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.
2014/10/27 02:18:55
Subject: Predatory Fighter debate+How should rules be read when a contradiction may be in play?
So the whole "predatory fighter working with supporting attacks" debate has come up sporadically and especially recently with a friend of mine. I personally don't think predatory fighter works with supporting attacks as will be described below but there is a semi-valid reason for why they might and that argument will be presented here. In fact, there is one and only one argument that could possibly work but the problem with that argument is that it is a forced reading of a rule when there are different readings of the rule possible so one has to ask "why read the rule as if there is a contradiction when you can read it as if there isn't one?"
What it boils down to is as follows:
(1)BRB expressly says no special rules apply to supporting attacks and predatory fighter is a special rule, therefore it doesn't apply to supporting attacks. There can be no room for debate over that point. If this is all that is in play, predatory fighter clearly does not work with supporting attacks.
(2) However, predatory fighter special rule simply says "whenever a model makes an attack in close combat..." and doesn't specify if it affects models making regular CC attacks (i.e., against models in base contact) or if it affects supporting attacks-it doesn't distinguish between the two. Therefore, there are two and only two possible readings of predatory fighter that make any logical sense. Either it refers only to regular CC attacks and not supporting attacks or it refers to both.
Why (2) matters:
If Predatory Fighter refers only to regular CC attacks, then there is no contradiction and predatory fighter does not work for supporting attacks. If it refers to both regular CC attacks and supporting attacks, then there is a contradiction and because of that, Army Book>BRB (pg 11 of brb) and predatory fighter will kick in for supporting attacks.
The question, then, is how to interpret predatory fighter and how to read it? The ONLY leg the predatory fighter working with supporting attacks argument has to stand on is to read the rule as if there is a contradiction between that rule and the supporting attacks rule. In the alternative, the ONLY leg the other side has to stand on is to read the rule as if there is no contradiction.
Therefore, how should a rule be read when it can be read either to result in a contradiction or not result in a contradiction? I would argue that where there are two possible readings of a rule, one of which results in a contradiction and one of which does not result in a contradiction, it should be read so that there is no contradiction. This is how judges and lawyers read laws and statutes so if it is good enough for them, then it should be good enough for us! I mean, if there is not a CLEAR contradiction, why create one?
Feel free to see the attached Word document for a more detailed typed out analysis of the argument including specific rules cited and discussed.
See spoiler for the prevailing arguments for Predatory Fighter working with Supporting Attacks and the rebuttal:
Spoiler:
@All, the issue is being misstated. It is not just Supporting Attacks means no special rules therefore since Predatory Fighter is a special rule it can't be used-if it was then it would be an open/shut case. It is also that there is an alleged contradiction between BRB rule and Army Book rule and in such a case Army Book rule will trump BRB rule. The latter is a faulty argument as I'll discuss below along with my addressing all of Darken's points.
Regarding Darken's comments:
In case this post is TLDR, the arguments put forth for allowing Predatory Fighter to function with Supporting Attacks are invalid forms of argument and are logical fallacies. Therefore, there actually is no legitimate basis for Predatory Fighter working with Supporting Attacks RAW. Feel free to read each individual point I address for a complete analysis on what the problems with the arguments are and why they fail..
"(1) that frenzy increases your attack characteristic, predatory fighter doe not."
As discussed below, this first argument fails because it is actually (1) an invalid form of argument and (2) is a combination of the "begging the question" and "irrelevant conclusion" logical fallacies. Specifically, because you assume that (1) since the predatory fighter special rule generates an extra attack differently than most or all other special rules that grant an additional attack, that (2) Predatory Fighter can therefore overcome the no special rules prohibition from the supporting attacks rule. First, the form of this argument is invalid in that even though the premise may be true (that Predatory Fighter generates an extra attack differently than Frenzy or any other special rule that generates an extra attack); it does does not necessarily follow that Predatory Fighter can overcome the "no special rule" restriction for Supporting Attacks simply because of how it generates those extra attacks. Second, the argument is a "begging the question" fallacy because it assumes the conclusion to be true without providing any basis and it is an "irrelevant conclusion" fallacy because it argues that the functionality of a special rule is relevant to a restriction on the nature of a rule and the result of the rule where the restriction makes no mention about functionality at all.
Indeed, the Supporting Attacks rule makes no distinction with HOW any extra attacks are generated, Supporting Attacks makes a distinction as to the SOURCE of the of the extra attacks. Since Supporting Attacks specifically says "any special rule" the analysis is not HOW Predatory Fighter generates an extra attack but IF Predatory Fighter is a special rule. Since Predatory Fighter is a "special rule," supporting attacks negates it, regardless of HOW Predatory Fighter functions.
For example, if there is a law that says "on Tuesdays, you are not allowed to park your car on the street" it doesn't matter HOW a car ends up parked on a street, you are still not allowed to have the car parked on the street on Tuesdays. Your point as quoted would be like arguing to the officer "but my mom parked the car on the street, it wasn't me!" That excuse makes no difference, the law was still broken. Likewise, Supporting Attacks says you are not allowed to make more than one attack, regardless of any special rules, regardless of how those extra attacks are generated.
