8th Ed. Advanced Rules vs Basic Rules (Predatory Fighter)

[forlustria]

As I said before Im playing that you don't benefit and can even see it being that way.

All I was trying to say is and I see other agree is that it could be considered a conflict

1 saying you can 1 saying you cant . That is a conflict. Weather or not that opens up abuse from other books does not matter there is still a conflict.

And any can see PF is intended to work with supporting attacks for a reason someone else pointed out .....

skrox units get no benefit but get the drawback of PF as if that unit isn't borked enough.


Please understand what I am saying. I am not for or against either way . I am simply pointing out there is a conflict.


I will use your example from earlier in the thread



you said something along the lines of .....

if the rule said gets an extra attack on a to hit roll of 6 even if its a supporting attack. Then there is conflict and it trumps BRB.

but by saying even if its a supporting attack means there is no conflict and the conflict rule is redundant .

 

[forlustria]

I'm guessing you've not read the previous posts and examples.

First off, the rule that tells you to make an attacks for each 6 rolled is, factually, a Special Rule.
Special rules cannot be used to allow models to "make" more than 1 attacks.
That really should be the end of the debate. It's not a conflict. It's actually covered! If the BRB did NOT have the clause that said Special Rules don't allow more Supporting Attacks and simply said "One attack max" AND the PF rule ALSO said "This is an exception to the Supporting Attacks max rule, THEN there would be conflict. Right now, as written, there is NO conflict!

Second, saying that the PF rule says to make an attack for each 6 is truly no different than the fact that Smiting says to add one attack. Both are rules that appear in army books. Both are granting a model a way to "make" an additional attack. Both are covered by the BRB rule.

No spell, no special rule, no bonus, no other method...can grant additional attacks in Support.


The reason Monstrous models can do it is because there IS a conflict. The Monstrous Support rules tell you that these models can make up to three Support attacks "rather than the usual one supporting attack. THAT is contradiction between the two rules:

First rule: You only ever get one attack.
Second rule: You get three attacks, even though you are supposed to only get one.

Conflict, directly, between the two rules.

But, aha!, we have something telling us that when this conflict arises, go with the advanced rule.

Solved.


PF, Smiting, +2 Attack Sword, etc contain NO language that conflicts with the 'max 1' rule.


Dear sweet zombie jeebus, it really is remarkably straightforward.

just showing where you said what I posted highlighted red


incase this doesn't make sense I will try and explain

if PF was written like you posted (red) then there would be no conflict and the conflict rule would be meaningless

 

[Markhaus]

Bringing up other rules that grant extra attacks is completely off point. PF specifies every attack, which one can reasonably assume means every attack. Some would argue it contradicts the BRB. Those other rules just add attacks, they do not contradict the BRB.

Saying they add attacks to models is not the same contradiction.

Please stop bringing up other rules as if they are the same. They are not.

 

[Screamer]

To use your example: If I say you have to eat all your beans and someone else says you can only eat 1, even if someone else tells you to eat more. That last statement prevents there from being any conflict.

=> Exactly.

I have a more lengthy response to the concerns/ideas expressed here, but I can't help but feel it's important to nail down a specific element of the discussion before I post it. I've tried to get at it before, but I don't think I've isolated, asked about it, and had responses to it. So, here goes.


The following are quotes from various rules found in Warhammer, most of which exist only in sources outside of the main rulebook, and all of which exist outside of the basic rules section of that book.

...and its Attacks increased by 1...

The target's Attacks are increased by 1...

The wielder of the Sword of Strife has +2 Attacks.

...Frenzied troops have the Extra Attack...special rule...

which reads

A model with this special rule...increases his Attacks value by 1

This model has +D3 Attacks

If the target already has the Frenzy special rule, that Frenzy grants +2 Attacks to every model in the unit...

A 2

Unless fighting in a challenge, Lokhir Fellheart can direct his close combat Attacks against any enemy character model who is fighting in the same combat - even one that he is not in base contact with.

Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack...

For each unsaved Wound that the Vampire causes in close combat, it can immediately make a further Attack.

The Chaos Champion gains +1 Attack.

My question is this:

In all cases, imagine a model with each of the rules quoted above is in the second rank of a unit.

What is the rules difference (as opposed to phrasing or semantics) from one example to another above that would entitle the model to make more than 1 Supporting Attack in one, some, none, or all cases?

The only thing I'll say here before getting responses it to keep in mind that the word "all" appears in none of the rules above. In English, it does not need to appear. It's implied. I can expand on that if I need to, but I am going to assume readers here know language well enough to understand this.

Do you see that all rules you have quoted says "has +x Attack/adds x Attacks?

With 2 exceptions: Red fury and PF.

Adding Attacks increases the models Attacks characteristics, which doesn't allow for extra supporting attacks. I believe red fury and PF has a different wording for a reason

 

[Sleboda]

Bringing up other rules that grant extra attacks is completely off point. PF specifies every attack,

=> It's really not off point at all. You see, ALL of the attacks apply "every" time. That's why I mentioned the bit about English and was really hoping not to have to get into a discussion about English.

Please stop bringing up other rules as if they are the same. They are not.

=> You mentioned earlier that it does no good to bring up the same stuff again and again. Well, there's a reason I do it - The points I am bringing up are routinely ignored. They are not refuted with support - just ignored.

The last post is a great example. I asked a specific question and it was dismissed out of hand. No support. No reasoning. Just no answer at all.

Even if you wanted to put aside all the examples other than Red Fury and just compare PF to RF, one would think you might respond to that one, but it was ignored, which makes me wonder how much the content of my posts are actually given meaningful consideration at all.

So, two things then. English and Structure.

1) English. In English, we do not need to use the word "all" (just like we don't need "you") to know that it is there. PF does not tell us that "all" rolls of a 6 generate another attack. Smiting does not tell us that "all" attacks are increased. The benefit, restriction, or other triggered event applies "all" the time.

By the way, the PF rule was quoted in my post and yet you _still_ say that it contains language that is not present. You say, as a basis of your position it seems, that PF "specifies" every attack. In fact it does not. If you are going to use this assertion as a basis for your position, you should really consider looking at what the rule actually says (which I have nicely quoted for you to no avail) before proceeding.

Now, let's just say that you have an intuitive understanding of the "all" concept I mentioned above. I'd like to think that about you because, Frankly, you seem pretty reasonable, nice, and smart. I think you are going down the "it specifies every attack" path because you realize there is an implied "all" in there - (here's the kicker, and why I continue to include Profiles, spells, and so on in my comparisons) just as every single one of my examples does.

Which brings us to point number 2...

2) Structure. What is happening in all the examples is that some trigger is kicking in to grant an effect. Regardless of the phrasing, the frequency, or the circumstance, the commonality here is -

When in a close combat, the Model is entitled to Benefit A due to Trigger X.

Benefit A, in our discussion, is the ability to generate more than one Attack because of Trigger X.

Trigger X can result from a large number of circumstances being in play. See my exhaustive list from earlier. It does not matter, for our discussion, what the circumstance is, because we are not debating the circumstance. We are debating the access to Benefit A given Trigger X.

In all cases, Benefit A is making more than one Attack. Pure and simple. A standard model has 1 Attack. Getting more than 1 Attack can come from so many sources, or Triggers, and unless something further prevents the Trigger from applying the Benefit, we get the Benefit. A 2 on a profile means you always get 2 Attacks in combat under the circumstance of being in combat, which is redundant and need not be said each time (or "all" the time or "specfically every attack"). Smiting being in effect means you always get an additional Attack in combat. Red Fury means you always get another attack in close combat under the circumstance of causing a wound. PF means you always get another attack in close combat under the circumstance of rolling a 6 to hit.

