|
Post by vulcan on Jun 20, 2018 21:46:03 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!! Somehow I doubt 121 people represent the majority of all Lizardman players in the world. Even so, the point is less whether you believe that PF affects all ranks or just the front rank. The point is, how often you play it affecting all ranks vs. just the front rank.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 21, 2018 0:42:52 GMT
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!! Somehow I doubt 121 people represent the majority of all Lizardman players in the world. Even so, the point is less whether you believe that PF affects all ranks or just the front rank. The point is, how often you play it affecting all ranks vs. just the front rank. "Somehow I doubt 121 people represent the majority of all Lizardman players in the world."I literally stated just that in the very same post!!! And I quote: "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." If you have better evidence (meaning a larger sample size), then by all means please share! "Even so, the point is less whether you believe that PF affects all ranks or just the front rank. The point is, how often you play it affecting all ranks vs. just the front rank."That is an interesting point. I'm not sure how much we can actually gleam from it, but it is neat to think about. If you play in a tournament you are subject to the the TO's rulings; that one is plain and simple. In random games I think the correlation of how you think it should be played and how you actually play it would come down to the dominance of each person's personality (alpha vs. beta, extrovert vs. introvert, argumentativeness vs agreeableness, etc.). In a group setting, some form of voting/consensus might take place, although that would still be subject to the personality effects presented above. Heck, even physical stature/intimidation might play apart (psychologically of course, and without even necessarily knowing it). Either way, in terms of trying to find a community consensus, I feel it is better to consider how each person thinks the rule should be played. Otherwise, those who are a bit more meek lose their voice.
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Jun 21, 2018 4:44:21 GMT
Pah to both your long winded arguments I play it as follows. Roll all attacks together, front and behind ranks. Any PF 6's rolled generate additional attacks (including from second rank) but the number of PF bonus attacks is capped to the number of models in the front rank so it doesn't break the brb supporting attack rule. It makes the game quicker and seems fair for the LM player and opponent. It's somewhat of a middle ground between the 2 views of thought which imo enhances playability. I hate the thought of having to roll 2 sets of dice for what is effectively the same set of attacks (front an rear rank) I now withdraw and leave you to plead your respective cases before the Slann.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 21, 2018 5:05:55 GMT
Pah to both your long winded arguments A fair enough criticism
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jun 21, 2018 9:41:03 GMT
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. It is the same principle that you are trying to apply though, it is odd that you can not recognise that? Never once did I read the PF rule and think someone would try and wangle extra attacks from the supporting rank.. it comes over as a heavy effort in rules lawyering (from a Lizards player) trying to claim those extra attacks to me, when it pretty plainly states you do not get them from special rules.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 21, 2018 15:26:09 GMT
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. It is the same principle that you are trying to apply though, it is odd that you can not recognise that? Never once did I read the PF rule and think someone would try and wangle extra attacks from the supporting rank.. it comes over as a heavy effort in rules lawyering (from a Lizards player) trying to claim those extra attacks to me, when it pretty plainly states you do not get them from special rules. Really? You read the PF rule and your impression (let's call it RAI) is that it should only apply to the front rank? I'm pretty sure that rule was played the way I have suggested for quite some time (after the Lizardmen 8th edition army book release) before some rules-lawyers came around and started messing with it. When you state that it comes over as a heavy effort in rules lawyering from Lizardmen players, are you referring to the simple reading of the rule directly from the Army Book? That's precisely what I have been proposing... read the PF rule and apply it directly. Done. Now let's take a look at those extra attacks that you feel that Lizardmen player's are trying to unjustly cash in on. 5 wide Saurus with hand weapon and shield (5 supporting attacks)5 supporting attacks -> which need to roll a 6 to trigger PF -> which then need to hit (let's assume needing 4's to hit) -> which need to wound (let's assume needing 4's to wound) 5 * 1/6 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 0.21 extra wounds caused from supporting attack PF bonus (before armour saves)10 wide horde formation of Saurus with spears (20 supporting attacks)20 supporting attacks -> which need to roll a 6 to trigger PF -> which then need to hit (let's assume needing 4's to hit) -> which need to wound (let's assume needing 4's to wound) 20 * 1/6 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 0.83 extra wounds caused from supporting attack PF bonus (before armour saves)
Even in the scenario of a horde of 20 saurus spears you're talking about less than a wound BEFORE armour saves are taken. The absolute worst case scenario I can think of would be a (very seldom fielded) full horde of Kroxigors (12 supporting attacks) which would also result in 0.83 wounds, but with strength 7, armour would not be an issue in most cases. For the sake of argument let's call that 0.83 unsaved wounds (under ideal conditions with a 900 point unit). You really think that Lizardmen players around the world are working hard at rules-lawyering to earn such a meager advantage? I'd like to counter propose that Lizardmen players can read the rule as it should be correctly played and refuse to slow down the game by having to roll separate dice for supporting ranks. Why do I allow PF attacks from supporting ranks? - RAW supports it.
