8th Ed. Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks

[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".

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.

Ok, Mort, I will try to explain again why this really need a FAQ:
First: Ambiguity in rules is the prime reason to call for a FAQ.
Second: The rules does NOT state any "threshold" to be reached to impose AB>BRB.
Third: Read the PF rule. Then ask these questions: 1. Does the model in the second rank make close combat attacks? Say he rolls a 6 to hit. If you ONLY read the PF rule, would he be allowed to make another attack?
Fourth: If, by reading ONLY the PF-rule, the model in the second rank would be entitled to a second attack, then you DO have a collision between the BRB and the AB, because reading AB only gives you one answer, and reading them both gives you a different one. And that's where opinions differ, some think AB trumps BRB as usual, some think that the SA-rule trumps the PF rule.

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.

Yes, and if "whenever" is enough or not is debatable. And your opinion is that it's not, others opinion is that it is enough.

I'm not arguing for either interpretation, I'm just trying to point out WHY and HOW it's possible for the opinions to differ, because I don't get the sense you understand WHY other people have a different opinion from your own.
There is no such thing as Rules as Written (not to mention Rules as Intended. How can anyone know for sure what GW/the writer intended with ambigous rules?). Everything is about Rules as Interpreted. Most rules are written clearly enough for everyone to come to the same conclusion and interpret the rules the same way. And some rules are not as clearly written, and that's where FAQ comes into place. Or consensus (in the gaming group or on the forum) where there is no FAQ to answer the question.

Don't forget that GW changes their FAQ-answers from time to time (especially when it comes to what "unmodified" means.)

 

[mortetvie]

Screamer...

Regarding your first point, I agree that an FAQ would be useful but ambiguity in and of itself is not reason alone or necessarily enough for an FAQ. If the dispute can be resolved using logic and reason, then only the illogical and unreasonable require an FAQ to tell them how to read and apply the rules. Not trying to be harsh or rude but it is true.

Regarding your second point, there absolutely is a "threshold" requirement. Indeed, every rule has one. For example, before the AB>BRB rule can even be invoked, there must first be a conflict. Likewise, for the Frenzy rule to apply to some model, that model must first have the Frenzy rule... Any requirement for something else to happen/take effect is a threshold that must be reached before that "something/effect" can happen.

Regarding your third and fourth points, the only way PF works with SA is by virtue of the AB>BRB rule and to get there you have read into something that isn't necessarily there. First, you have to assume that when PF uses the word "whenever" it means even when making a Supporting Attack. Second, while all Supporting Attacks are Close Combat attacks, not all Close Combat attacks are Supporting Attacks. Therefore, it is a logical fallacy to assume that when PF is referring to Close Combat Attacks, it refers to every method of attacking in Close Combat. Third, you have to assume that the "conflict" mentioned on pg. 11 means something different than what the rest of page describes. Essentially, the best argument PF with SA has is to say "when GW said 'whenever...' they could have meant 'including when making Supporting Attacks.'" Hanging your hat on what could have been meant by the rules to overcome a specific restriction is not a strong foundation to build an argument on. So I say again that simply choosing to apply a meaning that isn't clearly there is no basis to overcome a restriction that clearly is there.

In the alternative, the position I maintain is pointing out that because PF doesn't specifically mention anything about SA, it doesn't overcome the SA restriction and voila, no conflict just like there isn't a contradiction between Devastating Charge or Extra Attacks rules and Supporting Attacks. Furthermore, my position maintains that the rules on pg. 11 only apply when there is a clear and unavoidable contradiction where two rules simply cannot function together at all (based on the way Contradiction is used and the example given in support thereof) and absent either (1) clear language in the rule to overcome a specific restriction; or, (2) an actual (not apparent) contradiction, Pf cannot work with SA.

Apply the PF>SA line of reasoning to the Extra Attack and Devastating Charge rules as an example. Extra Attack says "a model with this special rule...increases his Attacks value by 1," while Devastating Charge says "Models with this special rule have +1 Attack during a turn in which they charge into combat." These rules say to do one thing while the SA rule says not to do that one thing, I guess we have a contradiction and Advanced>Basic, right? By using the logic of PF>SA I can also say the rules in this example>SA and that doesn't make sense.

