Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As the title says. RAW, I believe the answer is no, as on p.49 of the BRB it says:

"To represent this, he can 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."

Thoughts?

We are thinking on that one as well. The rule creates a specific conflict with the BRB, and pg 11 says the army book should win. But the BRB seems pretty ironclad.

If it doesn't work, the "must pursue" seems a pretty high price to pay for such a small amount of extra attacks.

This is one I will be comfortable waiting for a FAQ. Until then, our group will probably play that supporting attacks do not benefit (least favorable, etc).

I haven't read the book yet, but as I understand it, it makes a bonus attack automatically so you have no choice as to whether you trigger it or not.

Yeah, my reading is that you have no choice- the attack triggers automatically.

Otherwise, you'd have to roll supporting attacks all separately. They should probably clarify it in an FAQ.

Yeah, I think it would generate an extra attack.

It's not saying "roll a dice for each Saurus and on a 6 they get an extra attack", because that would give some supporting Saurus 2 attacks, which would be knocked down to one. It's saying that, once you made your ONE attack to hit, if you happen to roll a 6, you get another. It's something that triggers automatically, as the other posters have put it.

Why does it matter that it "triggers automatically?" The rules are quite clear that you only get one attack, regardless of special rules.

All it means is that you have to roll your supporting attacks separately.

At first I was going to say yes, because it's not a supporting attack. But the BRB is pretty clear:

"he can only ever make a single Attack...regardless of...any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules or other unusual effects."

RAW this is a special rule and also pretty much an unusual effect. It is still an Attack. And it clearly says you make another Attack and the BRB says no.

RAI (FAQ) I will say they will let you, because it will make having spears a lot more of an interesting idea. Though those are now free.

Would this be similar to the bonus hit, generated by the exalted locus of contagion? As supporting attacks benefit from that!
Otherwise you rolling separately.

Rule for exalted locus of contagion gives a S4 hit on a roll of a 6+ to hit.

EDIT: to correct grammar

As far as I'm concerned Army Book > Rulebook. Just as in the last edition of lizardmen salamanders could cause more than one panic a round... It seems pretty silly to roll supporting attacks separately

It's totally cool that army book > brb. But the army book doesn't address supporting attacks in any way/shape/form. It addresses Attacks only. If there is no counter rule, you fall back to the BRB.

Again I think RAI it should, but RAW it doesn't.

I disagree. The rule states they get the extra attack, this overrides the BRB rule that you don't.

That's silly, those rules aren't related. The army book overrides the unit's profile that says it gets 2A and no more. The BRB has to be explicitly overwritten. By your logic those lines in the BRB are completely worthless because if anything in any book ever gave an extra attack it would automatically overwrite the BRB, making those sentences unenforceable.

Even WITHOUT predatory, by that logic they would make 2 supporting attacks because the army book lists 2 per model and that overwrites the BRB that limits to 1. Same with AHW. And just about anything else.

Clarence wrote:
As the title says. RAW, I believe the answer is no, as on p.49 of the BRB it says:

"To represent this, he can 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."

Thoughts?

Predatory Fighter calls it out as bonus attacks, and it's a special rule. Looks like for now it doesn't work.

-Matt

If/When they fix it, it would be neat to see some horde/spear +1S/T from beasts.

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

Uhm...that one is 100% clear :/

Ok, let's pretend that, through whatever means, your unit of Saurus now have 2 attacks. And they get into combat.

First, you would check they have two attacks. Then, for the supporting attacks, you would think "ah, but those guys only get one", so they would each lose an attack. Then, after you have determined how many attacks they have, you roll to hit, which, upon the roll of a 6, will generate an extra attack. You've already made the one attack you're permitted, anything afterwards happens separately to the rule.

It's a strong argument for the contrary, I'll admit, but I think RAI backs me up too. It'll be interesting to see which way this goes in the FAQ.

p.49 of the BRB it says:

"To represent this, he can 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."

Pretty ironclad. The Saurus could have any number of attacks they want, regardless of any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to because of special rules...

Preadatory Fighters is a special rule, and thus, falls under the BRB's restriction for attacks.

You would check your attacks, roll, any models not making supporting attacks which roll a 6 may make a bonus attack.

Because the 2nd rank is making a supporting attack, the model may only ever make a single attack, regardless of any bonus Attacks he might otherwise be entitled to.

As above.

You are told a model can only EVER make one supporting attack. Rolling a 6, and making another attack IS that supporting model making an additional attack, and is therefore not allowed.

While RAW, I guess you may be right, for an army special rule not to function like this would be silly. I'll be playing it otherwise if I face any LM players, and asking any event to clarify their ruling for it (if GW fails to do so).

 RiTides wrote:
While RAW, I guess you may be right, for an army special rule not to function like this would be silly. I'll be playing it otherwise if I face any LM players, and asking any event to clarify their ruling for it (if GW fails to do so).

It does work, for all models in the first rank. Predatory fighters is nothing but a slightly altered Frenzy on a roll of a 6 - and I don't see models with Frenzy gaining an additional attack either

Slightly altered = one in six models will benefit.

