|
Post by airjamy on Oct 16, 2018 12:02:55 GMT
So, i am pretty interested in how this great debate is "solved" on this forum, as we will never get an FAQ from GW on the subject. The question is: do you get predatory fighter bonus attacks if those attacks come from supporting attacks? Predatory fighter is the Lizardmen rule that states that when a model with this special rule hits on a 6, he gets to perform an additional attack (that can not generate more attacks). The BRB however, states that supporting attackers can only ever make one attack. The question here is if armybook supercedes BRB in this case, or if this was never intended like this to work in the first place. I can remember debating this to no end back in the day, with in the end personally arriving to the conclusion that you cannot do this as WFB 8th is a permissive ruleset, meaning that you do not get to do something unless it is specifically stated that you get to do it, but i am open for other opinions. Does anybody know of any statement of GW made on this? Extensive lizardmen forum discussion to be found here: www.lustria-online.com/threads/predatory-fighter-supporting-attacks.12270/
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Oct 16, 2018 12:16:49 GMT
There is already a lengthy thread on this forum as well: eefl.freeforums.net/thread/1087/rules-query-predatory-fighterThe bottom line remains: Ruleswise, this is a clear cut case. As Horace indicated, the BRB p. 49 specifies: "To represent this, he can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on his profile, or any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects" (Italics mine). Predatory Fighter is a special rule, and does not contain an exemption to the basic rule. Therefore the basic rule applies. Opponents to this can argue that the writer of the rule must have intended it differently, but have in fact no valid argument to back that up. That said, if you and your opponent agree to play it differently, feel free to do so.
|
|
|
Post by airjamy on Oct 16, 2018 12:33:45 GMT
Nice, thanks! Did not find it in my own search, but pretty nice to read how this thing was finally resolved.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Oct 16, 2018 15:31:26 GMT
Nice, thanks! Did not find it in my own search, but pretty nice to read how this thing was finally resolved. Well it’s resolved here in a clear cut way but I guarantee that players will still argue this again and again. It seems to be one of those items that gets a very heated debates going every time.
|
|
|
Post by airjamy on Oct 16, 2018 19:50:07 GMT
Nice, thanks! Did not find it in my own search, but pretty nice to read how this thing was finally resolved. Well it’s resolved here in a clear cut way but I guarantee that players will still argue this again and again. It seems to be one of those items that gets a very heated debates going every time. I felt as if it always ended in a "well we will wait on the FAQ for a final decision". Now we know we will never get that, and that makes this forum pretty much the most high level confirmation anyone is going to get.
|
|
|
Post by livewaaaaagh on Nov 12, 2018 14:15:34 GMT
Just wanted to point out that I just played a game with Tomb Kings vs Skaven with rahotep75 and in one instance, my Tomb Guard had been buffed with the Incantation of Smiting spell (+1 attack) and I incorrectly thought it applied to every model able to attack. He corrected me and said only the front rank would get it, because supporting attacks are only 1. So simply adding another example of a similar spell or special rule, in which the back rank will still get 1 attack, regardless of current effects.
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Nov 12, 2018 23:22:22 GMT
While I agree that PF should not apply to supporting attacks, it's not that big a deal statistically*. If someone demands it be allowed, I'll not argue over it.
*Let's take the biggest unit you're every likely to see, a horde of 40 Saurus with spears. That's 51 attacks, presuming a champion is present. So if every model may make a PF attack on a 6, that's 8.5 extra attacks for the whole unit. Against a typical WS3 T3 5+ save unit, that's 4.25 hits, 2.8 wounds, 2.3 models killed. Annoying, yes but unlikely to be decisive in most circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 5, 2019 5:50:44 GMT
Nice, thanks! Did not find it in my own search, but pretty nice to read how this thing was finally resolved. Similar to the discussion over in Lustria, it was never resolved. Just a back and forth discussion argument, with each side declaring the stance of the other to be folly. This is best discussed and agreed upon in a smaller setting (gaming group, among friends, etc). There will never be a universal resolution. My viewpoint continues to be that the Predatory Fighter attacks can be generated and utilized by models making supporting attacks. Others can feel free to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by rahotep75 on Mar 7, 2019 0:04:34 GMT
Similar to the discussion over in Lustria, it was never resolved. Just a back and forth discussion argument, with each side declaring the stance of the other to be folly. This is best discussed and agreed upon in a smaller setting (gaming group, among friends, etc). There will never be a universal resolution. My viewpoint continues to be that the Predatory Fighter attacks can be generated and utilized by models making supporting attacks. Others can feel free to disagree. I disagree. I disagree strongly. I disagree so strongly that I honestly want to make derogatory remarks concerning your intelligence. There is absolutely NOTHING that supports your viewpoint. Predatory Fighter says: "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. Attacks generated by the Predatory Fighter special rule do not generate further Attacks. In addition, a unit that contains one or more models with this special rule can only test to restrain pursuit if there is at least one Skink character model (Skink Chief or Skink