" (2) predetory fighter attacks are determined after the number of supporting attacks have already been determined."
As discussed below, this argument is again an invalid form and is a combination of a "begging the question" and "affirming the antecedent" logical fallacies. First, the form of this argument is invalid because the premise "the restrictions imposed by the 'Supporting Attacks' rule only apply when Supporting Attacks" are generated does not necessarily support the conclusion "therefore the restrictions cease to apply but the permissions do not." Just because the restrictions may or may not cease to function at one point in time does not mean the permissions do as well and visa versa. Second, the argument is a "begging the question" fallacy because it assumes the premise to be true to function at all (i.e., the timing issues) and it is an "affirming the antecedent" logical fallacy-but due to the complex nature of how this fallacy comes into play it will be discussed in greater detail below.
First of all, the actual language of the Supporting Attacks rule makes no distinction WHEN the extra attacks are disqualified or WHEN special rules are barred from taking effect. Essentially, you have to assume it does for this argument to function which is a logical fallacy ("assuming the conclusion/begging the question") and therefore the argument automatically fails and can be disregarded unless additional support is given. Furthermore, you have to "assume the conclusion" again if you want to say Predatory Fighter allows a model making a Supporting Attack to make another Supporting Attack. Let me explain:
The first "assuming the conclusion" fallacy in this argument can be illustrated as follows:
The law says "on Tuesdays, you are not allowed to park your car on the street" and you are arguing "but it is now Wednesday so I can park on the street" but what is the basis you are using to say it is Wednesday and furthermore, what is your basis that you can even park your car on the street on Wednesday? Remember, Warhammer is a permissive rule set so you can only do something when expressly stated-the ability to do something in the game cannot be materialized out of the vagueness of a rule. Therefore, you have to assume that the restriction only applies when supporting attacks are generated, but that the permission to attack applies indefinitely. Furthermore, according to the law of excluded middle, something either is or it is not, so absent specific language that indicates otherwise, the Supporting Attacks rule functions in its entirety when Supporting Attacks are generated and then ceases to function in its entirety or it continues to function in its entirety thereby defeating your argument completely. Either all of a rule always applies unless stated otherwise or none of it applies unless stated otherwise, that is how things work in Warhammer. Otherwise you open the door to argue it can apply at any point and at that point it gets into a slippery slope logical fallacy which again causes this point to fail and yet there are other problems with this argument...
The second "assuming the conclusion" fallacy in this argument can be illustrated as follows:
Normally models not in base contact are not permitted to strike blows in close combat at all (absent a specific special rule that lets them), but the Supporting Attack rule lets them do so, but only one such attack may be made in this way. To get around the limitations of the Supporting Attack rule, you have to assume (1) a model is allowed to make more than one supporting attack per close combat phase; (2) that Predatory Fighter attacks generated can be Supporting Attacks; and/or, (3) that because a model was eligible to attack by virtue of the Supporting Attack rule, it is now eligible to attack later in the phase.
Regarding the first assumption, where in the written rules can you point to for support that a model can make more than one Supporting Attack per phase? This is important because the only way a model is eligible to attack another model not in base contact in combat at all (absent a specific special rule that lets them) is if it is a Supporting Attack but the BRB specifically says "a model may only make a SINGLE attack.". The rules says you can only make one attack when making a supporting attack which implies only one supporting attack per phase unless otherwise specified (and Predatory Fighter does not specifically specify).
Regarding the second assumption, just because it says "attack" in the Predatory Fighter rule, it does not necessarily mean it is the same kind of attack the model made initially or that it is a Supporting Attack at all. In fact, it doesn't specify what kind of attack it is at all and you have to assume what kind it is for your argument to function. Indeed, not all attacks are supporting attacks and just because it says attack, you cannot automatically assume it means supporting attack (if you do this you are committing the "affirming the consequent fallacy). Specifically, there are regular close combat attacks which are made against models in base contact and a special, different kind of close combat attack made against models not in base contact (i.e., supporting attacks). So what is the specific basis you hang your hat on to say that when Predatory Fighter says "Attack" it also means "Supporting Attack"? Hint: it can't be "because it says 'Attacks,' that those 'Attacks' can be a 'Supporting Attacks'" because that is a logical fallacy as described above.
Regarding the third assumption, you have to assume that because the model was initially allowed to make an attack by virtue of the Supporting Attack rule, the new attack generated can also be made against the same target of the Supporting Attack. This point forces you to assume that the Supporting Attack rule's permission to attack carries over but the limitations of that rule do not and there is absolutely no basis you can provide for that point (hence why it is an assumption). If the restriction ceases to apply, the permission must cease to apply with it unless otherwise specified. You can't just pick and choose what parts of a rule you apply to your models, either all of a rule applies or none of it applies unless specifically stated otherwise (see the specific vs. general rule distinction).
