|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 19, 2018 13:58:46 GMT
So your logic is that because the rule (predatory fighter) doesn't explicitly forbid you using these extra attacks as supporting attacks, that means they are ok? Because that applies to basically every extra attack generating rule/magic item in the game. Red Fury for instance. So by that logic if you are using an extra attack generated by any rule (in an army book) you get to make more than 1 supporting attack. My logic is that the PF rule tells you exactly how to play it; it outlines the criteria that must be met in order to generate the bonus attack, and those criteria as they are written can be satisfied by models in supporting ranks. I am playing the rule exactly as it is written. I am reading the rule in the AB and I am executing its instructions precisely. The BRB supporting attack rule does not have the "authority" (AB > BRB) to overrule it. Not all bonus attacks granted by AB rules fall into the same category.... I have outlined this in my previous two posts. Red Fury would fall into the same boat as PF (although I'm not quite sure why someone would want to place their Red Fury Vampire in a supporting rank ).
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 19, 2018 14:07:22 GMT
Ohhhhhh you got him using legal Latin - Y'all fikked now. Expressis verbis all up in hurrrrr. Theatrics! They do not change the core of the argument . They are often employed as a tool of distraction to sow confusion. "Theatricality and deception are powerful agents to the uninitiated... but we are initiated"
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 19, 2018 14:35:50 GMT
Exactly, as I have been trying to point out for some time. That the PF special rule does not care for basic rules, and is somehow "self-contained" is simply wrong, as is evident from the use of the term "Attacks." Special rules are always implicitly subject to basic rules, unless they expressis verbis tell us otherwise. That is why the case of KF Attacks on the profile (or the other special rules granting bonus Attacks) is exactly the same as the case of PF. Either the conflict exists in all cases or none. To create that non-existent conflict between the BRB and the AB, nighbringer has fallen victim to the logical fallacy that because supporting attacks are Attacks, Attacks are supporting attacks. They can be, but do not have to be. Indeed, we know in this case that they are not, because the basic rule tells us that "any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules" cannot be supporting attacks. Let us compare the [relevant parts of] two rules: BRB: He can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of ....any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules. PF: Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To H it in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack. Now, one can easily see that the PF special rule contradicts the first part of the basic rule, but only the first part. There is nothing in the PF special rule whatsoever that contradicts the second part. Therefore there is no conflict AB versus BRB to be invoked. PF details exactly how it should be played. When you read the PF rule as it is written, and execute its instructions precisely you arrive at a situation where models in the supporting ranks can generate the bonus attacks. The BRB has a rule that would normally prevent supporting models from making precisely this sort of bonus attack, however the AB rule trumps the BRB rule. I don't see how someone can read the two rules (PF and supporting attack rule) and not recognize that they are in contradiction to one another. You even admit as much in your passage above. The fact that you arbitrarily split the rule into two parts is irrelevant; the precise application of the PF rule contradicts the supporting attack rule in the BRB. You cannot simultaneously apply both the PF rule and the basic supporting attack rule. They cannot both coexist in full, and as such one must be given priority over the other. The AB>BRB rule describes how rule priority is determined in these situations. That said, play the rule however you wish. If your gaming group is fine with your interpretation of it then have fun with it. For what it's worth, the MiniWargaming guys play the rule as you have described (and what a mess it is). I'm satisfied that most people (that I have personally encountered) do not interpret the rule as you do. A FAQ would have been nice, but is a non-option at this point, so this debate will never be fully resolved.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 19, 2018 15:06:56 GMT
On the contrary: not for the first time, you simply choose to ignore a clear specification in the BRB, because it do not suit your purpose. The arguments for doing so are totally unconvincing. The split is only irrelevant in the sense that my argument is not dependent on it: it is just a tool to show that the PF special does not contain in any way, shape, or form an exemption to the basic rule. But it does so very clearly. That is, of course, why you do not like it. Neither is there a problem in simultaneously applying both the PF rule and the basic supporting attack rule - unless, of course, you simply choose to ignore part of that rule. Not to mention the fact that such your erroneous position renders the whole supporting attack rule unplayable.