- RAI supports it.
- It makes for a cleaner and more efficient game.
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Jun 21, 2018 16:43:00 GMT
NIGHTBRINGER I don't know about your local community but I can tell you that your interpretation was NOT the initial response amongst GT level players and organizers. Default in our region at a high level of play was PF doesn't generate extra attacks. I'd have to dig pretty far back in archives but I'm quite sure the PF questions as submitted in the initial Direwolf FAQ submission to GW. Warhammer.org seems to be down at this point so I can't pull up that old thread. There really isn't an international lizardmen community at this point for 8th ed. So I don't think there is a community rules lawyering in favor of a specific interpretation at this point. I think you can state very strongly what _you_think_ RAW and RAI say but I'd also say it's pretty clear your interpretation of RAW and RAI are not universal even in our small community. You've had pretty clear arguments whey RAW actually argues the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 21, 2018 17:25:08 GMT
NIGHTBRINGER I don't know about your local community but I can tell you that your interpretation was NOT the initial response amongst GT level players and organizers. Default in our region at a high level of play was PF doesn't generate extra attacks. I'd have to dig pretty far back in archives but I'm quite sure the PF questions as submitted in the initial Direwolf FAQ submission to GW. Warhammer.org seems to be down at this point so I can't pull up that old thread. There really isn't an international lizardmen community at this point for 8th ed. So I don't think there is a community rules lawyering in favor of a specific interpretation at this point. I think you can state very strongly what _you_think_ RAW and RAI say but I'd also say it's pretty clear your interpretation of RAW and RAI are not universal even in our small community. You've had pretty clear arguments whey RAW actually argues the opposite. I suppose experiences vary then. Everyone I had ever spoken to in person (admittedly anecdotal) has played PF from all attacking ranks. First time I brought up the issue of disallowing supporting PF attacks with a GW manager (admittedly not an authority in any sense) he laughed it off and said it was nonsense. I don't submit any of this as evidence of how rule should be played, but rather to demonstrate how it is played in my area specifically. Ultimately I have zero insight into how your area plays it and can only speak of my experiences. If your area opposes my viewpoint and you are happy with that interpretation then play it that way. I never stated that my interpretation of RAW/RAI is universal; if it were then we wouldn't be having this rather lengthy discussion. I've always maintained that RAW is far more subjective than most people claim. The one thing that is crystal clear is that some of us on here see it one way and others see it the other way. Ultimately it will NEVER be fully settled and each side will go on thinking that their way is correct (as is the case with most internet debates). The evidence presented against my viewpoint has not be sufficient sway my mind, and the evidence I have presented has not be sufficient to sway the minds of those that started off opposed to PF from supporting ranks. In the end, it doesn't matter one bit as none/few of us well ever play a game against each other. It's a shame that GW never supplied us with FAQs with the same vigor with which they do for AoS. Like I said before, at this point is a battle of attrition and I can accept that.
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Jun 21, 2018 17:52:38 GMT
GW is more interactive with the community now then it was but to give due credit GW did do a FAQ for most (all?) of the 8th ed books and in fact did a second pass through most of them.
I know because I was part of an international group of players that were collecting common questions and collating them for GW to answer from 6th to 8th. Doesn't give me more accuracy then the next guy but I did have as good of a sense as anyone other then internal play testers on what were common questions and what GW received from us as requesting FAQ. They also looked at other sources particularly in 8th ed then just us.
We (The Direwolf FAQ team) knew GW couldn't devote attention to answering all the questions we could have asked so we did cull questions where RAW was (should have been) clear. Otherwise a real non answered by RAW question would get missed.
