PDA

View Full Version : "Extra Attack" Special Rule in 8th Ed



lelandchaska
25-06-2010, 17:23
The "Extra Attack" special rule from the 8th Ed brb is being discussed in several different threads right now (WoC, Beastmen, etc.). The question is whether extra attacks from different sources stack (frenzy, extra hand weapon, etc.)

It appears that "Extra Attack" is listed as a special rule in 8th Ed, and the norm is that special rules coming from different sources do not stack (as one other person pointed out, two sources of armour piercing does not equal -2 to armour saves).

My thought is that it is the intent that extra attacks do stack, so Khorne chaos warriors with two hand weapons still get 4 attacks each. But a strict reading of the rules might indicate otherwise.

Anybody have a definitive answer?:confused:

GodlessM
25-06-2010, 18:55
It's pretty simple; if the rulebook or errata says it stacks then it does, otherwise it doesn't.

lelandchaska
25-06-2010, 19:14
It's pretty simple; if the rulebook or errata says it stacks then it does, otherwise it doesn't.

Take into consideration the Minotaurs' special ability though, which one can presume was made with an eye towards 8th:

"Bloodgreed - When you win a round of combat, gain Frenzy, then gain an additional attack (until Frenzy is lost) every time you win another round, but pursue and overrun only 1d6"."

Under Bloodgreed, additional attacks stack on top of Frenzy.

My suspicion is that nobody is going to play that it does not stack, even before the errata comes out clarifying it.

yabbadabba
25-06-2010, 19:18
It's pretty simple; if the rulebook or errata says it stacks then it does, otherwise it doesn't.


Take into consideration the Minotaurs' special ability though, which one can presume was made with an eye towards 8th:
"Bloodgreed - When you win a round of combat, gain Frenzy, then gain an additional attack (until Frenzy is lost) every time you win another round, but pursue and overrun only 1d6"."
Under Bloodgreed, additional attacks stack on top of Frenzy.
The two quotes are not mutually exclusive. Godless is right though.

NixonAsADaemonPrince
25-06-2010, 19:50
As I have said elsewhere, for it not to stack would seriously affect a lot of units, such as chaos warriors, minotaurs, dark elf corsairs with their exclusive frenzy banner, witch elves and plague monks. Obviously we will have to wait upon the erratra though.

Nixon

TheSanityAssassin
25-06-2010, 20:22
I think it would be kind of foolish for it not to stack, but hey, it's GW, so who knows.

Valtiel
25-06-2010, 20:28
Hopefully it stacks. Or else we'll see Witch Elves be useless, along with additional handweapons on most monstrous infantry, Khorne Warriors and probably a lot more units around. It would be disastrous.

decker_cky
25-06-2010, 20:30
File this one along with the "Terminators don't have terminator armour" argument from the old marines book. Extra attacks stack.

GodlessM
25-06-2010, 20:45
Does it say they do in the rulebook decker?

Aluinn
25-06-2010, 21:31
Normally I'd side with Godless on this because he is right that the rules are permissive (you can't do something unless they say you can), but "extra" in itself implies stacking. It's pretty much the same as saying "+X". There is no mention of "extra Armor Piercing", "bonus Armor Piercing", or "+X Armor Piercing", so we can be very clear about that, but extra attacks seems a lot less obvious.

I really don't know about it, but the fact that a lot of units with Frenzy also have two weapons suggests to me that, at least, the attack from having a weapon pair stacks with attacks granted by special rules. Since the second rank of a unit only gets one attack, I can't see how there would be any intentional nerfing of that.

Voss
25-06-2010, 21:52
It's pretty simple; if the rulebook or errata says it stacks then it does, otherwise it doesn't.

The default statement at the beginning of the special rules section, however, states that unless stated otherwise, special rules do stack.

yabbadabba
25-06-2010, 21:58
Yes but again Voss, until we get the rulebook in our podgy little hands, yours and Godless' statements are not necessarily exclusive.

Gaargod
26-06-2010, 00:33
I'm sorry, but this is a fairly retarded argument.

Its in the exact same spirit as arguing tyranid close combat weapons don't stack, because the rulebook doesn't explicitly say they do. The intent is painstakingly clear - probably so obvious they didn't even bother to put it into writing.

Anyone trying to argue that extra attacks don't stack around me will be hit with the rulebook. The 8th ed one (its not called warhammer for nothing either!)

Rosstifer
26-06-2010, 00:44
Whilst I agree the argument is a bit silly Gaargod, I'd rather you didn't call it retarded. my mum's a mental health worker, so I've been brought up to find that word rather offensive. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Solar_Eclipse
26-06-2010, 02:31
Sorry, Rosstifer, thats culture. It's going to happen at some point so just get used to it really.

