PDA

View Full Version : What counts as "flaming" attacks?



Lordmonkey
20-11-2008, 10:58
The Tzeentch Daemon spell lore has been FAQ'd to include the special rule "Flaming" for some of the shooty spells.

What about other things that seem to be obviously fire-based but do not include the "Flaming" rule?

Case in point: Dwarf Flame Cannon does not have the Flaming rule, but is obviously fire-based.

Necromancy Black
20-11-2008, 11:06
As far as RAW goes they are not flaming attacks. The same thing applies to Salamander attacks. By all purposes they sound like they should be flaming but are not.

Unless there is an FAQ to say otherwise, RAW says they are not flaming. Of course, you cna always house rule it for a game.

narrativium
20-11-2008, 12:35
The recent GT House Rules document had a question about a piece of High Elf armour which renders the wearer immune to fire attacks - and is explicit about both attacks which include the Flaming Attacks rule and attacks which are fire-based but don't include the rule (such as Flame Cannons). It's not an official ruling, but it does emphasise that the Flame Cannon isn't considered to deliver Flaming Attacks.

Lordmonkey
25-11-2008, 11:01
Thanks for your answers guys :)

kaintxu
25-11-2008, 11:11
so we would have to say that the hydra fire breath is not flaming though its fire?

Goruax
25-11-2008, 11:17
The exact wording in the English version is:
"Fiery Breath: The War Hydra has a flaming breath weapon attack. [...]"

Which is why I believe the attack to be flaming.

Lordmonkey
25-11-2008, 11:40
Then it has a flaming attack - it says so right there :)

eleveninches
25-11-2008, 13:47
IIRC, for GT, all attacks that IMPLY that they are fire-based count as flaming attacks (warpfire thrower, salamander breath, flame cannon, beasts tzeentch magic etc...)

sulla
25-11-2008, 22:13
The Tzeentch Daemon spell lore has been FAQ'd to include the special rule "Flaming" for some of the shooty spells.

What about other things that seem to be obviously fire-based but do not include the "Flaming" rule?

Case in point: Dwarf Flame Cannon does not have the Flaming rule, but is obviously fire-based.

Do you really need to be told that a flamecannon has flaming attacks?

Lordmonkey
26-11-2008, 09:00
Do you really need to be told that a flamecannon has flaming attacks?

My Corpsecart has balefire. Just because it has "fire" in the name doesn't make it flaming.

By the rules, it isn't flaming. It should be, but it isn't.

sulla
27-11-2008, 01:34
My Corpsecart has balefire. Just because it has "fire" in the name doesn't make it flaming.

By the rules, it isn't flaming. It should be, but it isn't.

It doesn't have balefire attacks. If the rider was intelligent enough to actually swing the flaming brazer around instead of just mounting it as a scary ornament, he would get flaming attacks.

I'll ask again. Do you really think a flamecannon doesn't have flaming attacks?

Harwammer
28-11-2008, 15:36
The flame cannon's rules repeatedly says it shoots fire. I'd say that is tantamount to flaming.

Lordmonkey
29-11-2008, 02:15
I'll ask again. Do you really think a flamecannon doesn't have flaming attacks?

Do you really think that cavalry carry on fighting with their lances, even after they've gotten bogged down among the enemy? Commons sense says no, they would draw their swords, but the rules say otherwise.

The Dwarf Flame Cannon shoots fire, that's just common sense. But common sense is about the most unreliable thing to use as a guideline when playing this game - a lot of things make no sense, but the rules are the rules.

The Cannon does not state that it's munition is "Flaming" (Read: The special rule 'Flaming', not fire, flame or burn). Therefore, it is not flaming.

Kidjal
29-11-2008, 07:05
Badly written rule. I wish davelopment would think more about these little stupid cock ups more often.

As for common sense? As I said on our forum the other day, common sense has been banned for life from the Warhammer fantasy games development team christmas party. They dont seem to beleive in it.

