|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 20, 2018 3:02:45 GMT
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. This is right on the money. Summed up the entire crux of the argument with: "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)." This is exactly why we arrive at a AB>BRB conflict, at which point the AB's Predatory Fighter rule takes precedence and overrules the limitation of the BRB's supporting attack rule.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 20, 2018 3:29:16 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. RULES AS WRITTEN
"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." [BRB page 49] Predatory Fighter - "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." [Lizardmen AB page 30] "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a Warhammer Armies book. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the Warhammer Armies book always takes precedence." [BRB page 11] *emphasis mine* Scenario (just as kroak described): A model with the PF rule is situated in a supporting rank. When rolling To Hit with its supporting attack the model rolls a "6". You are now faced with a choice between: - denying the PF bonus attack (upholding the BRB supporting attacks rule and violating the AB predatory fighter rule)
- granting the PF bonus attack (upholding the AB predatory fighter rule and violating the BRB supporting attacks rule)
Those are your two choices. You either violate one rule or the other. This is a very clear conflict between rules from the BRB and a Warhammer Armies book. As per the BRB rule on page 11 "the rule printed in the Warhammer Armies book always takes precedence."
That is the way the rules are written. Now if you want to introduce RAI, then let's have a discussion about it. However, RAI seems to fall nicely inline with RAW in this instance.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 20, 2018 6:57:06 GMT
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. This is an absolute non-issue. The supporting attack rule says bonus Attacks from special rules like PF do not apply to supporting attacks. This is no different from any other rule that specifies rule X does not apply in certain circumstances. You cannot claim a conflict there, nor can you claim a conflict here. @ nightbringer: You do not seem to know what RAW is - it includes applying all of the rules. It is not because you claim there is a conflict that there really is one. It is not because ABs contain special rules, spells, magic items etc. that can raise/lower characteristic values, that ipso facto supersedes the 10/0 limitation of the BRB. It is not that because an AB allows re-rolls of failed AS or what-not, that that ipso facto supersedes the BRB rule that you cannot re-roll a re-roll, etc. etc. For that to happen, you need an explicit exemption. The same applies here. Now, I have already shown factual errors and logical fallacies in nightbringer's reasoning, as well as the fact that it renders itself absurd, because it renders the supporting attack unplayable. But there is another way, in which it renders itself absurd. It is indisputable that if the SA rule had been - he can only ever make a single Attack"
then the PF rule
- Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To H it in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack
would create a conflict and AB>BRB.
However, the BRB is actually:
- he can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of ... any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules
Now, kroak and nightbringer claim that does not change a thing, and that
- Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To H it in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack
still creates a conflict, without the need for any further specification, in which AB>BRB . Let us follow that claim to its logical conclusion: while the BRB does not have to spell out everything that is self-evident, let us do that for once anyway. It is indisputable that when the BRB speaks here about bonus Attacks from special rules, it means special rules in both the BRB and AB. Let us make that explicit in the rule:
- he can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of ... any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules [whether from the BRB or any Army Book.]
It is also indisputable that Predatory Fighter is a special rule that grants a bonus Attack from an AB. Let us make that explicit too:
- he can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of ... any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules [whether from the BRB or any Army Book, like the Predatory Fighter special rule from the Lizardmen AB.]
In the end, the logical conclusion of this is that kroak and nighbringer must either agree that the supporting attack rule does apply to PF, or maintain that even if the BRB would not just implicitly, but explicitly state that the rule applied to PF, it still would not apply to PF, solely on the basis that it is a AB special rule that grants a bonus Attack (precisely the reason why it does apply!). Which is obviously absurd. But I do not think that will change their mind either.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Jun 20, 2018 13:07:12 GMT
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. Fact, yes. But, IMHO... skewed/biased fact. It's kinda like posting a poll result RE: "Should we heavily tax imported chocolate?" when the folks being polled were owners of Candy Factories. Or, "We polled 1,000 puppy owners and 92% of them agree Dogs are better than Cats"
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jun 20, 2018 13:40:04 GMT
I also do not think it will change their mind. It is obviously how they want to play it even if it is relatively clear in my eyes (and seemingly most peoples)
The AB vs BRB over-rule does not just automatically apply. It requires a contradiction.
The two rules are not contradictory in any way, shape or form. PF is a special rule which generates additional attacks. Supporting Attacks are limited to 1 attack regardless of "any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules". The PF rule applies to the front rank and does not include any stipulation that it works outside of the normal SA rules RAW, in the same way every other attack generating rule in the game I am aware of does not.
