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.

This rule says that if you roll a 6 To Hit in close combat, you make an aditional attack. Does this affects all models that can fight, or only models in the front rank?Are models making supporting attacks benefited from this rule or not?

I believe it applies to all attacks.

They can totally make an extra attack. But supporting ranks only attack once. Or 3 times if MI. So it does nothing.

Hey, I've got 10 extra attacks that can't be carried forward!

I mean Saurus couldn't carry their normal 2A forward, just 1.

Is that accurate? Couldn't predatory fighter (as a special attack) be made from supporting ranks?

The big book states that models making supporting attacks can only ever make one attack regardless of profile or bonus attacks. That seems to say only one not more. The issue is that (I believe) the big book also states that the army book rules take precedence so Predatory Fighter SHOULD result in extra attacks from any model making attacks.

I just recommend, before the game starts, talking it out with your opponent or creating a house rule (we don't assume second ranks get PF bonus attacks) to prevent any hard feelings during the game.

This is another thing that has gone unanswered since the new book released and desperately needs answered. Another is Stegadon Helm + Piranha Blade (which I have ongoing in another thread right now).

It seems like they are just waiting to see what to do but it has been almost eight months since release and no answer. My daemons got an errata within a month of release that cleared up so much. It'd be nice if they had some sort of support forum where answers could be answered quickly and then put the items that come up in the errata but they just don't seem to care right now (9th ed incoming soon?)

The Army Book doesn't counter that rule, however. The front rank CAN still make an extra attack. The BRB rules don't cease to exist. Like if an army book says a unit gets +1S, that doesn't mean it can go to 11. You still have the BRB hard limit of 10 on attributes.

Unless it explicitly says, "fudge the BRB, you can take more attacks from supporting ranks," then the rule is still there.

I have no rules or quotes to back this claim up, but it seems perfectly reasonable based on the wording of predatory fighter that the supporting attacks (numbered at one) would also trigger predatory fighter...

Logistically, you would have to roll attacks and supporting attacks separately for every unit that has the PF rule or use multiple colors of dice to distinguish front row from supporting row attacks.

We have played and will continue to play that supporting attacks trigger PF. If they errata it, then we will change our house rules, but it makes too much sense to play it otherwise and keeps the momentum in the combat phase.

Pervertdhermit wrote:
I have no rules or quotes to back this claim up, but it seems perfectly reasonable based on the wording of predatory fighter that the supporting attacks (numbered at one) would also trigger predatory fighter...

Of course they do. But ALL PF does is allow another Attack. Capital A. Supporting Ranks rule says a rank may only ever make one Attack, capital A, regardless of the number on their profile. So you're adding an Attack they can't make.

It is resolved in all ways like a normal Attack. It doesn't say do anything differently.

It could be FAQ'd but right now

Supporting Rank = 1 Attack MAX
PF = +1 Attack

The Supporting Rank rule hasn't been overridden that I can see.

I suppose in that scenario one could easily argue that this is the army book trumping the BRB.

But it is a flimsy argument, admittedly.

But it doesn't contradict anything. The BRB is still fundamental rules. If the army book says someone moves 6" that doesn't mean you can move off the board even the "army book trumps the BRB." It has to specifically say so.

It doesn't say the supporting rank gets +1A. It says you attack again. And attacks are subject to all the rules that attacks are subject to as defined by the BRB.

I think Duke has it here. Predatory Fighter is still bound by the fact that regular infantry can only ever make 1 supporting attack. Predatory Fighter isn't a re-roll to hit, for all intents and purposes it is an extra attack, so only applies to models in b2b contact.

This interpretation means that you'd need to distinguish the dice being rolled for the front rank from any made as supporting attacks. Thats kinda annoying huh...

There is a restriction in place that the army book does not reomve, therefore the restriction is still in place.

alex87 wrote:
I think Duke has it here. Predatory Fighter is still bound by the fact that regular infantry can only ever make 1 supporting attack. Predatory Fighter isn't a re-roll to hit, for all intents and purposes it is an extra attack, so only applies to models in b2b contact.