Indeed, I ask three questions. First, if PF said "when" or even just "a model attacking in Close Combat that rolls a 6..." rather than "whenever" would there still be this debate-Does the presence of "whenever" really make that big of a deal? Second, how do you know that the Close Combat Attacks referred to in PF are SA since not every Close Combat attack is a Supporting Attack? Third, since there are many ways to define conflict, why disregard what the rest of pg. 11 says when defining conflict? I ask these questions because even if PF MIGHT say "anytime a model with this rule makes an attack in close combat..." it doesn't EXPRESSLY say so and absent express and clear language to overcome an express and clear restriction, it doesn't make sense to have said rule overcome said restriction. I say again, an ambiguity is no basis to overcome a specific restriction and clear restriction. However, a clear and specific restriction is a basis for overcoming a vague and ambiguous permission.

Finally, opinions differ, and I agree completely. Everyone is welcome to their opinion and everyone is welcome to disagree with me. However, what we have here is not my opinion versus another person's opinion but a disagreement with the proper use and application of logic. Indeed, Logic has some specific application and rules to abide by, and I am pointing out that the other position violates those rules and therefore cannot be said to be logical. See the distinction there? I am not saying you are saying this but People in general may say "who are you to tell me my position isn't logical" and all I have to reply to that is "the laws of logic do..." If you don't like logic or want to apply it, fine but don't go around saying your position is logical or based in logic when you can't back it up. I find it interesting that I have asked several attorneys and engineers that are familiar and competent with applying logic and not one has come to the conclusion that PF should work with SA. I would be curious to know what the background and familiarity with logic is of those proposing that PF should work with SA. Ultimately, what every attorney or engineer I spoke with said was that because SA is a qualified and specific restriction, it overcomes the broad and general permission of PF. That is the conclusion anyone who were to apply legal principles to synthesize the two rules together would arrive at as well.

Regarding GW changing their FAQ answers, so what? GW is entitled to change the rules and what the rules mean and we must abide by those rules just as we abide by the laws of our respective nations. Logic, however, can and should still be used when reading and applying the rules of Warhammer just as much as the laws of our respective nations. Failing to do so would result in absurdity.

 

[SilverFaith]

Don't forget that GW changes their FAQ-answers from time to time (especially when it comes to what "unmodified" means.)

Since "Logic" is apparently still the entire argument against an FAQ, I'd like to highlight this one.

Logic dictates that Unmodified means NOT MODIFIABLE. That should be completely indisputeable and impossible to argue for or against. There is absolutely no ambiguity here, whatsoever.

Yet "Unmodified" means "modified by pretty much everything".

Dark Acolyte is stated to take effect "when succesfully cast", which happens if you roll high enough to cast it (Or Irresistable Force it) AND it doesn't get dispelled. GW then said it happens BEFORE dispels.

Logic only works if logic is actallly present, and GW consistently tell us to ignore logic. I'm actually surprised GW ruled that Ogre Slaughtermasters could wear armour, because despite having access to armour, which explicitly allows wizards to wear armour, it just seems unlike GW to agree. You come to expect GW to disregard logic.

And claiming one side is assuming while the other one is not, is also a fallacy here, when assumptions have to be made for both sides to work. If you assume that the example is the only application of the rule, you are assuming. If you assume that PF and Frenzy works the same, despite vastly different wordings, you are assuming. If you assume BRB vs AB works the same as Basic VS Advanced, you are assuming. It doesn't matter which are more likely, and which are more logically sound - you are still assuming, no matter how much you might wish you weren't.

So let's just kill this dead horse: "Assuming" anything isn't a bad thing, because with the rules we are given, we HAVE to assume things, all of us, or the rules wont make sense.

 

[Mr Phat]

Logic only works if logic is actallly present

.........reading through your statement, I actually ended up agreeing with you. But:
Even though there is more than one example of GW rules not being written with common syntax, to claim it as an excuse for not attempting to find the pattern through applying logic would shatter EVERYTHING.

 

[mortetvie]

Silver, is your post a response to mine? I am not entirely sure who your comments are directed at since you are quoting Screamer but it appears you are responding to me so I mainly have one thing to say in terms of how you are using the word "logic."



