PDA

View Full Version : Salamander shooting



Fletcher
15-02-2008, 17:21
OK quick question here.

Played against high elves today and my salamanders shot at his dragon princes. Dragon prince armour protects against breath weapons iirc.

So what are salamanders shooting exactly?
The rules describe it as both spout flames and corrosive venom and they don't use the flame template so i'm not sure if they count as using breath weapons either.

We just discounted the shots in the game as spout flames sounded like the kind of thing dragon armour should protect against.

Any help?

Tarliyn
15-02-2008, 17:23
they aren't a breath weapon due to the fact that no where does it say it is a breath weapon, so your sallies would have had a chance to wound. How did you fair against your friends high elves. I usually don't do that hot.

DeathlessDraich
15-02-2008, 17:24
Unless the rules specifically state that an attack is a 'Flaming attack', it cannot be regarded as so even if there are connotations of fire etc in its description.

Therefore Dragon armour does not stop the salamanders' shooting.

Fletcher
15-02-2008, 17:27
Utter massacre in a 2000 point game. i lost about 150 points of models and held all table quarters and had killed everything else. I played quite well and my luck held out whereas he got too pre occupied with my skinks from turn one and mistress of the marsh kept his 20 swordsmasters out of combat the whole game along a couple of flee reactions.

Was a good game. High elves are a much more competitive army with ASF now imo even though this battle didn't really reflect that. hats off to my opponenet though, sporting to the last.

Festus
15-02-2008, 17:35
Unless the rules specifically state that an attack is a 'Flaming attack', it cannot be regarded as so even if there are connotations of fire etc in its description.

Therefore Dragon armour does not stop the salamanders' shooting.
Well, that is the RAW side to it -

rest assured, there is another :)

Festus

EvC
15-02-2008, 18:05
Yes, enough people are happy to believe the rules mean that the flaming breath is in fact, flaming. Although I don't mind playing it either way, one way makes more sense, the other way helps balance out Dragon Armour (very cheap for what it does).

Urgat
15-02-2008, 18:42
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125589

If Alessio Cavatore says salamanders attacks are flaming attacks, well, I think he's more credible than anybody else on this forum, therefore, salamanders spout flames that are(shock!) flaming attacks.

Bac5665
15-02-2008, 19:06
Urgat is correct.

Salamanders are a flaming attack, therefor, DP cannot take wounds from Sallies.

Chaos Mortal
15-02-2008, 19:10
im really surprized at that to be honest, it really should be made clear in the rules (not that i play either army lol). If you go by this way of thinking you could say that all of the Tzeentch lore counts as flaming attacks... which to me have never counted as flaming as somone who plays them. Wow i realy am sirprised lol some like him saying that it is a flaming attack pirely on fluff, there is so many things that you could say this about.

Bac5665
15-02-2008, 19:15
I think that the magic missile spells all say they do flaming damage. Don't have the book in front of me though, so I could be wrong.

The difference is that a there has been as close to an errata as we can reasonably hope for anymore saying that sallies are flaming.

Urgat
15-02-2008, 19:17
If you go by this way of thinking you could say that all of the Tzeentch lore counts as flaming attacks...

Well, maybe you should ask too :p

Urgat
15-02-2008, 19:25
I think that the magic missile spells all say they do flaming damage. Don't have the book in front of me though, so I could be wrong.

The difference is that a there has been as close to an errata as we can reasonably hope for anymore saying that sallies are flaming.


Nope, my HoC book doesn't say that any of the spells of Tzeench's lore are flaming attacks. Well maybe they are, I don't know.

Chaos Mortal
15-02-2008, 19:28
Well, maybe you should ask too :p

lets dust of my chaos army then :D lol

also tzeentch spells dont count as flaming.

T10
15-02-2008, 22:15
Urgat is correct.

Yeah, Alessio is closer to the printers than any of us.

-T10

Ganymede
16-02-2008, 00:09
im really surprized at that to be honest, it really should be made clear in the rules (not that i play either army lol). If you go by this way of thinking you could say that all of the Tzeentch lore counts as flaming attacks...


Thankfully, this red herring of an argument will be gone in a couple of months.

Nurgling Chieftain
16-02-2008, 00:42
I dunno, if the Tzeentch default spell in the new codex IS explicitly flaming, that's just going to add fuel to the idea that it was always intended to, along with other codices from the era.

Dendo Star
16-02-2008, 00:44
I dunno, if the Tzeentch default spell in the new codex IS explicitly flaming, that's just going to add fuel to the idea that it was always intended to, along with other codices from the era.

Eh, F* it. If I can't play with rational people that see leeway with the rules, then I don't want to play at all.

xragg
16-02-2008, 01:59
they aren't a breath weapon due to the fact that no where does it say it is a breath weapon, so your sallies would have had a chance to wound. How did you fair against your friends high elves. I usually don't do that hot.

Breath weapons arent flaming attacks, by default, although alot of breath weapons are flaming.

Appoloclypse
16-02-2008, 03:55
ok I'm a little confused I have not read the HE army book does the dragon prince armour protect against flaming attacks or breath weapons? and the salamander's spout flames is neither a breath weapon or flaming. they are basicly just vomiting a long range witch is acidic not flaming, though the two can do things that are similar. and until there is an oficial faq on the matter that is the way that the rules reed. I'll never see the UK GT rulespack so it has no efect on me, also how do we know for sure that it realy was Alessio Cavatore answers to the questions? was their video of the interview?

Chiungalla
16-02-2008, 06:06
It protects against breath weapons AND flaming attacks.

Urgat
16-02-2008, 07:18
ok I'm a little confused I have not read the HE army book does the dragon prince armour protect against flaming attacks or breath weapons? and the salamander's spout flames is neither a breath weapon or flaming. they are basicly just vomiting a long range witch is acidic not flaming, though the two can do things that are similar. and until there is an oficial faq on the matter that is the way that the rules reed. I'll never see the UK GT rulespack so it has no efect on me, also how do we know for sure that it realy was Alessio Cavatore answers to the questions? was their video of the interview?

