I mentioned this in a different thread, so thought I should post it here. Basically, I seem to read the First Strike rule differently to most others, and it'd be nice to see how others are interpreting the rule as written.


(emphasis mine).

To me, this means that howling banshee exarchs' attacks get First Strike. Here's my reasoning:

The banshee mask is a weapon with first strike, but the weapon does not have extra attacks. Thus the ability is clearly not "noted for a weapon with extra attacks". Because the banshee mask is a close combat weapon, therefore first strike "will count for all close combat attacks". The exarch weapon's attack is a CC attack, thus it benefits from first strike.

Now as I said, I know others tend to infer that banshee exarch attacks do not gain the effects of first strike (which consequently makes their extra attack often useless). And this is indeed how I play it, along with the majority. But I've always had trouble seeing how that interpretation is supported by the rule. Do people just assume the rule is intended to mean "the unit's base attack"? In which case why not say so? It is explicitly written "all attacks" (plural), and the only other way of satisfying the rule I can think for "all attacks" to mean "only the base attack" and be plural at the same time is for war engines, who have their own special rule to translate a base attack into multiple attacks anyway. I have a feeling the interpretation is coming from the FAQ, but this does not seem to discuss a First Strike weapon without Extra Attacks, but rather the difference between a weapon with Extra Attacks AND First Strike [only the EA gain first strike], and a unit with First Strike in its notes [all attacks, whether CC or FF, gain first strike].

So, please enlighten me

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

As to why that's not clear from the way the rules are written, there are a lot of situations and combinations of abilities that didn't exist when the rules were first written. In many cases, they were written with a hidden bias towards just addressing what was currently in play.

"Special" cases were given notes, like the SM Speeder's MW FF ability, to explain how the rules applied. However, they weren't really special in the sense of doing something outside the rules, just in the sense of requiring clarification as to how the rules were to be applied. Since the notes were explanatory of mechanics, they were taken as precedent on how to apply the rules in similar situations.

The MW entry has the same "Extra Attacks" focus as First Strike, but when applied to a non-EA weapon, all the units have only applied MW to the basic attacks. That convention has been applied to all the other assault/EA special ability combinations because they all have the same issue. For small arms and assault weapons a special ability listed in a weapon applies only to the unit's basic attacks, just like if it has Extra Attacks, the ability only applies to those Extra Attacks.

I agree with you in general about the rules often being written without the benefit of hindsight and with specific applications in mind. Indeed yours is the perspective of the rules I have myself overall. My quandary with First Strike however is because in this case it appears the rule itself actually is forward-looking enough to describe what to do in this situation, without needing an FAQ. By contrast neither Macro Weapons that lack extra attacks nor First Strike as a unit special ability are covered within the rules themselves, so they do need some sort of interpretation and clarification. For me, transferring the conventions for these latter two situations onto the former is therefore a mistake.

Funnily enough I don't actually think the First Strike rule and FAQ entries are conflicting at all, and that when taken together, the different ways of applying First Strike are logical (if not ideal). In order of "power":
1. First Strike on a weapon with Extra Attacks = only the extra attacks benefit from First Strike.
2. First Strike on a CC weapon without Extra Attacks = all CC attacks benefit from First Strike.
3. First Strike on a FF weapon without Extra Attacks = all FF attacks benefit from First Strike.
4. First Strike on a unit = all CC and FF attacks benefit from First Strike.

If you think it shouldn't work in this way that's fair enough, and if you know that the intention of the rule was different I'm happy to believe it (I was around during playtesting and I don't remember it coming up but that doesn't mean much). I'm merely searching for an explanation of what the rule as written was intended to mean. The rule to me is quite explicitly saying "all attacks instead of only the extra attacks". I don't know why it would say this except to represent the above. And if it is written with a specific situation in mind, was there an existing unit that the rule was trying to cover by wording it this way?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list