|
Post by knoffles on Jun 15, 2018 9:55:27 GMT
Do Saurus in the supporting ranks benefit from the potential extra attack? I’ve seen a number of arguments back and forth but wondered if it was ever resolved? (And as I have a game vs Lizards tonight, I thought I’d better check!). Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jun 15, 2018 10:34:29 GMT
I think this is one of the classic rules debates which really needed an FAQ. Without delving into the rulebook for actual quotes, as far as I recall supporting attack rules specifically limit models to 1 attack regardless of profiles or special rules. The Lizardmen book states whenever it rolls a 6 make another attack. Then you get into the whole army book vs rulebook trumping rules regarding contradictions.. and is this actually a contradiction? (when the rulebook specifically limits to 1 attack) Summon FvonSigmaringen !
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Jun 15, 2018 13:48:35 GMT
I think Horace is correct here, but to be honest, I've never really thought about it that much. It's a nifty army rule and all, but it doesn't really effect the game that much.
Saurus Warriors and Temple Guard are rarely taken in horde formation. And the TG usually have a Slann they're toting along with them. So say the TG are 6 wide (being on a 25mm base, this is already fairly wide). The Slann in the second rank will take up 2 of those slots. That means only 4 TG will get a chance to gain an extra attack. 10 total. Just taking averages, that's only 1-2 extra attacks. Then those have to wound as well. Odds aren't great, but...why not. Same with the Warriors.
So is it even a fight worth bringing up? Honestly, it depends on his army composition. If he is putting a HEAVY focus on Warriors and TG, then yes, it probably is since he's sure to have some other nasty tricks up his sleeves. (Like giving them poison from placing a unit of Jungle Swarms next to them in the same combat. That can actually really hurt since even if you beat the Warriors/TG in combat res, and they flee combat, the Jungle Swarm is Unbreakable, so you won't be able to pursue. So watch if he brings any JS or a Bastiladon with the Arc of Sotec. That'll be what he has in mind if you see either of those.) If there isn't a heavy focus on either of those units, then I'd probably let it slide. Ask him how he plays it, and your concerns, then go with what he says. It'll at least plant a seed in his brain about it.
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Jun 15, 2018 15:01:05 GMT
We'll as an example in my last game vs lizzies. The old one averaged 7 attacks.... Yea a lot of 6s and unnatural. His 3 units of 20 Taurus constantly got 6s. It was a crazy 6dice game and fun as it was his first game ever But removing the second rank would have removed a lot of those attacks that game. With that said I am not sure on the ruling here either so I would like someone with logical rule mastery comment on this more as a way to learn how to read the rules better:) FvonSigmaringen we need you! My taking is that only one attack is allowed from the second row (no add extra on 6s) as the army book doesn't explicitly overrides this.
|
|
kroak
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by kroak on Jun 15, 2018 15:48:01 GMT
This issue was never resolved by GW. It can be argumented in both ways but imo the predetatory fighter rule should override the basic rulebook. But you should discuss the problem with your opponent and see if you can agre on one ruling.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 15, 2018 16:40:25 GMT
Ruleswise, this is a clear cut case.
As Horace indicated, the BRB p. 49 specifies: "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" (Italics mine).
Predatory Fighter is a special rule, and does not contain an exemption to the basic rule. Therefore the basic rule applies.
Opponents to this can argue that the writer of the rule must have intended it differently, but have in fact no valid argument to back that up. That said, if you and your opponent agree to play it differently, feel free to do so.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Jun 15, 2018 16:58:23 GMT
I have to say that as mottdon said, the chance of it making a huge difference are slim but I was curious to see if anything ever was decided. The guy I’m playing tonight I’ve played loads before and is a good guy (though he can get flustered under pressure in comps) so it shouldn’t be an issue. I have one aim, kill the Slann 😀
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Jun 15, 2018 18:24:13 GMT
That's a GOOD target!
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 15, 2018 18:31:59 GMT
That is a rather slannt way of looking at things...
|
|
kroak
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by kroak on Jun 15, 2018 21:37:13 GMT
Ruleswise, this is a clear cut case. As Horace indicated, the BRB p. 49 specifies: "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" (Italics mine). Predatory Fighter is a special rule, and does not contain an exemption to the basic rule. Therefore the basic rule applies. Opponents to this can argue that the writer of the rule must have intended it differently, but have in fact no valid argument to back that up. That said, if you and your opponent agree to play it differently, feel free to do so. It is actually not that clear cut. Another way to look at the issue would be that while the basic rules clearly forbid additional attacks from the back rank, the predatory fighter rule demands an extra attack if you role a six. The moment one of your back rank saurus rolls a six these two rules are in conflict. If a conflict between the basic rules and rules in an army book arises, the army book rules win (thats on page 11 of the basic rulebook I believe).
