First I want to say I completely agree its only first rank but I want to point out something about what you said BRB - No special rule can allow for more than one supporting attack. PF - Models with PF get to make another Attack when they roll a 6 to hit. is it not possible that the second sentence does contradict the BRB PF - Models with PF get to make another Attack when they roll a 6 to hit. This is saying when a model with this rule rolls a 6 to hit its makes another attack . so brb says supporting cant but pf says can , same as the river quote brb says no aquatic says yes Pf say MODELS (meaning any/all models regardless of where they are) You are saying it doesn't specifically say supporters get it , but then it doesn't specifically say front rank (models is all of them so there is the conflict)
Page 11, final paragraph. @forlustria - I know it's a hard distinction to get the mind wrapped around, and having to come to grips with it over the internet sure as heck doesn't help, but the river example is actually different because it has wording that it specifically at odds, directly, with the same wording from the main rule. It's the matching rule concept specificity that really is key. PF is a general rule from the lizard book that allows a model to gain an extra Attack. It contains no language that presents a challenge to (and thus a contradiction to) the Supporting Attacks language. Look at it through a different lens - There are spells that grant +1A to models, such as Smiting and Timewarp. There are also weapons that grant further Attacks, such as additional hand weapons or the Sword of Battle. Lastly, there are other Special Rules (aside from PF) that grant extra Attacks, such as Frenzy (which can be further enhanced by Fury of Khaine!). All of these rules grant more Attacks to a model once a condition is met (the condition being the spell going off, the item being taken, etc), just as PF does. PF's condition is less absolute, but it is a condition nonetheless. In each and every case, none of the sources of extra Attacks specify that they are an exception to the limit given under Supporting Attacks. Again, all of these, including PF, are ways to generate additional Attacks, and yet none of the others contain language to allow them to break the Supporting Attacks rule. Why would PF be any different, especially since the Supporting Attacks rule specifically states that no Special Rule can be used to get more than one Attack? If PF allows more than one Supporting Attack, then all of these do as well. The only way any of these rules could countermand the prohibition given under Supporting Attacks would be if they contained direct language regarding Supporting Attacks, creating an actual contradiction, and thus invoking AB>BRB.
Just to play Devils advocate... Does the Predator Fighter rule specificaly state that extra attacks come from a specific model ? or just the unit in general ?
It's model by model. It's why, for example, you still have to specify your allocation of Attacks on particular opposing models, just like normal.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding things here or.. just being dumb, dunno, but the PF rule says "whenever a model with this special rule..." and MoK says "A model with Mark of Khorne.." It's just that I don't necessarily see the difference here.
there is a conflict , it does not need to say supporting attacks benefit all models have pf (where they stand does not change this) so the wording is saying all models with this get an extra attack on a roll of 6. With your other examples they are not army book special rules so do not override the supporting attacks rule where as pf does. when it says models with PF it is encompassing all models . It does not need to specify second rank benefits as they are already included in models with. ergo we need army book trumps rule book
Oh, there are tons of army book special rules that grant extra attacks. For example, Wardancers have a dance that gives them each an extra attack when they choose that dance. Without exception, however, all the rules like this have been ruled to not work with supporting attacks.
Actually, just to narrow it down, yes, Smiting is Army Book specific and a Tomb Gaurd in the second rank cannot make two Attacks with Smiting. Remember, the Supporting Attack limit is not just applied to Special Rules - in encompasses all the ways to get extra Attacks, including a spell from a particular book such as Smiting. (Added note: Take a look at VC Red Fury. It's remarkably similar to PF, is an army book-specific rule, and still won't allow a Vamp in the second rank to make an additional attack.) This leads me to a different way to approach my position - I believe we are all being distracted by the page 11 AB>BRB rule. It's a red herring. It doesn't matter where the source of the extra Attack is printed because the main rule itself tell us that there is no possible way to get another Attack from any Special Rule (or how many Attacks are on the profile or if it comes from an "unusual source"). If the Special Rule appeared in the main rules, in an army book, or in a scenario somewhere, you still would not get to make that Attack... unless! .... The rule granting the Attack specifically called out that it was an exception to the limits put forth under Supporting Attacks. I'm at a loss as to how to better say it - A model having access to additional attacks, regardless of the source does not equate to being able to make said Attack when prohibited from doing so! It doesn't matter how the model is getting an extra Attack if he is not allowed to actually make that Attack. To bring it to a different context- - A person may not legally drive a car unless he has a license to do do. - A father tells his son that unless a law is made forcing him to allow it, he will not permit his son to drive the family car, even after the son gets his licence. - The son gets a license from a different state. The son now has the legal right to drive, but that does not mean he can drive every car out there since his father has said he is not allowed to drive the family car unless the law forces him to allow it. The out-of-state license grants the ability to drive, but just because the kid can drive now it doesn't mean he gets to force his dad to let him. He needs a state law to force his dad to allow him to drive the family car. Yes, the roll of a 6 for the PF attacker in rank number two grants him an addition Attack. There is still no conflict with the rulebook's limit on how many Attacks that model can make and thus his extra Attack goes unused. I truly do get that it's a hard distinction to see, but it's there. The PF rule simply generates more Attacks - nothing more, nothing less. It does not contain any language to conflict with the main rule that disallows the USE of that Attack. EDIT: Just adding some thoughts- As we know, Monstrous Infantry can make up to three Attacks from a Supporting Attacks position. Ho ho! What have we here? Why/how is this possible, you might ask, if I am so adamant that there is no way to get more than one Attack in Support? Well, the answer is right there on page 11 again. It tells us that there are advanced rules that apply to certain models later in the book that might contradict what we are told before encountering those models' rules. We then get to the MI rules on page 81 that tell us Well, this is pretty interesting stuff! Why are MI allowed to make more than one supporting attack even though the earlier rules say they cannot? Because page 11 tells us that later rules may create contradictions, and that the advanced rule should be followed. The basic rule for Supporting Attacks is not that a model in a support position cannot have more than 1 Attack. Not at all. The rule is that they may not make more than 1 Attack. A supporting model may have 2, 3 or even 6+ Attacks and there would be no conflict with the Supporting Attacks rule since the Supporting Attacks rule is about how many Attacks a supporting model can make! Boy, after all this writing, I think I've finally found the right way to make the point: The reason there is no conflict between PF and Supporting Attacks is because PF determines the number of Attacks a model has and SA determines how many of a model's Attacks it can actually use. Let that sink in. In order for a rule (Special, spell, "unusual" or whatever) to conflict with SA, it has to say something about how many Attacks the model is allowed to [/i]make[/i], not how many Attacks it has. Gosh, just like Monstrous Support does! It should be pointed out that I had already been doing this with Smiting on my Necropolis Knights. The riders (who are eligible to make supporting attacks whereas the mounts are not) have a base 2 attacks. With Smiting, they go up to 3 Attacks and can make all 3 because of the Monstrous Support rules apply here (per the FAQ).
