8th Ed. Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks

=> I would look forward to a game with you using my Undead Legion.

I mean, really, even though there is a rule that says my troops can only march within 12 inches of my general, I really don't like the idea of having the see which units are in range and which are not. I'd rather ignore the rule and just march with all my guys all the time.


Sarcasm, aside, how is it even remotely ok to justify ignoring the rules simply because we don't like some of them?
Do you split your cavalry and rider attacks? If a character is in your unit and has the ASF sword, do you give ASF to the rest of the unit as well?

If your opponent has a large block of Dark Elf spearmen near a Cauldron, do you allow him his re-rolls even for the 30 models in the unit that may not be in range of the Cauldron's effect?


How about Merderous Prowess in general? It says DE models re-roll ones to wound in combat. Do you allow your DE foes to re-roll all failures, or do you make them pick out the dice that rolled a 1 and re-roll only those?

Warhammer is absolutely spilling over with rules that require you to make distinctions. This is no different.

 

According to the rules supporting attack does not benefit from Predatory Fighter, anything else is wishful thinking.

Deal with it.

 

Non LM opponents "wishfully thinking" their opponents should get more attacks?

It needs a FAQ for clarification. "Deal with it".

 

This.

 

Agreed. Players need clarification on the existing rules, therefore a FAQ is greatly needed. Thankfully, no Errata is needed for this item as I cannot think of a simpler way to word the current rules and still remain clear.

 

Indeed, how to resolve/play PF is one thing whereas what the rules actually say or imply is another. When playing in a tournament, talk it over with a TO beforehand so you can have an official judge's ruling. If a friendly or pick-up game, discuss with opponent beforehand and be flexible based on opponent's preference. I think we can all agree on this point.

In terms of what the rules actually say, I understand where you are coming from Red but if you are actually meaning to say both sides have valid points from a logical perspective, that cannot be true. if you mean to say that both sides have arguments that appear to be reasonable, I can accept that.

If asserting the former, an argument or point needs to have a true premise and each point of the argument up to the conclusion must necessarily logically flow from the next and be true themselves. Since it has been shown that the PF with SA argument is not valid in that the premise is not necessarily true along with each point/conclusion, it cannot be said to be valid.

If asserting the latter, I can see where and why people think PF works with SA and I concede as much.

However, if you argue PF works with SA...

(1) You have to ignore what the rest of pg. 11 says and pretend the AB>BRB rule can be isolated and read alone which leads to a taking of a rule out of context resulting in faulty conclusions and absurd results (see below).

(2) If you choose to define "conflict" as you see fit, without the context of page 11 to help you, you are committing a contextual fallacy.

(3) You have to assume that PF works with SA by virtue of the "conflict" language of the AB>BRB rule and that AB>BRB even when the alleged conflict can be resolved or doesn't necessarily exist.

(4) If you maintain PF works with SA then that opens the door for Frenzy and every other attack generating rule to function with SA because Advanced>Basic. This renders the SA restriction null and void and leads to a generally absurd result.

Therefore, it makes more sense to go with the alternative, that PF does not work with SA. The basis for PF not working with SA is when you take all of pg. 11 and read everything together, then you take the language of the PF and SA rules together, you can harmonize both rules so that there is no contradiction or conflict.

So I ask again, why read a rule as if there is a conflict or contradiction when you don't have to? This is probably a rhetorical question but it is a legitimate question everyone should ask themselves when saying PF works with SA.

 

At this point I don't even care. Have you seen the khaines end times book? Insanity!

 

What? 4 ranks of elves that can all attack, rerolling all missed To Hit rolls AND all missed To Wound rolls isn't balanced enough for you?

 

This is still going?

Haha, well it's obvious that it needs an FAQ

 

White lions

10 in front
10 in second rank
10 in third rank (martial prowes)
10 in fourth rank (martial prowes boost from Mal)
10 in fifth rank (Horde)

50 S6 attacks ....yes its possible.

(ITS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!?)
OH SO YOU SAY!?
ADDA BANNA!

 

I just laughed when I found out that can take 8 bolt throwers. I'm sure there's nothing wrong with that.

Hey mort I saw that english wasn't your first lagnuage (never would have guessed as you seem to write very clearly).

Was just wondering what you think of the fact that the PF rule uses different wording to the rest of the WHFB world rules. It's the only instance I can remember or think of that use the phrasing "another attack". It's always add an attack to the profile, or make an additional attack.
I don't know if you have access to the rules in other languages but if you do does it use similarly different wording to what the rules say in it's BRB?

