PDA

View Full Version : The New Warpflame rule in Warriors book



Blkc57
02-02-2013, 04:28
Ok so I've gone over this 4 times. I can't seem to find in the warriors book under the description for warp flame if these attacks are in fact flaming. An oversight on GW's part? Or are the spells of Tzeentch just not meant to be flaming?

Shadow_Steed
02-02-2013, 12:32
It is stated at the same page as the Tzeentchian lore. At the end of the page. I missed it at first as well :)

Lordcypress
02-02-2013, 13:50
I can't find the flaming portion either. Page 58 the Lore of Tzeentch:

Warpflame Special Rule:

"At the end of each phase, any unit that suffered one or more unsaved Wounds from an attack with this special rule during that phase must take a Toughness test. If the test is failed, the unit immediately suffers D3 Wounts with no armour save allowed. If the test is passed, all models in the unit gain the Regeneration (6+) special rule for the rest of the game. Any models in the unit that already have the Regeneration special rule instead gain +1 to all Regeneration saving throws for the rest of the game. Chaos is fickle!"

I don't see where it states that the attacks are flaming. None of the spells do either. The spells fluff descriptions talk about magical flames, blue flames, scarlet flames. I realize the fluff descriptions aren't hard rules but it does give you a hint into what the author of the book was leaning towards.

Voss
02-02-2013, 15:30
It is stated at the same page as the Tzeentchian lore. At the end of the page. I missed it at first as well :)

Sorry, looking at the iBooks version now. There is nothing on the Tzeentch lore page except the attribute, spells and warpflame rule.
There are zero references to flaming attacks.

Lordcypress
02-02-2013, 16:23
Ya I've re-read that damn page now a few times. They left out flaming attacks on purpose here. The Lore of Tzeentch is no longer traditional flaming. Just glowy blueish flames and scarlet magical flames surround you now.

herohammer
03-02-2013, 03:47
If they are not flaming the lore is absolute massive fail as every spell you throw at something makes it harder to hurt for everything you have. With flaming the lore is kind of cool as it makes your opponent tougher in combat but doesn't effect your spells. I am pretty sure they are supposed to be flaming. This reminds me of the banner the hidden dead explicitly allowing you to etbs a chariot unit but not letting you bury enough points for a minimum cost chariot unit

dementian
03-02-2013, 05:08
If they are not flaming the lore is absolute massive fail as every spell you throw at something makes it harder to hurt for everything you have. With flaming the lore is kind of cool as it makes your opponent tougher in combat but doesn't effect your spells. I am pretty sure they are supposed to be flaming. This reminds me of the banner the hidden dead explicitly allowing you to etbs a chariot unit but not letting you bury enough points for a minimum cost chariot unit

Every spell you throw doesn't make them tougher. It has a chance to. The unit takes a toughness test. If they fail they take another d3 wounds. Only if they pass does the unit gain regeneration.

Kalandros
03-02-2013, 06:00
The T Test is at the END of the phase I think though, so only once per magic phase per unit affected I think.

Voss
03-02-2013, 06:18
The T Test is at the END of the phase I think though, so only once per magic phase per unit affected I think.

Yes. At the end of any phase in which the unit suffered unsaved wounds from an attack with the Warpflame rule. (I suspect this rule will show up on daemonic shooting attacks when that army book rolls around)

DenWhalen
03-02-2013, 08:49
Yes. At the end of any phase in which the unit suffered unsaved wounds from an attack with the Warpflame rule. (I suspect this rule will show up on daemonic shooting attacks when that army book rolls around)

It already appears in the WD update of Flamers of Tzeentch.

herohammer
03-02-2013, 17:17
It already appears in the WD update of Flamers of Tzeentch.

But flamer shots are still flaming...

Danny76
03-02-2013, 23:55
But flamer shots are still flaming...

True, but a different book, and different units.
Unfortunately they aren't precedent to say that these are.
Flame in the name doesn't mean it is a Flaming attack, only the bold listing etc..

Question though, as when I flicked the book I didn't see it...
Shadow_Steed, you mention it is on the page that they are, but I and others on here it seems, didn't see that.
Where does it say that, anyone with the book?

Piercefierce
05-02-2013, 02:45
I think this is on purpose guys. Probably represents that it isn't actual fire but just gets called that due to its look. I think the lore attribute is silly. Honestly I would chose to take a bolt of pink fire in the face for a chance at +1 regen. Imagine being a toughness 4 army. temple guard and the like will get to like 3+ regen. Than to rub it in the spells don't even cancel it lol.

