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.

Plasma Gun always has "Get's Hot"
Meltagun always has "Melta".
Interceptor" always has "Interceptor".

The rule is used when the weapon is fired.
There is no permission to resolve.
In each circumstance they already have permission.
Resolving the rule is when they USE the permission.
If you don't fire the weapon, the weapon still has the rule.

Ceann wrote:
Plasma Gun always has "Get's Hot"
Meltagun always has "Melta".
Interceptor" always has "Interceptor".

The rule is used when the weapon is fired.
If you don't fire the weapon, the weapon still has the rule.

The multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are resolving AT THE SAME TIME. The Sequencing rule intervenes whenever multiple rules are resolving AT THE SAME TIME.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Plasma Gun always has "Get's Hot"
Meltagun always has "Melta".
Interceptor" always has "Interceptor".

The rule is used when the weapon is fired.
If you don't fire the weapon, the weapon still has the rule.

The multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are resolving AT THE SAME TIME. The Sequencing rule intervenes whenever multiple rules are resolving AT THE SAME TIME.

Except they aren't.

They ALWAYS have the permission.
At the end of movement is WHEN they can use the permission.

They do not resolve at the same time, they TRY to resolve at the same time, there is a difference.

Skitarii Vanguard charged a Skitarii Vanguard.
They both became LOCKED in combat "at the same time".


Can a Quad Gun and Icarus Dunecrawler shoot at the same time? No.
So they can't resolve at the same time.

Ceann wrote:
Plasma Gun always has "Get's Hot"
Meltagun always has "Melta".
Interceptor" always has "Interceptor".

The rule is used when the weapon is fired.
There is no permission to resolve.
In each circumstance they already have permission.
Resolving the rule is when they USE the permission.
If you don't fire the weapon, the weapon still has the rule.

So we are back to the problem that you do not know what 'resolve' means.

Interceptor has nothing to do with the actual act of firing a Weapon.

Resolving Interceptor means resolving the "can be fired" permissions.

A bolter without Interceptor is identical to a bolter with Interceptor as far as the actual firing goes. One simply has the permission to fire at a time when the other one does not. But each bolter will roll the same To Hit roll at the same BS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:


Except they aren't.

They ALWAYS have the permission.
At the end of movement is WHEN they can use the permission.

Incorrect. Interceptor weapons only have the "can be fired" permission "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".

Ceann wrote:
They do not resolve at the same time, they TRY to resolve at the same time, there is a difference.

The multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are resolving AT THE SAME TIME ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"). The Sequencing rule necessarily applies.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Plasma Gun always has "Get's Hot"
Meltagun always has "Melta".
Interceptor" always has "Interceptor".

The rule is used when the weapon is fired.
There is no permission to resolve.
In each circumstance they already have permission.
Resolving the rule is when they USE the permission.
If you don't fire the weapon, the weapon still has the rule.

So we are back to the problem that you do not know what 'resolve' means.

Interceptor has nothing to do with the actual act of firing a Weapon.

Resolving Interceptor means resolving the "can be fired" permissions.

A bolter without Interceptor is identical to a bolter with Interceptor as far as the actual firing goes. One simply has the permission to fire at a time when the other one does not. But each bolter will roll the same To Hit roll at the same BS.

You don't resolve a weapons rule for permissions.
They already have permission.
Conditions are what they have.

Do you roll the d6 for melta before measuring?
No, you have to meet the 1/2 distance condition.
Do you roll an armor save for Gets Hot before you roll to hit?
No, it has a condition of rolling a 1.
Do you resolve interceptor to fire before firing?
No, it has a condition of "at the end of the movement phase".

Ceann wrote:

Do you resolve interceptor to fire before firing?

What definition of 'resolve' are you implementing here?

You have to resolve the Interceptor rule before firing.

The Interceptor rule is what grants the permission to fire "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"

Granting that permission at the appropriate time is resolving Interceptor.

Other rules are used for the actual firing of the weapon (the To Hit roll rule).

When you have multiple Interceptor weapons then multiple "can be fired" rules are resolving AT THE SAME TIME so the Sequencing rule intervenes.

At the end of the movement phase is WHEN it fires.
Not when it asks to fire.
They resolve when they fire.

Ceann wrote:
At the end of the movement phase is WHEN it fires.
Not when it asks to fire.
They resolve when they fire.

What definition of 'resolve' are you implementing here?


You are confusing 'resolve a rule' with 'firing a shot'.

The Interceptor rule is resolving permission. Firing shots is handled by other rules.

The Interceptor rule is providing no actual firing rules. The To Hit roll actually handles the firing.

Resolving an Interceptor rule is granting the permission to fire at the appropriate time.

Multiple Interceptor rules seek to grant the permission to fire AT THE SAME TIME.

The Sequencing rule necessarily intervenes when rules are resolving AT THE SAME TIME.

IF we have 3 interceptor rules.
A rule is only resolved when you have followed it through its entirety.

They all can fire at the same time.
They all cannot resolve shooting at the same time.
There will be a point in time, where one has finished shooting and the others have not because only one can perform that part of the rule at a time.

