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.

When using Overwatch to shoot Out of Phase you cannot use any Other Rules that are normally triggered in that Phase. Says the Rules Commentary. The Example is a Whirlwind cannot use His Pinning Bombardement Ability when Shooting Out of Phase.
Does this mean you cannot use Rules Like Sustained Hits ? Can Vehicles use Big Guns never Tire ? What are this any Other Rules that cant bei used, and what Rules can bei used when Shooting Out of Phase ? You Must be able to use some Rules to shoot, otherwise you cant shoot at all.

You can not use any rules that are normally triggered in any particular phase if it is not that phase.

Some rules are not specific to the shooting phase.

Take Sustained Hits for example, it does not happen in a particular phase, it happens "Each time an attack is made with such a weapon".

SUSTAINED HITS wrote:Weapons with [SUSTAINED HITS X] in their profile are known as Sustained Hits weapons. Each time an attack is made with such a weapon, if a Critical Hit is rolled, that attack scores a number of additional hits on the target as denoted by ‘x’.

Imho the stress should be on rules that are 'triggered' - 'triggered' rules, in my opinion, are rules that are not in itself part of the shooting attack sequence; by necessity, all the rules that happen 'within' the sequence, i.e. rules that deal with hitting, wounding, and so on, are fine and happen in overwatch sequences, it's the stuff that happens outside of the attack sequence that does not. For the example in the OP; [Sustained Hits] is part of the shooting attack itself, and would happen like normal.

Note that some rules, like e.g. to-hit-modifiers, are overwritten by Overwatch specifically telling you that you need 6s to hit regardless of modifiers, which is an entirely separate problem.

There is some ambiguity as to what a rule that would normally trigger in a phase is - some players think it has to name it others just that it usually occur in the one phase e.g. rules that trigger of of deepstrike would normally be in the movement phase does this count?

Trigger itself is ambiguous certain things are defined as triggers. Rules starting During or When are defined as triggers in the designers commentary but potential synonyms like each are not.

Essentially it must separately meet both requirements to be a trigger and be normally in a phase

This creates some weird outcomes

So Sustained hits as a weapon rule well that's static as in it's always on so it doesn't trigger so that always functions

An attached character that says When this character is leading a unit it gains sustained hits 1 in the shooting phase - well that does trigger and names the phase so it never functions

An attached character that says when this character is leading a unit each ranged weapon in the unit gain sustained hits 1 is ambiguous- is it a trigger it uses each? the effect is normally in one phase but it doesn't name it? It could also be considered a trigger (when it's leading a unit but cruicially not in the phase) creating a static ability so no normal trigger in that phase. Essentially whatever people tell you there isn't a clear RAW answer to this. But I would side with this functioning as each isn't defined as a trigger despite coloquially being a synonym of when.


While just to be confusing the virtually identical

An attached character that says when this character is leading a unit each weapon in the unit gain sustained hits 1. Even if it is a trigger would normally trigger across multiple phases so functions normally


I would also clarify that most rules like the shooting phase rules are static not triggers so they apply normally.

Don't overthink it. If the rule says it applies during the Shooting Phase, then it is out of phase shooting whenever used outside of the Shooting Phase. Otherwise, it always applies. There is no ambiguity to be had. It either references the Shooting Phase or it doesn't.

What it means is that, to use a concrete example, Ratlings can't fire Overwatch and then make a normal move after.

I made some notes for my Imperial Guard army in Overwatch.

Orders don’t apply except for FRFSRF.

Armoured Sentinel Mobile Hunter-Killers ability applies

Born Soldiers doesn’t apply since RAW it only applies in my turn.

Cadian Castellan Senior Officer ability applies

Stratagems don’t apply

Death Korps of Krieg Grim Demeanour applies but only the wound bonus.

Heavy Weapon squad Covering Fire ability applies but targeted unit gets cover if attacked by mortar indirect fire during Overwatch.

Hydra Flak Battery ability applies

Field Ordnance Battery Rearm, Reload, Fire applies as long as the FOB was stationary and had an order issued to it during my turn.

Leman Russ Battle Tank and variants, all abilities apply except Executioner, Eradicator, and Exterminator (all the variants whose name starts with “E”).

Scion Storm Troopers ability applies.

 alextroy wrote:
Don't overthink it. If the rule says it applies during the Shooting Phase, then it is out of phase shooting whenever used outside of the Shooting Phase. Otherwise, it always applies. There is no ambiguity to be had. It either references the Shooting Phase or it doesn't.

Do you have any rules quote to support that assertion or is it just HIWPI

If not my argument stands

OUT-OF-PHASE RULES
Some rules allow a model or unit to move, shoot, charge or fight outside of the normal turn sequence. For example, the Fire Overwatch Stratagem enables a unit to shoot in the opponent’s turn as if it were your Shooting phase. When using out-of-phase rules to perform an action as if it were one of your phases, you cannot use any other rules that are normally triggered in that phase.

Example: In your opponent’s Movement phase, you use the Fire Overwatch Stratagem to enable a Whirlwind from your army to shoot as if it were your Shooting phase. The Whirlwind has the Pinning Bombardment ability, which is used ‘In your Shooting phase, after this model has shot’. Because Fire Overwatch is an out-of-phase rule, it only allows the Whirlwind to perform the specified action (in this case, shooting as if it were your Shooting phase) and does not trigger any other rules that would normally be used in your Shooting phase. This means the Whirlwind’s Pinning Bombardment ability has no effect while resolving these attacks, and you could not use any other Stratagems that are used in your Shooting phase to affect those attacks.

