PDA

View Full Version : Dragon armor vs tzeentch



fubukii
17-07-2008, 16:55
Hi i have a question Now flamers of tzeentch have a shooting attack that does d6 str 4 shots but in no where does it say its flaming, my He buddy claims he is imune to it, but i say no because it does not count as flaming. We also had the same issue with the level 1 spell from the lore. RAW points towards it not being flaming

Thoughts?

Loopstah
17-07-2008, 17:03
The Flamers themselves have the rule "Flaming Attacks" which would imply that all the attacks they make are Flaming Attacks.

This would include the Flames they shoot in the shooting phase as well as their close combat attacks.

Basically an all Tzeentch Daemon army would be unable to kill Dragon Princes except with magic.

None of the Tzeentch spells are Flaming, so they would affect people with Dragon Armour.

BloodiedSword
18-07-2008, 12:41
I don't have the Daemon book so I can't check this for you, but it's really very simple thanks to GW's new RAW policy on Dragon Armour.

If the attack has the rule "Flaming Attacks" attached to it then Dragon Armour is completely immune to the entirety of the attack. Otherwise, Dragon Armour is affected as normal.

Judging from what Loopstah said, this is pretty clear in the Daemon book. Of course, explaining this to people who want Dragon Armour to make them immune to everything is a lot more difficult.

TheWarSmith
20-07-2008, 15:19
Didn't read the rules very well, hmm?

P. 45 Flamers of Tzeentch, special rules: Daemonic; Skirmish; Flaming Attacks

The ONLY attacks in the Tzeentch list that are NOT flaming would be Daemon Princes and chariot impact hits, and magic spells.

If those dragon princes hit you in close combat, you'd better hope you've got the combat resolution to make them flee, or that you can magic them down(not hard at all).

None of the Tzeentch spells actually count as flaming. If they did, it would specifically be called out. While this sucks against the very few units immune to fire, it's WONDERFUL against wood elves and their lovely flammable trees!!!

fubukii
20-07-2008, 16:00
No, i most certainly read the rules, it says flamers have flaming attacks but i think that would just apply in close comnat, not shooting.


The attacks from the flamers are flaming correct but when they shoot a missle weapon, unless the weapon states its flaming, i would say its not.

EvC
20-07-2008, 16:06
What weapon are the Flamers shooting, then?

TheWarSmith
20-07-2008, 16:39
ALL flamer shots are flaming, period. To EVC's point, what exactly do you think those flaming maws are shooting? magical candy canes? The shooting attack is called "flames of tzeentch" too.

"The flamer uses its burning limbs to hurl bolts of yellow and blue magical flame at its foes. This magical flame burns not only flesh but reality itself."

The flaming attacks special rule is a blanket to all of the flamer attacks.

Loopstah
20-07-2008, 16:45
Exactly the Flamers do not use a weapon to shoot, if they did I would agree they needed a Flaming Attack descriptor. The Flamers are the weapon that shoots in which case the fact they themselves have the Flaming Attacks rule means their shots are also flaming.

TheWarSmith
20-07-2008, 16:52
Good point Loop. I actually wasn't even intending to imply that, but you're dead on. There's no weapon profile, so it's the flamers themselves doing the attack, not a separate weapon w/ a profile that doesn't specifically say flaming.

You've earned a cookie.

decker_cky
20-07-2008, 17:36
Plus, read the flaming attacks section in the BRB. It doesn't even lightly imply that the flaming attacks rule only applies to close combat. It uses two examples which, when the book was published, had flaming shooting attacks.

Now, the other way to look at it is that the flamers have Magical attacks and Flaming attacks. Both of those apply to the same attacks, so glance at what the magical attacks describes itself as applying to.

Bob the Butcher
21-07-2008, 07:51
Moral of the story don't shoot Flaming attacks at Dragon Princes. Ditto for Salamanders attacks.

Loopstah
21-07-2008, 08:02
Moral of the story don't shoot Flaming attacks at Dragon Princes. Ditto for Salamanders attacks.

Salamander attacks aren't flaming.

I believe they were stated to be not flaming but treated as flaming for a tournament, but that hasn't actually been FAQ'd as the official rule.

Neither is the Dwarf Flame Cannon to be pedantic.

Gazak Blacktoof
21-07-2008, 11:30
Neither is the Dwarf Flame Cannon to be pedantic.

And just for that you lose all net-cookie privileges.;)

TheWarSmith
21-07-2008, 23:43
Anybody who tells me that a FLAME cannon doesn't count as flaming earns either a swift kick in the nuts of a massive punch to the throat(their choice).

Perhaps they didn't bother SPECIFICALLY telling people, cause it's SPECIFICALLY obvious.

Tuch
22-07-2008, 12:39
Perhaps they didn't bother SPECIFICALLY telling people, cause it's SPECIFICALLY obvious.

Only to those with actual common sense. The rest of the community prefers to argue over it. :confused:

Loopstah
22-07-2008, 13:01
Only to those with actual common sense. The rest of the community prefers to argue over it. :confused:

The main point is, if you say the Flame Cannon is Flaming because it "obviously" is then what else are you going to assume is different to the rules because it's "obviously" meant to be different.