Anyway, i do think the intent is to allow additional attacks, but we will have to wait and see.

Dai-Mongar
26-06-2010, 03:45
Considering that Skaven were supposed to be designed to fit in with 8th, I'd be surprised if they gave PMs frenzy and AHW for no immediate benefit. The idea that you can only get one extra attack seems absurd.

BranWheatKillah
26-06-2010, 14:08
I'll jump in this as well.

It'd be pretty foolish for extra attacks to not stack considering that most frenzied units in the game are equipped with 2 Hand Weapons. It was always the intention that they stack and will definitely be how we play.

yabbadabba
26-06-2010, 14:12
Godless is still right though. It really doesn't matter what you think, its what the rulebook and the FAq says that is right.

Shouldn't stop you playing how you want though :D

Odin
26-06-2010, 14:35
Does it say they do in the rulebook decker?

Doesn't matter unless you're playing against a complete tool.

GodlessM
26-06-2010, 15:14
The default statement at the beginning of the special rules section, however, states that unless stated otherwise, special rules do stack.

Well then the answer is simple, extra attacks do stack; there should be no debate about it.


Doesn't matter unless you're playing against a complete tool.

Sorry? So by your reckoning if someone plays by the rules that are written in the book they are a tool?


Whilst I agree the argument is a bit silly Gaargod, I'd rather you didn't call it retarded. my mum's a mental health worker, so I've been brought up to find that word rather offensive. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I second that as I work with such people.

The SkaerKrow
26-06-2010, 16:12
Bad news, everyone!

By the wording the rule in the new book (which I spent an hour with yesterday), multiple instances of Extra Attack are not cumulative. There isn't even room for interpretation, the wording of the rule is clear on this. So unless they errata the new book immediately (and I do not believe that they will), your best bet is to hope that the army .PDF releases are of some benefit to those units that used to rely on Frenzy/Additional Hand Weapons.

Edit: I am very happy to be wrong about this post.

Gaargod
26-06-2010, 18:05
Sorry guys, don't normally need to edit my word use.

However, i disagree. I was reading the rules today and i saw in the rules of multiple close combat weapons it SPECIFICALLY says grants 'an extra attack'. Not the extra attack rule, an extra attack.

You might make a very sketchy argument that stuff like frenzy and... anything else that says Extra Attack Rule (i think Paired Magic Weapons says that...), but AHW are immune.

GodlessM
26-06-2010, 18:07
Better read it myelf but Gaargod that sounds right.

Mr_Rose
26-06-2010, 18:38
Bad news, everyone!

By the wording the rule in the new book (which I spent an hour with yesterday), multiple instances of Extra Attack are not cumulative. There isn't even room for interpretation, the wording of the rule is clear on this. So unless they errata the new book immediately (and I do not believe that they will), your best bet is to hope that the army .PDF releases are of some benefit to those units that used to rely on Frenzy/Additional Hand Weapons.
How is it clear on this?
the rule for Extra attacks gives an extra attack; that is all it says under there. Earlier in the same section, it also says that special rules are cumulative unless otherwise noted; do you have an 'other note' somewhere to quote on this?

Tae
26-06-2010, 19:39
Sorry guys, don't normally need to edit my word use.

However, i disagree. I was reading the rules today and i saw in the rules of multiple close combat weapons it SPECIFICALLY says grants 'an extra attack'. Not the extra attack rule, an extra attack.

You might make a very sketchy argument that stuff like frenzy and... anything else that says Extra Attack Rule (i think Paired Magic Weapons says that...), but AHW are immune.

I'm not jumping in on the actual argument myself (am waiting for the FAQ), however if you look in the actual list of special weapons the last one on there is 'Two close combat weapons (foot only)' which you'll note grants the "Extra Attack" special rule.

This is why people are saying it does not stack as being Frenzy also grants the "Extra Attack" special rule.

If the two close combat weapons wasn't included in the actual list of special weapons and we therefore had to rely on the wording on the page before it, then I would agree there is absolutely no doubt in the matter.

However it is, there is (doubt), as 2CCW gives EA, as does Frenzy. Hence the debate.

GodlessM
26-06-2010, 20:18
How is it clear on this?
the rule for Extra attacks gives an extra attack; that is all it says under there. Earlier in the same section, it also says that special rules are cumulative unless otherwise noted; do you have an 'other note' somewhere to quote on this?

That's three people who had said this now, which makes it most likely in my book. Obviously it is down to reading but if three people said the same thing and that it is crystal clear, then that's where I'm putting my money.