The others have not read through the rule in its entirety, so the rule has not resolved for them.
Only the one that has fired a shot has completed the rule.
Per interceptor, if you are not firing a weapon you are not using the rule.

Once you have fired a weapon, the rule is resolved because there is nothing else to do.
Sequencing only cares about resolution actually occurring at the same time.
Not that they wanted it too.

Ceann wrote:
IF we have 3 interceptor rules.
A rule is only resolved when you have followed it through its entirety.

They all can fire at the same time.
They all cannot resolve shooting at the same time.
There will be a point in time, where one has finished shooting and the others have not because only one can perform that part of the rule at a time.

The others have not read through the rule in its entirety, so the rule has not resolved for them.
Only the one that has fired a shot has completed the rule.
Per interceptor, if you are not firing a weapon you are not using the rule.

Once you have fired a weapon, the rule is resolved because there is nothing else to do.
Sequencing only cares about resolution actually occurring at the same time.
Not that they wanted it too.

Again you keep confusing 'resolve a rule' with 'resolve a shot'.

Resolving the Interceptor rule means granting the permission to the weapon to fire "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".

If the controlling player opts to fire then there will be an opportunity to resolve 'a shot' using the rules for a shooting attack.

Resolving a 'rule' is entirely different than resolving 'a shot'.

The Sequencing rule is concerned with rules, not shooting, that "are to be resolved AT THE SAME TIME".

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.

In the case of multiple Interceptor weapons, the multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions "are TO BE resolved at the same time".

Whether or not a player actually fires or not is irrelevant. The multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions "are TO BE resolved at the same time" and so the Sequencing rule applies.

The Sequencing rule intervenes and dictates that the ACTIVE player orders the "can be fired" permissions such that the ACTIVE player decides which Interceptor weapon "can be fired" first and which Interceptor weapon "can be fired" second, and so on.

This again? We circled the wagon so you could go back to the can vs may argument?

Can be fired is this circumstance is used as "able to fire" not as "May I fire" it is a statement of ability not a request for permission.
As far as I am aware there is no circumstance of ANY rule asking for permission. They state when they CAN be used, not when they MAY be used.

Please don't tell me we are on to "hammering the same moment" again next.


If anything this exercise demonstrates you cannot prove the rules are not explicit. So you have lost.
Back to spamming your broken argument.

The only part of sequencing that matters is this "When this happens, and the wording is not explicit "
It doesn't care that they are TO BE resolved it cares about WHEN it would happen, which is never, because of the shooting rules.

col_impact wrote:

Also, we can set aside the fact that there is no practical reason to sequence these resolutions.

The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.

So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.

The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.

There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.

YOU demonstrated three rules resolving at the same time with my example.
There might be no practical consequence, you still technically follow the rules either way.

Can YOU now demonstrate three Interceptor resolving at the same time?
No, you can't. Because three weapons cannot fire at the same time.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:


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.

The Shooting Sequence rules only apply to the Shooting phase.

This is not a Shooting phase.

Already debunked (the "can only apply to the Shooting phase" statement) in my post that you quoted me from last night, yet managed to ignore.

doctortom wrote: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.

Sorry, but you don't get to spout bilge like "it only applies to the shooting phase" when it's been debunked without you dealing with the issue that they invoke the shooting process for firing at an enemy. You're firing at an enemy with Interceptor, therefore you use the shooting process. This is also where they say "fire" in relation to a model, unit or weapon firing, so by RAW would actually be the only thing indicating that you roll to hit (the only other thing mentioning fire is that they mention weapons have multiple fire modes). Your saying you are justified to a "to wound" roll and and an "Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties step" is also not true if you are not going by the shooting process. It is the shooting process that allows you go go from the Roll to Hit stage to the other stages. There is nothing other than the shooting process, though, to indicate that you go from rolling to hit to rolling to wound (or determining if it's a penetrating or glancing hit - the vehicle equivalent of causing a wound), so even if you want to claim that despite "firing a weapon" only having a definition in the shooting rules as defined by the shooting process that lets you roll to hit in the first place, there is no process without you making an unwarranted assumption that you get to roll to wound. You say making a to hit roll directly justifies making a to wound roll, but you have offered no proof to substantiate that claim. All it is is an assumption on your part. When you go to the roll to wound, you are following the shooting process. This means that your assumption that you don't use the shooting process, yet you are allowed to use the parts of it you want to cherry pick is an incorrect assumption. Your claim means nothing more than a picture of unicorns to the rules - both are an equal product of fantasy. If you say you don't follow the shooting process, you don't get to proceed to rolling to wound. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:
Apparently I don't keep struggling endlessly, you keep endlessly avoiding explaining why my example is wrong.

Well, technically you are struggling endlessly, you are struggling endlessly to get col impact to explain why your example is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
I am not changing the topic. I am asking a simple question that proves that your argument logically fails.

Simple question:

Spoiler:

Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.

At what point in time is the above Interceptor rule resolved?