It might be stupid to say it isn't Flaming because it doesn't have Flaming Attacks but if you start making up rules based on fluff you might as well not play the same game because half the stuff is "obviously" one thing while not actually being that way at all.

It's better to stick with the rules even if some of them are stupid and blatantly wrong, than to start making your own up, otherwise you might as well make rules up for everything else while you're at it to fit what you think is right.

Personally I think the Flame Cannon should have Flaming Attacks but I'll play it that it doesn't until GW say it does. Otherwise why bother using the rules in the first place.

FigureFour
22-07-2008, 13:32
I love how the same people who say "Of course the Fires of Tzeentch spells aren't flaming attacks, they don't SAY they are flaming attacks". Are the same people who say "Of course the Flame Cannon has flaming attacks, it says FLAME right in the name.

Make up your minds people.

Gazak Blacktoof
22-07-2008, 13:33
RE: Flame cannon.

Its not really fluff. There's no long convoluted train of thought either.

Big ball of fire? Yep, that's flamey.

EDIT:

The Tzeentch spells are an illusion, not actual flames.

Loopstah
22-07-2008, 13:38
I love how the same people who say "Of course the Fires of Tzeentch spells aren't flaming attacks, they don't SAY they are flaming attacks". Are the same people who say "Of course the Flame Cannon has flaming attacks, it says FLAME right in the name.

Make up your minds people.

They have FAQ'd the Tzeentch Fire spells to be non-Flaming though, at least the BoC versions.

They haven't FAQ'd the Dwarf Flame Cannon or the Salamanders though. They really should though.

FigureFour
22-07-2008, 19:31
They have FAQ'd the Tzeentch Fire spells to be non-Flaming though, at least the BoC versions.

They haven't FAQ'd the Dwarf Flame Cannon or the Salamanders though. They really should though.

Really? That's even worse.

By FAQing the fire spells to say they are NOT flaming, they are tacitly admitting that anything with fire in the name (or that otherwise sounds firey) could be a flaming attack.

While that's good for the Flame Cannon/Salamander situation, it's bad for the game as a whole (If you like rules that make sense and support each other).

This could be especially stupid if they didn't specify that the Demons of Chaos Tzeentch spells aren't flaming (I haven't read the book yet, so I don't know what sort of spells they have . . .) because then it could imply that they SHOULD be considered flaming. After all, they WEREN'T FAQed, or written correctly after GW corrected the older book.

Loopstah
22-07-2008, 19:48
Really? That's even worse.

By FAQing the fire spells to say they are NOT flaming, they are tacitly admitting that anything with fire in the name (or that otherwise sounds firey) could be a flaming attack.

?? By FAQing the spells to be NOT flaming they are saying that not everything with Fire in the name or that you might assume is flaming, is automatically flaming.



While that's good for the Flame Cannon/Salamander situation, it's bad for the game as a whole (If you like rules that make sense and support each other).

How do you mean? If anything it's a point for the "it doesn't say flaming so it isn't" brigade.


This could be especially stupid if they didn't specify that the Demons of Chaos Tzeentch spells aren't flaming (I haven't read the book yet, so I don't know what sort of spells they have . . .) because then it could imply that they SHOULD be considered flaming. After all, they WEREN'T FAQed, or written correctly after GW corrected the older book.

None of the Tzeentch spells in the Daemons book are listed as being Flaming attacks, then again unlike the Beast spells, only 2 have words that sound fiery (Flickering Fire of Tzeentch and Tzeentch's Firestorm).

Scorpioni
24-07-2008, 12:30
Erm... I could be mistaken of course but isn't there a little text on top of the Tzeentch lore in the new daemon book that stats ALL the spells are flaming attacks?

Loopstah
24-07-2008, 13:13
Erm... I could be mistaken of course but isn't there a little text on top of the Tzeentch lore in the new daemon book that stats ALL the spells are flaming attacks?

You're mistaken, there isn't.

FigureFour
24-07-2008, 13:41
?? By FAQing the spells to be NOT flaming they are saying that not everything with Fire in the name or that you might assume is flaming, is automatically flaming.

Yes. The FAQ makes it clear that GW thinks it's reasonable to believe that a spell with "fire" in the name is a flaming attack and has gone and set the precedent that it should now specify that these things AREN'T flaming attacks.

A cunning and irritating rules lawyer would use this to argue that all the flaming sounding attacks that DIDN'T get FAQed SHOULD be considered flaming, since GW didn't say they weren't.



None of the Tzeentch spells in the Daemons book are listed as being Flaming attacks, then again unlike the Beast spells, only 2 have words that sound fiery (Flickering Fire of Tzeentch and Tzeentch's Firestorm).

Yes, but if you expect consistency in GWs rules (a laughable idea I know) they should now specify that Flickering Fire of Tzeentch and Tzeentch's Firestorm are NOT flaming attacks.


Keep in mind, I'm not actually making this arguement, I think it's a minor technicality that only ******* pre-law students would leap on. I just think that if GW would take the time to make clear and concise rulings on these things we wouldn't have so much trouble.


It could also depend on the exact wording of the FAQ. If it's in the errata section that would be the worst case scenario, but if there's the question "Are Tzeentch spells flaming attacks?" with the reply "Of course not you ******." then we're doing pretty well.

