8th Ed. Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks

[Ixt]

With all this mayhem over 'Supporting Attacks,' maybe we should adopt a rule that limits 'Supporting Arguments' eh?

 

[SilverFaith]

With all this mayhem over 'Supporting Attacks,' maybe we should adopt a rule that limits 'Supporting Arguments' eh?

Ha, that's a good one

So how many would you propose we get? Are we infantry, or are we monstrous?

 

[Sleboda]

Silverfaith, my posts are not right because they are long, they are right because they are supported by logic and sound reasoning. Incidentally, that is why the posts maintaining the other position are wrong, they are not supported by logic or sound reasoning... Also, I get that someone coming in here and saying "I am right and you are wrong" can be offensive and abrasive, especially when you disagree with them, but I am not trying to come across as arrogant. Indeed, I am merely pointing out why I just happen to be right because the laws of logic, not because I say I am right-there is a difference. So calling me ignorant and wondering what makes me "enlightened" because people disagree with me is an ad-hominem and false appeal to numbers fallacy

=> Nothing personal against Silverfaith, but it really does sound a lot like "Y'all git out. We don't need none uh yer book learnin' 'round here" to me.

Yes, you write long posts and use big ole brainy thingies and words and stuff...But sometimes a cogent line of thought cannot be explained in the quick, short, easily-digestible format that some folks want.


I guess that even amongst nerds, some will take on the roll of jocks and call thir fellows 'real' nerds.

Sad, really, to see logic and reason dismissed so easily.



Also, yes, the rule really is as clear as "some people think."

The fact that there are those who cannot understand it does not make it unclear. it means there is a failing in some people, not the wording of the rule.

The same people who think this rule is unclear would ask a waitress "why doesn't your mushroom-swiss burger come with cheese?"

 

[spawning of Bob]

This is fun, and I haven't had a turn yet. I wish I had put forward my obviously superior opinion a year ago, and apologies if this line of reasoning has been run down - I just couldn't read all 50 pages of debate to check.

Disclaimer - As a general and game, I am known to occasionally draw amusing stick men.

Point 1 (the weak one):

a) Supporting attacks: "...can only ever make a single attack, regardless blah blah blah" BRB 47

b) unless we make up a different sounding rule, like... monstrous support: up to a maximum of three, rather than the usual one supporting attack." BRB 81

Part a) has unambiguous exclusive language ("can only ever"), part b) squats down and poops all over that in the same book.

Conclusions:
GW are lame
Calling a similar rule something else dodges the issue. MI don't make supporting attacks, they do monstrous support.
GW are so lame, they could win a three legged race unassisted



Point 2 (the other weak one):

Predatory Fighter: a) whenever a model with this special rule rolls a 6... b) it immediately makes another attack..." LM 30

a) Exclusive language. "whenever... Rolls a six"

b) "immediately makes another attack" = squat and poop.



Point 3 (the Spawning of Bob logic / oxymoron one):

"Makes another attack."

Not a close combat attack. Not a supporting attack. "Makes another attack." Within the PF rule the closest GW comes to defining "another" is to say that such an attack does not generate additional further attacks (ie. such an attack is not the same as a regular close combat attack.)

Its a Predatory Fighter Attack. Its is not in the normal close combat sequence (CC attacks are rolled front rank and supporting together assuming same initiative step)

Supporting attacks have been and gone (you rolled them remember. all those lovely sixes) They haven't been resolved yet (to wound, saves) but the To Hit roll is done.

Now you roll immediately make ANOTHER attack for each 6. For convenience, Bob will call the "ANOTHER" attack a "predatory fighter" attack.

Now resolve all to wound and saves with everything else at that initiative step.



So there you have it. It's not a close combat attack. It's not a supporting attack. It's ANOTHER attack. (Like Monstrous Support is a different rule to supporting attacks.) All contained in the army book rule.

I am open to correction (seriously - if you don't, Wife of Bob will correct me about something else soon enough.)




I used a couple of big words. Does that make me a nerd or an Ubernerd?






Why did I do this at this time?



'Cos I love to see that vein pulsing on Phatmofo's forehead.

 

[SilverFaith]

=> Nothing personal against Silverfaith, but it really does sound a lot like "Y'all git out. We don't need none uh yer book learnin' 'round here" to me.

Nothing to do with that, unfortunately. I've seen plenty of logically sound arguments, which are just dismissed by refering to the same arguments used millions of times.

And if you had read my post, which you evidently haven't, you would have seen I agreed with him. So it's all fine and dandy calling people "jocks" and "stupid orcs", until you realize that being certain of your position or opinion does not make you right.