If you cannot answer a simple question then you have logical problems in your argument.

The Interceptor rules are resolved when the models and units who have the weapons to fire Interceptor have fired them, which is resolved using the shooting process (as GW has designated the shooting process as how to handle firing at an enemy), which does explicitly provide a framework for making sure the shots from different units and different types of weapons from the same unit do not happen at the same time. Sequencing does not apply in this case. If you say that the shooting sequence only applies in the shooting phase one more time, then you also have to provide proof by rules quotations that "firing a weapon" is the same as at least getting to roll to hit (without using the shooting process),, and also provide quotes from the book to back up your claim that you you are justified to roll for damage, to allocate the wounds and to remove casualties without using the shooting process. Even if you can show with a quote that firing a weapon is the same as rolling to hit, that would mean that resolving firing a weapon would be only the rolling to hit - it does not automatically mean you get to move on to other steps in the shooting process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Plasma Gun always has "Get's Hot"
Meltagun always has "Melta".
Interceptor" always has "Interceptor".

The rule is used when the weapon is fired.
If you don't fire the weapon, the weapon still has the rule.

The multiple Interceptor "can be fired" permissions are resolving AT THE SAME TIME. The Sequencing rule intervenes whenever multiple rules are resolving AT THE SAME TIME.

Incorrect. You already have the permissions, they are in a continuous state for the weapons. Interceptor is not resolved until after the weapons are fired. There are explicitly stated basic rules that indicate how to handle the order of firing weapons. Nothing has taken away these basic rules; Interceptor does not revoke any permissions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:


So we are back to the problem that you do not know what 'resolve' means.

Interceptor has nothing to do with the actual act of firing a Weapon.

Resolving Interceptor means resolving the "can be fired" permissions.

Resolving Interceptor has EVERYTHING to do with the actual act of firing the weapon. This is where you are confused. Resolving a rule means taking it to its conclusion, which for interceptor means firing the weapon. It is not merely sequencing the permission to fire, it includes the actual act of firing. Rules governing the entire process apply, so you must consider those rules as well, so rules concerning firing at the enemy apply. This thinking that you only resolve the permission without considering the shootins aspect is your fundamental misconception (well, one of them - not "having permission" to use the shooting process rules is the other big one for this topic).

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:


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.

The Shooting Sequence rules only apply to the Shooting phase.

This is not a Shooting phase.

Already debunked (the "can only apply to the Shooting phase" statement) in my post that you quoted me from last night, yet managed to ignore.

Interesting that he presents that. GW has stated in their FAQ that many things that go along with Shooting in the Shooting Phase can be used outside the Shooting Phase, such as a Monstrous Creature firing two Weapons in Overwatch. Since I know he considers that a gold standard and actually replaces rules, I wonder how he can continue to justify this hypocritical argument.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:


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.

The Shooting Sequence rules only apply to the Shooting phase.

This is not a Shooting phase.

Already debunked (the "can only apply to the Shooting phase" statement) in my post that you quoted me from last night, yet managed to ignore.

Interesting that he presents that. GW has stated in their FAQ that many things that go along with Shooting in the Shooting Phase can be used outside the Shooting Phase, such as a Monstrous Creature firing two Weapons in Overwatch. Since I know he considers that a gold standard and actually replaces rules, I wonder how he can continue to justify this hypocritical argument.

By ignoring it when it's pointed out and continuing to cut and paste old arguments without referencing that other people have provided evidence to refute statements.

 doctortom wrote:
By ignoring it when it's pointed out and continuing to cut and paste old arguments without referencing that other people have provided evidence to refute statements.

I meant justify it to himself. For us, he will continue to either ignore it or find some other vacillating justification that no one else would consider valid.

Really, everyone, it is best not to engage him. He doesn't care what you say and considers himself the most intelligent person in the room. He does not actually read all of what is written in the book or what you write, and has often misquoted and misrepresented what others have written. It is just best to leave him under the bridge waiting for either the call of the Orruk Warboss or the Chaos Lord.

Ceann wrote:
This again? We circled the wagon so you could go back to the can vs may argument?

Can be fired is this circumstance is used as "able to fire" not as "May I fire" it is a statement of ability not a request for permission.
As far as I am aware there is no circumstance of ANY rule asking for permission. They state when they CAN be used, not when they MAY be used.

Please don't tell me we are on to "hammering the same moment" again next.


If anything this exercise demonstrates you cannot prove the rules are not explicit. So you have lost.
Back to spamming your broken argument.

The only part of sequencing that matters is this "When this happens, and the wording is not explicit "
It doesn't care that they are TO BE resolved it cares about WHEN it would happen, which is never, because of the shooting rules.

col_impact wrote:

Also, we can set aside the fact that there is no practical reason to sequence these resolutions.

The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.

So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.

The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.

There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.

YOU demonstrated three rules resolving at the same time with my example.
There might be no practical consequence, you still technically follow the rules either way.

Can YOU now demonstrate three Interceptor resolving at the same time?
No, you can't. Because three weapons cannot fire at the same time.

