8th Ed. Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks

Hey guys, I figured it out! This is how the Predatory Fighter and Supporting Attack special rules work together!!
Models may only declare one Supporting Attack due to the Supporting Attacks special rule. Models declaring attacks by normal means can benefit from the additional attacks that the Predatory Fighter special rule provides the model. The rules work as written without any conflict between them! So roll to-Hit for models in the front rank first, count how many 6's were rolled, and then roll that many additional dice when rolling to-Hit for models declaring supporting attacks (ignoring additional 6's rolled at this step in accordance with both the PF and SA special rules).
Games-Workshop finally wrote a new special rule that is clear and consistent with the game's basic rules. However, gamers, conditioned by years of published inconsistent rules, are confused by a clear rule and immediately reject the thought that GW intended the rules to work as written and push for an unnecessarily complicated new interpretation to the new special rule. This new interpretation is inconsistently applied (frenzy would work identically as this PF interpretation) by these gamers in an attempt to gain some small advantage.

 

Sorry guys, Koranot is right, this is the correct email to contact:

gamefaqs@gwplc.com

 

Yeah, figured it out before I sent it.

I'd make sure to underline the importance of having an actual FAQ released, rather than just the answer. The answer itself is far less important than the actual FAQ.

 

This is a non-sequitur.

Whether or not "PF rule generates additional attacks without the need for another rule" has nothing to do with whether it actually conflicts with the rule on supporting attacks.


That being said, I am with everyone else in that I would be happy to see an official FAQ/Errata document that allows PF to be used on supporting attacks.

I would also like to see them allow Terradon-mounted characters to join units of Terradons (or at least our special character), tell us how Spawn Kin actually works, and provide some clarity on Kroak and Engine of the Gods and what their spells actually hit. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

 

Of course! It's sad though, considering how very little faith I have in them getting a FAQ out for us. Seeing as how they are fixing WE/End Times books that came out much later than ours... Ugh...


Did anyone else receive this?

"You’ve reached the rules mailbox for Games Workshop - thanks for your email!

We’re not able to respond to each email individually, but we read every one and feed all comments back into making Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 even better."

My expectations are already faltering.

 

Hm, I think you are getting the things a little bit out of context here. I was responding to a post from Putzfrau, were he claimed that if PF worked with supporting attacks, frenzy would too.
In this context it is important to note that PF works different than other mechanism which grant additional attacks.

But if we just adress the question whether PF works with supporting attacks or not, the only important question is if there is a conflict between both rules or not.

I would say there is a conflict. What is your opinion?

Yes I received the same answer. I guess they are deleting mails to this adress without reading them and just send an automated response back. What a shame I think it was really a good idea but maybe some of us get an answer.

 

I'm hoping for "Strenght in numbers". If enough people email them, they might just react. I mean, they are obviously making FAQs, so they might just take the 2 minutes it would take to write an actual FAQ.

 

Koranot, thank you for your posts as it gave me an opportunity to revisit my arguments and readdress any potential criticism/weaknesses in them. As I understand your posts, there are two basic criticisms with my arguments: (1) you try to illustrate how there is a conflict between Predatory Fighter and Supporting Attacks, therefore "AB>BRB;" and, (2) then you try to point out how it is an error to make a distinction between regular close combat attacks and Supporting Attacks. Unfortunately, both of your rebuttals are actually guilty of the same logical fallacies and faulty reasoning I pointed out in my initial post but I'll go a step further to illustrate in this post why.

In-case this post is TLDR again, simply go down to the "conclusion" and see an abbreviated version of what I say to Karanot's points and why and if you still disagree with me, read my arguments as I walk you through why I am ultimately right and how.

Anyway, moving on, I'll start with the second criticism first since it is shorter. I do not create an "artificial difference" between Supporting Attacks and regular close combat attacks...The BRB creates an actual difference when it differentiates between how close combat attacks for models in base contact work and how close combat attacks for models not in base contact work. Therefore, if you are in the second rank, you can only attack using the Supporting Attacks method and are making what the BRB refers to as Supporting Attacks (BRB itself says "[w]e refer to the attacks made by these models as supporting attacks"). Therefore, when it says "Attack" in the Predatory Fighter rule, is it a Supporting Attack or a regular CC attack? If so, how do you know? The rule is badly worded but absent clearer language you should interpret a vague rule as conservatively as possible rather than liberally to get a benefit based on the vagueness of a rule. Also, when you use Murderous Prowess as an example, you fail to take into account that Murderous Prowess specifically says "Close Combat Attacks" rather than just "Attack" as the PF rule says. That difference might be significant, it might not, however, my ultimate point was that what rule was anyone using to say they can make more than one Supporting Attack per CC phase? Absent language in a rule that says "despite normally being able to make a single Supporting Attack" or something to overcome that restriction. Indeed, there is no indication that Predatory Fighter says it works with Supporting Attacks at all which is troubling and plays into how I address your first criticism below as the whole crux of the debate hinges on if there is or is not a conflict.