BloodiedSword
24-07-2008, 14:18
FAQ just means "Frequently asked questions". Obviously people were confused enough that they kept asking about whether Tzeentch spells were Flaming, so GW clarified.

Conversely, nobody cares enough to ask GW whether the Flame Cannon is Flaming, so it doesn't get FAQ'd. There's nothing to read into here - the Question just isn't Asked Frequently.

FigureFour
24-07-2008, 15:48
I know what FAQ means and I addressed your concern in my last post.

Did you even read my post or did you just assume I was wrong and decide to be condecending about it?

Malorian
24-07-2008, 16:27
Some of my miners have candles on their picks. Do they count as flaming attacks?

(Totally not serious, just adding to the silly nature of this ongoing arguement :p)

Atrahasis
24-07-2008, 17:06
All attacks from Tzeentch Daemons are Flaming. Nothing limits that to close combat attacks. Spells that deal damage are attacks.

The spells themselves are not flaming (as they are not noted as such), but when cast by a Tzeentch Daemon (except a Daemon Prince) they are flaming.

Loopstah
24-07-2008, 17:12
All attacks from Tzeentch Daemons are Flaming. Nothing limits that to close combat attacks. Spells that deal damage are attacks.

The spells themselves are not flaming (as they are not noted as such), but when cast by a Tzeentch Daemon (except a Daemon Prince) they are flaming.

A spell is only a Flaming Attack if it says it's a Flaming Attack in the spells rules.

Tzeentch Daemons having Flaming Attacks in no way makes any spells they cast Flaming.

Are all the spells cast by Nurgle Daemons Poision Attacks as well?
Are all the spells cast by Slaanesh Daemons Armour Piercing as well?

Of course not.

wizuriel
24-07-2008, 18:19
yeah the flaming is really starting to become an issue.

I would say the flames of tzeentch are not flaming only because of the gift (kinda implying its like a weapon).

but yeah stuff like the flame cannon, fire of tzeentch and black hmmer of hashut could really use some errata.

GW also needs to get their act together with rule writting. Some of their rules and descriptions are terrible and nothing they do is consistant :mad:

Atrahasis
24-07-2008, 21:53
Are all the spells cast by Nurgle Daemons Poision Attacks as well?Yes, however none of them roll to hit so it has no effect.

Are all the spells cast by Slaanesh Daemons Armour Piercing as well?You'll notice that the only Slaanesh Daemon capable of casting spells who also has Armour Piercing also has the note that it applies only to close combat attacks.

Tzeentch Daemons carry no such caveat.

EvC
24-07-2008, 23:22
Damn, let me try that one with my Vampires, in a unit with Banner of Hellfire.
"Curse of Years on your regenerating Plaguebearers- 3 wounds."
"Okay, I've got a Herald, I'll just take my regeneration save..."
"What are you DOING man?! I have the Banner of Hellfire. Your Daemons just took flaming aging damage- no regen for you!"

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 07:52
I'd have to check the wording of the Banner but yeah, that sounds right.

Jack of Blades
25-07-2008, 08:13
I'd have to check the wording of the Banner but yeah, that sounds right.

lol, looking forward to getting Sword of Kings onto a Shadow Vampire so I can cast 3D6 Killing Blow hits... You do realise what you're saying is entirely ludicrous or are you actually trying to support it? :rolleyes:. Hell, EvC, why don't we put the Drakenhof Banner and Crown of the Damned in a unit and cast Portent of Far on everything? Double 4+ for the entire army!

And why aren't the bloody smileys working again...

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 08:20
Straw men aren't big or clever.

Jack of Blades
25-07-2008, 08:26
Straw men aren't big or clever.

I'm not pulling a strawman, I'm trying to make you see how completely ridiculous your point is, and I'm pretty sure every single soul on this forum would agree. Not trying to be rude but when people actually suggest this... where will it end?

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 08:27
You're trying to show how ridiculous my point is using examples that are in no way analogous; a straw man.

EvC
25-07-2008, 08:39
Atrahasis is correct; Killing Blow is clearly stated to only be for close combat (unless otherwise specified) and I'm not quite sure what you mean by the Portent of Far (Which allows 1s to be re-rolled). I think the point I already made shows the reasoning to be sufficiently ridiculous, that damage from Curse of Years or Wind of Undeath (Or indeed any spell cast by a Vampire or Tzeentch Herald, even from the main lores- imagine the possibilities! Flaming Crow attack for the win!) could be flaming...

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 08:44
"Ridiculous" is a value judgment, and has nothing to do with the rules. It's hardly the most "ridiculous" thing about the Vampire or Daemon books if you ask me ;)

eleveninches
25-07-2008, 08:53
It's been errata'd on the GW website. Dragon armour gives immunity to all things that imply that they are fire-based, even if they dont state that they are flaming attacks (flame cannon, tzeentch magic, salamanders flames etc...)

