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.
There is no wording in Interceptor that tells us what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules which "are to be resolved at the same time" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule applies and we have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
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.
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".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 01:03:12
Ceann wrote: I already did, you just didn't like it.
So think what you want.
I don't accept what you said because you have failed to substantiate your argument with rules.
The rules are on my side.
And I will continue to apply the Sequencing rule when there are multiple Interceptor rules which "are to be resolved at the same time" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" since the rules give me no choice but to do so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 01:09:51
Rolsheen wrote: Are the moderators on holiday?
Please lock this thread It's been pages and pages on utter nonsense and has no basis in reality.
My argument is firmly based on the rules.
If you feel otherwise then feel free to provide a counter argument that is substantiated by the rules.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those permissions are accessed by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the permissions but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those permissions.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 01:12:13
No... you haven't proven it, which is precisely the problem.
You claim things you haven't proven.
I don't have to point to another time.
The rules to resolve an iteration of Interceptor are explicit.
It identifies a weapon to fire and there are rules attached to firing a weapon. This creates a situation with no ambiguity.
You need to prove the rules for Interceptor are not explicit.
Resolving at the same time is the equivalent of a race.
With no obstacle all of the rules resolve "at the same time".
When that happens they need to be sequenced.
Except it doesn't happen to Interceptor like it did with Rad Sautration. They get to a tunnel named Shooting Sequence.
Once the player nominates a unit, the other rules cannot proceed towards the finish line, they have to wait until whichever unit got nominated to finish the shooting sequence.
At that point that unit will have "resolved" the rule.
You are equating them "firing at the same time" to "resolving at the same time".
They are not the same thing.
And yes I know you will go pull the "but sequencing says"
It says NORMALLY, not ALWAYS.
This is one of the situations that is an exception.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 01:28:13
Rolsheen wrote: Are the moderators on holiday?
Please lock this thread It's been pages and pages on utter nonsense and has no basis in reality.
My argument is firmly based on the rules.
If you feel otherwise then feel free to provide a counter argument that is substantiated by the rules.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those permissions are accessed by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the permissions but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those permissions.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
Your "argument " hasn't made sense since the first page and just repeating the same irrelevant block of rules is not to going to change that.
You think your right about everything so refuse to listen to anyone else or answer their questions.
Anyone not agreeing with you must be "house ruling" even though it's been explained ad nauseam that GW don't house rule their own rules.
Your "argument " hasn't made sense since the first page and just repeating the same irrelevant block of rules is not to going to change that.
You think your right about everything so refuse to listen to anyone else or answer their questions.
Anyone not agreeing with you must be "house ruling" even though it's been explained ad nauseam that GW don't house rule their own rules.
I have substantiated everything about my argument with rules.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those permissions are accessed by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the permissions but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those permissions.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
I have shown in the course of this thread that any counter argument doesn't adhere to the rules.
If a counter argument doesn't adhere to the rules then it is House Ruling by definition.
You seem to have issue with established definitions for what a House Rule is, not with me
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 01:39:31
Ceann wrote: No... you haven't proven it, which is precisely the problem.
You claim things you haven't proven.
I don't have to point to another time.
The rules to resolve an iteration of Interceptor are explicit.
You have to point to a rule that explicitly resolves multiple Interceptor rules.
The only rule that explicitly resolves multiple Interceptor rules is the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time".
In the case of multiple Interceptor rules, the rules "are to be resolved" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
Until you can point to some other point in time that the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.
If we have 2x
Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a Quad Gun with the Interceptor special rule can
be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If
this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can
shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Interceptor
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a Icarus Array 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.
Two instances, one for each weapon.
It is now the end of the movement phase, nothing has happened yet.
What isn't explicit?
You need to explain what isn't explicit.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 01:40:38
Interceptor
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault
squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a Quad Gun with the Interceptor special rule can
be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If
this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can
shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Interceptor
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault
squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a Icarus Array 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.
Two instances, one for each weapon.
What isn't explicit?
You need to explain what isn't explicit.
The two Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The Interceptor rule does not tell us what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.