That one can feel free to play it otherwise I have stated already in my first post. The OPs question was, however, what the actual rule was. An FAQ will, indeed, not be forthcoming, but I have long suspected that one of the reasons GW stopped issuing Update Versions, long before the demise of WFB was that even if they manage to write clear rules, there are still enough players who simply do not read the rules, or, if they do, just read them how they want them to be written, not how they actually are written.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 19, 2018 16:25:56 GMT
On the contrary: not for the first time, you simply choose to ignore a clear specification in the BRB, because it do not suit your purpose. The arguments for doing so are totally unconvincing. The split is only irrelevant in the sense that my argument is not dependent on it: it is just a tool to show that the PF special does not contain in any way, shape, or form an exemption to the basic rule. But it does so very clearly. That is, of course, why you do not like it. Neither is there a problem in simultaneously applying both the PF rule and the basic supporting attack rule - unless, of course, you simply choose to ignore part of that rule. Not to mention the fact that such your erroneous position renders the whole supporting attack rule unplayable. That one can feel free to play it otherwise I have stated already in my first post. The OPs question was, however, what the actual rule was. An FAQ will, indeed, not be forthcoming, but I have long suspected that one of the reasons GW stopped issuing Update Versions, long before the demise of WFB was that even if they manage to write clear rules, there are still enough players who simply do not read the rules, or, if they do, just read them how they want them to be written, not how they actually are written. "On the contrary: not for the first time, you simply choose to ignore a clear specification in the BRB, because it do not suit your purpose" You don't know my intention, so don't speak of it. It is an underhanded debating tactic. I mean we can go down that road, but that sort of thing never ends well. I am ignoring a clear specification in the BRB not because I doesn't suit my purpose, but because it contradicts the application of an AB rule. "The split is only irrelevant in the sense that my argument is not dependent on it: it is just a tool to show that the PF special does not contain in any way, shape, or form an exemption to the basic rule. But it does so very clearly. That is, of course, why you do not like it." Another underhanded debating tactic. You have no idea why I like or dislike something, you're incorrectly proposing statements (on my behalf) that suit your narrative. Your example was flawed for the reasons I highlighted previously. There absolutely is a problem in simultaneously applying the PF rule and the basic rule. If you choose to place precedence on the BRB supporting attack rule, you can no longer play the PF fully as it is written. When one rule allows for the generation of bonus attacks from supporting ranks, and the other forbids it, you have a contradiction. The PF rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The PF rule applies to every model with the PF rule that rolls a 6 to hit in cc, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the AB > BRB. The army book rule is very clear: "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" If you meet the criteria described above you make an additional attack. Simple as that. The BRB rule cannot override or modify it.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 19, 2018 19:58:10 GMT
Let us see:
The Extra Attack rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The Extra Attack rule applies to every model with the Extra Attack rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule.
The Frenzy rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The Frenzy rule applies to every model with the Frenzy rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule.
The Savage Beast of Horros spell rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The rule applies to every model affected by the SBoH spell, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule.
The Birona’s Timewarp spell rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The rule applies to every model affected by the BT spell rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule.
The Sword of Bloodshed magic weapon rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The SoB rule applies to every model with the SoB rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule.
The Ripperdactyl’s Frenzy rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The Ripperdactyl’s Frenzy rule applies to every model with the Ripperdactyl’s Frenzy rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the AB>BRB.
The Tide of Serpents rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The Tide of Serpents rule applies to every model with the Tide of Serpents rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the AB>BRB.
I could go on through all the ABs, but one gets the picture...
You know: every rule regarding Attacks applies to every model with that rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the PF rule is more complicated and thus somewhat longer is neither here nor there. A simpler rule also tell you exactly what to do, but needs less words. The only thing that stops these rules from generating more than one supporting attack is precisely the supporting attack rule, a rule that specifically says you “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.”