I'm aware it wouldn't change the way you understand the rule as that is very clear, but since it's the only language I know I can't help but feel different terminology lends weight to RAI. We butcher english for fun (urban dictionary anyone?) but we also tend to use distinctions based on context and I'd be rather interested if anybody that speaks another language and has access to both the BRB and PF rules in that language to see if it uses the same wording.

 

Technically not RAI if the text-as-written says something. But this is part of what I've been arguing. It seems odd to change the wording for no discernable reason.

Also, mort, you are starting to sound confused. Advanced vs Basic and AB vs BRB are two different things. You forcng them to be the same doesn't change reality, or "logic". But I guess this point doesn't matter, you ignored the last post I made with these points. What was it you said about reading the posts again?

And really, if the rule was as clear cut as some would make it out to be, you'd think more people would realize "the truth". even using Mortetvies well-written points for why we can't use PF, I can't get my local group to agree with it. Despite me being about the only player which it benefits.

It also reminds me of a Skaven problem, before it got solved in an entirely different way. A magic items grants 1d3 attacks when attacking from the rear rank (specifically), which would technically be overruled by the supporting attacks, but would render the item completely pointless. Of course, it is pointless, since it can only be taken on a champion, which HAS to be in the front rank, so that was solved in an entirely different way, and for different reasons.

 

I think Red Fury in VC uses the same text, "make another attack".

Clear and unambiguous rules don't tend to produce 180 posts worth of discussion...

 

Speaking of Skaven, I just read through their army book again, and spotted something on a choice I haven't actually used before. The Plague Furnace.

This beast poisons people, but what is interesting, is its misfire chart. On a 6, the whole unit makes "An additional full round of close combat attacks"

Now, on first glance, this makes it obvious that everyone attacks again, at whatever amount of attacks they were allowed to before as well. What is odd, however, is that this actually messes with the Supporting Attacks argument as well, if we are to go by the assumption that you can never, ever, not in a million years, have more than 1 supporting attack, unless it specifically points out that "Yes, you can use this on supporting attacks". What I read this as, since it doesn't apply to the enemy, is that you make additional attacks, equal to what you've already done. So if you had 3 attacks before, you make 3 attacks now, and if you had 1 attack before, because of Supporting attacks, you still make 1 additional attack. Basically, threat it as "another attack" entirely, rather than part of the current attack. Frenzy adds attacks to your profile, so it obviously doesn't add anything to supporting attacks.

It's funny, because when I read Bobs argument for "Predatory attacks" I thought it sounded pretty stupid, but since it seems more books actually have something similar, it is starting to sound like a pretty reasonable answer. It isn't +1 attacks on your profile, it is simply another out-of-sequence attack.

I'm not even sure which interpretation of the rule I think is right anymore. I think I'll just be glad that my local group have hard-ruled it for me, so we always play the same way, no matter how much anyone complains.

 

That's not the rule, though. That's an exaggeration of the rule. Look at the context of the Supporting Attacks rule. It is under the section "1. Fight a Round of Close Combat"

You only get 1 Supporting Attack per "round of close combat"

So when the the Furnace lets you fight "another round of close combat" you get more supporting attacks. For the same reason that you don't "use up" your supporting attack when a combat spans multiple turns.

Supporting Attacks are not limited to "1 attack ever" they are limited to 1 attack when counting "How Many Attacks" when "fighting a round of combat"

 

A few things...

Different terminology between PF and Frenzy type rules, in and of itself, is not enough to to lead the discussion in any direction because the terminology and language in this case is not as carefully constructed as it probably should be but it does give some food for thought. Likewise, the difference in "contradiction/conflict" on pg. 11 is problematic and annoying but it doesn't necessarily matter. It doesn't necessarily matter because it is like a recipe card talking about turkey the whole time but then on the last paragraph it then talks about carving up your fowl. Oh GW, how we love the deep thought put into your rules...Good thing GW is a model company... Right?

@Silver, I am not confused because "AB>BRB" and "Advanced>Basic" both happen in similar circumstances. I am not forcing a similarity but pointing out that there is a similarity and the arguments and rules are analogous. Consider the following argument:

Premise 1: Regarding AB>BRB, if there is a "conflict" AB>BRB and with Advanced>BRB, if there is a "contradiction," Advanced>BRB.

