8th Ed. Predatory Fighters special rule

[Mr Phat]

PF is good with this part of the supporting attack rules:

"Of course, a warrior making a supporting attack is rather more constricted by the press of bodies than one who is face to face with his foe. lb represent this, he can only ever make a single Attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on his profile,......"


what it DOSNT fit with though....is this:

" .....or any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects."

the problem is, as I see it, that PF makes it sound like a seperat attack, which isnt to be counted with the first...

meaning the saurus makes 1 legal Support attack... "twice" ... never going over the limit, as they are being rolled for seperatly as two different events.

 

[Choombatta]

As a player of both Warriors of Chaos and Lizardmen armies, I have to ask............
Using the same logic most of you are using for the PF rule, do you allow the same logic to be used for Mark of Tzeentch in a WoC army?

In other words, the BRB states that you can only re-roll a roll of a 1, once.

Mark of Tzeentch states you can "re-roll ANY channeling dice rolls of 1" ( emphasis mine ).

Players can use the same logic as PF, and claim the WoC army book trumps BRB with the use of the word "any".

Seems silly, but so does the PF argument to me ( this is my personal opinion and not an attack on any poster ).

Now, in the meantime, waiting on a FAQ, our gaming group plays PF like this........

Roll all attacks together in 1 batch of dice, but only allow 6s to generate a PF attack up to the number of models in the front rank. So if I have 6 saurus in the front rank and I generate 8 rolls of a 6, 6 of them generate an extra attack.
This allows for quicker rolls, more chances of generating a PF attack, but with the limitation of only a certain number actually gain the extra attack.

Seems like a very good compromise until GW settles the debate.

 

[hdctambien]

Where does it say once per phase? It says ONE ATTACK. Period. If you're being a generous interpreter of rules as written, you will allow each supporting attacking model to make one supporting attack per game, but you're still making some degree of common sense RAI argument for that

This is something I wish would stop getting repeated over an over again.

The Supporting Attacks rule is in the section called "Fight a Round of Close Combat" where it is describing the rules for fighting a round of close combat. So when it says "he can only ever make a single Attack" it is in reference to the time frame of "a round of close combat"

 

[arcabis]

so after i read a battle report in the forum my eye's stack to this 'I asked the local gw store clerk about predatory fighter in supporting ranks and sword of striking he said they both work '...

so this mean's that the PF work in support attack's and with buff +1 to hit???

 

[Rango]

For this reason I always prefer playing games with artists than with lawyers
Roll it off if someone is annoying and enjoy the game

Fluff wise and play wise supporting ranks should get PF, hopefully GW will confirm that
They are the same creatures with same instincts like the guys in front of them.
PF is our army special rule and as such should precede the BRB

If they draw blood they want more blood, and ranks do little help to stop them for going for it (good for us) and stoping them for pursuing them (not so good for us).
I (personally) see this as our "pit-bullian" type of infantry vs. orderly elven german shepherd type of infantry

This should be an army specific thing and that our ability overrides the BRB
If someone thinks that this is imbalanced swap the Saurus with ASF GW elves and ask him would he prefer that better

 

[Spiney Norman]

+1 for Caneghems post. I agree a 100%

For example, my lizardmen army book says saurus have two attacks on their profile so because the ab trumps the brb that means my second rank saurus can make two attacks rather than just one. Do you consider this interp to be acceptable, i kind of hope not.

why would you first state that there has to be a conflict for the rule to apply and then give an example where there is no conflict?

the rule says that it dosnt matter how many attacks there are listed in the profile, Saurus has two attacks in the profile...no conflict, as no rule in the armybook is written to state it can use those two attacks anyway, no conflict.

It's actually exactly the same situation with Pred fighter, the rule simply grants an additional attack to models, that in some cases cannot legally make use of it (because they are in the second rank for example.

true, but it is unaffected by the support rule as PF does not grant the attack via the profile.

it dosnt do +1A, it lets the model that has it "make" another one.

If any tests or other effects that has anything to do with the attacks listed in the profile it would still say "2A" not 2+1.

I'm sorry you missed the point of my Ironic example of the two profile attacks, I wasnt suggesting it as a serious argument, just an example to help you see why second rankers making extra attacks through pf does not work in the current rules without an faq.

Are you arguing that attacks gained from predatory fighter somehow happen outside of the close combat round? The rules for models making supporting attacks are clear as crystal, they can only ever make 1 attack per close combat round regardless of its source. All the attacks that happen at an int step are deemed to happen simultaneously, regardless of how many dice you roll at once or what order you roll them in, so any attacks made by your model AND any attacks generated by pf all resolve at the same time unless you are inventing some kind of post-combat round sub-phase when attacks generated by pf are resolved.