If you posit RAW definitely says X as you did in the post I was responding to you aren't implying you recognize your interpretation isn't universal.
Having watched rules debates like this for 20 years on the internet about Warhammer the answer often is who knows. . .and who cares. If you've got a vibrant local WFB community that currently plays it one way more power to them. The rules are less important then having fun. Of course very very few of us have a vibrant local community so it really doesn't matter that much.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 21, 2018 18:49:38 GMT
"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. Thank you, that gave me a good laugh. I see: giving relevant quotes and logical reasoning, which you have not been able to refute is bullying. We can immediately demonstrate this, while addressing you next point here: "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. You yourself brought up the claim that “A BRB rule cannot override the BRB supporting attacks rule. “ Now, this is my post immediately before the one in which you make this claim: 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. So, these examples are somehow “not very good or already disproved” or “not really pertinent” to the claim that ““A BRB rule cannot override the BRB supporting attacks rule? “ And if it is pretty well known, why make a claim that is immediately disproved by it? What does that tell us? It must be one of these: - You did not read the post - You did read it, but did not grasp its significance - You did read it, grasped the significance, but chose to ignore it. "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. Which you failed to to answer, because the following “longwinded argument” (to borrow granmasterwangs phrase): "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)
does not answer the question at all. "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. How does “Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To H it in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack” specifically state it overrules the supporting attack rule? It does not. You are welcome to argue that it is implied, but it is clearly not specifically stated, since there is no reference whatsoever to the supporting attack rule. To quote here the BRB’s example on p.11: "Where rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take Panic test under certain situations. If, however, that model has a rule that makes it Immune to Panic, then it does not test for Panic — the advanced rule takes precedence." Now, THAT is a specifically stated contradiction. "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. Very well, do not apply my reasoning. But your reasoning leads exactly to the outcome of endless re-rolls, and you have not answered why your reasoning should not apply here? I cannot fail to notice that you have not answered gjnoronh, when he brought it up: 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. and that when Horace brought it up: [quote source="/post/21832/thread" timestamp="1529525676" It is the same principle that you are trying to apply though, it is odd that you can not recognise that? Never once did I read the PF rule and think someone would try and wangle extra attacks from the supporting rank.. it comes over as a heavy effort in rules lawyering (from a Lizards player) trying to claim those extra attacks to me, when it pretty plainly states you do not get them from special rules. you did give another “long-winded argument” to his second remark, but you failed again to address his main point. So, again, since you yourself admit that the application of your reasoning in the MPP special rule shows “some serious lack of common sense and a heavy effort in rules-lawyering”, then why should that not be the case of PF? "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! You may very well disagree, but how on earth is that a strawman argument? I guess, in the Wizard of Oz they would not credit you for logic, but for simple attrition.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 21, 2018 19:21:29 GMT
GW is more interactive with the community now then it was but to give due credit GW did do a FAQ for most (all?) of the 8th ed books and in fact did a second pass through most of them. I know because I was part of an international group of players that were collecting common questions and collating them for GW to answer from 6th to 8th. Doesn't give me more accuracy then the next guy but I did have as good of a sense as anyone other then internal play testers on what were common questions and what GW received from us as requesting FAQ. They also looked at other sources particularly in 8th ed then just us. We (The Direwolf FAQ team) knew GW couldn't devote attention to answering all the questions we could have asked so we did cull questions where RAW was (should have been) clear. Otherwise a real non answered by RAW question would get missed. If you posit RAW definitely says X as you did in the post I was responding to you aren't implying you recognize your interpretation isn't universal. Having watched rules debates like this for 20 years on the internet about Warhammer the answer often is who knows. . .and who cares. If you've got a vibrant local WFB community that currently plays it one way more power to them. The rules are less important then having fun. Of course very very few of us have a vibrant local community so it really doesn't matter that much. "to give due credit GW did do a FAQ for most (all?) of the 8th ed books and in fact did a second pass through most of them."Not really. The 8th edition books of High Elves, Lizardmen, Dark Elves, Dwarfs and Wood Elves did not receive a FAQ. In addition Bretonnia, Skaven and Beastmen never even received an 8th Edition book. Add that together and it is a pretty poor showing for GW. I believe their last FAQ release was in April of 2013 and their last army book (Wood Elves) was released in May 2014. GW did release an End Times specific FAQ, but that was a completely different matter. Instead of that god awful End Times, I would have much more appreciated that they complete army books for the final 3 armies and released one last final & complete FAQ for the game. "If you posit RAW definitely says X as you did in the post I was responding to you aren't implying you recognize your interpretation isn't universal."I do believe that RAW supports my argument as I stated in my post, however I do not for one second believe that everyone feels this way. Additionally, my primary antagonist in this debate always presents his viewpoint as an absolute objective reality, so one is essentially forced to fight fire with fire. "Having watched rules debates like this for 20 years on the internet about Warhammer the answer often is who knows. . .and who cares."In that we can agree. I don't think anyone on either side will lose sleep over it. I know full well that my antagonist will never be won over, but I shall meet him in battle none the less!
