8th Ed. Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks

Whenever people try to fight me getting supporting attacks I just politely point out the line that says codex trumps core rule book. And so far I've never had a to rule against this.

 

This section of the rules is often misapplied by players (most of the time by innocent mistake because they don't immediately understand how the two rules in question interact with each other). The rules on BRB pg. 11 specifically state the conditions that must exist, between the two rules in question, to force a rule in a Warhammer Armies book to take precedence over a BRB rule. In this case, no conflict exists between the Predatory Fighter special rule and the Supporting Attacks special rule; therefore, application of this General Principle, in this case, is inappropriate.

 

Exactly. Both the army book rule and the main book rule can work together. There's not a true conflict.

 

I swear people don't even read the threads anymore.

 

Ultimately, I guess it is up to players to decide within their gaming groups.

I can see the strength in both arguments.

We will just have to wait for 9th Edition to see !

 

Well I was against giving ranks PF, but the "PF attack is generated as a bonus attack AFTER the initial Single-Attack-Only has been made" argument has me compelled. That and the (purported) GW email. That and the BRB stating the Army Book overrules any confusion.

But who knows, until we get a damned FAQ!

 

That's unfortunately just a horrible foundation for such a rules heavy game.

Let's hope 9th edition changes things around. More than 1 attack is pretty meh to begin with, unless you are monstrous, because our 2 attacks is, with enough ranks, effectively the same as elves, who always gets an additional rank of supporting attacks. Looking at the pricing, it seems whoever tried balancing it, didn't notice this obvious fact, because 2 ranks of attacks with 2 attacks = 3 ranks of attacks with 1 attack.

Supporting attacks limitations seem to favour horde armies that put out good but few attacks at a cheap pricetag, or monstrous infantry that can still throw out tons of attacks in supporting ranks. That's okay, if that's what they are going for, but then that should also be reflected on the pricing of the units - the price for a saurus warrior is obscene, compared to what we actually get. A removal of attack limitations on supporting attacks would immediately change things around, big time.

 

Will be very interesting to see where they take 9th edition. 8th was my first, but I've seen a fair few of the older rules that people tried to play because they thought they were still in, like units enveloping into a flank. Clearly GW have tried many ways to represent melee, troop and numbers based warfare over the years and for every great idea there's always one that is over powered or is a poor representation.

 

You know what I find to be impressive (in a negative way)?

I find it impressive that an incredibly well presented argument, using plain, easy to understand and non-inflammatory language can be presented (by mortetvie - excellent work!) and over the course of the next few posts, there are several instances demonstrating that people are not willing to take the time to educate themselves.

In his post, mortetvie made is abundantly clear, with great precision, intelligence, and examples, why it is that there is no conflict to be found and thus why citing AB>BRB simply is not, at all, a basis for making a decision on the rule. How anyone can read mortetvie's post and still cling to any argument in favor of multiple attacks in support as a result of this Special Rule is beyond me.


I understand the wishful thinking.
I understand that people might think GW didn't mean to write what they wrote.*
I understand that people are allowed to change rules anytime they like when the can get their opponent to agree to it.
I even understand that some people might think that there will be a FAQ, an End Times update (new spawning for better Saurus that can make multi-support attacks), or a change in 9th.

What I can't understand is the thinking that there is any actual, present, in-print rules basis that supports the argument in favor of making more than one supporting attack through the use of a kind of rule that says "you can't use this kind of rule to get more than one supporting attack." That argument holds no water. There is no support for it. None. Again, if you think there is, then read mortetvie's post again and think again.


* Since it's been a while since I've said it, I'll say it again - I am in this camp. I truly believe they meant for these PF attacks to work in Support as well, but that GW themselves don't understand the rules of their own game. Still, my personal opinion is meaningless when held up against he weight of the rules.

 

I also fail to understand how people can disregard that beautifully written rundown of arguments....

 

No, he did make some arguments which fall apart under closer inspection.

While I kind of agree with his counterarguments to point 1 and 2, I also think these are irrelevant to the discussion. Point 3 is the important point and he failed to counter this point.

The argument pro PF working with supporting attacks, is that the moment you roll a 6 for your supporting attack a conflict between the PF and the supporting attacks rule arises:

"Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes an other attack; roll To Hit and To Wound as normal."

vs

"To represent this, he can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of the number of attacks on his profile, or any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects."

