PDA

View Full Version : Flaming Attacks and Fear in Cavalry



T10
20-10-2010, 16:14
From what I gather you don't need to have Flaming close combat attacks in order to cause Fear in cavalry. So a Skaven Warpfire Thrower will cause fear in a unit of Boar Boyz. Right?

-T10

Eltharil
20-10-2010, 16:17
You need to be in contact with the unit you want to be feared (fear special rule p78 1rst paragraph)

DeathlessDraich
20-10-2010, 16:20
From what I gather you don't need to have Flaming close combat attacks in order to cause Fear in cavalry. So a Skaven Warpfire Thrower will cause fear in a unit of Boar Boyz. Right?

-T10


?? I can't see any consequence of this?

decker_cky
20-10-2010, 16:22
Fast cav hitting a flame cannon on 5's on a failed fear check would be the consequence.

Eltharil
20-10-2010, 16:24
?? I can't see any consequence of this?

If you try to shoot inside a close combat and feared the ennemy unit and let it get that wonderful CC1.
tho, impossibe as by RAW you need to be in contact with the unit u want to be feared.

But works in a defensive mode if the flame cannon are warfire thrower are inside the close ;-)

DeathlessDraich
20-10-2010, 16:36
Fast cav hitting a flame cannon on 5's on a failed fear check would be the consequence.

??
Tried to look at this from several angles and I'm still trying to figure out the reason for the question.

Fear test is taken against Fear causers in btb at the start of every combat round.


Is this being suggested: that a model with Flaming shooting attack has Flaming close combat attacks?
- not true as far as I can see.
or
Skaven Slaves in btb somehow generate Fear through WF shootin?
- not true too

TMATK
20-10-2010, 16:41
When the warpfire thrower is in CC it can't use it's flaming attacks, so no.

Eltharil
20-10-2010, 16:50
When the warpfire thrower is in CC it can't use it's flaming attacks, so no.

p69, flaming attacks rules 2nd paragraph: looks like models with flamming attacks are causing fear, not the attacks themselves. So it would work in cc (for the fear effect only, not to break regeneration).

TMATK
20-10-2010, 16:53
p69, flaming attacks rules 2nd paragraph: looks like models with flamming attacks are causing fear, not the attacks themselves. So it would work in cc (for the fear effect only, not to break regeneration).

Well, I suppose that's technically right, but I think that's really stretching the boundaries of RaW.

I mean seriously, the flaming attacks cause the fear. If you can't use them, you really think they should still cause fear LOL?

Eltharil
20-10-2010, 16:55
Well, I suppose that's technically right, but I think that's really stretching the boundaries of RaW.

I mean seriously, the flaming attacks cause the fear. If you can't use them, you really think they should still cause fear LOL?

yes it should as animals are frightened when they see fire, not only if you try to burn them;)

T10
20-10-2010, 16:55
Indeed. Fear tests are taken well in advance of any models making their close combat attacks.

-T10

TMATK
20-10-2010, 17:00
Indeed. Fear tests are taken well in advance of any models making their close combat attacks.

-T10

They take place in CC. The order isn't really relevant.

Remember, we check to see if armor worked after we we know a model is wounded! :wtf: :D

T10
20-10-2010, 17:00
I mean seriously, the flaming attacks cause the fear. If you can't use them, you really think they should still cause fear LOL?

A Flaming Attack breath weapon can be used in close combat and is thus a "valid" cause of fear. However, you test for fear before resolving close combat attacks, and when it is the model with the breath weapon's turn to attack the use of this is optional.

-T10

T10
20-10-2010, 17:03
They take place in CC. The order isn't really relevant.

Remember, we check to see if armor worked after we we know a model is wounded! :wtf: :D

I think "At the start of each Close Combat round" is pretty relevant.

-T10

Eltharil
20-10-2010, 17:03
A Flaming Attack breath weapon can be used in close combat and is thus a "valid" cause of fear. However, you test for fear before resolving close combat attacks, and when it is the model with the breath weapon's turn to attack the use of this is optional.

-T10

as TMATK said, order is irrelevant. You only need to be able to make flamming attacks without taking care of the type (shoot or strike). Bearing fire cause fear by RAW.

TMATK
20-10-2010, 17:06
I think "At the start of each Close Combat round" is pretty relevant.

-T10

Yes, I know the order is relevant. My point was that the fear test is part of combat, not before.

Flaming breath attacks can be done in CC. Warpfire attacks cannot.

Fluffwise, we're fighting the crew, not the cannon.