Straight A boosts are simpler than RF or PF, to be sure, because they have no secondary qualifier. Actually, more accurately, it can be said that they have a secondary qualifier of being in combat, which is the same as the primary qualifier (being in combat) and is thus met 100% of the time. PF and RF do not have this 100% matching secondary qualifier, but once it is met, it also kicks in "every" time.


So, all of these rules, including Lokhir, Red Fury, Predatory Fighter, and +2 Attacks follow the same structure. They all, each and every one of them, entitle a model to make more than one Attack.

The all grant Benefit A (more than one Attack) due to Trigger X (whatever is is that increases the number of Attacks they can make).

Given this, there is no way to claim one is any more able to skirt the rules for Supporting Attacks - a rule, as I have quoted, that prevents a model from making more than 1 Attack no matter what is on its profile, any special rules it has, or other unusual effects.


People are getting hung up too far down the road, in other words. The Stop sign appears much earlier, but we seem to want to blow past that to get to some other road sign when we should all be parked at the Stop sign and never get to read those other signs.

If it were a logic/processing gate in a program, it would never get this far.

The program would ask:

Unit_Select
Can you select a unit you have not checked yet? Yes. Goto Combat_Check.
Can you select a unit you have not checked yet? No. Goto Next_Turn

Combat_Check
Are you in combat? No. Goto Next_Unit.
Are you in combat? Yes. Continue.
Are you in Support? Yes. Roll your one Attack. Goto Next_Model.
Are you in Support. No. Roll your full allotment of Attacks from all available sources. Goto Next_Model.

Next_Model
Is there another model to check? No. Stop subroutine. Goto Combat_Step3.
Is there another model to check. Yes. Goto Combat_Check.


Combat_Step3
whatever....

Next_Turn
blah blah blah...

 

[Markhaus]

"Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in Close Combat, it immediately makes another Attack" is very different from the model gets +1 Attack. The fact it says "Whenevr" and the fact they give the exclusion "Attacks generated by PF do not" separates it from that group of special rules even further.

I actually understand the argument for PF not working on supporting, I just disagree with that conclusion and think it needs to be clarified.

(Apologies for using Every instead of Whenever, my brain confused them as being the same earlier)

 

[Sleboda]

Why, I do believe we are getting somewhere!

Let's strip away everything else (though I'd still love to hear your response to my question/situation from a few posts ago...but oh well) and focus on what I think is the one word that is the sum total of support for the idea that PF allows us to break the clearly defined rule that says no special rule allows for a model to make more than one supporting attack: "Whenever."

There's a reason I talked about language (and structure). Implied words happen all the time in English. This is just another case.

I believe you think that "whenever" means that PF attacks are allowed to make more than one Attack from support (a possibility clearly denied within the forward thinking rules for supporting attacks).

You know what? All those examples I listed carry an implied "whenever."

"Whenever" a model with Smiting attacks, it gets +1A.
"Whenever" a model with Red Fury wounds, it gets to make another Attack.
"Whenever" a model with Frenzy attacks, it gets to make another Attack.
"Whenever" a model with the +2A sword attacks, it gets to make 2 more Attacks.
"Whenever" Lokhir attacks a model he is not touching, he gets to make his Attacks.
"Whenever" a Warlock (2 Attacks on his profile) attacks, he gets to make 2 Attacks.

And so on...


All the way to PF.
"Whenever" a model with PF rolls a 6 to hit, he gets to make another Attack.


Is it finally (finally!) making sense why I say they are all the same?

ALL of them allow more attacks "whenever" the trigger happens. ALL of them.
The wording and the trigger may be different, but they all apply in all cases.

If we say that "whenever" is the key here, then all the examples must be accepted to break the rule for Supporting Attacks since they all apply "whenever" the case comes up (which is always in the case of Smiting, Frenzy, and a profile entry, and only 1/6 of the time in the case of PF - but in all cases, when the Trigger conditions are satisfied, you get to make more than one Attacks whenever you are allowed to......

....

....

....
which Supporting Attacks disallow.)



