View Full Version : Non-Magic Missile flaming spells vs. Rune of the Furnace

19-11-2008, 18:16
This came up in a game today, and my opponent (and I, to be honest) wasn't sure whether the cheap cost of the Rune of the Furnace was intended to make the bearer so magic-proof.

The Rune of the Furnace states that the bearer "cannot be affected by enemy attacks purely consisting of flaming attacks". Examples given are a Fireball, Dragon's breath attack and the Skaven Warpfire Thrower. A Cannonball that happens to be flaming, or a magical flaming sword don't count, since even if you're immune to fire, you've still been hit by a cannonball/sword.

Does this also apply, therefore, to spells that aren't a magic missile but are still flaming? In particular, the Rule of Burning Iron and it's counterpart, the Spirit of the Forge?

My Dark Elf opponent was arguing (not in an unsporting way, I hasten to add, just enquiring) that since it wasn't actually a magic missile, I wasn't immune to it. In the end we agreed that the Runesmith was immune to Distillation of Molten Silver, because it was a magic missile, but not the two other affected spells. Largely because I was winning and I didn't want to discourage a player from using something other than bloody Dark Magic for once (and my Runesmith survived anyway :D), but I was just wondering if I was right or not.

19-11-2008, 18:35
They don't really say that it applies only to magic missiles, if I read this. Spells usually don't have a sword or cannonball (or whatever) in it, so they don't hurt him.

Maybe you think it is cheap for much protection, but that only happens to be against the lore of fire, so isn't really that much in most cases.