I keep seeing on these boards people saying PF doesn't work in supporting ranks, but on page 11 of the Warhammer Rulebook it specifically says that it does. How do I mean? Well "When rules apply to a specific model, they always override contradicting basic rules." It then specifically goes on to say the army book always takes precedence. So why is there any argument? Predatory fighter says "Whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6 to hit in combat" it then lists the one circumstance when that doesn't apply. Seems very clear the PF works on every attack, including support attacks. You can't argue they aren't CC because that would open shooting and casting spells on the back ranks for the same reason. Tiqtaq'To is more of an arguable topic because it never says he can join a unit, it just refers to the "other terradons in his unit". I am not sure why else that line would be in there, but since it does not specifically allow it, you can argue either way. So what is the argument against predatory fighter for supporting ranks? Because that is not at all ambiguous. I think sometimes people go out of their way to hamper themselves in the sake of "fairness" and break important rules to do it.
About every single time people "argue" for predatory fighter to not work in supporting ranks, the answer is provided alongside the post. It is stated under supporting attacks, that a model cannot perform more then 1 supporting attacks, regardless of attacks on it's profile, and/or any other attacks provided to it by any unusual special rules. I don't have the book on me, and i'm not going to find it just to find you the page nr, but look it up. There is no arguing here, or at least there shouldn't be, you are right, that there is no ambiguity, the rules state absurdly clear that you cannot garner attacks from the second rank.
I read that rule. I also read the rule on page 11 that says to ignore it. Army book wins. For supporting attacks it does not say "Special rules from the army book" it says"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". Page 134 "in a ONE-OFF contradiction to the principle stated under basic and advanced rules (see page 11), the system included here replaces and takes precedence over whatever system is printed in your Warhammer Armies book." You cannot argue "they meant this" because we are just looking at the wording based in the books. They can put out a FAQ to clarify this (and it will probably swing in your favor) but page 134 sets up the argument against p 49. "There is no arguing here, or at least there shouldn't be, you are right, that there is no ambiguity, the rules state absurdly clear that you cannot garner attacks from the second rank." -This is not meant to troll, or to gain bonuses for my army that somehow make them overpowered. This argument is based entirely on the rules and wording set for by Gameworkshop. They set forth the statement on p11 and then clarified on p134 (which they did not use the same wording on p49). Is it rule lawyering? Yes. But in this case the rules are on the side of the army book. They need a FAQ out for this and several other rules, and until they do, there will be arguments.
An FAQ would be a godsend, I don't think either argument can be called ironclad, else there would not be so much controversy. This is why lawyers have jobs, rules are never perfect. But great arguments on both ends regarding PF. What sort of noise must be made to get GW to make an FAQ?
Huh, what is the "exception" on p134? Can't find it (the big rule book or little one?). If a certain rules has special text granting it exemption to a base rule, then that doubly re-enforces that PF never gives bonus attacks to ranks, as PF would ALSO have received special exemption text if it were meant to. The answer for now is pretty clear...
For page 134? I quoted it word for word from the rulebook. It says that there is only one rule in the book that is not contradicted by the Warhammer Armies book (that rule is building your army). The PF rule says every attack except PF attacks. Not every attack except supporting attacks. Not additional attacks to only the front rank. Since advanced rules trump basic rules, PF works on every attack. Just to point out, once again, for supporting attacks the rulebook says no special rules, it does not say it counters the armies rulebook. If it overrules the armies book model rule, it would specifically state that (as in the case of army building). Therefore EVERY close combat attack gets predatory fighter
Thing is there is no contradiction. rulebook basicly says u cant have any more than one attack from supporting rank models. not from A values, special rules etc. it doesnt matter if it foesnt specifically state armybook there. when it says special rules, i means special rules from everything. PF rule just says u get extra attacks. no contradiction. imo the rule could not be more clear. also theres already like 3 threads about this issue.
