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.
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.
Still Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
"at the end" is never described anyway as an "exact moment"
There is no rule called "exact moment".
You are making things up for your argument.
Then asking to be proved wrong.
You have not demonstrated simultaneous resolution.
All of the firing is queued at the end of the movement phase.
The resolutions are not performed at the same time.
Your enacting of sequencing only changes the order, it doesn't resolve any conflicts of "at the same time".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/13 03:18:42
"at the end" is never described anyway as an "exact moment"
There is no rule called "exact moment".
You are making things up for your argument.
Then asking to be proved wrong.
You have not demonstrated simultaneous resolution.
All of the firing is queued at the end of the movement phase.
The resolutions are not performed at the same time.
Your enacting of sequencing only changes the order, it doesn't resolve any conflicts of "at the same time".
The Sequencing rule proves me right.
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
We know by looking at the Sequencing rule that multiple rules scheduled to resolve "At THE START of the Movement phase" will demand the application of the Sequencing rule.
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is similar to "At THE START of the Movement phase" and the Sequencing rule explicitly tells us to apply the same logic to something "similar".
Note the uses of "THE END" or "THE START" to indicate a precise point in time.
All of the multiple Interceptor rules, whether the player chooses to fire or not, are to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME.
I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
No one has been able to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Your ignoring of the Sequencing rule is a house rule.
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 5 times. Last update was at 2017/05/13 03:33:37
"at the end" is never described anyway as an "exact moment"
There is no rule called "exact moment".
You are making things up for your argument.
Then asking to be proved wrong.
You have not demonstrated simultaneous resolution.
All of the firing is queued at the end of the movement phase.
The resolutions are not performed at the same time.
Your enacting of sequencing only changes the order, it doesn't resolve any conflicts of "at the same time".
The Sequencing rule proves me right.
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.
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is similar to "At THE START of the Movement phase".
Note the uses of "THE END" or "THE START" to indicate a precise point in time.
All of the multiple Interceptor rules, whether the player chooses to fire or not, are to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME.
I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
No one has been able to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Your ignoring of the Sequencing rule is a house rule.
Still Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
You have not shown us a rule that states "at the end" is a singular moment in a game of 40k.
You make things up and then demand to be proved wrong.
The shooting sequence is policing the resolution of the rule.
There is no conflict because two cannot be resolved at once.
You're proved you understand the sequencing rule.
You haven't proved what that has to do with Interceptor.
Your ignoring the fact GW don't house rule their own rules.
Still Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
You have not shown us a rule that states "at the end" is a singular moment in a game of 40k.
You make things up and then demand to be proved wrong.
The shooting sequence is policing the resolution of the rule.
There is no conflict because two cannot be resolved at once.
The Sequencing rule explicitly calls out "at THE START of the Movement phase" as a singular moment in the game of 40k.
The Sequencing rule also explicitly allows us to treat similar time statements as singular moments.
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is a similar time statement to "At THE START of the Movement phase".
Ceann, the Sequencing rule directly defeats your argument.
We have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
If you ignore the Sequencing rule then you are houseruling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rolsheen wrote: You're proved you understand the sequencing rule.
You haven't proved what that has to do with Interceptor.
Your ignoring the fact GW don't house rule their own rules.
Are you able to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"?
If you cannot, then you must apply the Sequencing rule in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/13 03:40:33
Ceann wrote: Are you able to show any rule resolving at any other time than "during a game of warhammer"?
Then all rules are resolving at the same time right? Because playing a game is at the same time.
Sarcasm aside.
It states "normally" normally is not, ALWAYS.
It also states that "when the wording is not explicit"
A shooting sequence is explicit.
Nominate a unit.
A UNIT, ONE UNIT.
One unit not equal two unit.
Two unit for same time.
One no same time happen.
You read the words of the rules you like and ignore the rest.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam et infinitum.
You are still confused.
You keep pointing to the shooting sequence rules but fail to see that any shooting involved in the resolution of the multiple Interceptor rules will still be resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
All of the multiple Interceptor rules are hammering one another and trying to resolve AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule directly endorses "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a singular moment in time, since "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which is explicitly identified as a singular moment in time.
Time statements such as "during the Shooting phase" (or "during a Game of Warhammer") do not describe singular moments in time. The shooting phase (or a game of Warhammer) is a duration or stretch or period of time, not a singular moment in time, such as "THE START" or "THE END" of a phase.