Huh...
How do you know that the FAQ on the website has been actually written by games workshop? How do you know your armybook is not a fake that has been sold to you by some pirate? How do you know that Alessio cavatore even exists and you aren't dreaming your life and actually you live in the matrix? There's got to be a point where you ought to stop being dense, man, I don't mean to be rude, but really, it's getting ridiculous.

knightime98
16-02-2008, 07:32
ok I'm a little confused I have not read the HE army book does the dragon prince armour protect against flaming attacks or breath weapons? and the salamander's spout flames is neither a breath weapon or flaming. they are basicly just vomiting a long range witch is acidic not flaming, though the two can do things that are similar. and until there is an oficial faq on the matter that is the way that the rules reed. I'll never see the UK GT rulespack so it has no efect on me, also how do we know for sure that it realy was Alessio Cavatore answers to the questions? was their video of the interview?

Um.. the answer is YES!
and for the record (yes could mean no)... depends on who you are playing...

Appoloclypse
17-02-2008, 04:33
Huh...
How do you know that the FAQ on the website has been actually written by games workshop? How do you know your armybook is not a fake that has been sold to you by some pirate? How do you know that Alessio cavatore even exists and you aren't dreaming your life and actually you live in the matrix? There's got to be a point where you ought to stop being dense, man, I don't mean to be rude, but really, it's getting ridiculous.

simple if my army book is from some pirate, you are saying that gw is a pirate, as i bought it from GW, and the FAQ on the website has most likely been put up by gw employees, so is most likely official. and what i meant was wow do we know that some body didn't just post that he/she asked these questions to Alessio Cavatore to make people come up with something retarded by saying that all army books of this race are wrong, and that every one has been playing the wrong way since the army book came out.

druchii
17-02-2008, 04:54
Urgat is correct.

Salamanders are a flaming attack, therefor, DP cannot take wounds from Sallies.

I'm still not sure that salamanders spitting flaming acid actually counts as flaming attacks. From what I remember, EVERY instance of something being a flaming attack is explicitly stated in the special rules of the item. I know this is true when examining magic items, spells that do fire damage (even things that don't really use fire, and abilities (are there any?).

I'm still of the opinion that if GW wanted something to be explicitly flaming, they'd have given it the special rule.

d

Yade
17-02-2008, 05:48
1. It is not a "breath weapon" in that breath weapons all use templates now and do not misfire nor do they use the artillery dice.
2. It is not a "flaming attack" in that it does not do double wounds against flammable creatures or characters, it does not negate regeneration.

Anything that protects you from "flaming attacks" or "breath weapons" would have no effect against the lizardmen salamanders who have a special rule called "spout flames".

It is unfortunately vague but given the specific connotations of the other rules I would have to disagree with them being immune to these attacks.

Remember not to use logic or fluff associations when discussing a rule. :) If you do insist on using fluff distinctions as a guide for rules then you should consider the fact that the slamander rule SPECIFICALLY states that it is "Corrosive Venom", and Dragon armor does not protect them from "corrosive venom"

You should go mention this game on the high elf post; pondering if they are overpowered.

KUMA
17-02-2008, 06:37
the flaming sword spell isnt flaming either (unless they have errataed it) but if you play that it is not its pretty lame. it says flaming/fire like 40 times in the description but not in the actual effect section

Chiungalla
17-02-2008, 07:05
@ druchii:
It is true that the term flaming attack is allways used in the new rule and armybooks.
But this isn't true for all the old army books.

IIRC the Skaven Warpfire Thrower doesn't state the entry flaming attacks, too.

Allplayers I know play salamanders with flaming attacks, because it is said by GW that they have flaming attacks.
It is one of many issues with the old army books, that they are not clear in this point.

Yade
17-02-2008, 07:09
@ druchii:
It is true that the term flaming attack is allways used in the new rule and armybooks.
But this isn't true for all the old army books.

IIRC the Skaven Warpfire Thrower doesn't state the entry flaming attacks, too.

Allplayers I know play salamanders with flaming attacks, because it is said by GW that they have flaming attacks.
It is one of many issues with the old army books, that they are not clear in this point.

Again lets try not confuse descriptive adjectives with rule mechanics.

The salamander attacks are not flaming

Festus
17-02-2008, 08:11
Hi

the flaming sword spell isnt flaming either (unless they have errataed it) but if you play that it is not its pretty lame. it says flaming/fire like 40 times in the description but not in the actual effect section
The flaming sword spell surely causes flaming attacks -
it explicitly says so in the rules :rolleyes:

ALL spells of the lore of fire cause flaming attacks. Most explicitly. It is on p.112 of the BRB

Festus

Urgat
17-02-2008, 08:14
simple if my army book is from some pirate, you are saying that gw is a pirate, as i bought it from GW, and the FAQ on the website has most likely been put up by gw employees, so is most likely official. and what i meant was wow do we know that some body didn't just post that he/she asked these questions to Alessio Cavatore to make people come up with something retarded by saying that all army books of this race are wrong, and that every one has been playing the wrong way since the army book came out.

Ever heard of humour? I know plenty of instances where people have been playing their armies wrong for ages. It's not because people have done something for a long time that it makes it right. And there's been errors in armybooks for ages, some are corrected by erratas, some are overlooked. As for the comment about the "somebody", did you do some researches around the background of said post? Dir you go anc check the mentioned forum and articles? No, you aren't pleased with that quote, and therefore question it, no, refuse it with no afterthoughts. Well, that's up to you, I guess.


Again lets try not confuse descriptive adjectives with rule mechanics.