Is the Predatory Fighter special rule a special rule? Yes. Does it entitle you to bonus Attacks? Yes. Does the PF rule specify an exemption regarding supporting Attacks? No.
All the rest is wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 19, 2018 20:35:16 GMT
To add: it is not as if there are not rules which are really conflicting with the supporting attack rule. I already referred to
Monstrous Support for MC: "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."
Monstrous Support for WB: "Furthermore, a monstrous beast can make as many supporting attacks as are on its profile, up to a maximum of three.”
And there is also the HE Martial Prowess special rule: "High Elf models can make supporting attacks with one extra rank than normal. This is cumulative with any other special rule that allows a unit to fight in extra ranks."
These rules have specified an exemption, thus superseding the basic rule.
I forgot about MC for Infantry: "A monstrous infantry model can make as many supporting attacks as are on its profile, up to a maximum of three, rather than the usual one supporting attack."
Come to think of it, MP should not really be on the list: while it is an exemption to the supporting attack rule, it is not an exemption to the single Attack aspect of that rule. But it is another example of what a real exemption looks like.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 19, 2018 21:17:58 GMT
Let us see: The Extra Attack rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The Extra Attack rule applies to every model with the Extra Attack rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule. The Frenzy rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The Frenzy rule applies to every model with the Frenzy rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule. The Savage Beast of Horros spell rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The rule applies to every model affected by the SBoH spell, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule. The Birona’s Timewarp spell rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The rule applies to every model affected by the BT spell rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule. The Sword of Bloodshed magic weapon rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The SoB rule applies to every model with the SoB rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule. The Ripperdactyl’s Frenzy rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The Ripperdactyl’s Frenzy rule applies to every model with the Ripperdactyl’s Frenzy rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the AB>BRB. The Tide of Serpents rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The Tide of Serpents rule applies to every model with the Tide of Serpents rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the AB>BRB. I could go on through all the ABs, but one gets the picture... You know: every rule regarding Attacks applies to every model with that rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the PF rule is more complicated and thus somewhat longer is neither here nor there. A simpler rule also tell you exactly what to do, but needs less words. The only thing that stops these rules from generating more than one supporting attack is precisely the supporting attack rule, a rule that specifically says you “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.” Is the Predatory Fighter special rule a special rule? Yes. Does it entitle you to bonus Attacks? Yes. Does the PF rule specify an exemption regarding supporting Attacks? No. All the rest is wishful thinking. "The Extra Attack rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The Extra Attack rule applies to every model with the Extra Attack rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule."The Extra Attack rule is a BRB rule. Therefore we don't have a case for AB>BRB "The Birona’s Timewarp spell rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The rule applies to every model affected by the BT spell rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule."Birona's Timewarp is a BRB rule. Therefore we don't have a case for AB>BRB. "The Sword of Bloodshed magic weapon rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The SoB rule applies to every model with the SoB rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule."The Sword of Bloodshed magic weapon rule is a BRB rule. Therefore we don't have a case for AB>BRB. "The Ripperdactyl’s Frenzy rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The Ripperdactyl’s Frenzy rule applies to every model with the Ripperdactyl’s Frenzy rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the AB>BRB." Frenzy is a BRB rule. The AB Toad Rage rule only modifies the number of attacks that the frenzy confers. However, you are still left with a modified Frenzy BRB rule. Therefore we don't have case for AB>BRB. "The Tide of Serpents rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The Tide of Serpents rule applies to every model with the Tide of Serpents rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the AB>BRB. "The way Tide of Serpents is written would indeed override the supporting attacks rule. Of course this would very seldom come into play since characters are rarely found in supporting ranks. This is the correct RAW interpretation. "You know: every rule regarding Attacks applies to every model with that rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the PF rule is more complicated and thus somewhat longer is neither here nor there. A simpler rule also tell you exactly what to do, but needs less words. The only thing that stops these rules from generating more than one supporting attack is precisely the supporting attack rule, a rule that specifically says you “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.” "- A BRB rule cannot override the BRB supporting attacks rule
- An AB rule granting a BRB bonus rule (as in the case of the Ripperdactyls) cannot override the BRB supporting attacks rule
- An AB rule that grants a bonus in direct opposition to the BRB supporting attacks rule can override it
The wording of the PF rule is of paramount importance in the context of RAW. If it were written in a different manner (for instance granting Frenzy or an Extra Attack {both BRB rules}) then it might not trigger a AB>BRB conflict. Ultimately this is the silliness of Rules as Written, but since it lines up with RAI in this instance, I don't mind. "Does the PF rule specify an exemption regarding supporting Attacks? No. "Yes it does. All models with the PF rule rolling a 6 to Hit in CC does include models making attacks from supporting ranks. The two rules are incongruent. The rule does not need to directly say that "this applies to models making supporting attacks as well" (though if it did, then we could avoid this debate). The very wording of the PF rules puts it in direct odds with the BRB supporting attack rule.