This interpretation means that you'd need to distinguish the dice being rolled for the front rank from any made as supporting attacks. Thats kinda annoying huh...

Kind of like when knights and horses attack. 1 model, 2 different pools of attack dice.

-Matt

The ebook version of the lizardmen army book has clarified that is affects all attacks. GW just hasn't been bothered to give out a FAQ.

 White Ninja wrote:
The ebook version of the lizardmen army book has clarified that is affects all attacks. GW just hasn't been bothered to give out a FAQ.

I feel that it was their intention that the second rank gets to make an additional attack as a result of Predatory Fighter, but as usual Stupid is as Stupid does.

Was looking at the Shrine of Knowledge and all of the "current" FAQs were released April of 2013. Perhaps there will be a big dump of FAQs next month?

Praise Lord Kroak and fingers crossed!

there were rumours floating around that the team that did the FAQ's had a reduction in staff, and that they were pulled away to work on other projects.

that being said there were also rumours they had all been sacked and others that said they were moved into other departments leaving a 'gap' with nothing to fill the void of unanswered questions.

this would seem to have support on the basis that in 40k the events team can't even get an answer regarding void shields and blast weapons......

ok, I played Lizards today, we agreed that it only affects front rank, and although I won due to my magic phase, I think the rule is very weak, especially if you compare it with poison attacks from previous edition. I'm sure that in the next FAQ predatory fighter will override the support attacks main rule.

If what white ninja says is true, it would make sense that the eBook version is up to date as they can send updates.

I would love to see a screenshot as proof and put this to rest though as I do kind of agree that it is a little weak compared to comparable rules (hatred - since none of our units have it off the top of my head and asf - again none of ours have it). I don't want all of the armies being the same, just competitive in their own ways. What would the lizards be?

Let's say you play against a unit with WS 3-5, T 4, and you have you saurus warriors in a 6 models wide formation.
Without preadatory: you make 12 attacks, 6 hit, 3 wound
With predatory: you make 12 attacks, you roll 2 6s, 1 of them generates an attack, 50% to hit, then 50% to wound, you end up inflicting 3.25 wounds. All the above before enemy saves.
Thank you very much, this is an amazing rule.

You' all are making it seem like Saurus suck.

They are 4/4/2 cold blooded with 4+/6+ @11pts.

Dwarf Longbeard is
WS5 4/4/1 ITP/Shield/Grumble/etc @13pts.

You can give GW to Dwarfs putting them at 15pts but the Saurus still has 2A. Even discounting Predatory Farts completely, they are a great unit.

 White Ninja wrote:
The ebook version of the lizardmen army book has clarified that is affects all attacks. GW just hasn't been bothered to give out a FAQ.

only available on iPad it seems. can you take a screenshot of this, please?

KeyserSoze wrote:
Let's say you play against a unit with WS 3-5, T 4, and you have you saurus warriors in a 6 models wide formation.
Without preadatory: you make 12 attacks, 6 hit, 3 wound
With predatory: you make 12 attacks, you roll 2 6s, 1 of them generates an attack, 50% to hit, then 50% to wound, you end up inflicting 3.25 wounds. All the above before enemy saves.
Thank you very much, this is an amazing rule.

Not sure if sarcastic, or just bad at maths?

In this example the end result is 3.5 wounds before enemy saves, not 3.25. But lets be realistic and say that Predatory Fighter's effect results in either 1 extra wound, or no difference at all considering 0.5 wounds isn't a real outcome. You obviously haven't taken into account any attacks from ranks after the first so Im guessing that you are playing it as though Predatory Fighter has no effect on models who are making supporting attacks as per Duke's interpretation of the rule.

How exactly does this example support your notion that Predatory fighter is an amazing rule!?

I would suggest the last line is sarcasm...

It also isnt Dukes interpretation as such - it just is the rule. You cannot make more than A1 when making supporting attacks. You could have a rule granting a thousand bonus attacks, but if they are made by a model making supporting attacks, you still get A1.

