8th Ed. Predatory Fighter attacks from supporting ranks: yea or nay

[Scalenex]

I deleted a few posts and edited one post that had said, "this is how I voted and why I think it is that way." They also strongly implied or stated outright that everyone should do that way. They were pretty mild, but I'm drawing a firm line in the sand here.

I don't want to be a hardliner, but we the staff REALLY don't want a rehash of the old debate thread.

 

[SilverFaith]

To ignore this consensus among tournament organizers, who have an interest in remaining impartial in order to promote fair and balanced play, is a significant oversight.

This is a rather cute assumption.

Remember that, no matter how official some people seem to think tournament rules are, they are still just glorified houserules, made by players. In most cases, the rules are made by people who think they know better, while suffering from a severe case of tunnelvision that makes them unable to look beyond their own army. This is extremely evident for some comp systems, where the playtesters play a huge part in the balancing, and it basically boils down to "Whoever whines the most, decides the most".

Tournament rulings cannot, and should not, have any influence in how the actual rules are interpreted.

 

[airjamy]

The wording of the question is very prone to start debates. It also kinda shocks me that 61% do play with it, i believe you should not. It shows a pretty big bias on this forum, well. I understand why my post was deleted, i did not read that this was a non-debate thread so i will refrain from posting further arguments. I will leave it at the fact that uur own FAQ very clearly states what way it should be played, why did the mods censor people who copied the words out of our own FAQ for clarities sake?

http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/lizardmen-8th-ed-faq.13582/

 

[Arbite]

UH that ain't my FAQ! while not besmirching the effort and intent in creating the document, I do not believe it represents a consensus on how the LM army works. It was presented by one user and not ratified by the board. So please do not make assumptions on the universal coverage on any one thing posted to the board.

 

[airjamy]

UH that ain't my FAQ! while not besmirching the effort and intent in creating the document, I do not believe it represents a consensus on how the LM army works. It was presented by one user and not ratified by the board. So please do not make assumptions on the universal coverage on any one thing posted to the board.

I am simply finding it weird that we are still voting about it and debating this while it seems we have reached consensus on it. The article is very good, and i welcome you to offer criticism if you have any, but as it stands it is the best FAQ we have.

 

[n810]

Can't we all just agree to disagree ?

 

[airjamy]

Nice guy N810, well ok, who can resist that. Those lizard-puppy eyes win every argument.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I am simply finding it weird that we are still voting about it and debating this while it seems we have reached consensus on it. The article is very good, and i welcome you to offer criticism if you have any, but as it stands it is the best FAQ we have.

In all honesty it would seem that we have not (and probably will not) reach a consensus. The FAQ you refer to, although very well written, is merely written by a member of the forum based on his own personal point of view. Without trying to dispute or discredit that viewpoint, it carries with it no more weight than if I wrote a FAQ stating the exact opposite.

Voting on the rule won't provide us with an "official" interpretation (and people are free to play it either way); but at least the voting system gives us what I hope is a peaceful non-argumentative way of discovering what majority of the members on this forum believe. With the voting being fairly close at this point, I believe that the only real fair conclusion we can make is that we are dealing with a "grey" area. If the vote was 90% vs. 10% in favour of either side, I'd be much more confident to find more credence in that leading viewpoint. Even in such an event though, it would only serve as a guideline, and not in any official capacity that could be imposed on a player who disagreed.

It's sad that GW hasn't cleared this up for us, and it appears that they don't intend to as 9th edition is nearly upon us. Maybe if Lizardmen aren't completely squatted, 9th edition may provide some insight into this problem for those who may stick with 8th edition.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

UH that ain't my FAQ!

Exactly!

Can't we all just agree to disagree ?

Only if there is at least one Skink character model (Skink Chief or Skink Priest, including Tehenhauin, Tetto'eko and Tiktaq'to) within 6" of this discussion!

... but in all seriousness I fully agree. I'm just interested in seeing what the majority of this forum believes (without the need or intention to change anyone's mind). In the end, to each their own!

 

[thegraymist]

Lol @ Nightbringer... Skink character within 6"
Thanks for posting this poll, it's very interesting.

In the end, yes or no, someone touched on the statistical implications of the rule and with or without it, mathematically, it's 1 additional attack (or just under if you rank 5 wide) and then 50% chance of hitting - and you then have to roll to wound which is then [usually] either 2/3 or 50% chance. So if we're talking 1/3 of a wound each combat on average, for only about half the game we are actually in combat, it's not game-changing whichever way you look at it. Still nice to know how everyone else plays it.

In tournaments I roll separate dice so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of other players, in casual games I throw a single handful for speed, knowing it won't affect the end result much. Maybe a couple of wounds over the course of the entire battle... that may be saved anyway.

 

[The Red Devil]

I will leave it at the fact that uur own FAQ very clearly states what way it should be played, why did the mods censor people who copied the words out of our own FAQ for clarities sake?

As Nightbringer mentions in the quote below, it not an official FAQ provided by the community or staff.

Please note, I am not arguing for the content of the post. Just pointing out that not everyone agrees to every point in it, and it is up to you if you want to use it, or part of it in your game play.

In all honesty it would seem that we have not (and probably will not) reach a consensus. The FAQ you refer to, although very well written, is merely written by a member of the forum based on his own personal point of view. Without trying to dispute or discredit that viewpoint, it carries with it no more weight than if I wrote a FAQ stating the exact opposite.

