holy moly *blink blink* If anyone cares about my opinion. I really dont think it can be interpreted any other way than -> no PF from supporting ranks. saurus makes one attack, if he gets a six, he makes another attack whoops can only make one attack. ur in the supporting rank sorry mate
lol that just proves the point I was making and ignores pg11 of the BRB. There is a conflict of rules
There is no conflict of rules. The casual row of the rules in relation to each-other is as following Step 1: Our army book allows PF users to make another attack on a 6 to hit - The model with PF still gets an attack from the supporting rank Step 2: Check with Attack rules - Works for Attacks in general - The model with PF still gets an attack from the supporting rank Step 3: Check with restricting rules - Supporting models can only ever make one attack unless they are monsterous, then they can have 3 - The model with PF still gets an attack from the supporting rank DUE TO Army book > BRB Step 3: Check further with restricting rules - Supporting models CAN NEVER MAKE ADDITIONAL ATTACKS DUE TO SPECIAL RULES OF ANY KIND Step 4: Check if Predatory Fighter is a Special Rule of any kind - It is - Since Predatory Fighter is a special rule, the model with PF no longer gets an attack from the supporting rank DUE TO "Army book > BRB" as the BRB covers the subject and thus dosnt leave room for a conflict. Conclusion PF dosnt work in support ranks until the FAQ or a new Edition makes it legal. Was it intended to work in supporting ranks? Yes..obviously DOES it work in supporting ranks? No..not with the curretn rules and the way it is written. Had PF specifically and directly said "Supporting ranks also benefit from this rule" THEN you could envoke the army book > BRB rules, as "Supporting ranks also benefit from this rule" and "Supporting models can never make additional attacks due to special rules of any kind" WOULD be a conflict.
much the same as sleboda has been saying (but possibly with a tighter budget on words). If PF is "conflict"then wouldn't the Army abook listing saurus with 2 Attacks also be a conflict by the same argument? Armybook says sauris get 2 attacks. AB > BRB, so saurus get 2 attacks in support... Plus PF! (sorry for typos, been typing on phone this weekend)
I disagree on the last part about there then would be a conflict. If PF had that exception then there would be NO conflict and you would need the override rule. example BRB says no more then one attack regardless of profile/special rule etc army book says extra attack on a 6 even supporting attacks (this is overrides the SA rule by its self so no conflict) but that isn't the rules. What a lot of people are saying is in its basic format is brb says no army book says yes army book says whenever a model with this rule etc ect. Now whenever is saying just that (anytime a 6 is rolled) this is what makes it a conflict you have brb says you cant but the army book is telling you whenever (anytime , everytime , whatever implied language you want in here) a 6 is roll you attack again. I don't know who is right and who is wrong but there is a conflict . lets use the beans again. Mum tells you that you cant eat more then one bean regardless if someone else tells you to. But she also tells you if dad tells you something that conflicts with what she told you , then you do what dad says dad tells you whenever you have beans you eat them all . This conflicts with mum ergo you do what dad says.
Army book does not say that though does it . Its a number on a profile so no conflict. PF does say whenever a 6 is rolled . This is a conflict see above. The same with spells its just adding attacks so does not conflict
We have gone over these arguments and why there is confusion. There is one exception to advanced rules trumping basic rules. It is in the army building section as a sidebar. Every other advanced rule beats out basic rules. This suggests that by "special rules" it means like frenzy, +X Attack or other special rules in the BRB that are in other books too. It would not ignore PF's extra because it is an advanced rule, not discussed in the BRB There are good arguments in this thread for why PF does not work in supporting ranks. There are multiple reasons discussed why PF would work in supporting ranks. Before saying the same thing, see if your argument is in the 6 pages before this What he said
Awesome. Now i can put my OB with an extra hand weapon in the second rank, put savage beast of horrors with him and slann with frenzybanner. unhittable lord charr with 10,5 attacks. (+1.5 attacks form PF) Yeeeehaawwwwww
In order to attack at all from a second rank, you must use the supporting attack rule. The support attack rule states that you IGNORE special rules, and make 1 attack. If you believe that Armybook is > BRB in this case, you disregard supporting attack rule and cannot attack at all. No bonus attacks from support. -Matt
so you ignore the rule on page 11 of brb. If this wasn't there you would be correct and no PF from second rank. Someone please explain why there is no conflict between PF and SA rules. Unlike spells and profiles/additional hand weapons .PF and RF both cause a conflict
It's quite interesting to see how many times the same arguments can be repeated I agree with one of the previous posts, before posting, check to see if the exact same thing has been posted in the last 60 posts
You're not ignoring page 11. The supporting attack rule tells you to Ignore Special Rules. Once you ignore the special rule, their is no conflict. If you think PF over-rules supporting attacks, then you've just lost the ability to attack from the 2nd rank, because you are choosing to ignore support attack.
You are correct that the Sa rule does say ignore special rules. But the special rule says whenever a 6 is rolled etc etc. So if I were to follow what you say and ignore the special rule then I am ignoring the rule on page 11. Please see mum and dad bean reference a few posts back , explains it very well. As for the last comment you don't override the whole rule just the conflicting part. Just to be clear I am playing it that we don't benefit because I don't want a massive advantage
It will in most cases not give you a massive advantage (from second rank). It is not game braking in any way. I have noticed that it can make a huge difference on OB, SV though. But they are always in the front rank any way. /Crillaz
It was a joke crillaz . Of course it's not a massive advantage. That's why I don't understand all this fuss
Ok, disclaimer first. I'm not a great debater, nor overly logical being. I don't like to participate debates, and, if Sleboda were my dad, I think he would probably be disappointed in me. Nevertheless, it seems like the word "conflict" causes a lot of grief, as some are saying there is a conflict and others that there is. Should we take a few steps back and define what conflict means? Just a thought.
We actually have had the discussion of what it means to create a conflict (in this very thread, no less) and it has been ignored. I have explained what needs to be in place for a conflict to exist, show that this case does not create one, and even explained how 2 Attacks on a profile is linguistically equivalent to "whenever." All of this has been ignored. It is why I was starting down the path (again) of going step by step toward the goal. The first step was to see if we could all agree that the Saurus in my colored-text example was making 2 attacks. I did not see anyone disagreeing with the fact that he is. This is encouraging at least. The next step would be to gain consensus on what seems to be the one point upon which this whole thing hinges: the word "whenever." So, let's ask that question. Do folks believe that it is the use of the word "whenever" (and no other factor) that permits our Saurus from above to make more than one Supporting Attack?
Sleboda: Several people addressed the "whenever" question. As to the "how many attacks" that was addressed as well. Pages 5-7 You may have missed them, but one even pointed out that your discussion changed how he thought to now thinking PF works for supporting because you explained it a certain way.