Are you able to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"?
If you cannot, then you must apply the Sequencing rule in the case of multiple Interceptor rules that are resolving AT THE SAME TIME.
Failure to apply the Sequencing rule in this case is houseruling.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/05/13 04:50:20
Your picture means nothing.
You can't even remember that there is a psychic phase after movement.
What you are failing to understand is that the weapons fire at the same time, they all fire "at the end of the movement phase".
But are not resolved at the same time.
Firing is already sequenced by the shooting sequence.
Resolving rules is separate from when they occur.
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", because when they resolve is not explicit.
They still HAPPEN at the same time. The order they resolve in needs to be established.
Interceptor does not, because the shooting sequence IS explicit and prevents two from resolving at the same time.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/13 04:55:11
Ceann wrote: Your picture means nothing.
You can't even remember that there is a psychic phase after movement.
What you are failing to understand is that the weapons fire at the same time, they all fire "at the end of the movement phase".
But are not resolved at the same time.
Firing is already sequenced by the shooting sequence.
Resolving rules is separate from when they occur.
Shooting normally occurs in the context of phases which are durations of time. When shooting happens during the Shooting phase according to the shooting sequence then there is no hammering.
The multiple Interceptor rules however are all trying to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule recognizes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a singular moment in time.
Ceann wrote: What you are failing to understand is that the weapons fire at the same time, they all fire "at the end of the movement phase".
But are not resolved at the same time.
Nonsense. The Interceptor rules are all resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time (as proven by the Sequencer rules).
If you have some other time in mind that is other than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" for when the multiple Interceptor rules are supposedly resolving then by all means tell us what you think that time is!
I have pressed you several times and so far you have been unable to show any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Since you or anyone else has been completely unable to demonstrate the multiple Interceptor rules as resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" then we have no choice but to conclude that the multiple Interceptor rules are trying to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME.
Therefore the Sequencing rule applies.
Therefore anyone how ignores the Sequencing rule in this case is violating the rules and must be houseruling.
Before you post your next response I want to make sure you respond to this . . .
If you have some other time in mind that is other than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" for when the multiple Interceptor rules are supposedly resolving then by all means tell us what you think that time is!
Your continued failure to address this proves my argument as correct.
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.
What part about a shooting sequence is not explicit to you?
Looks pretty explicit to me.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models
equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the
target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one
visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in
range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines
what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the
target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing
weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing
unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target
unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has
one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed
as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to
allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/13 05:13:39
Interceptor is a out of turn shooting phase following the rules for shooting i.e. pick one unit, shoot with it, pick next unit, shoot with it, rinse and repeat.
No rules conflict, no sequencing.
This is not a house rule.
Ceann wrote: 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.
What part about a shooting sequence is not explicit to you?
Looks pretty explicit to me.
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but
has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models
equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the
target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one
visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in
range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines
what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the
target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing
weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing
unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target
unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has
one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed
as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to
allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
If you have some other time in mind that is other than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" for when the multiple Interceptor rules are supposedly resolving then by all means tell us what you think that time is!
Are you able to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"?
Your continued failure to address this proves my argument as correct.
If you cannot show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase", then you must apply the Sequencing rule in the case of multiple Interceptor rules that are resolving AT THE SAME TIME.
Failure to apply the Sequencing rule in this case is houseruling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rolsheen wrote: Interceptor is a out of turn shooting phase following the rules for shooting i.e. pick one unit, shoot with it, pick next unit, shoot with it, rinse and repeat.
No rules conflict, no sequencing.
This is not a house rule.
Where is Interceptor given permission to have an 'out of turn Shooting phase'?
Find a page reference that supports this assumption or admit it's just a house rule on your part.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/05/13 05:46:40
Ceann wrote: Read all of the Sequencing rule. You only apply it when the order of resolution is not made explicit.
The shooting sequence makes it explicit.
What do you not understand?
In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Are you able to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/13 05:59:44
Ceann wrote: I don't have too. Sequencing is only applied when the order is not made explicit. Which it is, by the shooting sequence.
Explicitly negates sequencing.
You only get to choose an order if the order isn't explicit.
Which it is.
Multiple Interceptor rules are competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME and it is not explicit which is resolved first.