Do you suggest that Saurus should get 2 attacks as standard from supporting attacks because their profile is in the AB and this over-rules the BRB which limits this to 1?!
You can argue it either way RAI. Most of the rule argument threads on various forums I have read have all come to the same conclusion
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jun 20, 2018 13:42:48 GMT
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. Fact, yes. But, IMHO... skewed/biased fact. It's kinda like posting a poll result RE: "Should we heavily tax imported chocolate?" when the folks being polled were owners of Candy Factories. Or, "We polled 1,000 puppy owners and 92% of them agree Dogs are better than Cats" also lots of people on that poll were voting as "how they play it" rather than what their opinion is RAW
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 20, 2018 14:13:35 GMT
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. Fact, yes. But, IMHO... skewed/biased fact. It's kinda like posting a poll result RE: "Should we heavily tax imported chocolate?" when the folks being polled were owners of Candy Factories. Or, "We polled 1,000 puppy owners and 92% of them agree Dogs are better than Cats" I said as much in the same post (a couple of sentences down): " 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." Even the part about providing evidence on how most Lizardmen view it was made with the following caveat: "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."
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 20, 2018 14:49:05 GMT
@ nightbringer: You do not seem to know what RAW is - it includes applying all of the rules. ... Now, I have already shown factual errors and logical fallacies in nightbringer's reasoning, as well as the fact that it renders itself absurd, because it renders the supporting attack unplayable. But there is another way, in which it renders itself absurd. I would say the same of you. You seem to have little idea of how to interpret RAW. You make bold claims, but your logic is not as absolute as you make it out to be. You have not shown factual errors and logical fallacies in terms of the arguments that @kraok and myself made. Instead, you seem to dance around the facts rather than acknowledge them. You place precedence on: "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." [BRB page 49] I place precedence on: "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a Warhammer Armies book. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the Warhammer Armies book always takes precedence." [BRB page 11] You believe (based on your previous statements) that the PF rule would have to directly state that it applies to attacks made from supporting ranks, whereas I believe that the supporting attack rule would have to directly state that its limitations apply to AB rules as well. I don't view advanced>basic rules in the same light as AB>BRB rules. From the way it is written, I do believe that the supporting attacks rule accounts for and overrides advanced BRB rules. However it does not override the AB>BRB rule. On the plus side, you and I will never play a game so it makes little difference. Everyone I have encountered in person plays the rule as I have described. I suspect that in your parts the rule is played as you have described. In either case, there is no issue. That said if you wish to continue to re-hash the same arguments, I am happy to do the same. A battle of attrition!
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Jun 20, 2018 15:19:17 GMT
That said if you wish to continue to re-hash the same arguments, I am happy to do the same. A battle of attrition! Continues popping popcorn. I am loving the sporting nature of this. ~Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Jun 20, 2018 15:20:47 GMT
It's like watching a block of 60 zombies with no characters fight a block of 60 Tomb King archers with no characters over a 12-turn game. Sure, a few die. The wizards keep making more miniatures. It's endless.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 20, 2018 15:42:46 GMT
It's like watching a block of 60 zombies with no characters fight a block of 60 Tomb King archers with no characters over a 12-turn game. Sure, a few die. The wizards keep making more miniatures. It's endless. Well, we got the Hellcannon debate up to 9 pages... something to shoot for I suppose!
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 20, 2018 16:04:35 GMT
I would say the same of you. You seem to have little idea of how to interpret RAW.&nb You make bold claims, but your logic is not as absolute as you make it out to be. You have not shown factual errors and logical fallacies in terms of the arguments that @kraok and myself made. Instead, you seem to dance around the facts rather than acknowledge them. You would say that, but, contrary to you, I can proof my case. As one example of factual errors: you made these three claims a couple of posts earlier: - 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 first two of which are patently incorrect. Funnily enough, in the post right before yours, I had actually given examples of BRB rules overriding the supporting attacks rule. What does that tell us?
As examples of logical fallacy, I have shown that you make the erroneous assumption that, because supporting attacks are Attacks, Attacks are supporting attacks, or that the application of your position makes the rule unplayable. Well, you say that you do not view advanced>basic rules in the same light as AB>BRB rules. Why? What is the difference? What do you base that on?
The crux of the problem is that you invoke conflict, where none is necessary and, certainly, where none is specified, and then wave BRB p. 11 as a magic wand. BRb p. 11 also contains this "Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise." And the key words here are unless specifically stated otherwise. Byzantine meandrings and mental acrobatics do not come into it.