Opposing Argument: It says no special rule. It is very clear. My Argument: Yes, that basic rule is clear, but Advanced Rules override basic rules, or they must specifically clarify that the basic rule wins Opposing Argument: They don't have to make that clarification, they say NO SPECIAL RULES My argument: They DO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION! On building your army they state that it is a ONE TIME breaking of the advanced rule over basic rule. Page 11 of the rulebook allows predatory fighter to get an extra attack if they roll a 6 on every attack. Since supporting attacks are part of "every attack" the advanced rule allows an extra attack if the PF model rolls a 6 on a supporting attack. Sorry for caps, but it seems like people say the same thing over and over without actually reading that I have countered that argument with the exact wording of the rulebook.
Yes, we're reading what you are saying. Basic vs advanced only comes into play when the rules are in conflict. The BSB says to IGNORE special rules. The Army book wound need to address special rules being ignored. Their are no conflicts between the Ignore clause and the rule, so the rule is ignored for supporting attacks. I would guess that the original writer might have wanted it to work in the back ranks, but as is often the case, the army book writers don't know the rules all that well. -Matt
When I reread this post it comes off as sarcasm. I am not being sarcastic, just trying to clarify others' positions (at this point I think I have lost the argument). So, the actual argument is that by saying every attack (which I think to mean every attack), it means only attacks in the front rank. There are no other attacks in close combat except front rank and supporting ranks, right? If it wanted supporting attacks it would have to specifically address them by saying every attack, including supporting attacks? Just off reading it I would never have assumed that. I thought every attack in close combat was pretty clear to mean every attack (contradicting the supporting rule). This is why I was/am confused. I reiterate that they need a FAQ for all the people like me who read "every attack" as including every attack. I am new to Warhammer and was playing with the PF rule only front rank until I read the side note on p134, which I thought was some groundbreaking discovery.
Just feels wrong that Krox wouldn't get any benefit from the rule when in a unit of skinks, but the whole unit get affected by the negative side of the rule.
I"m pretty sure most people are of the opinion that it was intended that PF works for all attacks from all ranks, much like it was intended that Tiktaq-to could join units of Terradons. Unfortunately GW doesn't staff any editors, or apparently anyone that plays Fantasy enough to know all the rules... or any play testers... The BRB rule on "only 1 supporting attack is allowed, ever, no matter what. There are no special cases that can allow more than 1 (or 3 for Monsterous things)" is pretty specific. The PF rule would have really required a clause such as "...even models making supporting attacks make an additional attack" in order to AB>BRB that specific limitation. It sucks. And we haven't seen a FAQ in almost a full year so I'm not excited about the possibility of there ever being a new FAQ. My thought (hope?) is that there is a 9th Edition book floating around GW and has been for a little while, and those rules don't have some of these limitations (maybe Supporting Attacks are no longer limited, maybe Characters can join Flying units...) so instead of putting out a FAQ, GW is just waiting to release a new rule book that will solve all these questions. Or maybe GW just doesn't care.