My main grief with PF is that -in its current form- it slows down the game by having to roll two different batches of dice

alex87 wrote:

KeyserSoze wrote:
Let's say you play against a unit with WS 3-5, T 4, and you have you saurus warriors in a 6 models wide formation.
Without preadatory: you make 12 attacks, 6 hit, 3 wound
With predatory: you make 12 attacks, you roll 2 6s, 1 of them generates an attack, 50% to hit, then 50% to wound, you end up inflicting 3.25 wounds. All the above before enemy saves.
Thank you very much, this is an amazing rule.

Not sure if sarcastic, or just bad at maths?

In this example the end result is 3.5 wounds before enemy saves, not 3.25. But lets be realistic and say that Predatory Fighter's effect results in either 1 extra wound, or no difference at all considering 0.5 wounds isn't a real outcome. You obviously haven't taken into account any attacks from ranks after the first so Im guessing that you are playing it as though Predatory Fighter has no effect on models who are making supporting attacks as per Duke's interpretation of the rule.

How exactly does this example support your notion that Predatory fighter is an amazing rule!?

Well, thruth is I made some minor mistakes with calculations, cause I did them very quickly on my mind, otherwise I'm totally sarcastic, because if you let aside the wounds, the fact that in most cases you have to chase you opponent is a major disadvantage in such a slow army.

 Micky wrote:

 White Ninja wrote:
The ebook version of the lizardmen army book has clarified that is affects all attacks. GW just hasn't been bothered to give out a FAQ.

only available on iPad it seems. can you take a screenshot of this, please?

Unfortunately I cannot I was told of the update found in the Digital version by someone when we had a discussion of predatory fighter well at the game shop. As an added note most of the managers at GW have been arguing against it affecting extra ranks just like everyone else since the one at my shop mentioned the argument that happened during the last corporate training session. Sorry I cannot provide complete proof you lot will need to wait until they can be bothered to update the errata.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
You' all are making it seem like Saurus suck.

They are 4/4/2 cold blooded with 4+/6+ @11pts.

Dwarf Longbeard is
WS5 4/4/1 ITP/Shield/Grumble/etc @13pts.

You can give GW to Dwarfs putting them at 15pts but the Saurus still has 2A. Even discounting Predatory Farts completely, they are a great unit.

Actually, Saurus are pretty bad.
If you take them in large enough units to break steadfast in opponents units, you can a very expensive combat block that loses to elite infantry.
That's the problem with being average. To be able to reliably go against stuff worse than you, you get up too many points to stuff that is better than you.
Init 1 has issues of it's own as well.
Successful lizardmen armies have shifted from saurus to skinks (cohorts and skirmishers), and uses characters to do the killing.

For the cost of a saurus block of 25 (over 300 points), I could instead take 3 scar vets on cold ones, and show up with much more effective killing power (12 S6 WS5 attacks, and 6 S4 attacks), killing both more chaff, and more hard targets.
I really want to like saurus, as I have a lot of them, but PF doesn't do enough, and must chase does cost you whole units from time to time.
I'd love to see the wording on the I-product release, because that might make saurus a bit better, but even with that, I think skinks will still be the more effective core.
A 300 point combat block killing 4-5 clan rats is pretty sad.

-Matt

I run my Saurus in multiple blocks of 15, with a Vet in it, the unit is designed to get the vet to combat. and add some extra punch when they get there, the unit of 15 (PF front rank only) has done me very well. Only army i have had big issues with is WoC. But then they are a pain for most armies. While i really like what they did to the Lizards, and find them fun to play, I think we have seen a downward swing on the power list. Each army has been a little softer since the Ogres and WoC,. Not that this is a bad thing. Cause there has been allot of balance. Lizards are still a middle tier army, and still have a pretty big devide between Saurus and Skin players. It is had to find a common ground with the two units.

I tend to run two blocks of 19 with scar-vet/old blood. They do me very well. Put the skavenpelt banner on and you're looking at 22 attack plus of then (in my case 6 supporting) and you have a very nice unit. It stood its ground against a 7x6 savage ork unit a round or two before the orks were flanked from each direction.