Regarding the first criticism, the "conflict," as you use the word, arises between the two rules because one rule says "make an additional attack" and another says "you can only ever make a single attack" and you assume that this is the kind of "conflict" that means "AB>BRB." You fail to realize, however, that this is a false equivocation fallacy because you are not using the word "conflict" in the same sense and way or context the BRB does and you are not applying the rules appropriately in light of what they actually say. Therefore, before anyone starts throwing around the "conflict exists, therefore AB>BRB" card, they need to define and understand their terms, otherwise I end up arguing about an orange at store X while you end up arguing about an Orange at store Y which is hardly conducive to a meaningful logical discussion.

So with that said, lets be clear that we *are* talking about the kind of "conflict" as explained and applied in the BRB. Indeed, to find out what anyone means when they are talking about "conflict" in this debate, we must look at the example and language from the BRB regarding Basic rules and Advanced rules, then we must apply them in the proper context because that is where the "AB>BRB" rule is.

Basic rules "apply to all models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise" while Advanced rules "apply to specific types of model, whether because they [are different/have different rules]...The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in the entry for the unit in their relevant Warhammer Armies book."

Furthermore, under the Basic Versus Advanced rules it says, "where rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Panic test under certain situations. If, however, that model has the rule that makes it immune to Panic, then it does not test for Panic- the advanced rule takes precedence."

Therefore, we must look at the types of rules that are allegedly conflicting and more specifically, how they are conflicting. Indeed, the type of conflict we are dealing with here is where an Advanced rule in an Army book is in conflict with a Basic rule in the BRB such that they grant/deny the ability to do something with equal force of language so that they cancel out resulting in an absurd result. I say "with equal force of language such that they cancel out" because in the example in the BRB, one rule says "in x circumstance, take a Panic test" while the other rule effectively says "in x circumstance don't take a Panic test". To clarify, a unit with the "immune to Panic" rule automatically passes Panic tests" and therefore, if you automatically pass a particular test, you obviously need not take the test as regardless of the result, (i.e., a double 6, which normally always failed, is rolled) the test is still considered to be passed and so the rules cancel out and the Advanced rule take precedence.

Ultimately, the way the two rules conflict is key here as illustrated in the BRB as even though Supporting Attacks is a Basic rule (since it is not included in a unit's entry), the way it conflicts is what makes AB>BRB or not, not the simple fact that it conflicts at all. Specifically, if Supporting Attacks only said "when making supporting attacks, a model only ever makes a single attack" then it would be a contradiction/conflict (as per the "AB>BRB" clause). However, that is not what we have going on here. Here, we have additional language in the Supporting Attack rule that specifically says "regardless of any special rules." Therefore, the focus and analysis shifts from the "make an extra attack" versus "no extra attack" portion of the rules to "regardless of any special rules" versus "regardless of any limitations" language.

Do you see that? This isn't a situation where it is Rock Paper Scissors and both rules pick Rock and cancel out therefore AB>BRB, this is a situation where one rule has Rock (Supporting Attacks) and another has Scissors (Predatory Fighter) because of the additional language in the supporting attack rule.

To put it into simpler terms, we have the quoted rules as follows:

SA: "(1) only ever make a single attack, (2) regardless of any special rules"

PF: "(1) make an additional attack"

If the "(1)" part of each rule cancels out, and if those are the only parts of the rule, then I concede, absolutely, PF>SA. However, once the "(1)" part of each rule cancels out, the "(2)" part of the SA rule remains and there is nothing in the PF rule to cancel it out, therefore it remains effective.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, while there are parts of PF and SA that contradict and cancel out (i.e., the only 1 attack versus gain an additional attack), not EVERY part that is relevant does (i.e., SA has language that says "regardless of any special rules" while PF does not have any equivalent and contrary language), and therefore, the part that is not canceled out remains effective. It works like this in math too....

x+y=x

-The left part of the math equation is the SA rule while the right part of the math equation is the PF rule.

