8th Ed. Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks

I'm with Joe........spears are better!

 

I like spears over Hand weapons because it gives them a more... "spartan" feel. Having a spiked shieldwall for attackers to face is just awesome - regardless of how the crunch might be

 

It's really really sad watching Mort come out with these really brilliant explanations/examples of why there are logical inconsistencies within the reading of PF > SA and seeing people still come back with responses that makes it seem as if no one is even reading them in the first place.



I'd love to see the answer to a very thoughtful question he posed.

Why are we reading the rules in such a way that forces a contradiction to exist, when such a reading isn't at all necessary.

The amount of mental gymnastics required to force a contradiction in place to allow for the AB>BRB ruling to take effect is astounding.

Also hw/shields > spears. No contest.

 

It is always interesting to see people take a page explaining how something is "not complicated". That pretty much assures it is complicated, and a FAQ is required.

You can take far less time and show the exact opposite result: When a 6 is rolled in close combat you get another attack.
It is in an advanced book, so it trumps any basic rule.

 

To say "no one" listens is going pretty far. I can see quite a few people reading his posts.

I suppose my largest issue, not as much with morts points, but with GWs way of making rules, is that we are told that, in case of contradictions/conflicts, we always go with what the advanced or AB says. It then gives us 1 small example, and an example is just that: a single case out of a potentially infinite situations - and because they couldn't be arsed to explain what the hell they meant, we have to assume that one example is all encompassing of what contradictions and conflicts are. And even then, we are given an example for Basic Vs advanced, which they call a contradictions, while the BRB vs AB is called a conflict. Using a different word to mean the same thing is ridiculous, so just like assuming the example is the absolute extent of how the Basic VS advanced rule works, we also hahve to asssume that conflict means something different than contradiction - and we have no example of such a thing.

The thing I find the most hillarious, is that people sincerely believe that GW have clear and well-written rules. That's certainly the feel I get when people start talking about how they are 110% certain that they are right, and everyone else are wrong by default, no matter what they might say, which is actually what some people in this discussion have said.

I'll point out again: I do think Mortetvie has the right idea, and going purely by RAW, PF does not work in supporting ranks. Because what from what little we have to go on, that is the only real conclusio owe can get to. However, no matter how much anyone thinks he is right, himself included, the entire argument is based on an example. That's what we have, sure, but instead of calling anyone who disagrees an idiot (and that is what you do when you post facepalms), maybe realize that the rules aren't written as perfectly clear as you think they are. We can't base everything we do on an example - we need a clearly written rule to explain exactly what a contradiction is, and what a conflict is. Using 2 different words is idiotic if they intended it to mean the same thing, so here we already have a break in logic. Logic would tell us that Conflict =/= Contradiction, and logic would also tell us that a single example can't be the only application of a rule that applies to pretty much everything in the entire game.

We need a clarification, if not for PF, then for the Basic Vs Advanced and BRB vs AB rules. Claiming otherwise is saying "I don't want clear rules, I want rules I need to spend hours contemplating and reading to understand.", which is ridiculous.

And that's actually the worst part: A few of us have gone from trying to find an answer, to instead trying to get an answer from GW. If we got an answer from them, we don't NEED to argue semantics and trying to interpret examples to understand poorly written rules.

But sure, if you insist on claiming that the rule is perfectly written, go ahead. But that's the equivalent of telling a child, that his picture of randomly drawn lines is a beautiful painting.

And spears are still (aesthetically) superior!

Nope, you can spend hours telliing a child that 1+1=2, and that still doesn't make it complicated. Length of post or time spent expaining it is irrelevant.

 

"Nope, you can spend hours telliing a child that 1+1=2, and that still doesn't make it complicated. Length of post or time spent expaining it is irrelevant."
As someone who spends a lot of time explaining simple concepts to 13-15 year old children, I can point out that you would not use a page to explain 1+1=2. The child will not be arguing a different point, they will not argue, they just won't understand. However, you can make a mathematical argument that 1+1=3, but it requires a page to work out the math and it relies on the problems with algebra.

This instance of PF is a complicated point where some say "this rule counters this rule, but this other rule counters it, but not really because you read that wrong" " while others say this rule counters this rule which makes a contradiction, which means this other rule applies" also arguing about definitions. Hence my point. This sure ain't 1+1=2. We need a FAQ and it is pointless to argue until they put one out.

And calling the other side dull, dumb or obstinate does not help your case. It is just a poor debating tactic. As is "Can't you see I am right and you are wrong? This is really easy"

 

A few things about what you have said...

Just because someone spends a lot of effort and time to explain a concept, does not automatically mean that concept is complicated or difficult to grasp.

Indeed, the simple explanation is as follows:

"SA says no model makes more than a single attack regardless of any special rules that might otherwise allow additional attacks."

"PF is a special rule that generates an additional attack, therefore it doesn't work with SA."


