Question about Interceptor

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.

**col_impact**

Ceann wrote:

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.

You have that backwards. The shooting sequence does not happen naturally at the end of the enemy Movement phase.

So the shooting sequence is contingent upon the controller being in the process of resolving an Interceptor rule. Only in the context of an Interceptor rule being resolved does the controlling player have a shooting attack to run through the shooting sequence.

This has been pointed out several times.

Feel free to keep bringing it up since each time you do so it broadcasts a rather basic logical problem in your counter argument.

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 opportunity to fire or not to fire is occurring "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced. The Sequencing rule applies and cannot be ignored.

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.

**Ceann**

I don't have anything backwards.

You have done nothing to demonstrate two rules are resolving at once and all you are doing now is ignoring demonstrating that so you can avoid explaining your flawed argument.

Please show all of us how two rules are being resolved at the same time in order for sequencing to be required.

The onus is on you to provide proof.
The FAQ demonstrates that Interceptor uses the shooting rules.

**doctortom**

col_impact wrote:

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

Actually, it does. You are the only one not recognizing that.

col_impact wrote:
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".

There is only one Interceptor rule. It is on page167 of the main rulebook.

col_impact wrote:
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.

This has been explained to you before, yet you still plead ignorance. "A weapon with the Interceptor rule can be fired" is clearly in the Interceptor rule. This means you have a ranged weapon firing. What are the rules for a ranged weapon firing? "The shooting process can be summarized in seven steps, as described below? (page 30). The Shooting Sequence is the summary, providing the rules for shooting which include not firing different weapons at the same time. As sequencing on page 17 clearly states "you'll occasionally find two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time
" Since you can not resolve Interceptor without firing the weapon, and the shooting process indicates that you are not firing the different weapons at the same time, you are not resolving them at the same time. Not resolving them at the same time meaning sequencing does not apply.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

You have that backwards. The shooting sequence does not happen naturally at the end of the enemy Movement phase.

So the shooting sequence is contingent upon the controller being in the process of resolving an Interceptor rule. Only in the context of an Interceptor rule being resolved does the controlling player have a shooting attack to run through the shooting sequence.

If multiple rules are triggered, then it is required to determine if they are resolved at the same time or not. Because of the shooting sequence, it is clear that they are not resolved at the same time. Therefore, since they are not actually resolved at the same time (even if you want to say they are triggered at the same time, which there is debate earlier about), sequencing does not apply since it only applies with two rules being resolved at the same time.

**col_impact**

doctortom wrote:
Since you can not resolve Interceptor without firing the weapon, and the shooting process indicates that you are not firing the different weapons at the same time, you are not resolving them at the same time. Not resolving them at the same time meaning sequencing does not apply.

Incorrect. Resolving a single Interceptor rule involves making the decision to fire or not to fire. If you decide not to fire and do some other actions then you cannot go back and revisit that Interceptor rule permission, unless your opponent gives you permission to go back to that permission. That ship has sailed and the moment has passed.

In fact, this is the single point of confusion for both you and Ceann.

You are confusing the act of firing with the decision to fire or not to fire.

Interceptor is resolved when the controlling player makes his decision about whether or not to take the opportunity to Intercept (which could involve firing or not firing).

Interceptor is not resolved only when the player fires an Interceptor weapon. Interceptor is also resolved when the controlling player elects to not fire an Interceptor weapon.

I am glad that we have that sorted out. The two of you were simply confused as to what resolving a rule actually means.

**doctortom**

Not incorrect. It is not only making the decision, but actually firing the weapons for those that are firing. As Ceann pointed out, the FAQ demonstrates Interceptor uses the shooting rules. The shooting rules use the shooting sequence, This means that Interceptor is not resolved when the controlling player elects to fire a weapon. It includes any resolution of the firing of the weapons themselves, which means you are following the shooting sequence - where the different weapons are not fired at the same time.

I am glad we have that sorted out. You are simply confused as to what resolving a rule actually means.

**col_impact**

doctortom wrote:
col_impact wrote:

You have that backwards. The shooting sequence does not happen naturally at the end of the enemy Movement phase.