Remember, this is not a Shooting phase. You only have permission to do a shooting attack while you are resolving one of the multiple Interceptor rules that are being scheduled AT THE SAME TIME. By the time you are working through the shooting sequence the Sequencing rule will already have dictated the order of the multiple Interceptor rules that are trying to schedule "a weapon""can be fired""at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
So again . . .
In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Are you able to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"?
If you cannot show any Interceptor rule resolving at any other time than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" then the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
If you choose to ignore the Sequencing rule in this case then you are houseruling.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/05/13 06:17:48
Rolsheen wrote: Interceptor is a out of turn shooting phase following the rules for shooting i.e. pick one unit, shoot with it, pick next unit, shoot with it, rinse and repeat.
No rules conflict, no sequencing.
This is not a house rule.
Not quite a Shooting Phase, but a Shooting Sequence or shooting process, you betcha. It's not like you can Run with Interceptor or Overwatch, after all.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
The shooting sequence make it explicit. In order to determine if any rule would have a resolution conflict you would have to read them. Prior to resolving one there are no rules to be resolved.
Can vs may, we are not asking for permission to fire.
There is no conflict.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/13 06:21:59
Rolsheen wrote: Interceptor is a out of turn shooting phase following the rules for shooting i.e. pick one unit, shoot with it, pick next unit, shoot with it, rinse and repeat.
No rules conflict, no sequencing.
This is not a house rule.
Not quite a Shooting Phase, but a Shooting Sequence or shooting process, you betcha. It's not like you can Run with Interceptor or Overwatch, after all.
Right. So since its not a Shooting Phase then all the multiple Interceptor rules are hammering each other by trying to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
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.
Rolsheen wrote: Interceptor is a out of turn shooting phase following the rules for shooting i.e. pick one unit, shoot with it, pick next unit, shoot with it, rinse and repeat.
No rules conflict, no sequencing.
This is not a house rule.
Not quite a Shooting Phase, but a Shooting Sequence or shooting process, you betcha. It's not like you can Run with Interceptor or Overwatch, after all.
Right. So since its not a Shooting Phase then all the multiple Interceptor rules are hammering each other by trying to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
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.
When this happens and the wording is not explicit...
A shooting sequence is explicit. So anything about at the same time is ignored.
There is no conflict.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/13 06:25:53
Ceann wrote: The shooting sequence make it explicit. In order to determine if any rule would have a resolution conflict you would have to read them. Prior to resolving one there are no rules to be resolved.
Can vs may, we are not asking for permission to fire.
There is no conflict.
Got it. You have been unable to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any time other than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Therefore all the multiple Interceptor rules are trying to resolve AT THE SAME TIME and the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
And if you choose to ignore the Sequencing rule then you are house ruling.
Rolsheen wrote: Interceptor is a out of turn shooting phase following the rules for shooting i.e. pick one unit, shoot with it, pick next unit, shoot with it, rinse and repeat.
No rules conflict, no sequencing.
This is not a house rule.
Not quite a Shooting Phase, but a Shooting Sequence or shooting process, you betcha. It's not like you can Run with Interceptor or Overwatch, after all.
Right. So since its not a Shooting Phase then all the multiple Interceptor rules are hammering each other by trying to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
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.
When this happens and the wording is not explicit...
Where do you see a rule that explicitly organizes multiple Interceptor rules that are competing to resolve "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"??
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/13 06:26:39
Ceann wrote: The shooting sequence make it explicit. In order to determine if any rule would have a resolution conflict you would have to read them. Prior to resolving one there are no rules to be resolved.
Can vs may, we are not asking for permission to fire.
There is no conflict.
Got it. You have been unable to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any time other than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Therefore all the multiple Interceptor rules are trying to resolve AT THE SAME TIME and the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
And if you choose to ignore the Sequencing rule then you are house ruling.
I am not ignoring anything. They can occur at the same time as long as the order for resolution is explicit.
If it is not explicit then they must be sequenced.
You have for pages and pages failed to demonstrate how a shooting sequence is not explicit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Go read the shooting sequence, nominate a unit, pick a weapon, we now know which one is resolved first.
Not rocket science.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/13 06:29:10
Ceann wrote: The shooting sequence make it explicit. In order to determine if any rule would have a resolution conflict you would have to read them. Prior to resolving one there are no rules to be resolved.
Can vs may, we are not asking for permission to fire.
There is no conflict.
