8th Ed. Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks

[hardyworld]

So how does the Predatory Fighter rule work with Supporting Attacks?

Supporting attacks in the BRB says 'only ever make a single Attack, 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'.

I believe this is 100% clear that supporting attacks do NOT get to make additional attacks due to the Predatory Fighter rule. I'm a little annoyed that I have to roll the ranks separately AND that my Kroxigors in my Skrox units do not get to use the Predatory Fighter rule. But that is definitely how it should be played (unless there is something I am missing).

 

[eppe]

So how does the Predatory Fighter rule work with Supporting Attacks?

Supporting attacks in the BRB says 'only ever make a single Attack, 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'.

I believe this is 100% clear that supporting attack s do NOT get to make additional attacks due to the Predatory Fighter rule. I'm a little annoyed that I have to roll the ranks separately AND that my Kroxigors in my Skrox units do not get to use the Predatory Fighter rule. But that is definitely how it should be played (unless there is something I am missing).

I don't play in tournaments so I've already told the guys I do play with that supporting attacks will get to use this Special rule. Everyone has looked over my book and agree that RAI they should. I HOPE it get's FAQ'd though... I would say I'm sure it will but you can never tell with GWS.

 

[cyberhawk94]

Im of the opinion that currently, technically they shouldnt. However, I will be playing as though they do, because they should 95% get that FAQ'd. if not, its a bad downside for a shitty upside.

 

[Dr. Cheesesteak]

I know this is more of a RAI v RAW debate rather than Army Book v BRB debate. But since Army Books always supercede the BRB, I'd assume Supporting Attacks do benefit from Pred Fighter.

 

[HoverBoy]

Im of the opinion that currently, technically they shouldnt. However, I will be playing as though they do, because they should 95% get that FAQ'd. if not, its a bad downside for a shitty upside.

They will not FAQ it unless it gets asked frequently, so do it at gamefaqs@gwplc.com.

 

[Cheeto]

I posted this on whineseer. No one really commented about it but I would like to see what you folks think of it.
What is really baffling me is the skink chief or terradon/ripper. I'm assuming they can attach but the BRB says character can't join flying units... that makes sense if they are on foot, but what if they are also on the same flying mount. UGH my head.

First ladies and gentlemen turn your BRB book to Pg. 66 Second paragraph under the heading What special rules does it have? ".... Remember, that if there is a conflict between the rules presented here and in a Warhammer Armies book, the latter takes precedence."

The Armies books are the latter, which makes sense as certain army books have unique rules that contradicted the BRB rules. So we know that the Army books unique rules take precedence over conflicting BRB rules. ie: Old HE having GW and still being able to use ASF.

Now we go and look at the Lizardmen Army book Pg. 30 under Predatory Fighter " Whenever a MODEL with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack;....."

Notice the bold word, model. It does not specify that it must only be a model in the front rank. Since every model in the unit would have PF special rule, and it states that it effects any model making an attack. That means the second rank making supporting attacks would also benefit from this rule since they have it and are attacking in close combat.

 

[Asamu]

Would need to be FAQed.
It would be a bit odd for it not to benefit supporting attacks.

 

[Reddogfish]

I don't see any debate...

The unit attacks with X attacks... this is its attacking round.

Lets say you get five 6s.... you then take another round of attacking with just 6 attacks.

This is how I view it.

Because your inital attacks have already been made... After that come these PF attacks.

Only one attack being made in supporting ranks suggests regardless of a units profile or special rules they only get to attack with one attack each for that attack 'round'.

If you try to read too much into then you could argue as others have that you could only get one attack in support each game from a model... or each turn...

I cant believe people are still debating this.

On another note... people are saying it is a poor upgrade for Saurus...

I disagree... while it is unlikely...

A horde unit of saurus with spears is capable of generating.

51 standard attacks...

With PF this becomes on average 58-60 attacks per round... with the potential to actually total out at 102 attacks....

Of course the probablility of this is 1:10000000000000000000000000000 but stilll..... it could happen.

And more than likely for every game you dont roll any sixes to hit with your saurus... you might next time roll 10 sixes from a unit of 20 saurus... giving them a chance to win a combat they would surely of lost.

 

[Walgis]

my argument is AB>BRB and yet nobody has came up with argument that discards mine (and alot of others) so theres no question.
I talked to guys on our way to tournament and everybody agreed that second rank gets it

 

[Lizardmatt]

What's letting the saurus in the 2nd rank attack at all?
Why, that's the supporting attack rule; which states, that you only ever get 1 attacks, and bonus attacks from special rules are ignored.
Predatory fighter starts with... whenever a model with this special rule...
Supporting says just 1, even if special rules give you more. Predatory Fighter is a special rule, and as such, specifically excluded.
I think it may be FAQ'd to work with supporting attacks, but right now, sadly it looks like it's just the front rank.
Which is a big kick in the nuts to Skrox units.


If you claim every instance of army book > rule book, you get some oddball stuff.
Ripperdactyles can then claim 4 to 6 supporting attacks per model due to bloat toad. Basic rules say 1, bloat toad says it adds D3+1 attacks from frenzy. 3 wide, 2 deep Rippersdactyles would throw out 24 to 36 S4 armor piercing killing blow, re-roll to hit attacks (depending on how the D3 rolled).

 

[Walgis]

frenzy is not special rule of our book its in brb and its trumped by supporting atacks rule.
d3+1 is AB yes but is says that you get d3+1 FRENZY atacks so its still frenzy.