Condottiere
25-07-2008, 09:00
Which errata is that? Implied fire does not equal actual fire, therefore immunity.

theunwantedbeing
25-07-2008, 09:03
Where does it state this on the site?
In the current HE Errata and FAQ document it states nothing about Dragon armour granting immunity to tzeentch magic.
http://uk.games-workshop.com/news/errata/assets/wh/2008_HE_FAQ.pdf

It merely answers the question of what happens when a model(or mount) is hit by an attack that is flaming.

eleveninches
25-07-2008, 09:18
Sorry, it was the GT rules errata:
http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/Tournament_Uploads/House_Rules_Docs/WFBHouseRules-10.01.08.pdf

theunwantedbeing
25-07-2008, 09:28
Interesting how you lumped in tzeentch magic when the text doesnt actually say that....

eleveninches
25-07-2008, 09:34
It is implied that it is fire attack, because the spell names are 'fire of'
Not the daemon spells of course

Gazak Blacktoof
25-07-2008, 09:52
Spells have their own self-contained rules. I don't think they use any of the rules of the casting model unless they specifically mention that they apply to spells.

A wizard who makes poisoned attacks doesn't cast poisonous spells unless they would normally be poisonous, a wizard who makes flaming attacks doesn't cast fiery spells unless they would normally be flame based attacks.

You are looking for a bonus where none is implied or granted- an easter egg.

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 10:03
You are looking for a bonus where none is implied or granted- an easter egg.

The bonus is to all attacks; this is how it is granted. You are looking for a restriction where none is implied or granted.

EvC
25-07-2008, 10:07
"Ridiculous" is a value judgment, and has nothing to do with the rules. It's hardly the most "ridiculous" thing about the Vampire or Daemon books if you ask me ;)

Yeah I agree again. The thing with value judgements though, is that the people we play with will be making them too. I would feel just as wrong claiming that my Curse of Years is a flaming attack (And I do use my Vampire Lord in a unit with the Hellfire Banner) as I would telling someone that their Flame Cannon isn't a flaming attack. Would these be arguments you'd actually make to someone in a game?

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 10:08
Yes, because the rules are arbitrary, and one arbitrary rule is as good as another if all you're doing is playing to have fun ;)

Loopstah
25-07-2008, 10:17
The bonus is to all attacks; this is how it is granted. You are looking for a restriction where none is implied or granted.

Spells are not attacks.

Spells are spells, you can tell spells are not attacks because not all spells do damage, whereas all attacks do.

Trying to claim spells are attacks means every time you use Boon of Tzeentch on your Lord of Change I expect it to lose a wound from the spell being a magical flaming attack.

It has no strength value listed so I assume it must be one of those auto-wound deals and as it doesn't mention saves I will use your sort of logic and say it doesn't allow saves, because in your WFB you don't need to say things are a certain way for them to be so.

Stupid?

As stupid as claiming spells are Flaming Attacks because the model carrying them has them.

DeathlessDraich
25-07-2008, 10:24
Just having a quick peek.

There are a few issues to look at:

1) What consitutes an attack?

An important undefined term. Combat and shooting are universally accepted as attacks.

What about magic spells, pre-combat abilities [e.g. Censers, Impact hits etc], characteristic tests [from spells, special abilities, magic weapons, etc]?

In the absence of supported rules your guess here is as good as mine.

2) Flaming Attacks:

a) If you define 'attacks' broadly to include spells etc, then the Lore of Tzeentch cast by LOC, Tzeentch Herald or Horrors, are Flaming attacks.
In this case, to be consistent Impact hits must also be deemed to be attacks.
i.e they could be magical and Flaming!

b) If you exclude spells from the domain of attacks, then you have to reconciliation problem - a magic spell is then *not* a magical attack!

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 10:30
Spells are spells, you can tell spells are not attacks because not all spells do damage, whereas all attacks do.

Animals are animals. You can tell animals are not dogs because not all animals bark, whereas all dogs do.

SOME spells are attacks, just as SOME animals are dogs.


Trying to claim spells are attacks means every time you use Boon of Tzeentch on your Lord of Change I expect it to lose a wound from the spell being a magical flaming attack.Pretty straw man. Pretty.

EvC
25-07-2008, 10:41
a) If you define 'attacks' broadly to include spells etc, then the Lore of Tzeentch cast by LOC, Tzeentch Herald or Horrors, are Flaming attacks.
In this case, to be consistent Impact hits must also be deemed to be attacks.
i.e they could be magical and Flaming!

In that case I'm fairly certain it's meant to be, as the Tzeentch Chariot is called the Burning Chariot ;)


b) If you exclude spells from the domain of attacks, then you have to reconciliation problem - a magic spell is then *not* a magical attack!

It's sounding good as a rationalisation, I especially like the last bit. I just wish it could be framed in a way that won't make people want to slap me for telling them (I suppose, "Curse of Years, your men age rapidly and die... and their heads explode into fire!" would do it ;) )!

Gazak Blacktoof
25-07-2008, 11:02
@Atrahasis

If you want to argue for the sake of argument's sake, go ahead I wont stop you. But are you telling me that's they way you'd actually play it in a game?

Participating in the sea serpent standard thread, I don't agree with the opposing view but I can see that the argument they are making is still a sensible one, that simply isn't the case here.

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 11:06
What isn't sensible? That a magical effect that allows models to wield flame as if it were a weapon should apply from a distance as well?

Perhaps you can demonstrate the effect to show where my logic has failed.

Models with Flaming Attacks have flaming attacks. Some spells are attacks. If it's an attack, and you have flaming attacks, then it's a flaming attack.

Gazak Blacktoof
25-07-2008, 11:09
A gracious invitation, but honestly I can't be bothered!