Got it. You have been unable to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any time other than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Therefore all the multiple Interceptor rules are trying to resolve AT THE SAME TIME and the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
And if you choose to ignore the Sequencing rule then you are house ruling.
I am not ignoring anything. They can occur at the same time as long as the order for resolution is explicit.
If it is not explicit then they must be sequenced.
You have for pages and pages failed to demonstrate how a shooting sequence is not explicit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Go read the shooting sequence, nominate a unit, pick a weapon, we now know which one is resolved first.
Not rocket science.
We have gone over this repeatedly before. You keep naively thrusting a Shooting Sequence forward as an answer when it doesn't solve anything for you.
This isn't the Shooting phase. How are you even doing a shooting sequence?
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.
The shooting sequence happens entirely in the context of resolving one of the Interceptor rules.
By the time any shooting sequence happens the order for the multiple Interceptor rule resolutions will have already been determined by the ACTIVE player since everything is attempting to happen "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" and there is no avoiding the application of the Sequencing rule.
My challenge to you is to provide a complete step by step counter argument. You keep saying that the shooting sequence allows you to avoid rule scheduling conflicts but have yet to show a worked out proposal.
This is how it works out . . .
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 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 rules so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor rules.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those rules are resolved by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That rule must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor rule 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 order of rule resolution but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those rule resolutions.
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 12 times. Last update was at 2017/05/13 07:50:03
@Col_Impact we told you several times but you still refuse to ignore it
Intercept it's not an special rule that forces you to do something when it's triggered it's just a rule granting a permission to do something in a specific time. Intercept works the same way as Open topped or Assault Vehicles it's grant an specific permision to do something and the rule resolves itself BY GRANTING the permission not resolving such permission.
So we don't care if we have 1 or 500 intercept weapons, the rule simply grant a specific permission to fire at the end of the enemy movement phase, so when such time happens it's when we must resolve those firing as a shooting sequence.
Your way of thinking bend rules situations in such way it allows me to claim the special rule open-topped or Assault vehicle isn't resolved until i charge with the unit, thus the special rule happening at same time as Overwatch allowing me to claim those rules need sequencing.
Either way feel free to ignore me or respond with another of your verbatim My statement, my justification. We all know this thread will be locked down due some people not being able to engage in a decent discussion providing examples to their arguments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/13 10:07:13
In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Where does it say that it's a singular moment in time and all the Interceptor shots happen in that moment? There is no time limit, THE END of the enemy Movement phase can be as long as you want.
Ceann wrote: The shooting sequence make it explicit. In order to determine if any rule would have a resolution conflict you would have to read them. Prior to resolving one there are no rules to be resolved.
Can vs may, we are not asking for permission to fire.
There is no conflict.
Got it. You have been unable to show any Interceptor rule resolving at any time other than "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
Therefore all the multiple Interceptor rules are trying to resolve AT THE SAME TIME and the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
And if you choose to ignore the Sequencing rule then you are house ruling.
I am not ignoring anything. They can occur at the same time as long as the order for resolution is explicit.
If it is not explicit then they must be sequenced.
You have for pages and pages failed to demonstrate how a shooting sequence is not explicit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Go read the shooting sequence, nominate a unit, pick a weapon, we now know which one is resolved first.
Not rocket science.
We have gone over this repeatedly before. You keep naively thrusting a Shooting Sequence forward as an answer when it doesn't solve anything for you.
This isn't the Shooting phase. How are you even doing a shooting sequence?
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.
The shooting sequence happens entirely in the context of resolving one of the Interceptor rules.
By the time any shooting sequence happens the order for the multiple Interceptor rule resolutions will have already been determined by the ACTIVE player since everything is attempting to happen "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" and there is no avoiding the application of the Sequencing rule.
My challenge to you is to provide a complete step by step counter argument. You keep saying that the shooting sequence allows you to avoid rule scheduling conflicts but have yet to show a worked out proposal.
This is how it works out . . .
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 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 rules so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor rules.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those rules are resolved by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That rule must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor rule 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 order of rule resolution but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those rule resolutions.
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.
Unwarranted Assertions by Col. all with no rules support.
1. That interceptor is a choice of whether to fire or not based on sequencing.
2. That the sequencing rule has a unique permission to interrupt another rule in progress.
3. That a shooting sequence is not explicit.
4. That there is a special "a moment in time" rule.
Still Argumentum ad ignorantiam Col, you make a bunch of claims with no evidence and then demand to be proved wrong.
