8th Ed. Predatory Fighter attacks from supporting ranks: yea or nay

airjamy:
A lot of people loosely concurred with the collected Rules As Written answers as generally being in line with the existing Rules As Written, but that does not mean it is a consensus of all the participants. Often an alternative (Rules as Intended?) interpretation is the best answer, but those were not considered since that would constitute an Errata (which was not the purpose of the collected answers). While that collection remains a fair resource, its best continued use is as a talking point to help players determine how they want to play Warhammer given that parts of the game that are left up to interpretation; it should not be considered a guide for everyone to follow (unless you and your opponent are strict RAW players). By far the most important section in that aggregate post is the 3rd paragraph.

On topic:
I really think people should play the PF rule the way they want to play. If an opponent questions that interpretation, then follow The Most Important Rule (pg. 2) and The Spirit of the Game (pg. 3). Just have fun playing Warhammer! Most little rules like this aren't worth stressing over, its a game.

 

Slowly approaching 100 total votes!

 

So, I voted no. I took this question to be "how I play it" rather than "how should it be played" and, while i realize this is a no argument place, i think the rules are pretty much crystal clear. These arguments can be found at length in another thread.

I dunno. At this point i'm just tired of seeing this come up.

I JUST WANT AN FAQ!!!!

 

That's the only real solution to this mess. I'm sure everyone would vote for that!

 

At my local GW store, it is assumed by staff and players that you can use PF for supporting attacks. If anything it just means you don't have to roll dice separately and makes life a little easier

 

What do you do about cavalry? Or characters in units? Or units with skinks and Kroc? Or...

 

You roll those separately. That doesn't mean it isn't easier for saurus to roll them all together.

 

Either way, let's try not to debate the issue since we've been asked not to rehash that old argument. We all get to have our say with our vote!

All we know so far is that roughly 2/3's of people who have voted see it one way while the other 1/3 see it the other way.

 

It might seem somewhat biased that we are voting on a rule that can make our troops a bit more powerful but I always assumed yes on the supporting attacks PF rule, even before I returned to the l

 

Right. I'm just saying that ease of rolling is, in no way at all, justification for deciding on the rule.

 

Oh no! That wasn't the justification for it. I think the general justification was that rather than getting multiple attacks it's like your one attack was doubly effective? I'm not the guy who decided though, like I said, it's just assumed by the staff and gaming group that it works that way. I just meant that it has an added bonus for not having to role twice.

 

And that's the most important thing; the group needs to reach a consensus that people are happy with (no matter which side of the argument they choose).

 

100 VOTES! It looks like we have 2/3 versus 1/3 split. It's been hovering around this mark for quite some time.

Thanks to everyone who voted!

 

I just think about the movie 300. When the shieldline opens for just a second and crazy guy comes up goes totally beserk and shield of front close up again after he kills 2 or 3. These are my lizzies, when they are in predatory state they'll fck you up.

"Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack; roll To Hit and To Wound as normal" [Lizardmen Army Book page 30]
AND
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a Warhammer Armies book. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the Warhammer Armies book always takes precedence. [BRB page 11]

Voted yes because I play like this + I think it is the correct way to play this. LM book > RB.
I must say however that 3rd rank (spears) 4th rank (horde) makes less sense for using PF.
But if you see a high elf playes with 50 seaguard in horde... That's 50 attacks coming your way.
2nd rank supporting attacks, 3rd for spears , 4th for horde formation, 5th for being high elves.
That's a little fcked up aswell isnt it?


If I should find me a gaming group that thinks otherwise I can find solace in it. In my head I won't like it because for me the rules are simple and the PF should work. But thats just me.

 

The same number of saurus will also produce 50 attacks, with the chance at another 10-40 depending on how predatory fighter is played.

 

Seems like this debate is soon to take its end.

Sadly it seems like, the new systems both old hammer and 9th age are not in favour of multiple dice roll, so roll of anything and get extra attacks seems off the board. ... D:

Of course one could still just play 8th and have it their own way

 

I'm curious to see how 9th age will fare. Will it outlive 8th? Will they both survive or both die?

 

I agree with the spirit of the game point.

When I play, I'm not going to be spending my time arguing over the rules.

I think this is most important for a casual match. In a tournament, you go by their rules. So fine.