The problem is when people misapply another rule in a situation where that other rule has no business. The 1+1=2 example is to illustrate how simple the issue really is and the foolishness of refusing to see the simplicity. Therefore, we have to go to great lengths to illustrate why the other side is wrong.

Think of it this way...You tell a child that they can have 2 cookies from the cookie jar but they want 3 and so they grab 3. You tell them that "2 cookies from the cookie jar means only 2 cookies and they need to put the 3rd one back" but they hold up 3 cookies and insist they only have 2... What do you do in that situation? Well, in this case since the people claiming PF works with SA are not children (presumably) and they are choosing to intentionally misread and apply rules.


Indeed, Frenzy and Extra Attacks are Advanced rules and Advanced rules>Basic so Frenzy and Extra Attacks should be able to overcome the SA limitation as well...Does that make sense? Does it make more sense to let the rules be read as they are written and apply them as they are written or to try to make a rule pointless and useless because you CHOOSE to read the rules in a specific way when you don't HAVE to?

Indeed, I ask the question again: When faced with a choice of reading two rules together so that either they contract or don't contradict, why choose to read the rules so that they contradict? Why does that make sense?


Finally, because it is such an important issue... For Saurus, I always go Spears for the extra attacks and if you have an Engine nearby, they get a 6+ Ward anyway so that Ward isn't necessarily missed.

 

Since there is no FAQ, how do you play the rule?

Lizardman players will want PF to work with SA, and their opponents will not want it to work in SA.

So unless you are both playing Lizardmen armies that have Saurus Warriors/Temple Guard in them or your opponent doesn't mind giving you an advantage that he doesn't have to give you what do you propose?

I guess you're stuck with rolling off for it before every game (maybe treat it like Dwarf Hatred...? I know Sleboda would love this solution)

Or just don't field Saurus in more than 1 rank.

 

IMO, its not really for saurus or Tg....its about that 8big krox unit.

 

Markhaus, do I sense another teacher within the fold? I feel like there might be a kindred spirit here.

As for the spears or hand weapons with shields.... Tough one. I like the look of spears, but I do love a parry save... Gun to my head, I'd have to go with hand weapon and shield, only because I run against some heavy hitting armies and I need it to keep my little lizards alive!

 

I play the rule as PF applies to SA because I really don't like the idea of having to split up my dice and roll separate.

Two tournaments so far playing that way, two games I've had my opponent asking if supporting attacks get the PF. And I've just said there's a big discussion online about how it should be ruled. But until there's an FAQ I'd prefer not to roll all my SA separately. The opponents have simply nodded and say go ahead. Adds up to a couple extra hits a game.

Probably more professional would be to bring it up at the start of every game and decide how to rule it.

 

I offer to roll two sets for PF (one front rank, one supporting set) and 11/12 of the guys I have played have said "Why wouldn't it work?" The other guy runs tournaments and told me he would prefer my rolling two sets.

Frenzy is a special rule in the basic book. This is why there is no conflict. PF adds attacks in close combat but is in an army book. But these arguments have been made and ignored.

I understand both arguments. Honestly, PF from an RP perspective does not make sense to allow extra attacks. Claws and biting and tail slap don't help when there is a mass of guys blocking you. But then this is a game where my squad chases an eagle because it has a slight edge instead of the horde of elves right in front of them.

Middle school science. I like hand weapons for shields (engine ward goes to TG)

 

It is comments like above that probably invoke comments like below...

Seriously, Markhaus, "why wouldn't it work?" Because the rules say so, that is why. I guess I'll have to repeat myself here and FYI, what you said has not been ignored, it's just been addressed and shown to be an argument that is illogical, contradicts itself and generally leads to absurd results... Anyway, Frenzy is an Advanced rule and SA is a Basic rule. on page 11 of the BRB (incidentally where AB>BRB rule is found) Advanced rules take precedence over Basic rules when there is a contradiction.

SA says no special rules that grant extra attacks work with SA.

PF is a special rule that says make an extra attack when you roll a 6 to hit.

People are saying the two conflict/contradict so PF works with SA (AB>BRB)...

Well, Frenzy says get an extra attack and SA says don't get an extra attack, there is a contradiction there too then so I ask you again, why doesn't Frenzy work (Advanced>Basic)?

If someone wants to play PF working with SA, I'll just start playing as if Frenzy works with SA too, along with Devastating Charge because Advanced>Basic just like AB>BRB!


The bottom line is, if anything, the AB>BRB rule says if there IS a conflict, not if there CAN be one. The PF and SA rule can be read and applied together so that there is no conflict so why do you think it makes sense to read the two rules together as if there is one?

 

Im gonna give it a go here...as I think the massive conflict lies in the understanding of "contradiction".


A contradiction is when two core assumptions in an agreed set of rules cant exists side by side.
In other words: If its a paradox, its a contradiction.

example:

Core assumption 1:
"There exists an immovable and unbreakable object."
- and object that by no means or force can EVER be rocked out of place.

