8th Ed. Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks

+1
Like a measuring competition, my arguments are bigger than yours. huehuehue.


All in all, i think it's going to remain an ambiguous thing until it gets addressed. If it doesn't, then Putz's message above will be applicable forever.

If it wasn't an "oops", and had a particular intention, then it would have been written well enough to avoid the confusion. It's also possible that the new LM book was designed with a change to the core rules in mind. Who knows.

Be respectful y'all

 

Frenzy doesn't as it is in the rule book and there is nothing to say rule book trumps rule book.

I'm not saying pf works with SA. I am saying there is a contradiction.

Take your laundry example.

1 is saying always use bleach

2 is saying always use bleach unless there are black items.

Now obviously in real life don't use bleach with black stuff but there is a contradiction.

1 saying always and one saying only if not doing black stuff.

Lets do it way.

Government says if mum contradicts dad go by what mum says

Mum tells you always use bleach when doing laundry

Dad says always use bleach except when washing black stuff

Mum has told you always which contradicts what dad has said so I always use bleach and forget what dad said. Now I have ruined my black clothes but I have done what the government have told me I have to do.

 

Wow, seriously? I guess people don't like to read and just dismiss what they don't understand. Maybe I should start drawing pictures instead? I'll start with this picture to sum up my argument...



Seriously though, there is no ambiguity, no contradiction... Because the restriction in the BRB is conditional and not absolute, there is no contradiction and therefore AB<BRB. It's that simple. In fact, if you are going to argue that the PF rule is ambiguous, you are then admitting it can go either way and at that point, your argument hinges on an ASSUMPTION to be able to overcome a restriction and violate a rule in the BRB whereas my argument hinges on a harmonious reading of the two rules that doesn't violate either.

You can't simply pull a permission to do something out of the ambiguity of a rule...


@Forlustria, the BRB says Advanced>Basic. Frenzy is an Advanced rule and Supporting Attacks is a Basic one. Also, the type of contradiction between Basic and Advanced rules is the same kind of conflict spoken of in AB>BRB. Really, I keep repeating myself because nobody takes the time to read and understand...Wonder if there is a quadruple facepalm meme somewhere...

 

here you go




and heres to all further use

 

i found this

Predatory Fighters: Most Saurus and Krox gain this new rule which allows them to gain more attacks by rolling 6's to hit. The downside is that they don't generate further attacks and must pursue unless there is a Skink Character within 6". Luckily they don't have to overrun so there are very few downsides to this special rule. Thanks based Vetock. Be warned that this affects Temple Guard, which might drag a Slann priest-mage with them into a trap!

in here http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer/Tactics/8th_Edition/Lizardmen#Why_Play_Lizardmen

i don't know what it means though :/

 

EDIT: I've been ninja'd!!


Look, if you want to be rude, that's fine. Just don't pretend that passive aggression is not passive aggression.

It is ambiguous because of this:
AB > BRB*
*is the predatory fighter rule specifically giving you permission to have more supporting attacks?

If you want to read it all as RAW, then yes. Any roll of 6 to hit give you an extra attack, which is the army rulebook overruling the BRB.

The bottom line is this: At a tournament, check with the TO. At a local store, figure it out how ever best suits the gaming group. At home, roll for it or houserule it.

In all honesty though, the difference it would make is minimal. Saurus warriors are crap and i normally have a slann in a temple guard unit. Kroxigor? Maybe a bit of difference, but the bodycount is low and they tend to get targetted due to their low survivability. Its worth noting that we can talk about it till the cows come home, but it will never be an "official" answer until it is.

 

also here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fi0Kqlixj0 in 4:17
he says you have 10 warriors 5*2 10 attacks frond +1 champ 11 + 5 from the second rank 16 attacks atleast 3*6's so he count them together....

 

please provide a page where it says advanced > basic. I have only seen armybook>brb.


I have pointed out using your own laundry example how there is a contradiction. If you are correct about advanced>basic and it means frenzy get extra for supporting so be it.

if someone tells you one thing and the some else tells you another (about how something works)there is a contradiction .

In a perfect world PF would say something along the lines of even if supporting attacks roll a 6 you get to attack again but then there would be no need for armybook >brb . The whole point of the armybook>brb part is to catch rules like this so when they write rules they don't have to spend time having to write things for all occasions and eventualities .

 

@Nex1s, you keep blindly and wantonly saying AB>BRB but doing so in the context you are using it only demonstrates your lack of understanding of the rule...AB is not ALWAYS > BRB.

@ Forlustria, the Advanced>Basic section is on page 11 of the BRB... Incidentally, that is where the AB>BRB rule is (and out of the 6 paragraphs on that page, 5 of them deal with Basic vs. Advanced). You will notice that in the context of the BRB, that AB is not ALWAYS>BRB. Also, you should read the context and example that the BRB uses to define what they mean by the word conflict/contradiction. As per how the BRB defines what is a contradiction/conflict, there isn't one between PF and SA. As far as your use of my laundry example against me, that only shows that when faced with a logic problem, you can't solve it...and that is what the PF vs. SA rule is-it is a logic problem that people simply won't or can't solve.

