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.
You are back to the "at the same time" nonsense again?
This is a busted argument.
As you stated...
"You only have permission to fire a single solitary shot in the context of resolving a single Interceptor rule. "
You know what that is? That is EXPLICIT.
I don't have to prove anything, sequencing knows that only one weapon will fire, assuring there is no simultaneous resolution. That is ALL it cares about.
That two rules don't resolve at the same time.
Such as a Skitarii Vanguard charging another Skitarri Vanguard.
Rad Saturation as a rule provides no way to sequence the resolution, so sequencing is forced upon it.
There is no player choice involved to have one before the other.
This is simultaneous resolution and requires sequencing.
Choosing a weapon to fire, is not a simultaneous resolution.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/17 03:56:08
Ceann wrote: You are back to the "at the same time" nonsense again?
This is a busted argument.
As you stated...
"You only have permission to fire a single solitary shot in the context of resolving a single Interceptor rule. "
You know what that is? That is EXPLICIT.
I don't have to prove anything, sequencing knows that only one weapon will fire, assuring there is no simultaneous resolution. That is ALL it cares about.
That two rules don't resolve at the same time.
Such as a Skitarii Vanguard charging another Skitarri Vanguard.
Rad Saturation as a rule provides no way to sequence the resolution, so sequencing is forced upon it.
There is no player choice involved to have one before the other.
This is simultaneous resolution and requires sequencing.
Choosing a weapon to fire, is not a simultaneous resolution.
Nope. In the case of multiple Interceptor rules, all those "can be fired" statements for the single solitary weapon firing are competing for the EXACT SAME TIME.
The Sequencing rule necessarily applies to sequence those "can be fired" permissions which are trying to resolve AT THE SAME TIME.
The ACTIVE player dictates which of those permissions resolves first. The ACTIVE player will tell the controlling player which of the weapons "can be fired" first, and which "can be fired" second. and so on.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/17 04:05:47
Ceann wrote: Exact same time is irrelevant.
The shooting sequence is explicit.
Can two Rad Saturation be resolved at the same time?
Yes, so they must be sequenced.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first...
Can two Interceptor shooting attacks be resolved at the same time? No, once you choose a weapon no other weapon can fire.
You keep putting the cart before the horse. You keep arguing as if there is a Shooting Sequence that is happening outside of the context of a single Interceptor rule, but there is not.
There is no explicit wording as to which of the multiple Interceptor rules resolve first.
You can't choose a weapon until the ACTIVE player has told you which "can be fired" permission in the multiple Interceptor rules is resolving first, and which is second, and so on.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/17 04:20:53
Sure there is, whichever one you choose.
That is explicit.
You keep ignoring my example because it is correct.
Skitarri Vanguard charges a Skitarii Vanguard.
Is there any method at all open to the player in order to determine which one resolves first on their own?
No. So sequencing is required.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first...
If two weapons want to fire at the same time...
Is there any method at all open to the player in order to determine which one resolves first on their own?
Yes, once you choose a weapon the other cannot fire. Thus prevent simultaneous resolution.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first...
Explicit is determined by lack of player ability to determine resolution, when a player cannot determine clearly which one would resolve first, then they are sequenced.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/17 04:21:59
Ceann wrote: Sure there is, whichever one you choose.
That is explicit.
You keep ignoring my example because it is correct.
Skitarri Vanguard charges a Skitarii Vanguard.
Is there any method at all open to the player in order to determine which one resolves first on their own?
No. So sequencing is required.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first...
If two weapons want to fire at the same time...
Is there any method at all open to the player in order to determine which one resolves first on their own?
Yes, once you choose a weapon the other cannot fire. Thus prevent simultaneous resolution.
When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first...
Explicit is determined by lack of player ability to determine resolution, when a player cannot determine clearly which one would resolve first, then they are sequenced.
You keep forgetting that any firing happens solely in the context of a single Interceptor rule resolving.
We are dealing with multiple Interceptor rules resolving AT THE SAME TIME.
You can't choose a weapon until the ACTIVE player has resolved the multiple Interceptor time conflicts (per the Sequencing rule) and has told you which "can be fired" permission in the multiple Interceptor rules is resolving first, and which is second, and so on.
If you choose a weapon that the ACTIVE player has told you can be fired second, then you cannot go back and fire the weapon that the ACTIVE player has told you can be fired first.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/17 04:28:36
I am not forgetting anything, you are.
At the same time DOES NOT MATTER.
Because the Interceptor rule is explicit.
What is the end result of sequencing?
That an order of resolution has been determined.
What is the end result of sequencing 4 instances of Rad Saturation?