Spawning of bob comes with more eloquently set up counterarguments we have already seen in this thread, only written in a more clear manner. And they are good points - I also pointed out earlier in this thread, that Supporting attacks states you are limited to one attack, no matter what happens, and how many rules you might have... And then a few pages later, it says that monstrous infantry can make 3 supporting attacks. So GW have made a precedent for circumventing the rule that says it can't be circumvented... so why shouldn't PF be able to do the same?

It's funny, really, because the topic went from "Is supporting atttacks allowed or not" to "is it unclear or not". You would think that having hundreds of people be in agreement abouut the rule being unclear, and in need of a FAQ... to suddenly being crystal clear, despite nothing changing in the mean time. If you can't see how arrogant it is to proclaim that you are simply the only person intelligent enough to see it your way, I don't know what to tell you.

I'll refer back to Lordkingcrow, and his proposal to just keep asking GW for an answer. Especially because, in the end, GWs word is law, and if we believe the mail responses some people have gotten, then it really can go both ways. And since I happen to know my local GW store have also been asking this question quite a bit lately, so who knows, we might get a reply sooner or later... Or maybe see a clarification by 9th edition, or outright removal of this odd rule - which is actually an interesting thought, because if saurus suddenly got to attack with full attacks + PF in all ranks capable of attacking... saurus would likely see a new surge of popularity, and spears being an even better option.

Still, and this is merely to underline my opinion on this matter, since some people apparently make assumptions, rather than read the posts: If I have to choose a side, I'd take Morts side, because his arguments are the most sound. They just aren't as bulletproof as he thinks they are.

 

[mortetvie]

Silverfaith, for agreeing with me you have a funny way of showing it but anyway...

For an argument to be logical, it needs to comport with the laws of logic and for it to be sound, it needs to have the premises be true and follow a valid form of argumentation. Unfortunately, the arguments for the opposing side neither comport with the laws of logic nor are they sound because they follow invalid forms of argument and do not have true premises. Indeed, I have done nothing but point out the logical fallacies-as per the laws and principles of logic. The opposing side has not been able to return the favor in terms of my arguments. Hint simply saying something is illogical or that something doesn't make sense-not because in reality it is illogical or doesn't make sense, but simply because you don't understand why it is logical or makes sense-doesn't count people.

Indeed, for anyone that actually knows and understands how logic works, the rules are crystal clear. I mean, really, you go on to talk about having seen many logical and sound arguments but then go on to perpetuate the very logical fallacies you made earlier (and apparently now it's hundreds of people against little 'ol me). (1) Just because there are many people confused by the rules does not necessarily mean that the rules are confusing, it just necessarily means that there are many confused people; and, (2) It doesn't matter how many people think the rules are confusing or how many people believe one thing, they can all still be wrong. At one point, many people thought the world was flat and were confused about the world being round-does that mean that because of the mass confusion and commonly held idea that the world was flat at a certain point in time that it actually was? Of course not, those that actually understood that the world was not flat were right because of their grasp of science (as a side note, this example is given for illustrative purposes and may or may not be historically accurate).

Anyway, there are 3 major problems that keep being perpetuated here:

(1) People don't actually know what logic is or how it is applied-its like a form of math but with words; (2) people don't read my posts in their entirety-hence they attack only a portion of what I have said which is a logical fallacy; (3) they don't understand what I've written and because of that they apparently write it off-hence why they attack misstatements or twisted versions of what I have said resulting in a logical fallacy upon another fallacy.

Seriously people, if an argument is shown to be illogical/invalid and defeated by the laws of logic, it doesn't matter how often it is repeated or how many people believe it, it doesn't suddenly become logical. The fact that so many people think the rules are unclear just goes to show how many people don't really grasp logic.

And Bob, if you are trolling, lol <3. If you are serious (because I don't want to assume someone is joking when they are serious-or for anyone that buys into the logic in Bob's post), then I dunno what to say other than the rules as written don't function that way... Because... The extra attack generated by PF would violate the SA. Anyway, the Monstrous Support attacks rule, as listed in the Monstrous Infantry part of the BRB, is an Advanced rule that modifies and takes precedence over the basic Supporting Attacks rule because it specifically mentions the amount of attacks in regards to supporting attacks so I dunno why anyone would quibble or bring that up in this discussion. Incidentally, Monstrous Supporting attacks are limited to 3 attacks just like non Monstrous Supporting attacks are limited to just 1 so PF wouldn't work with Kroxigors, sadly.

With all of that said, I bear no hostility towards anyone, just their fallacious arguments =).

