8th Ed. Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks

This just hit me,

GW being the Old Ones
This EXACTLY what we are doing

 

on which page will I find the "ironic" rule? I've scoured both books. Is it something inherent to grown (allegedly) men playing with toy soldiers?



BTW Phatmofo is on fire. Anything that emphasizes the nonsense of the world we choose to live in is green stuff for the soul.


I apologize for reviving the Lustrian Civil War, but Scalenex thrives on this sort of stuff for his dark and depressing fiction. Think how rotten his real life must be.....

 

I really like you too Bob.....................*ribbit*

 

Similarly, when I have a Slann with the Channeling Staff and +2 Channel Dice and 2 SKink Priests I just roll all 5 dice and count any 5+ as a channel. Too difficult to separate them.

---

One of the guys that I play with taught me a trick. Only use 10 dice of each color. Shooting with your 10 skirmishers? Pick up all the yellow dice. No counting needed.

Attacking with Saurus? 10* attacks up front, 5 from the second rank?

Step 1: Say "Green dice are front, yellow are back".
Step 2: Pick up all Green dice, count out 5 yellow dice
Step 3: Roll 15 dice.

Spears? Even easier (just pick up all 10 green and all 10 yellow dice)

Running 6 wide? Keep your dice in sets of 12 instead of sets of 10 (and maybe keep a 3rd set of 10 smaller dice to use for quick Skink Skirmish rolls... unless you're running 12 skirmishers too!)

Horde formation? And Spears?

20 attacks from the front. 20 attacks from 2nd + 3rd rank... are you really rolling 40 dice all at once? My hands aren't that big. But same thinking goes.

I usually run 6 wide temple guard with the Skavenpelt, so I end up rolling 19 front rank attacks and 4 Supporting attacks + 1 more Slann supporting attack. I only keep 20 dice on the table, though. So it's never been a big deal for me to roll those last 4 dice separately (and I have to roll the Slann's attack separate anyways).

*Okay the Champion gives one more attack ... but I also keep an extra "odd dice" that I add to the pool for the extra champion attack. It has a beer on the 6 side for good luck.

---

The Chaos Dwarf player I play against often gets 54 shots off with his blunderbusses. He doesn't roll 54 dice though.

He rolls 5 sets of 10 dice, then the last 4. Keeping a running tally of how many hits there were.

We're playing a dice rolling game. I don't really get how rolling dice in a dice rolling game is inconvenient. (unless you're an Elf, I don't know why they ever roll any dice... they just keep rerolling them until they hit with everything... f*ing Elves)

 

There are essentially two types of people in this discussion. Those that understand logic and can properly read the rules as they are written; and, those that cannot or are unwilling to understand logic and unwilling or unable to read the rules as they are written.

Let me illustrate with pictures since words can be tricky sometimes...


To people that think PF works with SA, the argument looks something like:




To people that realize PF doesn't work with SA, looking at the arguments that suggest PF works with SA is like:




Really, it isn't arrogant for one person to point out that another simply doesn't understand logic and is doing "logic" wrong if that is the truth... The arguments that have been put forth and perpetuated by the PF with SA crowed only demonstrate a continued inability to understand or apply logic. Just because something makes sense to you does not mean it is logical... Something is logical if it comports with the laws of logic. The PF with SA argument does not comport with the laws of logic and nobody has been able to show otherwise-hence frustration and face palming action on the opposing side.

 

So it looks broken?

 

had an issue with how the picture was appearing, works now. Though I think the second picture should be...





However, I fear the irony and word-play may be missed =(.

 

Phatmotha-phucka, you hit the nail on the head with that one and gave me a good laugh, despite my recent oral surgery, it was worth the chuckle. What I'm really looking forward to is the backtracking and posts that will come up for whichever side is wrong IF GW ever gets a FAQ out. All this high horse, "my logic trumps yours", and I think even a "Believing in God is like believing the sun revolves around the earth", all seem just a bit heavy for a little game with toy models that we PLAY. I think I emphasized the correct word there...