Instead of having 4 resolving at the same time, you have 4 individual resolutions.
If I have a Skitarii Vanguard split charge 3 other Vanguards, you have 4 instances of Rad Saturation attempting to resolve or "hammering the same moment" as you like to put it.
There is nothing in the wording of rad saturation that is explicit which allows you to determine which one would resolve first.
If you try to resolve one first, the others are also still trying to resolve.
What is the end result of sequencing 4 instances of Interceptor?
Nothing. The only thing that gets changed is the order, because the rule explicitly determines which one would resolve first.
Meaning it is impossible for them to resolve at the same time, whereas rad saturation it is impossible for them to not resolve at the same time and sequencing being required.
Once one is chosen, the others are prevented from "hammering the same moment".
Hence we have an explicit rule so no sequencing is required, there will never be a simultaneous resolution.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/17 04:57:53
What is the end result of sequencing 4 instances of Interceptor?
Nothing. The only thing that gets changed is the order, because the rule explicitly determines which one would resolve first.
Meaning it is impossible for them to resolve at the same time, whereas rad saturation it is impossible for them to not resolve at the same time and sequencing being required.
Once one is chosen, the others are prevented from "hammering the same moment".
Hence we have an explicit rule so no sequencing is required, there will never be a simultaneous resolution.
Cool. So you are agreeing that the Sequencing rule applies an order to the Interceptor permissions dictated by the ACTIVE player.
Only after the Sequencing rule has been applied has a rule explicitly determined which Interceptor rule "can be fired" permission resolves first.
So the controlling player is presented with an order in which he can fire his weapons by the ACTIVE player.
If the controlling player skips ahead in order and chooses a weapon to fire first that the ACTIVE player has dictated can be fired second then the controlling player cannot go back and fire the weapon deemed first by the ACTIVE player.
So there definitely is a consequence to the order dictated by the Sequencing rule and the ACTIVE player.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/17 05:25:36
"Can be fired", "can be fired", "can be fired", "can be fired" - all resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") which is a singular moment in time.
The problem is that all of the multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase").
The controlling player can't fire until after all of the multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions have been resolved.
The controlling player has no idea which Interceptor weapon "can be fired" first.
The Sequencing rule mandatorily applies to order the multiple permissions to resolve in a sequence of the ACTIVE player's choosing.
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.
Once the Sequencing rule is applied then the controlling player knows which Interceptor weapon to resolve first, second, third, and so on. The order is dictated by the ACTIVE player per the Sequencing rule. In this case, the ACTIVE player is the opponent rather than the controlling player.
So the ACTIVE player informs the controlling player that he needs to order his Interceptor shooting attacks in some order, let's say a 'B, A, D, C' order.
If the controlling player skips ahead to firing D then the controlling player officially opts not to fire 'B' and 'A' and cannot revisit the decision to fire 'B' or 'A' after firing 'D'.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/17 07:09:50
col_impact wrote: "Can be fired", "can be fired", "can be fired", "can be fired" - all resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase") which is a singular moment in time.
The problem is that all of the multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase").
The controlling player can't fire until after all of the multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions have been resolved.
The controlling player has no idea which Interceptor weapon "can be fired" first.
The Sequencing rule mandatorily applies to order the multiple permissions to resolve in a sequence of the ACTIVE player's choosing.
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.
Once the Sequencing rule is applied then the controlling player knows which Interceptor weapon to resolve first, second, third, and so on. The order is dictated by the ACTIVE player per the Sequencing rule. In this case, the ACTIVE player is the opponent rather than the controlling player.
So the ACTIVE player informs the controlling player that he needs to order his Interceptor shooting attacks in some order, let's say a 'B, A, D, C' order.
If the controlling player skips ahead to firing D then the controlling player officially opts not to fire 'B' and 'A' and cannot revisit the decision to fire 'B' or 'A' after firing 'D'.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
The Start and End of a Phase
During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens at
the start of a particular phase, such as ‘at the start of your Movement phase’ or ‘at the
start of your Shooting phase’. These are always resolved before anything else during that
phase. Likewise, any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular
phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase,
before the next phase (if any) starts.
Does is say anything about "a moment in time" here?
No? It doesn't exist.
"The problem is that all of the multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"). "
This ^? Means nothing Col. Nothing.
You keep forgetting the caveat for sequencing... When this happens....and the wording is not explicit...
The sequencing rule doesn't apply because Interceptor is explicit.
It is explicit so sequencing does nothing.
Demonstrate it is not explicit.
Repeating your failed argument like a broken record does nothing.
1. Do you actually play 40k?
2. if yes, Do you play in a GW store?