You can not apply both of this rules at the same time, if you just rolled a 6 for your supporting attack, as you either have to "immediately make an other attack" or "can only ever make a single Attack". Therefore a conflict arises and the army book rule overrides the rule book, as per page 11 of the rule book.

This argument is normally countered by someone by citing the latter half of the supporting attacks rule "or any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects." (often in capitals, bold and underlined), but this half of the rule has really no relevance to the argument, as the rule already forbids more than one attack from subsequent ranks. People seem to think that this sentence somehow overrides the PF rule because it specifically mentions special rules and PF is a special rule, but that is not true. The first half of the rule already forbids more than one supporting attack and therefore the latter part is unnecessary.

Mortetvie tried to counter this argument by creating an artificial difference between the term (close combat) attacks and supporting attacks, by saying:

He therefore argued that the term attack in the PF rule does not automaticly qualify the model to make a supporting attack.

The Rule book states the following:

“Warriors in the second rank do not sit idly by whilst their comrades battle away, but muster forward to strike blows of their own. We refer to the attacks made by these models as supporting attacks.”

So attacks made by models in subsequent ranks are referred to as supporting attacks, but is not then every attack made by models in subsequent ranks a supporting attack by definition? I am no laywer but the way GW uses the term (close combat) attacks implies to me that they also refer to supporting attacks.

From the dark elves army book:

"Muderous prowess
Models with this special rule (but not their mounts) re-roll all To Wound rolls of a 1 when making close combat attacks."

So the wording is similar to the PF rule as GW refers to "close combat attacks", but if mortetvie is right and this wording excludes supporting attacks, does this mean that murderous prowess applies only to the first rank?
Good luck explaining this to your dark elf opponent.

I bet other rules like ASF or hatred have the same wording but I am to lazy to search the exact text. We can therefore conclude that the term close combat attacks in the PF rule also refers to supporting attacks, which counters the argument of mortetvie.

Mortetvie furtheron tries to apply both rules at the same time to proof that this can be done without creating a conflict:

So models in the first rank can make PF attacks because no restrictions apply. So far so obvious.
In the second part he says that PF does not apply to supporting attacks because it is a special rule and the supporting attacks rule does not allow special rules to increase the number of supporting attacks. I am sorry but this is not applying both rules at the same time, this is applying one rule and ignoring the other: "Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes an other attack".

IMO you can not apply both rules at the same time if you roll a 6 for a supporting without creating a conflict, which triggers the army book over rule book rule.

As an additional note Jeremy Vettock supposedly said at Games Day Cologne that the PF rule was meant to override the rulebook.

 

You know what I find impressive?

That people keep insisting that there is a clear-cut answer to this debate.

The rules are poorly written, and as such, can go both ways. I read the post, saw his points, and then disregarding it like all the others.

Because no matter how much you want a clear cut answer from our current rules, you can only do so by assuming how the rules work - and the moment you do that, you immediately fail at providing the clearcut answer you wanted.

Some people assumes the supporting attacks limitation excludes PF from occuring.

Some people assumes the PF rule overrides the BRB

Both are valid answers. As it currently is, you can argue all you want, but there is no end to it - you wont find a paragraph in the books that everyone else missed. This whole conversation is based on assumptions. If anything, the best contribution given in this thread, is a mail from a GW employee, and even that is dubious at best, because anyone could fabricate such a thing.

All we can do is hope GW fixes their broken rules, or keep spamming them with requests for a FAQ, just a single stupid word saying "yes" or "no". They just did a WE FAQ, surely it wouldn't be too much effort to make a quick one for us as well.

 

Claiming a conflict exists when a 6 is rolled is the same as saying a conflict exists when a model with frenzy is attacking from the second rank. The army book says it has an additional attack due to frenzy, but when you try to apply that special rule, and the supporting attacks rule there's a conflict. Meaning any model with the frenzy special rule gets its additional attack because AB> BB right?


The context in that situation are identical to How it would apply to PF.

 

Wrong. First of all frenzy as a special rule is listed in the rule book, therefore it can not automatically override the supporting attacks rule.

But of course you are right that there are army book rules which grant additional attacks to all models of a unit, like the spell Ptra's Incanation of Righteous Smiting from the Tomb Kings book or the Witchbrew from the Dark Elves book. For these spells and special rules to grant more than one supporting attack the application of their rules must create a conflict to the supporting attacks rule. If there is no conflict between these and the supporting attacks rule, the AB>BRB rule does not apply.

