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

[Koranot]

The main argument pro PF in subsequent ranks is that the PF rule tells us to make an extra attack for every 6 rolled. If you play it that PF works only in the front rank, you are clearly violating the rule text, as you don't roll for every 6 but only for evrey 6 in the front rank.

So if you want to apply both the PF rule and the supporting attacks rule there is a rule conflict and the advanced rule wins.

 

[Sleboda]

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.

 

[Markhaus]

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

Just to point out, smiting and +2 attack sword both give the model additional attacks, which is cancelled by the "1 only" rule. However, PF does not state it grants the model an additional attack, it says on every attack in close combat you roll a 6, you then make an additional attack.

The wording is very different, so comparing them is not a good example. Number of attacks is covered in basic rules, so adding additional number of attacks is bound by the "only 1", however some people (I emphasize SOME here) view predatory fighter as an after the fact, "does not change the number of attacks the model has" type of rule.

Seems straightforward to the other side too. They need a FAQ.

Many will try to hamper themselves to take the high road and call others "cheating" because they don't see things exactly the same as they do. Until they put out a FAQ, play the way you read it, follow the rules of the tournament, or if there is no PF rule, and the other player makes a big deal, roll a dice, give in or quit, depending on circumstance.

 

[GCPD]

I wish that we could have a sticky post here with the title Predatory Fighter Supporting Attacks Answered!

And in the post it says: We don't know. Agree with your opponent before the game - if in doubt, roll a d6 or consult a TO.

 

[Sleboda]

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

Just to point out, smiting and +2 attack sword both give the model additional attacks, which is cancelled by the "1 only" rule. However, PF does not state it grants the model an additional attack, it says on every attack in close combat you roll a 6, you then make an additional attack.

The wording is very different, so comparing them is not a good example.

=> I covered that, twice, above.

I quote (again) the Supporting Attacks rule.

Here is the key phrase (again):

...he can only ever make a single Attack

So, for our purposes, the particulars of the phrasing render all cases functionally equivalent, and thus the same. If you get +2A or get to swing again, you are still making more than a single Attack. This is why it doesn't matter how they differentiate between the sources of the additional/extra/bonus/boosted/gifted/granted/repeated/etc attack.

You cannot "make" more than one Supporting Attack!

some people (I emphasize SOME here) view predatory fighter as an after the fact, "does not change the number of attacks the model has" type of rule.

=> Well, luckily for us, the RULE in the book does not depend on the "number of attacks the model has." It does not matter if you get a larger number under the "A" on your profile, or if you get to attack again (Um, Red Fury for VC anyone?) with a whole brand-spaking new set of attacks that are totally separate from the first set of attacks.

Maybe that's what folks are missing/doing wrong. Maybe people are failing to read the rule or, more likely, glossing over the actual words that are in the rule. The rule does...not...care...how you are coming by more Attacks. The rule makes no distinction about the source. The rule does not care if you have 50 Attacks on your profile, if you got another round of attacks from Red Fury or Predatory Fighter, if you are Frenzies, have a sword or whatever.

All the rule reads is that you cannot MAKE more than one Attack from a supporting position.

It does not say you "cannot make more than one attack at a time" or you "cannot make more than one attack each time you roll a set of dice" or anything else with a qualifier. There is no qualifier. You cannot, ever, no matter what, no matter the source...simply cannot...make...more than one Attack.



EDIT: Simplest way to put it --

The rule does not in any way limit the number of Attacks a model can HAVE. It limits how many he can MAKE.

 

[Markhaus]

Continually saying the same thing does not seem to be helping either side.

I like what GCPD said:

I wish that we could have a sticky post here with the title Predatory Fighter Supporting Attacks Answered!

And in the post it says: We don't know. Agree with your opponent before the game - if in doubt, roll a d6 or consult a TO.

And Sleboda, don't get upset if your opponent reads the rules differently. Warhammer has a lot of contradictions in its rules (I know you don't see a contradiction, that IS the argument in this case), and it has the rule of the die to solve this dilemma.
If someone tries to use the PF rule this way, explain your case then roll a dice. I know I won't desperately cling to those extra 1 or 2 attacks if the die rolls against my interpretation, and if the person is foaming at the mouth to get rid of or get that extra 1 or 2 attacks, keep it cool and play the game.

Allowing PF in the supporting rank just makes the game easier, and if the opponent wants to bog down the game with their interpretation to reduce you an attack or two, let them.

 

[n810]

I wonder if GW plans on making Saurus wariors into Monsterous infantry in the next edition...

 

[lizard_sNow]

So here is a thought, though it may not matter to the discussion.

I view the supporting attack rule as a way of representing the other fighters in the unit. In a meeting of two units, each side wants to get in as many attacks as they can. The only problem is that the second (and consecutive) guy in line has to make his attack around the guy in front of him. I can imagine this to be pretty difficult without a longer weapon, and still then it really isn't a nice full swing you would like for a solid attack. Nobody wants to accidentally have his attack smack his buddy in front of him, unless you are skaven and dont care/have a selfish agenda. I gues what I'm trying to illustrate is that the supporting attack makes total sense in the fact that they can only ever have one attack, cause that's all they can make with the space they have.

As for predatory fighter, the fluff behind this rule makes sense with lizardmen because they are mean, semi-feral man-things and since they were blessed by the Old Ones with large gaping mouths lined with sharp teeth then they should have an extra attack from it. Now this doesn't mean they should get an extra attack in the second rank. The biting is just as limited by space, maybe even more, as the actual swinging of their weapon. Think about trying to swing your sword and bite someone that is on the other side of the guy in front. (might help illustrate if Spawning of Bob made a comic about it)

Anyways, I'm just saying this so that maybe this may make some sense to one other person and may help him/her have a better understanding of why the supporting attacks rule makes so much sense.

there. my two cents

 

[Ecomp]

So, with the new site up and all that, where did the FAQs go? I can't find any of them!