But seriously, regarding logic, please stop saying things like "logic only applies where logic is present..." Logic is always present and always applies, always-just like 2+2 always equals 4. There is no such thing as a "no logic" zone. It is very ironic that you go on to maintain logic is inapplicable in certain situations but invariably try to use logic to show why. Furthermore, just because something doesn't make sense to you, it does not automatically mean it is or is not logical or that logic is not in play. I also want to point out that logic does not dictate what "unmodifiable" means, GW does since they are giving us the terms and defining them for us. GW is free to give us rules/scenarios and then make rulings on what those rules/scenarios mean or how they are to be applied since the game is their game and they write the rules. We are forced to accept things the way that GW has given them to us. Logic is the tool we use to make sense of it all within the context that GW has given us.

Regarding assumptions, I don't think you read or understood the entirety of what I said so I'll try to say it in less words-it makes no sense to base your ability to violate a specific and clearly written restriction in the rules on an ambiguity of another rule. It doesn't matter who is assuming what, what matters is why we are assuming what we are assuming and what the results of those assumptions are. I am simply pointing out the absurdity of assuming PF works with SA and in light of that absurdity why it should not be maintained.

Regarding the rest of what you wrote, please tell me what logical fallacy specifically you think I am guilty of and why. Regarding what you said, it doesn't matter how Frenzy and PF work, they are both special rules that increase attacks-that is the only thing that matters for the purposes of SA. If you are going to argue that because PF generates an extra attack differently than other rules that increase attacks, you are basing your argument on the "irrelevant conclusion" fallacy, look it up. Therefore, absent clear language that shows PF works with SA, it doesn't. Furthermore, AB>BRB and Advanced>Basic are what we call analogous arguments; if an AB rule is in conflict with a BRB rule, AB takes precedence and if an Advanced rule is contradicted by a Basic rule, the Advanced rule takes precedence. Well, it is a contradiction for one rule to say do something while another rule says not to do that very something so Extra Attacks should work with SA, right? I am just applying the logic of the PF>SA argument in this situation.

Finally, assuming is a very bad thing if you want others to accept your assumption when your assumption is not properly grounded. The PF>SA argument is not properly grounded on logic and therefore should not be asserted or maintained.

 

[Markhaus]

Insulting others' intelligence while not understanding how they can have a different stance. I have to wonder if he is just trolling.

Both sides have somewhat valid ideas. If you still genuinely don't understand how others can have a different opinion on the subject, read the first 30 pages.

 

[NexS1]

The only person(s)'s interpretation that truly matters is GW.
I really don't care how much you think your opinion is the right one, the answer is that there is no answer and the ruling goes to the TO (at tournaments, which is the only place that it really matters) until it/IF it gets addressed by GW in an errata or new ruleset.

I have stopped following this thread.

 

[mortetvie]

If all you get out of my posts are "blah blah, you're dumb, blah blah, big word, blah blah more big words because, well, lol" then I am sincerely sorry but that is not my intent and it only goes to show that what I am actually saying is not registering. I have continually maintained that I respect a person's opinion on the matter but I am not addressing opinions, I am addressing arguments. There is a difference. Once an argument is made, it is fair game and open to logical scrutiny.

Indeed, there is a difference between a person's opinion as in "I like apple pie more than cherry pie" and it is another thing altogether to say "apple pie is better than cherry pie." A debate between the personal preferences and merits of those two types of pies without an objective way to actually determine which one is better than the other results in two equally meaningful and valid points of view/positions and no headway can or should necessarily be made. However, with the rules in question, we have an objective way to analyze both positions using logic and reason as the argument(s) for each side are appeals to logic and reason to convince a person one way or the other. All I am trying to do is point out why one position is weaker from a logical perspective. Is someone dumb for maintaining that PF works with SA? Absolutely not. However, someone maintaining that PF works with SA is maintaining an argument that is steeped in logical fallacy, contradiction and is generally less reasonable than the alternative position and that is something that I have tried to illuminate people to by using the objective standards of logic.

So I say again, believe what you want to, play how you want to, that is your prerogative. However, once someone maintains one position is logical and reasonable, they have the burden of proving it and should not shirk away when their position is shown to be, in actuality, not supported by logic after all.

 

[forlustria]

Crazy thought. Why are we assuming that frenzy/extra hand weapons don't override the SA rule?