1. Yes
2. Yes
How do manage to concentrate on a game when your opponent is laughing so hard at you.
Next time your in a GW ask the manager to run you through a demo game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/17 14:12:44
Without using the shooting process, this is merely an assumption on your part, which means it is a house rule on your part if you are assuming that you get to ignore the shooting process. So, that's two assumptions right there leading to house rules for someone supposedly going only by the Rules as Written.
col_impact wrote: Remember, the Explodes! rule does not use the Shooting Sequence. The hits Explodes! produces directly justify a To Wound roll.
They still say roll to hit as normal. That means you still get the to hit roll. You aren't instructed by Interceptor to resolve damage though, so you never get to resolve vehicle damage any more than you get to resolve wounds, at least going by your assumption. Remember, even without the shooting process, you agreed that technically you only get to roll to hit. That does not cover anything else in the shooting process or things that are outlined as alternatives to the shooting process. (Note that the vehicle rules do not invalidate not using the shooting process for non-vehicles, which is what you are assuming here also).
Happyjew wrote: OK I have some questions, if a model has multiple weapons, with the Interceptor special rule, can he fire both?
For example, let's say that a mission has a Mystery Objective that gives Interceptor to all weapons in the controlling unit. Would a Tac squad be able to fire both their Bolt Pistols and Bolters? After all the restriction on firing multiple weapons is only in the Shooting phase.
Furthermore, since Interceptor happens at the end of the Movement phase, the preceding movement phase would be the firing model's movement phase. Does that mean if the model moved and is carrying a Heavy weapon the shots are fired as Snap Shots? Or does that rule only apply to the Shooting phase as well?
What if a model whose weapon has the Interceptor special rule is locked in combat? can they still fire? After all the restrictions on firing while locked in combat only restrict the Shooting phase and Overwatch.
These are all good questions but are entirely separate from the case at hand.
By no stretch of the imagination is an Interceptor weapon fired in a Shooting phase.
So any restrictions that apply in a shooting phase do not apply to Interceptor weapons according to the Rules As Written.
There is a very popular house rule to treat Interceptor like an out of sequence Shooting phase but it's nothing more than a house rule.
Ah, so every weapon a model in an intercepting unit can fire. How conveeeenient. At least, if you are assuming that you get to ignore the shooting process which are the rules for governing shooting, but this is nothing more than a house rule.
There is no rule telling you to use the Shooting Sequence or to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
Actually though, there is. Note that the first sentence states "fire at the enemy". How do you "fire at the enemy?" The next sentence states "the shooting process" - it is telling you how to fire at the enemy. That means when you have permission to fire a weapon, you have permission to use the shooting process, because they indicate that the shooting process is how you fire at an enemy. If you stick with the claim that that applies only to the shooting phase, then you have no rules at all for firing at the enemy when using Interceptor, and therefore can not ever resolve Interceptor. Therefore, either Interceptor never resolves, or you are wrong in your assumption that you do not use the shooting sequence.
(note - edits to get the quotations showing right
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Roknar wrote: First thing I do every day is to check if this thread has been locked yet. To my surprise it has not lol.
I know. It's not like it wasn't asked of a mod days ago, so I'm guessing they heven't recovered yet from rolling on the floor laughing.
To be fair, we are getting new revelations, like col impact allowing every single weapon on a model to fire Interceptor because he says the normal firing rules don't apply, so it looks like there is some humor to be mined from this.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/05/17 15:53:43
Roknar wrote: First thing I do every day is to check if this thread has been locked yet. To my surprise it has not lol.
I know. It's not like it wasn't asked of a mod days ago, so I'm guessing they heven't recovered yet from rolling on the floor laughing.
To be fair, we are getting new revelations, like col impact allowing every single weapon on a model to fire Interceptor because he says the normal firing rules don't apply, so it looks like there is some humor to be mined from this.
I linked to a post from another of these ceann vs. impact threads where the mod lock post said essentially "if it's more than 5 pages, and only two people going back and forth, it's time to close the thread."
Maybe it didn't go through in the report, but here we are like 6 pages after that. I hope someone is getting humor out of this. At least my reading the thread is fast, because there's only 3-5 posts to a page that I can see
Roknar wrote: First thing I do every day is to check if this thread has been locked yet. To my surprise it has not lol.
I know. It's not like it wasn't asked of a mod days ago, so I'm guessing they heven't recovered yet from rolling on the floor laughing.
To be fair, we are getting new revelations, like col impact allowing every single weapon on a model to fire Interceptor because he says the normal firing rules don't apply, so it looks like there is some humor to be mined from this.