 

[Korhedron]

Hey. Hey Bob? I... I love you, man. You deflated the drama balloon, pointed out circular logic, used humor and logic as a twin-linked weapon, and produced a stick figure in the same post. Swoon...

 

[Ixt]

So, in a straight fight between 40 Saurus in Horde formation using Spears, and having activated the Primeval Roar (all of this being very expensive and atypical in battles less than 3k, I think) we're looking at a difference of... 8 wounds at 4+ before saves in a perfectly ideal situation?

17 pages of rules lawyering for what probably ends up as a difference of 8 wounds coming from what's likely well over a whopping 350ss point sink...

Huh. o_o Yeah, I think I'll save time & stress and roll all my PF/attacks at once.

 

[Sleboda]

@Silverfaith

Sorry. I should have taken more care in my post. I said it was nothing personal because I meant it was not really anything to do with you - it's more about a general idea.

I often see, in general, well constructed yet lengthy arguments dismissed not based on their content but purely because some folks don't like to read them, and this frequently feels like it comes from a position like the "hick-speak" I used.

That's what I meant.

This, though, does actually show real lack of ability to follow M's (and others) reasoning:

So GW have made a precedent for circumventing the rule that says it can't be circumvented... so why shouldn't PF be able to do the same?

It's not the same! The Monstrous Support mechanism us _precisely_ what the rules are set up to handle. It's _exactly_ how it's supposed to work. With this rule, there actually IS the conflict that is to be resolved by the advanced vs. Basic rules process.

THIS rule creates a conflict (as you yourself suggest) where PF does not.

Missing this distinction is ___totally___ what shows how some folks appear to be incapable of understanding the rules that are, in fact, clear.

I'm not saying there is no confusion. I'm saying that the fault for the confusion lies with some readers. That's not even the arrogance you suggest (and saying it is arrogance only reinforces the expression I made previously - calling someone arrogant simply because they refuse to pretend to be less intelligent just to placate others really does sound like something straight out of a high school gymnasium).

There is plenty I don't understand. If a mechanic says my car needs a new radiator, I don't call him arrogant just because I don't understand car parts. I defer to his education.

17 pages of rules lawyering for what probably ends up as a difference of 8 wounds coming from what's likely well over a whopping 350ss point sink...

No. 17 pages because a discussion forum is exactly the right place to discuss rules, no matter how big or small their impact. Better here than at the table, right?

Incidentally, not caring about a rule based on personal "where to draw the line" tolerance doesn't seem like a good idea.


And...you know you can roll all the dice at once, right? Just like cavalry and other cases?

 

[mortetvie]

Yeah, I think I'll save time & stress and roll all my PF/attacks at once.

Loose paraphrase is "I can't be bothered with playing RAW so I'll just play the rules how I want to." Indeed, this is what it comes down to for people who want to roll PF with SA.

As a side note, the ONLY time any restriction imposed by the BRB can be overcome by another rule (that would otherwise be prevented from operating due to the restriction) is when (1) an actual contradiction between a basic rule and advanced rule exists-the advanced rule will take precedence; and/or, (2) the rule specifically says it overcomes any restrictions. That is why the Monstrous Support rule overcomes the SA 1 attack limitations, it satisfies both (1) and (2) whereas PF satisfies neither and therefore fails to overcome the SA 1 attack limitation.

 

[Mr Phat]

 

[SilverFaith]

@Sleboda

Fair enough. My issue wasn't the long-winded posts, though. The issue was that he seemed to think he is the only person capable of using "logic", calling any counter-arguments "unsupported by logic and sound reasoning".

I disagree about it being pointless in terms of balance, though. I see how you might say it is a "too little difference in gain to matter", but that's not really a good thing to base your conclusion on. Since a lot of people are still in disagreement about the rule (Even if some people really do believe there is no question about how to apply the rule), you are free to do whatever you want, and indeed, my local group have ruled that we allow it, simply because the time wasted rolling them seperately is not worth the difference in effect - but that isn't really an answer to the discussion, is it?

I just feel it veers too close to "houserule" territory for my comfort, at least.

 

[Putzfrau]

This is hilarious.


/popcorn.

 

[mortetvie]

The issue was that he seemed to think he is the only person capable of using "logic", calling any counter-arguments "unsupported by logic and sound reasoning".

Nobody likes being wrong, I get that. Furthermore, when someone says they are right and that you are wrong and you don't see why, that can be very frustrating as well. However, it is not arrogant to point out that I am right based on the proper application of logic and the opposing arguments actually are unsupported by logic/sound reasoning.