It was my understanding that all the attacks from your saurus unit (including those generated by pf) occur at the same int step, at the same time (the order the dice are rolled being entirely irrelevant) in which case models making supporting attacks can only contribute a maximum of one attack in total during that round of close combat.

Now if you want to argue that attacks gained via PF are made outside of the cc round there are two big problems i can see straight away, firstly there is no precedent in the game for making cc attacks outside of the cc round that I am aware of and secondly if by some bizarre twist that was how it worked, wounds generated by of attacks could not count towards combat resolution of a cc round they were not a part of.

 

[hardyworld]

THIS TOPIC HAS ALREADY GONE ON AND ON FOR MANY MANY PAGES HERE:

http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/predatory-fighter-supporting-attacks.12270/

FAQ like this one need to be stickied.

You cannot ignore all the other abilities in warhammer in which models gain extra attacks (Frenzy, additional hand weapons, magic spells, etc.). Each of these cases increases the number of attacks a model does by one and all are subject to the limitation of the Supporting Attacks rule. Predatory Fighter, like these, is a special rule that grants models additional attacks. The Supporting Attacks rule is clear that 'only ever make a single Attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on his profile, or any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects'. Predatory Fighter IS a special rule that grants bonus attacks; therefore it would obey the Supporting Attacks rule. It's ridiculous that this would be up for any discussion, the rules are crystal clear and lock tight. Wishlist how it works all you want, but--until something says otherwise--supporting attacks do not benefit from the Predatory Fighter rule.

All of this imagining/creating of a new sub-step in the close combat phase to justify how each different kind of attack is subject to the Supporting Attack rule separately is non-sense (and wishlisting). Do you want other players to argue the same sub-step existence for for their units? Savage Orcs w/ additional hand weapons doing 1 supporting attack with base attack, 1 supporting attack with extra attack from frenzy, and 1 supporting attack with additional hand weapon? Each model's Supporting Attacks would be limited the same way some of you are arguing Predatory Fighter bonus attacks would work.

 

[Reddogfish]

Ok... how about this... when they FAQ it so no one complains about this crap anymore and allow additional ranks to benefit from the PF rule will you still say it is or was wishlisting?

The reason people are saying it is included for additional ranks is as you stated the models dont get those attacks as a base.

xhw... frenzy... death frenzy...

These things increase the number of attacks a model has at the time when they attack.

granted they cant support with these attacks because they have been specifically stated not to.

However, when a model attacks with their single attack and strike with a 6 to hit... the model can then make an attack after the fact...

This is not increasing the models base number of attacks... it is not increasing their attacks at all... it is a special rule granting a free shot from a model after their standard attack phase, before their attacks are completed though.

 

[Caneghem]

I guess it is just a difference of viewing this as adding attacks to a single roll, or having certain attacks that roll a 6 trigger a separate roll outside of the normal attacks. Everything else in the game that adds attacks will add them to the initial roll, be it frenzy, extra hand weapons, or any number of spells granting extra attacks. These abilities boost the attack values of each model, and so the limit applies to Supporting Attacks in each case. All of these boost the number of normal attacks models may make. However, second rank models can't make normal attacks, but rather a single supporting attack.

Predatory Fighter attacks are a special type of attack, in that they don't happen at exactly the same time as normal attacks. They require a certain roll to trigger them. You have normal attacks, supporting attacks, and Predatory Fighter attacks. Any of the first two can trigger one of the last kind, since the rules do not expressly forbid Supporting Attacks from triggering a Predatory Fighter attack. Maybe I can explain this a little better.

Normal Attacks - Make up to the number of attacks on your profile plus any bonuses, front rank only, etc.

Supporting Attacks - May make a single attack per close combat phase from second rank, etc.

Predatory Fighter Attacks - Models rolling a 6 To Hit immediately make this attack.

So think of it this way, Predatory Fighter attacks are not even Supporting Attacks at all, but a newly minted third type of attack. So if you want to get technical, if you roll a 6 on your ONE supporting attack, you can make a single Predatory Fighter attack... the limit is one supporting attack per phase. PF attacks are not normal nor are they supporting attacks, and are rolled separately, after both normal and supporting attacks are rolled.

This is starting to feel like the last book debate where the question was, "Can Terradons drop rocks on the turn they charge?" Ultimately the debate was futile, because GW ruled first that they could, and then that they couldn't in a later FAQ. Unfortunately, this means that the people who write the FAQs don't necessarily even read the Army Book or have any idea what the intent of the original rule was, but rather just call it on a whim. I still maintain that RAI, Terradons were supposed to only ever drop rocks in the Remaining Moves phase, but that had no bearing on the initial FAQ ruling.