Let us take the Mage-Priest Palanquin special rule, which is the perfect example to illustrate your way of reasoning.
The BRB rule reads: "no single dice can be re-rolled more than once, regardless of the source of the re-roll." The MPP special rule reads: "Models with this special rule can always re-roll failed Dangerous Terrain tests."
In my way of reasoning, for a conflict to exist and supersede the basic rule, it must be specifically stated. Since the MPP special rule does not specifically state you can re-roll re-rolls, you cannot.
In your way of reasoning, because the special rule says "can always re-roll," this creates a conflict with the BRB, and AB>BRB. Thus, models with that special rule can keep on re-rolling failed Dangerous Terrain test, until they finally succeed.
Same thing for the DE Murderous Prowess rule, and other similar rules. And suddenly, it is not "rare occasions anymore" where the BRB conflicts with the AB, but it becomes more of the rule.
I doubt that, with the possible exception of kroak, many will agree to that kind of reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 20, 2018 20:14:36 GMT
I would say the same of you. You seem to have little idea of how to interpret RAW.&nb You make bold claims, but your logic is not as absolute as you make it out to be. You have not shown factual errors and logical fallacies in terms of the arguments that @kraok and myself made. Instead, you seem to dance around the facts rather than acknowledge them. You would say that, but, contrary to you, I can proof my case. As one example of factual errors: you made these three claims a couple of posts earlier: - 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 first two of which are patently incorrect. Funnily enough, in the post right before yours, I had actually given examples of BRB rules overriding the supporting attacks rule. What does that tell us?
As examples of logical fallacy, I have shown that you make the erroneous assumption that, because supporting attacks are Attacks, Attacks are supporting attacks, or that the application of your position makes the rule unplayable. Well, you say that you do not view advanced>basic rules in the same light as AB>BRB rules. Why? What is the difference? What do you base that on?
The crux of the problem is that you invoke conflict, where none is necessary and, certainly, where none is specified, and then wave BRB p. 11 as a magic wand. BRb p. 11 also contains this "Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise." And the key words here are unless specifically stated otherwise. Byzantine meandrings and mental acrobatics do not come into it.
Let us take the Mage-Priest Palanquin special rule, which is the perfect example to illustrate your way of reasoning.
The BRB rule reads: "no single dice can be re-rolled more than once, regardless of the source of the re-roll." The MPP special rule reads: "Models with this special rule can always re-roll failed Dangerous Terrain tests."
In my way of reasoning, for a conflict to exist and supersede the basic rule, it must be specifically stated. Since the MPP special rule does not specifically state you can re-roll re-rolls, you cannot.
In your way of reasoning, because the special rule says "can always re-roll," this creates a conflict with the BRB, and AB>BRB. Thus, models with that special rule can keep on re-rolling failed Dangerous Terrain test, until they finally succeed.
Same thing for the DE Murderous Prowess rule, and other similar rules. And suddenly, it is not "rare occasions anymore" where the BRB conflicts with the AB, but it becomes more of the rule.
I doubt that, with the possible exception of kroak, many will agree to that kind of reasoning.
"You would say that, but, contrary to you, I can proof my case."No, you present your interpretation and misconstrue it as infallible proof. Both kroak and I have presented plenty of evidence but you pretend that only your viewpoint is valid. I suspect this type of bullying tactic has served you well in your past games, but it will not work with me. "the first two of which are patently incorrect. Funnily enough, in the post right before yours, I had actually given examples of BRB rules overriding the supporting attacks rule. What does that tell us?" It probably tells us that your examples were not very good or already disproved. BRB rules like "Extra Attack", BRB spells that grant bonus attacks, Frenzy, etc cannot override the supporting attacks rule (because of the "or any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects." segment of the supporting attacks rule). The only instance where the BRB modifies the supporting attacks rule is the one for unit type, specifically monstrous infantry/cavalry. This is pretty well known and not really pertinent to our discussion. "Well, you say that you do not view advanced>basic rules in the same light as AB>BRB rules. Why? What is the difference? What do you base that on?"
