PDA

View Full Version : Predatory fighter, only for the first rank?



DrMooreFlava
27-08-2014, 18:49
Is predatory fighter only for the first rank of models?

I was told that since the rear ranks can only contribute 1 supporting attack and therefore predatory fighter doesn't work for them. Is this so? I have always seen it played as a bonus attack that doesn't count toward the actual number of attacks the model is producing. It just seems redundant for GW to make us roll separately for front rank and supporting rank.

Josfer
27-08-2014, 18:54
It's not clear and many debates have been had.

Malagor
27-08-2014, 19:13
Me and the other lizardmen players where I play have all agreed that it doesn't apply to supporting attacks so first rank only.
But that's just us.

theunwantedbeing
27-08-2014, 19:28
RAW says just the front rank.
RAI says whoever yells the loudest for the longest gets to be right.

MOMUS
27-08-2014, 19:33
I can't believe this has come up again, any minute now somebodies guna ask if you can shoot salamanders into combat. :p

Predatory fighter is a rehash of the old bonus 'bite attack' game mechanic, but poorly thought out.
It only works In the first rank.

hardyworld
27-08-2014, 21:52
It's true. Supporting Attacks cannot declare additional attacks from Predatory Fighter.
The rules are very clear and have no contradiction at all (between Predatory Fighter and Supporting Attacks Special rules). Bonus attacks granted by Predatory Fighter may only be granted by normal attacks made by the through base-to-base contact (front/flank/rear included). The only time an attack is declared where the additional attacks are not granted by PF are while making Supporting Attacks because the rules for Supporting Attacks specifically prohibit any model to declare more than 1 attack (or 3 for monstrous infantry or monstrous cavalry riders).

At least there is a very clear answer given by the RAW in this case...that isn't the case for many Lizardmen FAQ.

I'll point you to #2 here concerning PF...but you may see many other questions in this link that remain unanswered by the RAW.
http://www.lustria-online.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=13582

MOMUS
27-08-2014, 22:55
That link is pretty much useless. All I see is 'it is hoped' or 'it is suggested', there is no lizard FAQ.

hardyworld
28-08-2014, 00:11
All it lists is Frequently Asked Questions. How a player answers a FAQ, is up to the player when no official answers are provided. The link was only intended to point out how many unanswered questions from the Lizardmen book alone exist. If that doesn't help get my point across concerning the magnitude FAQ that remain unanswered, I'm sorry.

T10
28-08-2014, 09:17
I was told that since the rear ranks can only contribute 1 supporting attack and therefore predatory fighter doesn't work for them. Is this so? I have always seen it played as a bonus attack that doesn't count toward the actual number of attacks the model is producing. It just seems redundant for GW to make us roll separately for front rank and supporting rank.

Other bonus attacks (such as the extra attacks gained from additional hand weapons or Frenzy) are still limited by the maximum number of supporting attacks. If there is anything in the Predatory Fighter rules that allow them to ignore this limit, I can't find it.

I get the appeal of the idea that the bonus attack is a "rider", i.e. it comes as a companion effect of the models initial attack. However, the bonus attack is still a new and separate attack: It's not an enhanced effect of the initial attack (one might imagine something along the lines of "On any roll of a 6 to hit, the model scores one additional hit").

In fairness, I don't see how a model that normally gets to attack twice should get a worse deal than a model that strikes once and then maybe strikes again.

-T10

King Arthur
28-08-2014, 09:31
We just say, all can, as speeds up the game makes very little difference to the game don't see why it is made such a big deal its a clear misprint of riles and little foresight.

MOMUS
28-08-2014, 13:14
You're right it's not a big deal...















...because nobody runs saurus :p

ragingdrone
29-08-2014, 17:00
It work also as supporting attacks. The book over rules the BRB

Scammel
29-08-2014, 18:01
It work also as supporting attacks. The book over rules the BRB

Except there's no conflict - the PF rule in no way contradicts the BRB which specifically refers to how rules like these are treated in regards to supporting attacks.

ragingdrone
29-08-2014, 18:05
Except there's no conflict - the PF rule in no way contradicts the BRB which specifically refers to how rules like these are treated in regards to supporting attacks.
Okay. Got it. He played a guy and he said the same thing what I said. Got it. Thanks!

GrandmasterWang
30-08-2014, 06:53
I like the PF rule.

We roll for everyone... ie, all saurus roll to hit together, no differenciation between front rank and otherwise, however the number of PF extra attacks that can be made caps at the number of front rank models. This makes PF a worthwhile rule but in no way contradicts the BRB. I feel this is RAI and RAW.

So any extra PF attacks that are rolled in excess of front rank models are lost, but all attacking models incl second/third rank actually get a chance to use their PF rule and contribute extra atta ks

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

theunwantedbeing
30-08-2014, 09:58
We roll for everyone... ie, all saurus roll to hit together, no differenciation between front rank and otherwise, however the number of PF extra attacks that can be made caps at the number of front rank models. This makes PF a worthwhile rule but in no way contradicts the BRB. I feel this is RAI and RAW.

I don't think you understand what RAW is.

The PF rule doesn't allow it to work on supporting attacks, sure your method is only gaining +1 attack per 6 supporting attacks (on average) but it's still not following the rules.
It's a little like taking 105pts of magical items on a lord, sure it's only 5pts over but the limit is 100 and nothing allows you to break that limit.
Capping it doesn't alter anything, it's like the above 105pts of items but saying only 100pts of them work at any given time, it's still illegal.

You're also denying yourself a really lucky roll with the front lot where they each average more than one 6 each.
5 guys with 2 attacks each rolling 6 6's between them, you would cap the PF effect at 5, but RAW allows you 6.

SanDiegoSurrealist
03-09-2014, 18:29
I have yet to play anyone who thinks that PF only apply to the front rank.

Spiney Norman
03-09-2014, 18:40
I have yet to play anyone who thinks that PF only apply to the front rank.

That doesn't really offer anything to suggest which way is the correct way to play it. Most people I play don't know how the rule works at all until they read it in my army book because generally speaking Lizardmen are not the most widely played army. They generally accept how I tell them the rule works because its my army and I should darn well know how to use it. I've always played that supporting ranks can never make more than one attack because that is what the rule book says, so how it works is this.
1. Roll attacks for front rank
2. Roll attacks for any supporting ranks plus an additional number of dice equal to the number of sixes rolled in step 1.

That way I have only rolled dice twice, contrary to popular myth, it's not any slower or less convenient than if I had rolled all the unit's attacks in one go and then made a second roll equal to the number of sixes rolled because I would still have been rolling two sets of dice. It does however have the virtue of following the rules of the game and not trying to take advantage of your opponent.

SanDiegoSurrealist
03-09-2014, 18:58
That doesn't really offer anything to suggest which way is the correct way to play it. Most people I play don't know how the rule works at all until they read it in my army book because generally speaking Lizardmen are not the most widely played army. They generally accept how I tell them the rule works because its my army and I should darn well know how to use it.

I can not even believe we are still having this conversation in the first place.
I am not just talking about me as a LM player, I am talking about others playing them as well. We all know what the rule was intended to be, the only people arguing about it are on this forum. I have yet to meet anyone in the real world, a store, or tournament that thinks that is the way they were intended to be played.
It is just like when 95% of the people on this forum were 100%, without a doubt, concrete solid sure that the Chaos Chart in the new Daemon book does not effect enemy units, just units with the specific marks.

Spiney Norman
03-09-2014, 19:30
I can not even believe we are still having this conversation in the first place.
I am not just talking about me as a LM player, I am talking about others playing them as well. We all know what the rule was intended to be, the only people arguing about it are on this forum. I have yet to meet anyone in the real world, a store, or tournament that thinks that is the way they were intended to be played.
It is just like when 95% of the people on this forum were 100%, without a doubt, concrete solid sure that the Chaos Chart in the new Daemon book does not effect enemy units, just units with the specific marks.

Once again I can't quite understand how you are logicking this out, what is it about the predatory fighter rule that makes you think it explicitly overrules the rules for supporting attacks? Even if you were right about 95% of players agreeing with you (rather than just having plucked that number out of the air), how does 'weight of opinion' somehow trump the rules of the game?

