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.
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".
More continued confusion.
You keep putting the cart before the horse.
How are you even firing an Interceptor weapon "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" if the Interceptor rule is not already 'invoked' to make it so that the weapon "can be fired"?
Insisting that Interceptor is invoked only after firing will prevent Interceptor from ever happening since Interceptor ("can be fired") needs to be present in order for a firing to happen at all. Cart before horse problem.
Remember, there is no permission to fire any weapons "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" outside of the Interceptor rule which must actually be in the process of being resolved to grant any permissions to fire.
By necessity the multiple Interceptor rules resolve "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" to enable the Interceptor weapons to fire.
The decision to fire or not to fire can only be made while an Interceptor rule is in the process of being resolved.
If the player decides not to fire the Interceptor weapon then that particular Interceptor rule will resolve quickly. The end of the enemy movement phase will pass quickly to the beginning of the enemy Shooting phase if that's the only Interceptor rule to resolve.
If the player decides to fire the Interceptor weapon then the shot will then in turn need to be resolved (the hit resolved, any damage resolved, etc.) before the Interceptor rule itself resolves to completion and game play moves to the beginning of the enemy Shooting phase.
Of course as we know, if we have multiple Interceptor rules, all those multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencer rule applies and mandates that the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the multiple Instancer permissions are resolved.
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 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/12 05:27:53
They don't resolve at the same time.
At the end of movement is a condition to fire, not a trigger to fire.
They resolve when fired, there is nothing to sequence.
This isn't chapter tactics or Canticles. This is a rule on a weapon, it is always there, it is STATIC. It doesn't need to trigger.
If a unit gets charged that has two plasma weapons do you get to sequence the Gets Hot rolls for both? No. Because they are resolved within a shooting sequence, just like any other weapon ability.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Units 1,2 and 3 have interceptor.
You finish moving.
All three unit's go " me,me, me, I want to fire"
The shooting sequence only allows us to ever pick one of them at a time.
They can all fire at the same time, just like any other time that unit's can fire.
However the shooting sequence rules prevent them from resolving at the same time.
The need to use sequencing never comes up.
No where, in any of this, was it possible for two of them to resolve a shooting sequence at the same time.
The requirement for "at the same time" occurring and sequencing being required never happened.
Because the shooting sequence forces them to resolve one at a time.
Because these are weapons being fired.
This isn't "argumentum ad populum"by us, this is "argumentum ad Iignorantiam" by you.
You make an untrue claim and then demand people prove you wrong.
Your claim is not credible in the first place.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/05/12 14:20:10
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:
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.
Why thanks for the cut and paste yet again. but you miss the point with that question. Sequencing is not about sequencing rules or sequencing fire, it's about sequencing the resolution of rule when the resolution of the rules would happen at the same time. Since interceptor involves firing the weapon, which means following the shooting process, we have to see what the shooting process is to see if they try to resolve at the same time. Since the shooting process clearly indicates that you do not shoot at the same time, you are not resolving the shots at the same time, which if you are shooting means you are not resolving the Interceptors at the same time. But, thank you for the question, it seems you were the one having an issue with comprehension.
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.
col_impact wrote: 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.
You are forcing the order of firing as well as whether or not the unit can fire. If you wish I can go back and dig up quotes from when you claimed we have no permission to combine the shooting sequences all into one shooting sequence (which shows you are not reading what it says for the shooting process). Would you care to retract this statement?
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.
If you are resolving the rule and the unit fires, resolving the firing is included with the rule. You haven't resolved the interceptor rule without the shooting sequence, which includes choose a unit and choose a weapon. These are not done at the same time.
[/quoteAll 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.
These are not resolved at the same time at the end of the enemy Movement phase, however, as the shooting rules make clear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
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.
Did you explain the part where col impact said that since the interceptor rule says it applies to a weapon, that the active player not only gets to determine the order of the units firing interceptor, but gets to dicate the order of each weapon firing in the units themselves?
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.
Look up "unwarranted, unsupported assumptions" and let the thread know what that means. You just have a house rule to treat Interceptor as a rule that is sequenced. I'll leave it to others to judge for themselves if it's a bad house rule.
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!
