PDA

View Full Version : Dragon Armour and Flaming attacks.



Makaber
23-11-2007, 16:09
Warseer poster Muffe asked me how the Dragon Armour really works today, and I gotta say I'm a bit ... puzzled. The breath weapon attack thing is all dandy, but how is the reasoning behind the Flaming attacks immunity? I've got no problem with stuff like the flame cannon or Lore of Fire, where the attack is nothing more but intense heat.

I guess the problem is how Flaming is, like Poison, a characteristic on top of a normal attack, but unlike Poison, usually has no effect. An immunity against Posion doesn't negate the entire attack, but a immunity to Flaming will. Speaking in stricly game mechanical terms, the ideal approach would be to give Flaming the rule that "all wounds caused by flaming hits after saves counts as two wounds", and then give every model except Treemen and Tomb Kings (and some others I forget) the "Immune to Flaming" rule. However, this would of course be a bit silly.

As it stands, a cannonball will kill Dragon Princes like they were nothing. However, a cannonball that is also on fire, will have no effect whatsoever, because it inflicts Flaming hits. I guess the solution to this would to somehow separate the attack and the additional effect, which would require some rewriting of the core rules. I hope this is something they address in 8th Ed.

marv335
23-11-2007, 17:26
it does tone down "rune of fire spam" from the dwarf players.

Chiungalla
23-11-2007, 17:36
Dwarf players are very lucky that the whole cannonball counts as flaming attack, when it hits a treeman. And they will never say that only a tiny fraction of the damage is actually caused by the fire.

But if the same cannonball hits a dragon prince, the fire isn't important any more, and only a small part of the damage at all.

Best way around this is to think about the dwarfen rune as turning the whole warmachine into something, that no longer shoots massiv metal cannonballs or spears, but fire balls or bolds instead.
This is what the rule says, no matter if the fluff tells something else.

Festus
23-11-2007, 17:48
Hi

What are you all on about?

... I had a nice reply typed out - but if you don't see what this immunity to Flaming really is, a reality check would be in order, I say.

OK. So, remind me where the problem really is, please. And provide some quotes, and then maybe we can analyse the rules properly :)

Festus

Chiungalla
23-11-2007, 18:02
My rule book says (in german) "immun to flaming attacks and breath weapons" and I don't think there is anything to talk about, unless GW makes a errata.

Atrahasis
23-11-2007, 18:13
Hi

What are you all on about?

... I had a nice reply typed out - but if you don't see what this immunity to Flaming really is, a reality check would be in order, I say.

OK. So, remind me where the problem really is, please. And provide some quotes, and then maybe we can analyse the rules properly :)

Festus

Never have I seen a vaguer post.

Perhaps if you tell us which side of the debate you sit on, and what you think is the right answer, the people who oppose you will be able to (attempt to) convince you?

khorne666
23-11-2007, 18:18
On a similar note, how would this affect galrouch's breath of change? not a breath weapon as such, more a spell.

Lord_Byron
23-11-2007, 18:18
The issue at hand is; certain runes or magical weapons impart the quality of flaming upon physical attacks made by the bearer, and the poorly thought-out high elf dragon armor imparts immunity to flaming attacks. But should becoming flaming totally negate the physical aspect of the now flaming attack? The cannonball examples above are good ones...

Are magically flaming weapons considered enchanted steel blades with a nice coating of fire, which would logically penetrate dragon armor despite the armor's immunity to fire, or are they blades of pure flame with no physical substance?

Heck, one could even argue that fire spells, breath weapons and flame cannon attacks are more than just damage from burning fires, but also explosions of concussive energy, and should therefore penetrate dragon armor as easily as cold steel.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, per your perspective) these distinctions do not matter.

Dragon armor is pretty clear that it imparts immunity to any attack with the quality of flaming, regardless if common sense dictates that the attack has an impact beyond being flaming.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but that's the way it is. We should all be used to that by now, with things like wardancer weapons being stackable with great weapons on heroes, a great deal of magic items that directly contradict each other, and dwarfs mounted on other dwarfs with full effect great weapons and immunity to killing blow... and so many other things.

Festus
23-11-2007, 19:28
Dragon armor is pretty clear that it imparts immunity to any attack with the quality of flaming, regardless if common sense dictates that the attack has an impact beyond being flaming.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense...
And this is a true statement if I ever saw one. I like to add that it makes absolutely no sense at all.


...but that's the way it is. - and it will never be the way I'll ever play it, neither with my own HE nor against them.

Festus

Palatine Katinka
23-11-2007, 20:26
Personally, I don't know if it's supposed to be immune to purely flamimg attacks or immune to anything even slightly flaming but...

