PDA

View Full Version : Is the Flame Cannon a Flame Weapon?



Lantern
19-05-2008, 00:01
Ok, I know this seems like a stupid question, and I have searched the boards, but after looking through my Dwarf armies book, I cannot find the Flame Cannon listed as being a flaming weapon.

I am asking as there are certain people who would argue that as it is not stated, it doesnt count as one....but come on? Is it all in the title?

Malagant
19-05-2008, 00:53
The people on this forum who have an over-inflated sense of their own importance will happily tell you that IAW RAW, it is not a Flame Weapon.

They'll likely then make some quip to demonstrate their superiority over anyone with the audacity to ask a question.

Other people tend to think that it's actually Ok to use our brains on our own, and that the rule that says: "Flame Cannons shoot in a similar way to cannons, but instead of firing a cannon ball they shoot a gout of flame - use the Flame template to represent this" is a pretty solid indicater that is IS a "flaming attack".

WLBjork
19-05-2008, 05:01
Just ask if they'd allow models with Dragon Armour to be injured by it ;)

Tarax
19-05-2008, 07:30
The people on this forum who have an over-inflated sense of their own importance will happily tell you that IAW RAW, it is not a Flame Weapon.

They'll likely then make some quip to demonstrate their superiority over anyone with the audacity to ask a question.

Other people tend to think that it's actually Ok to use our brains on our own, and that the rule that says: "Flame Cannons shoot in a similar way to cannons, but instead of firing a cannon ball they shoot a gout of flame - use the Flame template to represent this" is a pretty solid indicater that is IS a "flaming attack".

Actually, we are far more likely to tell you where you can find the answer, either in the BRB or in a FAQ.

Alas, I couldn't find any. :(

However, there is so much reference to flaming/fire that anyone saying it's not a flaming attack will get flamed by me. :p

Bob the Butcher
24-05-2008, 00:56
Bring on the High Elf Dragon Armour!!!

Lost_In_Lustria
24-05-2008, 08:23
Definitely a flaming attack.

Royal Tiger
24-05-2008, 09:02
it has FLAME in the name and describes it with flamey type words, thats enough to convince me that it has some connection with fire

Lord Khabal
24-05-2008, 09:16
Erm... The previous tzeentch spell list had the word fire in all spells and there wasn't a single "fire" involved. Not even on the magical missiles. Stupid? Very. But the fact is that fire sucks unless you're trying o kill a TKing or treemen with the flame cannon, which is no easy task. The HE dragon armour is much more "usual" in match-ups..

Lost_In_Lustria
24-05-2008, 09:51
You missed off that flaming attacks ignore regeneration saves (very handy against some Vampire and Daemon units).

Overall though I would agree with you. Fire does needs a boost in Warhammer. I've experimented with flaming attacks causing panic in a unit if any casualties are inflicted. Friendly games only and slight points hike required!

BloodiedSword
24-05-2008, 09:53
Wasn't the old Tzeentch lore FAQ'd to explicitly say that because it was magical fire, none of the spells counted as Flaming?

It's never "too obvious" that something should be Flaming.

Faustburg
24-05-2008, 10:03
Indeed, and the similarly it can be said Salamander "flames" actually just being corrosive and venomous regurgitated stomach fluids, but it comes down to none of the three (tzeench flames, Salamander spit and Dwarf Flame Cannon) actually have the clause "Flaming attack" in it's rules...

Gazak Blacktoof
24-05-2008, 11:24
Deffinitely a flaming attack from flame cannons. It fires a big gout of flame.

The flames of tzeentch weren't flames but sorcerous illusions.

Warlord Gnashgrod
24-05-2008, 16:59
The same question could be asked of the Skaven Warpfire thrower. Is it truly a fire weapon? 'Fire' is in the name, and in the description once or twice, but not in it's rules.

Anodai
24-05-2008, 17:08
Yeah, Ok, the tzeench fire and the salamander fire arn't flaming, and there are reasons for that. Its not really fire. But the flame cannon? I think its pretty obvious that it is actually fire.

Oenghus
24-05-2008, 17:30
I thought Salamanders were FAQ'd to be flaming attacks somewhere... of course, now I can't find it in the lizardmen FAQ. Grrr. :confused:

Lost_In_Lustria
24-05-2008, 17:39
Think Salamander attack used to be flaming in previous Lizardmen book, but they changed it to corrosive venom, so it's not flaming any more.

feeder
24-05-2008, 17:41
Yep, it's pretty obvious that a FLAME cannon should have 'flaming attack' in it's rules, but it doesn't. And in a WAAC game with my trolls vs your dawrves, I'd roll my regen.*

JAFTCBEF. (Just Another Feth-up That Could Be Easily Faq'ed.)


*I don't play WAAC games, but this is the internet.

Chainsofsigil
24-05-2008, 17:51
Also, isn't it only the Flame Cannon that uses the Flame template. Thats a bit of a giveaway ;)

Ah wait, the Warpfire thrower also uses the flame template. How do the Game designers cost 'flaming' maybe there's a clue in the points cost?

Either way, not to count Warpfire or Flame cannon as a fire attack is a bit dodgy.

Bran Dawri
24-05-2008, 18:33
Ahh, the internet. The only place where it can be seriously argued if a giant flamethrower actually burns things...

Kloud13
25-05-2008, 06:25
Just ask if they'd allow models with Dragon Armour to be injured by it ;)

Funny you should mention that one.

The "Flame Template", as it is called in 40k, is called the "Breath Weapon" template in Fantasy.

Dragon Princes are immune to flaming attacks, but even even if the Flame Cannon was not somehow "Flaming", The Dragon Princes wouls still be Immune as they are also Immune to all Breath Weapons.

GranFarfar
25-05-2008, 07:15
Overall though I would agree with you. Fire does needs a boost in Warhammer. I've experimented with flaming attacks causing panic in a unit if any casualties are inflicted. Friendly games only and slight points hike required!

No, fire dosn't need a boost. I cost almost nothing, and there are somethings it has a perk against, against it does nothing. What needs to be done is to change the Dragon armour absurdity. This whoule immunity thing is a bit much.

BloodiedSword
25-05-2008, 10:10
Funny you should mention that one.

The "Flame Template", as it is called in 40k, is called the "Breath Weapon" template in Fantasy.

Dragon Princes are immune to flaming attacks, but even even if the Flame Cannon was not somehow "Flaming", The Dragon Princes wouls still be Immune as they are also Immune to all Breath Weapons.

Are you sure about this? Just because it uses the teardrop template does not make it a Breath Weapon - that is a special rule that applies to Dragon breath and some other weapons.

I don't have the Dwarf book but I would be surprised if the Flame Cannon counted as a Breath Weapon.

Gazak Blacktoof
25-05-2008, 11:58
Nope the flame cannon isn't a breath weapon. Most people consider it to be a flame weapon though.

Breath weapons are a specific subset of ranged attacks and the rules are very clear when something is a breath weapon.

Masque
27-05-2008, 23:28
The "Flame Template", as it is called in 40k, is called the "Breath Weapon" template in Fantasy.

You are incorrect. See pages XVI and 94 of the BRB.