Hey Markhaus, Let me say to begin with that I applaud anyone who brings up rules issues like this and those who participate in a reasoned and calm discussion even when there is strong disagreement. So, good you and any other people in this thread who are being even keeled and not devolving into personal attacks. Sadly, good behavior on the internet is rare. It's nice to see it here. I'll also say this if this post or any subsequent replies come across as aggressive, insulting, or personal, I truly don't mean for them too. Sometimes I find myself at a loss for just the right words and in my exasperation I can seem to have a different tone than I meant. So, ok, that's said. Now, on we go. I'm thinking (again, no offense) that your view is what it is due to missing what it means for there to be a conflict. Combine this with GW's historical lack of consistency and it's easy to see how this question can come up so...Frequently. As others have pointed out, there is no conflict and, very importantly, even if there seems to be on some level, it's been resolved ahead of time by the BRB. I'll come back to that in a moment, but first I want to try another approach. Maybe we can start at the top, break it up into little pieces, and see where your view diverges from mine (and others). For the moment, just to avoid having to repeat it over and over again, let's assume we are not talking about Monstrous anything. I know the rules grant up to 3 Attacks for Monstrous support, but that can get wordy if we have to say it again and again despite us talking about non-monstrous stuff in the normal (non-Krox) case. - The main rules tell us that Supporting Attacks are capped at 1. - The main rules tell us that this cap is not broken for any reason, be it a Special Rule or other source (for example, Spells) - The main rules tell us that when there is conflict between the main rules and advanced or army book rules, that the advanced or army book rules win out. So far I really would like to believe we are all in violent agreement. - Predatory Fighter is a rule found in the Lizardmen army book. - Predatory Fighter is a Special Rule. - The Predatory Fighter Special Rule grants additional Attacks under specific circumstances. I bet we're still together, right? - There is nothing within the Predatory Fighter Special Rule that says these Attacks are an exception to the rules for Supporting Attacks, which cap at 1 Attack. - It's possible to think that yes, indeed, the models in the second (and third or fourth in the case of spears, horde, or both) get +1A for each 6 they roll to hit. That said, even if they roll a 6 to hit and gain +1 Attack, they are prohibited from making that Attack because Supporting Attacks are still capped at 1 per model. Keep in mind that Saurus do actually have 2 Attacks on their profile, so they should only be rolling 1 Attack each from extra ranks because the Supporting Attacks rule says they only get 1 Attack, despite having 2 on their profile. This last line is very important, because my understanding of your view is that you believe that since the PF rule says they get these Attacks and does not specifically say models using Supporting Attacks don't get them, then they do. The thing is, that's backwards thinking. Exceptions work like the regular rules. They are permissive. You build up, not down. You start with what you know and restrict is based on new information. In this case, we know that Special Rules cannot grant extra Supporting Attacks, then we see a Special Rule that grants extra Attacks, and that actual Special Rule is still under the restriction of the main rules unless it, the Special Rule, calls out an exception to what we know - that Special Rules don' give extra Attacks. Within the methods of the Warhammer rules and how they are written, we apply all that we know until told otherwise, and in this case, we are not told to ignore what we know about Special Rules (which PF is) and Supporting Attacks. Let's continue your line of thought, though. Saurus Warriors are a unit from the Lizardmen Army book, listed with 2 Attacks on their profile. Not, as you would likely say, sometimes 2 Attacks, but always 2 Attacks - just as PF Attacks that roll a 6 all get +1 Attack. No exception is listed under Saurus to say they don't get to use their full 2 Attacks in Support, so, according to your view, they should get both Attacks in Support since, just like the PF rule itself, they are in an advanced set of rules (an army book). The same applies to Smiting in the Tomb Kings book. This spell grants (not sometimes, just plain grants) +1 Attack to models in the unit. Since this is an advanced rule (army book spell) and does not say they can't take them in Support, should not all Tomb Kings models in Supporting positions get to use that extra Attack from the spell? It's even less conditional that PF since PF needs a 6 to get it and the spell is just always +1A. What do you think? Make sense? I should also point out, as I often do in this discussion, that yes, I think GW meant for PF to work in Support, but either they wrote it knowing Support was going to change next edition or they simply don't know the 8th edition rules well enough to write other rules for it.
Thanks Sleboda, I know that probably took longer than others were willing to devote to correct a new player I did not think saurus got 2 attacks because it was not a rule specifically worded that way, it is just their listed attacks (while PF is a new rule for a model). I know it seems silly, but I also did not think the spells worked because it says that only rules specific to a model (not spells that might effect models) supersede the basic rules. I still think the rules as written, and intended benefit, support supporting attacks gaining the bonus, but now I understand the other side. If someone has a problem with my using it for supporting ranks or if there is a FAQ for a tournament I will now bow to their will without complaint.