Again, you have it backwards. You claim you have proven this, but have not shown the proof. You have to prove that there are two rules that would be resolved at the same time in order to be covered by sequencing. So far, you have not proven that one rule counts as two rules, and you have not proven that even if they were two rules you would apply sequencing because you have not proven that they resolve at the same time when there has been evidence and rules quotations provided to indicate that Interceptor fire from multiple units is in fact not resolved at the same time.
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.
re·solve
rəˈzälv/
verb
1.
settle or find a solution to (a problem, dispute, or contentious matter).
"the firm aims to resolve problems within 30 days"
synonyms: settle, sort out, solve, find a solution to, fix, straighten out, deal with, put right, put to rights, rectify;
rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
No where that I can find does your definition of "resolve a rule" exist, can you please link to the source for the above quoted definition? Otherwise all you have is a house rule on what it means to resolve a rule.
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.
re·solve
rəˈzälv/
verb
1.
settle or find a solution to (a problem, dispute, or contentious matter).
"the firm aims to resolve problems within 30 days"
synonyms: settle, sort out, solve, find a solution to, fix, straighten out, deal with, put right, put to rights, rectify;
rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
No where that I can find does your definition of "resolve a rule" exist, can you please link to the source for the above quoted definition? Otherwise all you have is a house rule on what it means to resolve a rule.
He is also experiencing an inherent problem of "can vs may".
Can a weapon be fired?
I don't know, can it?
Can, is referencing ability.
May a weapon be fired?
Yes it may, no it may not.
May, is referencing permission.
The rule for interceptor does not say "a weapon may fire" it states "a weapon can fire".
It is not asking for permission and you are not given leave to ask about whether it will or will not.
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.
re·solve
rəˈzälv/
verb
1.
settle or find a solution to (a problem, dispute, or contentious matter).
"the firm aims to resolve problems within 30 days"
synonyms: settle, sort out, solve, find a solution to, fix, straighten out, deal with, put right, put to rights, rectify;
rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
No where that I can find does your definition of "resolve a rule" exist, can you please link to the source for the above quoted definition? Otherwise all you have is a house rule on what it means to resolve a rule.
He is also experiencing an inherent problem of "can vs may".
Can a weapon be fired?
I don't know, can it?
Can, is referencing ability.
May a weapon be fired?
Yes it may, no it may not.
May, is referencing permission.
The rule for interceptor does not say "a weapon may fire" it states "a weapon can fire".
It is not asking for permission and you are not given leave to ask about whether it will or will not.
My 8yo got this after asking "can I leave the table" a few times, to be told yes, then told no when she went to leave, maybe she could message Col
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.
We have read the pile in rules. We have also read the rules dealing with in in multiple combats, where it deals with all units making pile in moves. This means each unit is responsible for making pile in moves, which according to you is multiple units trying to use the same rule at the same time. You HAVE to look at the part in Multiple Combats, as the part you reference only deals with one unit from each side of the combat. It does not deal with one side of the combat having two or more units in the combat - the rules you cite do not handle what order the units on the one side move in. According to your claims for Interceptor, in order to be consistent you would have to treat each unit in the multiple combat as having to follow a separate pile in rule, with all the units on one side piling in at the same time. This means, according to your standard, the active player is allowed to dictate the order in which those multiple units on one side make their pile in moves. That you fail to see the inconsistency in how you handle the two is sad.
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.
re·solve
rəˈzälv/
verb
1.
settle or find a solution to (a problem, dispute, or contentious matter).
"the firm aims to resolve problems within 30 days"
synonyms: settle, sort out, solve, find a solution to, fix, straighten out, deal with, put right, put to rights, rectify;
rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
No where that I can find does your definition of "resolve a rule" exist, can you please link to the source for the above quoted definition? Otherwise all you have is a house rule on what it means to resolve a rule.
He is also experiencing an inherent problem of "can vs may".
Can a weapon be fired?
I don't know, can it?
Can, is referencing ability.
May a weapon be fired?
Yes it may, no it may not.
May, is referencing permission.
The rule for interceptor does not say "a weapon may fire" it states "a weapon can fire".
It is not asking for permission and you are not given leave to ask about whether it will or will not.
Good catch. Col impact, being such a stickler for the language, should acknowledge the difference between "can" and "may". "Can" certainly puts it out of the purview of what he claims you need to resolve it sequentially. You merely have to say a unit's firing, then follow the shooting procedure.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/12 18:37:42
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.
re·solve
rəˈzälv/
verb
1.
settle or find a solution to (a problem, dispute, or contentious matter).