Piercefierce
05-02-2013, 02:48
Actually now that I think about it. Didn't the last book fail to mention flaming attacks in the tzeentch lore only to be erratad in later?

Blkc57
05-02-2013, 02:56
Well I was thinking that Pierce, but those issues with the old lore were before they made flaming attacks an official special rule in the main rulebook. Kinda weird to leave it out now when they are already well into 8th edition (moving onto 9th edition) and most other army book writers know to put the words "flaming attacks" into their rules. But who knows, this is why I asked the question to see if other people thought the same as me and that it was really odd to not include the flaming attacks rule in the description for Warpflames. I would love for it to be fixed, but what do we do in the mean time eh?

Piercefierce
05-02-2013, 03:04
Hmmm. Yeh true. I stand by my first statement that it was purposely not there. Your right in saying that this far into 8th they wouldn't have forgotten. Kind of makes sense that a tzeentch regen could be saved by tzeentch fire anyway. Onto another point the chaos steed is listed as a war beast not cav in the mount section lol. So a lord on steed doesn't get a look out sir unless he is in a unit if hounds haha. I'm sure that was rai.

herohammer
05-02-2013, 03:33
Well I was thinking that Pierce, but those issues with the old lore were before they made flaming attacks an official special rule in the main rulebook. Kinda weird to leave it out now when they are already well into 8th edition (moving onto 9th edition) and most other army book writers know to put the words "flaming attacks" into their rules. But who knows, this is why I asked the question to see if other people thought the same as me and that it was really odd to not include the flaming attacks rule in the description for Warpflames. I would love for it to be fixed, but what do we do in the mean time eh?

Use other lores...

Unless your gaming group is reasonable and realizes that the lore is hardly overpowered with flaming and assumes that the spells have the rule as the lore is still pretty much lore of fire that hands out stacking regen every turn to your opponents whenever they are in close combat with anything other than your flaming banner unit as nothing in the book has flaming close combat attacks aside from breath weapons and flaming banner.

Blkc57
05-02-2013, 04:34
Oh I plan to do that hero, the lore of metal is a spectacularly unappreciated lore. Most just look at the two direct damage spells in it and walk away before seeing the other really useful hexes and augements the lore provides, along with in my opinion one of the best 6th spells of the Dreaded 5.

ArtificerArmour
05-02-2013, 06:48
But flamer shots are still flaming...

Actually, they are not. Flamers have flaming attacks in cc, but the stats for the shooting does not have the rule flaming attacks just warpflame.

Bit gamey.

Darkminion
05-02-2013, 07:34
It is just an ongoing prank of GW. They "forget" to mention it in every book they make, only to errata it later telling us that "offcourse a Pink FIRE of Tzeentch with the warpFLAME rules are flaming". Remember the Dwarf Flame cannon? That too wasnt flaming....

Untill then, just play Metal on your Disc dudes, its amazing!

D...

AMWOOD co
05-02-2013, 13:29
Onto another point the chaos steed is listed as a war beast not cav in the mount section lol. So a lord on steed doesn't get a look out sir unless he is in a unit if hounds haha. I'm sure that was rai.

Let me guess, you watched Malorian's video and forgot, just as he did, that when a character rides a War Beast the whole model becomes a Cavalry model? Same thing happens to Monstrous Beasts, too (so no riding with the Dragon Ogres for Look Out, Sir!); they become Monstrous Cavalry.

Don't worry, these slip ups happen.

BlackPawl
05-02-2013, 13:59
It sounds strange, but we have to live with it that a "fire" spell did not have the "flame rule" - just like the "poison wind globadiers" have not the poison rule ... :rolleyes:

Jim
05-02-2013, 15:17
I noticed this and thought it was strange that the Warpflame special rule didn't state the attacks were Flaming...

But it doesn't, so they're not!!!

I think this is RAW & RAI...

Jim

Avian
05-02-2013, 16:53
Given GWs trend of occasionally giving bizarre FAQ answers, someone should submit a question asking whether a unit that got hit with a flaming attack (from, say, a Lore of Metal spell) in the same turn as it got hit by a Warpflame spell, can still gain Regeneration. Then we'll cross our fingers and hope the FAQ guy doesn't have a clue about the Regen rule. :D

Piercefierce
06-02-2013, 00:12
Let me guess, you watched Malorian's video and forgot, just as he did, that when a character rides a War Beast the whole model becomes a Cavalry model? Same thing happens to Monstrous Beasts, too (so no riding with the Dragon Ogres for Look Out, Sir!); they become Monstrous Cavalry.

