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

[Sleboda]

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?

=> No, honestly, (not to be a you-know-what - like I explained above I normally REALLY try to avoid such a stance) in this case, within the context of the Warhammer rules, it's not opinion and both sides are not equally valid (unlike, as I've said, with the case of the tail attack of the Bastiladon). "roll an extra attack whenever you roll a 6" can only be accepted as a contradition if you also accept all the other examples I listed since they _all_ carry the implied "whenever" clause.

It's truly a case where it's not a matter of opinion (and again, I don't normally take such a firm position on these things and really don't mean to step on anyone's toes or the like).

Like I said before, the failing is mine for not being good enough at explaining it, and for that I apologize.

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.

=> I appreciate the supporting view, but I'll go even further so folks don't lose sight of what I am saying. The PF rule does not contradict the first part of SA, not any more than 2A, +3A, and so on do (again, since those examples also say "whenever" - as in "whenever this model attacks, it gets 2 Attacks or +3 Attacks" and so on. It's the context. Either they all are contradictions or none are since the method is a non-factor - only how many attacks the model "makes."

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...


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.

=> Exactly. Yes. This. Especially the part I bolded.

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 .

=> I think this post is the perfect, and I mean perfect way to show why it's pretty much certain the two views on this topic will never be reconciled. It misses the fundamental concept of what a conflict is and when it comes to be. The extra "Even supporting attacks make an extra attack." IS the conflict. One rule says "With rule A, apply effect X" the other says "Even when using Rule A, you don't apply effect X." That is the very definition of conflict, especially within the context of the Warhammer rules.

 

[forlustria]

Perhaps your right about conflict. But let me add this if it were that simple there would be no need for page 11.

If it were to say this part of your post One rule says "With rule A, apply effect X" the other says "Even when using Rule A, you don't apply effect X."

although that IS maybe considered a conflict its not conflict . You don't need a rule on page 11 because the second rule is telling you you don't apply effect x.

 

[Markhaus]

Implied "whenever" is not the same as explicitly stated whenever. As they have not made a ruling, saying "the way we read it is right and the way you read it is wrong" is not a valid argument. Your explaining it properly, we just interpret it differently.

For instance: we assume that there is an order to combat, you do not

Also, I listed a point in the rulebook that says there is only one contradiction for adv vs BRB and that is army list. Saying "No special rules" then means special rules from the brb (by our interpretation).

It is open to interpretation, which, once again, means use tournament rule or the d6 rule.

 

[Koranot]

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 is not a rule by itself but rather specifies the circumstances at which the rule applies.

The PF rule contradicts the first part of the rule as you mentioned and therefore generate a conflict.

IMO the reason why many people believe that there is no conflict between these rules is that the supporting attacks rule seems to be more specific and the way we normally read rules is that the more specific rule beats the less specific rule. So they just read it as that the SA rule automaticly overrides the PF rule.

In the warhammer rules there is an additional clause which tells us that advanced rules beat basic rules, so you have to decide for yourself if in your opinion the seemingly more specific rule or the advanced rule wins.

 

[dustandpolos]

I'm inclined to agree with Sleboda, although people in my area seem to generally play PF on supporting attacks, both at club and nearby tournaments. It looks like PF was intended to work on supporting, but the RAW are pretty clear as far as I'm concerned - though I can see why others disagree. I'll agree interpretation before each battle and only play it for supporting attacks if both sides are happy it should apply.

The arguments have been gone over pretty thoroughly, but something that is cropping up from time to time is what people consider to be "the rule".

People are subdividing the rule down into two sections:

1) max 1 supporting attack
2) regardless of special rules

If you take these as two separate points, absolutely the army book contradicts point (1).

However, if the two points are not separate but actually part of a single, unified rule (which is how I see it), then there is no contradiction as point (2) effectively deals with the issue. There is no contradiction because the special rule is already overwritten and simply doesn't apply.