Priest, including Tehenhauin, Tetto'eko and Tiktaq'to) within 6" of the unit." Nothing about supporting attacks. Devastating Charge says: "Models with this special rule have +1 Attack during a turn in which they charge into combat." Nothing about supporting attacks. Extra Attack says: "A model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that bestows this special rule) increases his Attacks value by 1. Nothing about supporting attacks. Random Attacks says: "Models with the Random Attacks special rule do not have a normal number for their Attacks characteristic, but rather a dice roll, such as D3, D6 or D6+1. Each time a model with this special rule comes to strike blows, roll the indicated dice, adding any modifiers shown, to determine the number of attacks that the model will make, then roll to hit as normal. If a unit contains more than one model with Random Attacks, roll separately for each model, unless specified otherwise." Nothing about supporting attacks. Supporting Attacks says: "Warriors in the second rank do not sit idly by whilst their comrades battle away, but muster forward to strike blows of their own. We refer to the attacks made by these models as supporting attacks. A model can make a supporting attack if it is directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base contact, as shown in the first diagram on the right. Supporting attacks cannot be made to the side or rear. Nor can they be made by models that are in base contact with enemies - they must fight the more immediate foe. Of course, a warrior making a supporting attack is rather more constricted by the press of bodies than one who is face to face with his foe. 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. (emphasis mine) Supporting attacks are made against models in base contact with the front rank model that is being fought 'through'. If the front rank model is in base contact with two or more enemies with different profiles, the attacking player can choose which model to direct the supporting attack against (before dice are rolled)." How can the emphasized portion be unclear? Warhammer has a lot of hazy rules, that can easily be interpreted incorrectly. Supporting Attacks is not one. None of the other special rules that give models extra attack mention Supporting Attacks, because it isn't needed, since it is specifically written out in the Supporting Attacks rule. Do you incorrectly state that Witch Elves in the 2nd rank make 3 Supporting Attacks? Why not? The have a special rule that gives them Extra Attacks, and that special rule doesn't mention Supporting Attacks at all. There are three reasons why a player gets a rule wrong. Ignorance, forgetfulness, and deliberately. Those first two are forgivable, go away with experience with the game, and don't apply in your case. The last one means you are cheating.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 7, 2019 2:16:35 GMT
Similar to the discussion over in Lustria, it was never resolved. Just a back and forth discussion argument, with each side declaring the stance of the other to be folly. This is best discussed and agreed upon in a smaller setting (gaming group, among friends, etc). There will never be a universal resolution. My viewpoint continues to be that the Predatory Fighter attacks can be generated and utilized by models making supporting attacks. Others can feel free to disagree. I disagree. I disagree strongly. I disagree so strongly that I honestly want to make derogatory remarks concerning your intelligence. There is absolutely NOTHING that supports your viewpoint. There are three reasons why a player gets a rule wrong. Ignorance, forgetfulness, and deliberately. Those first two are forgivable, go away with experience with the game, and don't apply in your case. The last one means you are cheating. Easy there keyboard warrior. You really came out of the gate there with guns blazing. I certainly hope you don't start conversations like this in the real world (I'm betting you don't). It's one thing if things get heated over time, but entirely another when you start throwing insults right from the onset. The power of internet anonymity at work! Puff your chest out and you show the world how tough you are there big guy! Speaking of intelligence, you state that absolutely nothing supports my viewpoint. You haven't even heard my viewpoint. You don't even know what it is. You haven't even bothered to ask. You can't create a counter argument (especially such a bold and confident one) without first hearing and understanding the other person's argument. That's how debates and discussions work. Not to be rude, but how intelligent does that make you? In any event, you clearly don't want to have a real discussion. This has already been argued to death over at: eefl.freeforums.net/thread/1087/rules-query-predatory-fighter
|
|
|
Post by rahotep75 on Mar 7, 2019 5:16:32 GMT
I disagree. I disagree strongly. I disagree so strongly that I honestly want to make derogatory remarks concerning your intelligence. There is absolutely NOTHING that supports your viewpoint. There are three reasons why a player gets a rule wrong. Ignorance, forgetfulness, and deliberately. Those first two are forgivable, go away with experience with the game, and don't apply in your case. The last one means you are cheating. Easy there keyboard warrior. You really came out of the gate there with guns blazing. I certainly hope you don't start conversations like this in the real world (I'm betting you don't). It's one thing if things get heated over time, but entirely another when you start throwing insults right from the onset. The power of internet anonymity at work! Puff your chest out and you show the world how tough you are there big guy! Speaking of intelligence, you state that absolutely nothing supports my viewpoint. You haven't even heard my viewpoint. You don't even know what it is. You haven't even bothered to ask. You can't create a counter argument (especially such a bold and confident one) without first hearing and understanding the other person's argument. That's how debates and discussions work. Not to be rude, but how intelligent does that make you? In any event, you clearly don't want to have a real discussion. This has already been argued to death over at: eefl.freeforums.net/thread/1087/rules-query-predatory-fighter I read your position. It’s based on saying that Predatory Fighter says “additional attack” instead of +1 attack and that conflicts between special rules has the Army Book trump the Rulebook. Still wrong.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 7, 2019 6:33:05 GMT