I linked to a post from another of these ceann vs. impact threads where the mod lock post said essentially "if it's more than 5 pages, and only two people going back and forth, it's time to close the thread."
Maybe it didn't go through in the report, but here we are like 6 pages after that. I hope someone is getting humor out of this. At least my reading the thread is fast, because there's only 3-5 posts to a page that I can see
Well, technically if I'm responding as well as Ceann and occasionally others to col impact, it's not just two people.
I'm sure the continual cut and paste helps to skim some of the posts faster also.
Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
How will Ceann and Col_Impact resolve it. Justify and provide argumentations for your answers.
The Start and End of a Phase
During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens at
the start of a particular phase, such as ‘at the start of your Movement phase’ or ‘at the
start of your Shooting phase’. These are always resolved before anything else during that
phase. Likewise, any rule that says an action or event happens at the end of a particular
phase is always resolved after all other actions have been performed during that phase,
before the next phase (if any) starts.
Does is say anything about "a moment in time" here?
No? It doesn't exist.
As I have pointed out multiple times already, the Sequencing rule itself identifies "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a singular moment in time such that two or more resolving at hat time are competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME. The Sequencing rule explicitly identifies "at THE START of the Movement phase" and anything "similar" as a singular moment in time. We have no choice but to accept "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as similar and therefore a singular moment in time.
The Sequencing rule proves you wrong.
Ceann wrote: "The problem is that all of the multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"). "
This ^? Means nothing Col. Nothing.
You keep forgetting the caveat for sequencing... When this happens....and the wording is not explicit...
The sequencing rule doesn't apply because Interceptor is explicit.
It is explicit so sequencing does nothing.
Demonstrate it is not explicit.
Repeating your failed argument like a broken record does nothing.
You have this backwards.
explicit - stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
You have to show that wording exists somewhere that explicitly tells the players what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules resolving AT THE SAME TIME.
No such wording exists in the rules you have been suggesting. No wording anywhere in your suggestions mentions multiple Interceptor rules.
The only rule that actually explicitly addresses the case at hand is the Sequencing rule which explicitly addresses the case of multiple rules.
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 unequivocally "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" so without a doubt the Sequencing rule applies. The Interceptor rule contains no wording as to which Interceptor rule to resolve first in the case of multiple Interceptor rules so we have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
Lord Perversor wrote: Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
I don't know how they will answer it, I will submit what I stated in the second post:
* Interceptor never states any level of order of operations.
* The Shooting Phase does provide an outline for when any group of units are Shooting through the Shooting Sequence.
* Since the basic rules of the Shooting Sequence cover all aspects of any basic shooting process, we will turn to that.
That means we already have a unit chosen, so it gets to fire. If we have an option of units to shoot at, then we select which units which arrived will be targets. We then declare which Weapon name we fire first and its specific target(s), go through the To-Hit to Remove Casualties process, and then Choose another Weapon until we run out of Weapons to Shoot or choose to stop (because we want it to shoot SOMETHING in our turn).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/17 22:30:45
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.
Lord Perversor wrote: Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
How will Ceann and Col_Impact resolve it. Justify and provide argumentations for your answers.
I have already answered this scenario multiple times.
This is simply the case of 5 weapons with the Interceptor rule.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] 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 [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
Since I have always been forthcoming with a detailed analysis on how it all works, my guess is you are challenging Ceann to do the same.
But, if for some reason you want me to provide additional clarification to the answer I provide above, let me know your issues and I will address them.
Lord Perversor wrote: Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
I don't know how they will answer it, I will submit what I stated in the second post:
* Interceptor never states any level of order of operations.
* The Shooting Phase does provide an outline for when any group of units are Shooting through the Shooting Sequence.
* Since the basic rules of the Shooting Sequence cover all aspects of any basic shooting process, we will turn to that.
That means we already have a unit chosen, so it gets to fire. If we have an option of units to shoot at, then we select which units which arrived will be targets. We then declare which Weapon name we fire first and its specific target(s), go through the To-Hit to Remove Casualties process, and then Choose another Weapon until we run out of Weapons to Shoot or choose to stop (because we want it to shoot SOMETHING in our turn).
By no stretch of imagination is "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" a Shooting phase.
So you are proposing a House Rule solution to the case at hand (which is obvious if you look at the rationale in your argument highlighted in red above).
The House Rule you are proposing is to treat Interceptor like an out of sequence Shooting phase.
It's fine that you are proposing a House Rule solution. However, please mark your proposal as a House Rule per the YMDC rules.
I want to point out that my solution is not a House Rule solution. It's a Rules As Written solution.
Without using the shooting process, this is merely an assumption on your part, which means it is a house rule on your part if you are assuming that you get to ignore the shooting process. So, that's two assumptions right there leading to house rules for someone supposedly going only by the Rules as Written.