" (3) the special rule in the army book says if you make a close combat attack and roll a six make another attack using the usual rules for hiting and wounding. since supporting attacks are close combat attacks i see this rule overiding the brb in this instance. "
This argument was partially discussed in point #2 and in my initial post (i.e., you have to assume the conclusion for it to be true/affirm the consequent and therefore the argument fails right out of the gate) but it goes a step further and even misstates the way the rules are written and function.
Specifically, just because it says "Attack," you are assuming it means "Supporting Attack" (as that would be the only way a model not in base contact could make an attack at all absent any other special rule, like the Kroxigor reach rule). "Attack" does not necessarily mean "Supporting Attack" as not all "Attacks" are "Supporting Attacks" but "Supporting Attack" necessarily means "Attack" because all "Supporting Attacks" are "Attacks". So when you make the argument "because Predatory Fighter says 'Attacks' and because a 'Supporting Attack' is an 'Attack,' I can make a 'Supporting Attack' via Predatory Fighter" you are reversing the logical implications of the rule and the way it functions (i.e., If P->Q, Q therefore P is the logical fallacy you are espousing here-"affirming the consequent"). To spell it out, it makes sense to say all "Supporting Attacks" are "Attacks" but it does not make sense to say all "Attacks" are "Supporting Attacks" therefore when it says "Attack" you can't automatically assume or play it as if it is a "Supporting Attack."
Furthermore, you misstate the rules in this point because the ONLY way Army Book>BRB is if there is a contradiction (as per the rule in the BRB). You have to assume there is a contradiction between the two rules when there is not necessarily a contradiction. Just because Predatory Fighter says you "make another attack" does not necessarily mean that the extra attack ignores any limitations or restrictions imposed upon the model with the special rule by any other rule out there. Also, the only time there actually is a contradiction is when the only way to read two rule results in a contradiction, not when one possible way of reading the two rules together leads to a contradiction-which is supported by the example in the BRB.
For example, the BRB and Army Book rules can be read and applied together in a way that there is no contradiction if you say "models attacking other models in base contact can benefit from the predatory fighter special rule because there is no restriction on what special rules apply in this circumstance but because supporting attacks are a special kind of attack that says 'no special rules apply' and because predatory fighter is a special rule, predatory fighter does not apply to models making supporting attacks because of the restrictions imposed by the supportin attacks rule.". That is a way to read and apply both rules so that no conflict/contradiction exists and this is supported by the way the rules are written/basic logic. Think of the predatory fighter rule as a car (or special rule) moving forward and the supporting attack restriction as a brick wall that prevents all cars (special rules) from passing. Simply because your car (predatory fighter) hits a brick wall (supporting attacks limitation), you want to say that there is a contradiction/conflict and get rid of the brick wall...That is not how Warhammer works. You can only get rid of the "brick wall" if your car has the specific capability to do so (i.e., specific language that is curiously absent from the predatory fighter rule).
Conclusion:
Putting all of this together, your three points are actually a series of logical fallacies that are conclusory in nature and therefore fail. If you disagree that they are logical fallacies (or specifically based on logical fallacies/faulty reasoning), the problem is with a basic understanding of logic itself and you therefore have the burden of proof of showing point by point why they are not logical fallacies. If someone makes an argument that fails logically and therefore is incorrect, and that argument is pointed out as failing because it is based on a logical fallacy, simply saying "I disagree" does not work to overcome the logical fallacies or the conclusory nature of those arguments. Specifically, you have to point out not just what you believe or how you see things but why and provide a clear basis for that why.
Ultimately, anyone and everyone who is making the points Darken is espousing needs to address the logical fallacies pointed out with clear and concrete evidence in the rules otherwise they have to admit that their arguments are based on assumptions which can't be proven and at that point, why go along with them at all other than RAI? Indeed, RAI is all they have to go on.
There are a few reasons why proponents of it working disagree with that statement. One, that frenzy increases your attack characteristic, predatory fighter doe not, two predetory fighter attacks are determined after the number of supporting attacks have already been determined, Three the special rule in the army book says if you make a close combat attack and roll a six make another attack using the usual rules for hiting and wounding. since supporting attacks are close combat attacks i see this rule overiding the brb in this instance.
I also like to give the designers a little credit once in a while, I am pretty sure none of them went to law school and while they have done the best that they can at making a tight ruleset that works well and facilitates our entertainment and fun, it isnt perfect. these rules are designed that we have fun not to be clunky and disjointed. they even give a pre-amble in the brb saying we shouldnt take these things so seriously.
I was crazy once...
2014/10/27 16:08:53
Subject: Predatory Fighter debate+How should rules be read when a contradiction may be in play?
They're determined after. But they take you over the one attack limit. The rule gives you no permission to break that. Which is where the debate triggers.
@All, the issue is being misstated. It is not just Supporting Attacks means no special rules therefore since Predatory Fighter is a special rule it can't be used-if it was then it would be an open/shut case. It is also that there is an alleged contradiction between BRB rule and Army Book rule and in such a case Army Book rule will trump BRB rule. The latter is a faulty argument as I'll discuss below along with my addressing all of Darken's points.