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 15, 2018 22:19:56 GMT
There is no conflict between the AB and the BRB in this case. You would have had a point, if the basic rule had not specified "because of special rules or other unusual effects." But since it has, there would only be a conflict if the Predatory Fighter special rule said that it applies to Supporting Attacks, in which case it obviously would supersede the BRB. But it has not, so it does not.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Jun 15, 2018 22:42:13 GMT
He played it as just the front rank so it was a moot point 😀. Had an epic battle tonight. It was utterly brutal. At the end he had 2 units of 10 skink skirmishers, a cohort of 10 skinks, 6 chameleons and a scar vet on cold one vs my Doombull, half strength Gor Herd (with bsb and lvl 4) and a Razorgor. Getting frenzy on the Gor (the one and only time I’ve rolled it on anything bar 5 Ungor Raiders), although it was the cherry on top, actually cost me the game and the semi-final as they had to over run rather than reform. Still this game had everything that reminded me why I love 8th. I’ll try and get up a battle rep but pictures and notes went out the window in the second half of the game as I was having too much fun!
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Jun 16, 2018 0:33:59 GMT
To be fair to all, I play first rank only as it seems more sporting. Yes I'd like the additional attack, sure makes die rolling simpler but I'd be far more concerned that I'd cheated someone out of a good result because we couldn't agree on the interpretation of a rule.
I hate rolling d6 for it...
A lot of the time it's how your local club mates see it.
Greg
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 16, 2018 4:45:59 GMT
Ruleswise, this is a clear cut case. As Horace indicated, the BRB p. 49 specifies: "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" (Italics mine). Predatory Fighter is a special rule, and does not contain an exemption to the basic rule. Therefore the basic rule applies. Opponents to this can argue that the writer of the rule must have intended it differently, but have in fact no valid argument to back that up. That said, if you and your opponent agree to play it differently, feel free to do so. It is actually not that clear cut. Another way to look at the issue would be that while the basic rules clearly forbid additional attacks from the back rank, the predatory fighter rule demands an extra attack if you role a six. The moment one of your back rank saurus rolls a six these two rules are in conflict. If a conflict between the basic rules and rules in an army book arises, the army book rules win (thats on page 11 of the basic rulebook I believe). kroak is correct. The lizardmen army book states: "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". (emphasis mine) The key lies in "a model with this special rule". Models from supporting ranks fit this criteria. The BRB states" "...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." As such the BRB is saying no bonus attacks can be gained by models from supporting ranks, but the army book says that they can. Army book > BRB. Checkmate. Past experience however has shown that this topic gets out of hand really quick. This topic was voted on over on Lustria Online (a Lizardmen forum, so potential bias should be given consideration): www.lustriaonline.com/threads/predatory-fighter-attacks-from-supporting-ranks-yea-or-nay.15916/
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 16, 2018 8:20:12 GMT
That seems again a rather idiosyncratic and obfuscating reading of the rules. I fail to see that "a model with this special rule" is somehow key. Other than stating the obvious, what is the point? Even in your own reasoning, it does not work. Very well, the model gets an additional Attack However, that Attack is not specified as a supporting attack, and a model in the second rank can only make supporting attacks - of which you can only have one. Unless, of course, specified otherwise, which the PF rule clearly does not.
This is not different from a magic weapon that grants you additional Attacks. It is not because that magic weapon is listed in an AB that you can claim it supersedes ipso facto the supporting attack rule, or, for that matter, the rule that Attacks cannot exceed 10, unless the description of that magic weapon would actually say as much.
Indeed, why stop at special rules or unusual effects? In the same vein, I might claim the following: Karl Franz has 4 Attacks on his profile. The BRB says "regardless of the number of Attacks on his profile," but his profile is in the AB, and AB beats BRB; therefore Karl Franz gets 4 supporting attacks. If you don't buy that, you shouldn't buy the other one either. But if you do buy that, you'll buy anything, and there is little point in a discussion.
|
|