Your only defense is to keep trying to shift the burden of proof away from your flimsy argument that you cannot defend.
Your entire argument is predicated upon your premise that you are allowed to sequence.
The only question that needs to be answered here is...
Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not? Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not? Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not?
If they are explicit then you haven't met the qualifications to sequence and are doing so without cause.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/13 14:58:17
col_impact wrote: In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Where does it say that it's a singular moment in time and all the Interceptor shots happen in that moment? There is no time limit, THE END of the enemy Movement phase can be as long as you want.
He is partially correct. Interceptor does coincide with the timing of any Morale Checks caused by Dangerous Terrain failures, for example.
Where his failure is in why we need to recognize multiple calls of Interceptor as multiple rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/13 20:22:18
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Where does it say that it's a singular moment in time and all the Interceptor shots happen in that moment? There is no time limit, THE END of the enemy Movement phase can be as long as you want.
The rule explicitly recognizes "at THE START of the Movement phase" as a singular moment in time and "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally similar.
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 Sequencer rule itself recognizes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a singular moment in time.
col_impact wrote: In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Where does it say that it's a singular moment in time and all the Interceptor shots happen in that moment? There is no time limit, THE END of the enemy Movement phase can be as long as you want.
He is partially correct. Interceptor does coincide with the timing of any Morale Checks caused by Dangerous Terrain failures, for example.
Where his failure is in why we need to recognize multiple calls of Interceptor as multiple rules.
A single Interceptor rule resolving only gives "a weapon" the permission to fire. Unless there are multiple Interceptor rules to resolve you aren't getting multiple Interceptor shots fired.
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.
Unwarranted Assertions by Col. all with no rules support.
1. That interceptor is a choice of whether to fire or not based on sequencing.
2. That the sequencing rule has a unique permission to interrupt another rule in progress.
3. That a shooting sequence is not explicit.
4. That there is a special "a moment in time" rule.
Still Argumentum ad ignorantiam Col, you make a bunch of claims with no evidence and then demand to be proved wrong.
Your only defense is to keep trying to shift the burden of proof away from your flimsy argument that you cannot defend.
Your entire argument is predicated upon your premise that you are allowed to sequence.
The only question that needs to be answered here is...
Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not? Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not? Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not?
If they are explicit then you haven't met the qualifications to sequence and are doing so without cause.
I don't think you know what explicit means.
explicit - "1.stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt."
Several things are not clear or worked out in detail, Ceann.
1) It is not clear how you are even using the Shooting Sequence rules since it's not a Shooting phase and no rule is granting any model any permission to shoot.
2) Also, where do you see a rule that explicitly organizes multiple Interceptor rules that are competing to resolve "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"?
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.
3) Also, you have yet to show a complete counter proposal working it out in detail what you are doing.
I have done so for my argument . . .
Spoiler:
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.
So my proposed solution is explicitly worked out in every detail and is fully validated by the rules.
Where is your counter proposal?
Remember - 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.
The shooting sequence happens entirely in the context of resolving one of the Interceptor rules.
By the time any shooting sequence 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.
So we don't care if we have 1 or 500 intercept weapons, the rule simply grant a specific permission to fire at the end of the enemy movement phase, so when such time happens it's when we must resolve those firing as a shooting sequence.
Right. And those multiple Interceptor rules are all trying to be resolved at the same singular moment in time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencing rule applies. You can't avoid its application.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/05/13 20:45:18
In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Where does it say that it's a singular moment in time and all the Interceptor shots happen in that moment? There is no time limit, THE END of the enemy Movement phase can be as long as you want.
The rule explicitly recognizes "at THE START of the Movement phase" as a singular moment in time and "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally similar.
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 Sequencer rule itself recognizes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a singular moment in time.
col_impact wrote: In the case of an Interceptor weapon this shooting process is all getting resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" which is a singular moment in time. That means the Sequencing rule applies and my argument is correct.
Where does it say that it's a singular moment in time and all the Interceptor shots happen in that moment? There is no time limit, THE END of the enemy Movement phase can be as long as you want.
He is partially correct. Interceptor does coincide with the timing of any Morale Checks caused by Dangerous Terrain failures, for example.
Where his failure is in why we need to recognize multiple calls of Interceptor as multiple rules.