-The x is the part of the SA rule that says "only 1 attack ever" while the y part is the one that says "regardless of special rules ever." The x part of the PF rule that says "gain an extra attack."

Now if you were to solve this math problem, you would end up with the "Xs" cancelling out and therefore that part of the rule that remains is not in conflict with a part of the PF rule in the sense and it works out...If you are making a supporting attack, you cannot benefit from the predatory fighter rule's extra attack.

In order to have a conflict that creates an "AB>BRB" conflict, you would need to have language in the Predatory Fighter rule that said something like "regardless of any restrictions" or "even when making Supporting Attacks." THEN and ONLY then would the two rules truly contradict each other and therefore in that and only that situation would AB>BRB.


FYI, if someone wants to argue that PF works where Frenzy does not because of how the rules function, they are guilty of making the logical errors in my first point in my original post (i.e., SA makes no distinction as to how the extra attacks are added, only that they are added by a special rule).

 

+1


The way of perceiving logic as an mathematical abstract can really help decoding some though nuts.
Sadly not everyone is able to apply it -.-


The ONLY thing I can see speaking in favour of PF, that is not the gut feeling that "This is what was intended", is

A model can ever never ever do more than a single supporting attack, regardless of special rules.

One could argue, applying mathematical philosophy,
that the model doesn't do more than 1 supporting attack

1 < = 2+

He does 1 supporting attack, twice.

BUT!!!

this is countered by the fact that the extra attacks is generated at the same step as the other original attacks.

If it was

1- One dice Rolls a 6 to hit,
2- that dice rolls to wound,
3- Another dice is rolled to hit because of the 6 on the original dice

this logic could be applied, as it would be
"a single support attack.... AND THEN a single support attack"

1=1 , 1=1

but because it is in fact

1-One dice rolls a 6 to hit
2-The new dice rolls to hit= The same amount
3-both dice rolls to wound = the same amount

it instead becomes
"a single support attack that makes another support attack, and thereby no longer is an amount of a single support attack, but an amount of two support attacks"

1+1 = 2


It might look the same, but it really isn't.

Predatory Fighter needs a correction to become what it should be.

 

I honestly can't tell if I find this continued discussion hillarious or sad.

There are aguments both ways, and unfortunately, neither is conclusive. Those who claim that either way is, in fact, conclusive, are leaving out important details that would otherwise invalidate your claim.

This even applied to my own posts, hence why I stopped trying to argue for either side. The only thing that can provide any sort of conclusive information, is Games Workshop themselves. Without an FAQ, it really can go both ways and be perfectly valid.

 

It is the attitude of the quoted post that helps perpetuate the problem...where people either refuse to accept sound logical arguments and favor conclusory /poorly reasoned ones or give equal weight to two sets of arguments when one set is based on erroneous and faulty reasoning and doesn't deserve the same weight.

You and anyone else can say "well, neither side is conclusive and you are leaving out details that would otherwise invalidate your claim" till the cows come home but that doesn't make it so...Show me the details left out? What have my arguments missed and not considered? I can say the same thing about the other side but at least I have laid out clear and logical arguments that are supported by the laws of logic, not defeated by them. This isn't a simple case of "he said vs. she said" it is a case of someone making an argument they genuinely feel is true and logical but in reality is not based in sound reasoning or logic at all and when someone points out the faulty reasoning people just shrug and say "well neither side is conclusive." That is a cop-out and way to intellectually check out of the debate-this is a conclusive matter.

Only the arguments, laid down and analyzed side by side, can reveal the truth but you need to actually understand logic to do so. Nobody has been able to take my arguments, and show any holes in them with sound logical argument. It isn't enough to say "You are wrong for x-y-z reasons," those reasons must actually be based in sound reasoning and logically flow-indeed the PF+SA crowd's position is based on nothing more than conclusory circular reasoning as I demonstrated.

The problem here is that people think they understand logic when they really don't... Ultimately, there are only 2 arguments put forth for PF working with SA that boil down to (1) because the way PF is written and works, it overcomes the "only one attack ever" restriction of SA; and, (2) because there is a contradiction between PF and SA that AB>BRB.