The problem with a logic argument here, on either side, is that you're assuming the people that came up with it are without flaw. I think we can all agree that no one that is human is without flaw or error, especially those at GW. Just one little example I can give is in the new Empire army I started. So the Grand Master Lord choice (the only real character that can be expected to kill stuff) has a rule that allows him to join any knight unit or demigryph unit and give them the immune to psychology special rule. However, in his rules there is nothing written to allow him to ride a demigryph. So he has no monstrous mount, but can join monstrous cavalry. Nobody is going to do that. It doesn't really add up does it? You have the knight of knights, Lord Bada$$ himself, but he can't ride the mounts other knights can? There are numerous examples of where GW screws up their own rules. This is just one. Even if you find that you can reason it out yourself, or it seems clear as day what the answer should be, big whoop! When there is THIS much dispute on a rule, GW has failed.

The counter argument for this would be something along the lines of: "Well, in fact, we must take the written rules as law because they are the foundation of the silly game we play. (Yes I say silly because we are pushing plastic dwarves, elves, and dinosaurs across a table and pretend they kill each other) You might as well throw the entire rule book out and play your own kind of game because... blah blah blah." I get it. But I hope the rest of you don't forget that this is a GAME. Honestly, as long as you and those with you can agree on something and have fun, go for it. For those tournament players, I guess you just have to ask whoever is running it ahead of time to give you a ruling and run with whatever they say. I'm sure you're going to get different answers. Damn that human error...

Anywho, I'm sure someone has taken offense or assumes I'm just another idiot who cannot comprehend their impeccable logic. For you, understand, I apply this to both arguments. I will leave you with a quote from a man I've found to be level headed and extremely intelligent regarding most things in life: "If it sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck. If it sounds like a duck, looks like a hippo, and acts like a dog... you've got a problem."

 

A few years back GW ruled that 1x2x2=3
later they came to there senses and ruled that 1x2x2=4
(see Bane Head + Parana Blade) (6th vs 7th editions)

Never assume GW follows logic or sense. (or basic math)

 

The problem with this statement, is that (1) you don't appear to actually know what logic is; and, (2) you are saying because people are flawed and imperfect that they can't come up with a perfectly reasoned arguments... Logic is not some wishy washy "to me, my words are more right than yours but really everything said has equal weight" type of argumentation, it is as exact as math. Either something is or it isn't logical-not because someone says so but because it is. The laws of logic were not made up by people anymore than the laws of gravity were, the laws of logic are a discovery of the way reason works. Indeed, it is only by the use of logic you can determine something doesn't make sense or is unreasonable so we use and invoke the laws of logic every day. Some people just don't understand why something is logical or not and that is the problem here-the laws of logic still apply to anything and everything written and it is the laws of logic that are used to determine if that written thing actually is logical or not-regardless of whether it was originally intended to be logical.

Indeed, what you are saying is, in and of itself, a logical fallacy. If the most flawed person in the world says 1+1=2, he will still be correct when arguing against the most perfect person in the world that maintains 1+1=3... You can't attack a person's argument because a person is not perfect or flawed-you can't say "because people are imperfect, what they say or think is also imperfect." Like I said, if I am arguing 1+1=2 and someone else is arguing 1+1=3, the problem is with the grasp of math, not with how flawed we are as people.


With all of that said, the game is the game and that is fun and all but when it comes to logic and rules, that is another thing all together. There is a right way to read and apply things and all of this post-modernism thinking that there are no absolutes and no truth (and consequently how you see it bro is good for you but I see it this way and we are both equally right) is utter nonsense that leaves people with the inability to address and resolve real issues.

If GW comes out with an FAQ and says PF works with SA, and doesn't change how any of the rules are written, I will be the first to say congrats, you can now use PF and SA-but that result will only mean that GW is overriding RAW to enforce RAI.

 

To be fair, both the '3' and '4' answers were logical, GW just had to rule which way to go--mutually exclusive effects or compounded effects. Originally they ruled that they were mutually exclusive, (original wound x 2) + (original wound x2) - (original wound to avoid counting it twice) = 3. Then they ruled that they compounded, (original wound x 2) x2 = 4. The mutual exclusive method of applying special rules is OK, but could create conflicts if all rules were applied in this manner. For simplicity, compounding the effects of special rules allows them to work together and probably solves more interaction conflicts than it causes. I'm guessing compounding special rules is probably a better general principle than mutually exclusive special rules, and the latter FAQ followed that logic.

 

I think most people that are arguing that PF does not work from SA would agree that probably PF *should* work from SA (RAI), but the RAW don't support that.

