|
Post by vulcan on Mar 7, 2019 20:49:56 GMT
Softly, my friends, softly. This is a discussion board for a hobby, no need for hostility or insults.
Yes, I know this goes against internet tradition, but surely we gamers can aspire to be better and more noble than the run-of-the-mill internet troll, yes?
As I said upthread, I think the rule is perfectly clear - no PF for supporting attacks - but it's too statistically insignificant to really stress over. Better to concede the point and figure out how to beat them anyway.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Mar 8, 2019 8:03:25 GMT
Softly, my friends, softly. This is a discussion board for a hobby, no need for hostility or insults. Yes, I know this goes against internet tradition, but surely we gamers can aspire to be better and more noble than the run-of-the-mill internet troll, yes? As I said upthread, I think the rule is perfectly clear - no PF for supporting attacks - but it's too statistically insignificant to really stress over. Better to concede the point and figure out how to beat them anyway. I couldn’t have put it better myself.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Mar 8, 2019 8:47:53 GMT
Indeed, with such a limited number of 8th players left I think we should all just get along and enjoy our hobby I would personally not allow PF supporting attacks
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Mar 8, 2019 9:44:27 GMT
Not sure why nightbringer needed to resurrect this thread after almost 5 months to make a point that could already be found in the thread I linked in the second post. But, of course, few people bother to read all posts - even in shorter threads. To add: I just noted that he has edited away now the insults against me in his penultimate post there. 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. You'll find the refutation of your argument already in detail in that previous thread. But allow me to point out here [as i did in the other thread] that the Monstrous Support rule is precisely an argument against, not in favour. "Basic rules apply to all the models in the game unless specifically stated otherwise" (BRB p.11). The Monstrous Support rule specifically states otherwise, and this conflict is resolved by advanced rule>basic rule. Note that in the case of Monstrous Cavalry and Monstrous Beasts, they only got additional Supporting Attacks after an Update Version amendement specifically stating that they do. The PF rule does not specifically state otherwise; therefore there is no conflict or contradiction, and one cannot invoke AB>BRB.
|
|
|
Post by crownprinceimrik on Mar 8, 2019 11:26:34 GMT
Not sure why nightbringer needed to resurrect this thread after almost 5 months to make a point that could already be found in the thread I linked in the second post. But, of course, few people bother to read all posts - even in shorter threads. Haha, I did read that whole thread! I think I was a few months late joining the forum to join the discussion, though.
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Mar 14, 2019 5:56:15 GMT
Softly, my friends, softly. This is a discussion board for a hobby, no need for hostility or insults. Yes, I know this goes against internet tradition, but surely we gamers can aspire to be better and more noble than the run-of-the-mill internet troll, yes? As I said upthread, I think the rule is perfectly clear - no PF for supporting attacks - but it's too statistically insignificant to really stress over. Better to concede the point and figure out how to beat them anyway. Great post, I agree on the insults/hostility and well put! In the GW where I used to play PF supporting attacks were allowed. It was only years later I saw on the internet it was such a contentious issue. I personally allow PF for supporting attacks because it makes more sense to me from a dice rolling and games master time and simplicity perspective. Like many have said it makes only a minute statistical difference. We should leave the warring to our miniatures on the battlefield. So long as the relevant parties playing the game are on the same page that's all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 17, 2019 1:38:28 GMT
Not sure why nightbringer needed to resurrect this thread after almost 5 months to make a point that could already be found in the thread I linked in the second post. www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9n0LrZWb_AFor the following reasons: - That is when I came across it
- To clarify that a resolution was not reached
- To balance the thread with the alternate side of the argument (just as you provided your interpretation in the very same post in which you linked the second post)
Not sure if your intention here is to try to pick a fight with me, but for the sake of forum positivity, I think I'll take vulcan 's advice and not further the hostility. Consider the reasons I listed above as the answer to your question.
I think everyone can agree that it is best to discuss it with their own gaming group. Go with whatever works in your own group!