The predatory fighter rule quite clearly DOES give models in the second rank an extra attack (just as frenzy or an additional hand weapon does), however the rule for supporting attacks quite clearly forbids them from using this attack. Its really not unclear at all, in fact its not even slightly complicated, there is very clear precedent in the game rules in other abilities that confer additional attacks, no-one who uses a unit with either frenzy or two hand weapons (or in the case of my savage orcs, both) expects the +1 attacks to apply to the second rank, the same is true for predatory fighter.

Josfer
04-09-2014, 08:09
We all know what the rule was intended to be, the only people arguing about it are on this forum. I have yet to meet anyone in the real world, a store, or tournament that thinks that is the way they were intended to be played.
"Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack; roll To Hit and To Wound as normal. Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack; roll To Hit and To Wound as normal."
vs.
"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."
Let me remove anything not necessary: He can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules.
It is REALLY CLEARLY intended that supporting attacks are limited to one.

SanDiegoSurrealist
04-09-2014, 16:27
All I am saying is that in the tournaments I have played in (2 in Southern California and 2 in Ohio) or in the countless pickup games I have played (both with my LM and against others playing LM) no one has played it that way. I have discussed it with them all and no one I have encountered has ever thought only the front rank gets PF.

But at the end of the day; the true bottom line is you should play it how ever you and your opponent agree upon.

theunwantedbeing
04-09-2014, 17:02
All I am saying is that in the tournaments I have played in (2 in Southern California and 2 in Ohio) or in the countless pickup games I have played (both with my LM and against others playing LM) no one has played it that way. I have discussed it with them all and no one I have encountered has ever thought only the front rank gets PF.


Is a pickup game different to a regular game somehow?

SanDiegoSurrealist
04-09-2014, 17:22
Is a pickup game different to a regular game somehow?

No, other than a pick-up game is not for the league or a scheduled game with a buddy.

I should also point out that in the local WFB Leagues I play in, PF is also not played that it only counts from the first rank.
Not that it matters what happens in my game stores, because everyone's local may play it differently. I can just speak in reference to the people I know or have met.

Malagor
04-09-2014, 17:26
All I am saying is that in the tournaments I have played in (2 in Southern California and 2 in Ohio) or in the countless pickup games I have played (both with my LM and against others playing LM) no one has played it that way. I have discussed it with them all and no one I have encountered has ever thought only the front rank gets PF.

But at the end of the day; the true bottom line is you should play it how ever you and your opponent agree upon.
If the people playing and the tournament wants to rule in that manner then that's their thing and they are allowed to houserule.
But official rules however disagrees with them and that is what this forum is for afterall.

forseer of fates
04-09-2014, 17:42
Like Malagor says, rules as written its the front rank, if people want to play it differently then that's up to them.....

SanDiegoSurrealist
04-09-2014, 17:55
Even if you were right about 95% of players agreeing with you (rather than just having plucked that number out of the air), how does 'weight of opinion' somehow trump the rules of the game?


You misread my comment. I never said that 95% of players agreed with me.
I was just making a point that until there is an FAQ, no one is right and no one is wrong.
Play it however you and your opponent wish.

Scammel
04-09-2014, 17:57
I was just making a point that until there is an FAQ, no one is right and no one is wrong.


You certainly can waiver any rule you want in a friendly game, but there's absolutely no need for an FAQ here.

SanDiegoSurrealist
04-09-2014, 18:02
You certainly can waiver any rule you want in a friendly game, but there's absolutely no need for an FAQ here.

Apparently there is because this has been an ongoing debate on and off for months.

Malagor
04-09-2014, 18:37
There was a debate but that debate has settled now.
Mostly because people didn't realise that there was a rule in the BRB stating clearly that you can't get more then 1 supporting attack regardless of special rules.
That ended the debate.
These days it's new LM players asking for clarification or people who faced LM players who essentially cheated.
So the debate has been replaced by a question that gets a 2-letter word as a reply which answers the question.

SteveW
05-09-2014, 02:35
All I am saying is that in the tournaments I have played in (2 in Southern California and 2 in Ohio) or in the countless pickup games I have played (both with my LM and against others playing LM) no one has played it that way. I have discussed it with them all and no one I have encountered has ever thought only the front rank gets PF.

But at the end of the day; the true bottom line is you should play it how ever you and your opponent agree upon.

What two in socal. None of the ones i went to.

dagreenmoonboyz
05-09-2014, 02:59
"Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack; roll To Hit and To Wound as normal. Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack; roll To Hit and To Wound as normal."
vs.
"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."
Let me remove anything not necessary: He can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules.
It is REALLY CLEARLY intended that supporting attacks are limited to one.


Still not sure how this isn't a contradiction between the BRB and an army book. We weren't there when they wrote the book so who knows what they intended but saying it's clear cut either way seems like an over simplification to me.

MOMUS
05-09-2014, 03:05
If you were mentioning tournaments as means of trying to add weight to the argument you could just say the ETC play it as only first rank as does as the biggest warhammer tournament in the world. :rolleyes:

SteveW
05-09-2014, 03:06
Still not sure how this isn't a contradiction between the BRB and an army book. We weren't there when they wrote the book so who knows what they intended but saying it's clear cut either way seems like an over simplification to me.


Does the predatory fighter special rule say it gives additional supporting attacks? No. So there is no armybook vs rulebook ruling needed.

Spiney Norman
05-09-2014, 06:33
Still not sure how this isn't a contradiction between the BRB and an army book. We weren't there when they wrote the book so who knows what they intended but saying it's clear cut either way seems like an over simplification to me.

There is no contradiction because second rank models are not forbidden to gain extra attacks, they are just forbidden to use them, so for example a second rank model can have an additional hand weapon, or the frenzy rule or predatory fighter (or all three if that were possible), but they can still only ever use one of those attacks.

If predatory fighter was intended to overrule the rules for supporting attacks it would need to very clearly and explicitly say so.

dagreenmoonboyz
05-09-2014, 17:14
If predatory fighter was intended to overrule the rules for supporting attacks it would need to very clearly and explicitly say so.


This is giving a lot of credit to a rules team who have made rules like "unmodified leadership" where they aren't certain what they intended. Also predatory fighter is not comparable to frenzy or xhw as those rules provide an extra attack to the models profile while you calculate who is striking not after the initial attacks occurred.

The rule does state "immediately" make another attack one the role of a six as well as "roll to hit, and to wound as normal" indicative of an abnormal situation. Word usage has different connotation based on region and context so inferring intent is an assumption.

*disclaimer: I don't play lizardmen nor do many people anymore lol. I'm just embracing the debate once again.

Scammel
05-09-2014, 18:09
This is giving a lot of credit to a rules team who have made rules like "unmodified leadership" where they aren't certain what they intended.

They can have the credit for this one though - there's a stonking great stipulation that's very, very clear about not getting additional supporting attacks from special rules.

MasterSplinter
06-09-2014, 08:35
The RAW are indeed clear on this - although imo its pretty clear that it was intended to work on supporting attacks also. Where is the clue if you just get maybe one additional attack per combat phase?
I would be just glad if GW would put out another FAQ every now and then.
As it stands for me, i would never disallow an opponent to use the PF Rule as it was intended in my opinion. The opposite, i would encourage them to play it like that. Again, whats the point of a rule that gives you one additional attack by chance when you are forced to pursue everytime?

theunwantedbeing
06-09-2014, 09:19
Again, whats the point of a rule that gives you one additional attack by chance when you are forced to pursue everytime?
Yeah Frenzy is a dumb rule!

Spiney Norman
06-09-2014, 19:17
The RAW are indeed clear on this - although imo its pretty clear that it was intended to work on supporting attacks also. Where is the clue if you just get maybe one additional attack per combat phase?
I would be just glad if GW would put out another FAQ every now and then.
As it stands for me, i would never disallow an opponent to use the PF Rule as it was intended in my opinion. The opposite, i would encourage them to play it like that. Again, whats the point of a rule that gives you one additional attack by chance when you are forced to pursue everytime?

Perhaps because if you keep a skink priest nearby there is no disadvantage to the rule...