"the firm aims to resolve problems within 30 days"
synonyms: settle, sort out, solve, find a solution to, fix, straighten out, deal with, put right, put to rights, rectify;
rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
No where that I can find does your definition of "resolve a rule" exist, can you please link to the source for the above quoted definition? Otherwise all you have is a house rule on what it means to resolve a rule.
I am fine with the English definitions for 'resolve a rule' you are referencing here. In fact I was implementing them as you can see below.
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 to recognize here 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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/12 21:13:25
"Sorting out" means all the shooting has to be "sorted out" in order to resolve the rules too; with the shooting rules indicating that the shooting does not happen at the same time, then they are not resolved at the same time. "Can shoot" vs. "May shoot" also means that you are not resolving Interceptor at the same time, the "can" means they already have permission and you are not seeking permission at the same time. You are saying which ones with Interceptor are firing, and that is governed by the already existing rules for the shooting process, which does not resolve the shots from separate units at the same time. So, even going by your definition of "resolve" you have failed to meet the criteria needed to use sequencing.
He is also experiencing an inherent problem of "can vs may".
Can a weapon be fired?
I don't know, can it?
Can, is referencing ability.
May a weapon be fired?
Yes it may, no it may not.
May, is referencing permission.
The rule for interceptor does not say "a weapon may fire" it states "a weapon can fire".
It is not asking for permission and you are not given leave to ask about whether it will or will not.
You are presenting a false issue here.
Can means "be able to", "have the opportunity or possibility to", "be permitted to", etc.
The controlling player only has the ability or permission to fire "at the end of the enemy Movement phase". Prior to that time, no permission or ability to fire in the rules. After that time, no permission or ability to fire in the rules.
All of the multiple Interceptor rules are trying to resolve the "can be fired" ability at the same time ("at the end of the enemy Movement phase"). The multiple Interceptor rules cannot be sorted out to happen at the same time. The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the rules resolve.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doctortom wrote: "Sorting out" means all the shooting has to be "sorted out" in order to resolve the rules too; with the shooting rules indicating that the shooting does not happen at the same time, then they are not resolved at the same time. "Can shoot" vs. "May shoot" also means that you are not resolving Interceptor at the same time, the "can" means they already have permission and you are not seeking permission at the same time. You are saying which ones with Interceptor are firing, and that is governed by the already existing rules for the shooting process, which does not resolve the shots from separate units at the same time. So, even going by your definition of "resolve" you have failed to meet the criteria needed to use sequencing.
Incorrect. The multiple Interceptor rules are all trying to resolve at the same time "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
"At the end of the enemy Movement phase" isn't a duration of time (ie it isn't a phase). It's a moment in time between the enemy Movement phase (which is a duration) and the enemy Shooting phase (which is a duration).
The multiple Interceptor rules are all hammering the exact same moment in time.
Even the encapsulated shooting processes that get kicked off when a shot is fired are all scheduled to happen "at THE end of the enemy Movement phase" and so are also hammering the exact same moment in time. "At THE end of" is one moment in time, not a stretch of time.
The Sequencing rule applies to dictate an order to what otherwise would be multiple rule resolution scheduled for the exact same moment in time. That order is dictated by the ACTIVE player.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/05/12 21:44:37
Incorrect. The multiple Interceptor rules are all trying to resolve at the same time "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
"At the end of the enemy Movement phase" isn't a duration of time (ie it isn't a phase). It's a moment in time between the enemy Movement phase (which is a duration) and the enemy Shooting phase (which is a duration).
The multiple Interceptor rules are all hammering the exact same moment in time.
Even the encapsulated shooting processes that get kicked off when a shot is fired are all scheduled to happen "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" and are also hammering the exact same moment in time.
The Sequencing rule applies to dictate an order to what otherwise would be multiple rule resolution scheduled for the exact same moment in time. That order is dictated by the ACTIVE player.