The salamander attacks are not flaming

So according to you, Cavatore, who's now a member of the GW dev staff afaik, is lying?
I wish I had his mail adress, I'd send him a link to that thread right away to show him how smart it is to decide that the FAQ doesn't need updating and just a word would suffice.

"shakes head and leaves thread"

Chiungalla
17-02-2008, 09:00
Again lets try not confuse descriptive adjectives with rule mechanics.

The salamander attacks are not flaming

I don't refer to the the descriptive adjectives, but to a very clear and official statement by GW on this topic.

Salamanders flaming attacks are flaming.

Ganymede
17-02-2008, 14:00
I'm still not sure that salamanders spitting flaming acid actually counts as flaming attacks. From what I remember, EVERY instance of something being a flaming attack is explicitly stated in the special rules of the item. I know this is true when examining magic items, spells that do fire damage (even things that don't really use fire, and abilities (are there any?).

I'm still of the opinion that if GW wanted something to be explicitly flaming, they'd have given it the special rule.

d


This is not true. Neither the Skaven Warpfire thrower nor the 6th edition Dwarfen Flame Cannon had the flaming attacks special rule.

Fletcher
17-02-2008, 16:15
I guess it will have to be something that a lizardman player should mention to a high elf player before a game to decide upon.

Personally i prefer the idea of salamanders shooting poisonous/corrosive venom as it reminds me of that dinosaur in jurassic park which kind of looks like a salamander imo and so the dragon princes should not be immune to it.

Thanks for the input guys.

EvC
17-02-2008, 16:20
I don't refer to the the descriptive adjectives, but to a very clear and official statement by GW on this topic.

Salamanders flaming attacks are flaming.

...in sixth edition. Still probably the best way of playing them in seventh edition, but not in the "official" sense.

Chiungalla
17-02-2008, 17:30
There is no problem, that the statement is from the sixth edition.
It's an issue with the lizardmen army book, and the lizardmen army book is still sixth edition, and so nothing has changed about this statement.

Yade
17-02-2008, 19:20
There is no problem, that the statement is from the sixth edition.
It's an issue with the lizardmen army book, and the lizardmen army book is still sixth edition, and so nothing has changed about this statement.

So how many editions of the rules do we need to carry around to play each army? The sixth edition rules are out and seventh are in. Some things changed in some armies and there is not much we can do about it.

Salamander attacks are not flaming. Take the 7th edition rule book, the current Lizardmen book and any FAQ officially published by GW (in the new edition) and you will see this is true. Rule books are not tied to specific editions of the rules, unless you want me to carry around a second edition rule book when I play my dark eldar and a 4th edition book when I play my chaos dwarves.

Ganymede
17-02-2008, 19:51
So how many editions of the rules do we need to carry around to play each army? The sixth edition rules are out and seventh are in. Some things changed in some armies and there is not much we can do about it.

Salamander attacks are not flaming. Take the 7th edition rule book, the current Lizardmen book and any FAQ officially published by GW (in the new edition) and you will see this is true. Rule books are not tied to specific editions of the rules, unless you want me to carry around a second edition rule book when I play my dark eldar and a 4th edition book when I play my chaos dwarves.

I think you need to break down your position into its constituent ontological and epistemological components.

What kind of assumptions are you making when you say that "Salamander attacks are not flaming"? For one, I think one of your underpinning assumptions is that 'if it isn't in the armybook, then it is not official'. That's fair enough, but what is "official"? What is your definition of official?

Is a statement official if it is followed by big grand tournament venues? Is it official if it is reiterated by a book's author or editor? What underlying assumptions do you make when you define official?

EvC
17-02-2008, 20:04
An official FAQ if it's not in the rulebooks. Pretty simple standard to keep to, don't you think?

Presumably you play with Lion Charioteers at S6, pay 21 points for Silver Helms, take two Arcane Items on your High Elf Mages, 5 character choices at 2000 points... after all, Adam Troke is on record in many places (Far more officially than the Salamander Flaming Attacks judgement!), and he wrote the High Elf book, so that must be good enough too... right?

Yade
17-02-2008, 21:18
Well then Adam Troke should write an FAQ that says that Lizardmen salamanders have flaming attacks. Until then you guys can posture all you want about fluff and make up as many house rules as you like.

Salamanders do not have flaming attacks. Dragon princes are not immune to their attacks.

Yade
17-02-2008, 21:22
I think you need to break down your position into its constituent ontological and epistemological components.

What kind of assumptions are you making when you say that "Salamander attacks are not flaming"? For one, I think one of your underpinning assumptions is that 'if it isn't in the armybook, then it is not official'. That's fair enough, but what is "official"? What is your definition of official?

Is a statement official if it is followed by big grand tournament venues? Is it official if it is reiterated by a book's author or editor? What underlying assumptions do you make when you define official?

There is no assumption here; Salamanders do not have flaming attacks. the only assumptiont that you are making is that they do. More importantly your assumption is not a good one based upon any rules or printed literature.

I don't care about the big tournaments. Until GW has the temerity to enforce some consistency in their rules then they have no reason to assume that we are going to beleive that ONE person ruled in a tournament somewher that most of us were not.

T10
17-02-2008, 21:39
While it is true that the Salamanders' shooting attack is not explicitly described as flaming, the GW Thought Police is understaffed and over-worked. If they *do* burst in on a game where you play with flaming attacks you should be able to bribe them to let you go.

-T10

Yade
17-02-2008, 22:01
yep, yep. House rules and dicing things off. that is GWs sophisticated and elaborate answer to not following through with FAQs or errata that actually address player concerns and rules inconsistencies.

We all laugh and have a beer then forget that the game we love is not supported.

Ganymede
18-02-2008, 01:10
There is no assumption here; Salamanders do not have flaming attacks. the only assumptiont that you are making is that they do. More importantly your assumption is not a good one based upon any rules or printed literature.