When did magical elf armour being immune to magical dwarf warmachines ever have to make sense? ;)

Makaber
23-11-2007, 22:06
I think there's a trend in that people often assume all threads here have to be direct questions about rules mechanics. I've seen this happen quite a lot, a thread gets made that doesn't spesifically ask for help understanding a rule, and the replies generally go "yes, but what's your point?". This isn't one of those threads, I have no trouble understanding how the issue at hand works out from a purely mechanical point of view. The purpose of the thread was to share my fustrations a little and hopefully get some discussion going on what I find a pretty severe flaw with the core rules.

As it stands, an attack has a physical element (the sword, cannonball, whatever) and an effect element (flaming, poison, killing blow). At the moment, these are indistinguishable: Apply a bonus effect to an attack, and that attack seizes to do "normal" damage and instead does a spesific (normally advantageous) type of damage: Poison, flaming, and so on. Some attacks have no "physical" component (such as a fireball) but the game makes no distinction to this. The result: "What the Deuce?" moments like cannonballs bouncing off knights, and arrows seizing to do "arrow-damage" the moment they're burning.

I think a better solution to the way the rules are designed would be to assign the property "physical" to all damage caused by normal, conventional means, and then assigning bonus forms of damage on top of that. To use an example relevant to this discussion, a dwarven flame cannon would only cause fire damage, and would thus be negated by the magical Dragon Prince armour. However, a flaming cannonball would cause flaming and physical damage, so the Dragon Princes would resist the fire damage but the attack would still be physical as well, so they'd take damage normally after all.

Some other examples on how this might work, off the top of my head:

Witch Elf sword: Physical, poison.
Fireball: Fire, magic.
Sword of Might: Physical, magic.
Grave Guard: Physical, killing blow, magic.

Kloud13
23-11-2007, 23:42
A thought just crossed my mind, I assume alot of you play RPG games on either consoles or PC. I used to play Final Fantasy Games alot, and how many times did any of you have a Character who can dish out massive amounts of damage, But because you had some element magic linked to his weapon, and then you forgot about it or whatever, then went into a different area, and your character no longer inflicts massive amounts of damage, but in fact heals his opponents with his attacks. In fact that is what a guy aims for in Final Fantasy games, is having his armour linked to an element in such a fasion that most enemies in an area would heal your character. kinda a tangent, but you never questioned why Cloud in Final Fantasy 7 with a Sword that is bigger than he is could wack a guy and the Ice creature would actually gain HP cause three was an Elemental Materia linked with a Ice Magic Materia in his weapon.

It's a game, often times things don't make sense, but they don't need to, as long as we all have fun.

Flypaper
24-11-2007, 01:16
There's a couple of other Law of Unforseen Consequences problems connected to Dragon Armour - personally, I think that if they weren't willing to keep the rules templates consistent, they should've just dropped the idea entirely - weren't they paying attention to the confusion caused by the 6th ed version?

- Dragons ridden by a prince with Dragon Armour are immune to fire by RAW.
- Salamanders have been defined as both flaming and not-flaming by developers... And neither quote was in what you'd call an authoritative format.

It's a game, often times things don't make sense, but they don't need to, as long as we all have fun.However, things making sense is more fun. And heated arguments between naturally competitive people that make a game take longer are less fun. :(

(personally, I plan on asking the HE player if he thinks my Salamanders are flaming and on abiding by his decision)

Makaber, another interesting version of what you're describing happens in the Venom of the Wirefly Frog (http://warseer.com/forums/fantasy-rules/114126-venom-of-the-firefly-frog-vs-invincible-archmage.html) discussion lower on this forum.

Chiungalla
24-11-2007, 06:44
As it stands, an attack has a physical element (the sword, cannonball, whatever)

Sure?

Has the lizardmen magic weapon still a metal blade, or one of pure fire?
Does the dwarfen cannon still shoot metal cannonballs, or pure fire cannonballs?

As the rule states, that the whole attack is flaming, I believe the later in both cases, till someone quotes the exact fluff and rules of the dwarfen runes, that correct me.

And concerning the lizardmen blade, the pure fire flame makes very much sense, because this will explain the -3 to armor as well.

And a flaming metal cannonball does not explain, why a treeman gets double damage from the cannonball.
Come on, it is as much fire as a torch. This can't cause three wounds to a tree...

And there is no issue with poison, as far as I know.
All rules I know, ignore the effect of poison, not all poisoned attacks, which is a big difference.

But a draon armor ignoring the effect of flamming attacks would be no good at all, except on Tyrion.

scarletsquig
24-11-2007, 08:06
This one's quite clear in the rules.

The cannonball counts as flaming with the rune of fire on it, dragon armour provides immunity, flammable creatures take double wounds.