Kalec
30-11-2008, 22:49
If it doesn't say its flaming, it isn't flaming. No dice on the flamecannon. Ditto for salamanders and soulfire.

narrativium
01-12-2008, 10:28
If I was playing someone that told me that a dwarf Flame Cannon wasn't a fire attack I would just cock punch them. The dwarf book is poorly written as it is, the dwarfs need all the help they can get.I'd tell you that, and then I'd summon a ref as physically attacking your opponent isn't sportsmanlike. My ogres need all the help they can get too...

Lordmonkey
01-12-2008, 12:38
If I was playing someone that told me that a dwarf Flame Cannon wasn't a fire attack I would just cock punch them.

More internet tough-guys. That's all we need...

Whitehorn
01-12-2008, 12:44
Rules?

I take the fact that they erratad Tzeentch spells to ADD the flaming rule as evidence that anything that does not have the flaming rule is not flaming.

However, GW naturally contradict themselves.

Did you know you can get burnt by cold? Are ice weapons flaming attacks?

Whitehorn
01-12-2008, 12:50
Actually it's kind of odd the rules forum doesn't have a sticky.

Monkey's rulebook is sticky.

VC Doke
01-12-2008, 21:37
Put a house rule into place. If it says flaming in the title it's flaming. Anyone who says otherwise is a rule monger and ruining the spirit of the game. :mad:

If I was playing someone that told me that a dwarf Flame Cannon wasn't a fire attack I would just cock punch them. The dwarf book is poorly written as it is, the dwarfs need all the help they can get.

Nurgling Chieftain
01-12-2008, 21:46
If I was playing someone that told me that a dwarf Flame Cannon wasn't a fire attack I would just cock punch them.'Bout as high as a Dwarf can reach, eh? :cool:

txamil
01-12-2008, 23:07
Should sticky this. It's probably the first rule that's questioned by new players.

txamil
01-12-2008, 23:08
Actually it's kind of odd the rules forum doesn't have a sticky.

Kidjal
02-12-2008, 10:23
If it doesn't say its flaming, it isn't flaming. No dice on the flamecannon. Ditto for salamanders and soulfire.

Does actually say "this is a flaming attack" under soulfire, I seem to remember. Dont have the book on me though.

DeathlessDraich
02-12-2008, 10:59
It is a mistake to use everyday interpretation in Warhammer rules:
Consider:
Move or Fire - in everyday terms, a shooter*must* move (e.g. lift his weapon, aim etc) to fire but in Warhammer, the word Move has a different meaning - lifting a missile weapon is not a Warhammer move.


The phrase Flaming attack must appear to qualify as Flaming attacks.

Simply having the word 'fire' or 'flame' does not equate to flaming attacks.

The Daemons FAQ lends support to this - Flaming attacks has been specifically added to Flickering Fire etc

EDIT : But "spells from LOC and Horrors are not Flaming attacks" :confused:

Greystone
02-12-2008, 11:35
In simplest terms, what count as flaming attacks? Attacks that in their rules (not flavor) description are stated to be flaming Attacks.

No, a flame cannon is not flaming, nor salamanders. Is it illogical? Yes.
but warhammer is not a logic puzzle or exercise. Its a TTS governed by rules (granted sometimes poorly written). And even if a special rule gives an effect that should logically be applied to another attack, they don't have it unless it is written in their description.

A great weapon is a huge nasty two handed thing that should be able to chop a man in half, so obviously it has killing blow. Nope

A spear reaches six feet in front of the wielders. Obviously it has ASF verses other infantry and non lance equipped cavalry. Uh-uh.

Again its a game, its governed by rules, not what we think is the most realistic and logical.

And if anyone argued that with me I will punch them in teh faceorz! :D

loveless
02-12-2008, 15:03
"Flaming Attacks" either need to say "Flaming Attacks" in the model/weapon's special rules, or be listed in the effect of the attack (i.e. the hydra has a "flaming breath weapon" or some such rot).