I don't care about the big tournaments. Until GW has the temerity to enforce some consistency in their rules then they have no reason to assume that we are going to beleive that ONE person ruled in a tournament somewher that most of us were not.

I didn't actually articulate a position in my previous post. I was simply asking you to critically evaluate your own. Don't jump the gun, so to speak.

Your statement, "salamanders do not get flaming attacks", has to be built around certain assumptions as to the meaning of officiality and the value of varied sources.

For one, your position rests upon the underlying assumption that, "If it isn't in the rulebook and it isn't in a FAQ, then it lacks value as a source of guidance." Primarily, I would take issue with such a value assumption because it lends credence to a rulebook but no credence to the rulebook's author or organizer. Such a position is inherently contradictory.

Additionally, your statement reveals that you value consistency. In other words, you feel that in the spirit of a consistent reading of the rules, salamanders should not have a flaming spit attack. After all, it is much easier to go, "there is no flaming attacks rule, so there are no flaming attacks," then it is to consider other sources or viewpoints.

Overall though, your statement does not necessarily state a fact. To the contrary, it instead reveals your philosophy on how rules disputes should be resolved. Instead of saying, "salamanders do not have flaming attacks," you should say, "Due to my philosophy that only rules printed in a GW publication have value and my view that consistency is a paramount goal in interpreting rules, I do not feel that salamanders should have flaming attacks." Such a statement would be far more accurate, and would also be much fairer an assessment.

knightime98
18-02-2008, 04:11
There is no assumption here; Salamanders do not have flaming attacks. the only assumptiont that you are making is that they do. More importantly your assumption is not a good one based upon any rules or printed literature.

Well, really? Hmm.. interesting..
Look at pg. 29 of the Lizardmen Army Book at the Picture...
I don't know about you but I don't need a rule to tell me that the
Salamander is "Spouting Flames".... It is and will be a Flaming Attack..
You sir can posture and say that it is not - however, I will say that
the impetus is upon you to prove that it is not a flaming attack...
Since when does it specifically have to say that it is???
Spout Flames isn't good enough for you.. fine
The Picture is good enough for me!
Burn Treeman Burn.... Burn Tomb King Character Burn...
Be safe Dragon Princes, be safe....
Stop crying... it's a game and live with it....

Yade
18-02-2008, 04:17
Ganymede it is my philosophy that Warhammer is played using a set of rules. It is also my philosophy that in order to establish some form of consistency those rules should be followed. I have strong beleifs that players who depend upon the art in the book or philosophical hypothesis to change the rules should at least acknowledge that fact and not insist that the rules reflect their fantasies and imaginations.

Salamanders do not have flaming attacks. Please get the lizardmen book and have it as a reference before you respond again. "Corrosive attacks" not "Flaming"

The burden of changing the rules is never on the player supported by the book. If you think they do have flaming attacks you need to PROVE it yourself. Which brings to question; what do you consider proof? I can prove to you that there is no rule for flaming attacks under the listing for salamanders, apparently that is not proof enough.

knightime98
18-02-2008, 04:40
Wow, I'm glad our gaming group doesn't have a player like you around...
It would seriously cramp the style...
what part of "Spout Flames" did you not read in the book???
Really, what more do you need??
Did you not see the picture that shows the salamander shooting flames 10 miles long
in the book???

Next, as it has already been mentioned - what about -
Dwarven Flame Cannon
Skaven Warp Fire Thrower
these also are not flaming???

What about army books that say the attacks "are NOT flaming".. Tzeench for Chaos as an example... That book says they are not flaming???
So, why does the Lizardmen book not say they are not flaming???

Obviously, you have something to lose if it is considered flaming attack. That's the whole premise of the argument.. Because, you don't want your treeman taking double wounds or Trolls not regenerating... Take your pick...

The salamanders are the only long range shooting they have aside from a Stegadon which is 200+ points to shoot a giant bow...

knightime98
18-02-2008, 04:43
Salamanders do not have flaming attacks. Please get the lizardmen book and have it as a reference before you respond again. "Corrosive attacks" not "Flaming"

I thought you said that you don't look at fluff and only rules... So, why are you quoting fluff??? I thought you only quote the rules...

Ganymede
18-02-2008, 04:44
Ganymede it is my philosophy that Warhammer is played using a set of rules. It is also my philosophy that in order to establish some form of consistency those rules should be followed. I have strong beleifs that players who depend upon the art in the book or philosophical hypothesis to change the rules should at least acknowledge that fact and not insist that the rules reflect their fantasies and imaginations.


I assumed as such. Such opens up tertiary questions.

Is Warhammer exclusively defined as a "set of rules", or does it have different definitions?

What is the definition of a rule?

How does a statement by a book author outside of an armybook differ in value from a statement within the book?

How valuable is precedence when adjucating unclear areas?

How are some distinctions as to what is/isn't a rule anything more than arbitrary delineations?

A specific question... what else is there of value besides consistency? What about fidelity?

knightime98
18-02-2008, 04:46
The burden of changing the rules is never on the player supported by the book. If you think they do have flaming attacks you need to PROVE it yourself. Which brings to question; what do you consider proof? I can prove to you that there is no rule for flaming attacks under the listing for salamanders, apparently that is not proof enough.
Actually, you are quite wrong..
The rule is "Spout Flames".. it says so in black and white...
Why is this even a thread?

Yade
18-02-2008, 04:48
LOL, you guys are funny.

1st off they do not have flaming attacks and I play the lizardmen myself. It is important that if you are going to make up the rules or modify them for fluff reasons that you acknowledge it so that when someone faces you in a tournament or in an external play setting you don't make some home grown newbie mistake.

If you want them to flame at your house then go for it, but just know that they are not actually "flaming"

Gany I am sure you will have fun postulating on your own questions.