MasterSplinter
07-09-2014, 05:37
Still doesnīt make up to the one attack you get each round of combat, or what do you think? I guess if we all would use a little common sense (wjich is kind of subjective) there wouldnīt be that debate. The only reason i can imagine to play it raw is to keep the door shut for other rules as intended by players with a lack of common sense i.e. (quote by theunwantedbeeing which i found pretty awesome) " who ever yells the loudest and the longest is right".

Spiney Norman
07-09-2014, 07:11
Still doesnīt make up to the one attack you get each round of combat, or what do you think? I guess if we all would use a little common sense (wjich is kind of subjective) there wouldnīt be that debate. The only reason i can imagine to play it raw is to keep the door shut for other rules as intended by players with a lack of common sense i.e. (quote by theunwantedbeeing which i found pretty awesome) " who ever yells the loudest and the longest is right".

The problem with a 'rules as intended' interpretation is that it invariably means 'rules as I intend' rather than 'rules as the author intended'. Its incredibly arrogant to assume that withe author simply wrote the rule wrong and your conception of how it should work is superior to what they wrote.

Scammel
07-09-2014, 07:16
I don't think we need to second guess the RAI here. When they decided to disallow extra attacks for supporting ranks from special rules, I'm pretty sure they meant to disallow extra attacks for supporting ranks from special rules.

thesoundofmusica
07-09-2014, 07:21
The problem with a 'rules as intended' interpretation is that it invariably means 'rules as I intend' rather than 'rules as the author intended'. Its incredibly arrogant to assume that withe author simply wrote the rule wrong and your conception of how it should work is superior to what they wrote.

Sure but GW has a history of unclear rules and flipfloping. Also while I agree somewhat that we cannot know with certainty what the author meant, sometimes the RAI is so obvious that to claim RAW you would really have to be that awkward guy... which obviously, judging by many rules queries on this very forum, many have no problem with.

MasterSplinter
07-09-2014, 07:41
Also while I agree somewhat that we cannot know with certainty what the author meant, sometimes the RAI is so obvious

And thatīs just the point here. On top of that, rules as I intend in most times have much in common with rules how others intend with common sense (one just has to lay down winning pov), which should be a given in adult people playing by a ruleset which can be bend by anyone (other as in video games for example), otherwise people could just take their miniatures and fight it out like in days of 5 to 10 years old till one mini is broken.

I can understand if you want to go pure raw to prevent those situations where everybody argues about the rules and arguments like:" Wait a minute he can do his PF attacks with all ranks, then i think this is meant that way etc..."
But then that might have to do something with the playerbase and gaming-objectives in your group.
I made the experience, that if you are somewhat courteous to others they just might return that favor and there is no point to argue about (good sportsmanship)
And i made the opposite experience where players will find any gap which is left to them to full exploit, which leads to an unfullfilling game experience.

underscore
07-09-2014, 08:26
Either way, I really don't see this as being as case of RAW vs RAI. The rules are just way too clear on the subject.

Spiney Norman
07-09-2014, 12:42
Sure but GW has a history of unclear rules and flipfloping. Also while I agree somewhat that we cannot know with certainty what the author meant, sometimes the RAI is so obvious that to claim RAW you would really have to be that awkward guy... which obviously, judging by many rules queries on this very forum, many have no problem with.

I can accept that in some (fairly extreme) situations, however the question of predatory fighter granting a second attack for models in supporting ranks is not one of them IMO. Wanting PF to grant an extra attack to supporting ranks is nothing more than the wishful thinking of a few dissatisfied Lizardmen players. Its pretty clear to me that Predatory fighter is basically intended to function as 'frenzy-lite', and given that frenzy does not convey its additional attack on supporting ranks, neither should PF.

Mondobot
07-09-2014, 12:44
Good sportsmanship starts with trying to play by the rules, then accepting the weakest option for yourself if a situation is unclear. However as someone just starting a Saurus based Lizardman army I shall be playing by RAW and only using PF for the first rank, there really is no interpretation needed for this rule.

Dark_Mage99
07-09-2014, 23:32
I'm not a Lizardmen player and I play them frequently - I always allow him to make predatory fighter attacks from any rank. It is pointless to separate attacks unnecessarily. It is clearly intended to work from any attack, in my opinion.

forseer of fates
08-09-2014, 01:33
Right.... but if you let that special rule generate attacks then why not frenzy.... its why its the front rank only.

dagreenmoonboyz
08-09-2014, 03:49
Right.... but if you let that special rule generate attacks then why not frenzy.... its why its the front rank only.

Can people really not see that PF is different then frenzy and xhw bonus attacks?

thesoundofmusica
08-09-2014, 05:41
Right.... but if you let that special rule generate attacks then why not frenzy.... its why its the front rank only.

Because Frenzy is from the main rulebook and PF is from the lizardmen armybook and people think that at least the intent is that PF should give extra attacks to all ranks and overrule the rulebook.

Dark_Mage99
08-09-2014, 10:28
Yeah, because of the golden rule: when a conflict occurs between the BRB and the Army Book, the Army Book always takes precedence.

The rulebook says you can't make more than one attack from the second rank.

The Army Book says you sometimes can.

If that's not a conflict, I don't know what is.

MasterSplinter
08-09-2014, 10:41
+1 to that.

It seems to be a neverending story, and i guess the best way to deal with it is to discuss that prior to the game or roll a dice if both players are too gentle (No, you are right - No, You are right! - No Sir, you are right... and so on, classical problem^^)
Also, one is always on the save side if you rule it the worse way for yourself, like Mondobot suggested.

Malagor
08-09-2014, 10:41
Except the armybook doesn't say that.

ewar
08-09-2014, 10:53
Yeah, because of the golden rule: when a conflict occurs between the BRB and the Army Book, the Army Book always takes precedence.

The rulebook says you can't make more than one attack from the second rank.

The Army Book says you sometimes can.

If that's not a conflict, I don't know what is.

Except the army book makes no mention of it. What do you think the writers meant when they wrote: "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"

How does it get clearer than this?

For the AB to overrule this requirement it would have to say something along the lines of "make a bonus attack, this is an exception to the normal requirement that models may only ever make one supporting attack"

I just have no idea how it can be interpreted any other way.

underscore
08-09-2014, 10:58
For the AB to overrule this requirement it would have to say something along the lines of "make a bonus attack, this is an exception to the normal requirement that models may only ever make one supporting attack"

I just have no idea how it can be interpreted any other way.
Yeah, to be fair to GW they're usually pretty specific if things override one of the main rules from the BRB.

MasterSplinter
08-09-2014, 11:15
Except the army book makes no mention of it. What do you think the writers meant when they wrote: "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"


Certainly, they didnīt think of the PF rule as it hasnīt even exist to that date, when they wrote the basic rules. When they wrote the PF rule they were simply lazy or were overstrained with their 200 pages of basic rules.
For circumstances like that they implied that armybook special rules overwrite rules from the BRB.

underscore
08-09-2014, 11:19
Certainly, they didnīt think of the PF rule as it hasnīt even exist to that date, when they wrote the basic rules. When they wrote the PF rule they were simply lazy or were overstrained with their 200 pages of basic rules.
I can't see any reason to think that whatsoever. And even if they didn't there's still no contradiction until they FAQ it.

MasterSplinter
08-09-2014, 11:24
yeah.... until they FAQed it..... I laughed hard^^
Indeed that would be the best solution.

Scammel
08-09-2014, 11:25
Certainly, they didnīt think of the PF rule as it hasnīt even exist to that date, when they wrote the basic rules. When they wrote the PF rule they were simply lazy or were overstrained with their 200 pages of basic rules.
For circumstances like that they implied that armybook special rules overwrite rules from the BRB.

Or in all likelihood, they created Pred. Fighter fully aware of what the rulebook very clearly stipulates about such special rules, realised that there was no conflict, and went ahead.

Dark_Mage99
08-09-2014, 11:32
Except the armybook doesn't say that.

Yes it does.

underscore
08-09-2014, 11:34
No it doesn't.

ewar
08-09-2014, 12:18
Certainly, they didnīt think of the PF rule as it hasnīt even exist to that date, when they wrote the basic rules. When they wrote the PF rule they were simply lazy or were overstrained with their 200 pages of basic rules.
For circumstances like that they implied that armybook special rules overwrite rules from the BRB.