Regarding Darken's comments:
In case this post is TLDR, the arguments put forth for allowing Predatory Fighter to function with Supporting Attacks are invalid forms of argument and are logical fallacies. Therefore, there actually is no legitimate basis for Predatory Fighter working with Supporting Attacks RAW. Feel free to read each individual point I address for a complete analysis on what the problems with the arguments are and why they fail..
"(1) that frenzy increases your attack characteristic, predatory fighter doe not." Click spoiler for counterargument
Spoiler:
As discussed below, this first argument fails because it is actually (1) an invalid form of argument and (2) is a combination of the "begging the question" and "irrelevant conclusion" logical fallacies. Specifically, because you assume that (1) since the predatory fighter special rule generates an extra attack differently than most or all other special rules that grant an additional attack, that (2) Predatory Fighter can therefore overcome the no special rules prohibition from the supporting attacks rule. First, the form of this argument is invalid in that even though the premise may be true (that Predatory Fighter generates an extra attack differently than Frenzy or any other special rule that generates an extra attack); it does does not necessarily follow that Predatory Fighter can overcome the "no special rule" restriction for Supporting Attacks simply because of how it generates those extra attacks. Second, the argument is a "begging the question" fallacy because it assumes the conclusion to be true without providing any basis and it is an "irrelevant conclusion" fallacy because it argues that the functionality of a special rule is relevant to a restriction on the nature of a rule and the result of the rule where the restriction makes no mention about functionality at all.
Indeed, the Supporting Attacks rule makes no distinction with HOW any extra attacks are generated, Supporting Attacks makes a distinction as to the SOURCE of the of the extra attacks. Since Supporting Attacks specifically says "any special rule" the analysis is not HOW Predatory Fighter generates an extra attack but IF Predatory Fighter is a special rule. Since Predatory Fighter is a "special rule," supporting attacks negates it, regardless of HOW Predatory Fighter functions.
For example, if there is a law that says "on Tuesdays, you are not allowed to park your car on the street" it doesn't matter HOW a car ends up parked on a street, you are still not allowed to have the car parked on the street on Tuesdays. Your point as quoted would be like arguing to the officer "but my mom parked the car on the street, it wasn't me!" That excuse makes no difference, the law was still broken. Likewise, Supporting Attacks says you are not allowed to make more than one attack, regardless of any special rules, regardless of how those extra attacks are generated.
" (2) predetory fighter attacks are determined after the number of supporting attacks have already been determined." Click spoiler for counterargument.
Spoiler:
As discussed below, this argument is again an invalid form and is a combination of a "begging the question" and "affirming the antecedent" logical fallacies. First, the form of this argument is invalid because the premise "the restrictions imposed by the 'Supporting Attacks' rule only apply when Supporting Attacks" are generated does not necessarily support the conclusion "therefore the restrictions cease to apply but the permissions do not." Just because the restrictions may or may not cease to function at one point in time does not mean the permissions do as well and visa versa. Second, the argument is a "begging the question" fallacy because it assumes the premise to be true to function at all (i.e., the timing issues) and it is an "affirming the antecedent" logical fallacy-but due to the complex nature of how this fallacy comes into play it will be discussed in greater detail below.
First of all, the actual language of the Supporting Attacks rule makes no distinction WHEN the extra attacks are disqualified or WHEN special rules are barred from taking effect. Essentially, you have to assume it does for this argument to function which is a logical fallacy ("assuming the conclusion/begging the question") and therefore the argument automatically fails and can be disregarded unless additional support is given. Furthermore, you have to "assume the conclusion" again if you want to say Predatory Fighter allows a model making a Supporting Attack to make another Supporting Attack. Let me explain:
The first "assuming the conclusion" fallacy in this argument can be illustrated as follows:
The law says "on Tuesdays, you are not allowed to park your car on the street" and you are arguing "but it is now Wednesday so I can park on the street" but what is the basis you are using to say it is Wednesday and furthermore, what is your basis that you can even park your car on the street on Wednesday? Remember, Warhammer is a permissive rule set so you can only do something when expressly stated-the ability to do something in the game cannot be materialized out of the vagueness of a rule. Therefore, you have to assume that the restriction only applies when supporting attacks are generated, but that the permission to attack applies indefinitely. Furthermore, according to the law of excluded middle, something either is or it is not, so absent specific language that indicates otherwise, the Supporting Attacks rule functions in its entirety when Supporting Attacks are generated and then ceases to function in its entirety or it continues to function in its entirety thereby defeating your argument completely. Either all of a rule always applies unless stated otherwise or none of it applies unless stated otherwise, that is how things work in Warhammer. Otherwise you open the door to argue it can apply at any point and at that point it gets into a slippery slope logical fallacy which again causes this point to fail and yet there are other problems with this argument...