Indeed, It would be one thing if they were supported by logic and sound reasoning and that I was just saying they were not-then you'd have reason to complain. On the other hand, if my arguments are supported by logic and sound reasoning and the other ones are not, then you and everyone else needs to learn logic and understand why they are wrong.

Finally, since you seem intent on attacking me by insinuating that I am just some elitist jerk who thinks he is the be all end all when it comes to logic and am just saying the other side is illogical because I disagree with them... I just want to say that my education, training and career involves the proper application of logic as it pertains to words, rules, regulations and laws. Reading rules and laws and properly interpreting what they say and how they interact is my bread and butter and I went through an extensive education, receiving many honors in the process, to be where I am today. So yes, I know a lot more about how to apply and use logic in terms of reading words and rules together than the majority of other people-not because I say so, not because I read some book or took a logic class but because I went to school for it and am pursuing a career in it.

Again, I simply pointed out the logical holes in the opposing arguments and absent those holes being filled (and as it stands they can't be filled)-those arguments fall apart and the only alternative we have left then is my position being correct, which is the default "unless otherwise stated" way to play the game. Don't kill the messenger for telling someone they are building their home on a faulty foundation!

 

[forlustria]

Well I guess I am retarded because I see a contradiction .

Take cold blooded : Whenever a model blah blah blah rolls 3 dice for leadership discard lowest

rule book says roll 2 (so contradiction so go by army book)

So you dont get to choose to roll 3 dice you have to because it says whenever.

now just because SA says you dont benefit from special rules (bear inmind written before pf)

army book says whenever you roll a 6 to hit ..... so 1 says no and the other says whenever (any time)

 

[Ixt]

Nicely done.

Loose paraphrase is "I can't be bothered with playing RAW so I'll just play the rules how I want to."

Sharp claws on this one. I take it you're a prosecutor, and not a defense attorney?

Loose paraphrase (without having words put in my mouth is), "I think that the only thing clear about this conflict is the intent of PF."

 

[mortetvie]

Well I guess I am retarded because I see a contradiction .(so cont

You are not retarded, just not really grasping the situation fully in light of what logic says and your example proves it.

For example, Cold Blooded is an advanced rule that cannot function *at all* if the basic leadership rules are also in effect. In a sense, they cancel each other out so to resolve this contradiction the Cold Blooded rule takes precedence otherwise it would *never* work.

PF, on the otherhand, is only precluded from working *some* of the time by the SA rule, not *all* the time. Therefore there is no contradiction as per the AB>BRB clause.

Do you see that? Sometimes logic is like a magic eye puzzle for some people and they never truly "see it." That doesn't mean they are retarded, they just don't understand.

Some rules can be precluded from taking effect in some situations by other rules... This is part of the game! It is not a contradiction because one rule prevents another from functioning in a limited scope...it *is* a contradiction if one rule prevents another from functioning *at all*.

And Ixt, I am not in criminal law-never liked that aspect of the law.

 

[SilverFaith]

The issue was that he seemed to think he is the only person capable of using "logic", calling any counter-arguments "unsupported by logic and sound reasoning".

Nobody likes being wrong, I get that. Furthermore, when someone says they are right and that you are wrong and you don't see why, that can be very frustrating as well. However, it is not arrogant to point out that I am right based on the proper application of logic and the opposing arguments actually are unsupported by logic/sound reasoning.

Indeed, It would be one thing if they were supported by logic and sound reasoning and that I was just saying they were not-then you'd have reason to complain. On the other hand, if my arguments are supported by logic and sound reasoning and the other ones are not, then you and everyone else needs to learn logic and understand why they are wrong.

Finally, since you seem intent on attacking me by insinuating that I am just some elitist jerk who thinks he is the be all end all when it comes to logic and am just saying the other side is illogical because I disagree with them... I just want to say that my education, training and career involves the proper application of logic as it pertains to words, rules, regulations and laws. Reading rules and laws and properly interpreting what they say and how they interact is my bread and butter and I went through an extensive education, receiving many honors in the process, to be where I am today. So yes, I know a lot more about how to apply and use logic in terms of reading words and rules together than the majority of other people-not because I say so, not because I read some book or took a logic class but because I went to school for it and am pursuing a career in it.

Again, I simply pointed out the logical holes in the opposing arguments and absent those holes being filled (and as it stands they can't be filled)-those arguments fall apart and the only alternative we have left then is my position being correct, which is the default "unless otherwise stated" way to play the game. Don't kill the messenger for telling someone they are building their home on a faulty foundation!

