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

[Sleboda]

I will review and then adjust this post, but right now my impression of the "addressing" of the whenever concept is that people have ignored the linguistic fact that it's no different from saying a model with 2A gets two attacks "whenever" it attacks. If this were not ignored, the discussion would be over by now.

Still, I'm attempting to use my colored-text sequence to strip away confusion that may have come from loads of posts. If we can break down the debate into a series of highly specific and clearly stated components, we just may all be able to reach a consensus.


I'll be back with (possible) updates after I re-read the whole thread searching for posts that actually consider the merits of what I've put forth (the whenever thing, lack of conflict, and so on)...

 

[Koranot]

Hello,

seems the there has been some discussion since I last posted.
I just wanted to explain the difference between PF and other special rules that grant extra attacks, as it is constantly argued that if PF worked in subsequent ranks, these would as well.

Sleboda gave a few rules which grant additional attacks (smiting, time warp, frenzy, PF, Red fury and others) and asked what the rules differences between these was to allow only PF to work in the second rank.

All of these rules except PF and Red fury are just basic rules in disguise. You gain +1A on your profile or gain the extra attack special rule which are basic principles or rules listed in the rule book. Even if you put another name on it and list it in the army book it is still the same old principle which was valid in every edition of warhammer I can remember:
You can attack which the number of attacks in your profile + x.

PF and Red fury work differently. They give a varable amount of attacks depending on a dice roll and there is nothing like them in the rule book. These are army book rules which give a new way of gaining attacks and therefor can be considered advanced rules.

 

[Lizardmatt]

Hello,

seems the there has been some discussion since I last posted.
I just wanted to explain the difference between PF and other special rules that grant extra attacks, as it is constantly argued that if PF worked in subsequent ranks, these would as well.

Sleboda gave a few rules which grant additional attacks (smiting, time warp, frenzy, PF, Red fury and others) and asked what the rules differences between these was to allow only PF to work in the second rank.

All of these rules except PF and Red fury are just basic rules in disguise. You gain +1A on your profile or gain the extra attack special rule which are basic principles or rules listed in the rule book. Even if you put another name on it and list it in the army book it is still the same old principle which was valid in every edition of warhammer I can remember:
You can attack which the number of attacks in your profile + x.

PF and Red fury work differently. They give a varable amount of attacks depending on a dice roll and there is nothing like them in the rule book. These are army book rules which give a new way of gaining attacks and therefor can be considered advanced rules.

PF is a situational bonus attack. Just because the requirement is variable doesn't make it any more or less special than any other special rule.

Also, PF is under the heading special rules. It's obvious it's special.

Make another attack when you make an armor save.
Gain an attack for each enemy in base to base.
Gain a bonus attack for each enemy character in base to base with you or your unit.
Plus D3 attacks, roll at the start of close combat.

 

[n810]

Why oh why couldn't we have gotten something like the dark elves....
Reroll all misses, (not an extra attack) but it makes extra attacks.

 

[slann5]

Maybe roll a 4 plus for it, or is that to easy.

 

[GCPD]

Why oh why couldn't we have gotten something like the dark elves....
Reroll all misses, (not an extra attack) but it makes extra attacks.

Or something straightforward but actually useful, like Dwarfs +1 S.

 

[Sleboda]

Maybe roll a 4 plus for it, or is that to easy.

=> It's not a question of too easy or not. How would you like to spend the dollars (and painting time!) on 60 Saurus Warriors with Spears and two Ancient Stegadons because you felt that the rules for PF and Burning Alignment worked one way, only to go from game to game, tournament to tournament, knowing that on a 4+ you will _really_ wish you had brought (and bought!) only one Ancient Stegadon and only 30 Saurus, which would have been hand weapon and shield?

4+ sounds like a fair solution on the surface, but when real dollars, hundreds of hours painting, and entire army builds change dramatically on a coin flip, it really sucks.

 

[Koranot]

PF is a situational bonus attack. Just because the requirement is variable doesn't make it any more or less special than any other special rule.

Also, PF is under the heading special rules. It's obvious it's special.

Make another attack when you make an armor save.
Gain an attack for each enemy in base to base.
Gain a bonus attack for each enemy character in base to base with you or your unit.
Plus D3 attacks, roll at the start of close combat.

PF is of course a special rule just like all the other rules you just mentioned.

All I said was that most of these special rules follow the basic priciples given in the warhammer rule book and are therefor basic rules (everything that gives you +x attacks).

Others like PF, Red fury, maybe the beastmen ramhorn helm (not sure of the wording) or the special ability of the necrolith colossus represent ways of gaining additional attacks during the close combat phase, a priciple which is not outlined in the basic rules. These rules can be considered advanced rules.

To illustrate my point:

1.the basic rules tell us to calculate the number of attacks at the initiative step of the attacking unit and then roll that many dice to hit, count the hits and roll that many dice to wound etc.

2.you can do that for most of the special rules listed here (frenzy, spells that increase the attack value, even things like +d3 attacks or +1attack for every character in btb can be calculated before rolling to hit). These rules follow the basic rules in the rule book.