The only rule that explicitly tells us what to do in the case multiple Interceptor rules that are "to be resolved at the same time" is the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven 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 in which the rule "i[s] to be resolved".
Since the explicit conditions for the Sequencing rule have been met, I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
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".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 01:49:12
Interceptor
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault
squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a Quad Gun with the Interceptor special rule can
be fired at any one unit that has arrived from Reserve within its range and line of sight. If
this rule is used, the weapon cannot be fired in the next turn, but the firing model can
shoot a different weapon if it has one.
Interceptor
This weapon has been calibrated to target incoming drop troops, teleporting assault
squads and other unlooked-for enemies.
At the end of the enemy Movement phase, a Icarus Array 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.
Two instances, one for each weapon.
What isn't explicit?
You need to explain what isn't explicit.
The two Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The Interceptor rule does not tell us what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.
The only rule that explicitly tells us what to do in the case multiple Interceptor rules that are "to be resolved at the same time" is the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven 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 in which the rule "i[s] to be resolved".
Since the explicit conditions for the Sequencing rule have been met, I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
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, it doesn't apply "when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time".
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.
ex·plic·it
1.
stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
If you think what I stated wasn't explicit.
Elaborate on what wasn't stated clearly.
Each instance isolates a specific weapon, resolving a weapon firing only allows one to resolve.
Your premise is false until you prove that it isn't explicit.
No, it doesn't apply "when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time".
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.
ex·plic·it
1.
stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
If you think what I stated wasn't explicit.
Elaborate on what wasn't stated clearly.
Each instance isolates a specific weapon, resolving a weapon firing only allows one to resolve.
Your premise is false until you prove that it isn't explicit.
You haven't pointed to a rule that explicitly tells us what to do in the case of two or more Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
I have pointed to the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
Ceann wrote: Two shooting attacks cannot resolve at the same time.
Demonstrate two shooting attacks resolving simultaneously.
You already demonstrated two iterations of Rad Saturation resolving at the same time.
You refuse to repeat the exercise for shooting two weapons now.
Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
What does this have to do with the Sequencing rule?
The Sequencing rule applies to rules, not shooting attacks.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
I have proven this in the case of multiple Interceptor rules.
In the case of multiple Interceptor rules, the rules "are to be resolved" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
Until you can point to some other point in time that the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.
You resolve interceptor by shooting, so in this circumstance it is.
Last I checked shooting was a rule.
Or are you saying shooting doesn't have rules now?
If you do not fire then you are not using the rule.
What does it have to do with sequencing, everything.
You have to prove that the Interceptor is not explicit before applying sequencing.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 02:54:36
Ceann wrote: You resolve interceptor by shooting, so in this circumstance it is.
Last I checked shooting was a rule.
Or are you saying shooting doesn't have rules now?
If you do not fire then you are not using the rule.
What does it have to do with sequencing, everything.
You have to prove that the Interceptor is not explicit before applying sequencing.
You have it backwards.
There is nothing in the Interceptor rule that explicitly tells us what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
You haven't pointed to any rule that explicitly tells us what to do in the case of two or more Interceptor rules "are to be resolved at the same time".
Meanwhile, I have pointed to the Sequencing rule.
The Sequencing rule applies when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven 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 in which the rule "i[s] to be resolved".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
Until you can point to some other point in time that the multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved" then you have no argument.
Until you can point to a rule (besides the Sequencing rule) that explicitly tells us what to do in the case of two or more Interceptor rules which "are to be resolved at the same time" then you have no argument.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 03:39:39
You already demonstrated iterations of Rad Saturation resolving at the same time.
You refuse to repeat the exercise for shooting two weapons now.
Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
We 3 iterations of Rad Saturation were discussed, we both agreed that the moment in which all of the units became locked in combat at the same time, you had simultaneous rules attempting to resolve at the same time.
Rad Saturation provides no method of making each resolution unique from the others.
I keep asking you to demonstrate what you are proposing as 'the way it works" in practice, and you keep avoiding doing so.
Demonstrate the moment where three Interceptors are firing at the same time.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 03:58:42
Ceann wrote: Demonstrate them resolving at the same time.
You already demonstrated two iterations of Rad Saturation resolving at the same time.