The second "assuming the conclusion" fallacy in this argument can be illustrated as follows:
Normally models not in base contact are not permitted to strike blows in close combat at all (absent a specific special rule that lets them), but the Supporting Attack rule lets them do so, but only one such attack may be made in this way. To get around the limitations of the Supporting Attack rule, you have to assume (1) a model is allowed to make more than one supporting attack per close combat phase; (2) that Predatory Fighter attacks generated can be Supporting Attacks; and/or, (3) that because a model was eligible to attack by virtue of the Supporting Attack rule, it is now eligible to attack later in the phase.
Regarding the first assumption, where in the written rules can you point to for support that a model can make more than one Supporting Attack per phase? This is important because the only way a model is eligible to attack another model not in base contact in combat at all (absent a specific special rule that lets them) is if it is a Supporting Attack but the BRB specifically says "a model may only make a SINGLE attack.". The rules says you can only make one attack when making a supporting attack which implies only one supporting attack per phase unless otherwise specified (and Predatory Fighter does not specifically specify).
Regarding the second assumption, just because it says "attack" in the Predatory Fighter rule, it does not necessarily mean it is the same kind of attack the model made initially or that it is a Supporting Attack at all. In fact, it doesn't specify what kind of attack it is at all and you have to assume what kind it is for your argument to function. Indeed, not all attacks are supporting attacks and just because it says attack, you cannot automatically assume it means supporting attack (if you do this you are committing the "affirming the consequent fallacy). Specifically, there are regular close combat attacks which are made against models in base contact and a special, different kind of close combat attack made against models not in base contact (i.e., supporting attacks). So what is the specific basis you hang your hat on to say that when Predatory Fighter says "Attack" it also means "Supporting Attack"? Hint: it can't be "because it says 'Attacks,' that those 'Attacks' can be a 'Supporting Attacks'" because that is a logical fallacy as described above.
Regarding the third assumption, you have to assume that because the model was initially allowed to make an attack by virtue of the Supporting Attack rule, the new attack generated can also be made against the same target of the Supporting Attack. This point forces you to assume that the Supporting Attack rule's permission to attack carries over but the limitations of that rule do not and there is absolutely no basis you can provide for that point (hence why it is an assumption). If the restriction ceases to apply, the permission must cease to apply with it unless otherwise specified. You can't just pick and choose what parts of a rule you apply to your models, either all of a rule applies or none of it applies unless specifically stated otherwise (see the specific vs. general rule distinction).
" (3) the special rule in the army book says if you make a close combat attack and roll a six make another attack using the usual rules for hiting and wounding. since supporting attacks are close combat attacks i see this rule overiding the brb in this instance. " Click spoiler for counterargument.
Spoiler:
This argument was partially discussed in point #2 and in my initial post (i.e., you have to assume the conclusion for it to be true/affirm the consequent and therefore the argument fails right out of the gate) but it goes a step further and even misstates the way the rules are written and function.
Specifically, just because it says "Attack," you are assuming it means "Supporting Attack" (as that would be the only way a model not in base contact could make an attack at all absent any other special rule, like the Kroxigor reach rule). "Attack" does not necessarily mean "Supporting Attack" as not all "Attacks" are "Supporting Attacks" but "Supporting Attack" necessarily means "Attack" because all "Supporting Attacks" are "Attacks". So when you make the argument "because Predatory Fighter says 'Attacks' and because a 'Supporting Attack' is an 'Attack,' I can make a 'Supporting Attack' via Predatory Fighter" you are reversing the logical implications of the rule and the way it functions (i.e., If P->Q, Q therefore P is the logical fallacy you are espousing here-"affirming the consequent"). To spell it out, it makes sense to say all "Supporting Attacks" are "Attacks" but it does not make sense to say all "Attacks" are "Supporting Attacks" therefore when it says "Attack" you can't automatically assume or play it as if it is a "Supporting Attack."
Furthermore, you misstate the rules in this point because the ONLY way Army Book>BRB is if there is a contradiction (as per the rule in the BRB). You have to assume there is a contradiction between the two rules when there is not necessarily a contradiction. Just because Predatory Fighter says you "make another attack" does not necessarily mean that the extra attack ignores any limitations or restrictions imposed upon the model with the special rule by any other rule out there. Also, the only time there actually is a contradiction is when the only way to read two rule results in a contradiction, not when one possible way of reading the two rules together leads to a contradiction-which is supported by the example in the BRB.
For example, the BRB and Army Book rules can be read and applied together in a way that there is no contradiction if you say "models attacking other models in base contact can benefit from the predatory fighter special rule because there is no restriction on what special rules apply in this circumstance but because supporting attacks are a special kind of attack that says 'no special rules apply' and because predatory fighter is a special rule, predatory fighter does not apply to models making supporting attacks because of the restrictions imposed by the supportin attacks rule.". That is a way to read and apply both rules so that no conflict/contradiction exists and this is supported by the way the rules are written/basic logic. Think of the predatory fighter rule as a car (or special rule) moving forward and the supporting attack restriction as a brick wall that prevents all cars (special rules) from passing. Simply because your car (predatory fighter) hits a brick wall (supporting attacks limitation), you want to say that there is a contradiction/conflict and get rid of the brick wall...That is not how Warhammer works. You can only get rid of the "brick wall" if your car has the specific capability to do so (i.e., specific language that is curiously absent from the predatory fighter rule).