At the end of the day, we're fighting over whether our mediocre buff with a severe drawback is going to be made 33% worse for infantry and 100% worse for skrox. PF essentially becomes an in-built penalty to skrox, since the unit will still be forced to pursue without a skink character, and gains zero benefit whatsoever from the rule. I guess you'd also call it 50% worse for plain kroxigors if you take a large unit.

 

[Spiney Norman]

If pred fighter attacks are not supporting attacks then 2nd/3rd/4th rank models cannot make them anyway since models in subsequent ranks can ONLY make supporting attacks, they cannot make any other kind of attacks.

Further more where is all this rubbish coming from about pf attacks not happening at the same time as the attacks that generate them? When on earth are you making these attacks if not at the units normal initiative step, and with what justification?

 

[Caneghem]

If pred fighter attacks are not supporting attacks then 2nd/3rd/4th rank models cannot make them anyway since models in subsequent ranks can ONLY make supporting attacks, they cannot make any other kind of attacks.

Further more where is all this rubbish coming from about pf attacks not happening at the same time as the attacks that generate them? When on earth are you making these attacks if not at the units normal initiative step, and with what justification?

Models in 2nd and subsequent ranks can only ever make one supporting attack, but it doesn't specify they can't make any other type of attack.

PF attacks can't be rolled at the same time as the others, because you have to roll first, count the 6's, and then generate a new batch of attacks based on the initial roll. They happen at the same initiative step, immediately following normal attacks.

 

[Smexygor]

Hmmm. Much to ponder.

Screw you GW for not putting out the FAQ already.

 

[hardyworld]

If pred fighter attacks are not supporting attacks then 2nd/3rd/4th rank models cannot make them anyway since models in subsequent ranks can ONLY make supporting attacks, they cannot make any other kind of attacks.

Further more where is all this rubbish coming from about pf attacks not happening at the same time as the attacks that generate them? When on earth are you making these attacks if not at the units normal initiative step, and with what justification?

Models in 2nd and subsequent ranks can only ever make one supporting attack, but it doesn't specify they can't make any other type of attack.

Really? That's the leg you are left standing on? The rules also don't say a lot of things (infinitely many to be exact). The rules don't say to not remove the opponent's model of your choice for every model of yours removed from the table. The rules don't say to not place a 6" diameter forest on the table for every model of yours killed in close combat. The rules don't say to not to force your opponent to hop on their left leg exactly 65 times while reciting, from memory, the Gettysburg Address after each successful dispelling roll or else the attempt doesn't count. The rules don't say to not pour a bucket of Behr paint over your opponent's army as a celebration of their victory over you. You cannot expect a rule set to specifically exclude everything that does not follow its rules in a game, a rules set can only state the things that do happen within the rules.

 

[Mr Phat]

Really? That's the leg you are left standing on? The rules also don't say a lot of things (infinitely many to be exact). The rules don't say to not remove the opponent's model of your choice for every model of yours removed from the table. The rules don't say to not place a 6" diameter forest on the table for every model of yours killed in close combat. The rules don't say to not to force your opponent to hop on their left leg exactly 65 times while reciting, from memory, the Gettysburg Address after each successful dispelling roll or else the attempt doesn't count. The rules don't say to not pour a bucket of Behr paint over your opponent's army as a celebration of their victory over you. You cannot expect a rule set to specifically exclude everything that does not follow its rules in a game, a rules set can only state the things that do happen within the rules.

the difference between that nonsense (I hope we agree on that part ) is that there is no indication that should do any of it, were there is an indication in the PF rule.

im so tired of discussing this...especialy cause people seem to get agitated on eachother when in reality it is Games Workshop who needs to do more to remove doubt...
GW needs to settle it fast...it cant be that hard! ITS A ONE WORD ANSWER!

 

[hardyworld]

the difference between that nonsense (I hope we agree on that part ) is that there is no indication that should do any of it, were there is an indication in the PF rule.

And that is where the rub is, you think there is that indication, where I do not see that indication: nowhere in the PF rule does it state that you can make PF attacks as additional supporting attacks (or as supporting attacks at all), nor does it state that you can make PF attacks against models that are not in base to base contact with them (if you are saying PF attacks from the 2nd rank are not supporting attacks), but you are saying one of those 2 cases applies.

