PDA

View Full Version : Dark Elves Hydra



kaintxu
25-11-2008, 09:42
Those the area attack of this monster count as flaming attack?

I was playing the other day with my daemons againts Dark elves, and he did it on my plaguebearer with regem and he said its fire, because the name of the attack says fire, but i said, sorry it says no where its flaming, so name must not be taken just for that.

How do you guys use it?

Goruax
25-11-2008, 09:48
It does state "[...] flaming breath weapon [...]" which could be taken as the actual rule of Flaming Attacks.

It is ambiguous, as far as I can see, but I would, personally, lean in favour of your opponent.
This is because it is stated as 'flaming' in the rules description of the attack, and is backed up by the fluff :p

Lordmonkey
25-11-2008, 10:00
See here (http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172010) for the answer.

enyoss
25-11-2008, 10:00
I would say the breath weapon is obviously intended to be a flaming attack.

You insisted otherwise... how do you sleep at night? ;) :p

Cheers,

enyoss

kaintxu
25-11-2008, 10:10
Ok I'm spanish, and in our book, it says nowhere flaming attack, just the name is called fire breath, but it doesnt say anywhere its flaming.

Recalling when chaos daemons came out, and tzeentz first spell which was call also fire... but had nowhere written flaming attack, no one would allow them to be used as such until the faq came out, so i think its pretty much the same right? just the name of the skell, spell,weapon... does not give it any special rule.

Does the english book state that its actually flaming with the rule, or is it just supositions people is making

Lordmonkey
25-11-2008, 10:26
I would say the breath weapon is obviously intended to be a flaming attack.

You insisted otherwise... how do you sleep at night? ;) :p

So my Dwarf Flame Cannon is flaming, is it? :p

I would say that this is a possibility, but we will know for sure with an FAQ. The fact that an exception has been made for the Tzeentch spells, but not for the Dwarf Flame cannon, strongly suggests that the words "fire", "flame", "burn" have nothing to do with whether something counts as "Flaming" or not.

kaintxu
25-11-2008, 10:45
Thats what i think, its just like magic items, you can get an item which says great sword off, but doesnt mean you treat it as a great weapon, you just aply what says on the description, and since on the description of such weapons it does not say flaming, they are not flaming.

enyoss
25-11-2008, 13:02
Thats what i think, its just like magic items, you can get an item which says great sword off, but doesnt mean you treat it as a great weapon, you just aply what says on the description, and since on the description of such weapons it does not say flaming, they are not flaming.

However, we are talking about something which, to quote the FAQ,

".. has one breath attack, so choose which head breathes fire",

where the bold is mine. I know the Hydra doesn't have the exact italics "Flaming attacks", but it does have the text

"The War Hydra has a flaming breath weapon attack"

in its description. I would have thought this would be enough to convince most players, if only on a friendly level, that it is reasonable to assume that the Hydra's breath attacks are flaming.

I must admit that I find some of the RAW interpretations absolutely absurd and wish that GW would do less to encourage it. To use the point on magic weapons, applying RAW to most of the Wood Elf bows renders them worthless as none of them state "Longbow." at the beginning of their description. Obviously this is not the intention.

I think RAW is important in many cases, and has certainly gone a long way towards encouraging players to be more careful when interpreting the rules, but I'm not too keen on the cult that seems to have grown up around it.

In summary, it seems clear to me that the Hydras breath weapon is a flaming attack and I really hope the FAQ adds something to this effect in a future update (same goes for the Flame Cannon!).

Sorry for the rant :)

Cheers,

enyoss

Lordmonkey
25-11-2008, 13:50
"The War Hydra has a flaming breath weapon attack"

This is RAW. The text clearly states "flaming", therefore, the attack is flaming.

enyoss
25-11-2008, 14:03
This is RAW. The text clearly states "flaming", therefore, the attack is flaming.

I agree, and I wished I'd seen your response in the other thread beforehand :D.

Sadly though there are a few players who will insist on the exact text Flaming Attack at the beginning of the description. In all fairness, I don't think GW have helped by saying the Flame Cannon doesn't have flaming attacks (if that is indeed what the GT rules thingy says, I can't be sure as I don't have it). Those poor dwarf players!

Cheers,

enyoss

loveless
25-11-2008, 14:19
GW needs to get used to italicizing, capitalizing, or boldfacing their special rules in the army books/codices. They're terrible about it - and I don't usually complain about GW.

The hydra breath weapon is a good example - since it wasn't marked as the rule, it seems that non-English translations left it out. Had it said "Flaming" or "flaming" or "flaming" I don't think it'd even be a question.

The best (and possibly most bizarre) example of this is in the 5th edition Codex: Space Marines. In Kantor's rules, "Stubborn" and his other special rules are in boldface. Lysander, who has many of the same rules, does not have them in boldface. And they are RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER in the book - on adjacent pages. There's a handful of other characters in there that have their special rules (might be Shrike's Rending) that are not only not boldface, but are not even capitalized.

It's a pain and leads to pointless arguments. If GW would just standardize how they present their special rules, it would clear up a lot of things for new players.

/rant

Lordmonkey
25-11-2008, 14:41
It's a pain and leads to pointless arguments. If GW would just standardize how they present their special rules, it would clear up a lot of things for new players.

They do, but then they change the standard from book to book :rolleyes:

Nurgling Chieftain
25-11-2008, 20:43
Or page to page in the same book!

sulla
25-11-2008, 21:23
Ok I'm spanish, and in our book, it says nowhere flaming attack, just the name is called fire breath, but it doesnt say anywhere its flaming.



Well, does fire have flames in Spain? Or does it work differently to the rest of the world? ;)

Necromancy Black
25-11-2008, 22:02
This would have to be one of the better screw arounds GW has done with flaming attacks...

But I agree, the attacks from the Hydra, at least in english, sound like they are definitly flaming attacks.

The Spanish version sounds screwy for you guys, exactly like my Salamanders having a firey breath attack that is not flaming (note, I don't care how you argue it, Salamanders in no way have flaming attacks unless an FAQ states otherwise or a tournement has their own rules for the tourny).

All I can say is maybe grab an english version if anyone has issues with it.

adreal
26-11-2008, 00:07
How can a dwarf flame cannon not be a flaming attack.....that's just stupid.....

Necromancy Black
26-11-2008, 00:24
How can a dwarf flame cannon not be a flaming attack.....that's just stupid.....

Good old GW and proof reading :rolleyes: