8th Ed. Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks

I used to work for GW, the orders are to give the answer that makes the caller/emailer happy. We used to experiment too and you could get two different answers on the same question depending on who you got. The people manning the phones and emails are not the designers. If you asked them a slanted question in anyway like I believe this is how it's played, they will agree with you. Unfortunately even asking it totally neutrally you will still get a random answer because they are front line employees.

Whether they meant it or not, they dropped the ball. They've already shown in places they don't know their own rules when writing armybooks.

Tiktaqto not being able to join a unit that his special rule specifically mentions giving benefits to....
WoC book stating wizards can cast while wearing chaos armour. That's nice, but there is no actual rule stopping you casting while wearing armour.

 

It aint official ruling until it's in FAQ.

No PF for supporting attacks I'm afraid

 

The supporting attacks rule disregards special rules that literally grant extra attacks on the profile. Pf doesn't do this so therefore this argument is moot.

 

Again, it says more than that. Attacks on the profile OR ANY bonus attacks he would otherwise be entitled to from special rules or unusual effects.

 

Code:

I used to work for GW

... Well that explains it...

Where does it say that you have to make seperate rolls for different ranks ?
I say all the 6's you roll grant attacks to the front rank...
(my 2 ranks of 10 saurus roll 30 6's [supose it's posible] oh yea the front renk will be maknig all those exra attacks)
(all 30 of them)

 

We'll just wait for the faq to come out then. All the stubborn rules lawyers will be wrong and I'll be smiling.

 

And please let me know of another rule that grants extra attacks to a unit that does not get added to their attacks profile. Thank you

 

Not to play devil's advocate but where does it say you HAVE to roll all the models at once? I know it recomends speed rulling in some situations. If you had a Hero or Lord in a block of Saurus I'm sure you'd roll for them seperately. If you have 2 or 3 Heros or Lords your rolling even more dice seperately.

RAI: It should work on the second rank.
RAW: The BRB is very specific. It doesn't work. The AB needs to have a clause stating it ignores the BRB book or giving it specific permission too.

If the AB said that the second rank got a 2nd attack then it would be a case of AB>BRB. It doesn't specifically say that the 2nd rank gets the attack so in the truests RAW sense it only affects the first rank.

That being said I'm playing that everyone attacking gets it as a benefit and my gaming group has agreed that's how we're going to play it until it gets FAQ'd one way or the other.

 

The rules lawyers are only playing by the rules that GW has published. As the rules are written at this moment, predatory fighter does not apply to supporting attack, that isn't the rules lawyers' fault, it's the rules. If GW erratas the rule in an FAQ that changes the rules, that does not mean an incorrect interpretation of the rule was correct all along.

 

Don't wait send in the question show GW it's an issue.

 

Why should GW give an answer to a question which is false? If many people ask this question, i think everybody suppose to get the same answer of this question... would be weird if you don't.. and it's weirder when you gain an answer on the question and when the FAQ releases the answer will be total different from your answer on your e-mail..

 

I don't know why I even bother with discussion about these things. Nothing you say will change my point of view and nothing I say will affect yours.

 

Personally, I don't think any question is ever 'false'. No matter how stupid the question might be, if a person/player doesn't understand that: ask it! Note: this applies to real life as well!

I haven't asked in our group what we make of it, but I imagine it being ruled that supporting attacks do in fact get a bonus attack. Rules as intended. If the guys decide otherwise, fine, Rules as written.

Just make sure you have it all cleared up in your local gaming group, and wait for the official FAQ.

The Hunted

 

It doesn't really matter what answer you personally get by sending the email.
You send it so that it makes it into the FrequentlyAskedQuestions by being a question that is asked frequently.

 

It wasn't meant that serious haha, and I know what the idea is of FAQ's, not that stupid, i guess!

 

Not insulting someones former legitimate employment or using terms derogatorily would help. Also you are still deflecting you asked for an example of non profile bonus attacks and was given one. Cleanly ignored. Ill listen to good arguments based on the rules as always. Cheers.

 

Question submitted to GW FAQ email account along with a request for a ruling on whether our skink characters can mount flying beasties and join other flying beasties.

Got an automated response saying thanks and that the question will be considered the next time there is a set of FAQs prepared. Fingers crossed for a quick FAQ then.

 

I have said nothing derogatory to anyone or insulted your former profession. I must have missed the example of a rule given as well. I was looking for another rule that grants extra attacks that are not included in the attacks profile the same way pf does. Even looking back through the posts I do not see it. Sorry if I came off in any way as insulting or derogatory towards you.

 

Red Fury for vampires, and Ramhorn Helm for Beastmen.
Red fury says to make another attack for each wound inflicted.
Ramhorn Helm says to make an immediate attack every time you make an armor save.

 

Those are for characters only not a unit. I specifically asked for a special rule that affects a unit. When will you ever see a vampire or doombull in the second rank ever?