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.

doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 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.

See what I mean about him not actually reading what other people write? He focused only on the FAQ without bothering to consider everything that was connected to it, which is what I was actually addressing. He is always ignoring context.

The rules that are referenced in the FAQ (i.e. MC and multi-trackers) specifically state that they are for the Shooting Phase and do not give permission for these rules to be used at any other point in time. By considering the context of the FAQ and the rules in question, we can consider any directions to firing or shooting to be performing the action as if it was happening in the Shooting Phase.

This is only when we actually go to Shoot, though. As pointed out in the FAQ, Intercept Shooting only works with Interceptor Weapons, and it doesn't take any high level genius to understand that Running is not considered an option, either. But considering that the Shooting Phase only discusses the Shooting process/Sequence and Running, that isn't too much of a stretch.

Ceann wrote:
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?

The Sequencing rule applies when two rules "are to be resolved at the same time".

I have proven this in the case of Interceptor. Therefore the Sequencing rule applies.

Until you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.

So by all means let us know if you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".

col impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


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.

The To Hit roll, the To Wound roll, and the Allocate Wounds rule are all basic rules that every model knows and they all logically justify each other. Those rules are also not restricted to happen only in the Shooting phase, unlike the Shooting Sequence rule which only happens in the Shooting phase.

Ah, the old "logically justify each other" argument. How do they justify each other? Only by following the shooting process. You are making an assumption that they naturally follow. That is not proof that they follow without using the shooting procedure.

col impact wrote:Interceptor already provides the permission "can be fired" and so does not need the Shooting Sequence. A firing weapon has been designated and with that a firing model and a firing unit is also designated. Interceptor also has its own targeting criteria and directly accesses the range and line of sight rules in the BRB.

It does not "not need" the Shooting Sequence. In fact, since the shooting sequence is a basic rule for firing at the enemy, you have to show that a rule overrides following the Shooting Sequence. You have not done that.

col impact wrote:With the permission to fire granted by Interceptor, the controlling player rolls To Hit "to determine if the firing model has hit its target".

If a hit is generated by the To Hit roll, the controlling player Rolls to Wound "to determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage".

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
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?

The Sequencing rule applies when two rules "are to be resolved at the same time".

I have proven this in the case of Interceptor. Therefore the Sequencing rule applies.

Until you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.

So by all means let us know if you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".

Obfuscation.

It does not apply when they ARE to be resolved at the same time.
It is applied when they WOULD be resolved at the same, if they were not sequenced.

The fact of the matter is that they wouldn't resolve at the same time.
But you want to sequence them anyway.

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 demonstrated it clearly when I asked you about it.
The requirement for Sequencing is that they WOULD resolve.
You can lay out a clear example for Skitarii Vanguard.
Lay out an example of two Dunecrawlers resolving Interceptor at the same time.
If you could actually lay out a credible example people might consider you were correct.

IF they WOULD resolve then demonstrate it.
Or is it too hard for you?

 Charistoph wrote:

See what I mean about him not actually reading what other people write?

What other people write is not a source of authority here. What other people write is only authoritative if its substantiated by the rules.

If you want me to adhere to what you write then back up what you say with rules and I will gladly adhere to what you write.

 Charistoph wrote:
He focused only on the FAQ without bothering to consider everything that was connected to it, which is what I was actually addressing. He is always ignoring context.

The rules that are referenced in the FAQ (i.e. MC and multi-trackers) specifically state that they are for the Shooting Phase and do not give permission for these rules to be used at any other point in time. By considering the context of the FAQ and the rules in question, we can consider any directions to firing or shooting to be performing the action as if it was happening in the Shooting Phase.

This is only when we actually go to Shoot, though. As pointed out in the FAQ, Intercept Shooting only works with Interceptor Weapons, and it doesn't take any high level genius to understand that Running is not considered an option, either. But considering that the Shooting Phase only discusses the Shooting process/Sequence and Running, that isn't too much of a stretch.

The FAQ only provides a narrow permission for "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"

If you are extrapolating from that narrow permission to an unconstrained permission to allow players to treat Intercepting as a Shooting phase then you are House Ruling.

I will stick to adhering to what the FAQ actually says.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

See what I mean about him not actually reading what other people write?