Appoloclypse
18-02-2008, 05:04
Actually, you are quite wrong..
The rule is "Spout Flames".. it says so in black and white...
Why is this even a thread?

bad choice of words by GW, another great example of this is the fact that my normal opponent and I first read the sheild rule we thought that they could only be used in cc, as the rule states that it only applies in cc. after rereading the rule I realized that it was the +2 to the armour save that was used in cc not the +1 for carrying it.

Chiungalla
18-02-2008, 10:24
The army book for the lizardmen is very old.
In those ancient times, when this book was released, there where units without the flaming attack entry, that still caunt as flaming attacks.
Skaven Warpfire Thrower for example.

You cannot take the new army books as reference, and say, that they all state flaming attacks, if the unit has flaming attacks. That is true only for new army books, but they are from different times then the lizardmen army book, and GW had a very bad approach to sucht things in the past.

A high member of the GW staff has also explained, that the salamanders have flaming attacks, and that it would have made it into a FAQ or errata, if not for the low errata output of GW.

And even so this statement comes from the sixth edition, it is still good enough, because the army book is still sixth edition, and it is nothing that changed with the edition change.

You can still say, that you want it printed. Me too.
But the word of a high GW staff member, and the experience, that every person I know and all tournaments around play it with flaming attacks, is enough for me, to play it that way.

And if there would be no dragon armor, every lizardmen player would want to have flaming attacks, and even so dragon armor exists, flaming attacks are still an advantage, against alle the other armies.

DeathlessDraich
18-02-2008, 11:42
1) It is immaterial what Cavatore might say. Until it is included offically in the rules whatever was said is not official. Alessio himself knows this considering the mistakes he has made in the past with unofficial remarks.

2) As Ganymede mentioned, I think, we can only adhere to the rules we are provided with. We cannot modify any rule with everyday or common usage of the language.
i.e.

Flaming attack is explained in the rule book. Its meaning *must* be restricted to this explanation and not extended/distorted as players see fit.

'Venom' is the word used to describe Salamanders.
In everday usage Venom = Poison but Salamanders' shooting is not regarded as Poisoned.

If you assume that Fire = Flaming attack, then by the same reasoning you must allow Venom = Poisoned attacks

Consistency as required, Ganymede?:D


3) Old editions:
Again until GW issues official guidelines, players can only use the rules that are present.
Any amount of speculation of intent is counter productive and would lead to Chaos. :p

Chiungalla
18-02-2008, 12:16
No. :angel:

If your way of thinking would be right, even the skaven warpfire thrower would have no flaming attacks.

And I like to quote the salamander entry from the army book:


Once within rangen the lunch a burst of highly corrosive, flaming liquid from there gullet that burns and incapacitates their prey...

They have flaming attacks.

Ganymede
18-02-2008, 13:01
You're begging some questions.


1) It is immaterial what Cavatore might say.

It is?



2) we can only adhere to the rules we are provided with.

We can? What makes something a rule?


Flaming attack is explained in the rule book. Its meaning *must* be restricted to this explanation and not extended/distorted as players see fit.

It must?



Again until GW issues official guidelines, players can only use the rules that are present.


players can only use rules that are present?

What does official even mean?


You all really talk a lot about officiality and such, but I still have no clue as to what you mean.


'Venom' is the word used to describe Salamanders.
In everday usage Venom = Poison but Salamanders' shooting is not regarded as Poisoned.

If you assume that Fire = Flaming attack, then by the same reasoning you must allow Venom = Poisoned attacks

This is fallacious logic. The two situations here are not 'the same reasoning'. This is just an attempt to discredit someone else's viewpoint by refuting an argument they would never make.

DeathlessDraich
18-02-2008, 13:36
No. :angel:

If your way of thinking would be right, even the skaven warpfire thrower would have no flaming attacks.


No, the rules for Flaming attacks specifically mentions the Warpfire thrower. There is no need to deduce in other ways that it is a flaming attack.

DeathlessDraich
18-02-2008, 13:51
You're begging some questions.

Surely you can come up with better questions than these which in turn begs a question of the same spurious level.


It is?

:p It isn't?


We can?

:p We can't?


It must?

It mustn't? etc etc etc

Don't demean yourself by answering this. lol

Greyfire
18-02-2008, 14:38
Deju Vu?

Anyone remember the thread "Salamander - Spout Flames" back in December? The one that was deleted, not locked but actually deleted from existence, due to some of us not playing nice in the thread?

Play nice.

Just a suggestion, but since everyone is repeating their positions, both in this thread, and from the December thread, and other threads no doubt, I don't think any resolution will be reached anytime soon.

-=- Steve

Ganymede
18-02-2008, 15:56
Surely you can come up with better questions than these which in turn begs a question of the same spurious level.



:p It isn't?



:p We can't?



It mustn't? etc etc etc

Don't demean yourself by answering this. lol

Those are all simply my questions parroted back at me. Why would I need to answer questions regarding your personal philosophy regarding rules adjucation? I'm not the one who made a bold assertion.

I do not think you quite got what I was communicating in my previous post, nor do I think you quite grasped what I meant when I said your assertions beg questions. Your previous assertions, while forceful, raise some serious questions dealing with your underlying assumptions.

For instance, your statement, "It is immaterial what Cavatore might say," begs the question. Why are Calvatore's statements immaterial, and are they really immaterial to begin with?

Likewise, your statement, "Again until GW issues official guidelines, players can only use the rules that are present," begs another litany of questions. What exactly do you mean by officiality? Are you using a GW definition of official or are you using your own definition? Also, what do you mean by rules that are "present"?

You've stated what you feel, salamanders don't have flaming attacks, but until you explain and justify your underlying assumptions, your assertions will fall on deaf ears. Remember that many rules debates here degenerate into snide name calling and arguments because people confuse clashing rules philosophies with "one person is wrong but doesn't have the guts to give in and admit it."

EvC
18-02-2008, 17:12
I assumed as such. Such opens up tertiary questions.