Okay, how about I pose you a similar example. In the Tomb King book there is a spell which grants a unit +1 attack. Does this affect the second row? By your logic it does, as it is a rule from an army book and therefore overrides the BRB rules I've quoted above.

If you think it doesn't override the BRB, can you explain why it's different to predatory fighter?


Yes it does.


No it doesn't.

And Warseer makes another giant leap forward in the field of intellectual debate :)

Josfer
08-09-2014, 12:32
As this is (again) a highly discussed topic (among about equally strong numbers of forum members), I think we can agree that there can't be a "common sense" indicating one or the other side to be right. So besides the "I know this is right, because I think this is how it is", can any of the sides show any proof on why they think their interpretation has to be RAI?

And just to be save, do we all agree, that RAW PF doesn't give supporting attacks?

Dark_Mage99
08-09-2014, 13:07
No it doesn't.

What rule are you reading?

Do models in the second rank have predatory fighter? Yes.

If they roll a 6, can they make more than one attack? Yes.

Therefore, it is true to say that the Lizardmen army book says "sometimes a model in the second rank can make more than one attack" as I said.


As this is (again) a highly discussed topic (among about equally strong numbers of forum members), I think we can agree that there can't be a "common sense" indicating one or the other side to be right. So besides the "I know this is right, because I think this is how it is", can any of the sides show any proof on why they think their interpretation has to be RAI?

And just to be save, do we all agree, that RAW PF doesn't give supporting attacks?

You're right, Josfer, this is one that will always go round in circles.

I was only chiming in because someone said it's desperate Lizardmen players arguing for it, but I am not a Lizardman player and I will always happily let them play it.

I think there is still a RAW argument to be made in regards to the conflicting rules and Army Book trumping BRB, but of course others can argue there is no conflict.

underscore
08-09-2014, 13:12
What rule are you reading?

Do models in the second rank have predatory fighter? Yes.

If they roll a 6, can they make more than one attack? Yes.

Therefore, it is true to say that the Lizardmen army book says "sometimes a model can make more than one supporting attack" as I said.
Ah, you're getting 'Attack' and 'Supporting Attack' confused. They're two different things. The second rank gets a second attack, but not an extra supporting attack, as the BRB states.

Dark_Mage99
08-09-2014, 13:23
Ah, you're getting 'Attack' and 'Supporting Attack' confused. They're two different things. The second rank gets a second attack, but not an extra supporting attack, as the BRB states.

I'm not getting anything confused... Although this post does confuse me :)

The army book does say that models in the second rank can sometimes make more than one attack simply because models in the second rank have predatory fighter.

If a model in the second rank has predatory fighter, it can roll a 6 and immediately make another attack. Therefore, sometimes, a model in the second rank can make more than one attack.

You may well argue that the BRB then denies them this attack, but it's simply untrue to say the army book doesn't say they can attack.

This is where the conflict arises: BRB says they can't, Army Book says they can.

underscore
08-09-2014, 13:29
I'm not getting anything confused... Although this post does confuse me :)
I don't have the book on me, but to paraphrase: the book says that a model in the second rank gets to make a special attack called a supporting attack, and it can only ever be one no matter what (3 for monstrous).

So the PF (as it stands) only grants a regular kind of attack, not an extra supporting attack as they're two separate things.

Malagor
08-09-2014, 13:30
I'm not getting anything confused... Although this post does confuse me :)

The army book does say that models in the second rank can sometimes make more than one attack simply because models in the second rank have predatory fighter.

This is where the conflict arises.
No it doesn't say that. Had PF said that then there wouldn't have been a conflict.
And underscore is correct, models in the second rank doesn't make attacks, they make supporting attacks which the rulebook points out and states quite clearly that a model can't make more then 1 supporting attack no matter what special rule the model might have.

Case in point, Martial Prowess rule that states that the unit can make supporting attacks with 1 extra rank

Dark_Mage99
08-09-2014, 13:35
No it doesn't say that. Had PF said that then there wouldn't have been a conflict.
And underscore is correct, models in the second rank doesn't make attacks, they make supporting attacks which the rulebook points out and states quite clearly that a model can't make more then 1 supporting attack no matter what special rule the model might have.

Yes it does.

Again, do models in the second rank have predatory fighter? Yes.

This means that if they roll a 6, they can make another attack.

Therefore, as I summarised in a previous post, "sometimes a model in the second rank can make another attack."

All models with predatory fighter have this rule. Models in the second and third ranks are not exempt. So sometimes, ie. when they roll a 6, they can make another attack.

Yes, of course the BRB says you can only make one supporting attack. This is precisely where the conflict arises.

Malagor
08-09-2014, 13:38
Yes it does.

Again, do models in the second rank have predatory fighter? Yes.

This means that if they roll a 6, they can make another attack.

Therefore, as I summarised in a previous post, "sometimes a model in the second rank can make another attack."

All models with predatory fighter have this rule. Models in the second and third ranks are not exempt. So sometimes, ie. when they roll a 6, they can make another attack.

Yes, of course the BRB says you can only make one supporting attack. This is precisely where the conflict arises.
Again, the models doesn't make attacks, they make supporting attacks, only the first rank make an attack.

underscore
08-09-2014, 13:38
Again, Attack != Supporting Attack.

Same as with Frenzy, magic weapons etc.

ewar
08-09-2014, 13:40
This means that if they roll a 6, they can make another attack.

Therefore, as I summarised in a previous post, "sometimes a model in the second rank can make another attack."

No - sometimes a model in the second rank has a second attack which the BRB specifically says it cannot make.

Can you address my point above about other AB rules which grant extra attacks? Why do you think PF is special whereas other effects are not? e.g. Smiting spell from the TK book doesn't specify if it overrules the supporting attack rules, and therefore by your logic it would allow 2 attacks per supporting attack.

Dark_Mage99
08-09-2014, 13:42
Again, the models doesn't make attacks, they make supporting attacks, only the first rank make an attack.

Yes.

And if they score a 6, they can immediately make another attack, as per the army book.

This is the conflict.

I'm fully aware of what the BRB says, but I'm of the opinion the army book contradicts this.

Obviously you're not. I don't really care, because I'm not a Lizardman player and I'll probably never play you, I was just throwing my two cents in.

Happy gaming, sir :)

EDIT:


No - sometimes a model in the second rank has a second attack which the BRB specifically says it cannot make.

Can you address my point above about other AB rules which grant extra attacks? Why do you think PF is special whereas other effects are not? e.g. Smiting spell from the TK book doesn't specify if it overrules the supporting attack rules, and therefore by your logic it would allow 2 attacks per supporting attack.

Because Smiting gives you two attacks, and you can only make one supporting attack.

With Fury, you make your one supporting attack, and then on a 6 can immediately make another attack.

underscore
08-09-2014, 13:45
And if they score a 6, they can immediately make another attack, as per the army book.

Sure. But, as they can't make any regular attacks from the second rank, it doesn't do anything.

Dark_Mage99
08-09-2014, 13:48
Sure. But, as they can't make any regular attacks from the second rank, it doesn't do anything.

Quote, please?

MasterSplinter
08-09-2014, 13:57
Hahaha, guys, i am out of this debate :D
Make of it what you will. I am glad that i am not in the situation of having to argue that out game-wise (as i havenīt got any games atm :().

After all its a tabletop game, any and everyone has to get his own satisfaction with it, so everybody might have to find his own solution.
This thread reminds me at situation where we have to get a game going in about 3 hours and are left with discussion about rules for an hour. That canīt be the sense of it all.

underscore
08-09-2014, 13:58
Quote, please?


Warriors in the second rank do not sit idly
by whilst their comrades battle away, but
muster forward to strike blows of their own.
We refer to the attacks made by these
models as supporting attacks.


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.
l b 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.

You'll note that all attacks made from behind the front line are specifically referred to as 'Supporting Attacks', not 'Attacks'.

Scammel
08-09-2014, 13:58
Because Smiting gives you two attacks, and you can only make one supporting attack.

With Fury, you make your one supporting attack, and then on a 6 can immediately make another attack.

Which hits no-one because you can only Attack models in base contact. So it's either an 'Attack' which can't be used, or a 'Supporting Attack' which... can't be used.

The quote in question:


... a warrior can only strike blows against an enemy model in base contact.

