kroak
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by kroak on Jun 16, 2018 13:01:33 GMT
The predatory fighter rule demands another attack if a six is rolled. The supporting attacks rule clearly forbids more than one attack from the back rank. These two rules are in conflict if a model from the back rank rolls a six. I guess we can agree on this.
Nightbringer and myself argue that the armybook rule trumps the basic rule according to the BRB page 11.
Your argument, if I understood correctly, is that the more explicit wording on the supporting attacks rule overrides the predatory fighter rule.
The thing is that everything past the first sentence of the supporting attacks rule is really superfluous, since the first sentence already forbids more than one attack from the back rank. There is no comparative, it does not get more forbidden because of the supporting attacks wording.
Considering your other examples, these are rules that modify the attack value of a model. In contrast to the predatory fighter rule they do not allow to attack by themself. The rule that allows you to attack with the number of attacks in your profile is a basic rule, which is on the same page as the supporting attacks rule (its called "how many attacks" I belive). This rule is of course overriden by the supporting attacks rule.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 16, 2018 14:11:51 GMT
They are not in conflict, because the supporting attack rule specifies: "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." They would be in conflict if the Predatory Fighter rule had specified that it applied to supporting attacks, in which case, the AB would trump the BRB. But it has not, so it does not.
Whether or not the attack value of a model is changed or not is completely irrelevant. Note again the BRB: "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." If the BRB rule does not apply to special rules simply because they are in the AB, then it also does not apply to Attacks on the profile or any other unusual effects, simply because they are in the AB. Which I think most will agree is ludicrous.
Is PF a special rule? Yes. Does it give bonus Attacks. Yes. Does it specify that these apply to supporting attacks? No.
Therefore a model with this special rule can still only make one supporting Attack.
Feel free to play it differently from the actual rules. But the original question here was what the actual rules are.
|
|
|
Post by Exalted. on Jun 16, 2018 14:22:41 GMT
I believe it should be that they GET the attacks. IT needed an FAQ. Prob one of the rules that needed it the most. I'd have no issue either way and its hardly game breaking and actually just becomes more of a hassle and slows the game down for at the end of the day 1-2 wounds before armor.
I'd personally play it as they do get it and allow my opponent the same.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 16, 2018 14:41:05 GMT
There is a difference bewteen how we think the rules should be and how they actually are. If we all accepted that, we would forestall the vast majority of rules discussions.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jun 16, 2018 18:49:37 GMT
"because of special rules or other unusual effects." I think this is the key bit really isn't it. Predatory fighter is listed as a special rule, which is specifically discounted by the supporting attacks rule. Again, GW could have clarified this for everyone's benefit but that is not how they roll.. Hooray I got a rules question right for once
|
|
kroak
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by kroak on Jun 16, 2018 20:50:59 GMT
1. Does the supporting attacks rule forbid more than one attack from the back ranks? => yes, it clearly does. No one is arguing against this. The part about "special rules or other unusual effects" is completely irrelevant because the first sentence already tells us "he can only ever make a single attack", meaning there are no exceptions.
2. Does the predatory fighter rule demand to actively make an extra attack after you role a six? => Yes it does. "...it immediately makes another Attack; roll To Hit and To Wound as normal". It does not say to make another attack only if no other rules interfere. You make an attack if you roll a six, simple as that, no exceptions.
3. Are these two rules in conflict if a model in the back rank rolls a six? => We have two rules that tell you to do opposite things. For me thats a conflict and if we have a conflict the army book rule wins.
You are only focusing on the supporting attacks rule text and on the part about "special rules or other unusual effects". As I said this part is irrelevant because the first part does already disallow more than one supporting attack, without exception. Something is either allowed or forbidden, the mentioning of special rules does it not make more forbidden.
I do however acknowledge that the issue could also be interpreted differently. This question has been debated for probably a hundred pages on warseer, lustria online and other forums. It is one of the most discussed rule questions of the eight edition, so it is probably not a clear cut case but needs a faq.
I think everyone should discuss the problem with his opponent and come to the conclusion they feel fits best to their game. In most games it hardly makes a difference and is therefor not worth dozen of pages of discussion.
By the way I liked the discussion with you and hope you did so too.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 16, 2018 20:53:17 GMT
"because of special rules or other unusual effects." I think this is the key bit really isn't it. Predatory fighter is listed as a special rule, which is specifically discounted by the supporting attacks rule. Again, GW could have clarified this for everyone's benefit but that is not how they roll.. I suspect they did not care anyway, because they were going to bin WFB in any case.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 16, 2018 21:17:46 GMT
But to be fair: perhaps they were just exasperated that our inability to read clear and concise rules actually outmatched their inability to write them.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 16, 2018 22:12:34 GMT
@ kroak: Sometimes GW foresees and tries to forestall potential problems. The fact that they then try to be crystal clear (for once) cannot be held against them. So no: that they specified "special rules or other unusual effects" is not irrelevant, as it proven beyond doubt by this very discussion. [Edit: Indeed, far from being irrelevant, the addition is absolutely necessary, because otherwise, any advanced rule would trump this basic rule. Which brings me to the following point: if one can simply claim a conflict in this case and say AB>BRB, then one can also simply claim a conflict in the case of e.g. Frenzy (and any other similar rule) and say that advanced rule beats basic rule. The rule would in effect have become unplayable.] That said, there can be exceptions to any rule - but they have to be specified as such. In the case of supporting attacks, we actually have such a specification with the Monstrous Support special rule, which states: "Furthermore, the rider of a monstrous cavalry model can make as many supporting attacks as are on its profile, up to a maximum of three.” The PF special rule could have contained a similar exemption - but it did not, and that is the crux of the probelm. To be fair: the exemption in the Monstrous Support special rule was added in the first Erratum of the 8th edition. But until then, Monstrous Cavalry did not have that exemption, and thus the rider had only one supporting attack. Can I exclude that in an update version PF would have applied to supporting attacks? No, of course not. Any Erratum or (to a lesser extent) FAQ can change the rules (like for the Monstrous Support special rule). But until they do so, the rules are what they are. That there are long discussions is not necessarily because the rules are not clear, but because many do not read the rules as they are, but as they think they should be. Obviously, we will not be getting any further Errata/FAQ, and the official rules are now what they ever will be. But as I said before, if you and your opponent agree, feel free to play it differently. I liked the discussion with me too.
|
|
kroak
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by kroak on Jun 16, 2018 23:06:54 GMT
I liked the discussion with me too. That fits. I really got the impression that you were discussing more with yourself than with anyone else😉. Good night.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 17, 2018 7:57:57 GMT
Yes, that is because I try to challenge my own position and look for arguments pro and contra.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Jun 17, 2018 14:34:16 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. -----I completely agree with this. No exemption was made for the rule (whether intentional or not).
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Jun 17, 2018 16:59:54 GMT
I do find it a little disturing that all rnf rolls need to be separated though so wonder if it was a miss and needed an errata/faq.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 17, 2018 21:46:53 GMT
Rolling dice has no bearance whatsoever on the interpretation of rules. In various circumstances, one has to separate dice one way or the other, either in time by rolling dice sequentially, or physically by using coloured dice. Fast dicing is an amenity, not an argument.
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Jun 17, 2018 21:50:05 GMT
I do find it a little disturing that all rnf rolls need to be separated though so wonder if it was a miss and needed an errata/faq. There's precedent in the Lizardman book for the Basilidon.
|
|