Don't worry, these slip ups happen.

Who is malorian? And I didn't realise that was the rule. Thanks though I was planning on playing it as cavalry anyway.

Warrior of Chaos
06-02-2013, 00:20
Who is malorian? And I didn't realise that was the rule. Thanks though I was planning on playing it as cavalry anyway.

Go over to the Batreps/Tactics forums or look on Youtube for Malorian. He's all about the tactics and tourneys...posts some great info on youtube for different strategies (especially for O&Gs).

sulla
08-02-2013, 04:12
It sounds strange, but we have to live with it that a "fire" spell did not have the "flame rule" - just like the "poison wind globadiers" have not the poison rule ... :rolleyes:I know, right. Everyone knows that magic should totally obey the laws of physics and having the name 'flame/fire' in it's title means a legal obligation to be a flaming attack. GW, expect a letter from my solicitor! :rolleyes:;):p

judaism
08-02-2013, 18:52
Is there any way to target your own troops with warpflame?

Paperplane
08-02-2013, 18:57
Correct me if im wrong but I thought tzeentch fire mutated stuff instead of burning it, so it not having flaming special rule kinda makes sense lorewise. Though having flaming would be a great boon for the lore.

DaemonReign
08-02-2013, 19:22
Is there any way to target your own troops with warpflame?
*lol*
Of course there isn't!
But given the current RAW-status of the WoC Tzeentch Lore if you were allowed to target your own forces it'd actually be a redeeming factor for the Lore.

Hallock
09-02-2013, 03:55
I've played 4 games so far against the tzeentch lore and it's devastating. All offensive and the gateway hurts alot. So lets say they did make them flaming. Well that would not help the lore. I would put a daemon prince or two with a dragon bane gem or the dragon helm, or take as many dragon princes as my list would allow and get a 2+ ward against the lore. Of course this would not be a tournament list but if you are having a friendly game and you know the tzeentch lore is coming you could make it an unfriendly game and un fun. Also you can hit one unit as many times as possible with warpflame attacks in the phase, they still only get one roll for the toughness test. If they pass it then next turn take your metal wizard or fire wizard and hit them first to take away any regen.

MyNameDidntFit
09-02-2013, 08:51
Even if it wasn't flaming and just gave the +1 Regen until the caster's next phase it would be fine.


I've played 4 games so far against the tzeentch lore and it's devastating. All offensive and the gateway hurts alot. So lets say they did make them flaming. Well that would not help the lore. I would put a daemon prince or two with a dragon bane gem or the dragon helm, or take as many dragon princes as my list would allow and get a 2+ ward against the lore. Of course this would not be a tournament list but if you are having a friendly game and you know the tzeentch lore is coming you could make it an unfriendly game and un fun. Also you can hit one unit as many times as possible with warpflame attacks in the phase, they still only get one roll for the toughness test. If they pass it then next turn take your metal wizard or fire wizard and hit them first to take away any regen.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but when I play friendly games I don't think "ah-ha! This is a perfect opportunity to tailor my list to be a giant sphincter to my friend!"...

Hallock
09-02-2013, 18:17
you dont' play in my circle.

Hallock
09-02-2013, 18:18
I WISH you did!

DaemonReign
09-02-2013, 22:19
I've played 4 games so far against the tzeentch lore and it's devastating.

If you add enough 'ifs' and 'maybes' so are Flamers.. ;)

If I played WoC I'd be a largely 'ok' with the general update but I would be enraged to no end with the Magic Lores. [Awfull, flat, unimaginative design - done in 10 minutes with no afterthought]
I guess the reason we don't see any complaints from players is that the Nurgle Lore (and Slaanesh to some extent) are quite powerfull.
Definately the low-point of the book afaic.

AMWOOD co
10-02-2013, 05:15
Even if it wasn't flaming and just gave the +1 Regen until the caster's next phase it would be fine.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but when I play friendly games I don't think "ah-ha! This is a perfect opportunity to tailor my list to be a giant sphincter to my friend!"...