If you think it is (against all precedent and rules established in English) somehow inappropriate to use "whenever" with the other cases, take a moment to step back and ask yourself why. Is it not true that "whenever" a model under the effects of Timewarp makes an attack in close combat, it gets to make one more Attack than usual (for example).
The "whenever" is truly an implied component of all the quoted examples, though I'd be open to hear the reasoning that says why it is not.

 

[Screamer]

@Sleboda: Your posts are quite long and repetitive, that's why I don't respond to every post.

To the question you asked, what's the difference between frenzy/sword of strife/timewarp and PF?

All the examples, except for PF and Red Fury, adds to the models Attacks characteristics. That's why they don't follow the same game mechanics, and therefore the comparison is invalid.

I thought it was quite clear that PF doesn't give extra attacks from supporting attacks, but I'm actually starting to swing in the other direction, that the rules does say you should get PF from second rank as well.

 

[forlustria]

Why, I do believe we are getting somewhere!

Let's strip away everything else (though I'd still love to hear your response to my question/situation from a few posts ago...but oh well) and focus on what I think is the one word that is the sum total of support for the idea that PF allows us to break the clearly defined rule that says no special rule allows for a model to make more than one supporting attack: "Whenever."

There's a reason I talked about language (and structure). Implied words happen all the time in English. This is just another case.

I believe you think that "whenever" means that PF attacks are allowed to make more than one Attack from support (a possibility clearly denied within the forward thinking rules for supporting attacks).

You know what? All those examples I listed carry an implied "whenever."

"Whenever" a model with Smiting attacks, it gets +1A.
"Whenever" a model with Red Fury wounds, it gets to make another Attack.
"Whenever" a model with Frenzy attacks, it gets to make another Attack.
"Whenever" a model with the +2A sword attacks, it gets to make 2 more Attacks.
"Whenever" Lokhir attacks a model he is not touching, he gets to make his Attacks.
"Whenever" a Warlock (2 Attacks on his profile) attacks, he gets to make 2 Attacks.

And so on...


All the way to PF.
"Whenever" a model with PF rolls a 6 to hit, he gets to make another Attack.


Is it finally (finally!) making sense why I say they are all the same?

ALL of them allow more attacks "whenever" the trigger happens. ALL of them.
The wording and the trigger may be different, but they all apply in all cases.

If we say that "whenever" is the key here, then all the examples must be accepted to break the rule for Supporting Attacks since they all apply "whenever" the case comes up (which is always in the case of Smiting, Frenzy, and a profile entry, and only 1/6 of the time in the case of PF - but in all cases, when the Trigger conditions are satisfied, you get to make more than one Attacks whenever you are allowed to......

....

....

....
which Supporting Attacks disallow.)



If you think it is (against all precedent and rules established in English) somehow inappropriate to use "whenever" with the other cases, take a moment to step back and ask yourself why. Is it not true that "whenever" a model under the effects of Timewarp makes an attack in close combat, it gets to make one more Attack than usual (for example).
The "whenever" is truly an implied component of all the quoted examples, though I'd be open to hear the reasoning that says why it is not.

A very well structured argument. However Ive pointed out many times that I am on the fence with this still. I find it difficult to believe GW has the brains to include an implied whenever. Implied should not come into it , it should be as it is written. In which case the whenever part of PF causes conflict with the SA rule. The others do not (as wriiten ofcourse).


Now I would like your opinion on rules as intended for PF and the way it screw skrox units

 

[Markhaus]

Sleboda sort of clarified what I was already saying, you just reach a different conclusion.

If you think it is (against all precedent and rules established in English) somehow inappropriate to use "whenever" with the other cases, take a moment to step back and ask yourself why. Is it not true that "whenever" a model under the effects of Timewarp makes an attack in close combat, it gets to make one more Attack than usual (for example).
The "whenever" is truly an implied component of all the quoted examples, though I'd be open to hear the reasoning that says why it is not.