Ceann,

all of the multiple Interceptor rules are "to be resolved at the same time" ("at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".

You are unable to point to any other time the rules "are to be resolved"

You are also unable to point to any rule that explicitly deals with the case of multiple Interceptor rules.

I am able to point to the Sequencing rule which explicitly applies in the case of multiple rules are "to be resolved at the same time".

Therefore, the Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:


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.

The Shooting Sequence rules only apply to the Shooting phase.

This is not a Shooting phase.

Already debunked (the "can only apply to the Shooting phase" statement) in my post that you quoted me from last night, yet managed to ignore.

doctortom wrote: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.

Sorry, but you don't get to spout bilge like "it only applies to the shooting phase" when it's been debunked without you dealing with the issue that they invoke the shooting process for firing at an enemy. You're firing at an enemy with Interceptor, therefore you use the shooting process. This is also where they say "fire" in relation to a model, unit or weapon firing, so by RAW would actually be the only thing indicating that you roll to hit (the only other thing mentioning fire is that they mention weapons have multiple fire modes). Your saying you are justified to a "to wound" roll and and an "Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties step" is also not true if you are not going by the shooting process. It is the shooting process that allows you go go from the Roll to Hit stage to the other stages. There is nothing other than the shooting process, though, to indicate that you go from rolling to hit to rolling to wound (or determining if it's a penetrating or glancing hit - the vehicle equivalent of causing a wound), so even if you want to claim that despite "firing a weapon" only having a definition in the shooting rules as defined by the shooting process that lets you roll to hit in the first place, there is no process without you making an unwarranted assumption that you get to roll to wound. You say making a to hit roll directly justifies making a to wound roll, but you have offered no proof to substantiate that claim. All it is is an assumption on your part. When you go to the roll to wound, you are following the shooting process. This means that your assumption that you don't use the shooting process, yet you are allowed to use the parts of it you want to cherry pick is an incorrect assumption. Your claim means nothing more than a picture of unicorns to the rules - both are an equal product of fantasy. If you say you don't follow the shooting process, you don't get to proceed to rolling to wound. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars.

doctortom,

the Shooting Sequence rule only works "during the Shooting phase".

This isn't a Shooting phase.

You have yet to explain how you are using the Shooting Sequence rules when this isn't a Shooting phase.

The Interceptor rules do not require the Shooting Sequence rules. The Interceptor rule already designates a firing weapon, a firing model, and a firing unit. The Interceptor rule provides its own targeting criteria and directly references range and line of sight.

The only thing that the Interceptor rule requires is the To Hit roll rule.

The only thing that can be directly justified by the Rules As Written is a To Hit roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Interesting that he presents that. GW has stated in their FAQ that many things that go along with Shooting in the Shooting Phase can be used outside the Shooting Phase, such as a Monstrous Creature firing two Weapons in Overwatch. Since I know he considers that a gold standard and actually replaces rules, I wonder how he can continue to justify this hypocritical argument.

Let's start with what the FAQ actually says.

Q: Do abilities that allow a model to fire an extra weapon in the Shooting phase allow them to fire an extra weapon in Overwatch or while intercepting (e.g. Monstrous Creatures and Tau multi-trackers)?
A: Yes. In the case of Interceptor, only weapons with the Interceptor rule can be fired.

The FAQ item narrowly allows models to fire an extra weapon in Overwatch or while Intercepting.

The FAQ item does not say to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.

Why do you insist on misreading things? First, I have to point out that Interceptor is a weapon special rule and now I am pointing out what a FAQ item actually says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


By ignoring it when it's pointed out and continuing to cut and paste old arguments without referencing that other people have provided evidence to refute statements.

You should start with actually reading what the FAQ item says. Charistoph's and your argument is based on a misread of the FAQ.

col_impact wrote:
[

doctor tom

the Shooting Sequence rules only work "during the Shooting phase".

This isn't a Shooting phase.

You have yet to explain how you are using the Shooting Sequence rules when this isn't a Shooting phase.

The Interceptor rules do not require the Shooting Sequence rules. The Interceptor rule already designates a firing weapon, a firing model, and a firing unit. The Interceptor rule provides its own targeting criteria and directly references range and line of sight.

The only thing that the Interceptor rule requires is the To Hit roll rule.

The only thing that can be directly justified by the Rules As Written is a To Hit roll.

I cited the reference that clearly links "firing at the enemy" with the shooting process. With your comment "you have yet to explain" you show that you just wish to ignore it.. As such, your argument is still invalid since you have not disproven what I stated, merely made the same stale assertions.

How exactly does Interceptor require the To Hit roll rule? Where does it say that "firing a weapon" = "rolling to hit?" Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that rolling to hit justifies making a to wound roll if you are not using the shooting process rules? Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that you then get to Allocate wounds and remove casualties if not using the shooting process? Rules quotation please.