The SkaerKrow
26-06-2010, 21:15
Honestly, I find it amusing that people can readily accept so many fundamental changes to the mechanics of Warhammer Fantasy Battles, but this change, this is the sticking point that they just can't surmount.

GodlessM
26-06-2010, 21:20
Honestly, I find it amusing that people can readily accept so many fundamental changes to the mechanics of Warhammer Fantasy Battles, but this change, this is the sticking point that they just can't surmount.

Three people read it from the rulebook. How is that people not accepting the truth?

Mr_Rose
26-06-2010, 21:35
Honestly, I find it amusing that people can readily accept so many fundamental changes to the mechanics of Warhammer Fantasy Battles, but this change, this is the sticking point that they just can't surmount.
Honestly, I find it amusing that the best rebuttal you can come up with for two quotes from the rulebook that say otherwise is an ad hominem.

Pavic
26-06-2010, 21:36
I have the 8th edition rulebook sitting in my hands and have been reading and rereading it over and over for the past week.

Under the entry Two/Additional Hand Weapons (P. 91) is the typical weapon profile which says name, range, strength, special rules. Under special rules for this entry it says "Extra Attack."

In the Special Rules chapter, there are entries for Frenzy and Extra Attack.

The entry for Frenzy (P. 70) states "Frenzied troops have the Extra Attack and Immune to Psychology special rules."

The entry for Extra Attack (P. 69) states "A model with this special rules (or who is attacking with a weapon that bestows this special rules) increases his Attacks value by 1."

In the first paragraph (P. 66) of the Special Rules section is the following statement "Unless otherwise noted, the effects of multiple special rules are cumulative."

I can find no indication in the rulebook that receiving multiple copies of Extra Attack would not increase a model's Attack value +1 for each time it receives this special rule.

Just in case someone points out Magic Resistance to argue against the above, the entry for Magic Resistance (P. 72) states "If a model has two sets of Magic Resistance, the two do not combine, it uses the highest." This would be one of the cases where Special Rules do not stack as noted by the previous entry qouted from page 66.

GodlessM
26-06-2010, 21:42
Thank you Pavic. Having the quotes from each section clarifies it perfectly.

Odin
26-06-2010, 22:32
I have the 8th edition rulebook sitting in my hands and have been reading and rereading it over and over for the past week.

Under the entry Two/Additional Hand Weapons (P. 91) is the typical weapon profile which says name, range, strength, special rules. Under special rules for this entry it says "Extra Attack."

In the Special Rules chapter, there are entries for Frenzy and Extra Attack.

The entry for Frenzy (P. 70) states "Frenzied troops have the Extra Attack and Immune to Psychology special rules."

The entry for Extra Attack (P. 69) states "A model with this special rules (or who is attacking with a weapon that bestows this special rules) increases his Attacks value by 1."

In the first paragraph (P. 66) of the Special Rules section is the following statement "Unless otherwise noted, the effects of multiple special rules are cumulative."

I can find no indication in the rulebook that receiving multiple copies of Extra Attack would not increase a model's Attack value +1 for each time it receives this special rule.

Just in case someone points out Magic Resistance to argue against the above, the entry for Magic Resistance (P. 72) states "If a model has two sets of Magic Resistance, the two do not combine, it uses the highest." This would be one of the cases where Special Rules do not stack as noted by the previous entry qouted from page 66.

Nice one. Sounds pretty clear.

The SkaerKrow
27-06-2010, 00:28
Honestly, I find it amusing that the best rebuttal you can come up with for two quotes from the rulebook that say otherwise is an ad hominem.Honestly, I find it amusing that I just threw you onto my ignore list.

Thank you Pavic, I appreciate you taking the time to transcribe that for us. Hopefully you'll receive some Witch Elf love for your troubles.

Chaos257
27-06-2010, 06:50
Godless is still right though. It really doesn't matter what you think, its what the rulebook and the FAq says that is right.

Shouldn't stop you playing how you want though :D

Or tourny errata and/or people we refuse to play against for being rules lawyers.

Mr_Rose
27-06-2010, 08:42
Honestly, I find it amusing that I just threw you onto my ignore list. Oh noes! The the subtlety of your rejoinder! How can I possibly weather the scything blade of your cutting wit?!:rolleyes:

NixonAsADaemonPrince
27-06-2010, 10:50
Yeah cheers Pavic, well done.

Nixon

lelandchaska
27-06-2010, 17:02
Thank you Pavic, perfectly stated. I just finally got my hands on an 8th Ed book yesterday and got to read the sections you quoted. That is the same conclusion I came to.