FatTrucker
08-09-2014, 14:00
Attacks and supporting attacks are specified seperately and governed by seperate rules. They aren't the same thing.

Rule for supporting attacks is max of 1 per model or max 3 per model for Monstrous models regardless of any special rule that bestows extra attacks (frenzy etc).

Predatory fighter makes absolutely no mention of a different rule for supporting attacks so they get 1 supporting attack as normal, end of.
There's no grey area or semantic work around, if it doesn't specifically address supporting attacks in a special rule then supporting attacks are treated as specified in the BRB.

MasterSplinter
08-09-2014, 14:07
Sorry, again: But what in the world would be the point then, of a rule giving ~1 Attack per round and has such strong disadvantages?

Some guys of you seem to me as some kind of computer running an algorithm because its "the rules": (read un robotic sound) "Against the wall again, against the wall again, against the wall again, against the wall again etc." instead of going through the door the next step to the right.

Sorry, no offense, i just canīt understand it.

underscore
08-09-2014, 14:17
Sometimes GW giveth, sometimes GW taketh away.

Scammel
08-09-2014, 14:19
Sorry, again: But what in the world would be the point then, of a rule giving ~1 Attack per round and has such strong disadvantages?

Some guys of you seem to me as some kind of computer running an algorithm because its "the rules": (read un robotic sound) "Against the wall again, against the wall again, against the wall again, against the wall again etc." instead of going through the door the next step to the right.

Sorry, no offense, i just canīt understand it.

No offense, but I just can't understand why you take umbrage to people wanting to play by the rules. Your childish summation does you no credit, nor your own refusal to admit that said rules are perfectly clear in this instance.

MasterSplinter
08-09-2014, 14:23
I didnīt say that the rules arenīt clear on that subject (if so i might have expressed myself wrong, but should read it clearly a few pages before). I just find the rules on this subject rather senseless. Everybody can make his own on them.

underscore
08-09-2014, 14:27
My warp-flamed heart bleeds for you. ;)

Scammel
08-09-2014, 14:34
It's bizarre and worrying that those who want to share a common ruleset are ostracised for doing so.

MasterSplinter
08-09-2014, 14:37
Trolling or...?
Never did i forbid something to someone, and never want to.

Scammel
08-09-2014, 14:46
Trolling or...?
Never did i forbid something to someone, and never want to.

I said ostracise, and it's exactly what you did when you said


Some guys of you seem to me as some kind of computer running an algorithm because its "the rules": (read un robotic sound) "Against the wall again, against the wall again, against the wall again, against the wall again etc."

Those who want a common ruleset are dumb robots with no common sense, apparently.

ewar
08-09-2014, 14:48
Because Smiting gives you two attacks, and you can only make one supporting attack.

With Fury, you make your one supporting attack, and then on a 6 can immediately make another attack.

Which is exactly my point - you answered it yourself.

PF gives you another attack. It's not a supporting attack of course, which is why anyone not in the front rank wastes theirs.

I'm a Lizardmen player and I wish it was the other way (in fact my gaming group plays it that way because it makes so little difference as to not be worthwhile splitting the dice out) however that is purely a house rule - it is perfectly clear in the book which way is correct.


I said ostracise, and it's exactly what you did when you said

Those who want a common ruleset are dumb robots with no common sense, apparently.

I don't think there's any need to be so sensitive, he was just making a joke (which is all too true of rules lawyers) and I sympathise with his position. It's just that in this instance the rules are pretty clear.

MasterSplinter
08-09-2014, 14:49
@Scammel: If you feel personally insulted, i would like to excuse myself.

Scammel
08-09-2014, 14:57
@Scammel: If you feel personally insulted, i would like to excuse myself.

Accepted. As Ewar says, it's not that there aren't instances where the rules aren't ambiguous or where they defy common sense in a particularly acute way, but this isn't one of those instances.

MasterSplinter
08-09-2014, 15:02
Which still lefts us with a definition of common sense. Maybe that should be a rule in the BRB. :)

SteveW
08-09-2014, 16:09
Yeah, because of the golden rule: when a conflict occurs between the BRB and the Army Book, the Army Book always takes precedence.

The rulebook says you can't make more than one attack from the second rank.

The Army Book says you sometimes can.

If that's not a conflict, I don't know what is.


Then you don't know what one is. The armybook never says you get any supporting attacks. So no conflict.

Josfer
08-09-2014, 20:10
Sorry, again: But what in the world would be the point then, of a rule giving ~1 Attack per round and has such strong disadvantages?
Maybe it was meant mainly as a disadvantage? What good does unstable give a unit?

Spiney Norman
08-09-2014, 20:51
Yeah, because of the golden rule: when a conflict occurs between the BRB and the Army Book, the Army Book always takes precedence.

The rulebook says you can't make more than one attack from the second rank.

The Army Book says you sometimes can.

If that's not a conflict, I don't know what is.

Please find me a quote from the lizardmen army book that specifically mentions a model in a subsequent attack making multiple attacks per round, because I cant find it mentioning second/subsequent rank models anywhere...

The the general process is that if you want to override a major game rule then you have to specifically say so. In actual fact there is no rule conflict, second rank models can have as many attacks as they like, they can just only ever use one per turn, and the fact that they went to the trouble of specifying in the rule book that any special rule that could ever give extra attacks to supporting ranks doesn't work kind of makes me think they covered their bases pretty well.


Sorry, again: But what in the world would be the point then, of a rule giving ~1 Attack per round and has such strong disadvantages?

Some guys of you seem to me as some kind of computer running an algorithm because its "the rules": (read un robotic sound) "Against the wall again, against the wall again, against the wall again, against the wall again etc." instead of going through the door the next step to the right.

Sorry, no offense, i just canīt understand it.

Firstly not all special rules are intended to be inherently advantageous, and secondly if you have a skink priest in your army the disadvantage goes away entirely. And thirdly forced pursuit really isnt that big a deal any way.



I'm a Lizardmen player and I wish it was the other way (in fact my gaming group plays it that way because it makes so little difference as to not be worthwhile splitting the dice out) however that is purely a house rule - it is perfectly clear in the book which way is correct.

While we're at it, lets try and dispel one of the more popular myths about PF only affecting the first rank, this myth is...
It is less convenient/required more splitting of dice/more rolls if PF only affects the first ranks rolls.

This is a complete fabrication invented by people who have not tried using PF both ways, observe the following

If PF affects all attacks
1st roll: roll attack dice for all ranks
2nd roll: roll a dice for any sixes that came up in the first roll

If PF only affects first rank
1st roll: roll dice for first rank attacks
2nd roll: roll dice for all other ranks plus one dice for every 6 in the first roll.

Whichever way you take the rule you always, only ever roll two sets of dice, the 'convenience' argument is false and totally made up which is touted by people trying to prop up their inherently weak rules argument.

hardyworld
08-09-2014, 21:26
While we're at it, lets try and dispel one of the more popular myths about PF only affecting the first rank, this myth is...
It is less convenient/required more splitting of dice/more rolls if PF only affects the first ranks rolls.

This is a complete fabrication invented by people who have not tried using PF both ways, observe the following

If PF affects all attacks
1st roll: roll attack dice for all ranks
2nd roll: roll a dice for any sixes that came up in the first roll

If PF only affects first rank
1st roll: roll dice for first rank attacks
2nd roll: roll dice for all other ranks plus one dice for every 6 in the first roll.

Whichever way you take the rule you always, only ever roll two sets of dice, the 'convenience' argument is false and totally made up which is touted by people trying to prop up their inherently weak rules argument.
Quoted for emphasis.

Even though the existing rules are rock-solid and without conflict, no one can argue that the Predatory Fighter Special rule does not belong in a future FAQ (this thread is evidence to that truth).
crosses fingers that the inevitable 9th Ed.'s release includes revamped FAQ's immediately

ewar
08-09-2014, 21:44
the 'convenience' argument is false and totally made up which is touted by people trying to prop up their inherently weak rules argument.

I think you might be overstating things a wee bit here?

If I'm at a tournament I wouldn't do it the way you describe because you want to be as clear as possible to your opponent what dice you're rolling and why. If this is standard practice in your group, then fine, but I would bet a hundred quid that most players don't roll the dice that way.