Incorrect. "at the end of the movement phase is not merely one moment in time in which everything happens - it is able to encompass actions happening at different points for actions that are defined such that they can not happen at the same time as similar actions - firing weapons in particular. - obviously, since the shooting rules do not let you resolve shooting for different units or different weapons within the same unit at the same time. They are not "hammering the exact same moment in time". The multiple interceptor rules already give permission to fire, no permission needed, so in order to resolve Interceptor you resolve firing the weapons - which follows the shooting process as outlined in the shooting sequence. Since there is already a sequence established and they don't happen at the same time, Sequencing does not apply. Interceptor does not contain any special rules to indicate that sequencing would come into play, which would be needed to ignore the standard rules for the shooting process. Your argument here has absolutely no validity.
And, you still have to get back where the rules state where applying one rule with different units (or different weapons) counts as multiple rules. We haven't forgotten that you're ignoring that.
Incorrect. "at the end of the movement phase is not merely one moment in time in which everything happens - it is able to encompass actions happening at different points for actions that are defined such that they can not happen at the same time as similar actions - firing weapons in particular. - obviously, since the shooting rules do not let you resolve shooting for different units or different weapons within the same unit at the same time. They are not "hammering the exact same moment in time". The multiple interceptor rules already give permission to fire, no permission needed, so in order to resolve Interceptor you resolve firing the weapons - which follows the shooting process as outlined in the shooting sequence. Since there is already a sequence established and they don't happen at the same time, Sequencing does not apply. Interceptor does not contain any special rules to indicate that sequencing would come into play, which would be needed to ignore the standard rules for the shooting process. Your argument here has absolutely no validity..
"At the end of the enemy movement phase" is a distinct point in time. It's not a duration. There is no 'beginning of the "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"' and there is no 'middle of the "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"' and there is no 'end of the "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"'
"At the end of the enemy movement phase" is a distinct point in time. It's not a duration. "At THE end" is a point in time.
All of the multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the exact same point in time ("at THE end"). Even any shooting process is trying to resolve everything at the exact same ("at THE end"). The Sequencing rule necessarily applies as you cannot have multiple rules to be resolved at the same time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Can, is not asking for permission.
Once the active player finishes moving, they are permitted to fire. No asking is involved.
May, is asking for permission.
May, requires permission to be expressed.
The rule does not say "may fire" it states "can fire".
"At the end of the movement phase" is when they CAN fire, not when the firing resolves.
Each firing resolves independently, you have not demonstrated them resolving at the same time.
All of the rules are trying to resolve "at THE end of the enemy Movement phase" which is a distinct point in time. The multiple rules are literally hammering each other to happen at THE end of the enemy Movement phase.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/12 22:00:29
Ceann wrote: No, they are not "literally" hammering each other.
You have multiple interceptor rules line up to resolve.
There is a tunnel, the entrance is "unresolved" rules.
In the middle is "resolving" rules.
At the end is "resolved" rules.
The tunnel named for "shooting sequences" had a width that only allows ONE to pass at a time.
Try as they might, TWO cannot pass through at once, it is impossible.
The only way two of them "resolve at the same time" is if the tunnel had a width that would allow TWO through.
At the end of the movement phase is WHEN a WEAPON can fire. They are allowed to fire AT THE SAME TIME.
But only ONE can resolve at a time.
Your fake argument is done.
You have admitted (highlighted in red and orange above) that all of the multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the exact same moment in time ("at THE end of of the enemy movement phase").
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.
The Sequencing rule applies when multiple rules are to be resolved at the exact same moment in time.
The Sequencing rule mandates that the ACTIVE player orders the multiple rule resolutions.
Your argument right now is that you don't have to follow the rules in the BRB. The Sequencing rule is in the BRB and applies in this case. You have admitted to the conditions required for its application (highlighted in orange and red in your response and in the Sequencing rule above) and you are willingly refusing to apply the correction prescribed by the Sequencing rule (highlighted in yellow). You are houseruling that you get to ignore the Sequencing rule.
My argument follows the rules as they are. The Sequencing rule is applied since, as you yourself note, all of the multiple Interceptor rules are due to be resolved at the same time.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2017/05/13 00:19:31
I have admitted nothing.
Being given permission to take an action at the same time.
Is not the same as RESOLVING at the same time.
All units are given permission to perform moving, shooting and assaults at the exact same time every single turn. There is no need to sequence them because they can only resolve one at a time.
" you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time"
This is your issue.
You THINK they resolve at the same time and cannot demonstrate HOW they resolve at the same time.
I have admitted nothing.
Being given permission to take an action at the same time.
Is not the same as RESOLVING at the same time.