 

[Lizardmatt]

So, with the new site up and all that, where did the FAQs go? I can't find any of them!

They are gone.
Odd.

-Matt

 

[forlustria]

While at the moment I play that they don't get it because that's what all the tournaments I have been to say


But What I would like to ask is about all this no conflict stuff.

It shouldn't have to say PF is exempt from the SA rule for there to be a conflict .

By saying ALL rolls of 6 to hit generate another attack creates a conflict.

let me put this out there


PF says ALL rolls to hit that are a 6 generate another attack (not exact wording)

SA says no more then 1 attack in supporting ranks

so you have PF saying ALL and SA saying only 1 in support. To me and others that is a conflict

If I say you have to eat all your beans and someone else says you can only eat 1 there is a conflict and because im more advanced you eat all your beans

 

[Koranot]

Forlustria just illustrated what I wanted to say.

At Sleboda:
I know where you comming from but IMO you have to look at both rules.

1. The SA rules forbids more than one attacks from subsequent rank now matter how you gained them. I think we can all agree with this.

2. The PF rule allows to make an extra attack for every six rolled and therefore clearly allows additional attacks from subsequent ranks. This is the rule you have been ignoring so far.

3. These rules are in conflict.

4.The advanced rule wins.

 

[MI_Tiger]

So, with the new site up and all that, where did the FAQs go? I can't find any of them!

On dakka dakka, someone posted a response from GW on the missing FAQs:

Hello,

Thanks for writing in to us! We are aware that the new web store launched without the Errata/ FAQ articles. This is only temporary and these FAQ's will be made available again in the very near future. However, at this time I don’t have a time or date available. Should you have any other questions, then please give us a call at 1-800-394-4263.

Sorry for the confusion, but I hope this helps.

David Monroe
Games Workshop
North America Customer Services

Now back to your regularly scheduled rules debate ...

 

[MI_Tiger]

PF says ALL rolls to hit that are a 6 generate another attack (not exact wording)

SA says no more then 1 attack in supporting ranks

so you have PF saying ALL and SA saying only 1 in support. To me and others that is a conflict

If I say you have to eat all your beans and someone else says you can only eat 1 there is a conflict and because im more advanced you eat all your beans

If that was all the rules said, then there would be a conflict, but the BRB anticipated a conflict and made an overaching statement that a model cannot gain extra attacks from special rules (which would include special rules in army books). That removes the conflict - the potential conflict has already been addressed.

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.

But ultimately, like others have said, there won't be any consensus until a FAQ is released (if that ever happens). The smart thing would have been for GW to be completely clear in the Predatory Fighter rule, but that didn't happen.

 

[forlustria]

PF says ALL rolls to hit that are a 6 generate another attack (not exact wording)

SA says no more then 1 attack in supporting ranks

so you have PF saying ALL and SA saying only 1 in support. To me and others that is a conflict

If I say you have to eat all your beans and someone else says you can only eat 1 there is a conflict and because im more advanced you eat all your beans

If that was all the rules said, then there would be a conflict, but the BRB anticipated a conflict and made an overaching statement that a model cannot gain extra attacks from special rules (which would include special rules in army books). That removes the conflict - the potential conflict has already been addressed.

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.

But ultimately, like others have said, there won't be any consensus until a FAQ is released (if that ever happens). The smart thing would have been for GW to be completely clear in the Predatory Fighter rule, but that didn't happen.

that's a good point but there is also that part in place saying if someone more advanced tells you to eat all your beans that trumps the original.


your told you can only eat 1 bean even if someone else tells you to eat more. You are also told that if an advanced person tell you to eat all of them then this trumps (pun intended ) what you were told before.

me (advanced) is now telling you to eat all the beans is in conflict with the person before telling you to eat only 1 regardless of others.


The point I was making is that there is a conflict. By the army book saying ALL to hit rolls of 6 generate another attack means ALL so is in conflict with the rule saying no special rules etc.

 

[MI_Tiger]

Good point. So in this way of looking at it, the conflict isn't specifically with Predatory Fighter, it is a conflict between the "Army book trumps BRB" statement and the "regardless of special rules" statement, both of which are in the basic rule book (obviously not exact quotes).

I understand that perspective. I still think it is clear that supporting attacks are limited to 1, but I think the question has merit. I guess we'll have to continue waiting (not so) patiently for the FAQ.

 

[Lizardmatt]

If the BRB for support attacks is always trumped by army book, then ANY effect from any army book allows more than 1 supporting attack.

Think about that for a moment.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Witch Brew gives another attack. That's another 20 attacks for a witch star.
How about Death Frenzy or Skaven Brew (+2 attacks each). That's an extra 40 to 60 attacks for a storm vermin horde.
Call of the Hunt? +1 attack for every model in a wood elf unit.
Staff of Damnation would also give +1 attack to every model in a vampire unit. Sure makes those Grave Guard a lore more scary.

Basically, it would completely invalidate the regardless of special rule clause, and turn half the army books into super death stars, while leaving the other half in the dust... Basically making fantasy into 40K.

-Matt

 

[Sleboda]

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.

 

[Crillaz]

Never ending discussion….

From my point of view: Just skip PF in the second rank for peace sake.

This has been discussed to death it feels like. No one is giving in to the other side in this "conflict" anyway. So maybe its better to just wait until the faq comes OR 9ed if it comes first.

/Crillaz

 

[Sleboda]

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.