8th Ed. Predatory Fighter attacks from supporting ranks: yea or nay

On various discussion boards and throughout numerous battle reports I keep seeing the argument of whether or not bonus predatory fighter attacks can be generated by models making supporting attacks. I'm curious to see which way the general consensus leans.

At first I was hopeful that GW would FAQ this, but that is clearly never going to happen. I also had hopes that 9th edition might correct this, but the degree of the Lizardmen's involvement in the next edition is highly suspect at best.

I think the whole issue boils down to the following arguments for and against predatory fighter supporting attacks...

Against
In reference to supporting attacks...
"To represent this, he can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of the number of Attack on his profile, or any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects" [BRB page 49]


For
"Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack; roll To Hit and To Wound as normal" [Lizardmen Army Book page 30]
AND
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a Warhammer Armies book. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the Warhammer Armies book always takes precedence. [BRB page 11]


Personally I feel that the AB > BRB rule is the most important factor and trumps all other arguments, but I recognize that this is still a hotly debated topic. So the question is simple, based on your experience and interpretation, can supporting attacks generate bonus predatory fighter attacks?

 

Are we voting on the actual rules or on how we choose to play it?

 

I would say it goes for Actual rules...yet I have the feeling that the difference is clouded for some

All the big restriction sets vote "no" , I think it the rules clearly state "no" so I voted no.

I wish for "yes" in the near future though.

 

I think this should be made more clear in the original post as well.

I went with the "How do you play it" interpretation, because asking "Does the rules say "yes" or "no"" is a flamebait question garantueed to make people angry.

 

The original intention of the poll was to gauge how people interpret the rules. At the time of posting, I was not aware that there had been such an uncivil argument over this in the past. As a consequence, I think the poll is useful because everyone can have their say without anything escalating into personal attacks. Hopefully in the end we will have an idea of how the majority of the community feels the rules should play out. Let the glorious purity of mathematics prevail.

 

Exactly how GW acts as well. I don't particularly agree that this is how it should be, because it causes huge issues when you meet new players (Worst argument in the world is the "I've always played it like this!"), but it does work for those lucky enough to have a nice and friendly local community, or use the Comp systems that makes sure to iron out inconsistencies like this.

And honestly, considering a lot of the rules in Warhammer Fantasy, Predatory fighter, while a lot more clear in the application, is one of the rules there is little mechanical point in arguing about, compared to some of the other blatant, but completely valid and legal, rule abuses out there...

 

Admittedly it is not a massive detriment if the rule is played against us. However it is somewhat annoying to have to roll separate sets of dice for the supporting attacks and the models in base to base contact.

 

Without debating it, I will just say that it is anything but simple. The results of the poll shows that the community divided. The giant back and forth debate on a previous trend also indicates that there is not a clear cut answer. I even posted this poll on my WoC forum, which resulted in a 2/3 vs. 1/3 split. We are long ways away from having even close to a unanimous consensus.

 

Personally I feel our army book got published with only 98% of the rules.
because many of the rule clarifications from the previous book seemed
to have been accidentally left out even though the units other rules are unchanged,
just a sentence here and there but, it adds up to an army that desperately needs a Errata/FAQ.

 

Agreed! There are quite a few little holes here and there that could have been so easily patched up.

 

That's just it, though. That's not the same as "how do you play it."

I play it by the rules.
I think it _should_ play out differently from what the rules say.


So I voted no, but that won't tell you the answer to what I think _should_ be.

No, they don't. Not with how the question is worded.

That's why I was asking.

 

Unfortunately, I think a poll on Lizardmen forums about a Lizardmen rule interpretation is inherently flawed. There is no way to separate bias and self-interest from it, as whether one is conscious of the fact or not, Lizardmen players would prefer a rule that makes dice rolling simpler for them and makes their army more powerful.

Even a poll on WoC forums is likely to draw more Lizardmen players than non-Lizardmen players, as people unfamiliar with the army simply won't look at the thread and won't answer the poll.

 

My assumption when phrasing the question was the people would play it according to how they interpret the rules. I think there is major disagreement in the way people interrupt this rule, aside from how they wish or believe it to be.

But you're right, perhaps I could have done a better job at wording the original question.

 

You're right of course that the poll is definitely under the influence of bias. I think this is inescapable though, if you play warhammer you will have a bias towards one side or the other, depending on the armies you field. Tournament organizers, being warhammer players, are also under the influence of bias. Outside of GW there is no real authority to clarify rules across the entire community (of course TOs have full authority within their specific tournament, but that has no bearing at all on the game as a whole outside of their tournament).

My "quest" to find a general consensus (or more accurately find a trend or relative distribution amongst the community) was more so out of interest sake. Only GW can really put this issue to rest. Until then you have several situations:

1. Tournament games: the TO has absolute authority to make a ruling one way or another
2. Games as part of a gaming community: best to employ democracy and vote (preferably beforehand!)
3. One-on-one:
i. try to come to an agreement, one person concedes
ii. roll off for it
iii. decide not to play one another if an agreement cannot be reached

 

The COMBAT system, which is one of the major comp sytems here in Germany, allows PF with supporting attacks, so there is no consensus.