8th Ed. Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks

See now you have explained it I can see your side much clearer and makes a little bit of sense. I am still unsure and strongly believe it is intended to work. And before anyone says well RAW remember you are opening yourselfs up to hexwraiths being healed 1+wizatd level . As the faq on that only references vampiric rule

 

Is there anywhere in the brb that's explicitly defines how a contradiction looks? From my memory, there is not. Which then means that a contradiction can be in one of many formats, not just the format you've jotted out time and time again, mortetvie.
I won't spell out how a contradiction might look outside of your previous explanations,because I'm sure you know what the word "contradiction" means.
The way I see it, the only way to know truly how GW intended the rule to work is for them to address it, or perhaps a 9th edition rule book to come may shed some light.

Theure obviously far too busy writing elaborate deaths for named characters at the moment hahaha

 

I'm curious about this as well. Page 11 does not say it has to contradict it to the point of completely going against it, nor does it say it needs to explicitly say it goes another another rule. Imagine if every rule had to do this! GW could increase the BRBs and ABs by a good 20 pages each, and maybe even charge 10$ more! Though please point me towards it, because I can't seem to find it, and I'd like to see some sort of clarification.

I am still on the standpoint that, logic aside, PF+SA = whatever GW wants it to be, and for now, my local judge says "yes", while "logic" tells us "no".

You can say "no" looks like "1+1=2", and "yes" looks like "1+1=3", but as plenty of rules have shown us, GW likes to say "1+1=3", which renders logic a fickle thing in the warhammer universe.

Dark Acolyte is still a fun example, because in the FAQ they released, they said "1+1=3", which, in this case, is "Successful cast means BEFORE dispels", which opens up a horrifying can of worms none of us wants to deal with. But that's actually explicitly what the FAQ says: It doesn't change the wording. Dark Acolyte's FAQd description is still "After a successful cast, add 1d3 to the casting value", which the FAQ points to being before dispels. So according to logic, this means "successful cast" is before dispels - Even if that means saying "1+1=3". And allowing High Lore Attribute, Heaven Attribute, etc. to work, despite being dispelled. That's not even 1+1=3. That's 1+1=11

Predatory Fighter needs a FAQ, no matter how much logic might insist that it is crystal clear. Dark Acolyte was crystal clear, and that got a FAQ, so I see no reason why Predatory Fighter shouldn't get one as well.

That aside, I find this discussion fun.

 

@ALL, the way the BRB defines contradiction is tied up in the example they give, specifically, they use the Panic versus Immune to Panic rules.

Therefore, we must analyze how does Panic and Immune to Panic interact and how are those rules written?

Panic is a Basic rule that says, in a nutshell, that in certain circumstances your unit has to test to see if it gets scared so it takes a Ld test to see if it panics or not (pg. 62).

Immune to Panic is an Advanced rule that simply says a unit automatically passes Panic tests and Immune to Psychology likewise says the unit with a majority of models with this rule automatically passes Panic, Fear and Terror tests (pg. 72).

What the Panic rule says is that you always do x in y circumstance. The Immune to Panic rule effectively says you never do x in y circumstance. Do you see this? That is the type of contradiction where two rules cancel each other out completely.

Now if we had a paragraph in the Panic section that said something like "when a unit is reduced to a single model, that situation is so extra scary that it needs to take a different kind of Panic test called a Super Panic test. No special rules that would otherwise make the model immune to Panic are applicable in this situation." we would have a scenario exactly like we do with PF and SA. In this case, the Super Panic rule specifically negates the Immune to Panic rule in this specific and unique circumstance and for someone to be able to overcome this negation, they need to have language in their rule that says "this model passes Panic tests including Super Panic tests."

Likewise, because PF is only negated from operating in a specific situation, not in every situation, the PF rule needs to have language that says something to the effect of "make an extra attack regardless of any limitations" or "even when making supporting attacks" just like the Monstrous Support rule does.


In conclusion, a contradiction exists between two rules as per the BRB when they CANNOT be read together and make any sense (i.e., Panic and Immune to Panic). However, when two rules only seemingly contradict because of a QUALIFIED negation, that is not the type of conflict or contradiction where Advanced>Basic or AB>BRB.

