8th Ed. Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks

Indeed, the ONLY way PF works with SA is if there is some language in the PF rule that says PF works when making SA as that is the only way there would be an actual "conflict" or "contradiction."

The burden of proof to establish this point/existence of such language is on the people claiming PF works with SA. The entire basis for PF working with SA is based on an assumption that isn't necessarily true, therefore it is based on a logical fallacy and faulty reasoning and cannot be correctly asserted as being true. Absent a clear showing, not a vague possibility, that PF is supposed to work with SA, PF does not work with SA by default.

You can't say "PF may work with SA therefore it does" and say "prove I am wrong if you think otherwise" when challenged. The absence of evidence contrary to your position does not make it right or correct-only evidence for your position does. Therefore, the difference between my position (that PF doesn't work with SA) and that PF works with SA is as follows:

One side is saying "look, this is how it could work therefore this is how it does works" without showing any conclusive proof while my position is pointing out that because the other side doesn't have conclusive proof, they can't assert their position to be true or correct. We are left with the only alternative, to play as if PF does not work with SA because the SA restriction has not been shown to be overcome. The default position is no additional attacks through special rules when making SA.

In 33~ pages of this thread, it all boils down to what is summed up in this post...

 

Was this email a thing that actually happened? If so, doesn't that answer the question right there?

 

It doesn't answer the question because (1) random GW employees answering emails is not authoritative; and, (2) emails can be faked so they are not official.

Therefore, absent some official ruling as in an FAQ, PF does not work with SA for the very reasons mentioned in my previous post.

 

There is also a post somewhere in this thread (or hardyworld's earlier FAQ thread) where someone said they once worked for GW's support team and was instructed to "answer email questions in whatever way it seems the question asker wants it to be answered"

So, if you asked "Isn't predatory fighter supposed to work with supporting attacks?" they would answer "yes it does!" but if you asked "Predatory Fighter doesn't work in supporting attacks, does it?" they would answer "Nope, it doesn't!"

Of course, this is just me repeating something someone else said in an online forum. I don't have anything to back that up. It would be interesting to see how email support answers the same question worded differently.

 

I imagine there might be a process akin to:



"What is the meaning of life? Here is your answer!"

 

Hence why I didn't even bother to post it, because if any GW employees word is good enough, you could go to any store in the world, and ask - and their answer would be just as good.

To hdctambien, I didn't actually write the message, someone else worded the email here in this very thread, and I just copy-pasted it. It's very neutral, so to not provoke a specific answer. Still, an email answer is the equivalent of saying your imaginary friend told you something in terms of "evidence".

And finally mort, what is being said for the most part of the last 10 pages isn't that PF works in SA, but that PF needs an FAQ. It's all fine and good that you think the answer is crystal clear, but it doesn't change the fact that even official GW TOs rule both ways. So there IS confusion, and not just "I want it to work because it benefits me!"-wishing, but actual, honest, confusion. You claim you know lawyers who agrees with you, and as I said earlier, I know a lawyer who outright says the rule would need an actual judge to decide which is right, because it's too unclear to be outright decided by the wordings used. All we can do is argue what we THINK is right, based on the wording (Hence why I still agree with you that PF likely isn't working with SA, even though that seems to be passing right over your head). And sure, you make the most compelling argument in this discussion, but it still doesn't change the fact that a FAQ is needed.

And seriously, why would anyone ever be against FAQs? I would think everyone playing Warhammer would be all for getting some much needed FAQs for the multitude of issues there are with the rules. I'm honestly surprised that some people actually DON'T want them to release a FAQ.

PS: You ridiculing people who "disagree" with you makes it far more unlikely to get people to agree with you, no matter what argument you may have. Just a friendly tip.

 

What is an official GW TO? I wasn't aware that there were official GW tournaments or any sort of process for becoming an official TO.

Around here, all it takes to be a TO is to have access to/rent some space and say "Hey, I'm running a tournament. Come and play!" If people show up, then you've got a tournament and you are now the TO that makes rulings on rules disputes. You don't even have to have read any of the rules to be a TO (although, that would help you be a good TO)

GW employees can't even get the WHFB rules correct in their published White Dwarf battle reports. I'm not too sure if I would base any rules decisions on an "official GW TO" or really any TO. They are no more experts in the rules than you or I.

 

Truth.

Are we certain of that? We may want to start a thread to discuss the PF rule vs. SA rule to see it there is a consensus.

Players (all of us) need an FAQ/Errata to end the discussion. Until then, this will remain an exercise in perpetual un-provability on the incompleteness of the Warhammer rules system. While an answer may indeed exist that is true in the standard model of existing rules, as mortetvie has shown, that truth is still dependent on interpretation by the model's users.

 

...Hence why I said an email doesn't prove anything.