Loopstah
25-07-2008, 11:21
Close Combat
BRB pg 4: "...the number of times a creature attacks during close combat."

Shooting
BRB pg 25: "...each model can only make one shooting attack in each shooting phase."

Flaming
BRB pg 95: "..use fire as a deadly form of attack. Their attacks will cause double wounds against creatures that are flammable."

Magic

? No mention of magic or spells being an attack at all.

RAW: Spells are not an attack.

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 11:26
Forest Spirits have a 5+ Ward Save. However, this save cannot be used against magical attacks (spells, magic weapons, etc).

Emphasis mine.

"attacks" is an English word, not a defined Warhammer term (except in the case of the statistic) and in all cases where the rules do not redefine a word for a specific use, the English definition applies. Spells that are harmful are attacks.

Loopstah
25-07-2008, 11:34
Forest Spirits have a 5+ Ward Save. However, this save cannot be used against magical attacks (spells, magic weapons, etc).

Emphasis mine.

"attacks" is an English word, not a defined Warhammer term (except in the case of the statistic) and in all cases where the rules do not redefine a word for a specific use, the English definition applies. Spells that are harmful are attacks.

Yes, lets all start using 6th Edition army books to argue rules for 7th Edition.

It is clearly stated in the BRB that attacks happen in Close Combat and by Shooting. Nowhere does it state that Spells are a type of attack or are attacks.

EvC
25-07-2008, 11:45
If you fire off a spell, are you attacking them?

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 11:47
Yes, lets all start using 6th Edition army books to argue rules for 7th Edition.

It is clearly stated in the BRB that attacks happen in Close Combat and by Shooting. Nowhere does it state that Spells are a type of attack or are attacks.

Are you suggesting that forest spirits get their ward save against spells?

You can't have it both ways.

Wood Elves were released during 6th edition, but the only word that matters in rules debates is "current".

Loopstah
25-07-2008, 11:52
If you fire off a spell, are you attacking them?

Yes, you are attacking them, but it is not an attack as defined by the game.

The rules for Flaming are clear:
"Their attacks will cause double wounds against creatures that are flammable."

So what are "their attacks".

We find this on page 4 where it explains that the Attack characteristic is:
"...the number of times a creature attacks during close combat."

So "their attacks" are what they do during Close Combat as defined by the Attack Characteristic.

RAW: Flaming only applies to attacks during Close Combat.

But surely they should have the opportunity to attack at a distance, we ask.

Then we read the Shooting Section and see:

"...each model can only make one shooting attack in each shooting phase."

So now we know that an attack can also occur via shooting.

RAW: Flaming can apply to attacks during Close Combat and on attacks during Shooting as they are both defined as attacks in the BRB.

What about spells, we ask. Can they be Flaming?

We look in the magic section and see that it doesn't mention that a spell is an attack anywhere. We do see that some spells have been defined as "Flaming Attacks" though.

RAW: Flaming can apply to attacks during Close Combat and on attacks during Shooting as they are both defined as attacks in the BRB. Flaming does not apply to spells unless the spell rules specify that the spell is a Flaming Attack.

There you go, RAW and Logic working in harmony for once.

You can argue against it if you want but I'll feel free to call you silly unless you can also provide evidence that isn't out of date.



Are you suggesting that forest spirits get their ward save against spells?

No they don't. Their rules specifically state magical attacks such as spells nullify it. This in no way makes spells an attack as per the rules of the game, only an attack as per the rules of the Forest Spirit Ward Save.

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 12:28
The evidence is not "out of date". It is absolutely current.

Your "interpretation" also leads to the nonsense that spells do not modify armour saves, as only attacks can do so.

If you want examples from so-called 7th edition army books, then :

VC Wristbands of Black Gold gives saves against ranged attacks. I don't have the exact wording here, but are you suggesting that it does not give saves against spells?

There are bound to be others.

Loopstah
25-07-2008, 12:38
The evidence is not "out of date". It is absolutely current.

Your "interpretation" also leads to the nonsense that spells do not modify armour saves, as only attacks can do so.

If you want examples from so-called 7th edition army books, then :

VC Wristbands of Black Gold gives saves against ranged attacks. I don't have the exact wording here, but are you suggesting that it does not give saves against spells?

There are bound to be others.

You're confusing attacks and attacks, they are not the same thing as far as the rules are concerned.

Flaming only works on a model's attacks. Models can only attack via shooting or close combat. Those are their attacks and can be subject to flaming.

Spells can attack someone but they are not one of the models attacks. They are a spell, the attack is an effect of casting the spell.

Attacks can be from spells but spells are not attacks.

A magical spell effect can be an attack as defined by the word "attack", but not in the way it needs to be for Flaming to be applied, as it is not defined as being a type of "attack" a model has, in the rulebook, it is only an "effect".

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 12:44
Attacks aren't attacks? Oh OK :rolleyes:

Loopstah
25-07-2008, 12:46
Attacks aren't attacks? Oh OK :rolleyes:

It's not my fault if you can't see the obvious difference. If you want I can write in big letters using small words? :rolleyes:

See I can be condescending too. ;)

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 13:05
Is a spell such as a magical missile a ranged attack, yes or no?

Loopstah
25-07-2008, 13:10
Yes, a magic missile is a ranged attack.