Conclusion:
Putting all of this together, your three points are actually a series of logical fallacies that are conclusory in nature and therefore fail. If you disagree that they are logical fallacies (or specifically based on logical fallacies/faulty reasoning), the problem is with a basic understanding of logic itself and you therefore have the burden of proof of showing point by point why they are not logical fallacies. If someone makes an argument that fails logically and therefore is incorrect, and that argument is pointed out as failing because it is based on a logical fallacy, simply saying "I disagree" does not work to overcome the logical fallacies or the conclusory nature of those arguments. Specifically, you have to point out not just what you believe or how you see things but why and provide a clear basis for that why.
Ultimately, anyone and everyone who is making the points Darken is espousing needs to address the logical fallacies pointed out with clear and concrete evidence in the rules otherwise they have to admit that their arguments are based on assumptions which can't be proven and at that point, why go along with them at all other than RAI? Indeed, RAI is all they have to go on.
This message was edited 23 times. Last update was at 2014/10/28 18:17:27
Jesus Christ changed my life, He can do the same for you!
I would tend to agree with mort. The brb is pretty clear. Supporting attacks get 1, regardless of special rules. The predatory fighter is listed under "special rules" in the army book and unit entries. Therefore it "is" a special rule, and it's contents don't apply to supporting attacks. Ultimitly it's up to each player and his/her opponent how to play it, should you disagree with the above. Decide it before the game and then get to dice rolling. No sense obsessing or losing sleep about it
DarthSpader wrote: I would tend to agree with mort. The brb is pretty clear. Supporting attacks get 1, regardless of special rules. The predatory fighter is listed under "special rules" in the army book and unit entries.
I agree, the restriction on Supporting Attacks perfectly describe what Predatory Fighter does.
Short of actually naming Predatory Fighter in the rule, I can't see how they could have written that restriction clearer.
2014/10/28 15:19:46
Subject: Predatory Fighter debate+How should rules be read when a contradiction may be in play?
Maybe after we complete the Exodus, we'll get a FAQ.
Quite a few things really need a FAQ, and predatory fighter is just one of them
IMO, you only get 1 for support, but this is Asked so Frequently, GW should put a nail in the coffin.
There is no conflict; if PF stated "this applies to supporting attacks" or something to specifically call out the SA rule, THEN there would be a conflict.
2014/10/28 18:40:07
Subject: Re:Predatory Fighter debate+How should rules be read when a contradiction may be in play?
special rules apply to supporting ranks, if not High elf martial prowes would never be a thing, and always strike first on HE would be impossible for supporting ranks. so Predatory fighters apply to supporting ranks.
I'll never be able to repay CA for making GW realize that The Old World was a cash cow, left to die in a field.
2014/10/28 19:11:30
Subject: Re:Predatory Fighter debate+How should rules be read when a contradiction may be in play?
Brennonjw wrote: special rules apply to supporting ranks, if not High elf martial prowes would never be a thing, and always strike first on HE would be impossible for supporting ranks. so Predatory fighters apply to supporting ranks.
Yeah, but there isn't a rule limiting ASF on supporting attacks.
What you've just said is like me saying that vegetarians can't eat beef, but chicken isn't beef, so vegetarians can eat chicken.
Brennonjw wrote: special rules apply to supporting ranks, if not High elf martial prowes would never be a thing, and always strike first on HE would be impossible for supporting ranks. so Predatory fighters apply to supporting ranks.
Brennonjw, did you read any of my rebuttal or the above posts? You are misstating the argument and attacking that misstated argument; nobody is saying NO special rules work with Supporting Attacks but only that special rules that increase the number of attacks don't work with Supporting Attacks, totally different.
Indeed, you are actually comparing apples to oranges and saying "because oranges are permissible, apples must be also" (though I really like the above vegetarian example above). To elaborate, the Supporting Attacks rule does not bar ALL special rules from working with a model but ONLY bars those special rules that increase a model's attacks in any way shape or form from increasing the attacks a model can make when making a Supporting Attack.
Does Martial Prowess or Always Strike First affect or increase the amount of attacks a single model makes? The answer is no, therefore they are not barred from functioning because the Supporting Attacks rule only bars special rules from functioning if they increase the number of attacks a model can make.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/28 19:16:39
Jesus Christ changed my life, He can do the same for you!
i will state a point... not sure if covered, but the way i read the rule is that the supporting attacks restriction prevents increasing the number of attacks on the profile of a model, and allowing such attacks to be used. so things like a weapon or whatever that take a models A value from 1 to 2 or more, he can still only make the one attack. whereas PF dosent add an attack to the profile, it just generates an additonal one on a sucsessful hit. to me, those are diffirent. the key here, is what the brb means by "special rules that generate additonal attacks" - does it only mean attacks added to the profile, or does it mean any and all attacks in general? - that is unclear. the end result is the same... both leave the model making more then 1 attack in close combat, but the process is diffirent.