I don't disagree it's a simple way to do it quickly, but when handfuls of dice are being picked up and rolled or re-rolled, it pays to be slower and clearer IMO.

Malagor
08-09-2014, 21:47
To me the advantages outweighs the disadvantages.
Yes you might be forced to run after something that you may not want but it's no biggie and skinks are cheap.
But with minimum ranks(with a champ) you will do 11 attacks, chances are you will get atleast 1 die that is a 6, experiences tells me that you will probably get 2-3 on a average roll.
I once had a oldblood roll 4 6s, needless to say that it was quite devasting for my opponent.
But then you get the lovely cases of 6 templeguards in the front with champ and not getting a single 6.
Still it's a fun rule I think and doesn't take that much time, Spiney's way is nice way of doing it.

underscore
08-09-2014, 21:59
I don't disagree it's a simple way to do it quickly, but when handfuls of dice are being picked up and rolled or re-rolled, it pays to be slower and clearer IMO.
It actually works pretty well - the resident LM player at the club does it this way and it's very easy to follow with a little narration:
"Okay, front row attacks"
/rolls 10 dice
"Okay, 3 sixes in there"
/picks up 20 dice, adds 3 to it
/rolls the 23 dice next to the 10
/carries on as normal

theunwantedbeing
08-09-2014, 22:10
If I'm at a tournament I wouldn't do it the way you describe because you want to be as clear as possible to your opponent what dice you're rolling and why. If this is standard practice in your group, then fine, but I would bet a hundred quid that most players don't roll the dice that way.

I don't disagree it's a simple way to do it quickly, but when handfuls of dice are being picked up and rolled or re-rolled, it pays to be slower and clearer IMO.

Roll 1 = The front ranks attacks
Roll 2 = Supporting attacks + any PF attacks from Roll 1

That's really very simple, and slows things down well enough as you have to remove all the missed attacks from Roll 1 along with gathering up enough dice for the supporting attacks and any PF dice you got. You explain this as you gather them up and it takes no longer than the time taken to gather the dice.

There's nothing to be unclear about.
It's certainly better than the standard tournament practice* of Rolling all the dice together and grabbing all the PF dice and then rolling them as well in quick succession as it's very easy to get confused.

*I am of course meaning outright cheating where the aim is to confuse the enemy and get them to just accept the result, plus you can always pick up a couple of extra dice that didn't get PF and claim they did if you're especially quick about it and the other guy isn't overly willing to call you a cheat to your face.

Spiney Norman
09-09-2014, 07:01
I think you might be overstating things a wee bit here?

If I'm at a tournament I wouldn't do it the way you describe because you want to be as clear as possible to your opponent what dice you're rolling and why. If this is standard practice in your group, then fine, but I would bet a hundred quid that most players don't roll the dice that way.

I don't disagree it's a simple way to do it quickly, but when handfuls of dice are being picked up and rolled or re-rolled, it pays to be slower and clearer IMO.

If you're at a Tournement the question wouldn't come up, or if it did your TO would rule on it, but aside from that, its still a none-issue. I'm not talking about rushing to roll all the dice as quickly as you can, obviously you would explain to your opponent what you are rolling and why, as you would with any other dice you roll at any time.

"These are the attacks for the front rank, that's 5 Saurus and a champion, so 13 attacks"
"Those two sixes generate an additional attack each, so I add those to my next roll, which is 6 for the second rank, 6 for the third rank (spears) and the two additional attacks from predatory fighter, so another 14 attacks".

Heck in most games where we use units in horde formation or other units with a lot of attacks we break the attack rolls down by rank anyway, have you tried rolling the attacks for an entire horde of witch elves in one go? The carnage it wreaks on the table is impressive.

SteveW
09-09-2014, 17:49
My favorite part of Warhammer is throwing all 51 dice from my savages at once.

MasterSplinter
11-09-2014, 05:02
Maybe it was meant mainly as a disadvantage? What good does unstable give a unit?

Hmmmm... Maybe. But donīt you think it is in the names that "unstable" gives a negative effect? "predatory" and "fighter" on the other hand donīt have a negative (i.e. disadvantageous) connotation to me.

Spiney Norman
11-09-2014, 16:32
Hmmmm... Maybe. But donīt you think it is in the names that "unstable" gives a negative effect? "predatory" and "fighter" on the other hand donīt have a negative (i.e. disadvantageous) connotation to me.

Unstable isn't a flat disadvantage, its a mitigating factor which stops unbreakable armies from being totally dominating.

Trust me, I'd rather have my skeletons unbreakable and unstable than taking break tests on Ld5...

theunwantedbeing
11-09-2014, 17:00
Unstable isn't a flat disadvantage, its a mitigating factor which stops unbreakable armies from being totally dominating.

It is actually, but there are other special rules that are simply there as a disadvantage.
Not every Unbreakable unit has Unstable either.

Other purely negative special rules:
Always Strikes Last
Flammable
Move or Fire
Requires Two Hands
Slow to Fire

There's nothing wrong with purely negative special rules as they're handy for balancing other special rules.

MasterSplinter
11-09-2014, 17:09
Unstable isn't a flat disadvantage, its a mitigating factor which stops unbreakable armies from being totally dominating.

Trust me, I'd rather have my skeletons unbreakable and unstable than taking break tests on Ld5...

Actually it is negative, as you explain yourself.

I would actually (just out of winning pov) rather have ld5 steadfast skeletons.

SteveW
11-09-2014, 17:11
Actually it is negative, as you explain yourself.

I would actually (just out of winning pov) rather have ld5 steadfast skeletons.
Why? There is nothing better about that.

MasterSplinter
11-09-2014, 17:16
Why? There is nothing better about that.

Resurectable Skaven Slaves? Yes, please.

Spiney Norman
11-09-2014, 17:26
It is actually, but there are other special rules that are simply there as a disadvantage.
Not every Unbreakable unit has Unstable either.

Other purely negative special rules:
Always Strikes Last
Flammable
Move or Fire
Requires Two Hands
Slow to Fire

There's nothing wrong with purely negative special rules as they're handy for balancing other special rules.

No, but I think I am right in saying every unstable unit also has unbreakable.

In any case this doesn't really relate at all to predatory fighter, which is a special rule with a fairly modest advantage offset by a very situational disadvantage.


Why? There is nothing better about that.

That was my point, even with steadfast Ld5 will still fail about 60% of the time, that is not better than unbreakable + unstable whichever way you slice it. And ok you could put a vampire in there to boost their Ld, but are you really going to waste your points buying vampires to babysit skeleton blocks?

MasterSplinter
11-09-2014, 17:50
Have you ever tried to keep the general in 12 inches? I heard that is a good idea, even for undead (which should have im in 12 inches anyway if they want to get forward ;))
I could prove you anyday in the year that you would be more succesful with it. And its not a miracle.

At the moment, i thought it could be quite fitting to change the rules for undead from crumbling (unstable,unbreakable) to somekind of demonic insatbility test, and raise the point costs. Would make more sense lore-wise imo as the undead near the necromancer/Vampire would have a better hold in the world due to his nearby resurrection powers. Those more far away could not make full use of his powers and would crumble faster.

Braugi
11-09-2014, 21:01
Attacks and supporting attacks are specified seperately and governed by seperate rules. They aren't the same thing.

Rule for supporting attacks is max of 1 per model or max 3 per model for Monstrous models regardless of any special rule that bestows extra attacks (frenzy etc).

Predatory fighter makes absolutely no mention of a different rule for supporting attacks so they get 1 supporting attack as normal, end of.
There's no grey area or semantic work around, if it doesn't specifically address supporting attacks in a special rule then supporting attacks are treated as specified in the BRB.

Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack; roll To Hit and To Wound as normal. Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack; roll To Hit and To Wound as normal."
vs.
"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."

OK, how about this. The model is in the second rank and makes one supporting attack as normal. The model rolls a 6. Now, it makes an Attack (not supporting attack), so presumably, they get another attack, but as someone else mentioned, they can only attack someone in base contact. But, if they're being told they can make another attack (when did they make the first one...they made a supporting attack), then is the point of conflict being able to make an Attack from the 2nd rank instead of a Supporting Attack?