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 13:14
So a model that casts a magic missile has made a ranged attack on its target?

Loopstah
25-07-2008, 13:17
So a model that casts a magic missile has made a ranged attack on its target?

No, a model that casts a magic missile has cast a spell on its target.

That spell is a ranged attack.

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 13:28
No, a model that casts a magic missile has cast a spell on its target.

That spell is a ranged attack.

A ranged attack that has been made by the model. Unless you're arguing that the spellcaster was not the cause of the attack.

EvC
25-07-2008, 13:29
Yes, you are attacking them, but it is not an attack as defined by the game.

I actually find these types of statements more ridiculous than the "flaming Curse of Years" concept. If you're attacking them, it's an attack. Sometimes, the simplest and most basic intrepretation is the best. I find it mind-boggling that you can say: "No, a model that casts a magic missile has cast a spell on its target.

That spell is a ranged attack."
Basic logic time: the spell is a ranged attack. Thus you can insert "ranged attack" in place of "spell" in your previous paragraph:
"A model that casts a magic missile has cast a ranged attack on its target."

He's attacked it, an attack IS an attack. God that word is losing all meaning the more I type it :D

You are entirely free to state that it is ridiculous that the spells of a model with flaming attacks become flaming. It is, I agree- I think Atrahasis has impliciltly agreed as well. And I would probably never claim it myself... but you can't deny the logic.

Lijacote
25-07-2008, 13:30
By any means, if what you're saying is the truth regarding the mechanics behind attacks and spells, then a Lord of Change casting ANY spell will have it flaming. A flaming dark hand of death, for example.

Lores are separate from these entities called daemons, as ironic as that is.

EDIT: Oh god how this post just became redundant. EvC, damn you. :(

Loopstah
25-07-2008, 13:41
A ranged attack that has been made by the model. Unless you're arguing that the spellcaster was not the cause of the attack.

It's 100% clear as crystal defined in the rules that models make attacks in close combat and by shooting.

Models do not have any other attacks except by close combat or shooting, they are the attacks of the model, attacks the model have are those, no others.

Models can also cast spells, they don't have spell attacks.

A spell is not one of the models attacks.

If a model casts a spell, a model casts a spell.

That spell could make flowers grow or make heads explode, it doesn't matter.

Some spells are attacks as defined by the dictionary, be they btb (close combat) or magic missiles (ranged).

Flaming is something that, should a model have the Flaming Attacks rule, makes all their attacks Flaming. As I've stated models can only make shooting attacks or Close Combat Attacks by RAW, so Flaming can only be applied to them.

Models can also cast spells, they are not the models spell attacks, so they do not become Flaming unless the spell itself says they do, even if the spell is actually an attack.

Attacks a model can make:
Close Combat (defined by the A characteristic, occur in close combat)
Shooting (one or more per shooting phase depending on weapon)

Spells do not fall into this category, they are not defined as attacks a model can make anywhere in the rulebook. The model may cast a spell that attacks another model as defined by the dictionary, but in game terms they have just cast a spell, NOT made an attack.

EvC
25-07-2008, 13:48
Ahh, so it's the spell attacking the enemy, I think I can buy that, nudge nudge ;)

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 13:57
I'm sorry, you cannot possibly argue that a spell is not an attack and then also argue that items which save against specific types of attacks save against spells of that type.

"Attack" is not defined as narrowly as you claim, and there is no evidence that spells are not attacks. In fact, you've admitted that spells are attacks, and yet insist that despite the attack being caused and initiated by a model, that that model hasn't "made" the attack.

You haven't explained (only dismissed) the following points:

1. Spells are classified as magical attacks.
2. Spells are classified as ranged attacks.
3. The Keeper of Secrets has a specific note that Armour Piercing applies only to it's close combat attacks. Since the Keeper has no shooting attacks and cannot gain any, the only reason for that restriction is to note that spell attacks are not armour piercing.
4. Armour saves are only modified by attacks.

You continually redefine the word "attacks" to suit your position.

In short, I'm done. We'll (probably) see how GW want it to work when the Daemons FAQ comes out (overdue by a day now), until then the rules say that all attacks (including spells) made by Tzeentch Daemons are flaming.

Loopstah
25-07-2008, 14:01
Ahh, so it's the spell attacking the enemy, I think I can buy that, nudge nudge ;)

:D

You might laugh, and it does sound silly but it's 100% clear in the rules, read them and check if you want.

1) A model may attack in close combat as many times as allowed by it's A characteristic.

Close Combat attacks are therefore attacks.

2) A model may make a shooting attack in the shooting phase if allowed.

Shooting attacks are therefore attacks.

3) A model may cast a spell at the enemy. The spell may cause damage.

Spells are not attacks, check the magic section, at no point are the words attack/ attacks/ attacking or attacked mentioned in regards to casting spells.

You do not attack models with spells, you affect them.

There is a difference between the dictionary definition of attack (which some spells would meet) and the WFB definition of attack which spells are not classed as.

The rules for Flaming refer to the WFB definition of attack, "Their attacks..", something a model may make in close combat or Shooting as per the rules.

The fact that spells can also be attacks in the usual sense of the word, and are sometimes treated as them for certain items does not make them an attack as required for Flaming to affect them.