I think the opportune word here is "flaming." Not "flame." Not "fire." "Flaming."

It'll help when GW decides on a standard listing for Special Rules. It'd be pretty simple to list out what got Flaming Attacks that way.

For instance:

Flame Cannon
...
Special Rules: ... Flaming Attacks (Warmachine attacks only)...

Or

Hydra
...
Special Rules: ... Flaming Attacks (breath weapon only)...

etc. etc.

Unlikely to happen, of course, but damned if it wouldn't be easier.

EvC
02-12-2008, 16:08
Do you really think that cavalry carry on fighting with their lances, even after they've gotten bogged down among the enemy? Commons sense says no, they would draw their swords, but the rules say otherwise.

Bad analogy- it doesn't matter if the Knights keep fighting with lances or swords, as it makes no difference to how the game plays out.

The rules do not tell us how to determine if a model has the flaming attacks special rule. I would consider one way of establishing this to be to look at the rule's name, and if it calls if flaming or fire as one word, then it's probably flaming or fiery. People are free to disagree.

It has been pointed out that things like Daemonic Flickering Fire have been errata'ed to state they are flaming. GW's policy of errata correcting these thnigs had not started when they released the Dwarf FAQ, but it's a pretty safe conclusion that if GW were to release an updated FAQ it would tell us that the Flame Cannon provides Flaming attacks.

Don't be afraid of common sense, everyone ;)

Kalec
03-12-2008, 01:00
Does actually say "this is a flaming attack" under soulfire, I seem to remember. Dont have the book on me though.

Its called soulfire. It does not say its a flaming attack, but it could be argued that if salamanders and the flame cannon are flaming despite having such a rule, then soulfire is too.

Lordmonkey
03-12-2008, 10:04
Bad analogy- it doesn't matter if the Knights keep fighting with lances or swords, as it makes no difference to how the game plays out.

Does if we are talking about a mounted Vampire with the Dreadlance, because he keep automatically hitting every turn, with his lance.

:rolleyes:


I would consider one way of establishing this to be to look at the rule's name, and if it calls if flaming or fire as one word, then it's probably flaming or fiery. People are free to disagree.

So my Vampire is impossible to kill because the description says that he is "immortal"?

It's all well and good to refer to "common sense", but your version of common sense may not be the same as someone elses, and this is how disputes break out. This is also why we have a (badly written) rulebook.


...if GW were to release an updated FAQ it would tell us that the Flame Cannon provides Flaming attacks.

Then why don't they do so now? It would take less than 15 minutes to amend the Dwarf FAQ to say "The Flame Cannon is Flaming".

Harwammer
03-12-2008, 14:18
I know I argued the other side previously, but I'd like to add further evidence for the 'it needs to actually say the attack is flaming' crowd;

Beastmen tzeentch spells ALL are named after different colours of fire (red fire, orange fire, yellow fire, green fire, blue fire, indigo fire, violet fire). However the FAQ has stated that NONE of these spells, not even the magic missiles count as flaming.

I think this is especially a point of interest as Daemon Tzeetnch spells were all FAQed to being flaming.

EvC
03-12-2008, 19:03
Does if we are talking about a mounted Vampire with the Dreadlance, because he keep automatically hitting every turn, with his lance.

Because heaven forbid that a magical weapon have some kind of bizarre reality-bending ability.

:rolleyes:

Lighten up!


So my Vampire is impossible to kill because the description says that he is "immortal"?

Are you trying to win the award for being the king of bad analogies? :)


It's all well and good to refer to "common sense", but your version of common sense may not be the same as someone elses, and this is how disputes break out. This is also why we have a (badly written) rulebook.

