Space Marine Flyers and "Interceptor"

[Brother Captain Ed]

So...The Stormhawk and Stormtalon both have the "Interceptor" rule.  It's identical except for one important word:

 

The Stormhawk says add 1 to hit rolls against targets that can Fly.

 

The Stormtalon says add 1 to hit rolls against targets that cannot Fly.

 

Conceptually this makes sense.  However, the datasheets carry the exact same rule in all ways but the one word.  This seems like the opposite of streamlined and unnecessarily obtuse.  Does anyone know if this is typo or have any clarification on that?  Just seems...odd.

[Quixus]

And here we go again. This is as bad as all the quasi-deep strikes from previous editions,

[Brother Casman]

I was thinking that the rules for a given datasheet don't necessarily correspond to rules from other datasheets. While it's unfortunate that the rules have the same name, given the roles of these two aircraft, it seemed to me that the rules as written nevertheless made sense. The stormhawk intercepts enemy flyers, the stormtalon intercepts enemy ground forces. All in all, I think this is as intended, but I'm open to it being changed by GW. Edited June 24, 2017 by Brother Casman

[Quixus]

Of course the different rules make sense, and are probably intended to be different, but giving them the same name is just bad design.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Quixus

[Lysere]

Well the intent of the rule is to show they are designed to intercept certain targets. Any other units that also have the interceptor rule will probably have the same idea, a bonus to hit against a certain type of target such as flying or not.

 

If you think of similarly named rules as a basic type while the datacard spells out the specifics it makes more sense.

 

I am more than happy to lose the mess of universal rules that took far too long to navigate. Even if they'd serve a similar function it's much easier to just look at a datacard for a unit and be able to know exactly how it works.

[Quixus]

Similar names make sense for similar behaviour, but identical names make no sense for different behaviour. USRs were great as long as they functioned identically no matter which model the rule was attached to. The problems began when they started referencing USRs for rules that worked differently.

 

Re: interceptor

I'm pretty sure in air force jargon ground attack craft are not called interceptors. That term is reserved for air craft designed to intercept other aircraft.

[Lysere]

Similar names make sense for similar behaviour, but identical names make no sense for different behaviour. USRs were great as long as they functioned identically no matter which model the rule was attached to. The problems began when they started referencing USRs for rules that worked differently.

 

Re: interceptor

I'm pretty sure in air force jargon ground attack craft are not called interceptors. That term is reserved for air craft designed to intercept other aircraft.

In modern day terms that's the most common meaning but the full definition works in both applications considering the fluff and roles of aircraft. Both are designed to intercept enemy targets, they just go after different types.

 

Proper definition makes sense, it's only when compared to modern air jargon that it seems weird.

[Quixus]

The same name only makes sense if the abilities are identical. What GW does here is as if they wrote Boltgun: 24" rapid fire 1 S4 AP 0 in one place and  Boltgun: 30" rapid fire 1 S4 AP -1 in another.

[Lysere]

The same name only makes sense if the abilities are identical. What GW does here is as if they wrote Boltgun: 24" rapid fire 1 S4 AP 0 in one place and Boltgun: 30" rapid fire 1 S4 AP -1 in another.

That's a bit of an exaggeration of an example.

 

The two rules are the same on a basic level. The unit in question gets a bonus to hit against certain kinds of targets. The problem is that the only place that shows this in anyway is in the writing of the rule. They could have added (air) or (ground) or something along those lines to make it easier to understand but the idea of both rules is the same.