Indeed, BECAUSE the SA rule is a qualified negation of the PF rule and not a complete one, it remains in play and negates PF from operating in the qualified and limited scope of the rule. After all, SA is an exception to the Close Combat limitations of not being able to attack at all unless in base contact and it is only natural that an exception to the rule would come with limitations. The SA rule basically says "PF works when attacking in base contact just fine but not when making SA." It really is that clear and that is why people maintaining my position are frustrated with people trying to overcome that blatant negation of the PF rule.

Therefore, RAW, no PF with SA. This situation is essentially the same kind of logic puzzle or logical dilemma we face countless other times-If your parents say you are grounded for a month and can't watch any T.V. but they said on Fridays you can watch an educational program, they would smack you upside the head (maybe lol) if you tried to take that permission to watch an educational program on T.V. on Fridays to mean you can always watch T.V. regardless of it being Friday or an educational program... Likewise, if your parents say you can watch anything you want on T.V. but then later say "except violent movies," the latter rule is not a contradiction but a qualified clarification.

Indeed, no PF with SA just makes sense as it is the natural and logical solution to reading the two rules together. In law school, when learning about synthesizing or integrating different laws/rules together-we would be faced with this kind of situation all the time and learned that what appears to be a contradiction isn't necessarily a contradiction, it's a qualified negation that can be read harmoniously with another rule. The problem here is there is another mental step you need to take in analyzing the PF and SA rule together in light of the BRB and people simply are not taking that step or can't see how to do it.

 

@Mortetvie
If that example was meant to illustrate that, why didn't they explain that in the text as well?

Because going by that one example, and saying that is the only way a conflict or contradiction can be made, without having any other indication that this is true, we are first of all assuming that is how it indeed works, and second of all, you are saying that all examples given by GW are a perfect representation of how the rules should be interpreted.

Going back to my previous example of another stupid rulesdispute: Dark Acolyte says to add 1d3 to your roll after a successful cast. GW tells us, EXPLICITLY, that Dark Acolyte adds it before dispels. What does your logic make of this example? Does this mean we get to use our High Lore Attribute before dispel attempts are made? That High Elves get theirs? And Wood Elves? Dark Elves? Heavens?

An example is just that - an example. It is not an exhaustive illustration of all possible situations.

I am not disputing your view on PF - I'm just saying that, basing everything you know of a rule by a single example doesn't mean much. If the description of the rule doesn't include a limitation, you can't just assume a limitation exists, because of a single example. That seems pretty far out to me.

Though this is honestly pretty off-topic, so we probably shouldn't delve too much into this, considering the size of the thread already.

 

Silverfaith, (1) the example given in the specific context it is given is clear enough (or should be clear enough) that no further explanation is warranted; and, (2) the example given in the Basic Versus Advanced rules section is the only example given and it is given repeatedly. In other sections of the BRB when examples are given, sometimes multiple examples or scenarios are given when warranted but in this case, it isn't warranted. Ultimately, unless stated otherwise and unless a more thorough analysis by GW is given, we must go off of what they give us to work with. Right now, the Panic vs. Immune to Panic rule is the example given and based on that example, the type of contradiction is the kind I explained in my previous post.

Ultimately, unless GW specifically says otherwise, we MUST take them at their word and take their words at face value unless to do so makes no sense whatsoever. In the Advanced>Basic/AB>BRB section GW basically says that if two rules make no sense at all when read together, the Advanced rule or AB takes precedence when in this type of conflict with the Basic/BRB rule.

Therefore, we have nothing BUT what GW has said and we have nothing to go off of except the example and context given to us in the rule and my analysis of what is said is correct. However, there is another problem...

@All, so we still have 2 problems with the PF working with SA argument in terms of applying AB>BRB:

(1) in the Basic Versus Advanced rules, the example is where one rule makes no sense whatsoever in light of another and the two rules are mutually exclusive; and, (2) you have to assume that there is a contradiction/conflict based on a chosen way of reading the rule for the AB>BRB argument to have any hope of success.

The first point I analyzed above and in my previous post while the second point is as follows... If you say that my way of reading the rule and interpreting conflict/contradiction is just one of many, you have a choice of reading the PF and SA rules so that they either (1) contradict/conflict; or, (2) that they harmonize and don't contradict/conflict. It makes no sense to read two rules together so that they contradict/conflict when you don't have to. Indeed, when given this choice, we should read two rules together so that there is no conflict/contradiction.