Is Warhammer exclusively defined as a "set of rules", or does it have different definitions?

What is the definition of a rule?

How does a statement by a book author outside of an armybook differ in value from a statement within the book?

Again:
1) Do you play White Lions on Chariots get +2S for their great weapons? Adam Troke said so, and he wrote the book.
2) Do you pay 23 points for Silver Helms like it says in the book, or 21 points as Adam Troke said in the White Dwarf article?
3) Do you allow High Elf Mages to take two Arcane Items each? Adam Troke plays it that you can, and he wrote the book.
4) Can a High Elf army have 5 characters at 2000 points? The rules say no, but the example army in the book says it's ok, as written by Adam Troke.
5) Gav Thorpe is on record as saying a Steam Tank gives half victory points at 5 wounds. Do you go with what he says?
6) Do you play Salamanders according to the Monsters and Handlers rule? Gav says you should as well...

All of these are examples of a GW games designer giving semi-official rulings on a certain rule. And they're all wrong. You simply can't trust their word as the law unless it's in an FAQ.

I think the best part of all is where in the UKGT FAQ it says that Salamander fire breath is not flaming, but Dragon Armour still makes you immune to it. Now that is consistency :D

Chiungalla
18-02-2008, 18:13
I think the best part of all is where in the UKGT FAQ it says that Salamander fire breath is not flaming, but Dragon Armour still makes you immune to it. Now that is consistency :D

It is for sure, if you declare salamander shooting not as flaming but as breath weapon.
And yes, it is a breath weapon from the fluff point of view at least.

DeathlessDraich
18-02-2008, 18:21
Ganymede, you missed the emoticons in my last post or maybe you misconstued - The emoticon is = tongue in cheek?


Deju Vu?
I don't think any resolution will be reached anytime soon.


Won't be reached ever.:D


Again:
Adam Troke said so,

Adam Troke said all that. wow!
Make sure you don't mention it to him if or when you speak to him next.;)

I know [indirectly] that Gav Thorpe is willing to admit to mistakes.

EvC
18-02-2008, 18:23
Yes, he said all that. Check out your White Dwarfs and army books.

Chiungalla, that wasn't the FAQ's reasoning. It was, "No, it doesn't say it's a flaming attack, so it's not." and "Yes, of course it's a fire attack!" at the same time.

Ganymede
19-02-2008, 01:09
Again:
1) Do you play White Lions on Chariots get +2S for their great weapons? Adam Troke said so, and he wrote the book.
2) Do you pay 23 points for Silver Helms like it says in the book, or 21 points as Adam Troke said in the White Dwarf article?
3) Do you allow High Elf Mages to take two Arcane Items each? Adam Troke plays it that you can, and he wrote the book.
4) Can a High Elf army have 5 characters at 2000 points? The rules say no, but the example army in the book says it's ok, as written by Adam Troke.
5) Gav Thorpe is on record as saying a Steam Tank gives half victory points at 5 wounds. Do you go with what he says?
6) Do you play Salamanders according to the Monsters and Handlers rule? Gav says you should as well...

You don't really need to try to convince me of the issue. I'm not arguing whether or not salamanders have flaming attacks. I am simply trying to get at the underlying philosophies which warrant the above as evidence.



All of these are examples of a GW games designer giving semi-official rulings on a certain rule. And they're all wrong. You simply can't trust their word as the law unless it's in an FAQ.

Why would their word be any more trustworthy in a FAQ? Don't these statements above kinda ruin his credibility overall? Who's to say that the rulebook isn't horribly written?

From a broader perspective, what makes an author's written words any more valuable than his spoken words? What underlying assumptions are we dealing with when we postulate that an armybook written by a tool is any more credible than that particular tool's comments on the armybook?

Yehoshua
19-02-2008, 01:38
Players benefit from using only the printed rulebooks and errata on the GW website because they are so widely available and labeled as official. They also tend to be less contradictory within themselves than the WD releases and designer statements.

In the case of WD specifically, that publication is written under potentially greater timepressure, with less resources and energy directed toward game balance and playtesting, than the rulebooks and errata.

Dendo Star
19-02-2008, 01:49
Silly person. You hunt around this here intraweb and you'll find a few on-the-record statements of GW admitting they use WD as nothing more than catalog for their minis!

knightime98
19-02-2008, 04:07
Chiungalla, that wasn't the FAQ's reasoning. It was, "No, it doesn't say it's a flaming attack, so it's not." and "Yes, of course it's a fire attack!" at the same time.
Contradiction at it's finest by GW Staffers.. Lovely, I say!

I think the best part of the Lizardmen army is the outstanding choice of
core units available to them that can receive a rank bonus. I can only
name one if you do not have a Slann in you Army..
Oh, let me think hard.. Yes, it is Saurus Warriors <--- That's it folks!

Now, let's take away more from the Lizardmen by saying that the attack is not flaming but because it is a fire attack - Dragon Princes are safe????
Say What???

Talk about being hypocrites - That is the juxtaposition of GW at large!:confused:

Guyver OmegaX
19-02-2008, 07:49
I like to handle the flaming attacks in the same way I handle the monster/handler issue (and any other ambiguity) - I actually talk to my opponent before playing, and agree on how we're going to handle the potentially silly or ambiguous rules. I then take that choice and play that game that way - regardless of FAQs or WD articles or GT clarifications, etc. Sometimes you get the simple 'that's what it says in the book so it's that way' (slightly rule-lawyer-esque) approach. Sometimes you get the common sense approach. Sometimes you get the 'I'll figure out what version's best for me and demand that one' approach. You ultimately end up with a certain set of rules to play a game with, after about 5 minutes discussion.

It's almost as if I want to play the game to enjoy it, rather than argue about how 'right' the rules are. Silly me.

