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.
Ceann wrote: 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 Sequencing rule has made it so that competing rule resolutions for "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" happens in a sequence dictated by the ACTIVE player.
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.
The controlling player can only fire an Interceptor weapon when that Interceptor rule is being resolved, ie when that Interceptor weapon has its turn in the sequence provided by the ACTIVE player.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/12 00:40:38
Rolsheen wrote: 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.
Yeah, once certain people get involved in a rules debate, it's best to just start ignoring it entirely.
Glad it was easy for you to resolve!
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Rolsheen wrote: 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.
Look up 'argumentum ad populum' and let the thread know what that means.
They just have a collective house rule to treat Interceptor like Overwatch. That's not a bad house rule, but it's a house rule nonetheless.
However, no where do you see these specific permissions granted to Interceptor.
Spoiler:
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Spoiler:
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.
Only Overwatch has these permissions. Interceptor does not have those permissions.
Rolsheen wrote: 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.
Yeah, once certain people get involved in a rules debate, it's best to just start ignoring it entirely.
Glad it was easy for you to resolve!
Feel free to jump in and provide a challenge to my argument by backing up your statements with rules.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/12 00:50:07
I really don't need to-other people have, and as usual, you've ignored them entirely. I suggest rereading what the others have written, if you want an argument.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
JNAProductions wrote: I really don't need to-other people have, and as usual, you've ignored them entirely. I suggest rereading what the others have written, if you want an argument.
Here's a question for you, what does 'resolve a rule' mean exactly? That question wins the argument for me. The other side was confusing 'resolve a rule' with 'resolve a shot'.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/12 00:56:17
Resolving a rule is taking a rule and applying it to the tabletop.
For instance, resolving a shooting attack would use the shooting sequence, or resolving a hit in close combat would follow the basic roll-to-hit, if successful, to-wound, if successful, to-save, if failed, apply wound(s).
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
JNAProductions wrote: Resolving a rule is taking a rule and applying it to the tabletop.
For instance, resolving a shooting attack would use the shooting sequence, or resolving a hit in close combat would follow the basic roll-to-hit, if successful, to-wound, if successful, to-save, if failed, apply wound(s).
Okay. So if the Interceptor rule presents a player with a choice to shoot a weapon and that player declines to shoot and the time for shooting passes then the Interceptor rule is resolved, correct?
Well sure. You take the Interceptor rule, which pretty much just gives you a shooting phase in your opponent's turn. Which you'd then resolve like any other shooting phase.
Question for you now! Would you actually PLAY IT how you're suggesting? As in, the opposing player chooses the order in which you fire your interceptor guns?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
JNAProductions wrote: Well sure. You take the Interceptor rule, which pretty much just gives you a shooting phase in your opponent's turn. Which you'd then resolve like any other shooting phase.
Cool. Well your answer just proves that the Sequencing rule is necessarily applied to sequence the multiple Interceptor rules which are all to be resolved "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
JNAProductions wrote: Question for you now! Would you actually PLAY IT how you're suggesting? As in, the opposing player chooses the order in which you fire your interceptor guns?
Yes absolutely. And its come up in the case of multiple Ethereal Interceptions responding to the same Deep Strike unit.
It really is no surprise that the ACTIVE player is in control of how permissions play out for the other player. Remember, in this case you are not the ACTIVE player.
You do know what it means to be the ACTIVE player, right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/12 01:08:34
JNAProductions wrote: Okay, so when combat ends on my turn, I decide which order your models pile in.
Well, no. The instructions for Pile In comprehensively affect ALL models in ALL units. So after one application of the Pile In instructions there is nothing left over.
Remember for the Sequencing rule to apply you need to have two or more rules happening at the same time.
In the case of Pile In the one rule handles everything.
However, when it comes to Ethereal Interception you do get to decide which order my two Deathmark units Deep Strike in and what order they fire in. You are the ACTIVE player.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/12 01:12:44
No, there is one rule-Interceptor. If you'd like to claim Interceptor is two rules, feel free to point to the page indicating that one rule counts as two.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
JNAProductions wrote: No, there is one rule-Interceptor. If you'd like to claim Interceptor is two rules, feel free to point to the page indicating that one rule counts as two.
Already addressed. If we do not have multiple Interceptor rules to resolve then we only get a single Interceptor firing altogether. Read the rule.
Spoiler:
There are two or more Interceptor rules in the case we are debating. The Sequencing rule applies. It doesn't care if the multiple rules are worded the same, only that there are multiple rules scheduled to resolve at the same time.