With the Panic/Immune to Panic rules, you simply CANNOT read the two rules together without there being a contradiction/conflict but with the PF/SA rules you CAN read them together without there being a contradiction/conflict. Therein lies the major problem...You have to ASSUME the contradiction/conflict in order to have an argument at all when there isn't necessarily a contradiction or conflict.

So you have to ask yourself, why do people read a contradiction into the rule when there doesn't necessarily need to be one? It is because they WANT to have PF work with SA and basing your ability to do something on an assumption is never a safe place to be with GW since Warhammer is a permissive set of rules-you can only do anything when explicitly told you can.

 

I find this kinda funny. Sorry, but it just sounds hypocritical to me. You make an assumption, and then say it is dangerous to make assumptions.

No matter what you might claim, the one example cannot be used as the full extent of the rule. Otherwise, we have to go by the FAQ of Dark Acolyte as well, which causes all sorts of wonky stuff to happen, because things like Heavens Attribute will apply, even if the enemy dispelled you. Because that's the example of what "successful cast" is. This is why I said Logic is difficult to apply to GWs rules.

 

Silverfaith, what you are quoting is a "brute fact" of how we read, interpret and play the rules of Warhammer and do things in general... Unless you have a reason to do otherwise, you must take everything at face value. There is a difference between a brute fact, something that just has to be accepted as being true without any proof, and an assumption. Also, one situation doesn't necessarily bleed over into another as FAQ rulings on certain situations are unique to those specific rules and situations and may not be as analogous as you are suggesting they are.

There are fine lines and distinctions I am making here and they can easily be missed but the point I am making is twofold. (1) Based on the plain meaning of the words in the Basic versus Advanced rules, the type of contradiction/conflict is what I described above; and, (2) IF there truly are two ways to read the PF and SA rules together, one resulting in a contradiction/conflict and another not resulting in a contradiction or conflict, it doesn't make logical sense to read the rule so that there is a contradiction or conflict if you don't HAVE to.

Indeed, the example given in the BRB is a situation where there are NO ways of reading the two rules given as examples so that there is no contradiction. Therefore, we only have that to go off of in terms of analyzing when two rules contradict/conflict for the purposes of Advanced>Basic and AB>BRB.

Do you see that?

Now for some fun legal stuff:

Taking how laws and rules are interpreted in real world scenarios, in terms of statutory interpretation (interpreting laws), the Supreme Court of the United States says, "[w]e begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive..."

Taking that principle (which is adhered to I think in virtually every judicial system), absent something like an FAQ or the writers of the rules specifically stating otherwise, we read whatever rules are written in the BRB as per the plain meaning of what is there. The plain meaning as written and described in the BRB is what my first point ties into.

The Supreme Court goes on to say that statutes "'should be given their ordinary meaning, absent clear and express legislative intention to the contrary,' as long as the ordinary meaning does 'not render the statute’s application absurd, unreasonable, or unjust.'" The example given with Panic vs. Immune to Panic is the plain meaning of what GW means by contradiction/conflict and that is what we have to go off of.

Going one step further, "if a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction, courts should choose an interpretation that avoids raising constitutional problems."

Taking all of this together, we should read the BRB as per the plain meaning of what is actually said unless GW says otherwise, and not read into it what we want to read into it. Also, when there is a choice of reading a rule in different ways we should read the rule in a manner so that it does not violate any other rules and harmonizes with other rules where possible. This is essentially my basis for why it makes no sense to read the PF and SA rules together so that there is a conflict when there doesn't have to be one. A Basis based in logic and reason rather than personal preference

 

copycats. (Scalenex)

 

Damn! You've pointed out spelling errors..... I hoped to pick those up before pressing submit..
Too late, the damage is done

Also, mortetvie, you keep referring to the panic/immune to panic exert. I think that the example in panic/immune is the basic vs. advanced within the BRB, whereas the AB>BRB is a separate paragraph and only partially relates to the paragraph above it. A footnote, so to speak.

Again, based on interpretation.

 

Mortetvie, FAQs and such are actually more akin to precedent cases. In a judical system, a case can easily set a precedent for future cases because of a verdict. So in my "case" with Dark Acolyte, GW sets the precedent that "successful cast" means "before dispels".

FAQs are effectively "court rulings".

