8th Ed. Predatory Fighters special rule

Hey guys how do you apply this rule? do the support attacks make another attack whenever they roll 6s?

 

It's up for debate. At the GW I play at the staff state all models in the unit get an extra attack on 6, even supporting attacks, so that's how everyone has been playing it. Really it depends what your group or store decides on.

 

That's how my group plans on playing it as well, simply because rolling separately for regular and supporting attacks is extra work and GW seems to be avoiding that sort of thing.

 

My opinion is that the rule is applied to supporting attacks as well as front row attacks for 3 reasons.

Firstly, as has already been said it complicates/slows things rolling for different ranks to hit at a time.

Secondly, it seems to balance the likely hood that the Saurus blocks are going to go charging off after a fleeing unit. (I do think that a Slann should also allow units to roll to restrain, or at least for the temple guard. It seems daft that they are stubborn and unlikely to flee in combat but they will charge after a fleeing enemy at the drop of a hat, but that is a different argument).

Finally, the cynic in me whispers that it may be GW's way of encouraging people to horde Saurus with spears which may require people to buy more boxes of troops, as at least in my case I went mostly hand weapon and shields in the last edition.

I have played 2 games with the new book and have checked with my opponent prior to playing which way they are happy to play with. So far 50%/50% on supporting attacks getting PF.

 

I dont care what anybody says, the ules are clear and the intention is clear.

The rules:

-The rule state that all models with the special rule makes another attack on a 6
- the BRB says that Army Books rules override the BRB rules.

= The! model! makes! another attack!


the intention:

-Kroxigors have it, and they have second rank potential.
-Saurus got free spears.

= massive hints towards supporting attacks.

 

oh I forgot the fluff:
Saurus are spawned as a unit...knows eachother through raw instinct and intuition.
If anyone should have the opportunity to recieve extra attacks from the supporting rank wouldnt it be infantry that are freaking genetically manufactured to function as a single organism?!

 

Also the forced restrain contradicts the fluff. It says that Slann mage-priests telepathically communicate their orders to the Lizardmen units. Imo Slann should fill this roll as well instead of skink characters only to restrain pursuit. In the LM hierarchy if you are in battle and your revered (not overstatement in LM case) general says in your head to do something, you will do it! Daily tasks are passed to the skinks for delegation, but surely in a battle the general will use this awesome ability to direct / aid his forces.

And then I cannot realistically see that it can be 6" only, what no WI-FI coverage for the slann? I'd say same as IP bubble...

Sure some may disagree with me, but do not have my AB with me at work for page reference, it does state the telepathy part in our fluff.

And who does not listen to voices in their head? Even crazed psychopaths do

 

Bob hears voices. Is this unusual?

 

Altough i agree with you 100%
I don`t think this will fly with most other players.
They will argue "suporting attacks can only make 1 attack, and this isn`t clearly explaind in our armybook"
We will have to wait for the FAQ to be sure

 

well yes supporting attacks only make 1 attack but that 1 attack benifits from PF so if any supporting attacks hit on a 6 then they must generate another attack

 

THIS TOPIC HAS ALREADY GONE ON AND ON FOR MANY MANY PAGES HERE:

http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/predatory-fighter-supporting-attacks.12270/

FAQ like this one need to be stickied.


Rules as written: Only models in the front rank benefit from the Predatory Fighter rule's additional attacks because the supporting attacks rule limits the number of supporting attacks made by saurus warriors, kroxigor, etc. Armybook would overrule the BRB only if the exception was specifically stated.

 

I just read the supporting attacks rule again. It states that you only get 1 attack, and that you don't get any bonus attacks, including those from special rules. Predatory Fighter does not technically call the extra attacks "bonus attacks", so it's still a little murky, but I'd say RAW seems to says that onlythe front would get PF attacks. I don't play using only front attacks with my friends because we think the intention is for them all to get PF, but at a tournament, I'd play front rank only until a FAQ comes out.

 

are you guys actually lizardmen players or not. Coz it seems like your trying to hamstring us. Ofcourse all models benefit from it. Ive played one tournament already and they allowed all to benefit from it because if only the front rank get it then there is no benefit at all (maybe the odd 1 or 2 extra) not to mention the mass slowing down of a match just to separate the attack rolls.

look at it like this if saurus had additional hand weapons that adds 1 to the attack (which you roll the same time as normal attacks in which case the second rank and so on don't benefit. but pf comes in after you have rolled your attacks.

 

If you read my post, it does state that my friends and I (yes, I do play lizzies) play where supporting attacks benefit from PF, but that simply not how the rule currently works as it is written. You don't get extra attacks from special rules for supporting ranks. They'll probably FAQ it togive PF on all attacks, as that is, to me at least, the most likely intention, but trying to figure out intention is just speculation until they clear it up. Read up on supporting attacks in the BRB. Sadly for us, it's pretty clear.