 

[Drmooreflava]

What's letting the saurus in the 2nd rank attack at all?
Why, that's the supporting attack rule; which states, that you only ever get 1 attacks, and bonus attacks from special rules are ignored.
Predatory fighter starts with... whenever a model with this special rule...
Supporting says just 1, even if special rules give you more. Predatory Fighter is a special rule, and as such, specifically excluded.
I think it may be FAQ'd to work with supporting attacks, but right now, sadly it looks like it's just the front rank.
Which is a big kick in the nuts to Skrox units.


If you claim every instance of army book > rule book, you get some oddball stuff.
Ripperdactyles can then claim 4 to 6 supporting attacks per model due to bloat toad. Basic rules say 1, bloat toad says it adds D3+1 attacks from frenzy. 3 wide, 2 deep Rippersdactyles would throw out 24 to 36 S4 armor piercing killing blow, re-roll to hit attacks (depending on how the D3 rolled).

Yea, you are wrong.

Without a doubt, all ranks of saurus that can attack (spears, supporting, horde), benefit from PF. This shouldn't be a discussion. You don't need a faq to tell you exactly what the rule is intended to be. The rules are meant to be interpreted, not read word for word like a 3rd grader, comparing BRB to AB, back and fourth until GW has to step in and slap you in da face with a faq so your rule mongering seizure finally subsides.

The Predatory Fighter rule would clearly state that it only effects the front rank, if it was intended to be that way. Since it does not state such a fact, the rule encompasses all models that can attack, regardless of where the attacks are coming from: supporting, spears or horde.

 

[Mr Phat]

I agree that support ranks also gets PF.

The "infantry: 1 support attack" and the "MI: 3 support attack" is meant as default rules.
PF trumphs it.

by the opposite logic it would also mean that a Vampire Lords Red Fury breaks due to one of the most basic rules in the BRB:
"models do the amount of attacks listed in their profile"

Its like coding language:
The BRB is a template/engine for the game
The Army Books are inputs that alters the default execution of the code.



When Model "Saurus" Attacks
If roll "6"
Attack again.

thats what it says.

 

[OmegaHavoc]

People on this forum have already contacted gw about this. All attacks benefit from pf. This was posted in the Caneghem's Review of the New Lizardmen! Update: Heroes added, thread

 

[Zwuppie]

Armybook rules ALWAYS override the rules of the BRB, so yes you gain extra attacks for supporting models..

BRB says the following, page 11:
" On rare occasions, a conflist wil arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a Warhammer Armies book. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the Warhammer Armies book always takes precedence."

For example.. Great weapons have always strike last special rule (BRB), in the previous edition of the high elves AB you were allowed to use always strike first with great weapons... not because it was the rule always strike first but speed of asuryan..

So I think topic closed and good luck with rolling 6's

 

[Gojira]

There is an important caveat that gets forgotten on AB>BRB... This only kicks in when there is an actual conflict. The BRB rules actually tells you to disregard any special rules that give you bonus attacks. You pretty much throw them out the window. It specifically mentions to such rules and other "unusual effects". So it's clearly covering more ground than just the BRB effects.

Either way the faq goes it is embarrassing for them. If they say yes you can, it flies in the face of the overall rules creator, who said to ignore absolutely anything that gives you bonuses. If they say no then they create the obvious situation of rolling ranks separate and not wording it better.

 

[Zwuppie]

In my opinion there is a conflict.. The BRB says there is no special rule which allow to make more then 1 supporting attack, HOWEVER PF makes you make an extra attack of a roll on a 6.. So the rulebook says no and the armybook says yes on a 6+, armybook wins..

Even if you may not.. take a unit of 24 (6x4) saurus warriors with spears, you may make, if your enemy charges you, you will be able to make 13 normal attacks and 12 supporting.. this makes you rolling 25 dice and then you are allowed to make up to 6 additional attacks, i say good luck with rolling six 6's on 25 dice.. mathammer says you roll 4 6's

 

[Gojira]

In my opinion there is a conflict.. The BRB says there is no special rule which allow to make more then 1 supporting attack, HOWEVER PF makes you make an extra attack of a roll on a 6.. So the rulebook says no and the armybook says yes on a 6+, armybook wins..

It says a lot more than what you say. It goes on to literally say disregard special rules or unusual effects that give bonus attacks.

The special rule has a caveat in place. Armybook trumps conflicting rules. It doesn't trump the caveats that cover them. Beast players aren't using all those bloodgreed special rule attacks from the second rank just because it's an armybook rule.

 

[Gojira]

I don't see how predatory fighter can argue around such a caveat as this. It doesn't matter in what way PF is resolved it's still a special rule with a bonus attack.

 

[Chunk]

Hey everybody, I emailed GW about this, and this was their reply:

Good Afternoon Rhys,

The special rule "Predatory Fighters" allows every model with this special rule to gain a bonus attack on the roll of a 6; regardless of which rank they are situated in.

As you suspected, the armybook special rule, over-rides the rulebook in this regard.

I hope this clarifies the rule for you, and if you have any other questions, please feel free to contact us.

--

Cheers

The Games Workshop Hobby Service Team

au.hobbyservice@gwplc.com

www.games-workshop.com

Phone

Australia02) 9829 6111

New Zealand: 0800 448 514

Fax: +61 (02) 9829 6161

Now, I think I can remember people emailing GW about other rules issues in the past, and the answer they were given was subsequently countered by an ensuring FAQ, so this isn't a definitive answer.

However, this is as official a ruling as I can get at the moment, so if anyone I play has an issue with it, I'll whip out the email and show them, though no one who I've played has had an issue with it so far.