Argument 1 has clearly been shown to be erroneous and can be disregarded because the SA rule makes no distinction with HOW the extra attack generating rule functions, only that the rule generates an extra attack. Indeed many people arguing for PF+SA even concede the point after seeing my argument against it and if you don't concede, I'd love to actually hear why. Argument 2 is the only one that holds any weight at all and in that respect, and again, simple logic and mathematical analogy can clearly show how that argument is wrong as well.

The bottom line is the BRB specifically lays out what it means when it says "AB>BRB" and the PF rule vs the SA rule does not fall into that situation.

As I said above, the ONLY way the AB>BRB conflict would arise is if the PF rule had necessary, additional language, that implied it always worked regardless of any limitations. because it does not, it fails to work just like Frenzy and any other rule that grants another attack does.

 

im just gonna save us all some time.

until stated otherwise you can account me for commenting "+1" whenever mortetvie speaks

 

Sometimes taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture or another example might clear things up and help people understand things more clearly so let me bring your attention to another virtually identical rules interaction. This post should be the final nail in the coffin for anyone who wants to maintain that Predatory Fighter works with Supporting Attacks...

As mentioned above, anyone and everyone should accept and concede that the only single argument that has anything going for it in terms of PF working with SA is the whole AB>BRB argument. Any other argument has been thoroughly shown to be false and untenable from a logical perspective. Therefore, the final nail in the coffin for the AB>BRB rule is essentially as follows:

Premise 1: A basic rule is one that applies to every model whereas advanced rules only apply to specific models.

Premise 2: Advanced rules, when they apply to a specific model, are always listed in that model's/unit's entry.

Premise 3: The only way AB>BRB is if the AB rule is an advanced rule that contradicts a basic rule in the BRB.

Now, before I go on further, everyone needs to accept premises 1-3 as true because they are what is actually written in the BRB. Also, before I go on, I want to point your attention to the rules in the BRB for dice and re-rolls which specifically state (pg. 7):

"in some situations, the rules allow you to pick up and re-roll a dice...no single dice can be re-rolled more than once, regardless of the source of the re-roll."

Taking this rule, we can safely say that no dice can ever be re-rolled in this game without a specific rule that says a dice can be re-rolled and a dice can only ever be re-rolled once.

Furthermore, analyzing this rule in light of premises 1-3 as stated above, we can extrapolate the following:
(1) The "no dice can be re-rolled more than once" rule is a basic rule because it applies to every dice rolled on behalf of every model and affects every model. (2) Where a specific model/unit can have any dice re-rolled on their behalf, that is an advanced rule because it will be reflected in their model/unit entry (i.e. Hatred, ASF etc.). (3) If you have an advanced rule in your AB that contradicts the BRB regarding re-rolling dice more than once, you can re-roll the dice more than once (hence AB>BRB).

Therefore, if you have a rule or multiple rules that allow you to re-roll a dice, one could try to argue that they can just re-roll the dice as many time as they have rules that allow them to do so because their AB says they can have re-rolls but the BRB says only 1 re-roll regardless of the source so AB>BRB-so there! But does it really work that way?Does anyone have a problem with that? Does anyone actually find it palpable to argue that they can re-roll a dice more than once because AB>BRB? Does anyone see a direct correlation between the re-rolling dice rules and supporting attacks rules?

The way the no re-roll more than once rule is written, it specifically says "regardless of the source of the re-roll" and the Supporting Attacks rule says "regardless of the number of attacks on his profile, or any bonus attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects." Therefore, if one is to argue that because PF says "make another attack" and SA says "no extra attack" therefore AB>BRB they need to also argue the same thing for the dice being able to be re-rolled more than once...And that simply doesn't work.

So continuing my argument...

Premise 4: SA effectively says only one attack regardless of any special rules that grant additional attacks.

Premise 5: PF is a special rule that grants additional attacks.

Conclusion: Because the SA rule has the language "regardless of any special rules" in it, it specifically negates any special rule from granting a model an extra attack and since PF is a special rule, it is negated from taking effect, NOT contradicted. A negation is not the same as a contradiction.

Likewise, and by analogy, because the "dice can only ever be re-rolled one" rule is written the way it is, it negates any and every other rule that allows you to re-roll the dice from being able to grant you more than one re-roll UNLESS that other rule has language that says something akin to "regardless of normally only being able to re-roll a dice once."