If something is normally implied, and a rule goes out of its way to say something normally implied, most people would say: "yes you should pay it more attention."

Hypothetically, if there was a rule that said "instead of its Attack it gets X amount of Attack", this would cancel all the other examples because they add to the basic number of attacks. It would not prevent PF because PF specifies "Whenever" and specifies a time when it does not work.

Order of operations is a good argument, but since
A: players are not computers,
B: there is no coding written into tabletops (thank god),
C: those of us arguing with you think Supporting negates before rolling and PF would come in AFTER rolling (if this were code)
The game companies need to clarify things like this.

 

[Crillaz]

Couple of things on that, Crillaz -

This is a discussion forum. People come here to discuss stuff.
Everyone has been remarkably calm and civil. Nice!
If folks are willing to continue a discussion in an effort to reach an understanding, why shouldn't they do so?
Waiting for 9th or FAQ is wishful thinking. We may never get either, and if we do, the problem may not be addressed.
If the thread is irksome to you, you can always not view it.

Will do.

Just a few questions,

Will you change your mind due to this discussion you think? Based on what we know right now about PF?

Is your plan to try to "convert" everyone to your opinion? Who needs to reach an understanding in this matter? You or the ones disagreeing with you?

/Crillaz

 

[Markhaus]

Clarification in order of operations style:
Argument FOR predatory fighter in support:
+X Attack changes the number of attacks a model can make (the dice rolled to hit)
Supporting Attack reduces the number for any but the first row down to one
Dice are rolled
additional attacks for PF whenever a 6 is rolled

The other sides argument:
+Attack adds Attack for first rank
Roll dice for first rank
Additional attacks for PF whenever a 6 is rolled
Supporting attacks at 1 die per model
Roll dice
Ignore PF rule because only 1 attack is allowed per model

Arguments about RAI:
For: Kroxigor attack over skinks and have PF, they don't cost less but are more of a liability.
Against: Other similar rules that we don't want getting bonuses for other races

 

[hdctambien]

Why, I do believe we are getting somewhere!

Let's strip away everything else (though I'd still love to hear your response to my question/situation from a few posts ago...but oh well) and focus on what I think is the one word that is the sum total of support for the idea that PF allows us to break the clearly defined rule that says no special rule allows for a model to make more than one supporting attack: "Whenever."

There's a reason I talked about language (and structure). Implied words happen all the time in English. This is just another case.

I believe you think that "whenever" means that PF attacks are allowed to make more than one Attack from support (a possibility clearly denied within the forward thinking rules for supporting attacks).

You know what? All those examples I listed carry an implied "whenever."

"Whenever" a model with Smiting attacks, it gets +1A.
"Whenever" a model with Red Fury wounds, it gets to make another Attack.
"Whenever" a model with Frenzy attacks, it gets to make another Attack.
"Whenever" a model with the +2A sword attacks, it gets to make 2 more Attacks.
"Whenever" Lokhir attacks a model he is not touching, he gets to make his Attacks.
"Whenever" a Warlock (2 Attacks on his profile) attacks, he gets to make 2 Attacks.

And so on...


All the way to PF.
"Whenever" a model with PF rolls a 6 to hit, he gets to make another Attack.


Is it finally (finally!) making sense why I say they are all the same?

ALL of them allow more attacks "whenever" the trigger happens. ALL of them.
The wording and the trigger may be different, but they all apply in all cases.

If we say that "whenever" is the key here, then all the examples must be accepted to break the rule for Supporting Attacks since they all apply "whenever" the case comes up (which is always in the case of Smiting, Frenzy, and a profile entry, and only 1/6 of the time in the case of PF - but in all cases, when the Trigger conditions are satisfied, you get to make more than one Attacks whenever you are allowed to......

....

....

....
which Supporting Attacks disallow.)