You have this backwards. We are ignoring the Shooting Sequence because it is not a Shooting phase and no rule is telling us to use the Shooting Sequence rules.
If we were to use the Shooting Sequence rules then we would be House Ruling that we can treat Interceptor as an out of sequence Shooting phase.
They still say roll to hit as normal. That means you still get the to hit roll. You aren't instructed by Interceptor to resolve damage though, so you never get to resolve vehicle damage any more than you get to resolve wounds, at least going by your assumption. Remember, even without the shooting process, you agreed that technically you only get to roll to hit. That does not cover anything else in the shooting process or things that are outlined as alternatives to the shooting process. (Note that the vehicle rules do not invalidate not using the shooting process for non-vehicles, which is what you are assuming here also).
Interceptor "can be fired" directly justifies a To Hit roll.
Any hits that are produced by a To Hit roll directly justify a To Wound roll. Remember a To Wound Roll, which processes hits, is a basic rule that every model knows.
Happyjew wrote: OK I have some questions, if a model has multiple weapons, with the Interceptor special rule, can he fire both?
For example, let's say that a mission has a Mystery Objective that gives Interceptor to all weapons in the controlling unit. Would a Tac squad be able to fire both their Bolt Pistols and Bolters? After all the restriction on firing multiple weapons is only in the Shooting phase.
Furthermore, since Interceptor happens at the end of the Movement phase, the preceding movement phase would be the firing model's movement phase. Does that mean if the model moved and is carrying a Heavy weapon the shots are fired as Snap Shots? Or does that rule only apply to the Shooting phase as well?
What if a model whose weapon has the Interceptor special rule is locked in combat? can they still fire? After all the restrictions on firing while locked in combat only restrict the Shooting phase and Overwatch.
These are all good questions but are entirely separate from the case at hand.
By no stretch of the imagination is an Interceptor weapon fired in a Shooting phase.
So any restrictions that apply in a shooting phase do not apply to Interceptor weapons according to the Rules As Written.
There is a very popular house rule to treat Interceptor like an out of sequence Shooting phase but it's nothing more than a house rule.
Ah, so every weapon a model in an intercepting unit can fire. How conveeeenient. At least, if you are assuming that you get to ignore the shooting process which are the rules for governing shooting, but this is nothing more than a house rule.
You have this backwards.
You are the one who is House Ruling.
The Shooting Sequence rules don't apply since this is not a Shooting phase.
Similarly, restrictions that apply during the Shooting phase do not apply to Interceptor weapons since Interceptor does not fire during the Shooting phase.
This is following the Rules As Written.
Unless you can somehow show that "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is a "Shooting phase" you are the one who is House Ruling here that you get to magically treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
There is no rule telling you to use the Shooting Sequence or to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.
Actually though, there is. Note that the first sentence states "fire at the enemy". How do you "fire at the enemy?" The next sentence states "the shooting process" - it is telling you how to fire at the enemy. That means when you have permission to fire a weapon, you have permission to use the shooting process, because they indicate that the shooting process is how you fire at an enemy. If you stick with the claim that that applies only to the shooting phase, then you have no rules at all for firing at the enemy when using Interceptor, and therefore can not ever resolve Interceptor. Therefore, either Interceptor never resolves, or you are wrong in your assumption that you do not use the shooting sequence.
The Shooting Sequence provides rule for firing DURING THE SHOOTING PHASE. This is not my claim. This is what the Rules As Written unequivocally say.
So we cannot use the Shooting Sequence rules and can only use rules that Interceptor directly justifies.
Interceptor "can be fired" directly justifies a To Hit roll.
But, doctortom, I want to point out that you are arguing a completely irrelevant point to the argument at hand.
Even if, for the sake of argument, the entire Shooting Sequence rules were accessed . . .
Spoiler:
I should remind you that the Shooting Sequence rules wouldn't do anything further than a To Hit roll rule would. A firing weapon, model, and unit have already been determined by that single Interceptor rule and only a single solitary firing is permitted. The single solitary Interceptor shot is resolved and that is the end of it. If there are additional Interceptor weapons to fire they are resolved in the context of the ensuing Interceptor rule's solitary firing permissions. By the time you are firing your first Interceptor weapon then the order of the various Interceptor rule permissions will have been sequenced by the ACTIVE player per the Sequencing rule. 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 your proposed 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 even if we entertain your notion that somehow a Shooting Sequence happens, you still have the Sequencing rule dictating the order in which multiple Interceptor weapons fire. A single Interceptor rule only permits a solitary firing. So the shooting sequence that is permitted to happen in the context of one of those Interceptor rules can only resolve a solitary Interceptor firing. The multiple Interceptor weapon firings are necessarily accomplished by multiple Interceptor rules resolving in the order of the ACTIVE players choosing, per the Sequencing rule.