 

[borkbork]

Boyz!!! i am running out of popcorn

Crazy thought. Why are we assuming that frenzy/extra hand weapons don't override the SA rule?

Only because they are mentioned in the main rule book. And the issue actually revolves around a small statement that army books can overrule or contain exceptions to certain rules from the main rule book.

But as far as I am concerned, you answered the whole issue with a single question.

 

[SilverFaith]

Crazy thought. Why are we assuming that frenzy/extra hand weapons don't override the SA rule?

This is my exact issue when people claim these kinds of GW rules are "clear and undisputeable".

We are assuming tons of things. Why we do this, is technically a moot point, because we are still assuming, IE making up conclusions that aren't present.

Problem with GW is, that half of their rules are outright missing, and can only be deduced by assuming how it works, based on similar rulings. In most of those cases, there is a direct relation between them, which gives us a fairly obvious answer, but in others, the issue is far too muddled to give a clear answer without making too many assumptions. In either case, we are making assumptions, which is a haphazard way of writing rules - imagine if our legal system just assumed that a given break on the law gave you 5 years of prison instead of a small fine.

Of course, it's insane to write everything in the book, so they can't really make an exhaustive list of what they mean when they say basic is overruled by advanced. So they have to cut corners, and explain to the best of their ability how the rule works, and why it does, so we can apply that rule elsewhere. Sadly, GW did a shoody job on this. At least they did better in their Fantasy rulebook than in the 40k rulebook, so we can at least be grateful for that.

My opinion is still that PF most likely shouldn't apply. But my opinion on the latest ogre book was also that slaughtermasters aren't capable of using magic armour. A question I had right RAI, but wrong RAW, which was expicitly said by GW, who nevertheless ruled it in favour of RAW, which is why an FAQ can easily go both ways. When they outright say "Oops, slip up, that was a mistake, sorry!" and then immediately say "But we'll just keep it this way anyway.", we have no way of knowing how they'd rule this.

As an aside, I had just recieved a mail from GW that said PF works in supporting ranks, so i was kinda pissed off, and maybe sent them a not-so-nice mail backk, stating they should rather take their time MAKING A DAMN FAQ instead of repying to mails. Their mail-responses are utterly useless and pointless, and take about as much time as an FAQ would take to make. God damnit GW.

 

[Screamer]

@borkbork: Fetch more popcorn!

@mort:
Logic and logical, the words people use when trying to tell others that their opinion should be considered higher then the next man.

... but ambiguity in and of itself is not reason alone or necessarily enough for an FAQ.

1.What, if not ambiguity is the reason to even consider including something in a FAQ?

Regarding your second point, there absolutely is a "threshold" requirement.

2. On what page does it say anything about this? Cause I can't find it.

Therefore, it is a logical fallacy to assume that when PF is referring to Close Combat Attacks, it refers to every method of attacking in Close Combat.

3. How so? It's more a logical fallacy to assume GW excludes Supporting attacks. As you pointed out, all supporting attacks are CC attacks, but all CC attacks are not SA. Supporting attacks is a part sum of Close Combat attacks, whereas CC attacks from models in BtB is another. Together they make up the total sum that is "Close combat attacks".

4. It's not really the "Whenever" that makes the difference, it's the reference to Close Combat attacks. If they substitute whenever with another word doesn't really matter, but if they substitute Close Combat attacks with "CC attacks incl supporting attacks" or "close combat attacks versus an opponent in base to base contact" it makes it clear.

Regarding GW changing their FAQ answers, so what?

"logic only applies where logic is present..." Logic is always present and always applies

5. Apply the laws of logic... FAQ is not rule changes, it's answers. And with the same rule-set, GW still changes how the specific rule should be interpreted. Has the rules of logic changed, and that's why the interpretation har changed?
FAQ is answers to questions, it's not the same as Errata which changes rules/wordings.

6. Extra attack special rule/devastating charge vs PF. Different wording, possibility for different interpretations. One possible view-point is like this: the additional attack from PF isn't considered a supporting attack, but rather a PF-attack. And therefor the limitations of SA doesn't apply. The model still only makes a single Supporting attack, rolls a 6, and then makes an additional PF-attack (that is NOT a supporting attack). Contradiction avoided!