If you think it is (against all precedent and rules established in English) somehow inappropriate to use "whenever" with the other cases, take a moment to step back and ask yourself why. Is it not true that "whenever" a model under the effects of Timewarp makes an attack in close combat, it gets to make one more Attack than usual (for example).
The "whenever" is truly an implied component of all the quoted examples, though I'd be open to hear the reasoning that says why it is not.

A very well structured argument. However Ive pointed out many times that I am on the fence with this still. I find it difficult to believe GW has the brains to include an implied whenever. Implied should not come into it , it should be as it is written. In which case the whenever part of PF causes conflict with the SA rule. The others do not (as wriiten ofcourse).


Now I would like your opinion on rules as intended for PF and the way it screw skrox units

the Kroxigor in the second rank have an ability that most people seem to ignore. Being in the second rank, enemy supporting attacks cannot target them. So while they can now be targeted, the amount if attacks that can hit them are reduced by half (or more against spears/high elves). This is both more fair for our opponents (no invincible Kroxigor) and still pretty good defensively.

so, maybe (probably) sxrox have an overrun issue due to PF and don't get the added offensive ability. But jiw often is your skrox unit actually winning a combat? (they are more anvils than hammers).

on paper it looks like sxrox get screwed by PF, and they would definitely be (a tiny bit) better if the krox get the bonus attacks, but I don't think in practice they are getting screwed because of PF.

 

[Sleboda]

Will you change your mind due to this discussion you think? Based on what we know right now about PF?

=> At the risk of going on a bit too long, and also at coming off in a way I don't intend, let me address that in a little detail.

I'm the kind of guy who has a few personal mottoes, if you will, that I live by. A few guiding principles. For instance, I've never done drugs or cheated on a girlfriend/spouse and a big reason why is a one of those mottoes - "Avoid the situation." It's gets harder and harder to behave the closer you get to the breaking point, so the best way to stay on the right path is to avoid situations where temptation will be present. It's worked so far.

Another guiding phrase that has worked well for me so far is the Eastern version (insanely superior to the Western) of the Golden Rule. That is "Don't do anything to other that you would not want them to do to you." I use this in gaming all the time. I don't take an extra 8th of an inch when I move models because I wouldn't want people doing that to me.

A third personal belief is one that applies here - "Have an opinion on everything. Be prepared to change it, but at least have it in the first place." I've been convinced to change my opinion lots of times in the past, even on gaming matters! As I've said before, this is a case where I would _____LOVE______ to change my opinion. I can't tell ya' how much I would like to paint up a brick of Saurus with spears and wreck faces with them by having that many PF Attacks (not to mention how awesome it would be if someone could change my mind on Burning Alignment so I could burn their opponents also!). Unfortunately, there has been nothing convincing (yet) to change my mind on this.

You could ask why it matters. Well, one reason to try to pull factual support for an opinion out of people is so that when I go to play against someone, I can use that same factual support to show them why I am entitled to play a rule a certain way. Right now, if I tried to claim PF in Support, my opponent could use my own position against me and I would have to acknowledge that they have facts on their side whereas I have only belief on mine (and as I've said, I really do believe that GW meant to write a rule that allowed these extra attacks, but they just failed to do so).

Is your plan to try to "convert" everyone to your opinion? Who needs to reach an understanding in this matter? You or the ones disagreeing with you?

=> I don't plan to convert anyone. This is a forum, and one primary reason for the existence of forums at all is to discuss things that people disagree about. There have been lots of times when protracted forum debate has led to discovery and changed opinion (mine an others). I really enjoy that about forums. It's not about converting people. It's about the discussion itself and the desire to get to the heart of a matter, no matter where that heart my be. It's sort of like how scientists (good ones anyway) are delighted to be proven wrong because it means they are closer to understanding. For them it's not about right of wrong, it's about furthering knowledge. Now, I know this is only toy soldiers, but in context it's still great to get a better understanding of our game.