And by "official GW", I meant GW employees. Even if it isn't true, most people expect GW hosted tournaments to use the correct rule. But unfortunately, even GW employees (at least the store employed ones) know just as much as we do, and possibly have an even harder time getting answers from the rules department. I have heard he was told to stop asking rules questions, unless he wanted to find a new job elsewhere.

It's kinda sad that GW handles this so poorly. Here's hoping the change in management will make them switch just a tiny bit more focus on the rules, rather than the "model company first and foremost" idea they are currently running with.

 

I'm not stupid. I know the difference between opinion and argument, I'm familiar with the rules of logic and so on. But I don't always agree with your conclusions based on logic, because I don't agree that your arguments completely follows the rules of logic. In your arguments you still imply, interpret and assume.

Please re-read the fifth point in my previous post. My point was that GW doesn't really follow the rules of logic.
My sixth point only meant to try to open your mind, not introduce new rules. But apparantly that attempt fell flat on it's face.

And regarding which view-point has "the burden of proof", who decides where the burden of proof lies?

p48: Normally, a warrior can only strike blows against an enemy in base contact. The most common example exception is if he is making a supporting attack.
So GW implies that there could be other rules that allows attacks besides btb and SA. Spears and high elves(Fight in extra rank) and hordes still make supporting attacks, just more of them.

Relevant argument 1:
If your roll a 6 to hit in close combat, make another attack.(premise)
You rolled a 6 to hit in close combat
Therefore, make another attack (conclusion)

But as most people are aware, it's not quite as simple as that. There is a context, and other rules to take into consideration.

No, the "logical" argument in that notion is:
SA IS a CC attack, not just a form of CC attack. (That's why you get a Strength-bonus from a GW.)
You assume PF says:
CC attack in btb.
But it doesn't.
And SA says only one attack/model. No matter what. Which one should take precedence? Not crystal clear.


And that's pretty much sums up my opinion that the rule in question needs a FAQ or, preferrably, an Errata to clarify.
And I always let my opponent decide when it comes to rules, it's the easiest way to keep a friendly game friendly.

And Mort, telling everybody your "position by default is superior" doesn't usually swing them in your favor, no matter how strong an argument... I'm not saying that PF does work in supporting ranks, only that it's possible that it could work, and if there's a possibility for different interepretations of the rules there's a need for a FAQ.

 

This argument is getting blown way out of proportion.

It basically comes down to a one extremely basic principles that need to be answered.

Does PF create a conflict leading to AB > BRB (or AR>BR)?

If this is the case you need to establish specifically WHY with actual quotes from the rule book a rule like frenzy, or extra attacks doesnt also create a conflict. "because its in the brb" doesnt count, as by the brb AR>BR. If you are applying a conflict during PF there is naturally a conflict during frenzy or extra attacks. It revolves around the same issue. AB> BRB applies in exactly the same ways as AR>BR. If PF applies, Frenzy also applies, making the supporting attack rule entirely irrelevant.




I don't know why logic is ever being brought into the issue.

As far as I can tell PF is a special attack that makes you attack more than once. SA is a rule that prevents you from making more than 1 attack, even if that attack comes from a special rule.

PF is a special rule.
It lets you make more than 1 attack.

I don't really see how this doesnt fall under the SA umbrella. SA even lets PF give you the extra attack (thus not creating a conflict) it just doesnt let you make it. In literally the exact same way frenzy grants you an additional attack, you simply can't take that attack from the second rank.

I think PF working in the second rank was obviously the intention, but the rules as written are iron clad. Until GW SPECIFICALLY tells me otherwise i'm going by the rules that are written.

 

Logic is the study of valid reasoning. You used logic to say everything you said in your post. Logic is what you use when you determine to go at a green light, when you decide where to place a stamp on an envelope and when you decide how to write things down-the order of the letters and words. Indeed, logic is essentially the study of what makes sense objectively, rather than subjectively (see for reference on objective versus subjective http://www.asdatoz.com/Documents/Website-%20Objective%20vs%20subjective%20ltr.pdf).

So logic is brought into the issue because logic, as the study of valid reasoning, is what helps us determine the valid way to read and apply the rules of the game. Logic, therefore, also helps us identify invalid ways to read and apply the rules.

Furthermore, if something is based on "faulty reasoning" such as a logical fallacy, it cannot properly be maintained to be true. the PF working with SA argument is based on several logical fallacies, as I clearly outlined in many earlier posts, and therefore demonstrated that the PF working with SA argument is not a valid position from a logical perspective. Therefore, since it is not a valid position from a logical perspective, we are left with the only alternative, with playing PF as if it does not work with SA (because that is the default position for any and every special rule that generates additional attacks).

Part of the problem with this discussion is where people say that we need to prove PF doesn't work with SA. That, in and of itself, is an improper thing to demand because the burden of proof to demonstrate PF working with SA is on the people that want to say PF works with SA, not on people saying it doesn't. Saying "it might work if you read the rules my way" isn't enough to satisfy that burden and the absence of actual evidence contrary to a position is not evidence for a position.