You also ignored where I typed:

Sequencing does not apply in this case. If you say that the shooting sequence only applies in the shooting phase one more time, then you also have to provide proof by rules quotations that "firing a weapon" is the same as at least getting to roll to hit (without using the shooting process),, and also provide quotes from the book to back up your claim that you you are justified to roll for damage, to allocate the wounds and to remove casualties without using the shooting process. Even if you can show with a quote that firing a weapon is the same as rolling to hit, that would mean that resolving firing a weapon would be only the rolling to hit - it does not automatically mean you get to move on to other steps in the shooting process.

You did not provide any proof. You merely made assertions again without the proof. Show the rules quotations. I provided the quotation that does show that if you are firing at an enemy, you are using the shooting process. That means that whenever you fire at the enemy, you use the shooting process. You haven't provided any backup for your assertions of firing a weapon, only claim ours aren't valid without any proof. Come back with proof.

One other thing - "The Interceptor rule already designates a firing weapon, a firing model, and a firing unit." - where does the Intercepotr rule specify a firing unit? You did not claim that before, yet now you are. It seems you can't even keep your own arguments straight.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
[

doctor tom

the Shooting Sequence rules only work "during the Shooting phase".

This isn't a Shooting phase.

You have yet to explain how you are using the Shooting Sequence rules when this isn't a Shooting phase.

The Interceptor rules do not require the Shooting Sequence rules. The Interceptor rule already designates a firing weapon, a firing model, and a firing unit. The Interceptor rule provides its own targeting criteria and directly references range and line of sight.

The only thing that the Interceptor rule requires is the To Hit roll rule.

The only thing that can be directly justified by the Rules As Written is a To Hit roll.

I cited the reference that clearly links "firing at the enemy" with the shooting process. With your comment "you have yet to explain" you show that you just wish to ignore it.. As such, your argument is still invalid since you have not disproven what I stated, merely made the same stale assertions.

How exactly does Interceptor require the To Hit roll rule? Where does it say that "firing a weapon" = "rolling to hit?" Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that rolling to hit justifies making a to wound roll if you are not using the shooting process rules? Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that you then get to Allocate wounds and remove casualties if not using the shooting process? Rules quotation please.

You also ignored where I typed:

Sequencing does not apply in this case. If you say that the shooting sequence only applies in the shooting phase one more time, then you also have to provide proof by rules quotations that "firing a weapon" is the same as at least getting to roll to hit (without using the shooting process),, and also provide quotes from the book to back up your claim that you you are justified to roll for damage, to allocate the wounds and to remove casualties without using the shooting process. Even if you can show with a quote that firing a weapon is the same as rolling to hit, that would mean that resolving firing a weapon would be only the rolling to hit - it does not automatically mean you get to move on to other steps in the shooting process.

You did not provide any proof. You merely made assertions again without the proof. Show the rules quotations. I provided the quotation that does show that if you are firing at an enemy, you are using the shooting process. That means that whenever you fire at the enemy, you use the shooting process. You haven't provided any backup for your assertions of firing a weapon, only claim ours aren't valid without any proof. Come back with proof.

You have this backwards. You have not provided any proof. You have failed to show the Shooting Sequence rules working in any other context than a Shooting phase.

During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next. The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.

The Interceptor rule already provides "can be fired" permission "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" and so only requires a To Hit roll "to see if the firing model has hit its target"

col_impact wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Interesting that he presents that. GW has stated in their FAQ that many things that go along with Shooting in the Shooting Phase can be used outside the Shooting Phase, such as a Monstrous Creature firing two Weapons in Overwatch. Since I know he considers that a gold standard and actually replaces rules, I wonder how he can continue to justify this hypocritical argument.

Let's start with what the FAQ actually says.

Q: Do abilities that allow a model to fire an extra weapon in the Shooting phase allow them to fire an extra weapon in Overwatch or while intercepting (e.g. Monstrous Creatures and Tau multi-trackers)?
A: Yes. In the case of Interceptor, only weapons with the Interceptor rule can be fired.

The FAQ item narrowly allows models to fire an extra weapon in Overwatch or while Intercepting.

The FAQ item does not say to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.

Why do you insist on misreading things? First, I have to point out that Interceptor is a weapon special rule and now I am pointing out what a FAQ item actually says.

The FAQ doesn't say that you get to ignore the shooting rules either. It does sync up the rules for overwatch or intercepting with the regular rules, however. What I do see, though, is an implicit restriction on the model not getting to fire more weapons than it normally gets to do in the shooting phase. You claimed earlier that by RAW a model could fire Interceptor with as many weapons with the Interceptor rule that it had. The "extra weapon" question has the basic rule that normally the model gets to fire only one weapon included in the question, and in the answer. If anything, it looks bad for your claim that "shooting phase" rules don't apply to other shooting.

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


By ignoring it when it's pointed out and continuing to cut and paste old arguments without referencing that other people have provided evidence to refute statements.

You should start with actually reading what the FAQ item says. Charistoph's and your argument is based on a misread of the FAQ.

