PDA

View Full Version : flaming attacks



wizuriel
15-06-2008, 14:46
just realized the dwarf flame cannon does not have the flaming attack special rule. Was wondering if there any other weapons missing it or feel should have it?

in paticular looking at the black hammer of hashut which has the magic effect of auto killing any flamable units that take a wound (doesn't even say it has to be unsaved).

Oenghus
15-06-2008, 15:28
Well, there's obviously the whole Salamander thing -- not flaming, but probably should be.

Condottiere
16-06-2008, 07:33
I thought it was established somewhere that the Dwarf Flame Cannon do cause flaming attacks, and that Salamanders vomit stomach acid.

wizuriel
16-06-2008, 21:23
don't see a mention in the errata or dwarf book

Oenghus
16-06-2008, 22:20
Yeah, that's why I responded. Salamanders should spout flame (the attack is called spout flame, I think) but don't. Hence...

Braad
17-06-2008, 05:36
I believe, somewhere in history, the guy who desigen the lizardmen book told us that, since it is called "spout flames" it should be treated as flaming.

Deathmaster Shetto
20-06-2008, 00:39
I think the Skaven's Warp Fire Thrower neglects to mention whether or not it's a flaming attack.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
20-06-2008, 02:19
I think it's time foreveryone to slow down, take a deep breath, and get back in touch with reality when we start questioning whether a "flaming breath" attack or a "Flame Cannon" have flaming attacks. You can't rely on the rulebook to tell you every little thing. The writers assume that you're not short of those parts of your brain that allow you abstract thought and rational decision making. The rules are a guideline. Talk with your opponent, roll a dice if you can't come to a reasonable solution.

Lordmonkey
20-06-2008, 02:25
Well, there's obviously the whole Salamander thing -- not flaming, but probably should be.

Salamanders used to spit venom... huzzah for continuity...

If an attack does not specify that it counts as flaming, then use common sense. By RAW, it is not flaming, in the same way that some "frenzied killing machine" saurus warriors of sotek do not actually have frenzy. On the other hand, a flame cannon fires flame at the enemy. RAI is more sensible, but often abused to the point of Salamanders (see above).

By and large this should* be a tertiary issue that boils down to the players discretion and does not influence the game a great deal, however... every unit type and their grandmother has regeneration these days, so it actually matters.

Agree before the game, and everybody will be happy. Approach a tournament setting having queried these things with the organiser in advance.

There is no 'correct' answer.

*In an ideal world

wizuriel
20-06-2008, 03:19
I think it's time foreveryone to slow down, take a deep breath, and get back in touch with reality when we start questioning whether a "flaming breath" attack or a "Flame Cannon" have flaming attacks. You can't rely on the rulebook to tell you every little thing. The writers assume that you're not short of those parts of your brain that allow you abstract thought and rational decision making. The rules are a guideline. Talk with your opponent, roll a dice if you can't come to a reasonable solution.

gets a bit harder with items that don't have much of a description. would a sword that can auto kill flamable targets be considered flaming?


edit: you know rules are good when they come down to a dice roll to see what they do

Lost_In_Lustria
21-06-2008, 20:51
gets a bit harder with items that don't have much of a description. would a sword that can auto kill flamable targets be considered flaming?

A frost blade can auto-kill flamable targets, but probably not flaming :p

Loopstah
21-06-2008, 21:01
A frost blade can auto-kill flamable targets, but probably not flaming :p

Ice burns too! :p

Lost_In_Lustria
21-06-2008, 21:09
Ice burns too! :p

Yes thinking about it, a ice based attack probably would have a more damaging effect on a treeman. Maybe Wood Elves should have the greenhouses ready when facing frostblade wielding vampires.

Ahem, veering slightly off topic now...

wizuriel
21-06-2008, 22:08
A frost blade can auto-kill flamable targets, but probably not flaming :p

but a frostblade doesn't have an affect just against flamable targets

DeathlessDraich
22-06-2008, 14:30
I think the Skaven's Warp Fire Thrower neglects to mention whether or not it's a flaming attack.

Mentioned in the BRB - so it is.


just realized the dwarf flame cannon does not have the flaming attack special rule. Was wondering if there any other weapons missing it or feel should have it?

in paticular looking at the black hammer of hashut which has the magic effect of auto killing any flamable units that take a wound (doesn't even say it has to be unsaved).


1) It is mistake to incorporate everday usage of a word into terms with specific meanings in Warhammer.
e.g. Move in everyday usage is very different from Move in Warhammer.

2) Unless a specific term has been assigned it should not be added to a rule because it 'feels right' in the real world.
A hit that 'kills automatically' would be akin to Killing Blow in real life but in Warhammer Killing Blow and auto kill are very different.
Move or Fire - in everday usage this stops the missile from being fired ever! and I can think of many more examples.

3) Until the very phrase, Flaming Attack has been assigned to an attack, it cannot be assumed that it is a Flaming attack.
e.g. Poisons from the Temple of Khaine do not all create Poisoned attacks.

4) Any notion that Flaming attacks was inadvertently missed out because it is too obvious has to reconcile with this:
The Lizardmen book does have an item which is specifically designated as Flaming attacks - Burning Blade.
Wouldn't the absence of the phrase Flaming attack in Salamander/Flame Cannon etc rules indicate that it is probably not a Flamiing attack?

Morentez
22-06-2008, 15:50
is it just me or have those points been raised a LOT recently... not saying its bad to point it out but i keep reading it

atsc83
22-06-2008, 17:03
I agree with whoever said it should come down to the two players themselves, as I understand it in GW tourneys not THAT much attention goes to who wins the games anyways...(unless Im sorely mistaken). If u wanna get all competitive go play magic or something...:rolleyes:

Godfiend
23-06-2008, 21:55
I would like to add that while a Dwarf Flame Cannon shoots flaming projectiles and thus is a rather obvious inclusion into the "flaming weapon" category, the description of a Salamander's attack does not use the word "fire" in it - it references stomach acid. Anyone who's ever vomited before will note that they did not literally puke up flames, and thus the Salamander debate is in the realm of ability description vs. ability name - makes it slightly more tricky than inferring logic by it not being labeled flaming.

Pavic
23-06-2008, 22:06
the description of a Salamander's attack does not use the word "fire" in it - it references stomach acid.

Except for the fact that page 29 calls the attack "Spout Flames."

Also, a GT ruling and Warhammer World house rule was issued that this attack does not effect models in Dragon Armour, which clearly points to the fact that this is a Flaming attack. Of course, they also stated that the Salamanders attack is not flaming. So the question arises, how can something that makes a model immune to flaming attacks make a model immune to a non-flaming attack?

Godfiend
23-06-2008, 22:12
Except for the fact that page 29 calls the attack "Spout Flames."

To which I already said

"and thus the Salamander debate is in the realm of ability description vs. ability name."

The ability name is spout flames, but the ability description is fling stomach acid.

And the flaming stomach acid doesn't go through Dragon Armor, but is still not really flaming? Is GW doing their own acid for these rulings or what?

Pavic
23-06-2008, 22:18
Is GW doing their own acid for these rulings or what?

Based on the multitude of strange rulings we have had lately, one must assume so :D

Dark_Mage99
24-06-2008, 07:54
I think we as players are supposes to use common sense.

As a side note: The Skaven Warpfire Thrower doesn't list it uses flaming attacks, but in the 7th edition BRB, under flaming attacks, it is listed as one of the things that causes them.