Chiungalla
19-02-2008, 08:43
Players benefit from using only the printed rulebooks and errata on the GW website because they are so widely available and labeled as official. They also tend to be less contradictory within themselves than the WD releases and designer statements.

The lizardmen army book says, that the are "flaming" and "burning" the opponent. So you have your printed reference, but not the exact wording "flaming attack".

EvC
19-02-2008, 18:01
Never heard of acidic burns eh? You'll feel like you're on fire, but you wouldn't actually be aflame... I'm just kidding, I know they should be counted as flaming attacks.


From a broader perspective, what makes an author's written words any more valuable than his spoken words? What underlying assumptions are we dealing with when we postulate that an armybook written by a tool is any more credible than that particular tool's comments on the armybook?

The fact I can print it off in a nicely presented document full of other questions. Same reason I'm going to buy the Vampire Counts army book and use it to play games rather than printing off the various rules descriptions posted across the internet at a dozen different sites ;)

N810
19-02-2008, 18:13
From the fluff it founds like they are spiting a stream of Acidic Napalm and some how ignighting it at the same time. So it seem like it would burn and corode/disolve what ever it hit. :skull:

tanglethorn
19-02-2008, 20:52
Its absurd this argument comes up every few weeks and it devolves into the same mess. Currently the way the LM book is worded, Salamanders do not get any special flaming attack rules wise.

However, Alessio stated in his own FAQ that they indeed count as Flaming. In our club this is good enough for us since GW barely ever releases FAQs in a timely manner.

Thank god we play with people who are friendly and have common sense. It's clear what GW's take is on this and our club is going with counts as FLaming until a new LM or FAQ comes out.

Do a search on his FAQs. It's right there. And as someone put it, Calvatore is the one sitting closest to the printer, unfortunetly their printer must be very very far away....

Ganymede
20-02-2008, 01:41
The fact I can print it off in a nicely presented document full of other questions. Same reason I'm going to buy the Vampire Counts army book and use it to play games rather than printing off the various rules descriptions posted across the internet at a dozen different sites ;)

So I would say you vaule ease of reference and accessability when it comes to interpreting rules disputes. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that; a lot of tournaments think the same way especially in regards to things like white dwarf lists and whatnot. On the other hand, what stops the Direwolf FAQ from falling into this category? Certainly the Direwolf FAQ is an easily accessable reference tool, something well presented that can be given to your opponent with ease.

On the other hand, I think your assertion that using a book author's input is fundamentally similar to using a haphazard hodge-podge of internet rumors to play a game is unfair. Are they really the same?

Famder
20-02-2008, 04:58
As was pointed out earlier, Skaven Warpfire throwers do not possess the rule "Flaming Attack" however in the Rule Flaming Attack it is specificly referenced as having attacks that fall into this category. This implies that the words "counts as a Flaming Attack" are not necessary in the unit entry to benefit from the rule if it is fire based.

EvC
20-02-2008, 11:24
So I would say you vaule ease of reference and accessability when it comes to interpreting rules disputes. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that; a lot of tournaments think the same way especially in regards to things like white dwarf lists and whatnot. On the other hand, what stops the Direwolf FAQ from falling into this category? Certainly the Direwolf FAQ is an easily accessable reference tool, something well presented that can be given to your opponent with ease.

Every time I want to use Dire Wold FAQ I have to google it, find the right page and then check that it's kept up-to-date. It's not as simple as a GW FAQ would be. Plus there are occasions where it's simply wrong, as well as some of the references being out of date.


On the other hand, I think your assertion that using a book author's input is fundamentally similar to using a haphazard hodge-podge of internet rumors to play a game is unfair. Are they really the same?

I already proved they're the same you ninny ;) You've already read my long list of botched rules interpretations given by the author of the High Elf book (and readily available, far moreso than the Salamander "ruling") haven't you?

Well, put it like this: we're talking about Dragon Armour, right? Alessio Cavatore was at a recent Q & A session and was asked whether Dragon Armour is supposed to protect Dragons or whatever a High Elf character is mounted upon. He said that this was not the intent of the rule but it could not be FAQed (Just like Salamander attacks will not).

So how do we play it? The way it's supposed to be played, that the game designers supposedly think is better and the way they wanted it, or the way the rules say? I'll bet that few (or none) of the High Elf players in this thread clamouring for Dragon Armour to render immunity to Salamander attacks won't have been playing their Star Dragons as being vulberable to flaming attacks.

And what do you do if two different game designers come out with two different interpretations of a poorly worded rule, off the record?

And thus we come to the crux: if you pick and choose what references to use, then you're picking and choosing. Not a good basis for the rules of a game.

Ganymede
20-02-2008, 13:38
Every time I want to use Dire Wold FAQ I have to google it, find the right page and then check that it's kept up-to-date. It's not as simple as a GW FAQ would be. Plus there are occasions where it's simply wrong, as well as some of the references being out of date.

It takes little more internet navigation to get a hold of the DW FAQ than it does to get the GW FAQ. The GW FAQ, like Direwolf's, is also wrong on a number of questions.

At least you don't need to worry about the GW FAQ being up to date, it ain't and we know it... no need to check.

Overall, it looks like the two documents are virtually identical according to your given criteria. What are your underlying assumptions that assign less value to one kind of FAQ over the other?




I already proved they're the same you ninny ;) You've already read my long list of botched rules interpretations given by the author of the High Elf book (and readily available, far moreso than the Salamander "ruling") haven't you?

That's not proof. It isn't really even evidence. Those are just reasons why you believe the way you do.

Additionally, you haven't actually proved that the book is right and the author is wrong. Why can't it be the other way around? Remember, you are taking for granted certain beliefs you hold, and are not critically challenging your assumptions.






And thus we come to the crux: if you pick and choose what references to use, then you're picking and choosing. Not a good basis for the rules of a game.

Fair enough, now back it up. Explain to me why you believe this way.

Some questions...