@All, If you actually read all of page 11, the whole section of "Basic Versus Advanced Rules," you will notice that the only time any rule trumps another is if they completely negate each other, all the time, *NOT* if one negates another only some of the time. Therefore, in the case of PF and SA, AB<BRB. So please, do yourselves a favor and actually sit down and read the BRB before you blindly cite what you think it says =(. If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it but I would appreciate it if the people trying to refute my arguments would actually read my arguments...and actually read the rules for that matter and then actually put forth some logical arguments of their own before posting. So far, all that has been posted are conclusions and circular reasoning not actual arguments.

So with all of that said, you can call me rude or passive aggressive all you want...But if you are going to actually sit there and effectively try to tell me that 1+1=3 then I can only do so much when you won't listen to my attempt to tell you that 1+1 actually equals 2... This is really what it amounts to hence the face palming action.


I mean, to put a humorous take on this issue...The GPS is the BRB and it says to "bear right" and you guys want to turn right into the lake (PF works with SA!) and I am telling you no, you need to go forward a bit and turn right.... Well, enjoy the lake!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIakZtDmMgo

 

So... what's the current record for longest thread here on LO? You think we might set a new record here?

I'll just point out that words like "Illogic" exists for a reason. You can indeed have a lack of logic, which is especially true in things like rule systems, tabletop or otherwise, because the writers are human, and often multiple people, so they can, however unrealistic it might seem, make mistakes. And these mistakes can actually make logic impossible to properly apply, or allow logic to reach two vastly different scenarios.

Just saying.

I'd also like to point out that it does not actually specify when AB > BRB - It says, and I quote:

"On rare occassions, 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."

I'm kinda curious where you see them saying it doesn't always do this. The rest of the page talks about basic vs advances rules. Or, to put it more specifically: What makes you think the Basic versus advanced rules and exceptions apply to the AB vs BRB rules? I'm legit curious, because from my reading, this does not at all seem to be implied or refered to, and the way to you highlight that it is "not always", i would have thought it would be obvious. Is the paragraph in question on another page? Because what I'm reading says "Where rules apply to a specfic model, they always override any contradicting basic rules"

I'm kinda curious now, because they constantly use the word "always", while you say it isn't always. in fact, the AB > BRB doesn't even use the word "Contradict", it uses the word "conflict" instead.

I'm not even trying to disagree with you, I'm just curious how you got to your conclusion.

 

Wantonly? Like won ton soup?
You don't give people credit. It's written AB>BRB because it's accepted that people understand that it refers to a sentence along the lines of "where there is a contradiction, the army book trumps the main rule book".

There is sufficient evidence to say it's both a contradiction and not a contradiction. It's like budget time - a business case can be made for anything.

 

A few things -

1) Maybe not everyone feels this way, but I, for one, am glad we have this forum for discussion, even if it gets a bit heated now and then. I know I mention this now and then, but I think it's worth mentioning, so I do.

2) I realize a few of my recent posts have not been as carefully phrased as I would like. For that, I apologize. I have been limited to phone-posts, and that gets frustrating, which leads to a lapse in etiquette. It shouldn't, but it does.

3) This thread is quite long, and it's understandable that some things addressed earlier have been lost. That said, in light of some recent posts, I think it might be valuable to point out that some recent defenses have been refuted many pages back. For the sake of saving time on research, I will bring them up here again....

- The argument from simplicity. It is not a defensible position to say that the reason an rule question should be answered one way or another is because we don't want to be bothered to take an extra step. The game is full of extra steps. If you want to be lazy, then fine - but at least admit that the reason you are playing the rule one way or the other has nothing to do with the rule and everything to do with wanting to be lazy.

- The argument from 'not a big deal.' Covered this just a few posts back. Worth saying again. Just because you, personally, don't think a ruling one way or another matters much, doesn't mean there is not a right answer. We all have differing levels of tolerance. Unless you think your level is the only right level, it's worth having a discussion here, in a discussion forum.

- PF overruling SA because it comes from an army book. Well, so does Smiting. Are you willing to give my Tomb Guard an additional attack in the second rank because the source of the attack comes from an army book?

- "Whenever." There is a "whenever" in Frenzy, Smiting, and any number of other sources. This may fall into that realm where some folks have a more developed knowledge of English than others, but believe it or not, if a rule says "+1A" or if a profile has a "2" under "A" then it is saying "whenever" you attack, you get more. Clinging to "whenever" in the PF rule is not gonna work.

- Misunderstanding of "conflict." In order for a rule to have a conflict with the wording of SA, it must do as Monstrous Support does and actually spell out that the extra attacks work even in Support. Without this, there is no conflict. 17 pages do indeed show that if the reader cannot come to grips with this concept, then no amount of explaining will matter. If you are not equipped to see this (no insult, just that we all have learned different things over our lives) then you just plain will not see the distinction. You need to accept that others know more about language than you do just as I accept that others know more about cars than I do. No shame. Just different areas of expertise.