This next bit is the part that may come off poorly. Before I state the part that could be taken wrong, let me say that I rarely express this, and in fact rarely actually even feel this, but every now and then I have something I now to be true but my (normally pretty decent) ability to explain it fails me and I have to fall back on the somewhat crude absolutism I usually try hard to avoid.

There are times when two people can read a rule and reach different opinions on how to play it. Someone earlier mentioned this and (I think) asked if I can just see that that's what is going on here. The thing is, it's not.

A good example of where that does apply is the tail attack from a Bastiladon. It is quite possible to read that attack as always being S10. It is also equally valid to read it as being S10 against models in the rear arc. Both are valid and it divides opinions. I play it as S10 only in the rear because I don't feel right claiming a benefit that I cannot prove I am entitled to claim (see my Golden Rule thing).

So, now we have Predatory Fighter and my risky statement. Despite my failure to adequately express why it is so, it is not a difference in the reading or an opinion-based matter. In this instance, trying to claim more than a single Attack from a Supporting position based on the wording of this (or any!) special rule is against the rules. It is wrong. That is not opinion. It's fact. I'm pretty disappointed in myself, to be perfectly honest, for not being able to find the words that allow others to understand that. It's my failing, and it's very frustrating because I HATE it when people (usually religious ones - and I would sooner jump off a cliff than be associated with religious "thinking") resort of absolutism and cannot support their view with facts. I just can't find a way around it in this case.

EDIT: Just noticed that Markhaus has actually cemented my argument for me:

Clarification in order of operations style:
Argument FOR predatory fighter in support:
+X Attack changes the number of attacks a model can make (the dice rolled to hit)
Supporting Attack reduces the number for any but the first row down to one
Dice are rolled
additional attacks for PF whenever a 6 is rolled

The other sides argument:
+Attack adds Attack for first rank
Roll dice for first rank
Additional attacks for PF whenever a 6 is rolled
Supporting attacks at 1 die per model
Roll dice
Ignore PF rule because only 1 attack is allowed per model

=> I bolded a part because it's not what the rule says, which means in order for the top viewpoint to be accurate, it has to change/ignore what the rules say. The Supporting Attacks rule does not say it reduces Attacks down to one. It says a model may not "make" more than 1 attack (as Markhaus correctly shows in the second viewpoint). It's hard to claim that invented rules carry the same weight as the printed ones.

 

[Sleboda]

A very well structured argument. However Ive pointed out many times that I am on the fence with this still. I find it difficult to believe GW has the brains to include an implied whenever.

=> Let me state that my response here is being made purely because I love language, English in particular, and so I consider it separate from the actual PF talk, even though there is some crossover. I just like to noodle through this kind of thing.

Ok, so yeah. The beauty of our language and implied words, phrases, or meanings, is that the writer/speaker does not have to have brains at all and it still exists! In other words, this concept transcends stupidity and GW's lack of ability to write a damn rule. Ha!

Even a slack-jawed hillbilly from Alabama can use implied language without knowing it. For instance, picture a mom yelling at her two children. She says "Git in the dang truck!"

She has at least two bits of implied language in there even though she doesn't know it. The sentence she really said was "You two children, get in the truck right now."

The "you" and the "now" were not said, but if those kids had the temerity to reply "You talking to us? You didn't say us! You didn't even say we had to do it now" they would be beaten senseless (because that's how kids are raised in Alabama).


Another example. Rick and Carl are fighting a zombie. Carl shoots the zombie in heart, but it keeps moving. Rick shoots the zombie in the head. Rick tells Carl "You have to pierce the brain of a zombie to kill it."
A few hours later, Rick and Carl fight another zombie. Carl shoots the zombie in the heart. Rick lets out a sigh and shoots the zombie in the head. Rick says "I told you that you have to pierce the brain." Carl says "You mean all the time? Whenever I try to kill one?" Ricks says "Yes, Carl, all the time." Carl says "Oh, I thought you meant just that one, not every time." Rick says "Why would you think that?" Carl says "Well you didn't say every time." Rick shakes his head and mutters to himself "I didn't have to. That's how English works."