In short, I'm done. We'll (probably) see how GW want it to work when the Daemons FAQ comes out (overdue by a day now), until then the rules say that all attacks (including spells) made by Tzeentch Daemons are flaming.

Me too. Personally I'm looking forward to all the Daemon players crying when they realise they've been doing half of their stuff wrong and the FAQ stops them cheating so much.

t-tauri
25-07-2008, 14:14
Let's argue without resorting to abuse or personal attacks please.

t-tauri

The Warseer Inquisition

Gazak Blacktoof
25-07-2008, 14:49
You are entirely free to state that it is ridiculous that the spells of a model with flaming attacks become flaming. It is, I agree- I think Atrahasis has impliciltly agreed as well. And I would probably never claim it myself... but you can't deny the logic.

This is the problem (as I perceive it) with this section of the forum. Often the discussion revolves around how the rules work in isolation and not how people actually play with the rules in their games. By all means argue about RAW, but if that isn't the way anybody plays the game then expect people to just roll their eyes in disgust and amusement.:rolleyes:

EvC
25-07-2008, 15:23
Yeah, and that's nearly what I did when it was first argued, but there's no need to act disgusted by a silly rules quirk. It's just a rule, and if Atrahasis is right there's one more silly rule to add to the hundreds of other silly rules we play by. But when people say mad things like "You're confusing attacks and attacks, they are not the same thing", then you can expect the conversation to carry on until the full ludicruousnous of the statement has been hashed out entirely ;)

Loopstah
25-07-2008, 15:36
But when people say mad things like "You're confusing attacks and attacks, they are not the same thing", then you can expect the conversation to carry on until the full ludicruousnous of the statement has been hashed out entirely ;)

That's part of the reason why arguments like this carry on for so long, because people would rather poke fun at things rather than actually try and understand explanations. :(

Which is a shame really, as at least I backed up everything I said with facts, references and a logical explanation.

My final point in this thread is: The Dictionary is not the rulebook.

Carry on as you wish.

EvC
25-07-2008, 15:39
You did, and you did very well, I could go either way withthe argument (And will undoubtedly play the way that seems less like a loophole), but didn't you feel a little dirty for arguing that an attack isn't an attack (But it is, but not made by the person doing the attack, etc.)? Fun but utterly stupid discussion though, no malice at any party ;)

Gazak Blacktoof
25-07-2008, 15:40
Yeah, and that's nearly what I did when it was first argued, but there's no need to act disgusted by a silly rules quirk. It's just a rule, and if Atrahasis is right there's one more silly rule to add to the hundreds of other silly rules we play by. But when people say mad things like "You're confusing attacks and attacks, they are not the same thing", then you can expect the conversation to carry on until the full ludicruousnous of the statement has been hashed out entirely

Frankly its not the rules quirk its Atrahasis that warrants the eye rolling.

If he'd pointed out somewhere along the line, "but this isn't the way I play it" that would be fine. Instead the topic has become confused and derailed by the discussion of what constitutes an attack. Frankly its almost as bad as when T10 gets out his little diagram of ranking up a mounted character in a unit of infantry- I swear a small part of my soul dies every time I see that thing and have to drag out my 2004 annual to supply a more sensible answer.

Atrahasis
25-07-2008, 15:45
Oh, but it IS the way I play it. It really isn't that game-breaking or odd.


My final point in this thread is: The Dictionary is not the rulebook.You'll have a great deal of trouble reading ANY rules unless you admit the rules are written in English, with English words.

Gazak Blacktoof
25-07-2008, 18:57
Oh, but it IS the way I play it.


There goes another piece of my soul.:p

DeathlessDraich
25-07-2008, 19:18
This is the problem (as I perceive it) with this section of the forum. Often the discussion revolves around how the rules work in isolation and not how people actually play with the rules in their games. By all means argue about RAW, but if that isn't the way anybody plays the game then expect people to just roll their eyes in disgust and amusement.:rolleyes:

1) Unfortunately many players and whole clubs have a preference in interpreting certain rules their way and sometimes may interpret rules in an 'uncommon' way.

This does not mean that their interpretation is wrong as there are often many ways of interpreting most of the nebulous/controversial rules - and these interpretations usually have rules support in *some form*.

2) Until GW changes the style in which they present their rules (and I'm sure they never will), varied rules interpretations will always be a feature of Warhammer.



Yeah, and that's nearly what I did when it was first argued, but there's no need to act disgusted by a silly rules quirk. It's just a rule, and if Atrahasis is right there's one more silly rule to add to the hundreds of other silly rules we play by. But when people say mad things like "You're confusing attacks and attacks, they are not the same thing", then you can expect the conversation to carry on until the full ludicruousnous of the statement has been hashed out entirely ;)



There goes another piece of my soul.:p

Gazak, EvC, Loopstah and Atrahasis - you are showing an unwillingness or inability to listen to someone else's point of view.
Is this a reflection of how you approach a rules dispute in actual games, I wonder?:)

Gazak Blacktoof
25-07-2008, 20:34
This hasn't got anything to do with an unwillingness to listen (at least for my part), I'd just rather not let RAW shape my games where it throws up an absurd result. Regardless of the finer points of the word "attack" what Atrahasis is suggesting falls well within that category as far as I'm concerned.