|
|
kroak
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by kroak on Jun 19, 2018 21:20:41 GMT
Let us see: The Extra Attack rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The Extra Attack rule applies to every model with the Extra Attack rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule. The Frenzy rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The Frenzy rule applies to every model with the Frenzy rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule. The Savage Beast of Horros spell rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The rule applies to every model affected by the SBoH spell, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule. The Birona’s Timewarp spell rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The rule applies to every model affected by the BT spell rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule. The Sword of Bloodshed magic weapon rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The SoB rule applies to every model with the SoB rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the advanced rule>basic rule. The Ripperdactyl’s Frenzy rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The Ripperdactyl’s Frenzy rule applies to every model with the Ripperdactyl’s Frenzy rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the AB>BRB. The Tide of Serpents rule is very clear in its wording and should be fairly easy to comprehend... it tells you exactly how to play the situation. The Tide of Serpents rule applies to every model with the Tide of Serpents rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the BRB has a rule that specifically disallows it is irrelevant because the AB>BRB. I could go on through all the ABs, but one gets the picture... You know: every rule regarding Attacks applies to every model with that rule, not just those in base-to-base contact. The fact that the PF rule is more complicated and thus somewhat longer is neither here nor there. A simpler rule also tell you exactly what to do, but needs less words. The only thing that stops these rules from generating more than one supporting attack is precisely the supporting attack rule, a rule that specifically says you “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.” Is the Predatory Fighter special rule a special rule? Yes. Does it entitle you to bonus Attacks? Yes. Does the PF rule specify an exemption regarding supporting Attacks? No. All the rest is wishful thinking. There is a substantial difference between the rules you posted and the predatory fighter rule. These rules increase the attack value of their target, this does in no way conflict with the supporting attacks rule. In fact these rules and the supporting attack rule do not even interact without another rule, which tells you to role a number of dice equal to your attack value (let us call it the "How many attacks" rule). The How many attacks rule connects all the rules you listed with the supporting attacks rule and is the only rule conflicting with the supporting attack rule, since all the other rules simply modify the number of attacks (which might have been greater than one from the beginning). On the other hand there are rules which do not need the how many attacks rule to conflict with the supporting attacks rule, because their rule text already tells us to actively execute an attack roll. Examples of these rules are predatory fighter, red fury or the effect of the ramhorn helm. Let us see: A brave second rank saurus rolls a heroic six against a unit of mighty skaven slaves. The moment this happens the saurus is effected by both the supporting attacks rule and the predatory fighter rule. The supporting attacks rule tells us he can only ever make a single attack, regardless of other circumstances. The predatory fighter rule tells us that he immediately makes another attack. These two rules do of course cause a conflict. You can not apply them both at the same time, you either make an additional attack (in which case the supporting attack rule is violated) or you do not (which violates the predatory fighter rule). Another example: Karl Franz is leading his Great swords from the second rank against the forces of chaos, when he is effected by The savage beast of horros. The supporting attack rule tells us again that he can only ever make a single attack. The spell increases his attack value by 3. Can you apply these two rules at the same time? Yes you can. Increasing his attack value has no bearing on the supporting attacks rule, you can have an attack value of 7 and still do only a single attack from the second rank. In this case the supporting attacks rule does only conflict with the how many attacks rule, which basically says: If you have 7 attacks in your profile you can roll seven dice to hit. The how many attacks rule is a basic rule and is of course overridden by the more specific worded supporting attack rule. You see your examples do not hold true.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 19, 2018 22:07:36 GMT