It's even worse in the Lizardmen book. Tiktaq-to gives his WS to all Terradon models in his unit ... but characters can't join flying units...

RAI, Tiktaq'to should be able to join Terradon units (in the old Lizardman book he has a rule that specifically said he could) but RAW he no longer can.

So do you play the game as the rules are written, or do you play the game as you think someone at GW intended the rules to have been written but just wasn't good enough at their job to have written them well?

Those arguing that PF does not work for SA are arguing from the point of view of RAW and are looking for counter arguments that are RAW. You can't rally make an argument for RAI unless you are the person that wrote the rules in the first place.

If you are playing RAI, then you can do anything you want. But then you have to ask every person you play against "what are your house rules?" (See every 4th post in Sleboda's Battle Report thread )

If everyone agrees that they will play with the rules as they are written in the BRB, then that makes it easier to know what to expect both when writing your own list, and when playing against someone else's list.

If you start going down the RAI route...

1. I don't think cannons were intended to be laser guns that are able to target a spot on the ground by gazing through the legs of several units of statically posed models.

2. I don't think the Banner of the World Dragon was written with the intention of making a High Elf unit completely immune to the entire Demons army.

3. I think Tiktaq'to was intended to be able to join units of Terradons

4. I don't think the Dark Elf Warlocks' 4+ Ward Save was intended to be able to save against their Miscast penalty

At what point do the Rule Books become Guideline Books?

 

On a side note, and as already mentioned, the extra attack that Saurus got through the "bite" rule were only usable in the front rank... I think RAI, GW intended for only LM models in base contact to be able to savage their foes with their super predatory fighter instincts because if you are in the second rank and squished between all of the other saurus (1) you have less freedom of movement to attack; and, (2) you might hit the guy next to you.

Look at the following picture...



Do you really think the people inside the train have as much freedom of movement as the people towards the opening/edge? I don't and that is why I think it makes sense from a RAI perspective that PF doesn't work with SA either.

 

And yet I am not the one trying to win an argument based on logic with a notoriously flawed system against individuals refusing to give ground regardless of what evidence is placed before them. I see both sides, understand both arguments, and actually agree with your current stand on the argument as the rules are written if not the the intent of GW.
For one so devoted to reason and logic, here is a question: Where is the logic in arguing with individuals that you yourself have stated will not change their viewpoint?
You are essentially arguing with a wall. If I saw a man arguing with a wall, knowing full well that it is a wall, who, when another points out that he is talking to a wall, then states the other does not understand logic... I think the best thing to do would be to walk away from that person slowly while he continues his rant, turn the corner, and get him some help.
I wish you the best of luck in your continued ramblings, but I will choose to go elsewhere for entertainment.

 

Hmm. Actually, no. No we are not. Nobody has said that. To make that assumption about it means you have to have ignored multiple posts that explain what we actually do think.

I _know_ they are flawed.

Doesn't mean the rule is not perfectly clear.

You can argue intent all day (and I agree that they probably meant something else), but what was written is what it is.

 

Only in this case I am arguing with human beings whom I am trying to educate... Walls don't cease to be walls by talking to them but ignorant people may become enlightened by educating them. Perhaps I am vainly hoping that a light bulb will turn on for some people but even if it doesn't, addressing and writing out my arguments repeatedly, and in different lights, has at the very least served to educate me in why I am more correct and they are more incorrect based on the laws of logic =). Also, it has exercised the old noggin' as well which is always fun.

Essentially, I enjoy coming up with and formulating the arguments and what people do with them is their business though I do hope that one day they will yield to my vast and superior intellect and logical skillz...

 

If i wasn't entirely sure that your ratio of facetiousness to arrogance wasn't at least at 20 to the hundred then I'd have a real problem with you saying these sorts of things.

But I love a joke, good or bad. So I'm going to sit on the side of "You like a debate, and a bit of tongue-in-cheek".
Just let yourself be enlightened to the fact that your point of view isn't the only one that can be correct, regardless of how many arguments you put before or after it.

 

You are the one being ignorant to others with your I'm logical your not so I'm right attitude. Warhammer is not a logical game. Skeletons can be poisoned for jeebus sake. Yu may be right but when I was trying to show you your laundry example and that there is a conflict you accused me of using it against you and that it was wrong , but you never explained why it was wrong. If you are trying to educate us then you have to explain why logically it does not work . Don't just say you are right .