I have. For what it's worth, I wasn't merely referring to the FAQ, I was referring to other ignoring of arguments that you're done - my last couple of posts alone have shown where you have ignored things I have said said that refute you - your last post even dared to claim I didn't present any evidence when I clearly gave a quotation from the main rulebook. I haven't needed the FAQ at all to discredit what you say, but I find it highly amusing that you maanaged to show that your assumptions were wrong when reading the FAQ. I went back to the main rulebook and discredited you, where you merely ignore it and act like the argument doesn't exist. That does absolutely nothing for your side of the argument.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Interesting that he presents that. GW has stated in their FAQ that many things that go along with Shooting in the Shooting Phase can be used outside the Shooting Phase, such as a Monstrous Creature firing two Weapons in Overwatch. Since I know he considers that a gold standard and actually replaces rules, I wonder how he can continue to justify this hypocritical argument.

Let's start with what the FAQ actually says.

Q: Do abilities that allow a model to fire an extra weapon in the Shooting phase allow them to fire an extra weapon in Overwatch or while intercepting (e.g. Monstrous Creatures and Tau multi-trackers)?
A: Yes. In the case of Interceptor, only weapons with the Interceptor rule can be fired.

The FAQ item narrowly allows models to fire an extra weapon in Overwatch or while Intercepting.

The FAQ item does not say to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.

Why do you insist on misreading things? First, I have to point out that Interceptor is a weapon special rule and now I am pointing out what a FAQ item actually says.

The FAQ doesn't say that you get to ignore the shooting rules either. It does sync up the rules for overwatch or intercepting with the regular rules, however. What I do see, though, is an implicit restriction on the model not getting to fire more weapons than it normally gets to do in the shooting phase. You claimed earlier that by RAW a model could fire Interceptor with as many weapons with the Interceptor rule that it had. The "extra weapon" question has the basic rule that normally the model gets to fire only one weapon included in the question, and in the answer. If anything, it looks bad for your claim that "shooting phase" rules don't apply to other shooting.

The FAQ does not say to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.

The FAQ does not support your argument. In fact, the FAQ underscores that we are to continue to differentiate Interceptor from the Shooting phase. The permission granted to monstrous creatures to fire an additional weapon for Interceptor is a permission granted in a piecemeal fashion.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
[

doctor tom

the Shooting Sequence rules only work "during the Shooting phase".

This isn't a Shooting phase.

You have yet to explain how you are using the Shooting Sequence rules when this isn't a Shooting phase.

The Interceptor rules do not require the Shooting Sequence rules. The Interceptor rule already designates a firing weapon, a firing model, and a firing unit. The Interceptor rule provides its own targeting criteria and directly references range and line of sight.

The only thing that the Interceptor rule requires is the To Hit roll rule.

The only thing that can be directly justified by the Rules As Written is a To Hit roll.

I cited the reference that clearly links "firing at the enemy" with the shooting process. With your comment "you have yet to explain" you show that you just wish to ignore it.. As such, your argument is still invalid since you have not disproven what I stated, merely made the same stale assertions.

How exactly does Interceptor require the To Hit roll rule? Where does it say that "firing a weapon" = "rolling to hit?" Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that rolling to hit justifies making a to wound roll if you are not using the shooting process rules? Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that you then get to Allocate wounds and remove casualties if not using the shooting process? Rules quotation please.

You also ignored where I typed:

Sequencing does not apply in this case. If you say that the shooting sequence only applies in the shooting phase one more time, then you also have to provide proof by rules quotations that "firing a weapon" is the same as at least getting to roll to hit (without using the shooting process),, and also provide quotes from the book to back up your claim that you you are justified to roll for damage, to allocate the wounds and to remove casualties without using the shooting process. Even if you can show with a quote that firing a weapon is the same as rolling to hit, that would mean that resolving firing a weapon would be only the rolling to hit - it does not automatically mean you get to move on to other steps in the shooting process.

You did not provide any proof. You merely made assertions again without the proof. Show the rules quotations. I provided the quotation that does show that if you are firing at an enemy, you are using the shooting process. That means that whenever you fire at the enemy, you use the shooting process. You haven't provided any backup for your assertions of firing a weapon, only claim ours aren't valid without any proof. Come back with proof.

You have this backwards. You have not provided any proof. You have failed to show the Shooting Sequence rules working in any other context than a Shooting phase.

During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy.

The Interceptor rule already provides "can be fired" permission "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" and so only requires a To Hit roll "to see if the firing model has hit its target"

Denial isn't merely a river in Egypt. I showed where "firing at the enemy" is following the shooting procedure. You haven't shown anything that prevents the use of the shooting procedure - a BASIC RULE that you rollow when you shoot. Whenever shooting is invoked you must follow the shooting procedure.


I cited the reference that clearly links "firing at the enemy" with the shooting process. With your comments here it merely shows that you are choosing to deliberately ignore it... As such, your argument is still invalid since you have not disproven what I stated, merely made the same stale assertions.

How exactly does Interceptor require the To Hit roll rule? Where does it say that "firing a weapon" = "rolling to hit?" Rules quotation please
Where is the rules citation that rolling to hit justifies making a to wound roll if you are not using the shooting process rules? Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that you then get to Allocate wounds and remove casualties if not using the shooting process? Rules quotation please.