So the shooting sequence is contingent upon the controller being in the process of resolving an Interceptor rule. Only in the context of an Interceptor rule being resolved does the controlling player have a shooting attack to run through the shooting sequence.

If multiple rules are triggered, then it is required to determine if they are resolved at the same time or not. Because of the shooting sequence, it is clear that they are not resolved at the same time. Therefore, since they are not actually resolved at the same time (even if you want to say they are triggered at the same time, which there is debate earlier about), sequencing does not apply since it only applies with two rules being resolved at the same time.

Again, you are confusing firing with resolving a rule. The Sequencing rule is concerned with sequencing rule resolutions that are scheduled at the same time.

The multiple Interceptor rules are competing to be resolved "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

**doctortom**

See my post above, it addresses this statment.

**col_impact**

doctortom wrote:
Not incorrect. It is not only making the decision, but actually firing the weapons for those that are firing. As Ceann pointed out, the FAQ demonstrates Interceptor uses the shooting rules. The shooting rules use the shooting sequence, This means that Interceptor is not resolved when the controlling player elects to fire a weapon. It includes any resolution of the firing of the weapons themselves, which means you are following the shooting sequence - where the different weapons are not fired at the same time.

I am glad we have that sorted out. You are simply confused as to what resolving a rule actually means.

Incorrect. If you pass on the opportunity to fire when you had the chance then you resolve the Interceptor rule. You don't need to actively fire to resolve the rule. The controlling player has the option to not fire and its the option that is presented to the controlling player by the Interceptor rule.

Again, the Sequencing rule is sequencing the resolutions of the multiple rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

doctortom wrote:
See my post above, it addresses this statment.

So is the Sequencing rule concerned with sequencing 'firings' or sequencing rules? Testing your comprehension. I will quote the rule to make it easy for you.

Spoiler:

**Ceann**

col_impact wrote:
doctortom wrote:
Since you can not resolve Interceptor without firing the weapon, and the shooting process indicates that you are not firing the different weapons at the same time, you are not resolving them at the same time. Not resolving them at the same time meaning sequencing does not apply.

Incorrect. Resolving a single Interceptor rule involves making the decision to fire or not to fire. If you decide not to fire and do some other actions then you cannot go back and revisit that Interceptor rule permission, unless your opponent gives you permission to go back to that permission. That ship has sailed and the moment has passed.

In fact, this is the single point of confusion for both you and Ceann.

You are confusing the act of firing with the decision to fire or not to fire.

Interceptor is resolved when the controlling player makes his decision about whether or not to take the opportunity to Intercept (which could involve firing or not firing).

Interceptor is not resolved only when the player fires an Interceptor weapon. Interceptor is also resolved when the controlling player elects to not fire an Interceptor weapon.

I am glad that we have that sorted out. The two of you were simply confused as to what resolving a rule actually means.

Demonstrate, step-by-step.
Two Interceptor rules resolving at the same time, thus needing to be sequenced.
You keep avoiding doing this so apparently you cannot and your argument is forfeit.
Interceptor permits them to fire, it does not ask them if they are firing.

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

This FAQ demonstrates that intercepting uses the same rules as the shooting phase. Because an effect pertinent to the shooting phase still applies when intercepting.

**col_impact**

Ceann wrote:

Demonstrate, step-by-step.
Two Interceptor rules resolving at the same time, thus needing to be sequenced.
You keep avoiding doing this so apparently you cannot and your argument is forfeit.
Interceptor permits them to fire, it does not ask them if they are firing.

Already addressed.

Spoiler:

**Ceann**

col_impact wrote:
Ceann wrote:

Demonstrate, step-by-step.
Two Interceptor rules resolving at the same time, thus needing to be sequenced.
You keep avoiding doing this so apparently you cannot and your argument is forfeit.
Interceptor permits them to fire, it does not ask them if they are firing.

Already addressed.

Spoiler:

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.

The Shooting Sequence only comes into play when you are busy resolving one of the Interceptor rules. At that time, the multiple Interceptor rules, which resolve "at the end of the enemy Movement phase", will have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player, per the Sequencing rule.

I have worked it out all here . . .

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.