This sort of unknowing implied language is all around you, and once you are aware of it, you start to notice it everywhere. GW may not know they are using it, but they don't even have to know. What they would have to know is how to counter it. If they don't want implied words to inform their rules, then they need to take steps to address the normal way language works.

An example of this (sort of, in a way) is their redefining of "unmodified." That's a word that we, as readers on English words, would apply in our games as we do in life. Left as simply "unmodified" leadership, we would all know what is meant. However, GW has redefined the term, effectively making is meaningless (or at the very least, a new 'game term').

If a rule says (to put us back on topic a bit) "2 Attacks" if means that every time you attack, you make two attacks, not just sometimes - unless a rule like Supporting Attacks says otherwise. It is not required to remind the reader that the models gets 2 Attacks "whenever" it attacks or "every time" it attacks, or the like. English tells us that there is a "whenever" or "always" there already.

For PF, the reason "whenever" is in the rule is because they are describing a limitation on the Attack. They could have just as easily say "When" or "If" or "Each time" or whatever. It's just telling us that they don't get the bonus attack all the time, but instead only "whenever" they roll a 6 to hit. This really does not make it an exception to a rule.

Now I would like your opinion on rules as intended for PF and the way it screw skrox units

=> I don't really get into RAI much, because we can never know intent unless the author tells us what it was. As to screwing Kroxigor in skinks, I'm not sure it does. Do they lose the potential for more attacks? Yep! But they also gain access to ranks, a banner, and a cheaper champion than they get in their own unit. It's a tradeoff, not a screwing.





I want to ask folks one straightforward question, and I'd really be interested to hear some straightforward answers. Let me set it up, then I'll ask.

Picture a Saurus Warrior in the second rank. It is his time to roll his Attacks. He picks up a die and makes an Attack. It comes up a 6. He picks up another die and makes another Attack.

Question: How many attacks has this Saurus made?

 

[Crillaz]

Thanks Sleboda! Nice answer.

Continue now with your discussion.

/Crillaz

 

[forlustria]

2 Because whenever (if/when etc) he rolls a 6 to hit he makes another attack. Overiding the limited imposed by SA.

lol.

As I've said before all I'm arguing is that there is a conflict of rules regardless of if it opens abuse from other books.

I'm not arguing for or against. Someone earlier said the conflict rule doesn't come into play as there is no conflict. But there is a conflict

BRB says no more then 1 attack from second row regardless of a special rule etc etc
army book says whenever a MODEL with this rule rolls a 6 blah blah blah

brb says no
army book says yes

= conflict in my book

 

[Markhaus]

Forlustria posted an excelent response saying the same thing I just typed, but shorter and more to the point
My post:
And this is why the discussion continues. Sleboda explained why he thinks PF doesn't work in supporting, and most of us understand that stance (I only understood after several explanations).

The reason I continue the discussion is to try to make the case that it is confusing. Bottom of page 5 in this discussion I go over implied vs overtly stated in rules. Confusion about order I discuss at the top of page 6. Several others make the same point throughout.

As to how many attacks did he roll, that is a red herring. The advanced rule trumps the base rule. That is the issue of contention that everyone brings up. The wording of PF is different, therefore it can be interpreted a certain way (as we have discussed). By saying something that is normally implied, it adds emphasis, which is important for overruling the BRB.

PF is worded very different than other additional attacks. We have discussed that as well.

The problem is several people say "yeah, I can understand how you'd see it that way, but I don't" the others seem to keep saying "there is one way to read this, how can you not see that"

 

[Screamer]

+1 on Markham. One side of the fence says "yup, it could be interpreted that way, but I don't think it should because ..." and the other side says "the rule is clear as day. No conflict. of the rules"

I really don't think there is any more arguments either way? Anyone with any new input?

 

[Ondjage]

How about we all agree that it is interpretable both ways and maybe if we all send an email to GW we will get an answer?

Lets put the Frequently in FAQ