Anyway, just wanted to point out that you are arguing something that has no consequence to the larger argument at hand. The Sequencing rule still applies whether a To Hit roll happens or a Shooting Sequence happens while resolving a single Interceptor rule.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2017/05/17 23:02:39
You are conflating the argument to hide it's faults.
You are wrong and as usual simply refuse to admit it, nothing new.
The shooting rules dictate the rules to fire at an enemy, you must use them. The rules are applied to all models per BvA.
Per BvA interceptor overrides the out of phase conflict.
The shooting sequence outlines a specific weapon to resolve, which is explicit.
All of the at the same time, moment in time, hammering the moment is all garbage in a trash can.
I will lay out my still uncontested example.
A skitarii vanguard split charges 2 other vanguards, all rad saturation attempts to resolve at the same time. The wording for that rule provides no explicit wording to allow one instance to be chosen, hence they get sequenced.
Each iteration of interceptor is unique to each weapon that needs to fire, picking one is explicit.
Interceptor is explicit, sequencing is not invoked.
The caveat for sequence rule is a rule being explicit.
Mash your mental deny button all you wish, obfuscate all you wish, you are still wrong, as usual.
Lord Perversor wrote: Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
I don't know how they will answer it, I will submit what I stated in the second post:
* Interceptor never states any level of order of operations.
* The Shooting Phase does provide an outline for when any group of units are Shooting through the Shooting Sequence.
* Since the basic rules of the Shooting Sequence cover all aspects of any basic shooting process, we will turn to that.
That means we already have a unit chosen, so it gets to fire. If we have an option of units to shoot at, then we select which units which arrived will be targets. We then declare which Weapon name we fire first and its specific target(s), go through the To-Hit to Remove Casualties process, and then Choose another Weapon until we run out of Weapons to Shoot or choose to stop (because we want it to shoot SOMETHING in our turn).
So as summarising it, you threat interceptor as a single Special rule (despite how many iterations of itself it may present) wich triggers shooting attacks (should the player choose to resolve it ) and you resolve it following the shooting sequence.
Col_Impact wrote:
I have already answered this scenario multiple times.
This is simply the case of 5 weapons with the Interceptor rule.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
Ok so several Special rules happening at once (Or iterations of same one on this case) each one must be fully resolved before the next one comes into play (it means even the shooting attack related to it)
Then for the shake of argumentation can you explain me how to work around this small snippet of rules then?
*Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.*
Because as i see it you are claiming that specific Stormsurge it's gaining the benefit of Intercept up to 5 times with your resolution.
P.S: waiting for Ceann resolve of this situation btw as his example it's pretty much irrelevant wich Rad saturation applies first don't apply any tangible effect.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/17 23:14:22
Ok so several Special rules happening at once (Or iterations of same one on this case) each one must be fully resolved before the next one comes into play (it means even the shooting attack related to it)
Then for the shake of argumentation can you explain me how to work around this small snippet of rules then?
*Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.*
Because as i see it you are claiming that specific Stormsurge it's gaining the benefit of Intercept up to 5 times with your resolution.
Interceptor is a special rule applied to a weapon.
Interceptor
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
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.
Just as the Stormsurge can have multiple weapons with Twin Linked or Destroyer or Melta, the Stormsurge can have multiple weapons with Interceptor.
Lord Perversor wrote: Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
I don't know how they will answer it, I will submit what I stated in the second post:
* Interceptor never states any level of order of operations.
* The Shooting Phase does provide an outline for when any group of units are Shooting through the Shooting Sequence.
* Since the basic rules of the Shooting Sequence cover all aspects of any basic shooting process, we will turn to that.
That means we already have a unit chosen, so it gets to fire. If we have an option of units to shoot at, then we select which units which arrived will be targets. We then declare which Weapon name we fire first and its specific target(s), go through the To-Hit to Remove Casualties process, and then Choose another Weapon until we run out of Weapons to Shoot or choose to stop (because we want it to shoot SOMETHING in our turn).
So as summarising it, you threat interceptor as a single Special rule (despite how many iterations of itself it may present) wich triggers shooting attacks (should the player choose to resolve it ) and you resolve it following the shooting sequence.
Considering that Interceptor is a special rule applied to a weapon and "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is not a Shooting phase (so the Shooting Sequence rules do not apply), Charistoph's proposal should be marked as a House Rule
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/17 23:25:16
Ok so several Special rules happening at once (Or iterations of same one on this case) each one must be fully resolved before the next one comes into play (it means even the shooting attack related to it)
Then for the shake of argumentation can you explain me how to work around this small snippet of rules then?
*Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.*
Because as i see it you are claiming that specific Stormsurge it's gaining the benefit of Intercept up to 5 times with your resolution.
Interceptor is a special rule applied to a weapon.
Interceptor
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
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.
Just as the Stormsurge can have multiple weapons with Twin Linked or Destroyer or Melta, the Stormsurge can have multiple weapons with Interceptor.
Lord Perversor wrote: Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
I don't know how they will answer it, I will submit what I stated in the second post:
* Interceptor never states any level of order of operations.
* The Shooting Phase does provide an outline for when any group of units are Shooting through the Shooting Sequence.
* Since the basic rules of the Shooting Sequence cover all aspects of any basic shooting process, we will turn to that.
That means we already have a unit chosen, so it gets to fire. If we have an option of units to shoot at, then we select which units which arrived will be targets. We then declare which Weapon name we fire first and its specific target(s), go through the To-Hit to Remove Casualties process, and then Choose another Weapon until we run out of Weapons to Shoot or choose to stop (because we want it to shoot SOMETHING in our turn).
So as summarising it, you threat interceptor as a single Special rule (despite how many iterations of itself it may present) wich triggers shooting attacks (should the player choose to resolve it ) and you resolve it following the shooting sequence.
Considering that Interceptor is a special rule applied to a weapon and "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is not a Shooting phase (so the Shooting Sequence rules do not apply), Charistoph's proposal should be marked as a House Rule
More nonsense from Col, Wrongpact.
The rules to "fire a weapon at an enemy" are specifically notated as the shooting sequence.
Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict.
The shooting sequence does apply because BvA dictates that basic rules are applied to ALL models, unless otherwise.
Has it been stated otherwise? No.
You keep rehashing defeated arguments and pretending valid ones do not exist.
will lay out my still uncontested example.
A skitarii vanguard split charges 2 other vanguards, all rad saturation attempts to resolve at the same time. The wording for that rule provides no explicit wording to allow one instance to be chosen, hence they get sequenced.
Rad-saturation: While a unit is locked in combat with one or more models with this special rule all models in that unit subtract 1 from their Toughness
If we choose a unit, what is preventing the other two iterations from resolving? Nothing. So they must be sequenced.
Each iteration of interceptor is unique to each weapon that needs to fire, picking one is explicit.
If we choose a weapon, what is preventing the other iterations from resolving? The shooting sequence.
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.
Interceptor is explicit, sequencing is not invoked.
The caveat for sequenced rule, is a rule being explicit.
Mash your mental deny button all you wish, obfuscate all you wish, you are still wrong, as usual.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/17 23:44:56
Ok so several Special rules happening at once (Or iterations of same one on this case) each one must be fully resolved before the next one comes into play (it means even the shooting attack related to it)
Then for the shake of argumentation can you explain me how to work around this small snippet of rules then?
*Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.*
Because as i see it you are claiming that specific Stormsurge it's gaining the benefit of Intercept up to 5 times with your resolution.
Interceptor is a special rule applied to a weapon.
Interceptor
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
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.
Just as the Stormsurge can have multiple weapons with Twin Linked or Destroyer or Melta, the Stormsurge can have multiple weapons with Interceptor.
Largely irrelevant as i can make a Painboy with access to 2x Different FnP saves, doesn't mean he can benefit from 2x FnP saves. In the game it's not the weapon or wargear taking advantage of the Intercept rule (since as far i know weapons can't be fire by themselves alone) but the model firing the weapon.
Largely irrelevant as i can make a Painboy with access to 2x Different FnP saves, doesn't mean he can benefit from 2x FnP saves. In the game it's not the weapon or wargear taking advantage of the Intercept rule (since as far i know weapons can't be fire by themselves alone) but the model firing the weapon.
You are proposing something preposterous. So a model with two Twin Linked weapons can only choose to fire one of the weapons as twin-linked?
The Interceptor special rule is applied to the weapon.
Interceptor - " . . . a weapon with the Interceptor special rule . . ."
If you are applying Interceptor to the model then you are simply not adhering to the Rules As Written.
It is time to reassess your argument based on the fact that you have been misreading the rules involved at a fundamental level.
Lord Perversor wrote: Just to provide further insight on everyone stances, let's explain a simple situation.
A Stormsurge (5 different weapon systems, GMC so able to fire any weapon at any target within range ) equipped with an Early warning Override (all weapons on a model with it have the interceptor special rule)
I don't know how they will answer it, I will submit what I stated in the second post:
* Interceptor never states any level of order of operations.