I understand, and agree with you completely, Sleboda. And I too do not see how this can be in question at all. ALL models with the rule have Predatory Fighter bonus attacks in them, they just may not be able to use them due to their position in a unit formation. The Saurus Warrior in the 6th rank has the Predatory Fighter rule, but he doesn't get to use any attacks because he's not close enough to attack anyone (he's like 20 feet away!). The Saurus Warrior in the 2nd rank has the Predatory Fighter rule, and is only allowed to attack (to the front) by the Supporting Attack special rule (which limits the model to a single attack) because he's not close enough to attack to his full potential (he's like 4 feet away!). He doesn't even get to attack with all of his basic attacks due to his position, not to mention extra bonus attacks! The Saurus Warrior in the 1st rank has the Predatory Fighter special rule, and does benefit from bonus attacks granted by the Predatory Fighter special rule because he's face-to-face with the enemy and can fight to his full potential. It all seems very simple to me.
It's not that I don't agree, it's that this is a rather complicated matter to explain to others. At least it can be. Some will agree, others will not, IMO a FAQ would be nice just to truly clarify the matter, so that others can't question the logic behind what you say. If we assume the PF will eventually get a FAQ and work on all ranks it'll definately make the Trog worth considering. A horde of 40 templeguards can generat an additional 13 attacks. Combine it with hand of glory and it'll actually make a difference. I wouldn't classify that as overpowered by any mean since it requires several things not to go wrong and by the end of the day it's a one time use. When I look at it that way I get the same feeling when looking at the rest of the book. It's all balanced so that it is in no way overpowered. For instance the nex bastiladon is a relatively cheap monster, but it's by no mean incredible, it's just an alright monster. The same with ripperdactyls, they're just more random. Can they hurt? Sure, but they require some getting used to. And this goes for the rest of the book. I know that people will look at out book and be afraid of certain things, but when I look at the book I see a balanced army. The only thing that truly annoys me is how COR wasn't at least given more options, but oh well.. What doesn't make sense though is how we're currently getting a bigger punishment than a benefit from PF. A regular 6 wide saurus warrior unit can generat roughly 2 additional attacks of which one will statistically flop. So for that one extra attack in the To Wound phase we're forced to persuit unless we have a skink character nearby? Come on now son.. Currently, the only way I can see a use for PF is on our cowboys. They come with a higher weapon skill which makes every PF attack feel sort of like hatred, just for every round of combat. Sounds weird, I know, but usually some attacks will flop and it's not uncommon to get at least one 6. So all in all I feel as if I'm getting more attacks through with my characters than if I didn't have PF. Our saurus warriors and guars? Not so much. It's just sort of there. What I'm trying to say is that PF was probably meant to work for all attacking ranks. Otherwise it's more of a punishment to a unit (the saurus warriors) that didn't exactly need to be punished to begin with and balance wise it just doesn't make much sense. Also without PF working for the other ranks the Trog really isn't worth it at all, as we've already discussed to no end, but if PF works on all ranks it's suddenly worth considering. As I wrote previously, it won't suddenly turn it into an OP unit in anyway, but it becomes an 'alright' unit that can work in tandem with the rest of our army.
Since we appear to be swinging back on topic.... As I've said, I think the Troglodon is worth taking as is, and that's without me having a Slann in the army to take advantage of Arcane Vassal. I agree with the prevailing view that he should have been better than he is, but even just the way he is at the moment he's still doing nice things in my games - not every game, of course, but not much in Warhammer can be counted upon to be great every time. In my monster-heavy, krox+saurus army, he boosts my PF guys (especially helping the Oldblood turn his 6 Attacks into 8 Attacks and allowing him to hold up huge formations just a bit longer) at key times and takes the heat off of some of the more important monsters. For example, if I were facing VC, I'd rather have my opponent try to take out the Troglodon that is about the rush his lines than go after the Bastiladon with its ethereal blasting lascannon.