8th Ed. Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks

Haha that's great

 

Tbh I think that the whole fuss of rolling supporting attacks and front rank attacks separately to discount PF would be an inconvenient waste of time, clearly GW meant for all the attacks to be done as one, and all have PF.

 

I agree. But there will always be the discussion about it until the faq comes out and clears it up for us.

 

Be careful how you throw about 'clearly GW meant'. You can never truely know GW what they meant as evident from their current FAQs which have even included notes saying please don't do this perfectly legal rule against the spirit of the game. Also, what they mean can change every few months with consistency.

Of course rolling them all at once would be quicker, and who cares if they have PF for them all or not, it's not going to make much of a difference. I'd much prefer Saurus without the rule at all actually.

 

This is still going on?

PF applies to all models in the unit, GW said it themselves in the e-mail that guy received on page 3 of this thread. Any further discussion is a waste of time.

 

Not really. It's been also stated that GWS emails have had seperate rulings on the same question depending on WHO answered your email. This will not be setteled until we see a FAQ.

RAW I don't think the 2nd rank gets the attack.
RAI I think they get the extra attack.

I will play with RAI.

PS I emailed them too. I'll let you guys know what they tell me. I'm also going to print the email and keep it in my Army book until it gets FAQ'd.

 

If a model with PF rolls a 6 to hit it gets to make an additional attack. BRB says that a model can only make one supporting attack. So the saurus with 2 attacks on its profile makes 1 supporting attack. If that attack rolls a 6 to hit then it gets another attack.

This seems to be a fairly clear example of AB>BRB. All attacks should benefit from PF, not just those of the front rank

Simples!

 

No, it isn't clear at all. Army book only trumps BRB in a contradiction or conflict. If the rule said "including models making supporting attacks," then there would be a contradiction and you'd get PF.

It doesn't say that, it simply states that models with it get an additional attack on a 6. Like 2 attack Saurus with Spears, the additional attack is therefore wasted on supporting models unless the Army Book specifically says otherwise.

 

Yeah, I've been following this conflict alot after reading into it it, it makes sense that it wouldn't apply to supporting attacks. So I'm ready to accept that, but if it does... then that's the sweetest ever.

 

As Gojira posted on page 5....

Notice the part circled in blue. The BRB covers this exact situation. Look I think we SHOULD get it too. That doesn't change how the rule is written in it's current form. The AB is not contradicting the BRB. The AB is giving us an ability that is called a "special rule" and the BRB specifically states we don't get extra attacks even from special rules. The fact that the AB came out after the BRB doesn't matter here.

 

OK, that made me laugh out loud. Perfect timing.

 

Go Chewy

 

This is exactly as I see it too. But I'll play by the rules until I'm told otherwise. And insulting people with a genuinely strong argument isn't exactly the best way to show how sound you are. Funny how the evil rules lawyer doesn't do that.

 

There is a difference there.
Ripperdactyls are mounts, and as such get no supporting attacks anyway, but the additional attacks are combined into their normal attacks.
Predatory fighter attacks are NOT part of the original attack set.
Right now, yeah, it probably shouldn't work with supporting attacks RAW, but as they are making multiple single attacks, rather than making multiple attacks at once, it could be argued that they should.

 

I completely don't understand differentiating additional attacks from the rest of the attacks. Models with the Predatory Fighter rule DO have their additional attacks as part of their 'original attack set'. Just because you roll 'to hit' dice for PF after rolling 'to hit' with the attacks in a unit's profile doesn't mean they didn't have those attacks to begin with. The unit had those attacks in them before the combat phase had even began, you just have to roll those attacks afterward.

It seems illogical to me to deem some extra attacks apart from other extra attacks. Would you argue Savage Orcs Big 'Uns (armed with extra hand weapons) should have 3 attacks per model as their supporting attacks because they are only 1 attack at a time too? You roll your base attack first, then roll and Extra Attack for frenzy 2nd, then roll the Extra attack for 2 hand weapons 3rd? Neither the extra attack from frenzy or 2 hand weapons is part of the model's 'original attack set'. In fact, that unit has 3 distinct attack sets and each one is only 1 attack (which would be my limit according to the Supporting Attacks rule). If I demanded to play my supporting Saurus (Krox, etc.) attacks to include additional attacks from Predatory Fighter, I'd have to let my opponents do the same with their supporting attacks.

The Supporting Attack rule does not specify '1 attack per set of attacks', it's 'only ever make a single attack'.

 

Extra attacks such as attacks gained from frenzy and xhw are added to the base attacks. So you go from 1 to 3 base attacks.

 

Extra attacks such as attacks from Predatory Fighter are in addition to the base attacks. So you go from 2 to 2-4 attacks (for saurus) or from 3 to 3-6 attacks (for kroxigors). Also, any special rules that apply to the base attacks (mundane equipment properties, magical equipment properties, magic etc.) also apply to the additional attacks from Predatory Fighter. (This not so with some other additional attacks that have their own special rules, such as Stomp.)

 

Are you telling me that my ogres can stomp from the second rank?

 

No, because the rules for stomp specifically say that you can only stomp something in Base contact.