Scammel
11-09-2014, 21:04
There's still no conflict. He gets an attack, he just can't use it. For there to be conflict the AB needs to specifically override the BRB - so, for example, '... can immediately make another attack as though they were in base-to-base contact with an enemy'

Braugi
12-09-2014, 13:21
There's still no conflict. He gets an attack, he just can't use it. For there to be conflict the AB needs to specifically override the BRB - so, for example, '... can immediately make another attack as though they were in base-to-base contact with an enemy'

Ah, but there is. The text says he immediately makes another attack, not the model gains another attack or anything of the sort. That adds at least some ambiguity IMO, as he immediately MAKES an attack. However, he can only actually attack a unit in B2B contact, so who does the attack go against? Does it imply that since he is MAKING an attack that it becomes a rule in conflict with the BRB which says you can only make an Attack against models in B2B contact, otherwise it is a Supporting Attack?

Don't get me wrong, if I were playing it, I'd only make the extra attack for front models, but if I were playing against someone, I'd allow the extra attack from any models attacking, because I DO think, even with RAW there is a reasonable interpretation, as I outlined above.

RAW becomes very much an exercise of following a prescribed algorithm, but the language is not held to a strict standard, which leaves some ambiguity.

underscore
12-09-2014, 14:17
No, the wording in the BRB and book is really clear on it, both in terms of this and other items that deal with extra Attacks/Supporting Attacks.

FatTrucker
12-09-2014, 14:35
Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack; roll To Hit and To Wound as normal. Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack; roll To Hit and To Wound as normal."
vs.
"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."

OK, how about this. The model is in the second rank and makes one supporting attack as normal. The model rolls a 6. Now, it makes an Attack (not supporting attack), so presumably, they get another attack, but as someone else mentioned, they can only attack someone in base contact. But, if they're being told they can make another attack (when did they make the first one...they made a supporting attack), then is the point of conflict being able to make an Attack from the 2nd rank instead of a Supporting Attack?

Again, just semantics, there is no conflict, the supporting attacks rule is clear and unambiguous. You get a maximum of 1 per model or 3 for monstrous models. Only models directly in B2B contact with an enemy get the benefit of any multiple attacks special rule.

Unless a model has a special rule that specifically addresses and overrules the supporting attacks rule then its 1 (or 3) supporting attacks.

Predatory Fighter makes no mention of or amendment to the supporting attacks rule, so the rule in the BRB is used and only models directly in B2B contact benefit from the bonus attacks.

SanDiegoSurrealist
12-09-2014, 15:12
There is enough dissent between the two sides of this argument that this applies.

FAQs
Q: What happens when there is a conflict between two magic items or special rules?
A: Use ‘The Most Important Rule’. (p2)


Before anyone says "there is no conflict" yes there is, 5 pages of it on the forum and countless other forums.

Like I said before it has never been an issue in any of my games, whether I am playing LM or vs. LM.
But apparently there are some very strong opinions about it here.
Until there is an definitive FAQ refer to The Most Important Rule.

Remember having fun every time is more important than winning every time.
PF is not going to make or break a game.

underscore
12-09-2014, 15:27
I dunno, I think there's a false sense of equivalency there. The 'just for an easier life' rule is probably the only get-out.

SteveW
13-09-2014, 01:16
There is enough dissent between the two sides of this argument that this applies.

FAQs
Q: What happens when there is a conflict between two magic items or special rules?
A: Use ‘The Most Important Rule’. (p2)


Before anyone says "there is no conflict" yes there is, 5 pages of it on the forum and countless other forums.

Like I said before it has never been an issue in any of my games, whether I am playing LM or vs. LM.
But apparently there are some very strong opinions about it here.
Until there is an definitive FAQ refer to The Most Important Rule.

Remember having fun every time is more important than winning every time.
PF is not going to make or break a game.


There still is no conflict. The excerpt you quoted is when two special rules have conflict, not for when there is no conflict other than that which you're trying to invent.

Spiney Norman
13-09-2014, 01:41
There is enough dissent between the two sides of this argument that this applies.

FAQs
Q: What happens when there is a conflict between two magic items or special rules?
A: Use ‘The Most Important Rule’. (p2)


That is a complete abuse of the most important rule, you're basically saying that a player can argue EVERY rules call in the game to be settled by tMIR, even when the answer is clear from the rules as it is here.

The most important rule is meant for genuinely ambiguous situations, not "I think it should really work this way because it will give me more attacks".

This debate has always been clear rules vs wishful thinking, the PF for 2nd rank side have basically been arguing that PF should ignore the restriction on supporting attacks with no real basis other than they 'think it should work like that'.

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that, nor will it unless GW actually change the current rules in an errata (which they gave up writing over a year ago).

hardyworld
13-09-2014, 13:50
Completely agree with Spiney Norman. A player-created conflict does not even come close to equaling 'conflict between two special rules'.

SanDiegoSurrealist
15-09-2014, 18:44
Is there any other rule that works this way to draw a logical comparison to?
Not that I am aware, it is the only rule that uses this specific mechanic:
Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack; roll To Hit and To Wound as normal.
Being a brand new Special Rule, I would think if it was not intended to include supporting attacks it would have stated so. Like I said it is the only rule that uses this specific mechanic, so unfortunately there is nothing to compare it to.
I still believe that the FAQ will prove me correct in the end. But until then, if we should meet for a game, and you play want to play your LM and you wish to insist that your LM can not use PF from the second rank, I will tell you I think that is silly, but I won’t argue with you about it.

Scammel
15-09-2014, 19:00
Is there any other rule that works this way to draw a logical comparison to?

Yup, see Frenzy - it, too gives conditional extra attacks. Or perhaps Random Attacks.


Being a brand new Special Rule, I would think if it was not intended to include supporting attacks it would have stated so.

It would have stated that it did apply to supporting attacks if it were meant to override the very specific, very clear clause that deals with rules exactly like this. Seriously: '...any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects'. That is so utterly, comprehensively clear and I can't really see how anyone couldn't understand unless they were trying to get an advantage.

theunwantedbeing
15-09-2014, 19:09
Is there any other rule that works this way to draw a logical comparison to?

Bretonnians have the Virtue of Knightly Tempar.
Neither it, nor the FAQ state how to resolve it in the case of supporting attacks.

Vampire Counts have Red Fury.
Again, it doesn't say in the rules or the FAQ how it interacts with the supporting attacks special rule.

I think that's it.
Beastmen have a magical weapon (The Everbleed) that causes extra wounds, but not hits.
Dark Elves have the Kharybdiss that causes extra hits if all it's attacks hit, but that can't make supporting attacks.

SanDiegoSurrealist
15-09-2014, 19:13
All those examples are extra hits or re-rolls not attacks.

Scammel - Well of course it is trying to gain an advantage, if there was no advantage to be gained then the point would be moot.

All I am saying is that I am not the only one that believes that that is not the intention of the rule and until an FAQ comes out I will not fault someone for playing either way.

I base this opinion on comparative facts and precedent, is there any other rule that specifically calls out front rank only? How is it worded?

Scammel
15-09-2014, 19:45
I base this opinion on comparative facts and precedent

You can't be, because there aren't any - there is no model in the game that can make more than one supporting attack. Come on: '...any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects'. That's the one and only rule you need, right there.

SteveW
15-09-2014, 20:52
You can't be, because there aren't any - there is no model in the game that can make more than one supporting attack. Come on: '...any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects'. That's the one and only rule you need, right there.

At this point I don't think he wants to get it. He's reading "yes" and "maybe" where there is a clearly stated "no" with no reasoning as to why.

dagreenmoonboyz
15-09-2014, 22:38
At this point I don't think he wants to get it. He's reading "yes" and "maybe" where there is a clearly stated "no" with no reasoning as to why.

Same could be said about you guys the other side of the argument. People point at what they think strengthens their argument and down play the rest, debate 101.


The issue is its unclear how this interacts with the BRB because PF and Red Fury were written well after the basic rule set and the thought of long term rules planning by GW makes me lawl kittens. Several instances within the rule give me pause:
1) These are not attacks on the models profile and aren't triggered until after regular and supporting attacks are made. Do I return to the rule governing attacks as they are initially made? It does issue context "to hit and to wound as normal" but these game steps are after determining how many attacks to make.
2) The word "IMMEDIATELY" has a specific connotation to me. If a person of authority tells me "immediately" do something it implies you must do XYZ, not if you want to or have a conflict of interest.