My argument works and is validated by the rules. There are multiple Interceptor rules resolving at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencer rule mandates that the Active player dictates the order of resolution for those rules.

Not addressed.

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)
Breaking first rule of a shooting sequence.

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).
Breaking first rule of a shooting sequence.

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).
Breaking first rule of a shooting sequence.

Your example is breaking rules, it is discarded.

**col_impact**

Ceann wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Ceann wrote:

Demonstrate, step-by-step.
Two Interceptor rules resolving at the same time, thus needing to be sequenced.
You keep avoiding doing this so apparently you cannot and your argument is forfeit.
Interceptor permits them to fire, it does not ask them if they are firing.

Already addressed.

Spoiler:

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.

The Shooting Sequence only comes into play when you are busy resolving one of the Interceptor rules. At that time, the multiple Interceptor rules, which resolve "at the end of the enemy Movement phase", will have already been ordered by the ACTIVE player, per the Sequencing rule.

I have worked it out all here . . .

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.

My argument works and is validated by the rules. There are multiple Interceptor rules resolving at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencer rule mandates that the Active player dictates the order of resolution for those rules.

Not addressed.

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)
Breaking first rule of a shooting sequence.

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).
Breaking first rule of a shooting sequence.

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).
Breaking first rule of a shooting sequence.

Your example is breaking rules, it is discarded.

You are going to have to explain yourself. Exactly what rule am I breaking?

**Ceann**

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.

We can nominate any of our units with Interceptor.

You have no rule to allow you to force a specific unit to fire.
You are trying to use sequencing to force a unit to be nominated.

**col_impact**

Ceann wrote:
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.

We can nominate any of our units with Interceptor.

You have no rule to allow you to force a specific unit to fire.
You are trying to use sequencing to force a unit to be nominated.

I have never stated that I am forcing a specific unit to fire.

The controlling player is in the process of resolving a single Interceptor rule. That single Interceptor rule is resolved when the controlling player makes his choice to fire OR not to fire. If he chooses to fire then a shooting process will kick off to resolve the Interceptor shooting attack.

Remember, we are resolving rules, not firings, when we are talking about the Sequencing rule. You are confusing the two. We are concerned with multiple Interceptor rules in schedule conflict.

All of the multiple Interceptor rules are competing to be resolved "at the end of the enemy Movement phase". The Sequencing rule applies and cannot be ignored.

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.

**Ceann**

YOUR WORDS.

That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).

IS RESOLVED using the rules for shooting.

The rules for shooting allow us to pick a Unit to fire, so we are not constrained to whatever sequence you claim that exists.

If you are trying to sequence units A,B and C.
I can choose whichever one of them I wish to fire.
The shooting rules permit this to happen.

Are you asserting that firing doesn't take place as a part of the resolution now? That contradicts your own argument.

When does the firing take place if not?
You explanation is unclear.

**col_impact**

Ceann wrote:
YOUR WORDS.

That interceptor rule is resolved using the rules for a shooting attack (which involves the Shooting Sequence rules for just this attack).

IS RESOLVED using the rules for shooting.

The rules for shooting allow us to pick a Unit to fire, so we are not constrained to whatever sequence you claim that exists.

If you are trying to sequence units A,B and C.
I can choose whichever one of them I wish to fire.
The shooting rules permit this to happen.

Are you asserting that firing doesn't take place as a part of the resolution now? That contradicts your own argument.

When does the firing take place if not?
You explanation is unclear.

Since you have gotten confused let's break this down into simpler steps.

Interceptor
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.

If the controlling player is presented with the choice to fire an Interceptor weapon and he chooses not to fire then the rule has been resolved and game play proceeds with that rule having been resolved, correct?

In other words . . the time for a rule to happen comes up (e.g. "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"). The rule happens and a choice is presented to the player (e.g. "can be fired"). The player makes a choice ('not going to fire'). The time for the Interceptor rule passes. The Interceptor rule is resolved. Correct?

**Ceann**

Incorrect.

You are trying to sequence when there is no reason to do so.
Two Interceptors cannot be resolved at the same time.

You need PERMISSION to sequence.

You only gain that permission if two rules resolve at the same time.

As you described it yourself, the rules resolve using the shooting rules.