And don't forget: If someone makes an assumption, it's very likely you're making one yourself when you come to an opposing conclusion

 

[hdctambien]

One possible view-point is like this: the additional attack from PF isn't considered a supporting attack, but rather a PF-attack. And therefor the limitations of SA doesn't apply. The model still only makes a single Supporting attack, rolls a 6, and then makes an additional PF-attack (that is NOT a supporting attack). Contradiction avoided!

You can make all the attacks you want from the 2nd rank, but if it is not a Supporting Attack then it can't be directed at an enemy that is not in base to base contact with you.

There are only rules for making attacks on enemies in base to base contact and making Supporting Attacks on enemies in base to base contact with a friendly model that you are in base to base contact with(and so on with 3rd, 4th, and 5th ranks...stupid elves).

So if a PF attack from the 2nd rank is *not* a SA it can only be directed against an enemy in b2b with the model making the PF attack.

If the PF attack from the 2nd rank *is* a SA, then it would be the 2nd supporting attack from that model, which is not allowed.

No contradictions there, just application of the rules.

That's why there is a focus on the "whenever" wording. That is the closest to a contradiction to "even special rules can't give you more than 1 supporting attack" that the rule gets. I don't subscribe to that line of reasoning though.

 

[SilverFaith]

@hdctambien

You talk as if Supporting Attacks is the only way of ever making more than one attacck against someone not in base to base contact, which is wrong.

Not even saying I agree that PF is not a SA, but a "PF attack", but I see the argument SoB also made earlier in this thread. Monstrous infantry doesn't use the supporting attack rule, but the "monstrous support" rule. If we assume PF negates SA in the same way, you can indeed make another SA, just like MS allows you to make 3, rather than 1 - PF just only works if you roll a 6 on your to-hit.

And for all we know, it could be the way it was both intended, and even written (the "whenever"), but it just didn't come off clear enough, because their haphazard use of the dictionary makes a lot of people disregard different wordings entirely, despite how heavily it should be considered. It's not even a case of semantics, because a lot of the differing words used, like Conflict versus Contradiction, is a clear change in wording - yet it is being disregarded, because GW forgot to tell us what the difference was.

Maybe there is no difference - in which case the writer was a moron - but all we can see is that there IS a difference, and unless you outright ignore what the book tells you, you should be taking that into consideration.

 

[mortetvie]

Screamer,

Regarding your first point:

while people may use the word logical to suggest their "opinion" is higher than the next man's, it is wrong to think that is what is going on here... Logic, like math, is a set of rules by which words are ordered together to establish an idea or concept. Just as you have to follow a form for 1+1=2 to make sense and be accepted (i.e., 1=2+1 doesn't work or convey the same meaning as 1+1=2), arguments must follow a certain form and adhere to certain rules to be considered logical.

An opinion is what one THINKS about something which is usually based on stuff that can't be proven or disproven-what we call subjective (based on personal feelings, taste or preference). An argument is one's REASONING aimed to persuade another person to accept something as right or wrong-should be based on things that can be proven or disproven-what we call objective (not based on personal feelings, taste or preference). Opinion need not adhere to logic to be accepted but an argument must.

So do you now understand the difference between an opinion or argument? An argument, if it is to be logical, must follow certain rules before it can be accepted as logical or reasonable and if an argument is not logical, it fails to be acceptable from a logical or reasonable basis. I am not addressing anyone's OPINION but their ARGUMENT. If you or anyone else want's to seriously maintain this is just about what I think versus what they think, I don't know what to do or say because that kind of comment or position is to spit in the very face of reason.

Regarding your second point:

I think you missed my point-I was simply saying that if you can solve a problem using simple tools, you don't necessarily need to call someone over to solve that problem for you when you presumably have those simple tools. I said that an FAQ would be ideal in this situation but not necessary to resolve the PF/SA debate as simple logic/reasoning can be used to solve the debate. Do you see the difference there?