It says any rule that is triggered by the Shooting Phase cannot be used for Out Of Phase Shooting. You know a rule is triggered by the Shooting Phase because it says something about the Shooting Phase. Therefore any rules that never mentions the Shooting Phase is not triggered by the shooting phase and can be used when you do Out Of Phase Shooting. It is a simple logic path.

So in other words no you don't have evidence it is just HIWPI - you just make it up to suit yourself and confuse a rules thread by stating it as fact.

The core argument that you are ignoring that causes all the problem is what exactly "normally triggered means"

quoting the obviously known ambiguous line (from other threads) which clearly creates two areas of ambiguity (What is a trigger) and what exactly does (normally in that phase mean) doesn't clear up the ambiguity in any way.

The only way it possibly could is if you magically know what the correct interpretation is... and by pure luck it fully supports the position you want - what were the chances...Still when you make stuff up you can win every time.

U02, might wanna read the tenets and have an actual argument not a bunch of ad hominems. You can’t just state an argument you don’t agree with is HIWPI and undermine it that way. Just… don’t. We have p5. That’s enough of that behaviour!

I've made a clear argument

There's no ad hominem by definition that is an attack on the person - I have disproved his argument by demonstrating he is faciens eam.

He stated his initial argument definitively with no supporting evidence. I suspected he was making it up giving his and my awareness of the ambiguity from other threads such as the meteoric descent thread he has been involved in where the ambiguity is common knowledge.

I therefore asked him to provide evidence to support his position to clarify it as RAW rather than HIWPI lest I was wrong and there was some validity to his argument I was not aware of. Sadly he quoted the line everyone knows is ambiguous and causes all the rules discussion with no additional quote to support his interpretation of the rule.

This highlights how he has arbitrarily determined an outcome not based on any factual rules quote but on pure self selected supposition - hence making it up - that is not a slight on him or attack on his person but a fundamental criticism of stating an argument definitively with zero evidence to support the position. Such deliberate false arguments stated as fact just waste everyone's time, cloud the thread and makes it harder for someone to quickly get the actual answer and its perfectly reasonable to call out those arguments for what they are.

You on the other hand did make an ad hominem - notice how you didn't make any argument with respect to the rules question, didn't challenge the validity of my argument because its valid; or demonstrate that he has a factual basis to support his argument (which would disprove mine) because it doesn't and he was unable to provide one, or even add your own seperate argument- I will ask you to consider the tennents.

Seems pretty clear what can't be used out of phase - anything which refers to the specific phase.

Just another U02 I'm right you're wrong thread.

Read the other thread there's plenty of argument over what "normally triggered in that phase" means Because its ambiguous.

It's not about me being right I don't know what right is here. There are some answers that are clear under RAW and some that depends on interpretation. I do however know if your going to deny any ambiguity or interpretation you need to quote specific definitions for triggered and normally in the phase. Either that or your answer is HIWPI not RAW.

I'll quote the earlier example that best illustrated this of "An attached character that says when this character is leading a unit each ranged weapon in the unit gain sustained hits 1"

Is it a trigger it uses each the DC only defines During and When as triggers? the effect is normally in one phase but it doesn't name it does that count? It could also be considered a trigger (when it's leading a unit but cruicially not in the phase) creating a static ability so no normal trigger in that phase.

So does that above rule count as "normally triggered in that phase" Essentially my position is there isn't a clear RAW answer to this. So I'm saying I don't know. You like alextroy are asserting your right and have the answer but when pushed for evidence can't support your position at all. If you could it should be easy just supply the clear quotes for these things this would prove your position through RAW. Please do I will be happy to have a clear answer.

If not any supposition is meaningless and I will take any answer not quoteing evidence or acknowledgeing the ambiguity as proof as proof you are wrong (not that I am right).

Deep Strike, Meteoric Descent, and Rapid Ingress are not ambiguous because they don’t reference a phase. They are ambiguous because Deep Strike actually references two different phases in the rule!

Thankyou for proving yourself wrong in your earlier assertion well done.

You have not established through rules quote that you have to name a phase only a rule "normally triggered in that phase".

Congratulations on also showing you are aware of the ambiguity in other rules due to the same rule.

So your saying this its clear when it is infact not clear in a number of situations

Unless you simplify it and you haven't proven you can

I fail to see how that proves you right. It is completely compatible with the Rules Commentary and my statement about it that if a rule doesn’t reference any phase, it works during OOP usage because it can not be OOP.

As to why it proves its simple scientific method

You hypothesise an assertion your correct

I assert the null hypothesis- you cannot prove that assertion

If you can prove it we reject the null if you can't we accept the null

Accepting the null doesn't prove I know the answer i dont claim to i think its ambigous it just proves that yours is wrong.




So does the example i provided work or not work and why with rules quote if you can't answer it your answer is insufficient it answers in some circumstances but not all at best it is a partial answer which only answers the bit we can all agree on but ignores the pesky bit that doesn't work.

Which circumstance are you asking about?

Seems straightforward if an attached character always provides the bonus that it would also apply during Overwatch. The only bonus that would not matter is a bonus to hit since Overwatch attacks only hit on unmodified 6s unless a unit has a special ability specifically for hitting during Overwatch (like Astra Militarum Heavy Weapon Squads or the Necron Hexmark Destroyer).

Locking because OP is using a sock account to post somewhere they are not supposed to post, most disappointing.