I know, I just tend to have a high enough opinion of people that I reckon if we all put our heads together, we can work out that a cannon that fires out fireballs does in fact give flaming attacks. Of course there will be people that don't share that same vision- but do you think I really care about them? The kind of people who will argue until they're blue in the face that a flame cannon doesn't give flaming attacks are not the people I'm going to play against. I don't insist that everyone play it that way, but if someone is incapable of saying that the flame cannon probably should give flaming attacks, then that says it all.


Then why don't they do so now? It would take less than 15 minutes to amend the Dwarf FAQ to say "The Flame Cannon is Flaming".

Boy have you got it the wrong way around. You think people in general are unable to determine that a flame cannon spouts flames, yet you credit GW with the ability to promptly update FAQs, even though this is contrary to all evidence.

There are grey areas, I certainly agree. Salamander shots (which are described as corrosive venom as well as flames), magic fire attacks, things like that, yeah, there I wouldn't just assume they're flaming, as the wording is poor. But a cannon that shoots flames? Put it like this: if GW said you could make all rulings on their FAQs, would YOU yourself FAQ the Flame Cannon to give Flaming attacks? That is the bottom line, plain and simple.

Necromancy Black
03-12-2008, 23:16
Put it like this: if GW said you could make all rulings on their FAQs, would YOU yourself FAQ the Flame Cannon to give Flaming attacks?

No.

...See how letting others work out the ruling doesn't work? Here is a rule for you that GW puts up front as the first thing: RAW.

By RAW the dwarf flame cannon does not have the Flaming speacil rule, only a name and some fluff to hint at what it's supose to do, but no rules to back it up.

Until GW release an update FAQ, the RAW stands that the flame cannon, and other things like Salamanders, do not get the Flaming speacial rule. Don't try to dice it off, RAW comes first.

It's not all that much of a dissadvantige. Sure, regenerators get their rolls but a couple of items ignore flaming attacks (like that high elf armour), and would have no affect against these.

Frgt/10
04-12-2008, 02:17
Does if we are talking about a mounted Vampire with the Dreadlance, because he keep automatically hitting every turn, with his lance.

:rolleyes:


it doesnt matter at all.
he isnt getting the str bonus from the lance past the first round of combat so all he's using is an auto hitting hand weapon

Hrogoff the Destructor
04-12-2008, 03:20
What about salamanders?

It's name means something like "fire lizard", but it's never said it's attacks count as flaming. I assumed they were just because of the name, but in a game I played the other player did everything in his power to try and convince me their not (his argument was that it does not specifically state they are flaming attacks in the rules, which goes for quite a few other things that are clearly flaming). Ultimately we rolled a d6 to decide.

So what's the consensus here? Flaming or not? I don't have the lizardmen book to look at.

TheMav80
04-12-2008, 03:34
If I rememer the last GT ruling correctly.

In relation to Dragon Princes being immune to Salamanders or not, it was decided that Salamanders were not flaming, since it doesn't say so in the rules...but it is considered a breath weapon (nevermind that it doesn't say that in the rules either) so the Dragon Princes are immune to Salamanders.

wizuriel
04-12-2008, 03:37
the ultimate item for this debate is the black hammer of Hashut.

Its a weapon that autokills flamable targets that takes a wound. Something that autokills flamable targets but no way implies it is flaming.

Necromancy Black
04-12-2008, 03:50
If I rememer the last GT ruling correctly.

In relation to Dragon Princes being immune to Salamanders or not, it was decided that Salamanders were not flaming, since it doesn't say so in the rules...but it is considered a breath weapon (nevermind that it doesn't say that in the rules either) so the Dragon Princes are immune to Salamanders.

Wait what? So I assume that meant the salamander player was allowed to march and still shoot like a breath weapon then? That's the most retarded ruling I've ever heard.

