the multiple combat but aren't Falling Back or making a Sweeping Advance - must make Pile In moves towards each other."

Multiple units having to use the Pile In rule. You cite that for Interceptor as multiple rules.

The pile in instructions already cover multiple units. One time application of the pile in instructions covers ALL units and ALL models with nothing left over. Read the entire Fight Sub Phase section.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
The shooting process can be summarized in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting
sequence with ONE of your units, select another and repeat the sequence.


The rules for shooting dictate only ONE of your units at a time can use them.

You are required to demonstrate two units firing at the same time in order to sequence.

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon.


Your "proposal" breaks the rules for the shooting sequence.
Hence your "proposal" is discarded.
The first rule of the sequence is to nominate a unit that is able to shoot, we can nominate ANY of our units.

Ceann, there is no shooting sequence that happens at the end of the enemy Movement phase. How do the shooting sequence rules even come into play?

Ceann, you need to provide a complete counter proposal as I have done. You cannot simply say "but the shooting sequence!". How do you even get to the shooting sequence? Work it out step-by-step please.

Col, there is no "at the same time" that happens when units are firing with Interceptor. How does sequencing even come into play?

Col, you need to provide a complete counter proposal as I have done, You cannot simply say "they happen at the same time!". How do you even get two units to fire at the same time? Work it out step-by-step please.

The assertion they are happening at the same time is yours and unproven, I don't need to counter proposing anything, you are assuming your argument is valid by default.
If we aren't using the shooting sequence then units can't fire.

_____________________________________________

Q: Do abilities that allow a model to fire an extra weapon
in the Shooting phase allow them to fire an extra weapon in
Overwatch or while intercepting (e.g. Monstrous Creatures and
Tau multi-trackers)?
A: Yes. In the case of Interceptor, only weapons with the
Interceptor rule can be fired.
_____________________________________________

The FAQ even demonstrates for us that Overwatch AND intercepting use the shooting phase rules, even when it isn't the shooting phase.

_____________________________________________

Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire
Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the
firing units’ controlling player.
_____________________________________________

The rules for multi Overwatch's tell us that unit's firing are resolved SEPARATELY.
Nothing says anything about "at the same time" except you.

 doctortom wrote:

As for my counter-proposal, I have pointed out how you have failed to meet the criteria of sequencing in the first place, and that you follow the shooting process rules, which covers units firing and weapons firing - not at the same time. Do not act as if there is no counter proposal. You might not like the form it is presented in, but it is still there.

EDIT: And, when your last line in your thread was only "If you cannot articulate a counter proposal then you are done here" I sent a report to the moderator not only about the continuous rut we are in (especially with the cut and paste), and with the tone that took - if you're going to decide who is done here, we have obviously reached a point where the thread should not continue.

So basically instead of showing how your argument works in a step by step fashion you are going to message an Admin to shut the thread down? That's quite the dodge there.

When you go to work out your counter proposal you will be faced with a few problems.

1) You claim there is only one Interceptor rule to resolve. That one Interceptor rule only allows for a single firing of an Interceptor weapon. How are you getting to multiple firings with one Interceptor rule?

2) You have a cart before the horse problem. You only have permission to do a shooting attack while you are resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules that are being scheduled at the same time. By the time you are working through the shooting sequence the Sequencing rule will already have dictated the order of the multiple Interceptor rules that are trying to schedule "a weapon""can be fired""at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
From "Assauit Results" for the Multiple Combats section, page 55

"After determining assault results, all remaining units - those that fought in the multiple combat but aren't Falling Back or making a Sweeping Advance - must make Pile In moves towards each other."

Multiple units having to use the Pile In rule. You cite that for Interceptor as multiple rules.

The pile in instructions already cover multiple units. One time application of the pile in instructions covers ALL units and ALL models with nothing left over. Read the entire Fight Sub Phase section.

That merely states all models are making a pile in move. Multiple combats states specifically that the units plural must make pile in moves - plural - indicating multiple instances of pile in moves for the units. This would mean the same rule being used for each of the "all units" as mentioned in Multiple Combats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

As for my counter-proposal, I have pointed out how you have failed to meet the criteria of sequencing in the first place, and that you follow the shooting process rules, which covers units firing and weapons firing - not at the same time. Do not act as if there is no counter proposal. You might not like the form it is presented in, but it is still there.