If the rule read "if a model with this rule rolls a 6 to hit, it may make another attack as normal" I would likely not give it another thought. But I really want this to work for the supporting saurus attacks in my lizardmen army I don't have. ;)

Spiney Norman
15-09-2014, 23:20
Is there any other rule that works this way to draw a logical comparison to?


If you don't like frenzy, then the wood elf wild wood rangers rule is very similar (and its also a army book rule so any rubbish about frenzy 'not counting' because its from the brb also doesn't apply), the rangers gain an extra attack when fighting an enemy that causes fear or terror, I've not seen any wood elf players arguing that it allows their back-ranking models to make more than one attack or that their rule somehow overrides the rules for supporting attacks.

dagreenmoonboyz
15-09-2014, 23:36
If you don't like frenzy, then the wood elf wild wood rangers rule is very similar (and its also a army book rule so any rubbish about frenzy 'not counting' because its from the brb also doesn't apply), the rangers gain an extra attack when fighting an enemy that causes fear or terror, I've not seen any wood elf players arguing that it allows their back-ranking models to make more than one attack or that their rule somehow overrides the rules for supporting attacks.

Again, irrelevant because that attack is given to the model before the number of attacks from front rank and supporting ranks are calculated.

Hawkkf
16-09-2014, 04:31
While I am a Lizardman player, I believe RAW the wording for supportive attacks is close enough to prohibit Predatory Fighter. RAI is anyone's guess as the rules written are more suited to 40K gameplay and are poorly suited for fantasy. The main that bring up the question issue is the timing. One side is arguing that you only make a single attack no matter the special rule. The other side is arguing that the PF attack is an effect and thus bypasses the supporting ranks rule. In the end it makes statistically little difference and GW apparently doesn't bother with FAQs any longer, so it the simplest solution is to deny PF from supporting ranks in the absence of a more solid counter argument.

Scammel
16-09-2014, 07:36
Again, irrelevant because that attack is given to the model before the number of attacks from front rank and supporting ranks are calculated.

'... he can only ever make a single attack...'

The bearded one
16-09-2014, 08:43
Yeah Frenzy is a dumb rule!

At least that's a guaranteed attack though ;)

And immune to psychology along with it :) (that has its drawbacks).

Spiney Norman
16-09-2014, 11:11
Again, irrelevant because that attack is given to the model before the number of attacks from front rank and supporting ranks are calculated.

I'm not sure why you think that makes a difference, both attacks still take place in the same combat round which is what matters for the purposes of the supporting attacks rule.

Either way you have to roll two sets of dice, the only mechanical question is do you roll the attacks for your supporting ranks with the first roll (i.e. with the front ranks's normal attacks), or with the second roll (with the attacks generated by predatory fighter).

hardyworld
16-09-2014, 17:41
Again, irrelevant because that attack is given to the model before the number of attacks from front rank and supporting ranks are calculated.
Can you point to the rule that says the Supporting Attacks Special Rule stops applying after "the number of attacks from front rank and supporting ranks are calculated" at each initiative step?

dagreenmoonboyz
16-09-2014, 21:09
Can you point to the rule that says the Supporting Attacks Special Rule stops applying after "the number of attacks from front rank and supporting ranks are calculated" at each initiative step?

Nope. Thus my point...

I laid out my issues with the wording of PF in a previous post. Most of the rule set is written in a linear fashion as pertaining to the timing of events that occur during a turn. If you read the section on pg48 it goes "who can strike? How Many Attacks? Dividing attacks. Supporting attacks and how those are divided. The horde. Incomplete ranks. Striking oder. Roll To Hit" now predatory fighter "attacks" are generated. Do where do I go? Is this a supporting attack anymore? or a unique PF attack? I don't know and neither does anyone.

This is what happens when you leave the children without a FAQ for over a year. :p

Spiney Norman
16-09-2014, 21:25
Nope. Thus my point...

I laid out my issues with the wording of PF in a previous post. Most of the rule set is written in a linear fashion as pertaining to the timing of events that occur during a turn. If you read the section on pg48 it goes "who can strike? How Many Attacks? Dividing attacks. Supporting attacks and how those are divided. The horde. Incomplete ranks. Striking oder. Roll To Hit" now predatory fighter "attacks" are generated. Do where do I go? Is this a supporting attack anymore? or a unique PF attack? I don't know and neither does anyone.

This is what happens when you leave the children without a FAQ for over a year. :p

That's fairly easy, the only type of attack you can make from a second or subsequent rank, is a supporting attack, and you can only make one per combat round.

If you are not in B2B with an enemy model and not able to make supporting attacks, you cannot attack.

And it doesn't matter how long you leave between FAQs, some people will always try and wring some kind of advantage out of rules text, it is the nature of things.

SteveW
16-09-2014, 21:31
Nope. Thus my point...

I laid out my issues with the wording of PF in a previous post. Most of the rule set is written in a linear fashion as pertaining to the timing of events that occur during a turn. If you read the section on pg48 it goes "who can strike? How Many Attacks? Dividing attacks. Supporting attacks and how those are divided. The horde. Incomplete ranks. Striking oder. Roll To Hit" now predatory fighter "attacks" are generated. Do where do I go? Is this a supporting attack anymore? or a unique PF attack? I don't know and neither does anyone.

This is what happens when you leave the children without a FAQ for over a year. :p

The second rank(and beyond) don't get attacks though. They get only a supporting attack(to support the model actually attacking). So the normal attacks that generate predatory fighter extra attacks are only in the front rank because only models in base contacts make actual attacks.

underscore
16-09-2014, 21:34
Is this a supporting attack anymore? or a unique PF attack? I don't know and neither does anyone.
I mean, GW called it an extra Attack in the rule, no?

dagreenmoonboyz
17-09-2014, 00:13
That's fairly easy, the only type of attack you can make from a second or subsequent rank, is a supporting attack, and you can only make one per combat round.

If you are not in B2B with an enemy model and not able to make supporting attacks, you cannot attack.

And it doesn't matter how long you leave between FAQs, some people will always try and wring some kind of advantage out of rules text, it is the nature of things.

I won't waste everyones time by saying the same thing again but if you can point to quote in the rule book that tells me how to deal with attacks that are generated post to hit rolls I'll give you a pat on the back. I agree that competitive people tend to look for any advantage but in this case me trying to give an opponent extra attacks isn't a good move on my part. :p

Spiney Norman
17-09-2014, 06:38
I won't waste everyones time by saying the same thing again but if you can point to quote in the rule book that tells me how to deal with attacks that are generated post to hit rolls I'll give you a pat on the back. I agree that competitive people tend to look for any advantage but in this case me trying to give an opponent extra attacks isn't a good move on my part. :p
So misinterpreting the rules is ok as long as you are not giving yourself the advantage?

I'm not your opponent, but as a Lizardmen player I would rather win by following the rules thank accepting the charity of my opponent. As far as I know this is the only example of a ranked unit generating additional attacks from hit rolls, all other examples are from monsters (unstoppable assault) or characters (red fury). So in the absence of any specific direction its reasonable to assume that we should treat them like any other attack.

underscore
17-09-2014, 07:37
I won't waste everyones time by saying the same thing again but if you can point to quote in the rule book that tells me how to deal with attacks that are generated post to hit rolls I'll give you a pat on the back. I agree that competitive people tend to look for any advantage but in this case me trying to give an opponent extra attacks isn't a good move on my part. :p
Oh, in that case it's a moot point. If you're not in base to base then you're only allowed to make a Supporting Attack. So it's only an issue for the front rank.

No comment on the second disingenuous point.

dagreenmoonboyz
17-09-2014, 15:44
This conversation has degenerated into an exercise in futility. I concede and am now undeniably convinced that GW has written the clearest rule since beginning their foray into table top gaming.

MasterSplinter
17-09-2014, 19:08
This conversation has degenerated into an exercise in futility. I concede and am now undeniably convinced that GW has written the clearest rule since beginning their foray into table top gaming.

Just stop it you have no chance and its way to exhausting :)

Waagh Rider
24-09-2014, 22:43
I check in on this thread from time to time and you guys make me chuckle.