 

[hardyworld]

I don't know how this old thread got dragged into this.

http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/lizardmen-8th-ed-faq.13582/

UH that ain't my FAQ! while not besmirching the effort and intent in creating the document, I do not believe it represents a consensus on how the LM army works. It was presented by one user and not ratified by the board. So please do not make assumptions on the universal coverage on any one thing posted to the board.

The thread that I started was only intended to be a collection of FAQ by users on this website. There are 51 questions and answers provided in that thread and I provided only 21 of them (and of those 21, my answer was completely changed in 5 of the 21 due to efforts by other users). I realize that as the editor/collector, I should receive all the hate for the current/final product. I'm OK with that because I accomplished what I set out to do, collecting FAQ from dozens of people and collect player-supplied Rules As Written answers for those FAQ. So many people on this site were so very helpful! It was never intended to be the "Lustria-Online Community's Lizardmen FAQ", I thought I made that clear in the preamble. Arbite is correct, it was never intended to be a consensus document and it very much is not one. Do I want players to read it to help them make their own thoughtful answers to Lizardmen rules questions? Yes! This is what we did at The Pyramid Vault and it was a great starting point for discussion between players because often the answers to these questions are not black-&-white. So I sincerely hope Arbite does have his own FAQ! Everyone should!

The FAQ you refer to, although very well written, is merely written by a member of the forum based on his own personal point of view. Without trying to dispute or discredit that viewpoint, it carries with it no more weight than if I wrote a FAQ stating the exact opposite.

As the collector in that thread my point of view does show and Nightbringer is correct that it carries no weight at all. The only point I disagree on is that I wrote it. I edited all of it, but a large majority of the information included was provided by users like you!

EDIT:

Just pointing out that not everyone agrees to every point in it, and it is up to you if you want to use it, or part of it in your game play.

Well said.

 

[GhostWarrior]

First off, I'd like to say that I didn't vote on this thread - and for a while I was hesitant to read it. As it continued to gain posts I decided I needed to at least see if there was anything new to review. I'd like to point out something to ALL players who bemoan the fact that you have to split up your dice due to playing no supporting PF attack bonus:

(please note that I copy-pasted this from a post I had on the same topic on the Warhammer Forum about a year ago)

"I'm a little late to the game here, but on the 'two sets of dice/too many rolling steps thing' for PF supporting attacks, that issue can be worked around. I'm assuming there are Lizard players do something like this:

Step 1 - Roll to hit with front rank.
Step 2 - Roll to hit with additional PF attacks from front rank.
Step 3 - Roll to hit with supporting attacks.

Or something to this affect. When really it should be something like this:

Step 1 - Roll to hit with front rank.
Step 2 - Add additional PF attacks to Supporting rank attacks and roll to hit together.

That should work in most situations.

Even if you got full PF supporting attacks, it would still be 2 step 'to hit' rolling, not unlike ASF armies:

Step 1 - Roll to hit with all attacks.
Step 2 - Roll to hit with all additional PF attacks.

Other than the number of possible PF's, I don't see how it changes the number of rolling steps.

That's been my experience anyway."

Best regards folks

 

[hardyworld]

I am simply finding it weird that we are still voting about it and debating this while it seems we have reached consensus on it.

The only consensus that I know of on this topic is that we all agree that the rules are not clear and that a FAQ from GW is needed to clarify which existing rule governs in this case.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

The only consensus that I know of on this topic is that we all agree that the rules are not clear and that a FAQ from GW is needed to clarify which existing rule governs in this case.

QFT

 

[Qupakoco]

Careful here, Lizards. These Predatory Fighter rule threads are easily tainted. Let's remain vigilant against being led down such paths and keep the thread on topic.

 

[Andrinor]

I went by how it is actually played in my gaming group.

 

[MI_Tiger]

The only consensus that I know of on this topic is that we all agree that the rules are not clear and that a FAQ from GW is needed to clarify which existing rule governs in this case.

I think there is also a consensus that we will never get the much-needed FAQ from GW ................

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I think there is also a consensus that we will never get the much-needed FAQ from GW ................

Sadly that's the truest consensus of them all.

 

[airjamy]

I don't know how this old thread got dragged into this.

The thread that I started was only intended to be a collection of FAQ by users on this website. There are 51 questions and answers provided in that thread and I provided only 21 of them (and of those 21, my answer was completely changed in 5 of the 21 due to efforts by other users). I realize that as the editor/collector, I should receive all the hate for the current/final product. I'm OK with that because I accomplished what I set out to do, collecting FAQ from dozens of people and collect player-supplied Rules As Written answers for those FAQ. So many people on this site were so very helpful! It was never intended to be the "Lustria-Online Community's Lizardmen FAQ", I thought I made that clear in the preamble. Arbite is correct, it was never intended to be a consensus document and it very much is not one. Do I want players to read it to help them make their own thoughtful answers to Lizardmen rules questions? Yes! This is what we did at The Pyramid Vault and it was a great starting point for discussion between players because often the answers to these questions are not black-&-white. So I sincerely hope Arbite does have his own FAQ! Everyone should!


As the collector in that thread my point of view does show and Nightbringer is correct that it carries no weight at all. The only point I disagree on is that I wrote it. I edited all of it, but a large majority of the information included was provided by users like you!

EDIT:

Well said.

Well, i got some things completely wrong. I felt that this page did give at least some sort of consensus on the site, but it clearly was not meant in that way. I feel that we all want clarity on the case, and that simply rolling everything as PF saves a lot of time. If it comes to the time that LM are not supported in 9E, we all know what rule we would clarify first.