 

I can't name 1 model with 2 seperate rerolls that both come from advanced rules. They all come from basic rules (ASF, Hatred, etc), or only come from army/model specific rules, and nowhere else. Could be wrong, I've just never seen it. So that's not really supportive of your point.

But since you seem to believe that "Long posts = I'm more right", have your fun.

I also just talked to the local groups rules-"judge", and he pointed this out as his reason for allowing it.

Just showed him this discussion, and asked him to write the above explanation for his reasoning. As already stated earlier, I personally don't feel this reasoning rings true, but I also don't agree with your reasoning, Mort. Right now, I don't really feel either side is right - Neither seems to be the "right" side, because as i read the rules, it's a mess of a rule that manages ot not be clear on anything. So for now, I'll just accept whatever ruling my opponent (Or in local games, the judge we have) tells me to use, and then roll with that.

My main issue lies in the fact that people are getting this hostile about it, and writing as if anyone who believes otherwise is stupid. You claim to see the "bigger picture", which is awfully ignorant of you. This discussion has gone on for 16 pages - what makes you think you just happen to be more enlightened than everyone else? And really, I'd much rather continue to call it "inconclusive" and actually get a FAQ at some point, rather than let the most vocal and aggressive person have the final word on how the rule works, and just settle for that. You have some good points, I'll give you that, and if I had to pick a side, I'd likely agree with you.

Still, unless GW gives us an answer, I'm not going to outright agree with either side. The only thing I can agree to, is that GW writes horrible rules, and are too lazy to take the 2 minutes to write a damn FAQ already.

 

Silverfaith, my posts are not right because they are long, they are right because they are supported by logic and sound reasoning. Incidentally, that is why the posts maintaining the other position are wrong, they are not supported by logic or sound reasoning... Also, I get that someone coming in here and saying "I am right and you are wrong" can be offensive and abrasive, especially when you disagree with them, but I am not trying to come across as arrogant. Indeed, I am merely pointing out why I just happen to be right because the laws of logic, not because I say I am right-there is a difference. So calling me ignorant and wondering what makes me "enlightened" because people disagree with me is an ad-hominem and false appeal to numbers fallacy btw, as there can be a billion people who disagree with me, but the fact that many people think one way doesn't change what the laws of logic say or make me ignorant!

Anyway, my posts are long because they have a lot of logical fallacies and poor reasoning to address from the opposing position. One line of code may be wrong but it may take pages of other code to correct. Sadly, I can only try to convince someone that 1+1=2 so many times before it gets rediculous... This has been an exercise in futility it seems as my discussions have essentially been something like:

Me: "I have a single finger held up, how many fingers do I have held up?"

Other side: "one."

Me: "Very good, now I have an additional finger held up, how many total fingers are held up?"

Other Side: "Three!"

Me: *Face palm*

Indeed, the position maintaining that AB>BRB so PF works with SA is effectively saying 1+1=3 from a logical perspective and anyone that truly knows anything about logic and its proper application can see it as well, it is that clear. So steadfastly maintaining the opposite position or saying that both sides are equally valid is a sad revelation as to your understanding of logic and reason (or specifically lack thereof).

In case this post is TLDR for people, skip to conclusion and tell me why or why not the reasoning in the conclusion is faulty. Otherwise, please read on and see why Silverfaith's post just perpetuates the problems with this debate-that they have a false understanding of what the rules actually say and base their arguments on that false understanding.

Now regarding your post...:

First of all, you get it wrong when you try to say that Hatred and ASF are Basic rules. The BRB says that Basic rules apply to every model universally unless stated otherwise while Advanced rules apply to specific models and are noted as being Advanced because they are usually listed on a unit's entry in an AB. With that said, ASF, Hatred and PF are all Advanced rules because (1) not every model has those rules; and, (2) those rules are listed in a unit's entry in an AB. Even having a Spear is an Advanced rule as per the example in the BRB.

Second of all, Dark Elves have ASF and Hatred which both potentially grant re-rolls to-hit. Dwarfs also have Engineer and Rune special rules that allow Artillery dice to be re-rolled for a Warmachine and you can stack multiple sources of re-rolls on a single Warmachine. Therefore, since there are several situations where different sources of re-rolls can be in effect, what is stopping someone from arguing that AB>BRB therefore they can re-roll a dice more than once? If you say PF works with SA then you have to say that multiple sources of re-rolls works even though the BRB expressly prohibits this as we have a rule in the BRB that says "you can't do something regardless of source" and an advanced rule that says "you can do something."