You refuse to repeat the exercise for shooting two weapons now.
Demonstrate two weapons firing at the same time.
I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved"
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, I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".
The Interceptor rule makes no mention of what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
Therefore, I have no choice but to apply 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 when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven 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 in which the rule "i[s] to be resolved".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must access one of the Interceptor permissions so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which those permissions are accessed by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the permissions but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence those permissions.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 04:05:00
Well apparently we are both missing something then, because your idea fails in practice when followed literally.
In fact you refuse to discuss the actual steps of resolution at all because once you stop giving a high level example and look at the details it falls apart.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 04:06:01
Ceann wrote: Well apparently we are both missing something then, because your idea fails in practice when followed literally.
In fact you refuse to discuss the actual steps of resolution at all because once you stop giving a high level example and look at the details it falls apart.
Incorrect. I have since practically the beginning of the thread provided a solution in great detail that works according to the Rules As Written.
My solution works perfectly and is completely validated by the rules.
You are the one who has failed to provide a counter proposal that is worked out in detail according to the Rules As Written.
If you have some wonderful solution that works out in great detail according to the Rules As Written then feel free to share it.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
Spoiler:
I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved"
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, I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".
The Interceptor rule makes no mention of what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
Therefore, I have no choice but to apply 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 when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven 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 in which the rule "i[s] to be resolved".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means following the Interceptor instructions and choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must resolve one of the Interceptor rules so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the rules are resolved by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That rule must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor rule since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the order multiple Interceptor rules are resolved but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence the multiple Interceptor rules.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 04:24:02
Resolving the Interceptor rule means choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
1. It doesn't say on Interceptor that you choose to fire.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
2. "at the end of the movement phase" is WHEN they can fire. The resolutions do not occur at the same time.
That permission must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor permission since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
3. The weapons fire, not gain permission to fire, there is no rule called "permission" and the word isn't even in Interceptor.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
4. Wow... did you figure that out all on your own? Interceptor is Interceptor and Overwatch is Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
5. You mean a basic rule has to have explicit wording to break the shooting phase restriction?
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
6. Since when does a special rule need specific permissions to override a conflict?
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
7. This means nothing, Overwatch compared to Interceptor is apples to oranges. BvA
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
8. They don't resolve at the same time
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
9. BvA states that basic rules apply to all models, you cannot ignore the rest of the shooting sequence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 04:23:33
I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved"
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, I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".
The Interceptor rule makes no mention of what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
Therefore, I have no choice but to apply 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 when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven 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 in which the rule "i[s] to be resolved".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means following the Interceptor instructions and choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must resolve one of the Interceptor rules so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the rules are resolved by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That rule must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor rule since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the order multiple Interceptor rules are resolved but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence the multiple Interceptor rules.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 04:34:00
col_impact wrote: I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when an Interceptor rule "[is] to be resolved"
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, I can point to no other time than "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" for when multiple Interceptor rules "are to be resolved".
The Interceptor rule makes no mention of what to do in the case of multiple Interceptor rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
Therefore, I have no choice but to apply 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 when two or more rules "are to be resolved at the same time" at a time "similar" to "at THE START of the Movement phase" which unequivocally includes "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase".
The Sequencing rule only cares that there are two or more rules that "are to be resolved at the same time".
I have proven 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 in which the rule "i[s] to be resolved".
The Sequencing rule explicitly applies and I have no choice but to apply the Sequencing rule.
You are still treating "at the end of the movement phase" as a single moment in time.
You cannot actually demonstrate the resolutions occurring at the same time so you are hiding behind words.
It is still part of the Movement Phase. Which is a period of time, not a moment of 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.
It says nothing about a moment in time "at the end" is simply after all of the other actions have been performed.
Which means we can resolve all of the Interceptor "permissions" to fire.
Then have a shooting sequence with each of them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/19 04:42:00
You are still treating "at the end of the movement phase" as a single moment in time.
You cannot actually demonstrate the resolutions occurring at the same time so you are hiding behind words.
It is still part of the Movement Phase. Which is a period of time, not a moment of time.