What other people write is not a source of authority here. What other people write is only authoritative if its substantiated by the rules.

If you want me to adhere to what you write then back up what you say with rules and I will gladly adhere to what you write.

 Charistoph wrote:
He focused only on the FAQ without bothering to consider everything that was connected to it, which is what I was actually addressing. He is always ignoring context.

The rules that are referenced in the FAQ (i.e. MC and multi-trackers) specifically state that they are for the Shooting Phase and do not give permission for these rules to be used at any other point in time. By considering the context of the FAQ and the rules in question, we can consider any directions to firing or shooting to be performing the action as if it was happening in the Shooting Phase.

This is only when we actually go to Shoot, though. As pointed out in the FAQ, Intercept Shooting only works with Interceptor Weapons, and it doesn't take any high level genius to understand that Running is not considered an option, either. But considering that the Shooting Phase only discusses the Shooting process/Sequence and Running, that isn't too much of a stretch.

The FAQ only provides a narrow permission for "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"

If you are extrapolating from that narrow permission to an unconstrained permission to allow players to treat Intercepting as a Shooting phase then you are House Ruling.

I will stick to adhering to what the FAQ actually says.

Stick to this FAQ then.

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
In the case of Interceptor, only weapons with the
Interceptor rule can be fired.

col_impact wrote:

The Sequencing rule applies when two rules "are to be resolved at the same time".

I have proven this in the case of Interceptor. Therefore the Sequencing rule applies.

No, you really haven't. Go ahead and indulge him like we've indulged you with replies.

col_impact wrote:

Until you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.

That is a valid part of his argument, asking for how firing two different types of weapons happens at the same time. If you can't show how it happens, you haven't proven that they're happening at the same time without wording that is explict as to which is resolved first.

Ceann wrote:


Obfuscation.

It does not apply when they ARE to be resolved at the same time.
It is applied when they WOULD be resolved at the same, if they were not sequenced.

The Sequencing rule directly contradicts you.

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 says "are to be resolved at the same time" and does not say "would be resolved at the same time".

When your argument has reading comprehension problems it is not valid. The actual words of the Sequencing rule disproves you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:


Stick to this FAQ then.

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
In the case of Interceptor, only weapons with the
Interceptor rule can be fired.

Another problem with your reading comprehension.

This FAQ also only provides a narrow permission for "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". It is just a codex specific reminder of the same narrow permission.

No where in any FAQ is there a permission to treat Interceptor as a Shooting phase.

LMAO. WOW.
Do you have like the most expensive blinders on in the world?
Where is the cognition in your argument?

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

When this happens...

!
!
!
When WHAT HAPPENS????

...you find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time...

OK.

Lets demonstrate WHEN that would happen.

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.

So WHEN it happens, at the same time.

So... DEMONSTRATE WHEN it happens with two interceptor weapons.
You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.

Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.

If three units are "subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then demonstrate "a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME".

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

The Sequencing rule applies when two rules "are to be resolved at the same time".

I have proven this in the case of Interceptor. Therefore the Sequencing rule applies.

No, you really haven't. Go ahead and indulge him like we've indulged you with replies.

col_impact wrote:

Until you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.

That is a valid part of his argument, asking for how firing two different types of weapons happens at the same time. If you can't show how it happens, you haven't proven that they're happening at the same time without wording that is explict as to which is resolved first.

You have this backwards. You are unable to point to any other time for the multiple Interceptor rules "to be resolved" than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase". The only rule that provides explicit wording as to which rule is to resolve first is the Sequencing rule. Therefore, the explicit conditions of the Sequencing rule have been met and the Sequencing rule applies.

If you feel otherwise then prove how the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" at some time other than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:

LMAO. WOW.
Do you have like the most expensive blinders on in the world?
Where is the cognition in your argument?

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

When this happens...

!
!
!
When WHAT HAPPENS????

find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time...

OK.

Lets demonstrate WHEN that would happen.

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.

So WHEN it happens, at the same time.

So... DEMONSTRATE WHEN it happens with two interceptor weapons.
You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.

Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.

Simply read the Interceptor rule.

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.