The Extra Attack rule is a BRB rule. Therefore we don't have a case for AB>BRB Birona's Timewarp is a BRB rule. Therefore we don't have a case for AB>BRB. The Sword of Bloodshed magic weapon rule is a BRB rule. Therefore we don't have a case for AB>BRB. Frenzy is a BRB rule. The AB Toad Rage rule only modifies the number of attacks that the frenzy confers. However, you are still left with a modified Frenzy BRB rule. Therefore we don't have case for AB>BRB. You may notice I wrote in all these cases (apart from Toad Rage) advanced rule>basic rule. It is the same principle, as AB>AB. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. - A BRB rule cannot override the BRB supporting attacks rule
Simply wrong: in the post above yours I actaully gave three examples of a BRB rule that do precisely that: override the supporting attack rule. An AB rule granting a BRB bonus rule (as in the case of the Ripperdactyls) cannot override the BRB supporting attacks rule. Simply wrong. Of course it can: it only needs to specify that it does. An AB rule that grants a bonus in direct opposition to the BRB supporting attacks rule can override it True, but only if it specifies that it does so, and states that it is overriding the fact that you "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.” The fact that it mgives a bonus Attack (like all the other rules mentioned) is not enough. The wording of the PF rule is of paramount importance in the context of RAW. If it were written in a different manner (for instance granting Frenzy or an Extra Attack {both BRB rules}) then it might not trigger a AB>BRB conflict. Ultimately this is the silliness of Rules as Written, but since it lines up with RAI in this instance, I don't mind. "Does the PF rule specify an exemption regarding supporting Attacks? No. "Yes it does. All models with the PF rule rolling a 6 to Hit in CC does include models making attacks from supporting ranks. The two rules are incongruent. The rule does not need to directly say that "this applies to models making supporting attacks as well" (though if it did, then we could avoid this debate). The very wording of the PF rules puts it in direct odds with the BRB supporting attack rule. Duh. The writing does not trigger a conflict now. Again, all the other rules gving bonus Attacks include models making attacks from supporting ranks. Therefore, they should be incongruent too, rendering the whole rule unplayable. There is certainly one intent we should be able to agree on: that a rule must be playable. The very wording of the of the PF rules do not put it at odds with the specification that any bonus Attacks from special rules do not count as supporting Attacks.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 19, 2018 22:38:59 GMT
There is a substantial difference between the rules you posted and the predatory fighter rule. These rules increase the attack value of their target, this does in no way conflict with the supporting attacks rule. In fact these rules and the supporting attack rule do not even interact without another rule, which tells you to role a number of dice equal to your attack value (let us call it the "How many attacks" rule). The How many attacks rule connects all the rules you listed with the supporting attacks rule and is the only rule conflicting with the supporting attack rule, since all the other rules simply modify the number of attacks (which might have been greater than one from the beginning). On the other hand there are rules which do not need the how many attacks rule to conflict with the supporting attacks rule, because their rule text already tells us to actively execute an attack roll. Examples of these rules are predatory fighter, red fury or the effect of the ramhorn helm. Let us see: A brave second rank saurus rolls a heroic six against a unit of mighty skaven slaves. The moment this happens the saurus is effected by both the supporting attacks rule and the predatory fighter rule. The supporting attacks rule tells us he can only ever make a single attack, regardless of other circumstances. The predatory fighter rule tells us that he immediately makes another attack. These two rules do of course cause a conflict. You can not apply them both at the same time, you either make an additional attack (in which case the supporting attack rule is violated) or you do not (which violates the predatory fighter rule). Another example: Karl Franz is leading his Great swords from the second rank against the forces of chaos, when he is effected by The savage beast of horros. The supporting attack rule tells us again that he can only ever make a single attack. The spell increases his