8th Ed. Saurus spears better then handweapon?

Dreyer · Nov 4, 2013

Sleboda said:

Noveltyboy said:

Also most people I know are playing pred fighter as even support attacks have it otherwise I think they would have clearly defined it ...
Click to expand...

=> Why does this forum not have a facepalm or running-into-brick-wall smiley?

"Most people" are blatantly cheating then. It IS clearly defined. At present, if you "play it" differently than what is there, you are cheating.

You know, orcs have been described as the "toughest" fighters in Warhammer. Does that mean they should "be played" as T11?

It either hints at how 9th ed will be played or that GW love grey areas and dont play test enough to find out these problems real gamers spot right away. I think doing a set of dice for front rank and set of dice for support attacks is an unnecessary complication.
Click to expand...

=> Just like doing an extra set of dice for cold ones as opposed to their riders is? Or a different set for Krox in a cohort is? The game is FULL of examples where you have to roll different dice in one combat. What about when some models in a unit have to re-roll wards and others don't? Do you ignore the effects of the Other Trickster's Shard as well just because it's too complicated to roll a few dice in a different pile or using different colored dice?

No matter how you slice it, any justification for not following the rules in this case is just wishful thinking or selfishness. The rules is abundantly clear - it's just not what people want it to be.

EDIT: Adding in another thought. Why is it impossible to believe that they did playtest it and the testers had no problem with the rule, and followed it, because what it says in the Lizardmen book and the BRB woks out fine? People assume something go missed in testing rather than just accepting that what they wish were true isn't. If I had been a playtester still for this book, I would not have even thought to try additional PF attacks, let alone suggest to the author that there was a grey area ---- because there isn't one!

That all said, I have a pretty strong suspicion that we are seeing several hints about 9th in the Lizardmen (and Dark Elf) book. This is one of them. I think all units will be allowed to make a full set of supporting attacks in 9th. Until then, or until GW publishes and errata that changes what is written now, there is nothing even close (from a language and rules standpoint) to a leg to stand on to claim that the special rule PF is an exception to the main rules that say no special rule allows for more than one Attack in support.

MORE EDIT:
Ok, ok, I know I'm just getting cranky at this point ( ), but come on...the Army Book unit entries even have a bold section in each one called Special Rules. It's not like one can even argue that PF is not a Special Rule. It is one, and since the BRB specifically states that no matter what, no Special Rule will allow a model more than 1 supporting attack, how can anyone claim with a straight face that this is at all unclear. My god, GW actually wrote a later book's rule to work with already existing rules for once! They should be commended for getting this right!

I sort of feel bad for the designers at this point. Even when they execute perfectly, people still want to claim that they messed up somehow.

And don't go claiming AB>BRB here. That only applies when there is a conflict, and there is not conflict here. What we have here is rules working together, not in conflict. In order for there to have been a conflict, the PF rule would have to state something like "This is an exception to the normal limit on supporting attacks." That would be a conflict.

All we have now is a Special Rule that sometimes grants additional attacks, and a main rule that says no Special Rule can grant extra attacks in support.

It's just....

so darn clear!
Click to expand...

Well said! though I still silently hope they errata it so we get more attacks

Log in or Sign up

8th Ed. Saurus spears better then handweapon?

Dreyer New Member

Share This Page