Let us take Smiting as an example (but you could take also almost any other special rule that grants additional attacks).

Ptra's Incanation of Righteous Smiting
"The target's Attacks are increased by 1 until the start of the caster's next Magic phase"

vs

Supporting attacks
"To represent this, he can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of the number of attacks on his profile, or any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects."

Are these two rules in conflict with each other?
No, because the statements of the rules are independent from each other. Imagine if you had a computer program to simulate the Warhammer rules, would applying these two rules at the same time create an error message? No, the number of the attack value is independent of the amount of attacks a model can make, as long as you do not consider a third rule, which is:

How many attacks
"A model in base contact with one or more enemy's makes a number of attacks equal to the number of their attack value" (I have paraphrased this text as I have not the english original but the rule is on p48 of the BRB).

This rule connects the Smiting and the Supporting attacks rule and creates a conflict, as it tells you to attack as many times as the number of your attack value, which conflicts with the supporting attacks rule if the number of your attack value is greater than 1.

But the conflict does not arise between the Smiting and the supporting attack rule but between the "How many attacks" and the supporting attacks rule, since it is completely irrelevant whether the reason for the model having more than 1 attack is a spell (like a skeleton with smiting) or the normal profile of the model (like a chaos warrior).

But the "How many attacks" rule is a rule book rule and therefore the AB>BRB rule does not apply. In this case it is reasonable to assume that the more specifically worded rule (the supporting attacks rule, which specifically adresses the case of an attack value greater than 1) overrides the other rule.

Therefore: No, your witchstar with witchbrew does not get 120 attacks.

The PF rule on the other hand does not need the "How many attacks" rule to function, as it allows to actively make additional attacks when a certain trigger appears (roll of a 6). It conflicts with the supporting attacks rule and as an army book rule overrides it.

 

How does this matter? As has been pointed out repeatedly, the limit on supporting attacks does not depend on whether there is a "trigger" mechanism for the additional attack.

 

This.

 

Maybe I should not have used the word "trigger". People get too hung up on that and it distracts from the rest of the text.

What I wanted to say is that the PF rule generates additional attacks without the need for another rule. It therefore directly conflicts with the supporting attack rule and, as an army book rule, overrides it.

Other rules, like frenzy or smiting, increase the attack value of a model. There is no conflict between these rules and the supporting attacks rule.
The conflict comes from a third rule, the "How many attacks" rule (p48 of BRB). Since the this rule is a rule book rule, it can not override the supporting attacks and the more specifically worded rule (the supporting attacks rule) applies.

This is the reason, why PF works with supporting attacks and other rules that increase the attack value not.

 

I have an idea! I feel like a ping pong ball following this argument. One comes up and I go, "Oh, well that makes sense." then another crops up and I go, "Well, that counters that, but what about this other thing...?". SilverFaith, I find that we clash on a number of subjects on this forum, but I'm with you on this. There is no clear cut answer.

SO! Here is what I say we do. Rather than bicker back and forth let's get an answer. Let's come up with an unbiased question, such as... "In the Lizardmen army rule book, does Predatory Fighter give attacks to all models in the unit or just the front rank?" No explanation as to what you think, no extra information, just the question. Now that we have our question can we all send GW the exact same question. Let's see what we get back and post it on here. If we get an unanimous answer, awesome! We have our answer. If we get mixed results, well, we still get an answer. That being that GW is a confused child that cannot make up its mind.

Now, this will require some honesty/integrity. So I ask that nobody tamper the answer they receive, even if it makes you look silly for backing the wrong horse. We are here for answers, not ego.

So... Who is with me?

Here is the customer service email address that I found: custserv@gwplc.com

 

Thats a great idea.

But I believe the mail adress for rules questions is: Gamefaqs@gwplc.com

At least that is the adress they give under the FAQs.

By the way GW has just released a FAQ for the Glottkin Book.

 

Just send a mail.

Hoping I never get an answer, but instead a FAQ update on Black library. Unlikely, but one can hope. My problem with email responses is that they aren't "official", though I'd probably still take a print of it, and use it as evidence for the intended use - even if they rule against what I want it to be.