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Mar 28, 2019 12:29:35 GMT
Yes discuss with your group but as far as RAW goes this IS settled as PF do NOT get any extra attacks in supporting rows.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 28, 2019 21:57:49 GMT
but as far as RAW goes this IS settled as PF do NOT get any extra attacks in supporting rows. settleverb past tense: settled; past participle: settled 1. resolve or reach an agreement about (an argument or problem). I've seen this debate unfold across three different Warhammer forums and never once have I witnessed it resolved or have had an agreement reached. You can fall on whichever side you wish, but no one can (accurately) claim that it has been settled. If a new warhammer forum popped up and this topic was raised, my point on a lack of consensus would without a doubt be vehemently illustrated yet again. No warhammer rules debate seems to be able to create such vitriol. Unless one of us falls upon enough money to buy a controlling interest in GW and put a FAQ into print, it will never be settled.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Mar 28, 2019 22:53:46 GMT
I Think it creates such vitriol because to most (I think the majority would lie here anyway) people it seems pretty clear cut. It seems to be mainly LM players who claim otherwise, and that can seem like someone just trying to gain an advantage. This is not meant as a personal dig
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Mar 28, 2019 23:45:54 GMT
but as far as RAW goes this IS settled as PF do NOT get any extra attacks in supporting rows. settleverb past tense: settled; past participle: settled 1. resolve or reach an agreement about (an argument or problem). I've seen this debate unfold across three different Warhammer forums and never once have I witnessed it resolved or have had an agreement reached. You can fall on whichever side you wish, but no one can (accurately) claim that it has been settled. If a new warhammer forum popped up and this topic was raised, my point on a lack of consensus would without a doubt be vehemently illustrated yet again. No warhammer rules debate seems to be able to create such vitriol. Unless one of us falls upon enough money to buy a controlling interest in GW and put a FAQ into print, it will never be settled. I am sorry but I have read all your post and I have seen 0 claims that actually holds any rule bearings, you may not like it , you may not want to follow it, you may not think it’s good practice regarding RAI. Regarding RAW your claim has been shut down 100%. And to follow this more, as goes for your claim that monster get free pivots, like Hellcannon. I think you have a lot of claims that have no barring a in the rule and have more barring a in how you were thought the game in a GW store. Let’s just face it your GW tutor was wrong but he still managed to do his work and make you fall in love with the game. But as we all play for fun I do agree with you that you should agree beforehand with your opponent and anyway is fun regardless and not worth discussing during game play.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 29, 2019 0:34:52 GMT
settleverb past tense: settled; past participle: settled 1. resolve or reach an agreement about (an argument or problem). I've seen this debate unfold across three different Warhammer forums and never once have I witnessed it resolved or have had an agreement reached. You can fall on whichever side you wish, but no one can (accurately) claim that it has been settled. If a new warhammer forum popped up and this topic was raised, my point on a lack of consensus would without a doubt be vehemently illustrated yet again. No warhammer rules debate seems to be able to create such vitriol. Unless one of us falls upon enough money to buy a controlling interest in GW and put a FAQ into print, it will never be settled. I am sorry but I have read all your post and I have seen 0 claims that actually holds any rule bearings, you may not like it , you may not want to follow it, you may not think it’s good practice regarding RAI. Regarding RAW your claim has been shut down 100%. And to follow this more, as goes for your claim that monster get free pivots, like Hellcannon. I think you have a lot of claims that have no barring a in the rule and have more barring a in how you were thought the game in a GW store. Let’s just face it your GW tutor was wrong but he still managed to do his work and make you fall in love with the game. But as we all play for fun I do agree with you that you should agree beforehand with your opponent and anyway is fun regardless and not worth discussing during game play. The problem with that line of thinking is that I have read all the counter arguments, and I feel that the other side has been shut down 100%. Just because you personally feel that the arguments of the other side have been shut down, does not mean that the topic has been settled. We are left with two sides that each think they are right and that the arguments of the other side are baseless/invalid/disproved. This isn't even a new occurrence because this sort of split happens each and every time. Sometimes more people fall onto one side, and sometimes more people fall onto the other side. At the moment I'm not even trying to debate which side is right or wrong (that has already been done to death over in the other thread), I'm just stating that it can't be accurately claimed that according to RAW the debate has been settled. There is no agreement or resolution on the topic, therefore, by definition it is not settled. As for the Hellcannon debate, it wasn't a GW tutor who taught me how to play the rule (although that is likely how it was most often played in stores). And to be fair, your statement would be no different than me saying that your internet forum tutor was wrong! As with the PF rule, it will never really be settled. I do have one piece of advice though: one should be wary of aggressively engaging in the hellcannon debate in real life, for the model doubles as a fairly effective bludgeoning device at a moments notice (sorry Finecast owners, this only holds true for the pewter version) [ P.S. I'M JOKING OF COURSE! ]. More seriously though and just as with the PF rule, you are free to play it as you wish.
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Mar 29, 2019 16:22:11 GMT
...It seems to be mainly LM players who claim otherwise... Well I've played it both ways now I believe the bonus attack phrase is for things like an additional hand weapon rather than a special rule, I'd still have a unit with say a frontage of 6 models having 12 attacks and 6 supporting attacks, as the rule is as I like to interpret it rolled after the initial attacks I don't see a problem statistically only 1 of these (17%) supporting attacks will generate an additional attack anyway. I mean, if you had say a Vampire (blender lord) fighting from the second rank and he wounds an enemy and therefore generates an additional attack wound this be disallowed? Sure, I now play that it does give the opportunity for an extra attack but lets be honest it's not like we're talking about a huge amount of attacks is it? Or Ripping the box out of it. 40 saurus armed with spears in a horde. 20 attacks with PF and another 30. If you had PF for the supporting ranks you could statistically expect 5 further attacks. Again, is that a lot to worry about? Greg
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Mar 29, 2019 17:38:15 GMT
It seems to be mainly LM players who claim otherwise, and that can seem like someone just trying to gain an advantage. This is not meant as a personal dig You might be correct that it is mainly Lizardmen players interpreting the rule "favorably" and the underlying motivator would be the bias of Lizardmen players. For the moment, let's accept that at face value; than it is equally true that it is mainly non-Lizardmen players ruling against it and they are just as likely to be biased and also motivated to gain an advantage (by interpreting the rule "unfavorably"). The argument works both ways and the conclusion would be that human beings are all potentially biased. Plus, as I mathematically pointed out on page 6 of the other thread, the advantage we are taking about is statistically very small.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Mar 29, 2019 18:47:08 GMT
...It seems to be mainly LM players who claim otherwise... Well I've played it both ways now I believe the bonus attack phrase is for things like an additional hand weapon rather than a special rule [...] I mean, if you had say a Vampire (blender lord) fighting from the second rank and he wounds an enemy and therefore generates an additional attack wound this be disallowed? An additional hand weapon gets a bonus attack precisely because of a special rule, in casu the "Extra Attack" special rule. Furthermore, the supporting attacks rule specifies: "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 French version states it even more clearly: par un règle special ou toute autre raison (because of a special rule or any other reason). And yes, the Vampire Lord does not get any additional supporting attacks either.
|
|