In the case of multiple Interceptor rules, the rules "are to be resolved" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

I have asked you several times and you have failed to indicate any other time that an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved" than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

Therefore, the Sequencing rule applies and we have no choice but to apply it.

I have proven that the Sequencing rule applies and you have yet to disprove that.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

The Sequencing rule applies when two rules "are to be resolved at the same time".

I have proven this in the case of Interceptor. Therefore the Sequencing rule applies.

No, you really haven't. Go ahead and indulge him like we've indulged you with replies.

col_impact wrote:

Until you can point to some other point in time that the Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.

That is a valid part of his argument, asking for how firing two different types of weapons happens at the same time. If you can't show how it happens, you haven't proven that they're happening at the same time without wording that is explict as to which is resolved first.

You have this backwards. You are unable to point to any other time for the multiple Interceptor rules "to be resolved" than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase". The only rule that provides explicit wording as to which rule is to resolve first is the Sequencing rule. Therefore, the explicit conditions of the Sequencing rule have been met and the Sequencing rule applies.

If you feel otherwise then prove how the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" at some time other than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

No one needs to do anything.
You need to do something.
In order to have PERMISSION to use sequencing.
You need to PROVE that two resolutions occur at the same time.
Your argument is nonsense, just because they CAN FIRE at the same time, does not mean they RESOLVE at the same time.

You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.

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.

Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
The shooting rules prevent this.
You can't because "firing a weapon" state cannot happen AT THE SAME TIME for all weapons involved.

If you can demonstrate "If three units are subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then demonstrate "three, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME".

Ceann wrote:


No one needs to do anything.
You need to do something.
In order to have PERMISSION to use sequencing.
You need to PROVE that two resolutions occur at the same time.
Your argument is nonsense, just because they CAN FIRE at the same time, does not mean they RESOLVE at the same time.

You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.

Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
The shooting rules prevent this.

If you can demonstrate "If three units are subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then demonstrate "three, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME".

Are you able to point to some other time that an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved" than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"?

If you cannot then the Sequencing rule applies in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.

The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".

I have shown this in the case of multiple Interceptor rules. Each interceptor rule is only provided "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time to resolve its rule.

Since the explicit conditions for the Sequencing rule have been met, I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:


No one needs to do anything.
You need to do something.
In order to have PERMISSION to use sequencing.
You need to PROVE that two resolutions occur at the same time.
Your argument is nonsense, just because they CAN FIRE at the same time, does not mean they RESOLVE at the same time.

You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.

Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
The shooting rules prevent this.

If you can demonstrate "If three units are subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then demonstrate "three, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME".

Are you able to point to some other time that an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved" than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase"?

If you cannot then the Sequencing rule applies in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.

Again, you are alluding to "at the end" as being a finite moment.
If it was a finite moment, then all rules would resolve at the same time, even if you sequenced them, they would all still occur at the same time.
This is how it is defined...

"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."

"at the end" is not = "at the same time".
Nor is it "hammering the same moment"
"at the end" is merely after all movement has been performed, in this circumstance.

The only requisite is that all other actions performed during the phase have already been performed.

You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.

Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
The shooting rules prevent this.

If you can demonstrate "If three units are subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then demonstrate "three, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME"

Ceann wrote:

Again, you are alluding to "at the end" as being a finite moment.
If it was a finite moment, then all rules would resolve at the same time, even if you sequenced them, they would all still occur at the same time.
This is how it is defined...

"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."

"at the end" is not = "at the same time".

Again you simply need to read the rules. In this case you simply need to read the Sequencing rule.

The Sequencing rule explicitly identifies "at THE START of the Movement phase" and anything "similar" as a time for resolution that would lead multiple rules to resolve "at the same time".

"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase"; therefore, the Sequencing rule itself explicitly indicates that multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time".

Since the explicit conditions for the application of the Sequencing rule have been met, the Sequencing rule must be applied.

Until you or anyone can provide some other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for Interceptor "to be resolved" I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule. So if you know of some other time then please share it.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:

Again, you are alluding to "at the end" as being a finite moment.
If it was a finite moment, then all rules would resolve at the same time, even if you sequenced them, they would all still occur at the same time.
This is how it is defined...

"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."