Listen, RAWise you probably have a case. I think it's silly, but maybe thats just me. I would just make sure you mention it to your opponent at the beginning of the game so there's no arguments. :)

Eltharil
20-10-2010, 17:11
Talking about fluff, i don't see why a horse would'nt be feared when seeing the burning fire of the bretonnian bowmen for example.
That's the problem with fluff and RAI, we all have our point of view.

DeathlessDraich
20-10-2010, 17:13
p69, flaming attacks rules 2nd paragraph: looks like models with flamming attacks are causing fear, not the attacks themselves. So it would work in cc (for the fear effect only, not to break regeneration).



A Flaming Attack breath weapon can be used in close combat and is thus a "valid" cause of fear. However, you test for fear before resolving close combat attacks, and when it is the model with the breath weapon's turn to attack the use of this is optional.

-T10

1) Breath weapon is a different kettle of fish but fortunately causes no problems for Fear and when used in combat as far as I can see

2) The WFT however, as is stated by its rules, has only Flaming shooting attacks.

DeathlessDraich
20-10-2010, 17:43
The notion that once a model has any Flaming attack, he then causes Fear in cavalry etc in perpetuity is unworkable.

Consider a Wizard that casts Fireball, a Flaming attack, at a cavalry unit which later charges the Wizard.
I don't think most players would expect/insist on a Fear test for the cavalry unit when in later phases, it is in combat with the Wizard.

The interpretation has to be that the Fear caused by Flaming test exists only in contiguity with that Flaming attack.
i.e. while in combat and with an attacker who will use Flaming combat attacks

Lord_Elric
20-10-2010, 17:45
I personaly think that if it states that a unit has "flaming attacks" in its special rules or do to a present magic item or banner then yes they would cause fear.

However attacks such as a fire thrower where in the rules for firing them it states "this is a flaming attack" then id guess no as the "unit" is not stated as having "flaming attacks" but as having a special attack "that uses the flaming special rule" would not cause fear in close combat (including breath weapons though as most things with breath weapons cause fear or terror anyway that doesnt usualy matter)

theorox
20-10-2010, 17:58
Well, I suppose that's technically right, but I think that's really stretching the boundaries of RaW.

I mean seriously, the flaming attacks cause the fear. If you can't use them, you really think they should still cause fear LOL?

I can totally see the steeds being frightened by a muzzle spilling burning liquid...this isn't redicolous, but should be in a FAQ, hopefully it'll happen. :)

Theo

TMATK
20-10-2010, 18:00
...
Consider a Wizard that casts Fireball, a Flaming attack, at a cavalry unit which later charges the Wizard.
I don't think most players would expect/insist on a Fear test for the cavalry unit when in later phases, it is in combat with the Wizard.

.

I think this is a good point ^

theorox
20-10-2010, 18:05
I think this is a good point ^

I agree.

Theo

Lord_Elric
20-10-2010, 18:15
I can totally see the steeds being frightened by a muzzle spilling burning liquid...this isn't redicolous, but should be in a FAQ, hopefully it'll happen. :)

Theo

coming from someone whos been unhorsed Because a horse spased out at a bbq being lit behind a headge (the cock lighting it put way to much fuel on it) , i can honestly say that generaly horses are only scared of fire when its either waved at them or it takes them by surprise. there not scared of every little lick of flame the end of a flame cannon being alight would not be enough however a flaming sword being waved at the horses face is gonna freak it out.
Tbh as its the beast that gets scared it should technicly cause terror to represent the fact that a horse/eagle/wolf is generaly gonna flee from something wielding fire

Ramius4
20-10-2010, 18:32
Yes, I know the order is relevant. My point was that the fear test is part of combat, not before.

Flaming breath attacks can be done in CC. Warpfire attacks cannot.

Fluffwise, we're fighting the crew, not the cannon.

Listen, RAWise you probably have a case. I think it's silly, but maybe thats just me. I would just make sure you mention it to your opponent at the beginning of the game so there's no arguments. :)

Pretty much this. You can certainly play it RAW if you wish, but just make sure you and your opponent agree on how it's going to work. It's not worth having an argument at the cost of a fun game.

The common sense approach that my group uses is that unless the attack can be made in close combat, then they don't get the benefit of fear. Simple as that.

honorandglory
20-10-2010, 18:56
Going strictly by RAW, the Warpfire thrower does not have the Flaming attack special rule, which it must in order to cause Fear in Cav, Warbeast ,and Chariots. It's shot has the flaming attack special rule ,but not the Warpfire thrower itself.

Eltharil
20-10-2010, 19:36
... It's shot has the flaming attack special rule ,but not the Warpfire thrower itself.

Not relevant. Say this about a unit with that flamming banner: 'it's strike has the flamming attack special rule, but not the unit itself.' See the point?