We know that they are multiple because there are multiple Interceptor shots to be potentially made and a single Interceptor rule only provides permission for a single shot.
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 rules to resolve that we are dealing with here. The Sequencing rule dictate that the ACTIVE player sequences those rule resolutions.
Did you want to revisit any other points that I have already proven?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/12 01:22:45
The controlling player can only fire an Interceptor weapon when that Interceptor rule is being resolved, ie when that Interceptor weapon has its turn in the sequence provided by the ACTIVE player.
This is a false claim, you have no rule to support you that states this. The only criteria to fire a weapon with Interceptor is that we are "at the end of the movement phase". If there is any conflict with sequencing then Interceptor ignores it, as Interceptor is a special rule. If I wish to fire any of the weapons using the shooting the sequence I have all the permission I need from Interceptor.
Active player sequences two Interceptor rules to 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.
No rules have been broken.
Sequence rule has been followed, shooting sequence rule has been followed.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/12 01:39:54
You claim to prove a lot. Your claims don't hold much water.
You are more than welcome to prove any of my claims wrong. It won't be easy since I back every claim up with a lot of rules. So be prepared to sling rule quotes around!
Have you actually read the rules for the Fight Sub Phase and Piling In?
After you follow those instructions how many units/models are left over?
Nothing is left over. ALL units and ALL models are taken care of by a single application of the one rule.
In order for the Sequencing rule to apply you have show that there are two or more rules competing to be resolved at the same time.
In the case of Pile In the one rule comprehensively handles everything.
Just read the rules in question and if you feel you have something different to say than what I have already said then feel free to prove your case.
The controlling player can only fire an Interceptor weapon when that Interceptor rule is being resolved, ie when that Interceptor weapon has its turn in the sequence provided by the ACTIVE player.
This is a false claim, you have no rule to support you that states this. The only criteria to fire a weapon with Interceptor is that we are "at the end of the movement phase". If there is any conflict with sequencing then Interceptor ignores it, as Interceptor is a special rule. If I wish to fire any of the weapons using the shooting the sequence I have all the permission I need from Interceptor.
Active player sequences two Interceptor rules to 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.
No rules have been broken.
Sequence rule has been followed, shooting sequence rule has been followed.
No. The Interceptor rule resolutions must happen in the order which the ACTIVE player has dictated or you are violating the Sequencing rule.
Spoiler:
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.
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.
It seems you are still confused. You keep offering solutions that violate a basic understanding of rule resolution. Let's go back to the basics here.
What does 'resolve a rule' mean?
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2017/05/12 02:39:46
The issue Col is that you are using sequencing without cause.
The shooting sequence in the case of Interceptor "because the rule is for a shooting weapon" is tied directly to the weapon firing.
Because of this, it is impossible for two of them to resolve at the same time.
Yet you try to sequence them and then say "look if I line them all up in a row, there is a conflict"
The only reason there IS a conflict is because you sequenced them without cause in the first place.
You might have multiple iterations of Interceptor, but only one can resolve at a time.
You have failed to demonstrate HOW two resolve at the same time and thus require being sequenced.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/12 01:51:46
Ceann wrote: The issue Col is that you are using sequencing without cause.
The shooting sequence in the case of Interceptor "because the rule is for a shooting weapon" is tied directly to the weapon firing.
Because of this, it is impossible for two of them to resolve at the same time.
Yet you try to sequence them and then say "look if I line them all up in a row, there is a conflict"
The only reason there IS a conflict is because you sequenced them without cause in the first place.
You might have multiple iterations of Interceptor, but only one can resolve at a time.
You have failed to demonstrate HOW two resolve at the same time and thus require being sequenced.
Simple question:
Spoiler:
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.
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.
The above rule is only resolved if the unit fires, IF the rule is used. If it isn't used then it doesn't resolve, you didn't use it.
By your definition choosing to not fire would be "using the rule" so are you now claiming that Interceptor weapons can never fire on the owners turn?
Do you roll for Get's Hot on a Plasma Gun if you didn't fire it?
No.
If you fire the bolter on a Combi-Melta, do you roll Melta penetration?
No, you didn't fire it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/12 02:09:38
Ceann wrote: The above rule is only resolved if the unit fires, IF the rule is used. If it isn't used then it doesn't resolve, you didn't use it.
By your definition choosing to not fire would be "using the rule" so are you now claiming that Interceptor weapons can never fire on the owners turn?