3.You can`t calculate the number of attacks for PF or Red Fury at the initiative step of the attacking unit as they are triggered by events which happen during the close combat phase. These rules don't follow the basic rules I listed under point 1 which is why I would consider them as advanced or army book rules.

 

[Lizardmatt]

PF is a situational bonus attack. Just because the requirement is variable doesn't make it any more or less special than any other special rule.

Also, PF is under the heading special rules. It's obvious it's special.

Make another attack when you make an armor save.
Gain an attack for each enemy in base to base.
Gain a bonus attack for each enemy character in base to base with you or your unit.
Plus D3 attacks, roll at the start of close combat.

PF is of course a special rule just like all the other rules you just mentioned.

All I said was that most of these special rules follow the basic priciples given in the warhammer rule book and are therefor basic rules (everything that gives you +x attacks).

Others like PF, Red fury, maybe the beastmen ramhorn helm (not sure of the wording) or the special ability of the necrolith colossus represent ways of gaining additional attacks during the close combat phase, a priciple which is not outlined in the basic rules. These rules can be considered advanced rules.

To illustrate my point:

1.the basic rules tell us to calculate the number of attacks at the start of the close combat phase and then roll that many dice to hit, count the hits and roll that many dice to wound etc.

2.you can do that for most of the special rules listed here (frenzy, spells that increase the attack value, even things like +d3 attacks or +1attack for every character in btb can be calculated before rolling to hit). These rules follow the basic rules in the rule book.

3.You can`t calculate the number of attacks for PF or Red Fury at the start of the close combat phase as they are triggered by events which happen during the close combat phase. These rules don't follow the basic rules I listed under point 1 which is why I would consider them as advanced or army book rules.

You don't calculate the number of attacks at the start of close combat. You do at the initiative step when a model is swinging, and all attacks at that initiative step are considered to happen at the same time.

 

[Koranot]

You don't calculate the number of attacks at the start of close combat. You do at the initiative step when a model is swinging, and all attacks at that initiative step are considered to happen at the same time.

You are right, I edited my post above but it doesn't change the meaning of my point.

 

[Lizardmatt]

You don't calculate the number of attacks at the start of close combat. You do at the initiative step when a model is swinging, and all attacks at that initiative step are considered to happen at the same time.

You are right, I edited my post above but it doesn't change the meaning of my point.

But it does change the meaning.
All attacks are made at the same step and are considered to be at the same time.

-Matt

 

[Screamer]

Yes, the attacks are considered to be made at the same time, but the number of attacks isn't decided at the same point. And I guess that's what Koranot means.

 

[Sleboda]

It's worth pointing out that Koranot's (respected and valued) contribution does actually add additional language/assumptions not present in the actual rule in order for it to work.

There is no distinction (within PF or outside of it) around what type (for lack of a better term) of rule the special rule itself reflects or incorporates, basic or advanced.

In other words, a Special Rule that adds to or modifies a rule found in the basic rule (such as Hatred - which adds nothing that is not found in the basic rules - it's just rolling a basic attack over again when it misses) is still just as much a Special Rule as one that introduces a new game idea/advanced rule (like Unstable, a rule that removes models in a way no basic rule approaches).

The timing, sequencing, situation, position/status/placement within the rule-set, or other factor of a Special Rule that results in a model making more than one attack is still covered by the rules for Supporting Attacks (which directly, succinctly, and simply prohibit a model from making more than one attack. As discussed many times, there is a single factor that can countermand the directive given by Supporting Attacks, and that is a contradiction to the actual Supporting Attacks rule like we have (exclusively thus far) in the Monstrous Support rule (which is a contradiction to the limits of Supporting Attacks because...get ready...it specifically calls our a contradiction to the Supporting Attacks rule). This will invoke p11 because this is a contradiction whereas none of the other examples, including PF and RF, are.

 

[Screamer]

Yes, Sleboda, that is your opinion, but it's not the only possible opinion. Implied or not, the "roll an extra attack whenever you roll a 6" could be considered a contradiction.

It is not defined, rule-wise, what it takes to be considered a contradiction. Hence both opinions could be correct, right?

 

[forlustria]

Sleboda as much as I respect your opinion , the monstrous support rule does not need page 11 as it is not a conflict (in my opinion ofcourse ) Because it says they get 3 attacks even though you are normally allowed only 1 for supporting.

If it only said monstrous support get 3 attacks (and didn't mention supporting ) then it would be a conflict and page 11 comes into effect.

Same with PF, if it said whenever a 6 is rolled to hit make another attack even if a supporting attack. then we wouldn't need page 11 as there would be no conflict.

 

[Koranot]

In other words, a Special Rule that adds to or modifies a rule found in the basic rule (such as Hatred - which adds nothing that is not found in the basic rules - it's just rolling a basic attack over again when it misses) is still just as much a Special Rule as one that introduces a new game idea/advanced rule (like Unstable, a rule that removes models in a way no basic rule approaches).