- "GW doesn't write legal-ese." Doesn't matter. They may not have meant to write a clear rule that follows the rules of grammar and logic, but they did it anyway. If they meant to say 2+2=5 but wrote "The total is whatever 2+2 comes out to be" and you know the answer is "4" then it does not change the math. This rule is written remarkably (for GW) well, whether they meant for that to happen or not.


- Lastly, I think recent posts are focusing too much on the differences and not enough on the plain overall statement. The rule for SA does not care, at all, how you get the extra attack. All it says is that you cannot "make" that attack. I actually believe that when you roll a 6 in ranks 2+, you get a PF attack. Yep, you do. The thing is, you are not allowed to "make" it. Go back and read it. It matters not if you make one attack and then later make another. It matters not if you have 2A on your profile, Red Thirst, or Smiting. No matter how you get there, you cannot "make" more than 1 attack. 17 pages really can come down to this.



@SilverFiath's last post -

You are ignoring the condition for invoking the "always" rule. There must be a conflict. In this case, there is not.

 

You are misusing the very rule you are trying to use, NexS1. Which, I believe, is ironic.

 

@Silverfaith, the fact that the AB>BRB paragraph is in the "Basic vs. Advanced" rules section is kind of a dead give-away... That is like taking a paragraph out of any other section of the rule and isolating it and reading it without the context of the whole of the rule. The AB>BRB paragraph is just one part of the whole "Basic versus Advanced" rule and to understand that rule, you must understand the rest of the page.

Indeed, that is why blindly saying AB>BRB all the time no matter what is taking a part of another rule, isolating it and making it say something it doesn't really say-that is one giant straw-man/false equivocation rule. People are citing the AB>BRB rule out of context and don't even care to realize it.

Finally, I think you misunderstand how logic works and functions...Logic is the law of reason just like gravity is a law of nature...You can build a space shuttle without gravity in mind but that doesn't mean that space shuttle won't be affected by gravity.

 

I'm happy to play the game either way. It doesn't pain me one way or the other, it's just more time consuming to separate dice for the attacks.
I'm not misinterpreting or misusing any rule. I'm stating that an argument can be made for either side of the argument, just as an argument can be made against either side of the argument. And the argument in this case is whether or not there is actually a conflict between the army book and the main rulebook, in reference to page 11 of the BRB.

 

Hmm, still, I don't feel it is as clear cut as you put it, but that's probably just because "conflict" to me means anything that goes against it. So if Smiting (I have no idea what that is, nor the wording, so keep that in mind) allows the models to make another attack that isn't just the equivalent of +1 on the profile, then it would indeed be a conflict, and allowed. Whether I would want to face it or not is irrelevant.

But honestly, I think the whole discuussion would have been easier to follow if GW had provided an example of said conflicts or contradictions. Contradiction is when something says the opposite, - which, when you think about it, happens whenever a model has +1 attack and makes a supporting attack - but it stands to reason that it requires some form of override of a basic rule. So frenzy or additional attack, granting +1 attacks, would in a way be contradicting Supporting Attacks, but it doesn't matter, because it tells us to ignore it.

Conflict, however, is a more lenient word, which implies a more lenient use of it as well - so there are fewer restrictions here than on the basic vs advanced rules.

Though honestly, I have a feeling that AB > BRB is meant to apply to anything but rules, but it just never got clarified. So for example, Dwarves being unable to take magic items overrules the BRB that says you can take from the magic item lists, and an AB allowing multiple of the same magic item supercedes the restriction that each magic item can only be picked once, etc.

If we go by that assumption instead, the discussion boils down to BR vs AR, which immediately ends the discussion, which means no pf on supporting attacks.

That may be true in real life, but this is just a written book. In text, you can indeed build a space shuttle that isn't affected by gravity. Whether or not GW have done so is another question entirely.

Use different dice, buddy. You are purchasing expensive models, getting 20 or so extra dice in another colour shouldn't be too bad. I did, before my local group decided to just allow it in all ranks.

 

Got 'em. Still more time consuming.
It's not a very big inconvenience, just helps not having to think about it. As I said, I couldn't give a fat Skaven's behind.

 

I guess you never field cavalry.

Yep. Just like an argument can be made that the sun revolves around the earth or that there is a god. The ability to make an argument does not make a thing reasonabe.

 

even more time consuming with those bad-boys!

 

I appear to have run out of popcorn




Unless the TO has specifically declared PF is being applied to supporting attacks (as happened in the most recent South Coast GT in England) I will not be using PF on supporting attacks.


IMO it is blatantly cheating. I've described at length why i feel this is the case, and others (Sleb, mort) have done a much better job.

If you've agreed among your peers to allow it, thats fine. House rules are great for all sorts of things. However, i'm often in a situation where i'm playing complete strangers. In these situations using PF on supporting attacks is akin to cheating.

I'm not calling anyone a cheater. That's just how i'd feel about it personally. I'd feel like I was cheating if i were to do that.