DarthSpader wrote: i will state a point... not sure if covered, but the way i read the rule is that the supporting attacks restriction prevents increasing the number of attacks on the profile of a model, and allowing such attacks to be used. so things like a weapon or whatever that take a models A value from 1 to 2 or more, he can still only make the one attack. whereas PF dosent add an attack to the profile, it just generates an additonal one on a sucsessful hit. to me, those are diffirent. the key here, is what the brb means by "special rules that generate additonal attacks" - does it only mean attacks added to the profile, or does it mean any and all attacks in general? - that is unclear. the end result is the same... both leave the model making more then 1 attack in close combat, but the process is diffirent.
Does it state that? No.
RAW, it states that you can make one supporting attack per model.
Not one attack per the profile. One attack in total.
DarthSpader wrote: i will state a point... not sure if covered, but the way i read the rule is that the supporting attacks restriction prevents increasing the number of attacks on the profile of a model, and allowing such attacks to be used. so things like a weapon or whatever that take a models A value from 1 to 2 or more, he can still only make the one attack. whereas PF dosent add an attack to the profile, it just generates an additonal one on a sucsessful hit. to me, those are diffirent. the key here, is what the brb means by "special rules that generate additonal attacks" - does it only mean attacks added to the profile, or does it mean any and all attacks in general? - that is unclear. the end result is the same... both leave the model making more then 1 attack in close combat, but the process is diffirent.
This issue was actually addressed in my long post addressing each of Draken's points (namely his first argument). The problem with this point is you say "the way I read the rule is..." but how you read the rule or what you get out of the rule is irrelevant if it isn't what is actually said by the rule. To clarify, Supporting Attacks doesn't restrict extra attacks based on what manner a special rule generates an extra attack, Supporting Attacks focuses on the fact that there is (1) a special rule or unusual effect; that, (2) generates an extra attack. Read the rule yourself and show me where it says otherwise:
“Warriors in the second rank do not sit idly by whilst their comrades battle away, but muster forward to strike blows of their own. We refer to the attacks made by these models as supporting attacks.”
“A model can make a supporting attack if it is directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base contact.”
“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. 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.”
Notice how it mentions attacks on a profile or any bonus Attacks because of special rules or other unusual effects? If a model EVER gets more attacks than is on his profile, it is ALWAYS because of either (1) a special rule; or, (2) an unusual effect. Is the extra attack from Predatory Fighter due to the Predatory Fighter special rule? The answer is yes, therefore the model is precluded from benefiting from Predatory Fighter to gain an extra attack when making a Supporting Attack.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/10/28 22:02:31
Jesus Christ changed my life, He can do the same for you!
well spoke....or typed i guess. not having a brb handy i wasent sure how it worded that, but yea even without your point, - wich on its own is well phrased and thought out enough as it is, seems pretty clear. last post was simply an offering of how some people could read and interpert the rule - i tend to disagree and take the side being argued here - with the caveat that some groups house rule or play diffirent and its sorted pre game.
aside from that, seems like this topic is an ongoing one, and has a new thread quite often. maybe create a sticky here, featuring the best arguments for both sides, leave it at that, with the "play it how you and your opponent want to" at the end? just a thought to prevent further bloodshed.
DarthSpader wrote: well spoke....or typed i guess. not having a brb handy i wasent sure how it worded that, but yea even without your point, - wich on its own is well phrased and thought out enough as it is, seems pretty clear. last post was simply an offering of how some people could read and interpert the rule - i tend to disagree and take the side being argued here - with the caveat that some groups house rule or play diffirent and its sorted pre game.
aside from that, seems like this topic is an ongoing one, and has a new thread quite often. maybe create a sticky here, featuring the best arguments for both sides, leave it at that, with the "play it how you and your opponent want to" at the end? just a thought to prevent further bloodshed.
Thanks! Indeed, the people that want Predatory Fighter to work with Supporting Attacks have to concede that RAW, they have no real argument. RAI is another story all together and I am willing to discuss that, though I would still tend to disagree that it works even then. Everyone should know that I have a sizable Lizardmen army myself and would actually benefit from Supporting Attacks+Predatory Fighter but being the diligent student of the law that I am, I can't go along with something just because it benefits me when the argument for it doesn't work according to RAW and is shoddy at best according to RAI. *IF* GW releases a statement saying one way or another and I come out on the "being wrong" end of the stick, then I will happily concede and move on. Until then, I maintain I am right and I think I have demonstrated sound reasoning and logic do too =).
Regarding a potential sticky, it would be helpful to quote the actual rule as follows and analyze each part of it:
“Warriors in the second rank do not sit idly by whilst their comrades battle away, but muster forward to strike blows of their own. We refer to the attacks made by these models as supporting attacks.”