EDIT: And, when your last line in your thread was only "If you cannot articulate a counter proposal then you are done here" I sent a report to the moderator not only about the continuous rut we are in (especially with the cut and paste), and with the tone that took - if you're going to decide who is done here, we have obviously reached a point where the thread should not continue.

So basically instead of showing how your argument works in a step by step fashion you are going to message an Admin to shut the thread down? That's quite the dodge there.

When you go to work out your counter proposal you will be faced with a few problems.

1) You claim there is only one Interceptor rule to resolve. That one Interceptor rule only allows for a single firing of an Interceptor weapon. How are you getting to multiple firings with one Interceptor rule?

2) You have a cart before the horse problem. You only have permission to do a shooting attack while you are resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules that are being scheduled at the same time. By the time you are working through the shooting sequence the Sequencing rule will already have dictated the order of the multiple Interceptor rules that are trying to schedule "a weapon""can be fired""at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

1) Actually, Interceptor says "a weapon" may fire. Are you now going to say that the sequencing rules allow you to dictate the order in which every weapon with Interceptor is fired?

2) No, I am not resolving the Interceptor rules at the same time. The Interceptor rules are resolved by the weapons with Interceptor being fired. The shooting process rules clearly indicate that these do not happen at the same time. No cart before the horse.

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

If I have one unit with Interceptor and another unit with Interceptor then I have two Interceptor rules to resolve not one. If I only have one then I only get one firing. Read the rule!


Also, as I have already stated it is the multiple Intercept rules 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 multiple 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

The pile in instructions already cover multiple units. One time application of the pile in instructions covers ALL units and ALL models with nothing left over. Read the entire Fight Sub Phase section.

That merely states all models are making a pile in move. Multiple combats states specifically that the units plural must make pile in moves - plural - indicating multiple instances of pile in moves for the units. This would mean the same rule being used for each of the "all units" as mentioned in Multiple Combats.

Incorrect. The pile in instructions comprehensively cover ALL units. Are you reading the bolded parts of the Pile In instructions?

Demonstrate, step by step, two interceptor rules in action.
Where they occur at the same time and why they need to be sequenced.

Interceptor is RESOLVED by using the shooting sequence rules.

Demonstrate TWO shooting sequences occurring at the same time, because that is what is required in order to be sequenced.

These units are no more "firing at the same time" than two units firing overwatch in a multi charge, they are resolved separably.

Per the FAQ both Overwatch and Interceptor reference the shooting rules.

Q: Do abilities that allow a model to fire an extra weapon
in the Shooting phase allow them to fire an extra weapon in
Overwatch or while intercepting (e.g. Monstrous Creatures and
Tau multi-trackers)?
A: Yes. In the case of Interceptor, only weapons with the
Interceptor rule can be fired.
_____________________________________________

The FAQ even demonstrates for us that Overwatch AND intercepting use the shooting phase rules, even when it isn't the shooting phase.

_____________________________________________

Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire
Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the
firing units’ controlling player.
_____________________________________________

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

1) You claim there is only one Interceptor rule to resolve. That one Interceptor rule only allows for a single firing of an Interceptor weapon. How are you getting to multiple firings with one Interceptor rule?

2) You have a cart before the horse problem. You only have permission to do a shooting attack while you are resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules that are being scheduled at the same time. By the time you are working through the shooting sequence the Sequencing rule will already have dictated the order of the multiple Interceptor rules that are trying to schedule "a weapon""can be fired""at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

1) Actually, Interceptor says "a weapon" may fire. Are you now going to say that the sequencing rules allow you to dictate the order in which every weapon with Interceptor is fired?

Yes, and this should come as no surprise. The controlling player is attempting to do something in the ACTIVE player's turn without the special permissions that Overwatch has. The ACTIVE player dictates the order of all the multiple Interceptor rules, however many of them. The Sequencing rule applies and must be obeyed.

 doctortom wrote:
2) No, I am not resolving the Interceptor rules at the same time. The Interceptor rules are resolved by the weapons with Interceptor being fired. The shooting process rules clearly indicate that these do not happen at the same time. No cart before the horse.

How do you get the permission to have a shooting sequence at the end of the enemy Movement phase unless you are already resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules? That's the cart before horse problem you STILL fail to address.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

1) You claim there is only one Interceptor rule to resolve. That one Interceptor rule only allows for a single firing of an Interceptor weapon. How are you getting to multiple firings with one Interceptor rule?