And to the person that asked, no, Salamanders in no way have the flaming attacks rule. Nevermind the fluff, it jsut isn't a flaming attack. Neither do they act as monsters and handlers despite having a bunch of handlers (that annoys me alot, but that's the game)

WillFightForFood
04-12-2008, 04:28
You have to triage these places where the attacks are potentially flaming or not and the book does not list them as flaming. There are those instances where the word usage of flaming is somewhat ancillary, confusing, or on the periphery, perhaps only in the fluff; Salamanders, for instance. These are probably not flaming attacks. There are also those instances where the word fire or flaming is paired up with something else or of a magical nature, where an argument can be made either way up until a FAQ is listed.

Lastly there are those instances where there is likely no other interpretation of the function of the attack. This mostly refers to the Flame Cannon. There are two possible interpretations of its name: 1. That it shoots flames or 2. That the cannon itself is made of fire. The fluff supports the former interpretation. It's not a situation of confusing wording or contradictory rules. I believe that all of us will agree that flames have the quality of being flaming.

No one should simply point and go "RAW RAW RAW" when trying to back up your argument. There are a heck of a lot of things in the book that aren't supported by RAW, or where RAW is contradictory and you have to house rule it. Heck, my gaming group has pages of house rules accumulated over time. Remember too that, as noted by EVC, GW is notoriously poor about updating all of their FAQs to resolve even easily resolved issues. This is partially because they like to focus on the big things and don't resolve minor conflicts when they believe it's obvious. It's also because in they also believe the game is about fun and that reasonable people should be able to come to reasonable agreements, or at the very least dice it off.


Think about your own position very critically here. Do you actually believe that the flame cannon does not shoot flames or do you believe the cannon itself is made of flames? You should ask yourself why are you so committed to a strict RAW interpretation? Why does RAW matter so much to you? Have you been injured by a non-RAW interpretation and don't want that to happen again? Are you taking this stance because it benefits you strategically in games?

Just a thought.

Necromancy Black
04-12-2008, 07:57
I stick with RAW cause it keeps the game running faster, it's the way things have been written and it keeps everything constant.

There are a ton of RAW things I don't like. I really hate how Frenzy will still let you charge after you have failed a Stupidity test. But there's nothing I can do about it the way it's been written and I will play it that way. Consitantcy is something that I find makes every game better and also helps other people play, espicially those that have not played before and lets onlookers pick up the game.

You may very well make all the house rules you want. But at some stage someone will say to you, "But's that's not what written in the rules", and you can say "This makes more sense, there's no other way this could be like this. It's obviously a GW mistake." For all we know it wasn't, GW may have delibritly left out the rule for some strange reason. So are you going to argue the way you play based on how you and others real that the rules are wrong or missing? Sure, alot of people would agree with you, but I won't. We'd probably just end not playing each other, but that's not a good outcome.

I keep with RAW. The game stays consitent and that helps the flow. Yes, it's retarded how it's not flaming, I fully agree with that. But unfortintily, the game at the moment is that the Dwarf Flame cannon does not have flaming attacks.

Lordmonkey
04-12-2008, 09:52
Because heaven forbid that a magical weapon have some kind of bizarre reality-bending ability.

My position is that where you can point out where something is not strictly RAW, but 'obvious', I can point out equally obvious things which the majority of players would not accept because it isn't RAW.


Are you trying to win the award for being the king of bad analogies? :)

Flame Cannon = Flaming
Immortal = Cannot die

What's the problem? Surely my interpretation of immortal is in no way less "sensible" than your interpretation of Flame Cannon?


Of course there will be people that don't share that same vision- but do you think I really care about them?

Do you ever play in tournaments outside of your close gaming group? Do you ever play people you haven't met before? If you 'decide' that something is not what the rules say it is, there will always be someone out there who may come along and say "actually, the rules don't say that". What then? Are you going to throw the game because you don't agree with someone who simply wants to play by the rules of the game? That's not only unsporting, it isn't fair on them.


...yet you credit GW with the ability to promptly update FAQs, even though this is contrary to all evidence.

When did I say that GW 'promptly' update FAQ's? I'm happy to have a sensible discussion with you, EvC, but don't put words in my mouth.