Lord_Elric
20-10-2010, 19:37
Going strictly by RAW, the Warpfire thrower does not have the Flaming attack special rule, which it must in order to cause Fear in Cav, Warbeast ,and Chariots. It's shot has the flaming attack special rule ,but not the Warpfire thrower itself.

Well previously heated debate aside (with honorandglory in another thread)
I completely agree with him "bet u never thought id say that lol"

honorandglory
20-10-2010, 19:40
No ,the Banner of Eternal Flame gives the unit Flaming attacks. The shot of the Warpfire thrower does not give the model flaming attacks.

Eltharil
20-10-2010, 19:49
No ,the Banner of Eternal Flame gives the unit Flaming attacks. The shot of the Warpfire thrower does not give the model flaming attacks.

Don't forget you are feared by model with flamming attacks, not the flamming attacks themselves. It is RAW.
Probably this rule is not a good job and need a faq/errata.
In friendly games, i think i will houserule it. But in tournament, it will be the rule as bad it is written.

honorandglory
20-10-2010, 19:58
Don't forget you are feared by model with flamming attacks, not the flamming attacks themselves. It is RAW.
Probably this rule is not a good job and need a faq/errata.
In friendly games, i think i will houserule it. But in tournament, it will be the rule as bad it is written.

You are correct,but the Warpfire thrower does not have Flaming attacks. It's shot is counted as a flaming attack.

Eltharil
20-10-2010, 20:08
I see, sorry.
That's another interresting cheesy point of the rules.

But let's try this:as long as warpfire shot is an attack... if it's shot is counted as a flaming attack, i guess we should say warpfire counts as a model with flaming attack.

Malorian
20-10-2010, 20:20
I see, sorry.
That's another interresting cheesy point of the rules.

But let's try this:as long as warpfire shot is an attack... if it's shot is counted as a flaming attack, i guess we should say warpfire counts as a model with flaming attack.

Then by the same merit all cav would fear any wizard with the lore of fire :eyebrows:

Eltharil
20-10-2010, 20:25
Right. RAW can be cheesy, isn't it?

Lord_Elric
20-10-2010, 20:35
Not cheesy atall really makes perfect sense to me why would a warpfire thrower that is in now way on fire when in combat and only when it is fireing, cause fear in a beast it wouldnt

warbeasts are going to be trained to fight in combat situations so fire is only going to spook them when it thrust at them, surprises them, or surronds them

Eltharil
20-10-2010, 21:11
Not cheesy atall really makes perfect sense to me why would a warpfire thrower that is in now way on fire when in combat and only when it is fireing, cause fear in a beast it wouldnt...

RAW is exactly the opposite of your sayings. That's why i found it cheesy

Synnister
20-10-2010, 22:50
Having the flaming attacks special rule is the only requirement per the rules to cause fear. Therefore anything that has flaming attacks as a special rule (Warp Fire thower is an example) causes fear. Does not require an attack to be made like the negation of regeneration.

Lord_Elric
20-10-2010, 23:10
RAW is exactly the opposite of your sayings. That's why i found it cheesy

Ahh right ofcorse i apologise lol We house rule it anyway tbh. We play that cavalry etc..etc..etc have to take a dangerous terrain test when charging a flame wielding enemy to represent mount being startled as it get close to the flames and throwing the rider (who naturaly is easily killed/trampled Falling off a horse bloody hurts!)

honorandglory
20-10-2010, 23:17
Having the flaming attacks special rule is the only requirement per the rules to cause fear. Therefore anything that has flaming attacks as a special rule (Warp Fire thower is an example) causes fear. Does not require an attack to be made like the negation of regeneration.


Right,the Warpfire Thrower does not have this special rule. The template is a flaming atttack ,but not the weaponteam itself .

Lord Inquisitor
20-10-2010, 23:53
My head's starting to hurt. Are you seriously trying to say there is a difference between a model with flaming attacks and a model with attacks that are flaming attacks?

Lord_Elric
21-10-2010, 00:04
Well yeh if a model has "flaming attacks" then all its attacks are flaming, However a model that has a specific attack that has is consided flaming (that is an attack that uses any other rules other than the basic WS and/or BS hitting) then the model doesnt have "flaming attacks" just that particular attack only, a war hydra (if it didnt already cause terror) wouldnt cause fear because it has a flame weapon as the flame isnt there to effect the enemy models by causeing fear and when its used in combat even the damage from the breath weapon is more affactive then the mounts being scared by it to matter

A warpfire thrower isnt firing whilst in combat and it only the damage from the weapons shooting attack have the flaming rule seems quite simple really.