 

That is all completely true, if additional attacks generate from PF are supporting attacks.
Because PF happens after you've made your supporting attacks, it's possible that PF is not supporting attacks, and as such would not be limited by the support attack rule.

I play it as Base to Base right now, but I'm holding out hope the FAQ.

-Matt

 

I've seen a lot of people misapplying the ab trumps brb rule with regards to predatory fighter, it is not applicable in this case because there is no rule conflict, and that is the only time you can use that rule. What the ab trumps brb rule is NOT for to to allow people to do whatever the hell they like, and this is how you are using it here.

For example, my lizardmen army book says saurus have two attacks on their profile so because the ab trumps the brb that means my second rank saurus can make two attacks rather than just one. Do you consider this interp to be acceptable, i kind of hope not.

It's actually exactly the same situation with Pred fighter, the rule simply grants an additional attack to models, that in some cases cannot legally make use of it (because they are in the second rank for example).

It does of course depend on how easy going and reasonable your opponents are, I think there is a large amount of evidence that it was intended that subsequent ranks should get to make their extra attacks generated by pred fighter, but they did not word the rule in such a way as to make that a legal possibility in the current rules framework. If you are in a meta that accepts rules-as-intended interpretations then that's great, but if you have an opponent that insists you play the rules as they are written then you dont have a leg to stand on.

 

"It's actually exactly the same situation with Pred fighter, the rule simply grants an additional attack to models, that in some cases cannot legally make use of it (because they are in the second rank for example). "

The rule does not add an extra attack, that would imply that you are adding an attack on the model's profile. There would be no debate if the rule "added an attack to the profile of the entire unit." But rather it says the models "immediately make another attack". This implies the attack is made separately from the first batch. In the same way a supporting model is normally allowed to make an attack in each close combat phase, rather than just once per game.

This point is important because, supporting attacks doesn't give a time limit when it says, "can only make a single attack." Most people here are making the assumption that it means only one attack per close combat phase, but that is an assumption based on common sense. If you're doing that sort of assumption, then well, you really have no business arguing against the PF rule as intended. Because let's face it, common sense tells us supporting attackers make their additional attack. Separating out batches of dice is just plain stupid and slows the game down immensely. In a normal round you would have a batch of dice for front row attacks, a batch for front row PF attacks, and then a third for supporting attacks. And God help you if you throw poison or rerolls into the mix. The idea that this was the intent is ludicrous.

Supporting Attacks, RAW style
BRB p.49
"Of course, a warrior making a supporting attack is rather more constricted by the press of bodies than one who is face to face with his foe. To represent this, he can 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."

RAW, supporting attacking models can only ever make one attack EVER. It doesn't say "one attack per close combat phase." That's just one of those common sense things that only a jackass challenges. We know they meant, "it makes one attack at times when it is allowed to attack, rather than the number of attacks on profile." PF is allowing the model to attack again, not putting another attack on profile.

"But! That breaks the rule that supporting models can only attack once per phase!!!11"

Where does it say once per phase? It says ONE ATTACK. Period. If you're being a generous interpreter of rules as written, you will allow each supporting attacking model to make one supporting attack per game, but you're still making some degree of common sense RAI argument for that. If you're being a rules-lawyering stickler playing strictly by RAW, then what you must do is place some kind of mark on each model in your army that has EVER made a supporting attack, and be sure it never does so again. Ever. Because RAW!

My argument essentially boils down to this, you can't use RAI reasoning for how you think Supporting Attacks probably works in order to impose RAW restrictions on a separate rule. You are essentially playing Supporting Attacks as intended, and then turning around and playing with Predatory Fighter as purely RAW. I prefer to play both as they were intended.

In conclusion, here is my recommendation. Keep your BRB with you and mark page 49. If your opponent is jackass enough to insist that Supporting Attacks don't get PF rule, you pull that sucker out and point to the above quoted passage. For the rest of the game, every model who makes a supporting attack can no longer do so in subsequent phases. Explain to him/her that sometimes the rules as written bear very little in common with their intent. If you never play this person again, good riddance!

 

New tot eh forum but not the game. I didnt even consider you would not get the extra attack as im sure someone would have felt the need to add it to the rule that support attacks are exempt. If you dont get it then kroxigors in mixed units dont get it and they already barely dish out enough damage to mitigate the horde of dead skinks in front of them.

also the reason spears are free for saurus as they are for skelly warriors is you lose your parry save so making you pay a point fpr that would be cheeky.

 

+1 for Caneghems post. I agree a 100%

why would you first state that there has to be a conflict for the rule to apply and then give an example where there is no conflict?

the rule says that it dosnt matter how many attacks there are listed in the profile, Saurus has two attacks in the profile...no conflict, as no rule in the armybook is written to state it can use those two attacks anyway, no conflict.

true, but it is unaffected by the support rule as PF does not grant the attack via the profile.

it dosnt do +1A, it lets the model that has it "make" another one.

If any tests or other effects that has anything to do with the attacks listed in the profile it would still say "2A" not 2+1.