Put it like this: if GW said you could make all rulings on their FAQs, would YOU yourself FAQ the Flame Cannon to give Flaming attacks? That is the bottom line, plain and simple.

Yes, I would, because it's common sense, to me. But what it also common sense, to me, is that the Dreadlance cannot be used during rounds of combat where you do not charge, because it doesn't seem sensible, to me. Nowhere in the rules can I justify either position, so i don't play it that way.

There will always exist other players who disagree with the RAI view, and quite justifiably so. Why should they break the rules here, and not everywhere else?

WillFightForFood
04-12-2008, 12:43
All right, let's deal with this issue the easy way. Here's a poll on the subject (http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173493http://) of the the flame cannon and flaming attacks. Please vote.

EvC
04-12-2008, 14:50
My position is that where you can point out where something is not strictly RAW, but 'obvious', I can point out equally obvious things which the majority of players would not accept because it isn't RAW.

I'm sure you can. However, in nearly all cases, I'm sure I could find a reason or rule that outright dispels the "obvious" ruling you might suggest. Where there are definite grey areas, then I really would suggest going with the dreaded "common sense" interpretation.


Flame Cannon = Flaming
Immortal = Cannot die

What's the problem? Surely my interpretation of immortal is in no way less "sensible" than your interpretation of Flame Cannon?

Because there are rules for whether something can be hit, wounded, and how many wounds it can take before it dies. A rule for "immortal" would have to expand on how to deal with these situations, or the profile would have these values removed, otherwise the main rules would still apply.

Perhaps a more suitable analogy would be a hypothetical new Lightning attack in the upcoming Skaven book, called something like, "Lightning Pistol". With no guidance on whether it is truly a lightning attack, would we assume it makes Dragon Ogres frenzied? I would hope that between us we can common sense it.


Do you ever play in tournaments outside of your close gaming group? Do you ever play people you haven't met before? If you 'decide' that something is not what the rules say it is, there will always be someone out there who may come along and say "actually, the rules don't say that". What then? Are you going to throw the game because you don't agree with someone who simply wants to play by the rules of the game? That's not only unsporting, it isn't fair on them.

Sure do play tournaments. You're using a red herring in this case, because the rules are unclear- given a multitude of army books and rulebook, there's no strict and consistent way for the "flaming attacks" rule to be attributed to a model or attacks. So, we simply don't know. Now, we could say that a model certainly NEEDS to have it spelt out for you, but I think it's spelt out quite clearly in the title of the model. Others may disagree, as they are free to do so ;)

And yes, there are plenty of times in tournaments that we don't play by the rules. Did you know according to the rulebook, forests only block line of sight to the tallest tree in the forest, so you might be able to see models behind it, same with hills? Yet almost everyone I've ever played agrees to play the woods and hills as "infinitely high" so that Giants and similar models can hide behind them, even if they could be seen. There are STILL spells and bound items in the Vampire Counts army book that don't explicitly state they can be cast into combat- yet, they imply heavily that they can do so: which irrefutably proves that at times GW expects us to just interpret a rule in a way that makes sense, even if they don't take the time to explicitly say "This spell can be cast into combat" or "this attack is flaming". Another favourite of mine is the Slann rules, which in no way give an allowance to cast spells whilst in the second rank of a unit (They just say they can cast while in combat as if unengaged- but an unengaged Slann in the second rank cannot cast anyway!). However, once again, absolutely everyone knows that the rule is trying (poorly) to tell us that it can cast and do everything from the second rank of a unit. Because the alternative would be too silly to play.

A bit like a non-flaming Flame Cannon ;)

And again, if my opponents don't want to play it as flaming, I don't mind- but if they're too stubborn to at least entertain the possibility that Flame Cannon gives Flaming attacks (even if they won't play it that way), then they're probably going to be coming up with all kinds of dumb RAW interpretations throughout the game. Or maybe not. I have a hard enough time getting Dwarf players to follow the rules at the best of times :(


When did I say that GW 'promptly' update FAQ's? I'm happy to have a sensible discussion with you, EvC, but don't put words in my mouth.