But the lack of FAQ support from GW is shocking; this stuff must come up internally. Vetock must have played at least one test game in which a block of Saurus got into combat, and we only need to know what he did at that point to settle the issue!

 

[Sleboda]

I'll agree interpretation before each battle and only play it for supporting attacks if both sides are happy it should apply.

=> As a side point, I gotta ask- Doesn't that frustrate the heck out of you? To know that your identical army build in one game is better or worse from one game to the next? The point values don't change, but the damage output does?

It would dive me bazonkers!

 

[dustandpolos]

I'll agree interpretation before each battle and only play it for supporting attacks if both sides are happy it should apply.

=> As a side point, I gotta ask- Doesn't that frustrate the heck out of you? To know that your identical army build in one game is better or worse from one game to the next? The point values don't change, but the damage output does?

It would dive me bazonkers!

I much prefer it to the 4+ option each time it comes up. At least I know what the rule is for the game, and it isn't going to vary from turn to turn!

Yeh, I'd prefer consistency. But I assume the worst case when planning an army, then get a small bonus to my combat blocks from time to time. It doesn't really change the way most units operate; maybe it makes spears more of a choice on saurus, but I take them anyway for a Chotec-themed list. The movement in damage output from rank and file is generally tiny, and there is no impact on the characters which is where I find it matters. Maybe it'll bother me more when I have a larger unit of Krox...

 

[Sleboda]

Interesting. I guess I still have TK on the brain. With open lists, TK go from awful to unplayable. Maybe it's not as horrifying for Lizards. Dunno.

 

[Putzfrau]

Just to toss in my two cents, yeah it really doesn't bother me at all.

I tend to see it more as, no on supporting attacks is the way it is, and if my opponent is cool with it working that's a nice little bonus.

/shrug.

 

[Andy06r]

I haven't read this entire thread, but I know what it is about.

My other army is VC.

I wonder how Carpe Noctem would answer the question "My vampire with red guy is in the second rank and makes one attack, and wounds. Does he get another?

I'm sure its the same conclusion we made - he wouldn't - but this rules issue wasn't introduced with PF, it was introduced with RF. Just no one puts blenders in the second rank...

 

[Ondjage]

I have sent GW and asked them if PF works with support attacks, so hopefully they will reply soon =)



=)

=)


...



:'(

 

[Screamer]

... but this rules issue wasn't introduced with PF, it was introduced with RF. Just no one puts blenders in the second rank...

I don't think anyone would object if you took another attack from RF with the blender in second row... since that would be a lot better than the blender-lord being in the first rank!

And since no one ever puts the lord in second rank, the issue hasn't been introduced before PF

 

[BEEGfrog]

I started out with the view that you could only have 1 attack from a second rank due to the limitations within the supporting attacks rule.

I have now moved firmly to the fence (expecting GW to rule 1 attack because that is the way they tend to rule on conflicts like this) on PF and vampire RF.

On all additional attacks that are determined before rolling to attack then I believe the limit on one supporting attack applies. However, on PF and RF which are dependent on the result of the roll I am not sure the rule still applies. It would be far better fluff wise for PF attacks to be generated by supporting attacks. This can be supported rules wise by classifying PF attacks differently from standard CC attacks, but it is very thin. Normal CC attacks are limited by the normal rules for eligibility and formation, PF attacks are a secondary effect that follow on from normal CC attacks but are a bonus outside the normal calculation on rules and thus outside the limitations on those rules. PF attacks are not calculated on a model by model basis but calculated on the number of 6's rolled. That is about all I can think of to support PF attacks being generated from supporting attacks, including wording this sentence this way.

 

[SilverFaith]

My local group does the following.

PF and RF works on all attacks, regardless of where they are from.

This speeds up the process, instead of rolling two seperate dice pools, and, from a rules perspective, they said the following:

"Standard attacks are made with the attack on your profile, and any additional attacks you are otherwise entitled to. Supporting attack limits all those rules to 1 attack. PF grants any attack a chance to grant an additional attack - since Supporting ranks have already limited the attacks to 1, you are now allowed to make another attack."