A fair question. "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." The highlighted section of the supporting attacks rule effectively details that advanced rules cannot increase the number of supporting attacks beyond one. However it does nothing to negate the AB>BRB rule of: "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a Warhammer Armies book. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the Warhammer Armies book always takes precedence." As a result we end up back at the situation where you must violate one rule or another (BRB vs. AB): A model with the PF rule is situated in a supporting rank. When rolling To Hit with its supporting attack the model rolls a "6". You are now faced with a choice between: - denying the PF bonus attack (upholding the BRB supporting attacks rule and violating the AB predatory fighter rule)
- granting the PF bonus attack (upholding the AB predatory fighter rule and violating the BRB supporting attacks rule)
"The crux of the problem is that you invoke conflict, where none is necessary and, certainly, where none is specified, and then wave BRB p. 11 as a magic wand. BRb p. 11 also contains this "Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise." And the key words here are unless specifically stated otherwise. Byzantine meandrings and mental acrobatics do not come into it."kroak and I have both painstakingly detailed the conflict. But if you wish to read it again I can repeat it again and again and again... A model with the PF rule is situated in a supporting rank. When rolling To Hit with its supporting attack the model rolls a "6". You are now faced with a choice between: - denying the PF bonus attack (upholding the BRB supporting attacks rule and violating the AB predatory fighter rule)
- granting the PF bonus attack (upholding the AB predatory fighter rule and violating the BRB supporting attacks rule)
Stating that a model with PF rolling a 6 To Hit in CC is specifically stating otherwise. The only mental aerobics being done is your vain attempt to deny that fact. "The MPP special rule reads: "Models with this special rule can always re-roll failed Dangerous Terrain tests."
In my way of reasoning, for a conflict to exist and supersede the basic rule, it must be specifically stated. Since the MPP special rule does not specifically state you can re-roll re-rolls, you cannot.
In your way of reasoning, because the special rule says "can always re-roll," this creates a conflict with the BRB, and AB>BRB. Thus, models with that special rule can keep on re-rolling failed Dangerous Terrain test, until they finally succeed."
I don't need to apply your reasoning to understand how that rule should be played. Never once did I read that rule and think I could make endless re-rolls of failed dangerous terrain tests. I admit that it is a strangely worded rule, but it takes some serious lack of common sense and a heavy effort in rules-lawyering to come to your conclusion. Without applying the no rerolling rerolls rule, it is blatantly obvious that the "always" in the rule applies to all situations from which a dangerous terrain test is taken and not always as in endless re-rolls. "I doubt that, with the possible exception of kroak, many will agree to that kind of reasoning."If that was anymore of the a strawman argument they would credit you in the Wizard of Oz!
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Jun 20, 2018 20:30:25 GMT
In all fairness I think he's got a point with the the Palanquin argument. If your point is AB rules always trump BRB rules then why can't a rerolled dice be rerolled infinitely? The only thing preventing it is a general rule in the BRB.
If AB trumps BRB then it doesn't doesn't happen.
There are a number of ways back rank models might get extra attacks. We've mentioned red fury. Death Frenzy for an additional example is a seventh ed spell that was written before supporting attacks was a rule. Not sure of the exact wording but suspect it has a generic +2 attacks rule. Various army books have magic weapons that add attacks to characters. All of these would arguably allow AB trumps BRB arguments to allow second rank models to conduct more then 1 attack a model. I don't think it's the intent in those cases under 8th ed to allow extra attacks.
I didn't actually do the Direwolf submission to the lizardmen but I know this question was highly debated during 8th ed.
It's fair to say we aren't going to come to a definitive answer. For most of the North East USA GT's as I recall we used a PF only effects front rank approach. Easiest way to operationalize this is to roll front rank separately from the rest.
But you two aren't going to play each other any time soon. Is it worth debating it?
Gary
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 20, 2018 20:50:51 GMT
It's fair to say we aren't going to come to a definitive answer. For most of the North East USA GT's as I recall we used a PF only effects front rank approach. Easiest way to operationalize this is to roll front rank separately from the rest. But you two aren't going to play each other any time soon. Is it worth debating it? Gary We are in full agreement that a definitive answer will not be discovered. This issue could not be settled during the age of WFB and it sure as heck won't be solved now that the game is dead. How people choose to play it is up to them and those they play with. The choices are simple: - decide to allow bonus PF attacks from supporting ranks
- decide to disallow bonus PF attacks from supporting ranks
- roll-off to see which way to play the rule
- avoid playing a player whom with which you are unable to agree
I think it is blatantly obvious that FvonSigmaringen and I will never under any circumstances play a game together. If we were the last two WFB players alive, that would signify the full and final death of this beloved game. As for if it is still worth debating... wilsonthenarc has already stated that he is preparing his popcorn for the festivities. I would hate to disappoint.
|
|