They therefore cannot resolve at the same time.
You are never given permission to sequence.

The criteria for "at the same time" is not that they becoming PENDING at the same time.
But that they are RESOLVING at the same time, which they are not.

**col_impact**

Ceann wrote:
Incorrect.

You are trying to sequence when there is no reason to do so.
Two Interceptors cannot be resolved at the same time.

You need PERMISSION to sequence.

You only gain that permission if two rules resolve at the same time.

As you described it yourself, the rules resolve using the shooting rules.

They therefore cannot resolve at the same time.
You are never given permission to sequence.

The criteria for "at the same time" is not that they becoming PENDING at the same time.
But that they are RESOLVING at the same time, which they are not.

Just answer the question.

An Interceptor rule is resolved when the controlling player elects not to fire the Interceptor weapon, correct? A decision is made to not fire the Interceptor weapon which resolves the Interceptor rule, correct?

**Ceann**

Incorrect.

All weapons are not firing by default.
Interceptor grants them the option to fire, gaining access to the rules below.

Shooting Sequence
Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack...

You will only know which ones are NOT firing, when we have completed all shooting sequences and ended the phase.
There is nothing in the interceptor rule that states an intent to fire or not fire must be declared.

You assume intent must be declared and then start with your sequencing nonsense, which is incorrect.

**col_impact**

Ceann wrote:
Incorrect.

All weapons are not firing by default.
Interceptor grants them the option to fire, gaining access to the rules below.

Shooting Sequence
Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack...

You will only know which ones are NOT firing, when we have completed all shooting sequences and ended the phase.
There is nothing in the interceptor rule that states an intent to fire or not fire must be declared.

You assume intent must be declared and then start with your sequencing nonsense, which is incorrect.

You don't understand what 'resolve' a rule means. Resolve means marching through a rule as it comes up and making decisions 'for the record' for the rule that come up. The controlling player is presented with the opportunity to fire by an Interceptor rule and chooses to fire or not to fire. After the player chooses one or the other then the Interceptor rule is resolved.

Otherwise the game comes to a screeching halt waiting for the controlling player to make a decision. If a player skips or passes on the Intercept rule then a decision 'not to fire' is committed 'for the record' on his behalf. The decision in the Interceptor rule must be resolved one way or the other.

**Ceann**

Considering no one agrees with you, I would say that you are the one who is misunderstanding.

If we're using the shooting sequence rules, which we are, then each iteration of interceptor allows any unit with interceptor to fire because we are free to nominate any unit.

This leaves one of two scenarios.

We either follow the shooting rules and fire with any unit with interceptor that we wish; or you are breaking the nomination rule for shooting.

Take your pick.

**col_impact**

Ceann wrote:
Considering no one agrees with you, I would say that you are the one who is misunderstanding.

If we're using the shooting sequence rules, which we are, then each iteration of interceptor allows any unit with interceptor to fire because we are free to nominate any unit.

This leaves one of two scenarios.

We either follow the shooting rules and fire with any unit with interceptor that we wish; or you are breaking the nomination rule for shooting.

Take your pick.

Okay. So you avoid the discussion of what 'resolve a rule' means. That must mean it is beyond your comprehension

However, if you don't know what 'resolve a rule' means then you cannot comprehend what the Sequencing rule means.

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.

What does it mean to 'resolve a rule'?

'Resolve a rule' means marching through a rule as it comes up, implementing the things the rule tells you to do, and making decisions 'for the record' for the rule that come up, correct?

You cannot ignore this question. If you do then you tacitly accept that I can apply the Sequencing rule to the case at hand and you will then concede the whole argument of the thread to me. You can't argue against my use of the Sequencing rule unless you know what 'resolve a rule' means, since the Sequencing rule depends on a knowledge of what that means.

So . . . what does it mean to 'resolve a rule'?

**Ceann**

You are claiming to have singular knowledge of what resolving a rule means. Any assertion you towards that point is your opinion.

Does your definition of resolving this rule require a shooting sequence or not?

**col_impact**

Ceann wrote:
You are claiming to have singular knowledge of what resolving a rule means. Any assertion you towards that point is your opinion.