Do you roll for Get's Hot on a Plasma Gun if you didn't fire it?
No.
If you fire the bolter on a Combi-Melta, do you roll penetration?
No, you didn't fire it.
Looks like you are still confusing 'resolving a rule' with 'resolving a shot'.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means marching through the rule at the appropriate time. In this case it means presenting the controlling player with the option to fire an Interceptor weapon at the end of the enemy Movement phase.
The Interceptor rule is resolved after the player chooses to fire (and resolving the consequences of that choice to fire) or the player chooses not to fire.
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.
Spoiler:
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 . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
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.
. . . 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 by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2017/05/12 02:27:54
In this case resolving a shot IS resolving a rule.
If you do not fire you are not using the rule.
If I have 3 units with Interceptor.
How do YOU know to sequence them, prior to knowing if they will fire? You cannot, it is impossible.
You can only sequence things that happen at the same time, you are trying to sequence something that MIGHT happen at the same time. You cannot sequence them until two are trying to resolve at the same time.
As you have to access the Interceptor rules to fire, and only one unit can fire at a time per the shooting sequence rules.
There are NEVER two firing at the same time in order to validate the use of sequencing.
The "appropriate time" is when it is being fired.
"At the end of the movement phase" is a condition to fire, not a trigger to fire.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/12 02:41:26
Ceann wrote: In this case resolving a shot IS resolving a rule.
If you do not fire you are not using the rule.
If I have 3 units with Interceptor.
How do YOU know to sequence them, prior to knowing if they will fire? You cannot, it is impossible.
You can only sequence things that happen at the same time, you are trying to sequence something that MIGHT happen at the same time. You cannot sequence them until two are trying to resolve at the same time.
As you have to access the Interceptor rules to fire, and only one unit can fire at a time per the shooting sequence rules.
There are NEVER two firing at the same time in order to validate the use of sequencing.
Again you keep confusing 'resolve a rule' with 'resolve a shot'.
The Sequencer rule is not sequencing the shots but the multiple Interceptor rules.
Read the Sequencer 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.
Here is how it works . . .
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor rules are resolved since they all happen at the same time "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
Ceann, what does 'resolve a rule' mean?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/05/12 02:53:38
Rolsheen wrote: 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.
Look up 'argumentum ad populum' and let the thread know what that means.
Congratulations you know a bit of Latin, maybe try that language to make your argument cause your not managing it in English.
We don't use "house rules" in our GW store, so I'm not sure what your going on about.
Ceann wrote: That is not "how it works"
That is how you "think it works".
The sequencer rule does nothing, it only becomes activated when there are resolutions occurring at the same time.
The resolution of any single interceptor is directly tied into completing the firing. If you are not firing then you are not using the rule.
As only one can ever be firing at any one time, there is never two to sequence.
There is no declaration in Interceptor where you are required to state whether you will fire or not. You are inventing it in order to use sequencing.
You are getting confused.
Ceann, what does 'resolve a rule' mean?
Considering there is no page in the BRB stating the rules for "resolve a rule" you can only state your opinion on such a matter.
In this case we are talking about rules for weapons.
In order to resolve a rule on a weapon profile, you have to use the weapon.
Melta, Get's Hot, Shred, Interceptor, these are all rules that are used when a weapon is fired.
You are attempting to claim that the rules are being used prior to being fired, which is impossible.
Interceptor grants weapons the ability to fire at the end of the movement step. In order to resolve any iteration of Interceptor, you must FIRE the weapon.
As only one weapon can be fired at a time it is impossible for them to occur at the same time.
You have been avoiding explaining how two of these happen at the same time and allow you to invoke sequencing.
Ceann wrote: That is not "how it works"
That is how you "think it works".
The sequencer rule does nothing, it only becomes activated when there are resolutions occurring at the same time.
The resolution of any single interceptor is directly tied into completing the firing. If you are not firing then you are not using the rule.
As only one can ever be firing at any one time, there is never two to sequence.
There is no declaration in Interceptor where you are required to state whether you will fire or not. You are inventing it in order to use sequencing.
You are getting confused.
Ceann, what does 'resolve a rule' mean?
Considering there is no page in the BRB stating the rules for "resolve a rule" you can only state your opinion on such a matter.
In this case we are talking about rules for weapons.
In order to resolve a rule on a weapon profile, you have to use the weapon.
Melta, Get's Hot, Shred, Interceptor, these are all rules that are used when a weapon is fired.
You are attempting to claim that the rules are being used prior to being fired, which is impossible.