But yes, everything you say in your post about how the rules work is about right and lol at the meme above this post.

 

First of all, the burden of proof is on the side that wants PF to work with SA because they are making the claim. The default position is that no special rules work with SA and PF is a special rule and therefore doesn't work. There needs to be a showing that PF has language to create a conflict so that AB>BRB takes effect. Absent a showing that such language actually exists (showing that such language could exist is not enough) we are forced with playing the rule as it does not work with SA.

In terms of the other things you say, please show me where I imply, interpret and assume-and why that weakens my position (because some assumptions, interpretations and implications are more well founded than others). Then, please show me where GW doesn't really follow the rules of logic-I mean show me the rule of logic that is violated.

Anyway, any system of rules is it's own system of logic, to an extent, and within the context of those rules, what is or is not logical is determined. Once the system of rules is written and in place, you can then apply logic as per the context of the rules system to see what works or does not work in that rules system. Therefore there are two issues here: (1) what makes sense in the rules and why; and, (2) what is the proper way to read/apply those rules. I'd like for you to show me what rules don't follow logic and why. Feel free to take this discussion to PM as it may be off topic.

Regarding your post about other rules that allow for you to strike blows from second rank and onward-those rules specifically say you can attack when not in base contact where PF does not.

Is that extra "Attack" generated a Supporting Attack? Why? How do you know? Therefore, the form of your argument is still in that invalid form-that extra "Attack" is not specified to be a type of attack that allows you to hit models not in base contact (which is the basic/default method of making an "Attack"). Since not every "Attack" is a supporting attack, you cannot say in PF where it says "Attack" it means/refers to SA (as not all "Attacks" are supporting attacks while all supporting attacks are "Attacks," there is a difference).

The argument that says "because PF says 'Attack' it also includes 'SA'" is an invalid form while the argument that says "because PF says 'Attack' it means 'directing attacks in base contact'" is a valid form-that is the difference between the two arguments. Indeed, while SA is an attack in "close combat" and therefore a "close combat attack", it is still a specific way of directing attacks in close combat-so there is a difference between how "Attacks" can be directed. Attacks can normally only be directed at models in base contact, an exception to this rule is when making a supporting attack (pg. 48 "who can strike"). The rules for supporting attacks are therefore their own form of directing "Attacks" which are unique and independent from the normal method.

Therefore, it is irrelevant if I am assuming PF says "CC attack in base contact" in my argument, as you assert I am. This is because all "Attacks" can, by default, be made against models in base contact while not all "Attacks" can, by default, be made against models not in base contact. Indeed, the main difference here is that it is permissible to assume that PF includes the default/basic method of directing attacks, against models in base contact but absent specific language, it is not permissible to assume that PF includes any exceptions to the normal method of directing attacks in close combat.

One assumption is supported by the language of the BRB and the other is not. Therefore saying "well you are assuming x" does not weaken my position because I am permitted to "assume x" based on how the rules are written. The other position is not permitted to assume x absent specific language in the BRB and that is where the problem comes in.

In terms of which should take preference, SA should take preference unless the special rule clearly says otherwise as with any other situation where there is a restriction in the BRB and other rules overcome that restriction with specific language.

I agree that an FAQ would be ideal and it is commendable to allow your opponent preference for how the rules should be played. I never disagreed with getting an FAQ, I only pointed out if you wanted to decide the right way to play PF from a RAW/logic perspective you could decide without an FAQ. There is a difference.

 

Several people have shown why PF should work with SA.
Several people have shown why PF shouldn't work with SA.

Some agree that it's clear as glass in both direction, and
some agree that it's clear as milk and could go either way with a FAQ.

Logic and GW in one word. Unmodified.

In different version of the BRB FAQ some rules have switched meaning several times. "can I or can't I use the generals Ld? Do I use my own, the best in the unit or the generals? Does doom and darkness change my Unmodified Ld? How about Standard of Discipline?

And remember that FAQ answers questions (ie deciding which interpretation to use), it doesn't change rules.

 

Not exactly, to be more precise...

Several people have shown that PF "should" work with SA because PF could work with SA.

Several other people have then shown that simply because PF could work with SA, unless PF actually and clearly says it does, it doesn't. Simply because something may work one way is no basis for maintaining that it does. And when there is a clear rule/restriction that says not to do something, unless you have clear language to overcome that rule/restriction, you can't.

True.

Unmodified is a word to be defined and that definition can be different depending on how/where it is used. That isn't necessarily logic but semantics.

The issue here isn't that we have two equally valid interpretations of a rule, it is that we have one interpretation based on faulty reasoning and another not based on faulty reasoning.

 

That is how it is supposed to work. The Errata is there to change rules; the FAQ is there to reinforce existing rules.

Effectively, the FAQ section has often changed rules (acting as an Errata). I don't need to site examples of this, this current FAQ still has some lingering changes included, while past versions of the FAQ have had some more egregious rules changes included.