Easy there keyboard warrior. You really came out of the gate there with guns blazing. I certainly hope you don't start conversations like this in the real world (I'm betting you don't). It's one thing if things get heated over time, but entirely another when you start throwing insults right from the onset. The power of internet anonymity at work! Puff your chest out and you show the world how tough you are there big guy! Speaking of intelligence, you state that absolutely nothing supports my viewpoint. You haven't even heard my viewpoint. You don't even know what it is. You haven't even bothered to ask. You can't create a counter argument (especially such a bold and confident one) without first hearing and understanding the other person's argument. That's how debates and discussions work. Not to be rude, but how intelligent does that make you? In any event, you clearly don't want to have a real discussion. This has already been argued to death over at: eefl.freeforums.net/thread/1087/rules-query-predatory-fighter I read your position. It’s based on saying that Predatory Fighter says “additional attack” instead of +1 attack and that conflicts between special rules has the Army Book trump the Rulebook. Still wrong. It's a bit more nuanced than that, but detailed version is better left over in the other thread. No point in repeating it here. In the end, you think I'm wrong and I think you're wrong. We're each entitled to our own interpretations. I've seen many people line up on both sides of the argument. There is no universal agreement; which is the precise point I was making in this thread. It's best to discuss it with your gaming group.
|
|
|
Post by livewaaaaagh on Mar 7, 2019 14:51:12 GMT
As a lizardmen player, I find it quite straight forward. In particular, there ware two words in the "supporting Attacks" rules that really make the difference. First the addition of the word "ever". Ever is pretty definitive. It reads as no matter what, you can never ever add extra attacks to the supporting attacks,.
And then the inclusion of the part that speaks to "special rules". PF is a special rule, and therefore eliminates the potential of any sort of question.
In the end, it's up to each person in the their gaming group. But I wouldn't allow for this if I were to play against Lizardmen. I assume, as I've said in the past with an example, the same player requesting this would allow, for example, Tomb Kings to make additinoal attacks with "Righteous Smiting" on them, and the like.
|
|
|
Post by crownprinceimrik on Mar 7, 2019 17:26:18 GMT
As another Lizardmen player I offer a counter opinion. As a preface though, I definitely agree that it's up to the gaming group. I have played it both ways before based on discussion with opponents and always make sure to ask my opponent on their interpretation prior.
My disagreement with the "ever" argument is very simply that the BRB itself contradicts that. The rule states that "he can only ever make a single Attack...". If the use of the word "ever" was the end all be all then Monstrous Infantry would only get 1 supporting attack. They have a special rule, Monstrous Support, that says they can make up to 3. That means that "ever" is not the end and does not omit special circumstance.
Monstrous Support is also a possible case study in favor of Predatory Fighter getting the supporting attacks, but it hinges on whether or not Monstrous Support is a special rule. The rules that define Unique unit types are specified as special rules, but the rules that define other troop types are just listed as particular rules, extra facets, or use normal rules in different ways depending on where you are reading them from.
For the section on special rules, I come down on the side of the classic Page 11 argument about Army Books vs the BRB. The AB states that the model must make another attack, the BRB says that it cannot. I know the standard argument against that of saying that the mandate is coming from a special rule and that it therefore doesn't apply, but the special rule is an army book special rule, so I think it supersedes the other.
My above argument continues to why Witch Elves don't get 3 attacks in the second rank, or why Righteous Smiting wouldn't grant more supporting attacks. Witch Elves get extra attacks through having the Extra Attacks special rule twice, once from Frenzy and once from Dual Hand Weapons, and Righteous Smiting gives the Extra Attacks special rule. The Extra Attacks special rule is a BRB special rule, so it is ignored.
Again, I know this is a particularly contentious debate, and I am always sure to discuss with my opponent how it will be played before I plop my Lizards down or before an opponent plops some Lizards down. I've played it both ways to avoid arguments, and really wish GW had ruled on it before 8th ended.
|
|
|
Post by livewaaaaagh on Mar 7, 2019 18:19:19 GMT
The monstrous support is an interesting point, but the rule itself says "...rather than the usual one supporting attack" so it's ruling out the supporting attack for infantry in the rule itself. I feel - and as always, this is just IMO - than if GW intended for it to be played that way, the PF rule would state something along the lines of " whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit in close combat, it immediately makes another Attack - regardless of the maximum of 1 usually allowed for supporting attacks".
To each their own as always in life!
|
|