2) You have a cart before the horse problem. You only have permission to do a shooting attack while you are resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules that are being scheduled at the same time. By the time you are working through the shooting sequence the Sequencing rule will already have dictated the order of the multiple Interceptor rules that are trying to schedule "a weapon""can be fired""at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

1) Actually, Interceptor says "a weapon" may fire. Are you now going to say that the sequencing rules allow you to dictate the order in which every weapon with Interceptor is fired?

Yes, and this should come as no surprise. The controlling player is attempting to do something in the ACTIVE player's turn without the special permissions that Overwatch has.

 doctortom wrote:
2) No, I am not resolving the Interceptor rules at the same time. The Interceptor rules are resolved by the weapons with Interceptor being fired. The shooting process rules clearly indicate that these do not happen at the same time. No cart before the horse.

How do you get the permission to have a shooting sequence at the end of the enemy Movement phase unless you are already resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules? That's the cart before horse problem you STILL fail to address.

How do you get permission to sequence Interceptor attacks when they are resolved using the shooting sequence and cannot occur at the same time?

Ceann wrote:


How do you get permission to sequence Interceptor attacks when they are resolved using the shooting sequence and cannot occur at the same time?

The Sequencing rule dictates the order of multiple rules (not attacks) resolving at the same time. Each rule resolution involves a single Interceptor attack that the controlling player opts to do or not to do. There is no sequencing of Interceptor attacks since each rule only affords one. Rather, per the Sequencing rule, the Intercepting rule itself (and its corresponding permission) is being sequenced in relation to other Interceptor rules competing to resolve at the same time.



The Sequencing rule finds that multiple 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 in which the multiple Interceptor rules apply.

None of this should come as any surprise. The controlling player is trying to do something in the ACTIVE player's turn without special permission to take control of the ordering of conflicting rule resolutions. Overwatch has these permissions. Interceptor does not.

Interceptor deals with firing weapons. As specified in the shooting process, weapons fire at different times. This means that you are not resolving the rules at the same time. Therefore, as you are not resolving them at the same time, sequencing does not apply.

So explain to everyone here.

How two shooting attacks.

Resolve at the same time.

They are all permitted to fire at the same time.
They resolve ONE at a time.

Two shooting attacks would have to take place at the same time in order to be "competing" and thus needing to be sequenced.
Per the shooting rules this situation cannot occur.
So the situation you are proposing as a solution is impossible.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
From "Assauit Results" for the Multiple Combats section, page 55

"After determining assault results, all remaining units - those that fought in the multiple combat but aren't Falling Back or making a Sweeping Advance - must make Pile In moves towards each other."

Multiple units having to use the Pile In rule. You cite that for Interceptor as multiple rules.

The pile in instructions already cover multiple units. One time application of the pile in instructions covers ALL units and ALL models with nothing left over. Read the entire Fight Sub Phase section.

That merely states all models are making a pile in move. Multiple combats states specifically that the units plural must make pile in moves - plural - indicating multiple instances of pile in moves for the units. This would mean the same rule being used for each of the "all units" as mentioned in Multiple Combats.

As usual, he misses the point of the reference, even when explained explicitly and directly.

Sure, the rule covers all units and models in the Pile In. But there are multiple models that need to be moved, and they cannot be all moved at once, nor are we instructed to move all of them first. Which ones are moved first, and who makes that call? By using his assertion on Interceptor, he is saying that he can determine if my Initiate A3 gets to Pile In before Initiate A4.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

As for my counter-proposal, I have pointed out how you have failed to meet the criteria of sequencing in the first place, and that you follow the shooting process rules, which covers units firing and weapons firing - not at the same time. Do not act as if there is no counter proposal. You might not like the form it is presented in, but it is still there.

EDIT: And, when your last line in your thread was only "If you cannot articulate a counter proposal then you are done here" I sent a report to the moderator not only about the continuous rut we are in (especially with the cut and paste), and with the tone that took - if you're going to decide who is done here, we have obviously reached a point where the thread should not continue.

So basically instead of showing how your argument works in a step by step fashion you are going to message an Admin to shut the thread down? That's quite the dodge there.

When you go to work out your counter proposal you will be faced with a few problems.

1) You claim there is only one Interceptor rule to resolve. That one Interceptor rule only allows for a single firing of an Interceptor weapon. How are you getting to multiple firings with one Interceptor rule?