Does your definition of resolving this rule require a shooting sequence or not?

I am not claiming to have singular knowledge of what resolving a rule means.

'Resolving a rule' is straightforward English and not mysterious at all.

'Resolve a rule' means marching through a rule as it comes up, implementing the things the rule tells you to do, and making decisions 'for the record' for the rule that come up.

You are refusing to answer the question because it will show to the world that you have all this time been confusing 'resolve a rule' with 'resolve a shot'.

I, on the other hand, haven't been confused. The multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase"). Therefore, the Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those multiple Interceptor rules resolve. The controlling player must resolve the Interceptor rules in an order of the ACTIVE players choosing. This is what I have been asserting since page 1.

My argument is based on a simple and straightforward application of the rules.

**Ceann**

It means no such thing, this is your normal obfuscation and word soup when you are losing. You pick a point you know is incorrect and then fabricate your own interpretations and claim them to be the truth, no one agrees with you, the thread goes on for 12 pages and gets locked.

The shooting sequence, in this circumstance, is part of the resolution.

"At the same time" is straightforward English but you seem to be having a real hard time with that one.

**col_impact**

Ceann wrote:
It means no such thing, this is your normal obfuscation and word soup when you are losing. You pick a point you know is incorrect and then fabricate your own interpretations and claim them to be the truth, no one agrees with you, the thread goes on for 12 pages and gets locked.

The shooting sequence, in this circumstance, is part of the resolution.

"At the same time" is straightforward English but you seem to be having a real hard time with that one.

If 'resolve a rule' does not mean what I say it means then what does it mean?

If you cannot answer that question then you cannot argue against my using the Sequencing rule.

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.

Knowing what 'resolve a rule' means is critical to knowing whether the Sequencing rule applies or not.

If you cannot answer then you will have to take my word for it.

Taking my word for it in this case means my argument wins out.

**Ceann**

Using your logic....

I have two units with Interceptor.

You sequence them be B and then A.

During the shooting sequence resolution contained within B, I use the "nominate a Unit" rule within the shooting sequence to nominate Unit A to fire.

Interceptor B is finished.

During the shooting sequence resolution contained within A, I use the "nominate a Unit" rule within the shooting sequence to nominate Unit B to fire.

Interceptor A is finished.

If we perform the rules as you state, then we are removing the option to nominate a Unit in a shooting sequence, so your interpretation is breaking the nomination rule.

If you assert these fire in another manner then you need to explain it.

**col_impact**

Ceann wrote:
Using your logic....

I have two units with Interceptor.

You sequence them be B and then A.

During the shooting sequence resolution contained within B, I use the "nominate a Unit" rule within the shooting sequence to nominate Unit A to fire. [this is not correct. A does not have permission to fire - its Interceptor rule has yet to come up.]

Interceptor B is finished.

During the shooting sequence resolution contained within A, I use the "nominate a Unit" rule within the shooting sequence to nominate Unit B to fire. [this is not correct. B no longer has permission to fire - its Interceptor rule has already been resolved]

Interceptor A is finished.

See the notes in red above. The ACTIVE player has already broken up the time collision of "the end of the enemy Movement phase" into a sequence of Interceptor rules arranged back to back. A can only choose to fire when its Interceptor rule is being resolved. B can only choose to fire when its Interceptor rule is being resolved. And so on.

Remember the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.

**Ceann**

So you are saying that the shooting sequence rule to nominate a unit is being overridden by the sequencing rule?

Or are you saying we are ignoring the shooting sequence rule, to nominate a unit?

The Interceptor rule is attached to a weapon, when the weapon fires the only thing it is looking for is "are we at the end of the movement phase" it doesn't care about anything else.
Its demands are met. The weapon doesn't care about what the "active" player is doing, or trying to do. If it can fire, which it can since we are "at the end of the movement phase"

Then it can fire, the resolution of any pending sequencing is irrelevant.

**Rolsheen**

Well it was games night here at the local GW last night and I explained this discussion to the manager and the dozen or so guys there, when they stopped laughing they all agreed that yes it's an out of turn shooting phase (just like overwatch) and sequencing had nothing to do with it.