Third and finally, your "Judge" makes a lot of points that culminate in false equivocation and irrelevant conclusion logical fallacies. False equivocation fallacy because he misapplies the PF and AB>BRB rules and irrelevant conclusion fallacy because he seems to imply that because PF grants an extra attack differently than, say, Frenzy, that it somehow works with SA. But to be fair, I'll back up what I say and address everything your "judge" says and clearly refute it.


"Note that I do not play lizardmen, nor do I care at all for them. But I have read the Predatory fighter rule quite a lot..."

It is irrelevant whether he plays LM, cares for them or that he has read the PF rule quite a lot. Indeed, I can not speak the Chinese language, not care for it but read a Chinese dictionary quite a lot but that doesn't mean that I will understand what I read or how the language functions. What matters here is if he actually understands the PF rule and if he understands how it functions in terms of the bigger picture (i.e., in terms of how the game is played and with the SA rule). Unfortunately, if you read any further of what he says, it becomes clear he does not understand.

"[PF] specifically allows you to make another attack."

So what that PF allows you to make another attack? Frenzy, additional Handweapon and so on all allow you to have another attack, so why do they not work with SA? Saying that because PF generates an additional attack differently than any other special rule is an irrelevant conclusion logical fallacy because the SA rule makes no distinction with how an extra attack is generated, only that an extra attack is generated all. The question then becomes "is PF a special rule that generates an extra attack" not "how does PF generate an extra attack."

"AB > BRB aside, since that discussion have been done to death already."

I'm addressing this line to make the point that people like to blindly invoke the "AB>BRB" rule as if AB>BRB always, in all circumstances and for anytime there is a conflict between AB and BRB. This is not the case and is a gross misapplication of the rule and just goes to show a dismal lack of understanding of what the rules actually say and how they are actually applied.

"disallowing it would seem to imply that making another attack, in a different round of combat, is also not allowed."

This statement is what the rest of his post hinges upon and waxes eloquent about but in reality this statement and the rest of his post is an attack on the misapplication and tortured reading of my position. That ends up being a combination of a false equivocation and straw man fallacies. First of all, not allowing PF to function with SA in a round of combat in which the rules interaction takes place has no bearing on subsequent rounds of combat. Indeed, my position is simply saying that you can only ever make a single attack when making a SA in a single round of combat. The "Judge" is going on to then say "so then you are saying once you make a single SA you can't make another one for the reset of the game?" And that is a conclusion not supported by what has been stated.

Indeed, his argument can be shown to be absurd as follows:

Rule 1: "when doing a load of laundry with dark clothing in it, no using bleach"

Rule 2: "you can use bleach when doing laundry"

The only logical way to apply both of these rules is that you can use bleach when doing laundry as long as it is not a load with dark clothes in it. However, by reading the two rules together, the "Judge" is saying that when I say "when doing a load of laundry with dark clothing, you can't use bleach," that I am also saying "once you do a load of laundry, you cannot do any more laundry for the rest of your life." Does that make sense to you? It doesn't make sense to me...

Likewise, think of the above rules in terms of PF and SA.

Rule 1: When doing a load of laundry (attacking in close combat) with dark clothing (close combat attack that is a SA) you can't use bleach (a special rule that grants additional attacks).

Rule 2: You can use bleach (a special rule that grants additional attacks) when doing laundry (attacking in close combat).

To say that there is a contradiction between PF and the SA rules therefore AB>BRB is to forcefully read the rules together in a tortured way not supported by logic or reason. And to say what the "Judge" is saying really just amounts to an attack and discussion on a point I never actually made so it can really just be disregarded since it isn't relevant (as it is attacking points I never made).

Conclusion:

As mentioned above, take the following two rules:

Rule 1: "when doing a load of laundry with dark clothing in it, no using bleach"

Rule 2: "you can use bleach when doing laundry"

At first glance, there is apparently a contradiction. One rule says you can use bleach when doing laundry and another says you cannot use bleach when doing a certain load of laundry. However, if you were to take these two rules to an attorney or a logic professor they would tell you that there is a way to read the rules together that makes sense and conforms to the laws of logic and reason. Indeed, the only way to read the above 2 rules together without a contradiction is that you can use bleach when doing laundry as long as it is not a load of laundry with dark clothes in it.