To be clear, I never argued that PF is not a special rule.
I just wanted to illustrate why I and others think that there is a difference between the PF rule and other rules which modify the attack value.

Let us take smiting from the tomb king book as an example since it is pretty straight forward.

The argument pro PF in subsequent ranks is that there is a conflict in the wording of PF and the support attacks rule and that PF as the more advanced rule wins (you don`t have to agree with this but thats the argument).

There would need to be a conflict between the smiting rule and the supportive attack rule if attacks gained by this spell would be treated the same.

But there is no conflict between smiting and the supportive attack rule as smiting just modifies the number of attacks. The conflict comes from a third rule in the rule book saying that a model can make as many attacks as mentioned in its profile (not the exact wording). This is a basic rule, just as the supporting attacks rule. In this case the more specific rule wins, which is the supporting attack rule.

For all the special rules you mentioned, except PF and red fury, it is the same.

The PF rule does not need the basic rule (that allows a model which as many attacks as it has in its profile) to generate attacks. The rule clearly says to make an attack for every six rolled. So the conflict is between this rule and the supporting attacks rule.

 

[hdctambien]

the "roll an extra attack whenever you roll a 6" could be considered a contradiction.

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

The Supporting Attacks rule says "[a model] can only over make a single Attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on his profile, or any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects"

The PF rule contradicts the first part of the Supporting Attacks rule "can only make a single Attack" however, Sleboda's point is that there is a second part of the rule "regardless of ... any bonus Attacks ... because of special rules" which PF does not contradict.

The second part of the Supporting Attacks rule says that Page 11 does not apply to the first part of the rule. In order to contradict the Supporting Attacks rule you would have to contradict the second part of the rule. This is what the Monstrous Support rule does:

"A monstrous infantry model can make as many supporting attacks as are on its profile, up to a max of three, rather than the usual one supporting attack"

In order to sufficiently contradict the Supporting Attacks limit of 1 attack, PF would have to include similar language to "rather than the usual one supporting attack" otherwise the PF rule falls within the bounds of diction (rather than contradiction) of the Supporting Attacks rule:

1. Is PF a special rule? Yes, it specifically says "... a model with this special rule" and is in a section called "Army Special Rules"

2. Does it give a model bonus attacks? Yes, it allows a model to "make another attack"

3. Can bonus attacks from a Special Rule cause more than 1 supporting attack to be made? No, the rule specifically says that bonus attacks cannot cause more than 1 Supporting Attack to be made even from Special Rules

PF isn't saying anything to the contrary of the Supporting Attacks rule. It is perfectly described by and accounted for by the Supporting Attacks rule. Page 11 never enters into it.

The only way to cause a conflict with the Supporting Attacks rule is to specifically reference Supporting Attacks, otherwise the rule has a catch-all clause to stop Special Rules from affecting it.

I think that's a little bit more than an opinion.

How exactly does the actual words used in the PF rule get around the "regardless of ... any bonus Attacks ... because of special rules" clause?

I think the strongest argument has been that the term "Whenever" implies a reference to Supporting Attacks. This is where opinions enter into the equation.

My opinion is that the Supporting Attacks rule is written such that it has to be specifically mentioned to be overwritten rather than implied by a word like "Whenever" or "Anytime". Sleboda thoroughly discussed how "Whenever" is implied in any rule that relates to Attacks (Whenever you attack, you have +2 attacks, etc) which would implicitly imply that Supporting Attacks are affected by those rules too (Inception style, seconds degree implications) Which, if you agree with his argument, then it would disprove the contradiction via a "If A then B, since we know !B then !A".

However, others do not share this opinion. I think you'll be hard pressed to convince many opponents of this argument if they read the PF rule, the Supporting Attacks rule, and the Basic vs Advanced rule.

 

[forlustria]

I disagree that you need a reference to SA in order for conflict.

If PF said this ...... Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 to hit , it makes another attack .Even supporting attacks make an extra attack.

There would be no conflict as it tells you that you get it above the supporting attack minimum .

 

[Lizardmatt]

I disagree that you need a reference to SA in order for conflict.

If PF said this ...... Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 to hit , it makes another attack .Even supporting attacks make an extra attack.

There would be no conflict as it tells you that you get it above the supporting attack minimum .

Correct, their is no conflict there.
Just like if the basic rule tells you to ignore all special rules, then their is no conflict.

On the other hand, if the basic rule says "Chariots cannot march", and the special rule says "Cauldron of blood can march", their is a conflict, and the army book wins out.

 

[forlustria]

I disagree that you need a reference to SA in order for conflict.

If PF said this ...... Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 to hit , it makes another attack .Even supporting attacks make an extra attack.

There would be no conflict as it tells you that you get it above the supporting attack minimum .

Correct, their is no conflict there.
Just like if the basic rule tells you to ignore all special rules, then their is no conflict.

On the other hand, if the basic rule says "Chariots cannot march", and the special rule says "Cauldron of blood can march", their is a conflict, and the army book wins out.

just like when PF says WHENEVER a model with this rule rolls a 6 to hit


you agreeing there is no conflict in my example in above post proves my point