Why does the shooting procedure not apply when "firie at the enemy" is shown by GW to be the shooting process? You have to demonstrate how to resolve firing the weapon without using the shooting process, using rules quotations to back you up.

 doctortom wrote:


I have. For what it's worth, I wasn't merely referring to the FAQ, I was referring to other ignoring of arguments that you're done - my last couple of posts alone have shown where you have ignored things I have said said that refute you - your last post even dared to claim I didn't present any evidence when I clearly gave a quotation from the main rulebook. I haven't needed the FAQ at all to discredit what you say, but I find it highly amusing that you maanaged to show that your assumptions were wrong when reading the FAQ. I went back to the main rulebook and discredited you, where you merely ignore it and act like the argument doesn't exist. That does absolutely nothing for your side of the argument.

Your problems with actually reading the FAQ also affect your ability to read the BRB.

During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next. The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.

The rules for the Shooting Sequence only apply to the Shooting phase.

This isn't a Shooting phase.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Interesting that he presents that. GW has stated in their FAQ that many things that go along with Shooting in the Shooting Phase can be used outside the Shooting Phase, such as a Monstrous Creature firing two Weapons in Overwatch. Since I know he considers that a gold standard and actually replaces rules, I wonder how he can continue to justify this hypocritical argument.

Let's start with what the FAQ actually says.

Q: Do abilities that allow a model to fire an extra weapon in the Shooting phase allow them to fire an extra weapon in Overwatch or while intercepting (e.g. Monstrous Creatures and Tau multi-trackers)?
A: Yes. In the case of Interceptor, only weapons with the Interceptor rule can be fired.

The FAQ item narrowly allows models to fire an extra weapon in Overwatch or while Intercepting.

The FAQ item does not say to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.

Why do you insist on misreading things? First, I have to point out that Interceptor is a weapon special rule and now I am pointing out what a FAQ item actually says.

The FAQ doesn't say that you get to ignore the shooting rules either. It does sync up the rules for overwatch or intercepting with the regular rules, however. What I do see, though, is an implicit restriction on the model not getting to fire more weapons than it normally gets to do in the shooting phase. You claimed earlier that by RAW a model could fire Interceptor with as many weapons with the Interceptor rule that it had. The "extra weapon" question has the basic rule that normally the model gets to fire only one weapon included in the question, and in the answer. If anything, it looks bad for your claim that "shooting phase" rules don't apply to other shooting.

The FAQ does not say to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.

Irrelevant strawman argument, because of your faulty assumption that the shooting rules apply only in the shooting phase. The FAQ clearly illistrates that GW does not consider your claim to be worth a hill of beans.

col_impact wrote:
[The FAQ does not support your argument. In fact, the FAQ underscores that we are to continue to differentiate Interceptor from the Shooting phase. The permission granted to monstrous creatures to fire an additional weapon for Interceptor is a permission granted in a piecemeal fashion.

I see nothing underscoring that you differentiate Interceptor from the shooting PROCESS.. Talk about the shooting PROCESS without talking about the shooting PHASE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


I have. For what it's worth, I wasn't merely referring to the FAQ, I was referring to other ignoring of arguments that you're done - my last couple of posts alone have shown where you have ignored things I have said said that refute you - your last post even dared to claim I didn't present any evidence when I clearly gave a quotation from the main rulebook. I haven't needed the FAQ at all to discredit what you say, but I find it highly amusing that you maanaged to show that your assumptions were wrong when reading the FAQ. I went back to the main rulebook and discredited you, where you merely ignore it and act like the argument doesn't exist. That does absolutely nothing for your side of the argument.

Your problems with actually reading the FAQ also affect your ability to read the BRB.

During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next. The shooting process can be summarised in seven steps, as described below. Each step is explained in greater detail later in this section. Once you’ve completed this shooting sequence with one of your units, select another and repeat the sequence. Once you have completed steps 1 to 7 for each unit in your army that you wish to make a shooting attack, carry on to the Assault phase.

The rules for the Shooting Sequence only apply to the Shooting phase.

This isn't a Shooting phase.

Are you or are you not firing at the enemy when you invoke Interceptor to fire the weapon? That should be a simple enough question for you to answer concisely.

A second queston, more complex - where in the rules does it state "firing a weapon" is either making a To-Hit roll? And where is the quotation in the rules to allow you to go any further than making a To-Hit roll?

 doctortom wrote:


Denial isn't merely a river in Egypt. I showed where "firing at the enemy" is following the shooting procedure. You haven't shown anything that prevents the use of the shooting procedure - a BASIC RULE that you rollow when you shoot.

You have pointed to a permission that works only "during the Shooting phase".

This isn't the Shooting phase.

 doctortom wrote:
Whenever shooting is invoked you must follow the shooting procedure.

Nonsense. Do you have any rule to back up this claim?

This is a House Rule on your part.

 doctortom wrote:
I cited the reference that clearly links "firing at the enemy" with the shooting process.