I'm not nerfing my local LM players on an army special rule that has more drawbacks than benefits even RAI. Let alone this issue.

I'll specify before playing, but I expect a FAQ on this soon (GW has been good about that) to clear it up.

You're house-ruling it then and that's up to your choice. I do appreciate said move by GW as they moved the rules towards the fluff. Keep in mind the negative outcome is completely negated if you got a Skink character nearby and given the cost decrease they received, approaching Goblin level right now, I'd say that's a pretty good deal.

You said that 1 in 6 models will benefit - did Lizardmen lose 1 basic attack? Didn't get a look at the new book yet, but iirc, they had 2 attacks per model, thus you get two chances to get an additional attack per model - not too shabby.

On this special issue, I don't see why you'd house-rule it like that. WoC have always had their pretty annoying Eye of the Gods rule, that forced you to take challenges. I can't remember anyone house-ruling that away either

Saurus Warriors still are a very good core infantry, let alone still having cheese-blooded, and this most certainly isn't a nerf. People need to alter their lists a bit.

RAW-wise, we're clear, and I don't see where your RAI interpretation comes from - elaborate please :/ I think the same issue happens when Warriors of Chaos get a Mark of Khorne, but the second rank can't use the additional attack. Why is this different than this case?

Excellent points, and you're right, I'm still processing this. Wasn't keeping in mind that it could be negated with skink characters. And they'd be pretty insane with spears for free if it applies to all ranks.

So, I'll think on it some more. But as you say, we're clear on the RAW... I just hope GW makes a FAQ entry to clarify that that's really what they intended for it.

Cheers for the thoughtful reply! You've mostly won me over (and again agreed that the RAW is clear, so they'd have to make an exception via FAQ for it to affect non-front-rank models).

We may have to agree to disagree on this...

The BRB specifically calls out "...conflict will arise between a RULE in this rulebook and one printed in a warhammer armies book..."

Having 2 attacks on a profile is not a rule. Getting an additional attack on a 6 is. Furthermore, frenzy is a rule from the BRB and thus does not override the one supporting attack. To me is seems a rule has come into conflict and thus the army book wins out.

That said, I would be very surprised if the first FAQ did not address this, as it is definitely vague.

Yeah, hopefully the FAQ clarifies their intention (but I've been won over that the RAW is actually quite clear that it is not allowable from rear ranks).

But if they FAQ it to be allowed from the rear ranks... saurus will be pretty scary!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We may have to agree to disagree on this...

The BRB specifically calls out "...conflict will arise between a RULE in this rulebook and one printed in a warhammer armies book..."

Having 2 attacks on a profile is not a rule. Getting an additional attack on a 6 is. Furthermore, frenzy is a rule from the BRB and thus does not override the one supporting attack. To me is seems a rule has come into conflict and thus the army book wins out.

That said, I would be very surprised if the first FAQ did not address this, as it is definitely vague.

I guess the point is that we don't see a conflict. The rulebook says models only get 1 supporting attack, regardless of special rules. Is Predatory Fighter a special rule? Yes, so you wouldn't get the bonus for supporting attacks.

Nothing makes it in the FAQ unless, oh shock, it gets asked a lot.
Get to it folks: gamefaqs@gwplc.com

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We may have to agree to disagree on this...

The BRB specifically calls out "...conflict will arise between a RULE in this rulebook and one printed in a warhammer armies book..."

This rule is only valid in the case of conflicting rules.

Predatory Fighter is a global special rule, that does not specifially adresses supporting attacks. Supporting attacks is a more specific rule and therefore, both rules do not conflict.

A conflicting rule would be:

"On a to-hit roll of 6, all attacking models in the unit gain an additional attack."

In this case, the BRB rule "Supporting Attacks" and this rule here specifically conflict and the models would therefore get the additional attack despite being in the 2nd rank.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We may have to agree to disagree on this...

The BRB specifically calls out "...conflict will arise between a RULE in this rulebook and one printed in a warhammer armies book..."

This rule is only valid in the case of conflicting rules.

Predatory Fighter is a global special rule, that does not specifially adresses supporting attacks. Supporting attacks is a more specific rule and therefore, both rules do not conflict.

A conflicting rule would be:

"On a to-hit roll of 6, all attacking models in the unit gain an additional attack."

In this case, the BRB rule "Supporting Attacks" and this rule here specifically conflict and the models would therefore get the additional attack despite being in the 2nd rank.

By that logic, Ripperdactyles are awesome, as they would throw out D3+1 additional supporting attacks from the bloat toad.
Since the only bonus attack in the BRB is from "Extra Attack" special rule, applying that logic would say that you universally ignore that 1 attack limit.

Or, you're wrong, and they only get 1 attack.

-Matt

It's a random example, anyhow, I don't know the Ripperdactyl's wording either so I can't really comment on that.

I'd appreciate a fitting example for my case then, if you can come up with one, to illustrate the reason why the "army book > BRB" rule does not apply in this case.