Synnister
21-10-2010, 01:06
Well yeh if a model has "flaming attacks" then all its attacks are flaming, However a model that has a specific attack that has is consided flaming (that is an attack that uses any other rules other than the basic WS and/or BS hitting) then the model doesnt have "flaming attacks" just that particular attack only, a war hydra (if it didnt already cause terror) wouldnt cause fear because it has a flame weapon as the flame isnt there to effect the enemy models by causeing fear and when its used in combat even the damage from the breath weapon is more affactive then the mounts being scared by it to matter

A warpfire thrower isnt firing whilst in combat and it only the damage from the weapons shooting attack have the flaming rule seems quite simple really.

So by that reasoning a bloodthirster with the flaming sword demon gift wouldn't cause fear in cavalry, since the gift is the thing with the special rule and not the model. Is that what you are claiming? And the rule for flaming attacks says that the model's range and cc attacks have the flaming attacks special rule unless it says otherwise.

Lord_Elric
21-10-2010, 01:17
So by that reasoning a bloodthirster with the flaming sword demon gift wouldn't cause fear in cavalry, since the gift is the thing with the special rule and not the model. Is that what you are claiming? And the rule for flaming attacks says that the model's range and cc attacks have the flaming attacks special rule unless it says otherwise.

Yep thats right "And the rule for flaming attacks says that the model's range and cc attacks have the flaming attacks special rule unless it says otherwise"

Tell me where in a warp fire throwers special rules does it say flaming attacks??????

and a bloddthirsters is a different thing not relevant to the arguements its quite clear that the blood thirster gains flaming attacks from being equiped with the flaming sword gift exactly as a wizard wielding the flaming sword a rhuin would have them whilst the spell lasted. A magic item/gift confers the ability to the one wielding it, however a warp fire thrower does not confere flamming attacks onto its crew now does it.

Lord_Elric
21-10-2010, 01:22
ill quote it

"all models touched by the template are hit automaticly (THIS is ofcorse a flaming attack)"

by that it means only the warp fire throwers shooting attack has flaming only.

The real question is that due to a warp fire throwers ability to stand and shoot then if it did so would it cause said fear "I personaly would say yes for the round that the enemy charged in"

Lord Inquisitor
21-10-2010, 02:22
Doesn't that just mean the weapon's rule is "saying otherwise"?

Synnister
21-10-2010, 02:35
Under the fire thrower profile it says that it has the flaming attack special rule. Is there a rule for the fire thrower that says the close combat attacks don't have flaming attacks? Isn't that what the rule says you need? That you have to specifically say it doesn't work in Close combat for it to not work in close combat.

As for a demon using a flaming sword and the WFT having flaming attacks but them being treated different seems odd to me. I tend to follow the rules as they are written unless they break the game like using the whaaaag spell on fanatics, and to me applying flaming attacks to all people that have it in both ranged and close combat unless it says otherwise does not break the game.

honorandglory
21-10-2010, 03:03
They weapon teams have a list of special rules attached to them,Flaming attack is not one of them. Their template hit does not have the flaming attack special rule, it is simply stated that it is a flaming attack. Therefore the weapon does not in fact have the flaming attack special rule to cause fear in Cav, warbeast,and Chariots. FAQ worthy.

Eltharil
21-10-2010, 06:17
...then the model doesnt have "flaming attacks" just that particular attack only...

I don't understand how a specific attack of the model cannot be an attack of that model.

If 'that particular attack' is an attack (i guess it is), it is one of the model's attacks (specific rules doesn't matter here...2H weapon got specific rules, bows too...and can be flaming attacks).
If it is a model's attack and if it is a 'flaming attack', then the model got a flaming attack and would cause fear as having flaming attack is the only requirement.

T10
21-10-2010, 11:31
I think all will agree that models with the "Flaming Attacks" special rule qualify as causing Fear in cavalry, but things get a bit unclear beyond this.

It seems reasonable to assume that this extends to units that have a rule that grants them "Flaming close combat attacks", after all Fear tests come into play during close combat and it's here that the cavalry models will experience them first-hand. But then this would also need to extend to "Flaming shooting attacks". The rules for Flaming Attacks does not differentiate between these two - it's simply "Flaming Attacks", not "Flaming attacks in close combat".

Now, I can't really say that there's a big difference between a model making Flaming shooting attacks (e.g. a Bretonnian Peasant Bowman) and a model making a shooting attack that is a Flaming Attack (e.g. a Skaven Warpfire Thrower).

But a Wizard with a spell that causes damage that counts as Flaming Attacks? Somewhere we've definitely stretched things too far, and it's certainly a matter of personal opinion where things should have stopped.

I guess this is up to the house-rule committees. :)

Thread closed.

-T10