Though it's pretty much moot points anyway, because a judical system has rules, which are well thought out, and reviewed by hundreds of lawyers before they are officially accepted. GW has maybe 3 guys look at the entire book before they release it, or at least that's how it looks when you read it - Otherwise, SOMEONE would have picked up the more braindead of cases, like tiktaq'tos obvious lack of a necessary rule. It's fun comparing GW and their rules to a real judical system, but despite "rules" being a common denominator, you really can't compare them - Apples and oranges. ESPECIALLY considering GW would be the judical system equivalent of a court with no judge or jury, just defense attourney and prosecutors arguing, with no one to hand out a vedict.

Which is actually pretty much what we are doing here. Which is actually kind of funny, because now I can't help but imagine a court full of lawyers, all presenting all sorts of evidence and statements, and constantly looking up to the judge's chair, which contains a judge who is fast asleep, and has been for the past 9 months.

 

Hehehehehehe

now I do too. Sounds like a good artistic project for Bob???????

 

@Nex1s, the AB>BRB rule is a part of the Advanced>Basic rules so you can't isolate it-the Basic Versus Advanced section in its entirety gives the context to AB>BRB and page 11 is like a layer cake that has each subsequent paragraph build off of and flow from the previous paragraph...That is what people are forgetting and it is improper to take the AB>BRB paragraph in isolation and try to interpret or analyze it independent of the whole of page 11. That is partly why people are coming up with their faulty conclusions. Indeed, the AB>BRB paragraph is the logical extension and application of the Advanced>BRB rules. Isolating a paragraph that is a part of the whole to make it say what you want to say is what reporters do when they only quote part of what someone says to make it appear how the reporter wants...That is what people that are taking the AB>BRB paragraph in isolation are guilty of doing. All of page 11 is the complete story and context to which the AB>BRB rules are to be read.

@Silverfaith, precedent cases are fine and all but they have to (1) be of a binding authority and (2) be on point. Just because the FAQ says one thing for one rule doesn't mean it applies or can be applied to another. Indeed, the type of ruling we would need to see in an FAQ is where one rule (Advanced or AB) is specifically precluded from taking effect from a BRB Basic rule and the FAQ says that in that particular case, because of how the Advanced or AB rule is written, the Advanced or AB rule takes precedence. Find an FAQ entry like that and you may have something otherwise you don't have anything. Also, keep in mind that if GW thinks something is clear enough, they likely won't address it in an FAQ so for all we know, GW thinks the issue is clear enough not to warrant an FAQ... Absent GW saying "when SA says any and every special rule, it also means PF" I, for one, can't see how it can be any clearer than it already is but that is my opinion and not the basis of my argument =).

@Forlustria, when you said "now you have explained your point clearly..." I actually explained my point clearer and in greater detail in some of my initial posts but people apparently don't read everything I say very clearly or carefully =(.

@All, as I said before, there are two problems with the AB>BRB argument for PF and SA that need to be addressed but have not. Indeed, they are not fully addressed by anyone in their entirety which is part of my frustration...People only pick and choose a portion of or a distortion of what I am saying and argue against that which is a straw man fallacy and not conducive to this debate. If you want to play PF with SA by virtue of AB>BRB, you must address both of these points:


Point 1: The whole of page 11, where the AB>BRB rule is, needs to be considered when reading, interpreting and applying the AB>BRB rule because that is specifically where the AB>BRB rule is. It is a fallacy and improper to take one paragraph out of a specific rule section addressing a specific issue with how rules interact and then read, interpret and apply it on its own-the danger of applying it out of context is very high at that point and indeed what is happening rampantly. Therefore, taking the AB>BRB rule and reading it in the context of the whole of the Basic Versus Advanced rules, it is quite clear that the type of contradiction/conflict is where two rules completely contradict each other no matter how they are read together. Since PF does not interact with SA in the same way that Panic and Immune to Panic do, they don't fall under the AB>BRB clause. If AB>BRB regardless of the type of conflict, then any and all rules that are "trumped" by the BRB by virtue of language such as "regardless of any special rules or sources of such and such effect" would be meaningless, null and void and the game system essentially breaks down. So ultimately, (1) why read the AB>BRB paragraph separately from the paragraph directly preceding it and indeed the whole page/rule section it is in when you don't do that with other rules and when every preceding paragraph is built off of the one before it; and, (2) how do you account for the myriad of other absurd results from AB>BRB always and all the time (see below for some examples if you can't think of any)?