Regarding your third point:

Flip through every page of the rule book. If you do that, you'll see the CONCEPT of a threshold requirement on every page and with every rule. A "threshold requirement" is a condition necessary for something to happen. Do you REALLY mean to say that for the Frenzy rule to apply to a model, that model DOESN'T need to have the Frenzy rule? Because that is basically what you are saying here by denying what I am saying. For example, for a rule to be considered a rule in the BRB, it is necessary for that rule to actually be written in the BRB. Just like for you to be considered awake, it is necessary for you to first not be asleep... Therefore, before you can even claim the AB>BRB rule to take affect, it is necessary for you to have a rule in an AB and a rule in the BRB that "conflict." If you have two rules in an AB that conflict, the AB>BRB rule obviously doesn't apply. Amazing what you can do with logic, right?

Regarding your fourth point:

By focusing on "close combat attacks" rather than "whenever" you weaken the argument because as I have pointed out, while every SA is a CC attack, not every CC attack is a SA... Therefore, HOW do you know that the CC attack referenced in the PF rule can be resolved as a SA? The answer is you don't and that is the problem. You have to assume the PF rule says something it doesn't necessarily say for there to be a PF>SA argument. This has been pointed out above by hdctambien.

Regarding your fifth point:

Again, the rules of logic have not changed! Neither I nor GW write or make up the rules of logic, the rules of logic just ARE. Logic makes up the rules that govern reason. You keep misusing and misapplying the word logic, just like Silver does.

Regarding your sixth point:

You just contradicted yourself and invented a new term not in the rules. Also, please re-read what I say about assumptions in my previous post at the bottom.

 

[n810]

To no one in particular...
(but this thread in general)

 

[Twizted86]

A question I do have is, if the PF rule needs to say something like "this rule negates the normal SA rules" to create a conflict then why include a AB> BRB section at all? Wouldn't that make the AB>BRB redundant and unnecessary?

 

[mortetvie]

@hdctambien

You talk as if Supporting Attacks is the only way of ever making more than one attacck against someone not in base to base contact, which is wrong.

Not even saying I agree that PF is not a SA, but a "PF attack", but I see the argument SoB also made earlier in this thread. Monstrous infantry doesn't use the supporting attack rule, but the "monstrous support" rule. If we assume PF negates SA in the same way, you can indeed make another SA, just like MS allows you to make 3, rather than 1 - PF just only works if you roll a 6 on your to-hit.

And for all we know, it could be the way it was both intended, and even written (the "whenever"), but it just didn't come off clear enough, because their haphazard use of the dictionary makes a lot of people disregard different wordings entirely, despite how heavily it should be considered. It's not even a case of semantics, because a lot of the differing words used, like Conflict versus Contradiction, is a clear change in wording - yet it is being disregarded, because GW forgot to tell us what the difference was.

Maybe there is no difference - in which case the writer was a moron - but all we can see is that there IS a difference, and unless you outright ignore what the book tells you, you should be taking that into consideration.

Silver, name another method of attacking a model not in base contact that is neither a supporting attack or monstrous support attack? Also, it is incorrect to say an attack made by the PF rule is a PF attack-that is just making something up. PF specifically says make another attack, not "make another attack called a 'PF attack'" so please don't go making up stuff that isn't in the rules. The reason why we CAN distinguish between attacks against models in base contact and models not in base contact is because the BRB specifically does (hence regular CC attacks and SA attacks). PF does not distinguish itself as either type at all but it is one or both of those types of attacks.

Also, why do you keep making the same logical fallacy over and over again? It doesn't matter HOW the extra attack is generated, only that PF is a special rule that generates an extra attack.

Anyway, the burden of proof for establishing PF works with SA has not been met and that is why it fails as an argument!

Indeed, SA is an EXCEPTION to the normal CC rules and absent a mention of that exception in another rule that generates extra attacks, that other rule doesn't work with SA. This is a presumption, yes, but some presumptions (or assumptions) are safe to make based on logic while others are not. I don't mean my opinion, I mean the actual laws and rules of reason that you can learn about and look up yourself.

Let me clarify the situation in another light (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy for reference):

Argument 1:
If it rains, the street will be wet (premise)
The street is wet.
Therefore it rained. (conclusion)

Argument 2:
If it rains, the street will be wet. (premise)
It rained.
Therefore, the streets are wet. (conclusion)

The first argument is illogical because if the premise is true, just because the street is wet, it doesn't mean that it is wet because of rain. The second argument is logical because if the premise is true, the street has to be wet despite any other source of liquid.