Interceptor grants weapons the ability to fire at the end of the movement step. In order to resolve any iteration of Interceptor, you must FIRE the weapon.
As only one weapon can be fired at a time it is impossible for them to occur at the same time.
You have been avoiding explaining how two of these happen at the same time and allow you to invoke sequencing.
Ok. I will help you in your confusion over what 'resolve' means.
'resolve' and 'use' are not synonymous.
When you are 'resolving damage' you are not 'using damage'.
When you are 'resolving' something you are 'sorting out' or 'settling' what happens based on the decisions that a player makes and any consequences that happens from those decisions.
When you resolve the Interceptor rule you 'sort out' if the player is firing or not and settling the consequences of that decision.
A rule that is resolved is one that has been fully settled, any decisions have been made, and its fate sealed.
The multiple Interceptor rules are scheduled to be resolved at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase"). The controlling player must make a decision and sort out what happens for multiple Interceptor weapons at the same time. The Sequencer rule applies and the ACTIVE player necessarily dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules are going to be resolved. The controlling player will sort out what happens in each Interceptor rule instance in the order dictated by the ACTIVE player.
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.
Here is how it works . . .
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor rules are resolved since they all happen at the same time "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/12 03:25:50
I know what resolving means, I have played many games that have much more complicated rules than this.
What I will not do, is let you lead me to your definition.
"When you resolve the Interceptor rule you 'sort out' if the player is firing or not and settling the consequences of that decision."
This is incorrect.
Interceptor provides a permission for the "end of the movement phase" permitting weapons with the rule to fire.
A weapon with the rule only resolves the rule if they actually decide to fire, which is dictated by a shooting sequence.
The shooting sequence will dictate which weapon firing resolves first.
You have not, and still have not, and likely cannot, clearly demonstrate how two interceptor rules are resolving at the same time.
Your "decide whether they fire" is a fabrication, the rule does not state anywhere that you have to do this, it merely states that they can fire.
------------------------
Example...
A Skitarii Vanguard charges another Skitarii Vanguard.
They both have Rad Saturation which gives models in combat with them -1 Toughness.
This is a situation where the rules would have to be sequenced because there is no way to determine which resolves first.
------------------------
Interceptor does not have this problem because it is a rule on a weapon and rules on weapons are sequenced by shooting or assaulting rules.
More continued confusion on your part. You keep confusing 'resolve a rule' with 'resolve a fired shot'.
My definition of 'resolve' is the one supported by the use of 'resolve' in the BRB and by the English dictionary.
Resolving means 'sorting out' what happens with something. In the case of a rule, it means 'sorting out' what happens in the rule, 'seeing [a rule] to its completion', and 'settling' all the things that happen in the rule.
Resolving the Interceptor rule is 'settling' whether or not the Interceptor weapon is going to fire and if it fires does it hit, wound, etc.
If the player opts not to fire then that is a quick trip down decision-making lane. The Interceptor rule is quickly resolved. The player chooses not to use the ability and the opportunity becomes a thing of the past.
If the player opts instead to fire then that kicks off more stuff to resolve. The shot itself then needs to get resolved which involves resolving the hit, resolving the damage, and resolving morale (if applicable) etc.
Resolving means sorting things out to their completion.
I challenge you to find a more appropriate definition than this one for the BRB usage of resolve.
The important thing though is that the multiple Interceptor rules are all scheduled to be resolved at the same time "at the end of the enemy Movement phase". That means the Sequencing rule necessarily dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
Spoiler:
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor rules are resolved since they all happen at the same time "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
If you feel otherwise, then let's start with the basics.
Ceann, what does 'resolve a rule' mean exactly?
If you don't know what 'resolve a rule' means then your argument can not possibly be valid.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/12 04:18:33
The rule for Interceptor is not invoked "at the end of the enemy movement phase".
It is invoked when... " A weapon is fired, at the end of the enemy movement phase".
You are prematurely deciding that they are being used in order to use sequencing. The weapon is the subject of the entire rule, which you are ignoring and only paying attention to the part you care about.
If a weapon is not fired, then the rule isn't used.
If deciding to fire was a part of the resolution then even weapons that didn't fire, couldn't fire, on their owners turn, because they still used the rule even if they didn't fire.
The rule, just as any other weapon profile rule, is contingent upon the weapon being used in the described manner.
Which in this case is fired.
Col, what does "at the same time" mean exactly?
If you don't know what "at the same time" means then your argument can not possibly be valid.