Once again, I feel I have to point out that I am agreeing with you.

One thing I do have to point out, as I've been told by a player I know who happen to be a partnered Lawyer: Games Workshop don't make rules like they make "real" laws. You really can't compare, because GW don't spend the thousands it would cost to make a real lawyer write proper rules for them. The logic only works, if the logic is actually there in the first place. Whether or not it is, I don't really care for anymore. I've detached myself from the actual rule discussion. The only thing that matters right now, is getting GW to give us an official FAQ, not only for this question, but for several others as well.

@Ixt: We can't be sure of the intent, unfortunately. This was the problem with Dark Acolyte, where the RAW was crystal clear, but the RAI was equally clear - Why would you add 1d3 to your casting value AFTER the opponent have had a chance to dispel? But the thing is, RAW is all we can go by. We can guess at the intent, but we can't really know what the intent was. Even Tiktaq falls prey to this: Maybe he really is intended to be a lone hero, who can't join units. It's extremely unlikely, but we can't really know it, can we?

@Forlustria: WHELP NEVERMIND, too slow. Mort already replied

 

[forlustria]

Well I guess I am retarded because I see a contradiction .(so cont

You are not retarded, just not really grasping the situation fully in light of what logic says and your example proves it.

For example, Cold Blooded is an advanced rule that cannot function *at all* if the basic leadership rules are also in effect. In a sense, they cancel each other out so to resolve this contradiction the Cold Blooded rule takes precedence otherwise it would *never* work.

PF, on the otherhand, is only precluded from working *some* of the time by the SA rule, not *all* the time. Therefore there is no contradiction as per the AB>BRB clause.

Do you see that? Sometimes logic is like a magic eye puzzle for some people and they never truly "see it." That doesn't mean they are retarded, they just don't understand.

Some rules can be precluded from taking effect in some situations by other rules... This is part of the game! It is not a contradiction because one rule prevents another from functioning in a limited scope...it *is* a contradiction if one rule prevents another from functioning *at all*.

And Ixt, I am not in criminal law-never liked that aspect of the law.

Yeah I was just pointing out the only other rule I could find that said whenever a model ......

I still think logically whenever means whenever regardless of what rank you are in .

so someone in the second rank rolls a 6 , oh i get another attack but the rule book says i can only get 1 supporting attack but the army book tells me i get another attack whenever i roll a 6 (now i have a contradiction 2 books telling me 2 different things) for no conflict the army book should say you dont get it for supporting. I mean the army book already tells us PF attacks dont generate more Pf attacks

excuse the bad punctuation I am typeing really fast from work.

 

[mortetvie]

@Silverfaith, it doesn't matter who writes the rules or how well the rules are written-the laws of logic still apply just as much as with anything else...The laws and rules of logic can't (and don't) simply cease to apply anymore because a sentence is badly worded anymore than the laws of nature can cease to apply.

@Forlustria, I get what you are saying but the problem is that the PF rule needs to specifically say that it overcomes the SA limitations otherwise it doesn't-you are assuming it does and that is a logical fallacy (assuming the conclusion). This is just like the following example:

PF: You can use bleach whenever you do a load of laundry

SA: When doing a load of laundry with dark clothing in it, you cannot use bleach.

You are saying because you have a rule that says you can use bleach whenever, you can just ignore the limitations and consequences of the second rule instead of trying to harmonize the two rules. In my example, you are welcome to use Bleach when doing laundry unless there are dark clothing in the load because the clothes will get ruined. In Warhammer, you can do PF attacks unless you are in the second rank and on wards because you are more restricted with your movement and it is harder to attack from a tight spot...The bite attack that gave LM an extra attack didn't work in the second rank in the old rules for the same reason-they couldn't reach with their jaws and were too restrained by being in the second rank. It makes sense and it's the law!


I mean really, if you are really going to argue that PF works with SA, you also have to argue that Frenzy does and every other rule that generates an extra attack as "Frenzy says I get the 'Extra Attack' rule which says I add an attack to my attack profile but SA says I only ever get one attack-contradiction so Frenzy works in second rank!"

If PF works with SA as the rules are written, you also have to argue that even though BRB says no dice can ever be re-rolled more than once, if you have multiple sources of a re-rolls (i.e., Dwarven Engineers/Warmachines) that say "re-roll a dice" that AB>BRB and you can invariable re-roll a dice more than once.

The problem here is not with the way the rules are written but with the way they are read. The rules are painfully clear, it's just that the clear application of them is unpalatable to the point that people stick their fingers in their ears and check out when logic steps in and rains on their parade.