The first argument above is the same situation we have with the PF/SA arguments:

PF says CC attack
SA is a form of CC attack
therefore CC attacks in PF can be SA

(1) In the case of PF working when making SA (directing attacks against models not in B2B), you need to make an assumption that isn't necessarily true (that when PF mentions CC attacks it also means SA attacks).

(2) In the case of PF working when directing attacks against models in B2B, you do not need an assumption at all because you are always allowed to direct attacks against models in B2B contact.

Therefore, because the ability to have PF work with SA at all, which is necessary for the AB>BRB rule to take effect, is based on an assumption that isn't necessarily true, the argument for PF to work with SA is based on a logical fallacy (see http://www.logicalfallacies.info/). PF with SA is based on bad reasoning.

Because SA says no special rules apply, the burden of a special rule applying to/overcoming SA is on the actual special rule itself. Just because a special rule MAY have language that overcomes the SA restriction does not mean that it DOES overcome it and the burden of proof has not been met here. It is not enough to say "PF may include SA in the rule so prove PF doesn't overcome the SA restriction" for PF to suddenly be able to work with SA... It must be proven that PF includes SA specifically and clearly before anyone can claim that PF works with SA-that simply has not and cannot be done.

Indeed, it is not up to me to prove PF does not work with SA, it is the other way around! Furthermore, the argument that PF works with SA is automatically illogical and defeated as per the "if it rains" example above because if something isn't necessarily true, it can't be maintained as true. On the other hand, pointing out that something may be wrong is a good reason for not accepting that line of reasoning hence why my position by default is superior.

The alternative position to PF with SA is merely pointing out that absent clear language that a rule says something, don't assume it says something... That is logical and makes sense.

A question I do have is, if the PF rule needs to say something like "this rule negates the normal SA rules" to create a conflict then why include a AB> BRB section at all? Wouldn't that make the AB>BRB redundant and unnecessary?

This rule is what allowed an older TK book to continue using its type of magic system rather than the new one in the BRB even though the TK book made no mention of the new BRB magic rules. This rule has a purpose and the whole set of rules on pg. 11 deals with how to handle situations where rules contradict each other.

 

[SilverFaith]

To no one in particular...
(but this thread in general)

I don't think anyone expects new participants to read the entire thread anymore. No one can be expected to read such an obscenely long thread.

@Mort: I never said there necessarily WERE more than just those 2 ways of making more SAs. I only pointed out that SA wasn't the only way. Though this issue permeates your entire post, because I never discussed arguments. I merely pointed out problems that are present in this entire discussion, and why a FAQ is indeed needed. The rest of us have long since moved past which way is the right one. You merely cling to the belief that it is so painfully clear that half of all TO, including GWs own employees, are apparently idiots for not seeing the Light, like you have, by claiming a FAQ is not needed.

 

[hdctambien]

You talk as if Supporting Attacks is the only way of ever making more than one attacck against someone not in base to base contact, which is wrong.

Who Can Strike, BRB Pg 48: "Normally, a warrior can only strike blows against an enemy model in base contact. The most common exception is if he is making a supporting attack."

The BRB has a couple ways to make attacks against enemies that are not in base to base with you:

1) Supporting Attacks (and Monstrous Support)
2) Horde Formation
3) Fight in Extra Ranks ability (usually from a Spear)

I know Elves has the special rule to attack from even more ranks (still constrained by the Supporting Attacks rule, however). Maybe other armies have special rules that allow them to make close combat attacks against models that they are not in b2b with... what are those rules? Are they constrained by the Supporting Attacks rule?

Monstrous infantry doesn't use the supporting attack rule, but the "monstrous support" rule. If we assume PF negates SA in the same way, you can indeed make another SA, just like MS allows you to make 3, rather than 1 - PF just only works if you roll a 6 on your to-hit.

Monstrous Support: "A monstrous infantry model can make as many supporting attacks as are on its profile, up to a maximum of three, rather than the usual one supporting attack."

The key difference between Monstrous Support and Predatory Fighter is that last clause: "...rather than the usual one supporting Attack."

If Predatory Fighter has a similar clause then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The only viable argument for PF working in supporting ranks is that the word "whenever" implies "even with Supporting Attacks."