Good god, get down from the cross! You said: "Then why don't they do so now? It would take less than 15 minutes to amend the Dwarf FAQ to say "The Flame Cannon is Flaming". This implies that GW have it in them to update their FAQs whenever a problematic rule question arises. You and I both know that they have neither the will, nor the ability to do so. It's utterly farcical to suggest that if they intended for a rule to be played a certain way, they would FAQ.


Yes, I would, because it's common sense, to me. But what it also common sense, to me, is that the Dreadlance cannot be used during rounds of combat where you do not charge, because it doesn't seem sensible, to me. Nowhere in the rules can I justify either position, so i don't play it that way.

You can justify the Dreadlance, because it's a magical weapon, and magical weapons must always be used in every round of combat. It retains its ability through magic. 100% clear in the rules. Flame Cannon? Again, ambiguous. Not wholly supported by the rules, certainly. Like a lot of things.

The Dreadlance anaology is bad because it isn't common sense. The Flame Cannon being Flaming is. Even Necromancy Black, who just said he wouldn't personally FAQ it to be flaming went on to say that it should be flaming. WillFightForFood's poll so far shows that 23 people out of 23 voters would FAQ it to be Flaming if they could.

THAT is common sense. "The Dreadlance should not always hit" is not common sense. Can you see the difference? :)


There will always exist other players who disagree with the RAI view, and quite justifiably so. Why should they break the rules here, and not everywhere else?

As I've proved, we do it all the time in games, as a game is a social contratc about having fun. Try and tell a VC opponent they can never use Hand of Dust as it has no allowance to be used in combat, or try and shoot an enemy Giant hiding behin a hill, and then wave RAW in their face. You won't do it: because you are a decent human being who has an idea of give and take. I hope you don't mind me putting those words into your mouth...

Harwammer also made an excellent point in the other thread: there are occasions in an FAQ where GW will say they are not answering in an RAW fashion. Like Teclis being a Mage, or a Wraith on a Black Coach having magical attacks. They acknowledge that sometimes the alternative is too silly to play. And on the main page for their FAQs they even state that we players should feel free to FAQ anything we like.

Hence, playing against Dwarfs: they put down a Flame cannon. I then say, "So, that Flame Cannon, we play that it has flaming attacks? It'll only matter if you shoot my Corpse Cart with it, and if I happen to have Drakenhof Banner then it's a hell of a lot better, any objection?". And if I'm using my High Elves, I say the same question, but make sure to tell my opponent he is not obliged to play it as flaming, and I don't hold it against him. He'll probably play it as flaming anyway.

DeathlessDraich
04-12-2008, 15:09
1) A poll?!

Isn't that a cause of so many rule problems?
Too many players simply follow the herd and comply with how an ambiguous situation is commonly played rather than abiding with the exact rules or if that is not possible, then, acknowledging that the rules are unclear and require mutual agreement.


2) The danger (and unacceptability) of accepting the word Flame or fire as Flaming attacks is that the same principle has to be applied for other rules
i.e. An item's descriptor has been assumed to be part of its rules.
Sounds reasonable but causes more problems than it solves:


i) Burning Gaze, Cleansing Flare, Rule of Burning iron, Soulfire - all are fires of some kind and must then be regarded as Flaming attacks
Forked lightning, Uranon's thunderbolt - will now drift into a grey area since they will 'burn'.
ii) Magic items e.g. Banner of Burning Hatred,
etc etc

3) Many items with the word Flame or Fire has been FAQed to include Flaming attacks, so it seems likely that Flame cannon will follow suit.
But ...
The fact that the Flame cannon hasn't might also mean it won't!