"at the end" is not = "at the same time".

Again you simply need to read the rules. In this case you simply need to read the Sequencing rule.

The Sequencing rule explicitly identifies "at THE START of the Movement phase" and anything "similar" as a time for resolution that would lead multiple rules to resolve "at the same time".

"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase"; therefore, the Sequencing rule itself explicitly indicates that multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time".

Since the explicit conditions for the application of the Sequencing rule have been met, the Sequencing rule must be applied.

Until you or anyone can provide some other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for Interceptor "to be resolved" I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule. So if you know of some other time then please share it.

No, it does not, it says NORMALLY. Which does not mean ALWAYS.
Maybe you should read the rule since you keep coming to false conclusions that requires the entire forum to explain it to you and you still get it wrong.
If anything I think this would demonstrate a long term learning issue of the rules on your part and a loss of credibility at forming any credible argument.
This is merely a case that is an exception because the shooting sequence clearly identifies a single resolution.

You are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone, which is your MO.

Rules are just like math problems. If 2 + 3 = 5, we can "check our work" by taking 5 - 3 = 2.
When we take what you assert and work it backwards it falls apart, so clearly your premise is wrong.

You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.

Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
The shooting rules prevent this.

If you can demonstrate "If three units are subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then why CAN'T YOU demonstrate "three, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME"

Avoiding demonstrating this is called dodging the question.
Which I will accept as your concession.

Ceann wrote:


No, it does not, it says NORMALLY. Which does not mean ALWAYS.
Maybe you should read the rule since you keep coming to false conclusions that requires the entire forum to explain it to you and you still get it wrong.
If anything I think this would demonstrate a long term learning issue of the rules on your part and a loss of credibility at forming any credible argument.
This is merely a case that is an exception because the shooting sequence clearly identifies a single resolution.

You are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone, which is your MO.

Rules are just like math problems. If 2 + 3 = 5, we can "check our work" by taking 5 - 3 = 2.
When we take what you assert and work it backwards it falls apart, so clearly your premise is wrong.

You can lay out a clear example for Rad Saturation, but you avoid providing a concise example for Interceptor.

Maybe its because you can't, because two weapons cannot fire at the same time.
The shooting rules prevent this.

If you can demonstrate "If three units are subject to a -1 noncumulative mod to Toughness AT THE SAME TIME."
Then why CAN'T YOU demonstrate "three, a weapon with the Interceptor special rule can be fired at any one unit, AT THE SAME TIME"

Avoiding demonstrating this is called dodging the question.
Which I will accept as your concession.

There is no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" in which multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".

If you know of some other time then please share it with the thread.

Since you cannot, I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule since the conditions for its application have been explicitly met.

That is ignored because interceptor is explicit.
It clearly isolates a single weapon.
The isolated weapon resolves first.
"at the same time" is irrelevant.


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.

We have an explicitly identified "at the end" of when we "a weapon" with the special rule "can be fired" at "any one unit".
If something about this is unclear to you, then no one can help you with that.

Ceann wrote:
That is ignored because interceptor is explicit.
It clearly isolates a single weapon.
The isolated weapon resolves first.
"at the same time" is irrelevant.


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.

We have an explicitly identified "at the end" of when we "a weapon" with the special rule "can be fired" at "any one unit".
If something about this is unclear to you, then no one can help you with that.

Interceptor is not explicit as to what happens in the case of multiple Interceptor weapons.

The Interceptor rule only provides "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time for Interceptor "to be resolved".

Therefore, multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time" ("at the end of the Enemy movement phase").

There is no explicit wording in any rule to indicate which Interceptor rule would resolve first except for the Sequencing rule.

Therefore, the Sequencing rule applies and I have no choice but to apply it.

The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".

This is a fallacy.

"The Interceptor rule only provides "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time for Interceptor "to be resolved".

If they resolve at the same time no matter what interceptor does.

Then they still resolve at the same time, even if you sequence them.
That means you aren't listening to the sequencing rule.
Sequence them again.

They still all resolve at the same time.

Sequence them again.

Repeat ad infinitum.

"at the end of the enemy Movement phase"
Is no different than "movement phase" or "assault phase"
But you aren't trying to sequence all of those.