The Sequencing rule treats "at THE START of the movement phase" and "similar" time statements as single moment in times such that two rules resolving at those times are resolving "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.
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally similar to "at THE START of the movement phase".
So the Sequencing rule itself validates "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a single moment in time.
The Sequencing rule defeats your argument.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 04:45:19
You are still treating "at the end of the movement phase" as a single moment in time.
You cannot actually demonstrate the resolutions occurring at the same time so you are hiding behind words.
It is still part of the Movement Phase. Which is a period of time, not a moment of time.
The Sequencing rule treats "at THE START of the movement phase" and "similar" time statements as single moment in times such that two rules resolving at those times are resolving "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.
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally similar to "at THE START of the movement phase".
So the Sequencing rule itself validates "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a single moment in time.
The Sequencing rule defeats your argument.
No, it doesn't.
Sequencing is NOT a special rule.
It cannot override any of this.
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.
Those are the rules for the start end of phases.
Making them iron clad.
At the start and At the end are triggers for those rules which occur before and after the normal operations of that phase.
Sequencing is NOT a special rule.
It cannot override any of this.
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.
Those are the rules for the start end of phases.
Making them iron clad.
At the start and At the end are triggers for those rules which occur before and after the normal operations of that phase.
Your precious "a moment in time" doesn't exist.
The Sequencing rule directly contradicts what you are saying.
Spoiler:
The Sequencing rule treats "at THE START of the movement phase" and "similar" time statements as single moment in times such that two rules resolving at those times are resolving "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.
"At THE END of the enemy Movement phase" is unequivocally similar to "at THE START of the movement phase".
So the Sequencing rule itself validates "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" as a single moment in time. Two or more rules that are to be resolved "at THE END of the enemy Movement phase" are to be resolved "at the same time".
The Sequencing rule defeats your argument.
Are you calling the BRB a liar?
That's an awfully awkward position for you to be in if you are calling the BRB a liar.
Me? I will take the BRB at its word.
This is how it works out according to the Rules As Written . . .
Spoiler:
It is the multiple Intercept rules that are being sequenced by the ACTIVE player.
Resolving the Interceptor rule means following the Interceptor instructions and choosing whether or not to fire when the opportunity to fire occurs.
The multiple instances of "can be fired" "at the end of the enemy Movement phase" from the multiple Interceptor rule need to be sequenced.
Remember, this is not a shooting phase so in order to be able to shoot the controlling player must resolve one of the Interceptor rules so that he "can" fire and the controlling player does not get to order his access to those Interceptor permissions.
The ACTIVE player dictates the order in which the rules are resolved by the controlling player, per the Sequencing rule.
That rule must be completely resolved before moving on to the next Interceptor rule since Interceptor lacks the Overwatch permission to treat this like an out of order Shooting Phase.
Normally, this would result in the controlling player dictating the order multiple Interceptor rules are resolved but since it's not the controlling player's turn then it winds up being the ACTIVE players responsibility to sequence the multiple Interceptor rules.
Basically, Interceptor is not Overwatch.
Overwatch has these specific permissions . . .
An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on.
Resolve Multiple Overwatch
If a unit declares a charge against two or more target units, all of the target units can fire Overwatch! Resolve each unit’s Overwatch shots separately in an order determined by the firing units’ controlling player.
. . . Interceptor does not have those specific permissions.
There is no permission to lump all of the instances of Interceptor into a single pool for a shooting sequence (as in Overwatch) or for the firing player to dictate the order during the opponent's turn among multiple Intercepting units (as in Multiple Overwatch).
In the absence of the specific allowances afforded Overwatch, Interceptor is resolved in a piecemeal fashion with each instance resolved separably based on the sequence of the ACTIVE players choosing.
Piecemeal fashion
The ACTIVE player chooses the order in which the Interceptor permissions are resolved.
The ACTIVE player choose one Interceptor rule to resolve first. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Then the ACTIVE player chooses the next Interceptor rule to resolve. That interceptor rule is resolved by the controlling player making a choice to fire or not to fire (using the rules for a shooting attack [a To Hit roll] if the player opts to fire).
Rinse and Repeat.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/05/19 05:06:02