2) You have a cart before the horse problem. You only have permission to do a shooting attack while you are resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules that are being scheduled at the same time. By the time you are working through the shooting sequence the Sequencing rule will already have dictated the order of the multiple Interceptor rules that are trying to schedule "a weapon""can be fired""at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

1) Actually, Interceptor says "a weapon" may fire. Are you now going to say that the sequencing rules allow you to dictate the order in which every weapon with Interceptor is fired?

2) No, I am not resolving the Interceptor rules at the same time. The Interceptor rules are resolved by the weapons with Interceptor being fired. The shooting process rules clearly indicate that these do not happen at the same time. No cart before the horse.

I'm curious how he is to prove that the Interceptor on a Hydra is different from the Interceptor on a Riptide.

And he is quite incorrect. The Sequence rule would have to be initiated before we go in to the Shooting Sequence, not while it is being done. The Sequence rule still only applies when two or more rules are involved, not two or more instances of a rules being involved. The addressing of the nouns by The Sequence rule is sufficiently specific. It is just better to ignore the one who is consistently out of context than to entertain him and his notions.

Ceann wrote:
So explain to everyone here.

How two shooting attacks.

Resolve at the same time.

You are presenting me with a task that does not apply to the case at hand.

The Sequencing rule applies when there are two rules to be resolved at the same time. There are multiple Interceptor rules to be resolved "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

Try as I might I cannot find any mention of 'shooting attack' in the Sequencing rule. The Sequencing rule applies to rules, not shooting attacks.

By the time the controlling player is making a Interceptor shooting attack the multiple Interceptor rules will have already been necessarily ordered by the Sequencing rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
From "Assauit Results" for the Multiple Combats section, page 55

"After determining assault results, all remaining units - those that fought in the multiple combat but aren't Falling Back or making a Sweeping Advance - must make Pile In moves towards each other."

Multiple units having to use the Pile In rule. You cite that for Interceptor as multiple rules.

The pile in instructions already cover multiple units. One time application of the pile in instructions covers ALL units and ALL models with nothing left over. Read the entire Fight Sub Phase section.

That merely states all models are making a pile in move. Multiple combats states specifically that the units plural must make pile in moves - plural - indicating multiple instances of pile in moves for the units. This would mean the same rule being used for each of the "all units" as mentioned in Multiple Combats.

As usual, he misses the point of the reference, even when explained explicitly and directly.

Sure, the rule covers all units and models in the Pile In. But there are multiple models that need to be moved, and they cannot be all moved at once, nor are we instructed to move all of them first. Which ones are moved first, and who makes that call? By using his assertion on Interceptor, he is saying that he can determine if my Initiate A3 gets to Pile In before Initiate A4.

Since the single rule covers all units and model in the Pile in, as you admit, then there cannot be any multiple rules competing to resolve at the same time. You have failed to show multiple rule collision so the Sequencing rule does not even factor in to this case.

Again, if you want a similar case then you should pick up the case of multiple Ethereal Interceptions.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
So explain to everyone here.

How two shooting attacks.

Resolve at the same time.

You are presenting me with a task that does not apply to the case at hand.

The Sequencing rule applies when there are two rules to be resolved at the same time. There are multiple Interceptor rules to be resolved "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

Try as I might I cannot find any mention of 'shooting attack' in the Sequencing rule. The Sequencing rule applies to rules. not shooting attacks.

The resolution of Interceptor is contingent upon following a shooting sequence.
If you have not followed a shooting sequence then the rule has not resolved.
The rules for shooting only allow one unit to fire at a time.
So there is NO circumstance where two rules are to be resolved at the same time.

Demonstrate the scenario where they are resolving at the same time.
Highlighting "at the end of the movement phase" does nothing for your case.
You are providing a section of a rule, not the resolution of one.

 Charistoph wrote:


And he is quite incorrect. The Sequence rule would have to be initiated before we go in to the Shooting Sequence, not while it is being done. The Sequence rule still only applies when two or more rules are involved, not two or more instances of a rules being involved. The addressing of the nouns by The Sequence rule is sufficiently specific. It is just better to ignore the one who is consistently out of context than to entertain him and his notions.

Already addressed. If we do not have multiple Interceptor rules to resolve then we only get a single Interceptor firing altogether. Read the rule.

Again...

Interceptor is resolved upon the completion of a shooting sequence.

So demonstrate two rules resolving at the same time, in order to invoke sequencing.

It is literally impossible for them to resolve at the same time.