Forgive me if I sound callous, but when my foe fields the exact same thing over and over again to the point where he's predictable enough that I CAN tailor a list to beat him (and I know he has the means to be otherwise), then I will pick such a list. I've done it… 2 times that I can recall for sure (artillery vs. Monsters once and Tonne of dispel scrolls vs. Slann and Empire wizards the second) in 15 years. My friends and I enjoy challenging every aspect of our armies, including using them in unpredictable manners.

MyNameDidntFit
10-02-2013, 07:34
you dont' play in my circle.


Forgive me if I sound callous, but when my foe fields the exact same thing over and over again to the point where he's predictable enough that I CAN tailor a list to beat him (and I know he has the means to be otherwise), then I will pick such a list. I've done it… 2 times that I can recall for sure (artillery vs. Monsters once and Tonne of dispel scrolls vs. Slann and Empire wizards the second) in 15 years. My friends and I enjoy challenging every aspect of our armies, including using them in unpredictable manners.
Fair enough. Even when playing friendlies my usual opponents take what we'd consider 'all comers' lists because that's the done thing and it makes sense from a perspective of becoming a better player. Only when it's a campaign or something where it would make sense for the army to know what they're facing do we tailor. Or if we both decide we want to have a grudge match and loose all hell on each other.

Don Zeko
11-02-2013, 07:20
I know, right. Everyone knows that magic should totally obey the laws of physics and having the name 'flame/fire' in it's title means a legal obligation to be a flaming attack. GW, expect a letter from my solicitor! :rolleyes:;):p

I agree that they're under no obligation to make the rules match the fluff, but this is still fairly ridiculous. Then they compound the problem by adopting a system of reasonable clear labels for some things (flaming attacks) and totally unclear labels for others (what is and isn't a daemon for banishment? What is or isn't a lightning attack for dragon ogres? GW isn't telling, because the best part of playing warhammer is clearly having lengthy arguments about what the intent of the rule writer was). Clearly none of GW's lawyers are involved in actually writing their rules, or you would see decent statutory construction from them. Also, why on earth did they decide that the "burning alignment" from the Engine of the Gods isn't a flaming attack?

Yegenek
12-03-2013, 16:05
I am curious about one thing, how about combining tzeentch lore with another chaos sorcerer using shadow lore, "the withering" spell would be a good combo with warpflame spells as it decreases the toughness of the target unit d3. I know that is hard to achieve but well it would be a nice combo.

sulla
13-03-2013, 07:19
I agree that they're under no obligation to make the rules match the fluff, but this is still fairly ridiculous. Then they compound the problem by adopting a system of reasonable clear labels for some things (flaming attacks) and totally unclear labels for others (what is and isn't a daemon for banishment? What is or isn't a lightning attack for dragon ogres? GW isn't telling, because the best part of playing warhammer is clearly having lengthy arguments about what the intent of the rule writer was). Clearly none of GW's lawyers are involved in actually writing their rules, or you would see decent statutory construction from them. Also, why on earth did they decide that the "burning alignment" from the Engine of the Gods isn't a flaming attack?I hear what you're saying, and agree in general, but in the case of Tzeentch attacks (all the different colours of flames from the older spells, for example), I never got the feeling they were all 'hot'. More that they resembled mundane flames but had totally different effects. Maybe in this case, it's more an issue of the writers under delivering on fluff?

Lord Solar Plexus
13-03-2013, 07:53
I've played 4 games so far against the tzeentch lore and it's devastating. All offensive and the gateway hurts alot. So lets say they did make them flaming. Well that would not help the lore. I would put a daemon prince or two with a dragon bane gem or the dragon helm, or take as many dragon princes as my list would allow and get a 2+ ward against the lore.

That's a rather narrow perspective, Hallock. As a matter of fact, one model with the Gem and one unit in a single (completely different) faction would not hurt the lore. I understand people still take Fire and Metal despite those items.

Apart from that, if it is already devastating, why would it even need any help?


I know, right. Everyone knows that magic should totally obey the laws of physics and having the name 'flame/fire' in it's title means a legal obligation to be a flaming attack. GW, expect a letter from my solicitor! :rolleyes:;):p

No need to roll your eyes or be so unfair because we actually expect rules to be clear and concise. Why not call every a couple of spells poisonous, just for the laughs? They could also describe all impact hits as killing strikes, again with no effect...

sulla
14-03-2013, 06:48
No need to roll your eyes or be so unfair because we actually expect rules to be clear and concise. Why not call every a couple of spells poisonous, just for the laughs? They could also describe all impact hits as killing strikes, again with no effect...See my reply from the bottom of the last page for expanded reasoning.