Your logical failure is these are WEAPON rules, not Unit rules or Model rules.
"at the end" is when they can fire, not when they resolve.
They resolve A SHOOTING ATTACK, when a weapon is fired, not "at the end of the movement phase".

Ceann wrote:
This is a fallacy.

"The Interceptor rule only provides "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time for Interceptor "to be resolved".

If they resolve at the same time no matter what interceptor does.

Then they still resolve at the same time, even if you sequence them.
That means you aren't listening to the sequencing rule.
Sequence them again.

They still all resolve at the same time.

Sequence them again.

Repeat ad infinitum.

Once the Sequencing rule has been applied then the ACTIVE player will have dictated an order to the multiple Interceptor rule resolutions.

The ACTIVE player will say resolve this Interceptor first. The controlling player completely resolves that Interceptor.

The ACTIVE player will say resolve this Interceptor second. The controlling player completely resolves that Interceptor.

And so on for as many Interceptor rules that the ACTIVE player has sequenced.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
This is a fallacy.

"The Interceptor rule only provides "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" as the time for Interceptor "to be resolved".

If they resolve at the same time no matter what interceptor does.

Then they still resolve at the same time, even if you sequence them.
That means you aren't listening to the sequencing rule.
Sequence them again.

They still all resolve at the same time.

Sequence them again.

Repeat ad infinitum.

Once the Sequencing rule has been applied then the ACTIVE player will have dictated an order to the multiple Interceptor rule resolutions.

The ACTIVE player will say resolve this Interceptor first. The controlling player completely resolves that Interceptor.

The ACTIVE player will say resolve this Interceptor second. The controlling player completely resolves that Interceptor.

And so on for as many Interceptor rules that the ACTIVE player has sequenced.

You aren't resolving Interceptor, you are resolving shooting attacks.
The shooting sequence is explicit.
The shooting sequence is already... sequenced.
The sequencing rule cannot override another rule.

Special Rules
The type section of a weapon’s profile also includes any special rules that apply to the
weapon in question. More information on these can be found either in the special rules
section or in the codex or army list entry the weapon is found in.

Interceptor is already applied to the weapon, for the entire game.
You are resolving shooting attacks granted by Interceptor.

Ceann wrote:


You aren't resolving Interceptor, you are resolving shooting attacks.
The shooting sequence is explicit.

The Sequencing rule deals with 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.

Multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

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.

Therefore, the Sequencing rule applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.

The Sequencing rule applies and the ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the Interceptor rules resolve.

Interceptor is already applied to the weapon, for the entire game. It never resolves, it is used.

Does the 4++ save from Terminator armor need to resolve before you before you actually roll the save? No, it is always applied, you USE it.
You seem to have a misunderstanding about the association of rules to wargear.
You are treating them as though they are model or unit rules.
Wargear rules and modifers are ALWAYS on.

You are resolving shooting attacks granted by Interceptor.
Shooting attacks use the shooting sequence.

The shooting sequence is explicit.

Ceann wrote:
Interceptor is already applied to the weapon, for the entire game. It never resolves, it is used.

Does the 4++ save from Terminator armor need to resolve before you before you actually roll the save? No, it is always applied, you USE it.
You seem to have a misunderstanding about the association of rules to wargear.
Wargear rules and modifers are ALWAYS on.

You are resolving shooting attacks granted by Interceptor.
Shooting attacks use the shooting sequence.

The shooting sequence is explicit.

The Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved" "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase"

Multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".

You have yet to point to any other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" in which an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved"

Please point to some other point in time in which multiple Interceptor rules "[are] to be resolved"

Until you can point to some other point in time in which multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.

I don't have to point at anything.
The shooting sequence is explicit.
Sequencing is never invoked.
FIFY

col_impact wrote:

The Sequencing rule deals with rules.

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

We are dealing with rules, The Shooting Sequence.


1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target.
3. Select a Weapon.
4. Roll To Hit.
5. Roll To Wound.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties.

Ceann wrote:
I don't have to point at anything.
The shooting sequence is explicit.
Sequencing is never invoked.
FIFY

col_impact wrote:

The Sequencing rule deals with rules.

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

We are dealing with rules, The Shooting Sequence.