Basically, their reasoning is "timing". Supporting attacks limit you to 1 when calculating your amount of attacks, unlike PF and RF, which grants additional attacks AFTER supporting attacks limit you.

And also, everyone and their mother plays elves, so they find it far more fair to "allow" a bonus like that to lizardmen, since PF is piss weak compared to any single army wide rule that elves has.

 

[Markhaus]

In multiple posts people keep referring to special rules and advanced rules as the same thing. Special rules are outlined on page 66 of the BRB, so there is no contradiction within the BRB (like a race book giving frenzy would not work because frenzy is a special rule in the BRB)

However, PF is a special rule from a race book, which means it is an advanced rule, which means it trumps the BRB based on page 11.

This is where the argument comes in. Advanced rules do NOT equal special rules, so it should work, but it is a special rule, so it shouldn't work.

People need to stop saying that there is no ambiguity, because if there wasn't it wouldn't be debated. People also need to refrain from saying "stop arguing about this" because it is ambiguous and the only reason I agree it is ambiguous is because of well reasoned arguments in this thread.

 

[SilverFaith]

People also need to refrain from saying "stop arguing about this" because it is ambiguous and the only reason I agree it is ambiguous is because of well reasoned arguments in this thread.

It is a very well established fact that PF is an unclear rule. Hence why it seems kind of pointless to attempt to "convince" anyone of whether it works or not, because as it stands, the only clear answer is "We don't know."

My group decided to ignore the reasoning behind why it should/Should not work, and instead decided to go with whatever made the most sense. Not wasting time on additional "pools" of attacks was what people agreed on, especially since PF barely makes a difference anyway.

 

[Putzfrau]

What's the point in making the rule include special attacks when limiting supporting attacks if they didn't actually mean that...

Believe it or not the simpler explanation is PF doesn't apply.

Simpler is better. The mental gymnastics you have to do to make PF apply means it's probably not the appropriate path.

Either way it's irrelevant. Tournament play has rules packs, Local clubs make their own rulings, and games amongst friends means you can figure it out between the two of you.

 

[SilverFaith]

What's the point in making the rule include special attacks when limiting supporting attacks if they didn't actually mean that...

Believe it or not the simpler explanation is PF doesn't apply.

Simpler is better. The mental gymnastics you have to do to make PF apply means it's probably not the appropriate path.

Either way it's irrelevant. Tournament play has rules packs, Local clubs make their own rulings, and games amongst friends means you can figure it out between the two of you.

But this is wrong. Unless I misunderstand your post, you're saying it is "more simple" to not have PF apply. In reality, that means you have to waste time splitting the dice, and rolling multiply times, because only the first rank gets the bonus.

The most simple thing would be to just throw your damn dice and add additional dice equal to all 6s rolled. That is simple.

But that's not a discussion on whether or not the rule applies, but rather a question of personal preference, and how important you think following a vague RAW is.

At least, I sure don't hope anyone disallows PF in supporting attacks because it "TOO STRONG"

 

[Putzfrau]

But what's not simple is the convoluted way you need to twist the rules to allow PF to apply in the first place.

Rolling separate dice isn't hard. Cav, for example, dictates rolling separate dice. Bolt throwers require rolling separate dice as they lose strength. Etc, etc.

 

[hdctambien]

In reality, that means you have to waste time splitting the dice, and rolling multiply times

Rolling separate dice isn't hard. Cav, for example, dictates rolling separate dice. Bolt throwers require rolling separate dice as they lose strength. Etc, etc.

Heck, even a horde of Spearmen can lead to rolling separate dice. 40 attacks leads to a lot of dice. I usually only keep 20 dice (two different colored sets of 10) on the table. I don't think my hands are even big enough to hold 40 dice.

I roll separately for PF and it hasn't added any noticeable difference in length or difficulty of my games.

What do you do when a unit of Skinks is partially in close range and partially in long range of their target? Is it too hard to separate the dice so you get to treat them all as close range?