My point was that the argument that it "doesn't say NOT to" is not a good point. I cannot fathom why models' PF attacks would follow the first half of the Supporting Attacks rule (by being able to attack units not base to base contact with them) while not following the second half of the same Supporting Attacks rule (limiting the number of supporting attacks any model may make) WITHOUT some kind of rule specifying it as such (such an exception is not included in the PF rule, or anywhere currently). I, equally, cannot fathom why models' PF attacks would be able to attack models that they are not in base to base contact WITHOUT the rule specifying as such (no specification is included in the PF rule).

Neither justification is stated in any of the rules. Which is why--until stated otherwise--any such discussion is wishlisting.

THIS TOPIC HAS ALREADY GONE ON AND ON FOR MANY MANY PAGES HERE:

http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/predatory-fighter-supporting-attacks.12270/

FAQ like this one need to be stickied.

 

[Spiney Norman]

If pred fighter attacks are not supporting attacks then 2nd/3rd/4th rank models cannot make them anyway since models in subsequent ranks can ONLY make supporting attacks, they cannot make any other kind of attacks.

Further more where is all this rubbish coming from about pf attacks not happening at the same time as the attacks that generate them? When on earth are you making these attacks if not at the units normal initiative step, and with what justification?

Models in 2nd and subsequent ranks can only ever make one supporting attack, but it doesn't specify they can't make any other type of attack.

PF attacks can't be rolled at the same time as the others, because you have to roll first, count the 6's, and then generate a new batch of attacks based on the initial roll. They happen at the same initiative step, immediately following normal attacks.

Page 48
"Normally a warrior can only strike blows against an enemy model in base contact. The most common exception to this is if he is making a supporting attack"

If an attack generated by predatory fighter is NOT a supporting attack (as you claim) then it can only be targeted against a model in base contact, which means second/third/other subsequent rank models cannot resolve their attacks against enemy models that are not in base contact. Unless of course you can quote rules concerning Predatory fighter which gives them specific exemption to the rules about targeting models in base contact on p. 48

If you don't have an enemy in base to base the only kind of attack you can make is a supporting attack, end of.

 

[n810]

* assuming that 6 rolled must be attacks made by that model...
and not alocated to the front rank of atackers.

 

[Spiney Norman]

* assuming that 6 rolled must be attacks made by that model...
and not alocated to the front rank of atackers.

"Whenever a model with this rule rolls a six to hit in close combat it immediately makes another attack..."

Seems pretty clear that it is worked out on a per-model basis, not per-unit, which would have been so much easier...

 

[Caneghem]

Page 48
"Normally a warrior can only strike blows against an enemy model in base contact. The most common exception to this is if he is making a supporting attack"

Good catch, that strengthens my argument. This rule clearly indicates that supporting attacks are the most common exception to the rule, but it does not say Supporting Attacks are the only exception to the rule. That is, second and third rank models may make supporting attacks, BUT they do not necessarily get cut off from all other forms of attack. GW left this window open wisely to allow for nifty special rules like PF to be added down the line.

What most people seem to be reading in the above sentence is this: "Normally a warrior can only strike blows against an enemy model in base contact. The ONLY exception to this is if he is making a supporting attack" See the difference? One interpretation is more absolute, but ultimately incorrect.

Since PF doesn't restrict the attack in any way (i.e. it doesn't say "the model immediately makes another attack against an enemy in base contact"), I see no reason why this must be a supporting attack or where they are limiting the attack's range.

At this point I think the horse is well beaten though. Let's just get this FAQ'd and move on with our lives!

 

[Spiney Norman]

Page 48
"Normally a warrior can only strike blows against an enemy model in base contact. The most common exception to this is if he is making a supporting attack"

Good catch, that strengthens my argument. This rule clearly indicates that supporting attacks are the most common exception to the rule, but it does not say Supporting Attacks are the only exception to the rule. That is, second and third rank models may make supporting attacks, BUT they do not necessarily get cut off from all other forms of attack. GW left this window open wisely to allow for nifty special rules like PF to be added down the line.

What most people seem to be reading in the above sentence is this: "Normally a warrior can only strike blows against an enemy model in base contact. The ONLY exception to this is if he is making a supporting attack" See the difference? One interpretation is more absolute, but ultimately incorrect.

Since PF doesn't restrict the attack in any way (i.e. it doesn't say "the model immediately makes another attack against an enemy in base contact"), I see no reason why this must be a supporting attack or where they are limiting the attack's range.

At this point I think the horse is well beaten though. Let's just get this FAQ'd and move on with our lives!

Except that attacks generated by predatory fighter are NOT an exception to the rule that attacks can only be made against a model in B2B, if they were they would explicitly say so in the rules text, as supporting attacks do.

You have to assume that PF attacks obey all the other rules of the game unless otherwise stated.