A single Interceptor rule resolving only gives "a weapon" the permission to fire. Unless there are multiple Interceptor rules to resolve you aren't getting multiple Interceptor shots fired.
Unwarranted Assertions by Col. all with no rules support.
1. That interceptor is a choice of whether to fire or not based on sequencing.
2. That the sequencing rule has a unique permission to interrupt another rule in progress.
3. That a shooting sequence is not explicit.
4. That there is a special "a moment in time" rule.
Still Argumentum ad ignorantiam Col, you make a bunch of claims with no evidence and then demand to be proved wrong.
Your only defense is to keep trying to shift the burden of proof away from your flimsy argument that you cannot defend.
Your entire argument is predicated upon your premise that you are allowed to sequence.
The only question that needs to be answered here is...
Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not? Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not? Are the rules for a shooting sequence explicit or not?
If they are explicit then you haven't met the qualifications to sequence and are doing so without cause.
I don't think you know what explicit means.
explicit - "1.stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt."
Several things are not clear or worked out in detail, Ceann.
1) It is not clear how you are even using the Shooting Sequence rules since it's not a Shooting phase and no rule is granting any model any permission to shoot.
2) Also, where do you see a rule that explicitly organizes multiple Interceptor rules that are competing to resolve "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"?
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.
3) Also, you have yet to show a complete counter proposal working it out in detail what you are doing.
I have done so for my argument . . .
Spoiler:
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.
So my proposed solution is explicitly worked out in every detail and is fully validated by the rules.
Where is your counter proposal?
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.
The shooting sequence happens entirely in the context of resolving one of the Interceptor rules.
By the time any shooting sequence 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.
So we don't care if we have 1 or 500 intercept weapons, the rule simply grant a specific permission to fire at the end of the enemy movement phase, so when such time happens it's when we must resolve those firing as a shooting sequence.
Right. And those multiple Interceptor rules are all trying to be resolved at the same singular moment in time ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") so the Sequencing rule applies. You can't avoid its application.
It doesn't matter if they fire at the same time, or if they even try to resolve at the same time.
The only thing "Sequencing" cares about is whether or not there are explicit instructions that determine the order.
Sequencing only applies in the ABSENCE of explicit instructions.
You are directed to look AT THE WORDING of the rule, prior to resolution to determine if it will provide an order.
Which it does.
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.
1. Interceptor grants permission for the shooting rules.
We have explicit instructions of from the shooting sequence, such as Nominate a Unit, and Select a Weapon. Leaving no ambiguity about which one will resolve first.
2. Shooting sequence rules are explicit and determine which will resolve first.
3. A counter proposal is not needed, your argument is flawed but you keep repeating it over and over.
We have explicit instructions but you are ignoring them and bludgeoning the world with your argumentum ad ignorantiam.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/05/13 20:58:37
It doesn't matter if they fire at the same time, or if they even try to resolve at the same time.
The only thing "Sequencing" cares about is whether or not there are explicit instructions that determine the order.
Sequencing only applies in the ABSENCE of explicit instructions.
1. Interceptor grants permission for the shooting rules.
2. Shooting sequence rules are explicit and determine which will resolve first.
3. A counter proposal is not needed, your argument is flawed but you keep repeating it over and over.
The Shooting Sequence rule is not explicit and you have yet to prove that it is explicit.
1) You have yet to show how the Shooting Sequence even comes into play. It's not even clear that the Shooting Sequence applies at all since there is no rule telling us to use the Shooting Sequence. That's a big guess on your part.
2) You have yet to show how it orders the multiple Interceptor permissions so that they do not resolve AT THE SAME TIME "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase". IF all of the rules are resolving AT THE SAME TIME then the Sequencer rule necessarily steps in.
"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" refers to the wording in the multiple Interceptor rules which is not explicit as to how to resolve multiple Interceptors, so the Sequencing rule necessarily intervenes to establish a sequence to the multiple events.
3) If you don't present a detailed and completely worked out counter proposal then you are proving that you do not have something "explicit". It's time for you to present your argument in explicit detail or admit that you cannot and therewith admit defeat.
You can't win this argument without spelling out your counter proposal in all of the explicit detail you claim to have.
I have spelled out my proposal in explicit detail and it is fully validated by the rules.
Spoiler:
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 4 times. Last update was at 2017/05/13 21:24:55