So to be slightly repetitive but to ensure we are all on the same page, if you agree that the only way to read the above 2 rules together without contradicting is that you can use bleach when doing laundry as long as it is not a load of laundry with dark clothes in it, congratulations, you understand logic and reasoning as it pertains to these two sentences and you should read on. If you can't see anything but a conflict/contradiction, then please go to school and take a logic class or ask a logic teacher/attorney to try and explain to you why you are wrong and please check out of this debate until you do.

Now, assuming we are on the same page, let's now apply the above two rules to the context of our PF/SA debate...

Rule 1: When doing a load of laundry (attacking in close combat) with dark clothing (close combat attack that is a SA) you can't use bleach (a special rule that grants additional attacks).

Rule 2: You can use bleach (a special rule that grants additional attacks) when doing laundry (attacking in close combat).

By using the logic in the first set of rules, you can see that you are entitled to use an extra attack generating rule when attacking in close combat as long as you are not making a supporting attack. Unless you want to go "oh noes, I guess that means I can use bleach and ruin my black clothing, right?"

 

This is also a misreading of the BRB.

The Supporting Attacks rule is written in the context of "Fighting a Round of Close Combat" and under the subheading "How Many Attacks." Further, the rule says "[a model] can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on his profile..." The "can only" portion of the sentence is in reference to "the number of Attacks on his profile" not "for the entire game."

So, when calculating the number of attacks for a single round of combat, a model that is making supporting attacks can only make 1 Attack.

If the rule was "[a model] can only ever make a single Attack. [period]" then we would have a different story.

Unfortunately, being a Warhammer judge doesn't give you any extra insight to the rules of the game. There is no certification process. There is no rules comprehension test.

Heck where I play, tournaments are now deciding to pick and choose what parts of the Rules/FAQ they even want to allow (No 50% Lords, no undeath magic at some Tournaments that are schedule for 5 months in the future!)

Anyways, I expect one of two things to happen by the tile 9th edition comes out which will make this debate (and a need for an FAQ) obsolete. Either:

1) There will no longer be a Supporting Attacks rule, or
2) The restriction of "only 1 supporting attack" will be removed

@mortetvie, I think most of us are on the same page as you with regards to PF and SA. But everything's already been said in the earlier parts of the thread. Keep in mind there where people (maybe still are?) that were trying to play Focus of Mystery such that they got 8 High Magic Spells AND 4 BRB Spells. People will read the rules however they want to try to get an edge.

 

Indeed, the problem is simply players not being able to get past how they want to see the rules. Failing to get past that hurdle, they also fail to see how the rules are actually written.

 

Can't believe this has lasted 16 pages.

 

It's not even that's it's 16 pages. It's 16 pages and climbing

 

I'm actually contemplating whether people are trying to defend GWs poor writing skills, or if it's because some people really believe the rule is as clearly written as they seem to think it is.

FAQs and ammendments exist for a reason. GW makes mistakes, all the time, and this situation have seen tons of people, GW employees included, be at odds with each other. 16 pages of discussion here is simply further proof of this.

You may be right Mort. To be honest, the way the rule is written, you likely are. But claiming there is no question about the right answer, and claiming people can't put 1 and 1 together? If you can't see how arrogant that is, I don't know what to tell you.

This question needs an FAQ. The fact that even a lot of Vampire Count players have this question as well just further cements how needed a clarification is.

This is especially important, because we can only discuss RAW. GW being GW, the rules are written, and then never looked over by an editor (it certainly appears that way!), so we have no idea of knowing what the actual intention was. A FAQ from GW would be a RAI answer, and that could go both ways, regardless of how messed up the rules themselves have been written - Dark Acolyte is proof of how badly their writing can get, because Dark Acolyte was PAINFULLY obvious in its application, yet people still questioned it. Until GW released an FAQ, that proved questioning it was the right thing to do.

I am not going to settle for an answer before GW replies. I don't have much of a choice, though, because my local judge has the final say on conflicts like this, but a FAQ would immediately put the final nail in the coffin for this long disputed rule.

Too bad we likely wont see any FAQs that aren't related to newly released army books, or End Times.