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Jun 21, 2018 19:46:50 GMT
14 armies 5 without FAQ. 3 armies with old books who received a start of 8th FAQ. 6 of 11 or 9/14 depending on how you count it received a FAQ. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'most' they did better at the start of 8th then the end of 8th. Worse then I recall though I'll admit. There were not a lot of resources on the rules design team in 8th. Same guys designing and playtesting books in pipeline were also the ones we were talking to about answering FAQs.
They did specifically mid 8th ask us to take a second pass through the old books.
Admittedly just BRB revisions on Spirit Leach and Unmodified leadership probably took a lot of energy we had a lot of variations on that response. You do seem to be ignoring FvonSigmaren's last post though. Again I think he's got excellent points on this issue, and I don't by any means always agree with him.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jun 21, 2018 20:57:58 GMT
"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. Thank you, that gave me a good laugh. I see: giving relevant quotes and logical reasoning, which you have not been able to refute is bullying. We can immediately demonstrate this, while addressing you next point here: "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. You yourself brought up the claim that “A BRB rule cannot override the BRB supporting attacks rule. “ Now, this is my post immediately before the one in which you make this claim: 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. So, these examples are somehow “not very good or already disproved” or “not really pertinent” to the claim that ““A BRB rule cannot override the BRB supporting attacks rule? “ And if it is pretty well known, why make a claim that is immediately disproved by it? What does that tell us? It must be one of these: - You did not read the post - You did read it, but did not grasp its significance - You did read it, grasped the significance, but chose to ignore it. "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. Which you failed to to answer, because the following “longwinded argument” (to borrow granmasterwangs phrase): "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)
does not answer the question at all. "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. How does “Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To H it in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack” specifically state it overrules the supporting attack rule? It does not. You are welcome to argue that it is implied, but it is clearly not specifically stated, since there is no reference whatsoever to the supporting attack rule. To quote here the BRB’s example on p.11: "Where rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take Panic test under certain situations. If, however, that model has a rule that makes it Immune to Panic, then it does not test for Panic — the advanced rule takes precedence." Now, THAT is a specifically stated contradiction. "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. Very well, do not apply my reasoning. But your reasoning leads exactly to the outcome of endless re-rolls, and you have not answered why your reasoning should not apply here? I cannot fail to notice that you have not answered gjnoronh, when he brought it up: 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. and that when Horace brought it up: [quote source="/post/21832/thread" timestamp="1529525676" It is the same principle that you are trying to apply though, it is odd that you can not recognise that? Never once did I read the PF rule and think someone would try and wangle extra attacks from the supporting rank.. it comes over as a heavy effort in rules lawyering (from a Lizards player) trying to claim those extra attacks to me, when it pretty plainly states you do not get them from special rules. you did give another “long-winded argument” to his second remark, but you failed again to address his main point. So, again, since you yourself admit that the application of your reasoning in the MPP special rule shows “some serious lack of common sense and a heavy effort in rules-lawyering”, then why should that not be the case of PF? "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! You may very well disagree, but how on earth is that a strawman argument? I guess, in the Wizard of Oz they would not credit you for logic, but for simple attrition. "Thank you, that gave me a good laugh. I see: giving relevant quotes and logical reasoning, which you have not been able to refute is bullying."You're welcome. It's only fair since your arguments have been making me laugh this entire thread! As for the bullying, it is the way in which you present your arguments and dismiss those of others. I would hope that you understand that is issue is not with quotes or reasoning. I already called you out on your underhanded debating tactics (your quotes in red, my reply in green): "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.