Point 2: IF there is an option to read the PF and SA rules together so that they either (1) contradict or (2) do not contradict, what is the basis for reading them as if they contradict rather than not contradict? Why is reading the two rules together so that they contract when they don't have to the preferred method? Indeed, I argue that the preferred method of reading two rules together should always be to find a way where they can coexist otherwise you have a lot of absurd results and rules suddenly open to interpretation that are not good for the game.


Ultimately, if you are arguing PF works with SA, then any and all AB or Advanced rules trump the SA restriction which leaves the SA restriction with NO effect whatsoever...That results in an absurd result. Also, if AB>BRB all the time, then the "no dice re-rolled more than once" restriction in the BRB is trumped by Dwarven rules that grant re-rolls when shooting Warmachines. Indeed, BECAUSE the AB>BRB is in the same section as the Advanced>BRB rule, it only logically and naturally follows that the AB>BRB rule works just like the Advanced>Basic rule. In actuality, they are both the same rule just applied to different scenarios.

The bottom line here is people that are saying PF works with SA are picking and choosing what rules apply when and how based on their preference rather than what is actually written in the BRB.

 

it wasn't that I didn't read them carefully I just didn't read them. Its a long thread

explain the dwarf one please .

 

When you read the text in the paragraph, it's not referring to advanced rules vs basic rules at all. That section is referring specifically to differences in army book and whfb rule book. In the case of AB>BRB, even what you might consider a "basic rule" (for the purposes of BRB page 11) written in an army book will take precedence over an "advanced rule" in the BRB.

In our particular case, pred fighter is an "advanced rule", where supporting attacks is a "basic rule". So from a pro-PF standpoint, the army book overrules the brb in both facets of the argument (AB>BRB and Advanced Rule>Basic Rule).
From a con-PF standpoint, the pred fighter rule doesn't say "...you may generate extra supporting attacks." Which, if you know GW, is asking WAY too much of them

What I'm getting at is that there valid points for both sides of the argument, and playing it either way is valid until it is dealt with in one way or another, by GW.

 

The Dwarf AB has different rules for Runes and Engineers that grant re-rolls to an Artiller/scatter dice. The BRB says that no dice can ever be re-rolled once and that an artillery/scatter dice is considered a dice.

If you say AB>BRB always then you have to say that the Dwarf AB re-roll rules trump the BRB re-roll restriction since there are multiple sources of re-rolls in the Dwarf AB. Essentially rule 1, 2 and 3 from the Dwarf codex (for example) each would say re-roll x dice and each of those rules say "re-roll x dice" while the BRB says "don't re-roll x dice."

Logically, regardless of the number of sources of re-rolls, you can only ever re-roll a dice once as per the BRB.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14

 

I really don't understand how you can say what you just said in light of what I said... It's like we are having two separate conversations here...

(1) The AB>BRB paragraph is built upon and naturally flows out of the previous paragraph and can't be read in isolation. (2) You are also neglecting to address the nature of the conflict/contradiction in light of page 11. (3) you don't address my two points as to why AB>BRB works (or specifically doesn't work) in a manner that allows PF to work with SA.

Your post is what we would call a swing and a miss... You really need to be more thorough with what you say and expound upon it and support it-right now you just gave me conclusions without any support. Also, when you say "both sides have valid points" what do you mean? Validity is a logical term and if you want to say that the PF with SA arguments are valid, you need to demonstrate why and nobody has been able to sofar.

 

Thanks. But isn't this the way you are saying conflict rule works. 2 rules that cancel each other out (stop a rule working)
I don't have the dwarf book so don't know the wording.

dwarf book = reroll more then once vs brb reroll only once. So dwarf book would trump brb

 

Mega Cool!

Discussion of PF and SA has gone to debate about semantics (conflict vs contradiction) then to stunty anything (lucky THEY don't take themselves seriously to finally, where we needed to arrive at:

thanks to n810. (click for youtube link)

Anyone who is enjoying the intellectual argument keep going, and keep it light. There should be more Photoshopped Manatees (There is a leak on Warseer that Ogres will be able to take Manatees as core in 9th edition) because they help to emphasize the point that we are all having a ridiculous discussion - and that we should enjoy it for what it is!