8th Ed. Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks

[hardyworld]

I was looking for another rule that grants extra attacks that are not included in the attacks profile...

Frenzy and 2 hand weapons are 2 common examples of rules that give a model an Extra Attack beyond the number of attacks provided in their profile.

 

[OmegaHavoc]

You are correct. These attacks however, get added to the attack profile.

The special rules like red fury or the ram horn helm as stated earlier grant extra attacks that are not taken into account by the attacks profile. Both frenzy and xhw get added into your profile.

I don't remember if it was in this thread or another but someone brought up the greater locus of pestilence which does the exact same thing as pf does. It grants an extra s4 attack when 6 is rolled for a poison attack in a plaguebearers unit. I looked in the daemon faq but it wasn't addressed.

 

[hardyworld]

You are correct. These attacks..... get added to the attack profile.

Yes, they are in addition to the attacks provided in the unit's profile....

Both frenzy and xhw get added into your profile.

Where is that rule? I'm not finding it. How does it get added into a unit's profile?

 

[Gojira]

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?

Most vamp bsbs I see are in the second rank. And sometimes lords too for protection waiting for an advantageous makeway move. And even if it doesn't occur often for you, it doesn't stop it behind possible. The mechanic would be the same if the unit or the just the character had it as supporting attacks rule applies equally to both.

 

[OmegaHavoc]

If a vampire is in the second rank, has red fury, makes its one supporting attack, which then wounds, which then does not get saved, he would then trigger a red fury attack which would roll to hit and wound.

Something that just popped into my head is that we are looking at all of these attacks as supporting attacks when they are in fact either a red fury attack, or a predatory fighter attack. Maybe they shouldn't even be considered supporting attacks since the occur after initial attacks are rolled.

As far as frenzy and xhw they modify the amount of attack dice rolled for each model. They are taken into account before attacks are made. Anything that is a triggered effect like red fury or pf occurs after initial attacks are made and is not included in how many attacks a model can make.

I don't even know if my rambling makes any sense haha.

 

[Gojira]

I'm still trying to see the other side of the argument, but I'm still not buying it.

What you are saying is, because it doesn't add to the profile, it works? So something that did add to the profile wouldn't work? Leaving us with a rule that an armybook can only override the blue bit, but not the red bit?

Because that would mean a situation where an armybook can override one half of a sentence in a rule while not being able to change the other half, like in this picture.



You either override all or it, or none of it.

Edit: A vamp can't benefit from red fury where he used a supporting attack as it is definitely a source of another attack be it from unusual effects or a special rule.

 

[hardyworld]

I understand that Predatory Fighter additional attacks are triggered and that Frenzy additional attacks are determined before dice are rolled. What I don't understand is how you are justifying one special rule must follow the 'Supporting Attacks' rule and another special rule must not follow the 'Supporting Attacks' rule. They are both special rules that provide "bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects" that the Supporting Attacks rule specifically states as not applicable.

I'm still looking for that "attacks added into your profile" rule you claim exists.

 

[IronJaw]

The BRB states that the AB always trumps the BRB.... What does it mean when a rule system contradicts itself? Do we get cake? How much is rice in Canada?

*hums Troll Song*

 

[OmegaHavoc]

I honestly believe it is referring to special rules such as frenzy and devastating charge which cause you to roll more attack dice. Things such as red fury and pf occur after supporting attacks are made. That's just how I see it. We will all know for certain once the faq comes out.

I'm not saying the ab rule overrides one part of the rule and not the other. I'm saying it occurs after supporting attacks so the supporting attacks rule doesn't apply to attacks granted from pf.

 

[OmegaHavoc]

If you look in some of the army books done models that have frenzy have the extra attack included in their profile. This may have just been something done in army books before 8th edition though.

If you read the frenzy special rule it says the model has the extra attacks special rule. The special attacks special rule states that you increase your attack value by 1. This means going from 1 to 2 or 3 to 4 on your attacks profile.

 

[n810]

I honestly believe it is referring to special rules such as frenzy and devastating charge which cause you to roll more attack dice. Things such as red fury and pf occur after supporting attacks are made. That's just how I see it. We will all know for certain once the faq comes out.

I'm not saying the ab rule overrides one part of the rule and not the other. I'm saying it occurs after supporting attacks so the supporting attacks rule doesn't apply to attacks granted from pf.

THIS

 

[hardyworld]

Red fury almost always occurs before supporting attacks are made due to Initiative, and I don't see how timing of the attacks is relevant.

An errata may change the rule, but any FAQ must agree that supporting attacks do not benefit from Predatory Fighter. Honestly, I hope it does NOT get errata'd. It's not right to have 1 exception to the basic rules of the game. It's poor form to have a special rule that overrides all special rules and then you start making new rules that override the special rule that overrides special rules.

 

[OmegaHavoc]

Supporting attacks happen whenever a model beyond the first rank makes an attack. So I don't understand how asf comes into the discussion. The vampires supporting attack happens at his initiative or first due to asf, after his supporting attack is completed his red fury attack is made.

P.s. there are plenty of exceptions to the basic rules.

 

[Gojira]

I honestly believe it is referring to special rules such as frenzy and devastating charge which cause you to roll more attack dice. Things such as red fury and pf occur after supporting attacks are made. That's just how I see it. We will all know for certain once the faq comes out.

I'm not saying the ab rule overrides one part of the rule and not the other. I'm saying it occurs after supporting attacks so the supporting attacks rule doesn't apply to attacks granted from pf.

The rule says he can ONLY EVER make a single attack. There is nothing about it only applying to their immediate step. If it was just those special rules you mention then why does it say special rules OR OTHER unusual effects. There is too much evidence to ignore. This rule is specifically telling us to disregard anything letting you do more attacks.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what they are going to FAQ it as, people are playing with the army now, and we don't know how long it will take them to FAQ this army book (hopefully quickly). The argument so far against PF on supporting attacks is based on the words of the rules. The other argument is based on a belief of what special rules they meant when they wrote them. It's an extremely weak argument. I used to be hardcore RAI, but one too many times my belief was wrong and it was decided the other way. The best way to play is by the book and having as much fun as possible.

 

[hardyworld]

there are plenty of exceptions to the basic rules.

True. However, I do not know of any current rule exceptions to rules that specifically state they override all special rules.

 

[OmegaHavoc]

If the model can only ever make one attack then you don't get any more attacks than his first one during the first round of combat he is in.

And u know that's not how it works. But it's how the rule reads.

 

[n810]

DON'T MAKE ME BRING OUT THE CHEWBACKA DEFENCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chewbacca_defense&oldid=396930301

 

[Gojira]

If the model can only ever make one attack then you don't get any more attacks than his first one during the first round of combat he is in.

And u know that's not how it works. But it's how the rule reads.

Because the section is called Fighting a round of close combat.

 

[OmegaHavoc]

Point haha.

 

[n810]

Cochran
...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Gerald Broflovski
Damn it!... He's using the Chewbacca defense!
Cochran
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.