Only during the Shooting phase.

During the Shooting phase, units armed with ranged weapons can fire at the enemy.

Why do you continually ignore the restriction imposed on the permission?

With your comments here it merely shows that you are choosing to deliberately ignore it... As such, your argument is still invalid since you have not disproven what I stated, merely made the same stale assertions.

How exactly does Interceptor require the To Hit roll rule? Where does it say that "firing a weapon" = "rolling to hit?" Rules quotation please
Where is the rules citation that rolling to hit justifies making a to wound roll if you are not using the shooting process rules? Rules quotation please.
Where is the rules citation that you then get to Allocate wounds and remove casualties if not using the shooting process? Rules quotation please.

This is what you do when you are losing, circle the camp and change the conversation.
Your games are obvious to everyone.

The resolution of Interceptor has nothing to do with permission, the resolution happens when "weapon can fire" which involves resolution of the weapon firing.
This whole "resolution grants permission" is a construct of your own creation, Col's house rule.

Can is ability.

May is permission.

Nothing is asking for permission, you are being told when it is capable of firing.

I asked you about a Skitarri Vanguard charging a Skitarii Vanguard.

col_impact wrote:
The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.

So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.

The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.

There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.

A charge places them in base contact with each other, AT THE SAME TIME.
Now.

DEMONSTRATE two Interceptors "can fire a weapon" resolving at the same time.
And no, it isn't permission, it is two firings.
You have never proven two Interceptors actually resolve at the same time.



Q: Can Tau models that are able to shoot multiple weapons in
the Shooting phase also fire multiple weapons in Overwatch and
multiple weapons with the Interceptor rule?
A: When firing Overwatch or weapons with the
Interceptor special rule, a model can fire all of the
weapons it could usually fire in the Shooting phase.

Ceann wrote:

You have never proven two Interceptors actually resolve at the same time.

Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.

Are you able to point to any other point in time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for an Interceptor "to be resolved"?

Until you can point to some other time, the Sequencing rule applies.

rules quotes not meshing up right - I'll try again.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:

You have never proven two Interceptors actually resolve at the same time.

Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can shoot a different weapon if it has one.

Are you able to point to any other point in time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for an Interceptor "to be resolved"?

Until you can point to some other time, the Sequencing rule applies.

Garbage, more garbage.

So you are asserting that the entirety of "at the end" is always "the same time"?

IF that was true, even after you sequenced them they would still be resolving at the same time.
You would be stuck in a loop of sequencing them indefinitely because they would always resolve at the same time.

This fallacy clearly demonstrates that "at the end" is not a set point in time.

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.

Says nothing about a "special moment" where all of the things happen together.

You already demonstrated via two separate charges that each one meets the criteria of "at the same time" when it resolves, not when all charges are done.
Which means each instance of Interceptor will never resolve at the same time as another.

You got anything else to invent?

Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
You clearly cannot and you have been avoiding show how it would happen for the entire thread.

col_impact wrote:

The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.

So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.

The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.

There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.

You can explain two Skitarii Vanguard resolutions occurring at the same time just fine.
But you can't do it for two weapons firing.
Is it too difficult for you?

Ceann wrote:


Garbage, more garbage.

So you are asserting that the entirety of "at the end" is always "the same time"?

IF that was true, even after you sequenced them they would still be resolving at the same time.
You would be stuck in a loop of sequencing them indefinitely because they would always resolve at the same time.

This fallacy clearly demonstrates that "at the end" is not a set point in time.

"At the start or end of a phase" describes it as being before and after the actions of the phase have taken place.

You already demonstrated via two separate charges that each one meets the criteria of "at the same time" when it resolves, not when all charges are done.
Which means each instance of Interceptor will never resolve at the same time as another.

You got anything else to invent?

Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
You clearly cannot and you have been avoiding show how it would happen for the entire thread.

I have demonstrated that multiple Interceptor rules are "to be resolved at the same time" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"

Therefore I have demonstrated the explicit conditions for the application of the Sequencing rule.

SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.

The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player chooses which of the multiple Interceptor rules resolves first, and which resolves second, and so on.

Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
You clearly cannot and you have been avoiding show how it would happen for the entire thread.

Q: Can Tau models that are able to shoot multiple weapons in
the Shooting phase also fire multiple weapons in Overwatch and
multiple weapons with the Interceptor rule?
A: When firing Overwatch or weapons with the
Interceptor special rule, a model can fire all of the
weapons it could usually fire in the Shooting phase.

col_impact wrote:

The start of the Locked in Combat state happens AT THE SAME TIME for all units involved.

So each of the three units is subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME.

The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player (the one who is charging) decides the order in which the rules apply.

There is no practical consequence to their ordering, so if players forget to apply the Sequencing rule then there is no practical consequence.

You can explain two Skitarii Vanguard resolutions occurring at the same time just fine.
But you can't do it for two weapons firing.
All you do is talk about sequencing, you can't demonstrate the failing of Interceptor.

Is it too difficult for you?