1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target.
3. Select a Weapon.
4. Roll To Hit.
5. Roll To Wound.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties.

This isn't the Shooting phase so the Shooting Sequence does not apply.

That is your opinion, and incorrect.

We are firing at an enemy.
We are forced to use the shooting sequence, there is no other choice, this is the only way to fire a weapon, as basic rules are applied to all models per BvA we cannot cut out any of the steps, we are required to use them.

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target.
3. Select a Weapon.
4. Roll To Hit.
5. Roll To Wound.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties.

Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict because it is interfering with the resolution of firing a weapon.

These rules are explicit, sequencing is not invoked.

Ceann wrote:
That is your opinion, and incorrect.

We are firing at an enemy.
We are forced to use the shooting sequence, there is no other choice, this is the only way to fire a weapon, as basic rules are applied to all models per BvA we cannot cut out any of them steps, we are required to use them.

Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict because it is interfering with the rule firing a weapon.

This isn't the Shooting phase.

Only in the context of resolving Interceptor do you have the permission to fire. This is your 'cart before the horse' problem rearing its head again.

By the time that the controlling player is resolving a single Interceptor rule and can fire, the Sequencing rule will have already been applied to set an order to the multiple Interceptor rules since you have multiple Interceptor rules which "are to be resolved" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

The Sequencing rule dictates that the ACTIVE player set the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve. The controlling player has to adhere to this order.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
That is your opinion, and incorrect.

We are firing at an enemy.
We are forced to use the shooting sequence, there is no other choice, this is the only way to fire a weapon, as basic rules are applied to all models per BvA we cannot cut out any of them steps, we are required to use them.

Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict because it is interfering with the rule firing a weapon.

This isn't the Shooting phase.

Only in the context of resolving Interceptor do you have the permission to fire.

By the time that the controlling player can fire, the Sequencing rule will have already been applied since you have multiple Interceptor rules which "are to be resolved" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

The Sequencing rule dictates that the ACTIVE player set the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve. The controlling player has to adhere to this order.

You keep making things up.

1. This isn't the Shooting phase.

Ok... and? Interceptor is a special rule, it doesn't care that it isn't the shooting phase. Your statement has no relevance.

2. Only in the context of resolving Interceptor do you have the permission to fire.

Permission is not granted in resolution. You must be having a hard time reading the rules. Interceptor is already applied to the weapon on its profile, it doesn't need permission.

Special Rules
The type section of a weapon’s profile also includes any special rules that apply to the
weapon in question.

You are not giving the weapon "can be fired" ability then firing it.
It already has that rule applied, it can fire the moment it is in the appropriate phase, using the shooting rules.


3. "By the time that the controlling player can fire"
This also means nothing, the shooting sequence is explicit, so sequencing is never invoked.


We are firing at an enemy.
We are forced to use the shooting sequence, there is no other choice, this is the only way to fire a weapon, as basic rules are applied to all models per BvA we cannot cut out any of the steps, we are required to use them.

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot.
2. Choose a Target.
3. Select a Weapon.
4. Roll To Hit.
5. Roll To Wound.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties.

Interceptor overrides the "shooting phase" conflict because it is interfering with the resolution of firing a weapon.

These rules are explicit, sequencing is not invoked.

Ceann wrote:


Permission is not granted in resolution. You must be having a hard time reading the rules. Interceptor is already applied to the weapon on its profile, it doesn't need permission.

You are making all of this up. You have no quotes to back up any of this. And you are using some non-English definition of 'resolve' that does not correspond the BRB usage.

Rules are resolved by following the instructions in the rule. To fire an Interceptor weapon we resolve Interceptor by following the instructions for Interceptor.

This isn't the Shooting phase.

Only in the context of resolving Interceptor do you have the permission to fire. This is your 'cart before the horse' problem rearing its head again.

By the time that the controlling player is resolving a single Interceptor rule and can fire, the Sequencing rule will have already been applied to set an order to the multiple Interceptor rules since you have multiple Interceptor rules which "are to be resolved" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".

The Sequencing rule dictates that the ACTIVE player set the order in which the multiple Interceptor rules resolve. The controlling player has to adhere to this order.