8th Ed. Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks

[mortetvie]

+1

Hooray for constructive comments and posts!

 

[NexS1]

Hooray for constructive comments and posts!

There is nothing more that can be said, yet you all continue to argue, now we get to eat popcorn with Hermes. Don't be the Fun Police.

 

[forlustria]

Hey mort I saw that english wasn't your first lagnuage (never would have guessed as you seem to write very clearly).

Was just wondering what you think of the fact that the PF rule uses different wording to the rest of the WHFB world rules. It's the only instance I can remember or think of that use the phrasing "another attack". It's always add an attack to the profile, or make an additional attack.
I don't know if you have access to the rules in other languages but if you do does it use similarly different wording to what the rules say in it's BRB?

I'm aware it wouldn't change the way you understand the rule as that is very clear, but since it's the only language I know I can't help but feel different terminology lends weight to RAI. We butcher english for fun (urban dictionary anyone?) but we also tend to use distinctions based on context and I'd be rather interested if anybody that speaks another language and has access to both the BRB and PF rules in that language to see if it uses the same wording.

To answer this question, my first language is Hungarian and then a bit of French (Hungarian family growing up in French part of Canada). I didn't actually learn English until I was around 6ish or later so I guess I've had quite a while to learn it! Going to school in America from grades 2-12, having a British Literature focus in undergrad and going to law school in America, I would hope I have at least some grasp of English =).

With all of that said, seeing how the rules are in another language isn't necessarily the best way to analyze this debate because first and foremost, the rules are written/understood by English speaking people in, well, England (GW). So essentially, they simply try to translate as best they can what is written in English into other languages and you are bound to have some issues come up with that process as not everything can be directly translated into another language (Greek, for example, has some words that would require a whole paragraph in English to adequately define).

So yeah, referring to the BRB in another language would only serve to complicate the issue more than it needs to.

With that said, when reading PF, we need to focus on what the rule does, not how it does what it does. A lot of the confusion comes up because people keep harping on the fact that PF's language says it operates differently than most other rules that generate extra attacks but that shouldn't have any bearing on the discussion at all unless PF has language that addresses how it interacts with SA specifically.

The discussion needs to be, PF is a special rule that generates an extra attack while SA is a rule that says no special rules that grant extra attacks apply... Is this a conflict where AB>BRB? Why or why not and what are the implications of each side?

As I have pointed out, the why for allowing PF to work with SA is still murky because thus far, all the opposition has been able to say is "AB>BRB if there is conflict" and that is a conclusion not an argument. Indeed, the main basis for the PF with SA argument seems to be focused on the language of how PF functions which is a logical fallacy and inappropriate for this discussion... I personally maintain that unless there is language that actually addresses how PF works with SA in the PF rule, we really should assume it doesn't work with PF because we should realize that if GW really wanted PF to work with SA, they COULD have specifically said so like they did with the Monstrous Support rule. Absent any clear intent for PF to overcome the SA limitations, we should assume there is no intent unless stated otherwise!

So anyway, I keep asking, if you want PF to work with SA, (1) how are you defining "conflict;" (2) why are you defining it as such (what is the basis for such a definition); (3) do you realize that there isn't necessarily a conflict; and, (4) why is it preferable or logical to read the PF and SA rules so that there is a conflict when you don't have to?

So far, no one has even attempted to address those 4 points hence the frustration and ring around the rosy posts/game.

1. to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash: This is from a dictionary as regards to the word conflict .I define PF and SA as a conflict as SA stops part of the rule working .PF is WHENEVER a model rolls a six (that's all the time , anytime however you want to put it)

2. I am defining it that way as that's the way it appears. Why should SA stop PF working to its fullest? I don't agree that there can only be conflict if it stops the whole rule from working.

3. No , there will be a conflict aslong as SA stops Pf working partly .

4. for most it is preferable as it give us a slight boost to certain units. To me it is preferable as it makes a neat little package. You don't get silly things like Kroxigor in skinks giving the drawback of PF without the bonus

 

[Sleboda]

1. to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash: This is from a dictionary as regards to the word conflict .I define PF and SA as a conflict as SA stops part of the rule working .PF is WHENEVER a model rolls a six (that's all the time , anytime however you want to put it)

=> Ok, so reconcile _that_ definition with the multiple ways for dwarfs to re-roll something and say why we cannot re-roll a re-roll. And explain why Smiting does not allow more attacks in Support.

2. I am defining it that way as that's the way it appears. Why should SA stop PF working to its fullest? I don't agree that there can only be conflict if it stops the whole rule from working.

=> Context. As Mort has pointed out, if you don't go that way, then lots of things can be trumped up to be called conflicts and the whole game breaks down and is unplayable.