Aren't you already picking and choosing by using the rulebook and GW FAQs as one source over others?

Do sources other than the rulebook have similar or varying degrees of value?

Why is picking and choosing bad for a game when most large scale tournaments do just this? Are grand tournaments, by association, bad for the game?


Overall, I get your assertions; they kept getting repeated as if they are self justifying. What I am trying to get at is why you believe the way you do, and why I should agree with you.

Kukkelukke
20-02-2008, 13:56
I agree.. as long as they dont use the flame templaye or arent named "Breath weapon", then they are not breath weapons, therefore no armour :)

marv335
20-02-2008, 15:01
I'd love a definitive answer on this one.
we've got a local Lizardmen player who is "interchangeable" on this issue.
When playing against armies with immunity to flame weapons, they don't have flaming attacks.
when playing against armies that are vulnerable to flaming attacks, they are flaming.

This is proving to be very annoying.

EvC
20-02-2008, 18:37
Overall, I get your assertions; they kept getting repeated as if they are self justifying. What I am trying to get at is why you believe the way you do, and why I should agree with you.

They are self-justifying, and I don't care if you agree with me. You are asking why I should treat official rules documents as official, and off-the-record remarks as off-the-record remarks. They are what they are. Your post reeks of too many amateur philosophy lessons, so my response to you, and I want no less than complete rebuttal, is: why is the sky?

Ganymede
20-02-2008, 19:03
They are self-justifying, and I don't care if you agree with me. You are asking why I should treat official rules documents as official, and off-the-record remarks as off-the-record remarks. They are what they are. Your post reeks of too many amateur philosophy lessons, so my response to you, and I want no less than complete rebuttal, is: why is the sky?

And here, we go back to an earlier question; what is official?

How exactly are you defining official? Additionally, what makes officiality important? And here is a concrete question demonstrating the applicability of the two before; is the Slayer Army of Karak Kadrin official?

GW itself can not agree on amy meaning of officiality. Consider the disparity in rules interpretations and allowed lists at different GW and Indy Tournaments (presumably the gaming scenes where officiality is important as there is prizes and prestige on the line.) Hell, certain GW GTs even have their own unique batch of house rules. Other tournaments allow certain lists, while others still don't. Some tournaments don't even allow Wood Elves to take their free woods despite the scenario being labeled a type of pitched battle.

What does officiality mean to you when it means something different to the Tournament Scene at large?

EvC
20-02-2008, 19:11
Officialness is officialness. It's up to the individual to decide what that means to him, and I've chosen to rank an official FAQ above a Direwolf FAQ (which I would rank above off-the-record design studio rules statements). You are simply going to have to accept that this is my personal opinion, and that's the end of it. I suggest you take your pseudo-philosophical babble to one of the numerous threads asking "wah is this army/ character/ WD unit legal????!??!" and ask there instead.

Porksta
20-02-2008, 21:36
To all the people that don't believe GW would give the attack the name "Spout Flames" if it were not flaming - how about the Crook and Flail of Radiance? Why don't TK players start getting the flail bonus when using it? Just because something is called one thing doesn't mean it is. In Kill Bill, one of the assassins was named Black Mamba. Did this make her black? Did it make her a snake? The name has absolutely nothing to do with with what it describes.

High Elf players - shutup, Dragon Princes are already immune to Dwarf Bolt Throwers with fire, and the TK Catapult. Don't you think a giant rock or arrow could wound regardless if it is aflame?

Ganymede
21-02-2008, 00:57
Officialness is officialness. It's up to the individual to decide what that means to him, and I've chosen to rank an official FAQ above a Direwolf FAQ (which I would rank above off-the-record design studio rules statements). You are simply going to have to accept that this is my personal opinion, and that's the end of it.

I have nothing against your personal philosophy in this regard. I am simply trying to see where you are comming from.

One-S
22-02-2008, 11:50
OK quick question here.

Played against high elves today and my salamanders shot at his dragon princes. Dragon prince armour protects against breath weapons iirc.

So what are salamanders shooting exactly?
The rules describe it as both spout flames and corrosive venom and they don't use the flame template so i'm not sure if they count as using breath weapons either.

We just discounted the shots in the game as spout flames sounded like the kind of thing dragon armour should protect against.

Any help?

As you notice, this is not an easy question to answer.
I've seen different tournements use different rules for sallies, some treat them as flaming attacks, others don't.
My advise to you would be: check with a judge before you start playing and ask him wether or not the attack is flaming or not.
If you're playing a friendly game, discuss it before you start.

Against woodelfs I'd go for flaming, against highelfs not flaming :angel:

tanglethorn
22-02-2008, 16:01
Here is my personal suggestion.

Print out the Lizardmen GW FAQs and bring them with you. Also print out the online FAQ session from Alessio and bring it with you. Then finally have a printout of the Direwolf FAQs which is player base FAQ based on player submissions and polls.

Show your opponent or club all 3 documents and ask them what do they think. Get a vote and make it a house rule.

Porksta
22-02-2008, 16:30
Here is my personal suggestion.

Print out the Lizardmen GW FAQs and bring them with you. Also print out the online FAQ session from Alessio and bring it with you. Then finally have a printout of the Direwolf FAQs which is player base FAQ based on player submissions and polls.

Show your opponent or club all 3 documents and ask them what do they think. Get a vote and make it a house rule.

The Lizardmen FAQ doesn't have anything on it. I don't know who Alessio is or where to find the FAQ, and Direwolf is stupid. I don't care what a group of gamers think, I care what the rules say. A large group of gamers I know don't think High Elves should ASF, so why not use that as a guideline?

Bottom Line: Nowhere (Please give me the page number if I am wrong) in the Lizzy RB or on an FAQ does it say that Salamander shooting is flaming. So therefore it isn't.

Malorian
22-02-2008, 17:34
Edit: Retracted statement.