This first part of the rule acknowledges that models in the second rank are not normally allowed to attack in close combat. The second part of the rule points out that models in the second rank can still participate in combat, but in a limited way in the form of "Supporting Attacks." Therefore, if a model wishes to attack from the second rank (or more depending on any other rules such as spears/horde and so on) it has to be in the form of a Supporting Attack unless there is another special rule that specifically enables the model to attack (like the Kroxigor reach rule).
“A model can make a supporting attack if it is directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base contact.”
This second part of the rule simply states the obvious that if there is no enemy model in base contact with a friendly model in front of the model seeking to do a Supporting Attack, the model in the second rank may not attack.
“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. 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.”
This third and last part of the rule can be broken down into two parts. The first describes the rationale for the restrictions while the second part describes what the restrictions are. The rationale that these types of attacks are limited by virtue of the models in the back ranks making these attacks being more restricted than models in the first rank/base contact with an enemy model. The restriction part seems to be where the bulk of the disagreement is so it should be broken down even further.
The restriction:
(1) Applies to any and every model that is making a Supporting Attack.
(2) A model making a Supporting Attack can "only ever make a single attack."
(3) This single attack cannot be increased to be more than 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."
Note that (3) specifically says "only ever" which if you look up what those words mean in English, they mean "at any given time/at all times." (3) also says that if you have a "special rule" that can give you more than one attack, it doesn't work when making a Supporting Attack.
Conclusion:
If you are making a supporting attack and you have a special rule that increases the number of attacks you can make, you are ineligible to make that extra attack. Conversely, if you have a special rule that allows you to make an additional attack, it is precluded from taking effect when making a Supporting Attack.
It should be open/shut and case closed but it isn't because of a sloppy use of English and logic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/29 01:11:08
Jesus Christ changed my life, He can do the same for you!
Am I crazy or didn't previous Lizardmen books have a rule about how the Saurus warriors could bite you (in addition to stabbing/clubbing/slashing you) and they got extra attacks in the front rank because of it? So as far as RAI and fluff is concerned, it makes sense that they wouldn't get the PF bonus in the 2nd+ ranks? GW wouldn't need to mention in the PF rule that you don't get it in the 2nd+ rank because it already works in the rules framework as it currently exists.
IIRC, Lizardmen had a second attack by virtue of a "bite" attack that specifically did not work in the second rank. If that is true, then that further supports the rationale that Predatory Fighter does not work in the second rank and onward (as now there are actually ways to attack from the 3rd rank and so on).
Anyway, Darth, I agree that Predatory Fighter does not work in the 2nd rank and onwards by virtue of how the Predatory Fighter/Supporting Attacks rules are written and read together. You really have to try to read the rules wrong or misstate them to argue the other way.
Jesus Christ changed my life, He can do the same for you!
mortetvie wrote: IIRC, Lizardmen had a second attack by virtue of a "bite" attack that specifically did not work in the second rank. If that is true, then that further supports the rationale that Predatory Fighter does not work in the second rank and onward (as now there are actually ways to attack from the 3rd rank and so on).
But it all boils down to the same thing: there is no contradiction. On a 6, generate extra attacks, to a maximum of one total per supporting model.
...but I let Lizardmen do it anyway. Because it's just easier to roll all the dice at once. It's...2.2 more wounds against my Slaves, assuming I charged my 10-wide Horde of Slaves into 40 spear-wielding Saurus. So, under the worst circumstances ever, it still doesn't do much.
Also, those poll options are non-existent. Might as well say, "do you want to (a) be an idiot or (b) not be an idiot?"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/30 03:43:17
2014/10/30 05:41:49
Subject: Predatory Fighter debate+How should rules be read when a contradiction may be in play?
Also, those poll options are non-existent. Might as well say, "do you want to (a) be an idiot or (b) not be an idiot?"
And yet...4 people have chosen option (a) lol! Anyway, it may not matter in the big picture but this post was not about how much it matters or not. If a player wants to say "hey, is it cool if we play Predatory Fighter this way" I probably won't care and let him go ahead and do so. This post was mainly about pointing out the fallacious arguments/reasoning of Darken's arguments (who is a friend of mine IRL so there is no hostility between us, hopefully lol). Also, as a future attorney who will deal a lot with logic, laws and their application, I found this a fun exercise in mental gymnastics =).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/30 05:42:20
Jesus Christ changed my life, He can do the same for you!
DarthSpader wrote: I would tend to agree with mort. The brb is pretty clear. Supporting attacks get 1, regardless of special rules. The predatory fighter is listed under "special rules" in the army book and unit entries.
I agree, the restriction on Supporting Attacks perfectly describe what Predatory Fighter does.
Short of actually naming Predatory Fighter in the rule, I can't see how they could have written that restriction clearer.
This
2014/10/30 13:29:52
Subject: Predatory Fighter debate+How should rules be read when a contradiction may be in play?
mortetvie wrote: Anyway, it may not matter in the big picture but this post was not about how much it matters or not...This post was mainly about pointing out the fallacious arguments/reasoning...I found this a fun exercise in mental gymnastics =).
Yes. As I stated, the rules are clear. Not much of a debate, here. Read the RAW, play the RAI as best you can. That's what I do.
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