 

[lordkingcrow]

1. to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash: This is from a dictionary as regards to the word conflict .I define PF and SA as a conflict as SA stops part of the rule working .PF is WHENEVER a model rolls a six (that's all the time , anytime however you want to put it)

=> Ok, so reconcile _that_ definition with the multiple ways for dwarfs to re-roll something and say why we cannot re-roll a re-roll. And explain why Smiting does not allow more attacks in Support.

I've said my piece and have joined the popcorn eaters, but I'm wondering if I could get some clarification on the Smiting? (I feel like I stepped out during the movie to take a leak and need a quick catch up) I'm a Dwarf player as well and am curious if you're talking about the Master Ruin of Smiting which causes d6 wounds on a target or something I'm unaware of...?

 

[n810]

Seriously you have been arguing since January.

 

[NexS1]

Seriously you have been arguing since January.

Can I have PF in second/third rank?

 

[forlustria]

1. to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash: This is from a dictionary as regards to the word conflict .I define PF and SA as a conflict as SA stops part of the rule working .PF is WHENEVER a model rolls a six (that's all the time , anytime however you want to put it)

=> Ok, so reconcile _that_ definition with the multiple ways for dwarfs to re-roll something and say why we cannot re-roll a re-roll. And explain why Smiting does not allow more attacks in Support.

2. I am defining it that way as that's the way it appears. Why should SA stop PF working to its fullest? I don't agree that there can only be conflict if it stops the whole rule from working.

=> Context. As Mort has pointed out, if you don't go that way, then lots of things can be trumped up to be called conflicts and the whole game breaks down and is unplayable.

If you can provide me with the exact wording of the rules in question I will try and get an answer for those.

 

[Ondjage]

Imagine you are playing against someone who have never played Warhammer before.

You are introducing him to the game, and you are the only one of you who know the rules. You are playing Lizardmen and he is playing something else.


Will you let supporting attacks benefit from Predatory Fighter?

 

[mortetvie]

1. to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash: This is from a dictionary as regards to the word conflict .I define PF and SA as a conflict as SA stops part of the rule working .PF is WHENEVER a model rolls a six (that's all the time , anytime however you want to put it)

2. I am defining it that way as that's the way it appears. Why should SA stop PF working to its fullest? I don't agree that there can only be conflict if it stops the whole rule from working.

3. No , there will be a conflict aslong as SA stops Pf working partly .

4. for most it is preferable as it give us a slight boost to certain units. To me it is preferable as it makes a neat little package. You don't get silly things like Kroxigor in skinks giving the drawback of PF without the bonus

Regarding (1), you actually just copied and pasted a dictionary definition and more than one to boot... Pick one of those ways to define "conflict." Semantics aside, you say you define the conflict where PF is stopped from working part of the time, when making SA... But if we use your definition, Frenzy and other like rules are prevented in a similar way resulting in what can be defined as a "contradiction" and therefore they should work with SA and the SA restriction can just be thrown out the window, right?

Regarding (2), I specifically wanted to know what the basis for your chosen definition and application of that definition was. For example, why use any definition that seems right rather than use and apply the context of what is given to us on pg. 11? That doesn't make sense from a logical perspective-we shouldn't go outside of the rule unless we HAVE to and here we don't have to.

Also, you say "why should SA stop PF working to its fullest" and my answer is because the rule expressly says it does... while PF does not expressly says it works with SA, Therefore, to resolve that conflict and have both rules operative/functional, you must have PF function all of the time except when making SA attacks, then both rules work. Really, it isn't a problem to have one rule limited by another in such a way.

Indeed, just because a rule is limited or prevented from functioning in a specific instance does not break the game. Such rule interactions appear all of the time. Do you or anyone else really mean to say rules must always work or never work? Do you think that a rule can't be prevented from functioning in certain limited situations?

In Warhammer, if a rule says you can do x, you can always do x unless specifically stated otherwise by another rule-this is one such example.

Regarding (3), There is a difference between a conflict that prevents a rule from working at all, and a conflict that prevents a rule from functioning in a specific instance. There doesn't HAVE to be a conflict between the two rules if you read and apply them as I have said to many many times before...

Regarding (4), those are terrible reasons to play a rule a certain way... I can play Frenzy and Devastating Charge working in SA because it gives me a boost and a neat package too but that doesn't mean it is RIGHT.


Overall, you are focusing on the language of HOW PF works rather than WHAT it does. It doesn't matter how PF is written unless it actually and expressly says it works regardless of any limitations or mentions the SA rule. You have to assume because PF says "whenever" that it means it overcomes the SA restrictions but that isn't necessarily the case...