I noticed you never acknowledged this. Maybe you don't notice how it comes across or maybe you simply don't care. I can see how you might be able to bully your point through with other people, but I'm happy to fight fire with fire. We can keep this debate clean and respectful or turn it into a s#$ show. I've been taking my cues from your attitude and admittedly responding in kind. "You yourself brought up the claim that
“A BRB rule cannot override the BRB supporting attacks rule. “
Now, this is my post immediately before the one in which you make this claim:"
"So, these examples are somehow “not very good or already disproved” or “not really pertinent” to the claim that ““A BRB rule cannot override the BRB supporting attacks rule? “ And if it is pretty well known, why make a claim that is immediately disproved by it?
What does that tell us? It must be one of these:
- You did not read the post
- You did read it, but did not grasp its significance
- You did read it, grasped the significance, but chose to ignore it. "I didn't think I needed to hold your hand through the debate, but here we go. If it helps you understand it better then change the "A BRB rule cannot override the BRB supporting attacks rule." to "A BRB rule cannot override the BRB supporting attacks rule as it pertains to this debate (meaning BRB special rules such as frenzy, extra attack, etc)". I figured you had the capacity to understand that the statement was made in relation to this debate. The only BRB rule that overrules the supporting attacks rule is that of unit type, but outside of the transformation of Kadon (and even that doesn't change the model to a pertinent unit type), unit type is stable so it can't be changed by some effect or special rule mid-game. As such it doesn't fit with the rest of our discussion. I tried to clarify this for you, but you underhandedly try to misrepresent it as you did above. What does this tell us you ask? It tells us that you either can't seem to follow along, or the more likely, you are trying to deliberately misdirect the point I am trying to make. Are we to start ripping into grammar and spelling next? I hope it is clear to you now. "Which you failed to to answer, because the following “longwinded argument” (to borrow granmasterwangs phrase):"Please do not misconstrue your inability to understand as my failure to answer it. You are free to disagree with the answer, but don't make false claims. "How does “Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To H it in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack” specifically state it overrules the supporting attack rule? It does not. You are welcome to argue that it is implied, but it is clearly not specifically stated, since there is no reference whatsoever to the supporting attack rule." This must be honestly like the 10th time that kroak or myself have tried to explain this to you. No matter which way you play the PF rule, you invalidate one rule or the other (meaning that one rule is being violated or modified). Keep in mind that you don't need for it to specifically reference to the supporting attack rule in the PF rule. All you need is a conflict, as per: "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." "Very well, do not apply my reasoning. But your reasoning leads exactly to the outcome of endless re-rolls, and you have not answered why your reasoning should not apply here? I cannot fail to notice that you have not answered gjnoronh, when he brought it up:" "and that when Horace brought it up:"First off I did answer it, I suggest you re-read my reply. Secondly, the funny thing is that it is a moot point anyways. RAW doesn't really care if it causes problems. Rules as written are rules as they are written. So you can bring up instances where RAW causes problems, but that doesn't actually alter the way the rules are written. Luckily I have RAI for such instances, but from your past discussions, that doesn't seem to be a tool that you possess or are able to accurately employ. "You may very well disagree, but how on earth is that a strawman argument? I guess, in the Wizard of Oz they would not credit you for logic, but for simple attrition."Simple. You present an argument as if it was mine (when in fact it is something that you have constructed yourself or misconstrued from my statement) and then proceed to debunk it. Then you state that others will agree with your logical reasoning which you present as an invalidation of my original argument. That is literally a strawman argument.
|
|
|
Post by Naitsabes on Jun 21, 2018 21:40:01 GMT
This reads like the good old day. let's try and beat 20+ pages (which is how long predatory fighter threads used to go)
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 21, 2018 22:04:41 GMT
I could refute every of nightbringer's points in detail, but that would be without use, because his is a game of attrition, not of argument. So, I'll suffice with again noticing that nightbringer (nomen est omen) in yet another long-winded post still has not answered the simple question:
Since you yourself admit that the application of your reasoning in the MPP special rule shows “some serious lack of common sense and a heavy effort in rules-lawyering”, then why should that not be the case of PF?
|
|