EvC
04-12-2008, 15:19
Very good points DD! 2 is only a problem as long as people can recognise what makes sense and what doesn't. It's not true that because grey areas exist, that everything is part of the grey area. It's like the old problem of whether a magic item gives magic attacks- there's nothing that says they do, but then there's nothing that says a magic weapon gives magic attacks, either. Just our brains :D

Two of the things you've listed are explicitly noted as being Flaming attacks, by the way ;)

DeathlessDraich
04-12-2008, 15:48
Yes, a valid point about Magic items and magical attacks and its similarity to the Flaming attacks problem.

Burning Gaze and Rule of Burning iron are Flaming Attacks.;)

MrBigMr
04-12-2008, 15:54
I think that especially when it comes to magical fire, the word "fire, flaming, etc." might as well have a metaphorical meaning. Like "gears of war." There's no actual gears. So firestorm, etc. can purely mean Warp flames that do not actually burn, but do different sort of damage, like mutate or such.

Remember, people, common sense and using your brain is a two way street. When you start dictating how the game should be, what's to stop others from doing it as well, backed up by equal amounts of connon sense and brain. For that reason, it's always best to go with the rules instead of trying to reason your way out of them.

And to be a total jerk: Wonder if a fire engine gets flaming attacks?

WillFightForFood
04-12-2008, 20:01
The point of the poll is not to use it to prove that the flame cannon has flaming attacks, but to see if a majority of us truly believe that the flame cannon should have flaming attacks. It appears that it is an overwhelming majority. There is no ambiguity about what the community in general feels of what should be. It's not a question of contradictory rules where there is an argument to be made about what it should be. It's the case of an attribute that we, the WHFB community, overwhelmingly can see no reason for not being so and believe should be there. I would make the argument that at such a point we should simply play it as we would have it. We should not wait for GW to issue a rule on the subject. Heck, as of the recent FAQs, they only end up copying what the community ruling is anyway.

DeathlessDraich
04-12-2008, 20:39
One good thing that your poll has done is to enable players to be prepared beforehand to accept that the Flame cannon has Flaming attacks against unknown opponents .

Harwammer
04-12-2008, 20:39
I interpret the rulebook as following:

If the creature/war machine attacks using fire it has flaming attacks.

Thats pretty much what page 95 in the rule book says.

Obviously going by this in some cases there will be ambiguity, as mrbigmr says sometiems flames ARE of magic instead of heat, so don't qualify to be flaming attacks (HoC tzeentch spells as an example). This ambiguity simply doesn't exist for the flame cannon.

Nurgling Chieftain
04-12-2008, 21:14
We'd probably just end not playing each other, but that's not a good outcome.I think that would be the best outcome. I have no desire to play GW games with RaW fanatics because GW game rules are incomplete and contradictory - a completely heuristic approach to playing the game inevitably results in a system hang.

Lordmonkey
05-12-2008, 09:38
Remember, people, common sense and using your brain is a two way street. When you start dictating how the game should be, what's to stop others from doing it as well, backed up by equal amounts of connon sense and brain. For that reason, it's always best to go with the rules instead of trying to reason your way out of them.

See, this is basically what i've been trying get across. The other thing that nobody considered here is whether the Flame Cannon's pts cost was balanced to reflect that it does/does not have flaming attacks? While i believe that the Flame Cannon should have flaming attacks, does the pts cost reflect this?

Harwammer
05-12-2008, 11:26
Its a warmachine that shoots fire, by the rule book it has flaming attacks. Generally turning things into flaming attacks is like 10 points (especially going by the dwarf rune system), seeing how big point models are never that precisely priced its difficult to say if its points cost reflects this as the randomness in mispricing (normally like 20-30 points for elite warmachines) is greater than what it normally costs to upgrade a machine to flaming (~10 points)

Edit: woo! Post 300! This is madness!

EvC
05-12-2008, 15:34
Given that the superior Rare choice for Dwarfs is almost always the Organ Gun, if we assume flaming attacks to be worth a few more points, then it makes the Flame Cannon more likely to be taken. And I like a bit of variety!