attack value by 3. Can you apply these two rules at the same time? Yes you can. Increasing his attack value has no bearing on the supporting attacks rule, you can have an attack value of 7 and still do only a single attack from the second rank. In this case the supporting attacks rule does only conflict with the how many attacks rule, which basically says: If you have 7 attacks in your profile you can roll seven dice to hit. The how many attacks rule is a basic rule and is of course overridden by the more specific worded supporting attack rule. You see your examples do not hold true. Actually, your whole reasoning does not hold true. What does the supporting attacks rule say? Any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects. It is completely irrelevant what kind of bonus Attacks they are. Now, you may think that for some reason GW wrote the PF rule with truly Byzantine subtlety and ingenuity - I prefer to use Occam's Razor. And, of course, you can apply them at the same time: the model makes another Attack, but since it is not a supporting attack, the Attack cannot achieve anything. But even if you could not, that still would not change the fact that you "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." To override the supporting attack rule, it would have sufficed to add: this also applies to supporting attacks. But contrary to the other special rules I quoted, they did not, so it does not.
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Jun 19, 2018 22:40:59 GMT
Most Lizzie players just play it front rank only, rather than get involved in four-page arguments about it every game. I suppose we might be robbing ourselves of a benefit, but that just makes victory all the sweeter...
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 19, 2018 22:52:15 GMT
A very laudable attitude. Even if one thinks that the RAW does not reflect the RAI, the fairest way is to play RAW, until there is an official clarification. Unless, of course, the RAW is unplayable, or you and your opponent agree to play it differently.
|
|
kroak
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by kroak on Jun 19, 2018 23:31:48 GMT
[/quote]Actually, your whole reasoning does not hold true. What does the supporting attacks rule say? Any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects. It is completely irrelevant what kind of bonus Attacks they are. Now, you may think that for some reason GW wrote the PF rule with truly Byzantine subtlety and ingenuity - I prefer to use Occam's Razor.
And, of course, you can apply them at the same time: the model makes another Attack, but since it is not a supporting attack, the Attack cannot achieve anything. But even if you could not, that still would not change the fact that you "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." To override the supporting attack rule, it would have sufficed to add: this also applies to supporting attacks. But contrary to the other special rules I quoted, they did not, so it does not. [/quote]
So you apply the supporting attacks and predatory fighter rule at the same time by executing an attack that can not achieve anything? Thats "intresting" reasoning😉. May I ask how you do this, since the predatory fighter rule says "... roll to hit and wound as normal." Do you roll to hit and wound and afterwards ignore the results? Is this some tactic to confuse your opponent?
Sorry mate but you can not apply both rules at the same time without creating a conflict.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 20, 2018 2:52:32 GMT
Most Lizzie players just play it front rank only, rather than get involved in four-page arguments about it every game. I suppose we might be robbing ourselves of a benefit, but that just makes victory all the sweeter... If that is how you wish to play the rule, then all the power to you. However, it is likely not how most Lizardmen players play it. We had a little poll on Lustria Online (a Lizardmen forum) and 70.2% of respondents felt that supporting attacks can generate predatory fighter bonus attacks. Obviously we can't know for certain how most Lizzie players from around the world play the rule, but 121 total respondents gives us a pretty solid clue. Most people don't come across that many Lizzie players in their gaming travels so the poll stands as a better measure than anecdotal gaming experience. Of course this speaks little of the way the rule should actually be played (due to the inherent bias of such a poll on a Lizardmen forum), but it does provide evidence on how most Lizardmen view it. The poll can be found here: www.lustriaonline.com/threads/predatory-fighter-attacks-from-supporting-ranks-yea-or-nay.15916/Of course if you are willing to eat a small disadvantage in order to avoid an argument and get to gaming, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!!
|
|