So I ask you and everyone else to explain why PF works where Frenzy/Devastating Charge doesn't? And if you say that Frenzy and Devastating Charge work with SA then, you basically break the SA rule and want us to adopt an absurd result so you can roll some extra dice out of convenience?

 

[Gary_M]

Telegram to all:

XXX Argument going on too long STOP Some view one way STOP Some view other STOP Please just STOP XXX

 

[mortetvie]

Telegram to all:

XXX Argument going on too long STOP Some view one way STOP Some view other STOP Please just STOP XXX

I would but...

 

[Putzfrau]

I laughed

 

[hardyworld]

Lets....keep to the subject at hand.

So.....the, uh, Predatory Fighter special rule's interaction with the Supporting Attacks special rule is unclear upon cursory review. I guess...how they interact requires a deeper understanding of the overall rule set rather than just the wording of those two rules independent of everything else. That is what I've learned.

EDIT: I see that the post(s) that derailed to be off topic have been removed by Admin. This post now serves no purpose. Will yours?

 

[forlustria]

1. to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash: This is from a dictionary as regards to the word conflict .I define PF and SA as a conflict as SA stops part of the rule working .PF is WHENEVER a model rolls a six (that's all the time , anytime however you want to put it)

2. I am defining it that way as that's the way it appears. Why should SA stop PF working to its fullest? I don't agree that there can only be conflict if it stops the whole rule from working.

3. No , there will be a conflict aslong as SA stops Pf working partly .

4. for most it is preferable as it give us a slight boost to certain units. To me it is preferable as it makes a neat little package. You don't get silly things like Kroxigor in skinks giving the drawback of PF without the bonus

Regarding (1), you actually just copied and pasted a dictionary definition and more than one to boot... Pick one of those ways to define "conflict." Semantics aside, you say you define the conflict where PF is stopped from working part of the time, when making SA... But if we use your definition, Frenzy and other like rules are prevented in a similar way resulting in what can be defined as a "contradiction" and therefore they should work with SA and the SA restriction can just be thrown out the window, right?

Regarding (2), I specifically wanted to know what the basis for your chosen definition and application of that definition was. For example, why use any definition that seems right rather than use and apply the context of what is given to us on pg. 11? That doesn't make sense from a logical perspective-we shouldn't go outside of the rule unless we HAVE to and here we don't have to.

Also, you say "why should SA stop PF working to its fullest" and my answer is because the rule expressly says it does... while PF does not expressly says it works with SA, Therefore, to resolve that conflict and have both rules operative/functional, you must have PF function all of the time except when making SA attacks, then both rules work. Really, it isn't a problem to have one rule limited by another in such a way.

Indeed, just because a rule is limited or prevented from functioning in a specific instance does not break the game. Such rule interactions appear all of the time. Do you or anyone else really mean to say rules must always work or never work? Do you think that a rule can't be prevented from functioning in certain limited situations?

In Warhammer, if a rule says you can do x, you can always do x unless specifically stated otherwise by another rule-this is one such example.

Regarding (3), There is a difference between a conflict that prevents a rule from working at all, and a conflict that prevents a rule from functioning in a specific instance. There doesn't HAVE to be a conflict between the two rules if you read and apply them as I have said to many many times before...

Regarding (4), those are terrible reasons to play a rule a certain way... I can play Frenzy and Devastating Charge working in SA because it gives me a boost and a neat package too but that doesn't mean it is RIGHT.


Overall, you are focusing on the language of HOW PF works rather than WHAT it does. It doesn't matter how PF is written unless it actually and expressly says it works regardless of any limitations or mentions the SA rule. You have to assume because PF says "whenever" that it means it overcomes the SA restrictions but that isn't necessarily the case...

So I ask you and everyone else to explain why PF works where Frenzy/Devastating Charge doesn't? And if you say that Frenzy and Devastating Charge work with SA then, you basically break the SA rule and want us to adopt an absurd result so you can roll some extra dice out of convenience?

will reply more in depth when I get home but a couple of things.

Im not saying pf works with SA . I am saying there is a conflict so why are we not using the pg11 rule. You have decided that for the conflict rule to work SA would need to completely stop PF from working. Why? If my way frenzy and DC get extra attacks so be it (havn't look at those rules yet)

As for number 4 I ment neat little package as in the krox reference . Why should Skinks and Krox get the downside to PF if they don't get the bonus. It would be ok if the krox couldn't be attacked as thats a small bonus.

 

[SilverFaith]

Telegram to all:

XXX Argument going on too long STOP Some view one way STOP Some view other STOP Please just STOP XXX

I would but...

Ha! I needed that laugh before I went to bed

 

[mortetvie]

Happy thanksgiving everyone, regardless of what you believe, roll lotsa 6s when eating your yummy foods . To those that don't celebrate, you're missing out on lotsa diet destroying yumminess!