Look at it this way, if special rules in army books over-ruled the BRB then Lizards would be one of the worst armies. A block of saurus would get ~2-5 extra attacks. A witch horde with witch brew would get FORTY extra attacks (it's a special rule that combines with frenzy for +2 attacks). I'd gladly give up 1-4 bonus attacks to keep things normal in the other army books. -Matt
Hello all, part of the reason I registered here was the ongoing discussion. I always assumed that PF would not work with supporting attacks for the reasons Sleboda gave, but Markhaus made me think it over again and now I can see his reasoning just as valid, if not more, than Slebodas. Let me explain: The main argument for not allowing PF with supporting attacks is that there is no conflict between basic and advanced rules and that therefore the limitations of supporting attacks come to bear. IMHO this is not true. There is a conflict between the PF rules and the supporting attack rules as PF tells you to roll an additional attack for every 6, not every 6 rolled in the front rank. I don't have the english version of the army book but the german version tells us to immediately make another attack for every 6 rolled, so you can not argue that you gain the attack but can not make it due to the supporting attack rule, as the army book tells us to roll for the PF attack. As you can see there is a conflict between army book and rule book, as you can not respect the supporting attack rule without violating the PF rule to make an additional attack for every 6 rolled, not every 6 rolled in the front rank. The other arguments given (PF should follow the same rules as additional attacks from frenzy, spells or magic items) are IMHO not valid. These are all basic rules. Frenzy is covered in the rule book and spells like smiting or magic items like witch brew either grant the special rule that grants an additional attack (don't know the english name), which is listed in the rule book or simply increase the attack value by one, which again is a basic principle listed in the rule book. To summarize: all these special rules simple increase your attack value, there is no conflict with the supporting attack rule, which tells us to do only one attack regardless of the number of attacks in the supporting rank. PF does not increase the attack value of Saurus. It is simply a special rule that lets you make an additional attack for every 6 rolled and therefore is in conflict with the basic rules. I hope I made my oppinion clear and did not repeat myself to much.
I quite agree with your argument . The PF rule do say that the model makes another attack, it doesn't say that the model gains an extra attack or something like that. And it rhymes with the simplicity of the game, that you don't have to roll two separate batches of dice. The only issue for me is that I think that the opposing argument is just as valid! Damnit, why can't GW write unambiguous rules!
=> It's worth quoting the Supporting Attacks rule again here, because the distinction being made (between "extra" attack or "another" attack) truly has no meaning in light of the actual rule. Here it is: I added the bold to the text because it's important. The SA rule does not care if the attacks are "extra" or "made after others" or "another" attack. The model can only ever make a single Attack. The sequence, timing, method or terminology of the condition of the Attack matter not one jot. As I've said before, it's actually fairly remarkable how tightly Games Workshop authors managed to craft this rule. There is no wiggle room. To make it clear in one's own mind, as this question: "If my supporting model makes one attack to start with, and that attacks rolls a 6 to-hit, and then I try to make another attacks because of PF, is my model making more than one attack?" Clearly he is. Clearly it's coming as a result of a Special Rule. Clearly the book shows us that Special Attacks cannot allow a Supporting model to "make" more than one attack even if it comes from a Special Rule. Really, it's iron-clad. => I've heard this one before too, and at the risk of sounding harsh (don't mean it - honest!), it's a very poor justification. Any argument that is essentially based on "it's easier this way" and is not based on the rules themselves is not an argument for or against a rule at all. It's just asking permission to change to game to support lazy play. Heck, it's easier to just push my units ahead and not measure as well, but the rules don't allow that, do they? Besides, this is a particularly weak argument since we already roll groups of dice in combat all the time! When a unit of Cold Ones that has an Old Blood with the Blade of Realities in it rolls its attacks, we have to roll different groups (or colors, or whatever) of dice for the character (even if he hits on the same number as his troops, since the Blade does different stuff), for the cold ones (who do not get PF), and for the riders (who get PF). If that unit has a second rank, then yes, we have to roll those riders' Attacks (that don't get to benefit from PF) separately from the riders in the front as well. It's not only not hard, it's also not even slightly unusual.