Your own "interperetation" of the rules is worthless, that's what they state, and that's how you're supposed to use them. Make your own little house rules if you want, as long as both sides agree with using them, but don't have a go at someone (or call them unfair etc. whine whine whine etc.) in the middle of the game for not following your personal idea of how you think the rules should have been written instead. That would just be being a jackass.

WLBjork
24-11-2007, 09:09
Would we even be having this discussion if it hadn't been for the 6th edition Q&A?

As I recall, it was the same wording, then the Q&A made it so that a cannon ball still hit at full power even with the Dwarf Rune of Burning inscribed.


And a flaming metal cannonball does not explain, why a treeman gets double damage from the cannonball.
Come on, it is as much fire as a torch. This can't cause three wounds to a tree...

Consider this - that the cannonball may well "lodge" in the body of the treeman. Then what happens? This is the tactic used by 18th-century (and possibly earlier) shore batteries defending against Naval vessels. A shot would be heated in a furnace before firing in the hope it would penetrate and start a fire.

T10
24-11-2007, 10:20
Hi! We discussed the same topic a short while back:

http://warseer.com/forums/fantasy-rules/112238-he-dragon-armor.html

To sum it up, the notion of "hybrid" flaming attacks and "pure" flaming attacks has its source in the FAQ for the previous version of the High Elves book.

As it stands there isn't really any way to read "immune to flaming attacks" as anything other that "can't be harmed by flaming attacks".

-T10

EvC
24-11-2007, 13:14
Great anaolgy by Kloud13, though I expect it will be lost on people who haven't played games with an elemental system like the Final Fantasy series.

At the end of the day, the rules say how it works... though I expect everyone who claims immunity to a flaming cannonballs to allow their Dragon Princes to be hurt by Salamander's non-technically-flaming fire attack.

Kotobuki
24-11-2007, 19:30
Some other examples on how this might work, off the top of my head:

Witch Elf sword: Physical, poison.
Fireball: Fire, magic.
Sword of Might: Physical, magic.
Grave Guard: Physical, killing blow, magic.
The problem with this system, then, is that in Order to be Immune to a Fireball, you have to be immune to both Flaming Attacks and Immune to Magic, otherwise you're in the same boat you're in now.

Anyway, so what happens when your Prince in Dragon Armor gets in a Challenge with my Paladin with a Wyrmlance (Lance that does flaming attacks)? The rules say I have to use my Magic Weapon at all times, so now the only way I can hurt you is if my Horse kicks you to death? This is the part the bugs me about it. There's no mechanic in place for me to switch to a mundane weapon in order to fight you.

Because of that fact, I tend to lean more towards "there's still a blade/cannonball under all that fire." The rules being what the rules are, I'm bound to follow them unless we decide jointly on a different way to handle it.

Makaber
24-11-2007, 20:47
This one's quite clear in the rules.

The cannonball counts as flaming with the rune of fire on it, dragon armour provides immunity, flammable creatures take double wounds.

Your own "interperetation" of the rules is worthless, that's what they state, and that's how you're supposed to use them. Make your own little house rules if you want, as long as both sides agree with using them, but don't have a go at someone (or call them unfair etc. whine whine whine etc.) in the middle of the game for not following your personal idea of how you think the rules should have been written instead. That would just be being a jackass.

Is that aimed at me? If so, can you please take two seconds to actually digest what I've previously typed? To make it abundantly clear: I do know how the rule works. I did not make the thread to discuss how the rules work. I made this thread to discuss a logical flaw in how those rules reflect the game-reality of the Warhammer battle, which is not related to the actual rule mechanic. I wanted to discuss the spirit of the rule, not it's mechanics.

They were not house rules. They were a tiny, one-draft analysis on how such an attack would work, and what might be a slightly smoother, more logical way of approaching it.

I would never, ever complain about how Dragon Armour works in a game. I would not try to enforce silly house rules onto others. That's you leaping at conclusions you seem to have drawn out of a hat, and frankly, I find them extremely rude and insulting to my person. I would much appreciate it if you actually took the time to read my posts, and I wouldn't mind an apology either.

Palatine Katinka
25-11-2007, 00:24
Other than a Bretonnian lance and flaming arrows, am I right in thinking that the main issue with Dragon Armour being completely immune to all Flaming Attacks is from the point of view of Dwarfs? If so, is it that unlikely that the arrogant princes of Caledor would have flashy armour that would have been useful during the War of the Beard? To reduce Dragon Armour to only ignore pure Flaming Attacks makes the armour worth almost nothing compared to Heavy Armour when it costs 50% more.

Dragon Prince of Caledor
25-11-2007, 01:23
According to my local gw people anything that causes flaming attacks or has flaming as an addition is useless against dragon princes. This includes a dwarf cannon with rune of burning. It is as if it cant hit them. In addition to being normal type of attacks does not effect them either. ex the flaming chariot of tomb kings. They are immune to all impact hits.