Core assumption 2:
"There exists a moving object with unstoppable force"
- an object that by no means or force can EVER be rocked.

It is impossible for both to exist, as if they would collide
1 one of the two assumptions would have to be false:
The immovable object cant be immovable or unbreakable if the unstoppable object cant be stopped by it. It would have to break or move.
And the unstoppable force could not be unstoppable if the immovable object was in fact immovable, and thus able to stop it.

THAT! is a contradiction. That is a paradox.

if our army book said.

"Saurus is an unstoppable force"
and BRB said
"Supporting attacks are an unmovable object"

THEN!
THEN! PF would override the BRB, as they CANNOT co-exist and still be true..

BUT!!

The fact is, that PF and Supporting attacks CAN co-exist.

"PF is a special rule that makes another attack"
"Special rules can make extra attacks, but not from supporting attacks"

BAM! PF can exist, as it is not prevented from having its function.
That function is just directed to the appropriate parts of the game by the BRB.

For PF to be a contradiction, it would bluntly have to say
"PF is a special rule that ALWAYS, under ALL circumstances, even supporting attacks, will make another attack on a six"

THEN it wouldnt be able to co-exist, and the the BRB would override.

Its like programming code:
If the system cant find a way for it to work, it breaks (unless given priority like the BRB<AB override>
If there is a "clear passage" for the code to work, that is what happens.

Imagine PF as a river that flows freely.
Then it meets the rules, a Dam that blocks its way.
If there are no way through and all is blocked the Dam explodes from the pressure.
If there is guided way through the Dam that allows the water to pass in a certain way, then the water will flow that way, and the Dam wont break.


That is it from me, I will go back to posting silly pictures and act a fool.

 

Just pointing out that the AB vs BRB doesn't say contradiction, but conflict.

 

as with the water, if there is a way through, there is no conflict.

 

Interesting that you ignored the fact I agreed with you and focused on what my opponents have said as if explaining it to me. My argument almost this entire time has been "the PF supporting attacks don't make a big enough difference to argue about it. Do whatever your opponent says." Before I was sure that the army book superseded the basic, Sleboda got me on the fence with the same arguments. Now I just keep reiterating:

It is unclear. Stop saying it is clear. It is not clear. Blame it on others ignorance or your own superiority, but stop saying it is clear.

 

The point he is making is that it is only unclear because everyone else is forcing a conflict into existence. Which is interesting, because I have skaven players, Vampire players, and Wood Elf players, who all thinks otherwise, with no real gain for doing so. I never even got to make a case out of it myself, I was just told to use PF in all ranks. By a judge who also isn't a lizardmen player, and almost all of the local players agree with.

Thinking it is only lizardmen players who can see a conflict is pretty assumptous, as it implies people are only arguing to gain an advantage, when in reality, several people of other armies, armies that would be at a disadvanage if ruled in favour of PF on SA, still aren't sure what to make of the rule, and thus agrees there is a conflict. Are the also trying to force a conflict to exist?

And saying Conflict = Contradiction is grasping at straws, honestly, because that is a MASSIVE assumption. The only thing we have to go on, is what we are given in the book. We also have to assume that every choice is deliberate, even if it isn't. With that in mind, you cannot assume that they used two vastly different words to mean the same thing. Conflicts aren't contradictions, anyone who have ever negotiated ever would know this. A conflict occurs not because of completely opposing rules/choices/ideas. It occurs when you aren't in agreement of something.

To make a nice example I saw for an unrelated reason a while back:

I want an ensurance company to pay me, because my computer broke.
Contradiction: They don't want to pay.
Conflict: They want to pay, but only half of what I wanted them to pay.

And finally, I'll just say +1 to Markhaus, a post which states what I've said several times already, but people insist on ignoring. It may be that it is significantly more likely that PF doesn't work on SA, but that isn't what is being said. People actually claim the rules outright say "You cannot use PF with SA", which it doesn't, unless you make several assumptions, which is not how logic works. The moment you have to assume things, there are more than 1 interpretation of the given issue, and in this case, it means that your assumption that Conflict and Contradiction means the same, and that the example given is the only application of the rule, is just as correct as someone making another, equal, assumption.

To restate what has already been said:
- Advanced vs Basic rules and BRB vs AB - Assumption made against PF is that these are the same thing, despite different wordings, and the example given not relating to AB vs BRB
- Assuming Conflict and Contradiction is the same thing
- Assuming the example given is the only way the rule is used, despite no such thing being mentioned in the text

This isn't about "trying too hard" to make it unclear. This immediately springs to mind when I read page 11, a page which should have cut the image, and spend some more time expanding those rules, rather than just make offhanded "Oh, and if there is a conflict, just use the AB, kthxbai", which is an absurd way to write rules, and hearing people claim that's a perfectly well-written rule is absolutely stunning. If anything, it seems the arguments against PF are trying far harder than anything I've seen from the opposing side - and that's despite the fact that I don't think pf works in supporting ranks.