All units are given permission to perform moving, shooting and assaults at the exact same time every single turn. There is no need to sequence them because they can only resolve one at a time.
The movement phase is a phase. The phase is a division of a turn. A phase is a duration of time, not a point in time. The end of a movement phase is a point in time. The end of a stretch of time is always after the last thing that occurred in the phase.
Multiple things scheduled to happen during the Shooting phase is not going to cause hammering since a phase is a duration of time.
Multiple things scheduled to happen "at THE end of the enemy Movement phase" is going to cause hammering since THE end is a point in time. The Sequencing rule itself provides an example "at the start of the Movement phase" which is just as much a single point in time as "the end of the enemy Movement phase".
Ceann wrote: " you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time"
This is your issue.
You THINK they resolve at the same time and cannot demonstrate HOW they resolve at the same time.
Incorrect. The rules are clear that all the multiple Interceptor rules here are hammering the exact same moment in time.
If unit A fires an Interceptor weapon, when does that happen? At THE end of the enemy Movement phase.
If unit B fires an Interceptor weapon, when does that happen? At THE end of the enemy Movement phase.
If unit C decides to not fire an Interceptor weapon, when does that happen? At THE end of the enemy Movement phase.
You are unable to show anything resolving at any moment in time other than "at THE end of the enemy Movement phase".
When you have multiple rules to be resolved at the same time, then the Sequencing rule applies. Per the Sequencing rule, The ACTIVE player dictates the order of their resolution.
If you ignore rules you are house ruling.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/05/13 00:46:19
There is no "exact moment" for shooting sequences.
There is no rule for "exact moment".
Stop making things up.
The exact reason you go on, and on, and on, and on, about "at the end of the movement" is because you cannot demonstrate how they resolve at the same time.
Your argument is invalid and has been the entire time.
You should thank all of these people for humoring you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/13 01:39:19
Movement Player 1 in control
Interceptor Player 2 in control ( Out of turn shooting phase )
Psychic Player 1 in control
Shooting Player 1 in control
Charging Player 1 in control
Overwatch Player 2 in control ( Out of turn shooting phase )
Assault Player 1 in control
Is this really that hard to understand?
No rule conflicts, no sequencing problems, no house rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/13 01:44:26
There is no "exact moment" for shooting sequences.
There is no rule for "exact moment".
Stop making things up.
The exact reason you go on, and on, and on, and on, about "at the end of the movement" is because you cannot demonstrate how they resolve at the same time.
Your argument is invalid and has been the entire time.
You should thank all of these people for humoring you.
Uh no.
All of the multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the same time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"). "At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is a moment in time similar to "at the start of the Movement phase" so the Sequencing rule itself recognizes that we are talking about the same time.
The Sequencing rule applies . . .
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 burden of proof is on you to show how those multiple Interceptor rules are somehow resolving at different times when they are all being specifically resolved at the exact same time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase").
Good luck with that. The language of the Interceptor rule requires the resolution to happen at the exact moment at THE END of the enemy Movement phase.
Multiple Interceptor rules necessarily cause the Sequencing rule to apply.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rolsheen wrote: Movement Player 1 in control
Interceptor Player 2 in control ( Out of turn shooting phase )
Psychic Player 1 in control
Shooting Player 1 in control
Charging Player 1 in control
Overwatch Player 2 in control ( Out of turn shooting phase )
Assault Player 1 in control
Is this really that hard to understand?
No rule conflicts, no sequencing problems, no house rules.
Overwatch has permission to have an out of turn shooting phase.
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.
Interceptor does not.
If you treat Interceptor like Overwatch by giving Interceptor permissions that it does not have then you are house ruling. I imagine its a popular house rule to treat Interceptor like Overwatch and many people probably don't recognize that they are house ruling, but it is indeed a house rule.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/13 01:51:30
This is your argumentum ad ignorantiam, "prove me wrong" with no evidence that you are correct.
You are the one that wants to use sequencing rule, not us.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate HOW you resolve two iterations of the rule at once.
You haven't demonstrated how two shooting attacks resolve at the same time. You cannot demonstrate this which is why you explain it away, because you are incapable. You haven't been proven right in the first place.
The classic "Col" move to shift the burden of proof that you NEVER provide.