The designers have made it clear for years that you need a bit of common sense to interpret the rules (flame cannon being flaming as a prime example) and that the FAQs exist as a final stop to arguments. If the players agree to a different solution between them- so be it.


I don't think I've had a rules dispute that lasted more than 30 seconds in the last few years. There's usually mutual agreement, failing that there's a dice roll if we can't think of a section in the rulebook to cover it.

Condottiere
25-07-2008, 20:35
Frankly its almost as bad as when T10 gets out his little diagram of ranking up a mounted character in a unit of infantry- I swear a small part of my soul dies every time I see that thing and have to drag out my 2004 annual to supply a more sensible answer.But I love that diagram.:D

EvC
26-07-2008, 00:28
Gazak, EvC, Loopstah and Atrahasis - you are showing an unwillingness or inability to listen to someone else's point of view.
Is this a reflection of how you approach a rules dispute in actual games, I wonder?:)

I've already stated I believe both sides to be about equal and am happy to play it either way. Considering that my first contribution in the thread was "Are you seriously telling me I can make curse of Years into a flaming attack?" which evolved into laughing about the other side providing the concept of an attack not actually being an attack whilst still commending people for their own valued input, I assure you that you don't need to worry about my approach to rules disputes in games (Which only goes sour when people cannot or will not make a valid argument). Heck, the quote of mine you posted was asking people not to get bent out of shape in the first place ;)

DeathlessDraich
26-07-2008, 08:46
I don't think I've had a rules dispute that lasted more than 30 seconds in the last few years. There's usually mutual agreement, failing that there's a dice roll if we can't think of a section in the rulebook to cover it.


I've already stated I believe both sides to be about equal and am happy to play it either way. Considering that my first contribution in the thread was "Are you seriously telling me I can make curse of Years into a flaming attack?" which evolved into laughing about the other side providing the concept of an attack not actually being an attack whilst still commending people for their own valued input, I assure you that you don't need to worry about my approach to rules disputes in games (Which only goes sour when people cannot or will not make a valid argument). Heck, the quote of mine you posted was asking people not to get bent out of shape in the first place ;)

Acknowledged and accepted. :)

Curse of years example brings up another facet of this discussion.

Just for you EvC :D:

If the designation Flaming Attacks makes all attacks of the 'bearer' Flaming, including spells he casts, then *any* spell which is an attack could become Flaming - via Glean magic! - Treesinging!?

WLBjork
26-07-2008, 09:01
Spells are not attacks, check the magic section, at no point are the words attack/ attacks/ attacking or attacked mentioned in regards to casting spells.

Oh, so the bit of text between the title "Lore of Fire" and the spells for the lore where it states that "All spells in this list are flaming attacks" doesn't mean that spells are attacks?

I can also point out Rule of Burning Iron (flaming attacks), The Spirit of the Forge (flaming attacks) and Burning Gaze (also flaming attacks).

So, umm, spells do classify as an attack, and do benefit from being flaming :rolleyes:

Mireadur
26-07-2008, 19:35
Atrahasis i think you are crazy :p

Now on topic. We dont have other chance than following the rules given. No attack or spell will count as flaming unless clearly specified. Even if this makes dwarf flame cannon stupid, not less is to see how dragon armour can stop cannon balls just because they added a fire rune to it.

Loopstah
26-07-2008, 21:01
Oh, so the bit of text between the title "Lore of Fire" and the spells for the lore where it states that "All spells in this list are flaming attacks" doesn't mean that spells are attacks?

No it doesn't mean spells are attacks.

It only means that all the spells in the Lore of Fire are Flaming attacks and could also be classed as attacks. Trying to take a rule specific to the lore of Fire and applying it to all other lores is just making stuff up.



I can also point out Rule of Burning Iron (flaming attacks), The Spirit of the Forge (flaming attacks) and Burning Gaze (also flaming attacks).

So, umm, spells do classify as an attack, and do benefit from being flaming :rolleyes:

Ok, so you've pointed out some more spells that are Flaming Attacks and could therefore also be classed as attacks.

However your logic is faulty.

The fact that some spells are specificialy stated to be Flaming Attacks (and therefore attacks) does not mean that all spells are attacks or Flaming.

Trying to apply the rule that all spells are attacks because some spells are Flaming Attacks, is the same as saying all spells can be cast into close combat because some spells can be.

The Red Scourge
26-07-2008, 22:30
By FAQing the fire spells to say they are NOT flaming, they are tacitly admitting that anything with fire in the name (or that otherwise sounds firey) could be a flaming attack.

No they're not. Each spell, flame cannon etc. is an individual rule.

By your logic you could just as well imply that all CC attacks are flaming, as it doesn't say that they're not e.g. hand weapons could be torches :rolleyes:

The Red Scourge
26-07-2008, 22:36
Trying to apply the rule that all spells are attacks because some spells are Flaming Attacks, is the same as saying all spells can be cast into close combat because some spells can be.

Even though Loopstah is a little nitpicky, he is quite right. Invocation of Nehek for instance can hardly be called an attack, even though its "victims" might feel a little violated ;)

EvC
26-07-2008, 22:53
I agree. Let us limit the term attack to cover only what it could possibly mean, i.e. spells that do damage to the enemy.