* The Shooting Phase does provide an outline for when any group of units are Shooting through the Shooting Sequence.
* Since the basic rules of the Shooting Sequence cover all aspects of any basic shooting process, we will turn to that.
That means we already have a unit chosen, so it gets to fire. If we have an option of units to shoot at, then we select which units which arrived will be targets. We then declare which Weapon name we fire first and its specific target(s), go through the To-Hit to Remove Casualties process, and then Choose another Weapon until we run out of Weapons to Shoot or choose to stop (because we want it to shoot SOMETHING in our turn).
So as summarising it, you threat interceptor as a single Special rule (despite how many iterations of itself it may present) wich triggers shooting attacks (should the player choose to resolve it ) and you resolve it following the shooting sequence.
Correct. There is only one Special Rule. It may be several instances, but it still just one single rule in the end.
It seems that a certain ignored one doesn't seem to recognize that it is models that fire. The Weapons just defines the shooting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Perversor wrote: Largely irrelevant as i can make a Painboy with access to 2x Different FnP saves, doesn't mean he can benefit from 2x FnP saves. In the game it's not the weapon or wargear taking advantage of the Intercept rule (since as far i know weapons can't be fire by themselves alone) but the model firing the weapon.
Not exactly a fair comparison. Feel No Pain does not allow for a model to use multiple instances of it, and special rules do not stack without it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/18 00:08:22
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 rules to "fire a weapon at an enemy" are specifically notated as the shooting sequence.
Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict.
The shooting sequence does apply because BvA dictates that basic rules are applied to ALL models, unless otherwise.
Has it been stated otherwise? No.
The Shooting Sequence rules only apply to the Shooting phase.
This is not a Shooting phase.
Interceptor already provides a permission to fire a weapon at an enemy. So the Shooting Sequence is not required at all.
The only thing that Interceptor requires is a To Hit roll.
Ceann wrote: You keep rehashing defeated arguments and pretending valid ones do not exist.
will lay out my still uncontested example.
A skitarii vanguard split charges 2 other vanguards, all rad saturation attempts to resolve at the same time. The wording for that rule provides no explicit wording to allow one instance to be chosen, hence they get sequenced.
Rad-saturation: While a unit is locked in combat with one or more models with this special rule all models in that unit subtract 1 from their Toughness
If we choose a unit, what is preventing the other two iterations from resolving? Nothing. So they must be sequenced.
Each iteration of interceptor is unique to each weapon that needs to fire, picking one is explicit.
If we choose a weapon, what is preventing the other iterations from resolving? The shooting sequence.
You keep failing to address your 'cart before the horse' problem.
The controlling player can't pick a weapon to fire until the multiple Interceptor rules have resolved which weapon is able to be fired first.
By the time you have picked a weapon the Sequencing rule will already have mandatorily dictated the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.
Ceann wrote: 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.
Interceptor is explicit, sequencing is not invoked.
The caveat for sequenced rule, is a rule being explicit.
Mash your mental deny button all you wish, obfuscate all you wish, you are still wrong, as usual.
You keep failing to point to a rule that explicitly deals with the sequencing problem of two Interceptor "can be fired" rules competing to resolve AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase")
The only rule that explicitly deals with the sequencing problem of two Interceptor rules is the Sequencing rule. The Sequencing rule is explicit since "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which has been explicitly identified as a singular moment in time.
So we adhere to the BRB and follow the rules that the BRB explicitly tells us to apply which is the Sequencing rule.
Correct. There is only one Special Rule. It may be several instances, but it still just one single rule in the end.
It seems that a certain ignored one doesn't seem to recognize that it is models that fire. The Weapons just defines the shooting.
You are just failing to actually read the rule. The rule itself indicates that the Special Rule is applied to the weapon.
Interceptor
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.
If you aren't going to adhere to what the rules say then your argument is simply invalid. Until you adjust your argument to reflect what the rules actually say we can simply ignore your argument.
So there are as many Interceptor rules to resolve as there are weapons with the Interceptor rule.
Lord Perversor wrote: Largely irrelevant as i can make a Painboy with access to 2x Different FnP saves, doesn't mean he can benefit from 2x FnP saves. In the game it's not the weapon or wargear taking advantage of the Intercept rule (since as far i know weapons can't be fire by themselves alone) but the model firing the weapon.
Not exactly a fair comparison. Feel No Pain does not allow for a model to use multiple instances of it, and special rules do not stack without it.
Again, we are dealing with a weapon Special Rule, so to make apt comparisons we need to compare to other weapon Special Rules, obviously.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/18 00:28:54