 

[forlustria]

Even though I live in the Uk. Happy thanksgiving everyone. Lets put this to bed , it is clear both sides are not going to agree until an faq is released. regardless of who is right and who is wrong

 

[Screamer]

Pushing for the 300 post mark!

The following is mainly for those of you who doesn't agree that the rule is a bit... unclear.

And I choose to quote the rules (again) for this very purpose.

1. SA "To represent this, he can ever only 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 effect"

Notice wherever the word attack is used it's used with a capital A. As in the characteristic Attack.

2. PF: Whenever a model ... rolls a 6 to hit in close combat ... makes another Attack.

Note that they also use a capital A in this instance.

There's 2 ways to interpret this:

1. No PF on supporting attacks, as PF is a special rule and therefor does not apply. Bam, end of discussion.

OR

2. PF does work, since even the supporting Saurus is in close combat, and PF applies to ALL models (with this special rule) in close combat. To avoid the conflict, the PF rule should not say "in close combat", it should say "in base to base in close combat".


Frenzy DOES work in second rank (giving ITP), but Extra attack does not since it only increases the Attacks value of the model. Additional handweapon and some magic swords does the same, increases Attacks.
Red fury from Vampire counts works just as PF, however you choose to interpret the rules.


Quite a few of the "is it or is it not a conflict"-discussions is caused by the use of terms like "any, whenever, every, all" and such.
It's just the same with Deliverance of Itza, Burnig alignment, Ark of sotek and Flamestorm.
Do they hit targets in 360 degrees or forward arc only?
Do they hit enemies in close combat, or can't they since Direct damage and shooting can't target units in CC?

The last 2 questions are of topic and should not be answered here...

 

[mortetvie]

Pushing for the 300 post mark!

The following is mainly for those of you who doesn't agree that the rule is a bit... unclear.

And I choose to quote the rules (again) for this very purpose.

1. SA "To represent this, he can ever only 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 effect"

Notice wherever the word attack is used it's used with a capital A. As in the characteristic Attack.

2. PF: Whenever a model ... rolls a 6 to hit in close combat ... makes another Attack.

Note that they also use a capital A in this instance.

There's 2 ways to interpret this:

1. No PF on supporting attacks, as PF is a special rule and therefor does not apply. Bam, end of discussion.

OR

2. PF does work, since even the supporting Saurus is in close combat, and PF applies to ALL models (with this special rule) in close combat. To avoid the conflict, the PF rule should not say "in close combat", it should say "in base to base in close combat".


Frenzy DOES work in second rank (giving ITP), but Extra attack does not since it only increases the Attacks value of the model. Additional handweapon and some magic swords does the same, increases Attacks.
Red fury from Vampire counts works just as PF, however you choose to interpret the rules.


Quite a few of the "is it or is it not a conflict"-discussions is caused by the use of terms like "any, whenever, every, all" and such.
It's just the same with Deliverance of Itza, Burnig alignment, Ark of sotek and Flamestorm.
Do they hit targets in 360 degrees or forward arc only?
Do they hit enemies in close combat, or can't they since Direct damage and shooting can't target units in CC?

The last 2 questions are of topic and should not be answered here...

some interesting points raised that highlight what is at issue here. Specifically, the difference between 1 and 2 is how the rule is chosen to be read/interpreted. As I have pointed out many times, you HAVE to read a conflict into the rules for there to even be an AB>BRB argument at all, hence, you have to assume there is a conflict and an assumption is no basis to hang your hat on when you want to overcome a restriction in the game.

You see, there is a threshold that needs to be reached for an AB>BRB argument to even be considered to be viable for PF working with SA whereas there is no such threshold for the argument contrary to PF not working with SA. This is because those that say no PF with SA are simply letting the rules speak for themselves whereas those that say PF with SA are telling everyone what they see in the rules, what is not necessarily there.

Absent something clearer in the language of the PF rule that clearly shows that it is supposed to work with SA, you have nothing to work with when arguing AB>BRB and the words "whenever" are not enough. Just because there is an arguable ambiguity in the rule does not mean you can choose to interpret one rule to break another.

In terms of Frenzy and increasing attacks characteristics/value, that is an irrelevant consideration to make and one of the logical fallacies I keep pointing out that people can't seem to let go of... It doesn't matter HOW a special rule or effect provides another attack, it only matters that the source of the additional attack(s) is from a special rule. Therefore, by saying "Frenzy increases attacks value while PF simply says another attack" ad nauseam, the only thing being perpetuated is a logical fallacy being repeated over and over again... I ask again, why does PF work where Frenzy does not? Both provide a means of getting an additional attack. How they do that doesn't matter in terms of SA.