The shooting sequence prevents simultaneous resolution.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/13 01:58:05
Ceann wrote: This is your argumentum ad ignorantiam, "prove me wrong" with no evidence that you are correct.
You are the one that wants to use sequencing rule, not us.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate HOW you resolve two iterations of the rule at once.
You haven't demonstrated how two shooting attacks resolve at the same time. You cannot demonstrate this which is why you explain it away, because you are incapable. You haven't been proven right in the first place.
The shooting sequence prevents simultaneous resolution.
You have failed to show the multiple Interceptor rules resolving at any time other than the exact same time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase")
I don't have a choice but to apply the Sequencing rule. The language of the Sequencing rule makes it unequivocally clear that the rule applies in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.
If you can show somehow that an Interceptor rule resolves at some other time than this exact time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") then you would have an argument.
But at present you have no argument.
In order to avoid using the Sequencing rule I need to have the multiple Interceptor rules resolving at times different than the same time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase").
So please tell me what those different moments in time are. I am open to any serious answers you have to offer.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/13 02:02:26
You have not demonstrated HOW (as a process) they resolve at the same time.
Until you can demonstrate resolution, you aren't permitted to use sequencing.
The burden of proof belongs to you, stop handing it off.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/13 02:04:57
You have not demonstrated HOW (as a process) they resolve at the same time.
Until you can demonstrate resolution, you aren't permitted to use sequencing.
The burden of proof belongs to you, stop handing it off.
All of the multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the same time "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
We know this by simple reading of the Interceptor rule itself.
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 cannot be resolved at any time except for "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Therefore multiple Interceptor rules will hammer each other to resolve at the exact same time.
Therefore the Sequencing rule applies.
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.
Multiple Interceptor rules are to be resolved at the same time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"). The Sequencing rule identifies "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as SIMILAR to 'at THE START of the Movement phase'. I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
If you think otherwise then show how the Interceptor rule is to be resolved at some time other than 'at THE END of the enemy Movement phase'.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/13 02:15:33
The rules do not care if things happen at the same time.
They care if the RESOLVE at the same time.
The shooting sequence provides a method to resolve the rules one at time. You have yet to demonstrate them resolving at the same time.
By your thinking.
1. Interceptor B
2. Interceptor A
3. Interceptor C
Without sequencing...
1. Interceptor A
2. Interceptor B
3. Interceptor C
The ONLY THING you are changing IS THE ORDER.
They CANNOT resolve at the same time.
Celestine revival...
At the start of your next turn, place Saint Celestine back on the battlefield
Canticle of the Omnissiah...
At the start of each of your turns, you can choose one Canticle of the Omnissiah from the
list below.
These attempt to resolve "at the same time".
Interceptor does not, because the shooting sequence forces singular resolutions.
Incorrect. The multiple Interceptor rules are all resolving AT THE SAME TIME.
The same time in this case is "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
If the player fire an Interceptor shot, the rule resolves "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"
If the player passes on firing an Interceptor shot the rule resolves "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
No matter what, multiple Interceptor rules will hammer on top of each other to resolve AT THE SAME TIME.
Therefore the Sequencing rule applies.
I don't have a choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
No one has been able to successfully show an Interceptor rule resolving at any time except for the exact moment described as "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"
Overwatch has permission to have an out of turn shooting phase.
Interceptor does not.
If you treat Interceptor like Overwatch by giving Interceptor permissions that it does not have then you are house ruling. I imagine its a popular house rule to treat Interceptor like Overwatch and many people probably don't recognize that they are house ruling, but it is indeed a house rule.
Point to the rule that shows Interceptor is not anything to do with shooting.
It's not a house rule, I know this because I only play in GW stores and they don't house rule their own rules.
Overwatch has permission to have an out of turn shooting phase.
Interceptor does not.
If you treat Interceptor like Overwatch by giving Interceptor permissions that it does not have then you are house ruling. I imagine its a popular house rule to treat Interceptor like Overwatch and many people probably don't recognize that they are house ruling, but it is indeed a house rule.
Point to the rule that shows Interceptor is not anything to do with shooting.
It's not a house rule, I know this because I only play in GW stores and they don't house rule their own rules.
I have never made the claim that Interceptor has not anything to do with shooting.
I have successfully pointed out that all the multiple Interceptor rules are hammering each other to be resolved AT THE SAME whether their rule resolution involves shooting or not.