Premise 2: There either is or there is not a "conflict" between PF and SA.

Premise 3: There either is or there is not a "contradiction" between Frenzy type rules and SA.

Premise 4: There is a way to read, interpret and apply the PF rule so that there either is or there is not a "conflict" between PF and SA.

Premise 5: There is a way to read, interpret and apply the Frenzy and like rules so that there is or there is not a "contradiction" between Frenzy and SA.

Conclusion: If you read PF so that there is a "conflict" between PF and SA, PF>SA; and, if you read Frenzy so that there is a "contradiction" between Frenzy and SA, Frenzy>SA.

This argument is both sound and valid as all of the premises are true, if there actually is a way to read PF/Frenzy so that there is a conflict/contradiction and the conclusion naturally follows from them. The problem is ultimately, is there really a conflict or contradiction? If so, how do we know? Do we use dictionary.com or do we look to the actual text of pg. 11?

Seriously, if you are going to resort to semantics to maintain a position, then you must be consistent and realize that the rules explicitly say "a conflict will arise between...Where this occurs..." and therefore where there is a conflict, you have room to argue but not where there isn't a conflict or may not necessarily be one. The conflict here is not between PF and SA but between how the rules are read which is a completely different thing all together. You have to first do some mental gymnastics to say that there is a conflict in the first place before AB>BRB can apply.

Indeed, the only example given with Basic vs Advanced is where one rule that is Advanced completely negates a Basic rule and that is the only time this issue ever comes up (try to come up with another example if you disagree). Likewise, this is the only example we have witch which to give context to the AB>BRB rule and it is analogous and applicable.

Logically, since every paragraph that comes after the first is built upon and flows out of the prior paragraph, it only makes sense that the AB>BRB paragraph/rule is the logical extension and application of the Advanced>BRB rules. It therefore follows that the way to analyze and read the Advanced/Basic rules is applicable to the AB>BRB rules and using the logic provided us on pg. 11, PF simply cannot function with SA. Using logic, it is that simple but absent logic, I suppose anything goes.

 

To answer this question, my first language is Hungarian and then a bit of French (Hungarian family growing up in French part of Canada). I didn't actually learn English until I was around 6ish or later so I guess I've had quite a while to learn it! Going to school in America from grades 2-12, having a British Literature focus in undergrad and going to law school in America, I would hope I have at least some grasp of English =).

With all of that said, seeing how the rules are in another language isn't necessarily the best way to analyze this debate because first and foremost, the rules are written/understood by English speaking people in, well, England (GW). So essentially, they simply try to translate as best they can what is written in English into other languages and you are bound to have some issues come up with that process as not everything can be directly translated into another language (Greek, for example, has some words that would require a whole paragraph in English to adequately define).

So yeah, referring to the BRB in another language would only serve to complicate the issue more than it needs to.

With that said, when reading PF, we need to focus on what the rule does, not how it does what it does. A lot of the confusion comes up because people keep harping on the fact that PF's language says it operates differently than most other rules that generate extra attacks but that shouldn't have any bearing on the discussion at all unless PF has language that addresses how it interacts with SA specifically.

The discussion needs to be, PF is a special rule that generates an extra attack while SA is a rule that says no special rules that grant extra attacks apply... Is this a conflict where AB>BRB? Why or why not and what are the implications of each side?

As I have pointed out, the why for allowing PF to work with SA is still murky because thus far, all the opposition has been able to say is "AB>BRB if there is conflict" and that is a conclusion not an argument. Indeed, the main basis for the PF with SA argument seems to be focused on the language of how PF functions which is a logical fallacy and inappropriate for this discussion... I personally maintain that unless there is language that actually addresses how PF works with SA in the PF rule, we really should assume it doesn't work with PF because we should realize that if GW really wanted PF to work with SA, they COULD have specifically said so like they did with the Monstrous Support rule. Absent any clear intent for PF to overcome the SA limitations, we should assume there is no intent unless stated otherwise!

So anyway, I keep asking, if you want PF to work with SA, (1) how are you defining "conflict;" (2) why are you defining it as such (what is the basis for such a definition); (3) do you realize that there isn't necessarily a conflict; and, (4) why is it preferable or logical to read the PF and SA rules so that there is a conflict when you don't have to?

So far, no one has even attempted to address those 4 points hence the frustration and ring around the rosy posts/game.

 

+1