I will try again using your laundry example but put books instead of people

Army book: Whenever you do laundry always use bleach

BRB: whenever you do laundry use bleach except when washing black

But we are told that if there is a conflict we go by the army book .

in this case always vs except (conflict . I always use it is in conflict with except when washing black.)

explain when that is illogical and educate the rest of us. remember there is no consequence to PF working for SA but there is for doing black laundry with bleach. Warhammer is not logical it is a game that is ment to be fun

 

A consequence from the conclusion that extra attacks from PF apply to SA is that you can then separate out the attacks from each special rule that applies to a unit in the same manner to meet the limit of 1 attack restricted by the SA special rule. First my 1 SA from base attacks, then 1 SA from Frenzy, then 1 SA from Extra Hand Weapon (obviously using the fast dice rolling method, but total # of attacks are explained this way). If you are ruling that SA interact in this way with extra attacks from special rules, you have to be consistent in its application to all special rules applying extra attacks in all armybooks; it's only fair for your opponents. Personally, I'm not a fan of an alternative interpretation of the rules to make Witch Elves, Savage Orcs, etc. even more deadly. (You could, in theory, go deeper down the rabbit hole by further extrapolating/twisting the SA rule and argue that the SA rule limits you to 1 SA from basic attacks and 1 SA from special rules, so a Witch Elf would have 2 SA instead of 3 from the example above...but all of this is conjecture)

I honestly don't see how you could rule any other way than 'SA do not get additional attacks', given that the SA specifically says it overrides any bonus attack from any special rule or any unusual effect. I fail to see where the perceived conflict in the rules exists that forces the General Principle on pg. 11 to apply. This same General Principle would create the same 'conflict' in any armybook that contained a model, making a SA, with a rule that granted the model with additional attacks. This would be the first case where a special rule was an exception to another special rule that specifically stated it overruled all special rules for its application.

 

@Nex1s, I completely agree that my point of view is not the only one that can be correct. However, when faced with a situation where only one of two options can be correct, and my position happens to be correct, then yes, only my position can be correct there... This is one of those situations. The questions is whether PF works with SA, either it does or it does not. If it does, then I am wrong, if it does not then I am right. It is that simple and I am not arrogant simply for being right...

Indeed, I can think 1+1=3 but the person who corrects me and tries to show me that 1+1=2 is not arrogant for showing me or maintaining that he is right and I am wrong. The arrogance is actually on those that refuse to see that they are wrong and refuse to be corrected.

@Forlustria, you are not reading/applying the rules on page 11 of the BRB correctly-and just out of curiosity, is English your first language? English is actually my third and so I can understand potential difficulties with language barriers so please track with me as I try to explain. And FYI, just because something is not meant to be logical does not mean the laws of logic don't apply or can't be used to analyze it and any system of rules has to be logical by definition or else they fail to work and make no sense at all...

BRB says that when one rule contradicts another to the point of canceling out (i.e., where one rule says always do x and another rule says never do x) that the Advanced rule takes precedence and if this happens between an AB and the BRB, the AB takes precedence. That is the type of contradiction/conflict that we are talking about as per the BRB. Not simply any kind of contradiction/conflict that is defined in the dictionary or as commonly used.

The PF rule says whenever you make an attack in CC and you roll a 6 to hit, make another attack. The BRB Supporting Attacks rule does not cancel out or prevent the Predatory Fighter rule from working AT ALL, or more specifically ALL of the time-if it did, then you would have the kind of contradiction/conflict as per the AB>BRB rule. SA only prevents the Predatory Fighter rule from working in one specific situation, when making a Supporting Attack. Therefore, it is not a contradiction as defined in the BRB.

@All, The major problem here is that people are looking at what they think "conflict" or "contradiction" means without realizing that what matters is how the BRB defines those terms, not common parlance or the dictionary. Essentially, they are not using the terms of the debate properly and therefore their arguments have problems at a foundational level.

There is a difference between a rule being prevented from functioning ever and from prevented from functioning in a specific instance-this game has plenty of situations when an Advanced or AB rule is prevented from functioning in a specific instance and nobody throws a fuss about those! The type of contradiction in the AB>BRB rule is where a rule in an AB is prevented from ever functioning at all. We do not have that type of contradiction/conflict between PF and SA therefore PF does not work with SA rule.