PDA

View Full Version : Can the dwarf flame cannon place its template on an angle?



PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
11-03-2014, 06:46
To give a brief summary for the uninitiated, the dwarfs have a weapon called a "Flame Cannon." It operates close to a regular cannon, save that it deals damage by placing a flame template at the location the marker "bounces" to (or overshoots in this case). Previously the flamer thrower had to be placed in a direct line away from the cannon. However, my the new armybook I'm no longer sure that this is the case.



...nominate a point within the war machine's line of sight and within 12". This does not have to be an enemy model, but can be a point on the ground if you wish. Place a small counter (a coin will do) in the correct position as a reminder.

Using your tape measure, extend a 'shot' line from the Flame Cannon's barrel all the way to your target point. Roll the artillery dice and extend the line away from the Flame Cannon the number of inches shown - this is where the teardrop-shaped template is placed (the narrow end closest to the Flame Cannon). After this, work out hits exactly as per the normal flamethrower rules.

Note that you are not allowed to make a Flame Cannon shoot in such a way that it has a chance of hitting a friendly unit or an enemy unit that is engaged with friendly units.


Compare this to the previous edition of the rules:



[...] To determine the swathe cut by the burning liquid, place the Flame template with the narrow end on the point where the jet hit the ground and the wide end pointing directly away from the cannon so that the flame continues in a straight line

Emphasis mine.

So there's an explicit requirement to fire in a straight line in the previous edition of the rules that has been dropped in the new edition. Was this an oversight? Or was this intentional?

The only other place one could look for guidance is the BRB, as the rules state that the Flame Cannon operates "exactly as a flamethrower" once the marker has been placed. Since there *IS* no flame thrower in the rulebook it should be assumed that they mean "Fire Thrower," from page 114 of the BRB. The rules for those are that:



FIRING A FIRE THROWER
Place the teardrop-shaped template with its narrow end touching the fire thrower barrel and the large end aimed at any target in line of sight. Roll the artillery dice and move the template directly forward the number of inches indicated this is where the burst of flame lands. The template can overshoot a target, representing the crew firing in too high an arc.

All models underneath the template are hit automatically. Wounds caused by a fire thrower have the Flaming Attacks special rule. A unit suffering any casualties must take a Panic test.

A misfire means the weapon does not fire - roll on the Black Powder War Machine Misfire chart (see page 113) to find out what went wrong.

Nothing about this suggests that it can't be placed on an angle either. All that it requires is that the template be "aimed at any target in line of sight."

T10
11-03-2014, 11:31
While it appears you can point the template in any direction (from the barrel of the gun) you want, I see nothing to suggest that it will "bounce" in any other direction than directly forward.

i.e.: I don't think you are supposed to point the template to the north and have it "bounce" to the east, even if that's an angle more advantageous for hitting a unit.

-T10

thesoundofmusica
11-03-2014, 11:51
While it appears you can point the template in any direction (from the barrel of the gun) you want, I see nothing to suggest that it will "bounce" in any other direction than directly forward.

i.e.: I don't think you are supposed to point the template to the north and have it "bounce" to the east, even if that's an angle more advantageous for hitting a unit.

-T10

Just reading the current rules, and having no experience at all with the old rules, this is the impression I got aswell.

Ramius4
11-03-2014, 11:57
You're ignoring the very first sentence in the Flame Cannon's rules... "Flame Cannons shoot using the fire thrower rules in the Warhammer rulebook, yadda yadda yadda"

Then we can look at the fire thrower rules which state... "move the template directly forward"

Case closed.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
11-03-2014, 17:15
You're ignoring the very first sentence in the Flame Cannon's rules... "Flame Cannons shoot using the fire thrower rules in the Warhammer rulebook, yadda yadda yadda"

Then we can look at the fire thrower rules which state... "move the template directly forward"

Case closed.

"However, a Dwarf player can also pump extra steam to fire a supercharged flame shot with the following profile and separate rules."

It's a different type of shot, and has its own rules profile.

Furthermore, you don't place the template then bounce it. You place the MARKER, 'bounce' that, and THEN place the flame template. The only explicit restriction on how you place the template is that the "narrow end [is] closest to the cannon."

I too agree that the rule can certainly be interpreted to IMPLY that the template must be placed directly along the 'shot line,' but the lack of an explicit requirement makes me really wonder. Especially since both the previous edition's book AND the analogous Chaos Dwarf Magma Cannon explicitly state that you must place the template in a straight line. If that's just an oversight then it's a pretty damned big one.

Ramius4
11-03-2014, 17:33
The overcharged shot is in addition to the first part of the rules bud. I'm well aware of what it says.

You're reading the Sheet of Flame rules as if it contains two independant rules. It isn't. The description of resolving the overcharged shot is just a continuation of the first part. It doesn't negate the fact that it's also a fire thrower, has Strength 5, Multiple Wounds (D3) and Flaming Attacks.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
11-03-2014, 20:29
There's a different profile for each type of shot. One is the BRB Fire Thrower with the addition of Multiple Wounds (D3), while the other is presented within the rules. They may be substantially similar, but one being a "continuation" of the other is your own interpretation. It is not so clear on the face that yours is the only reasonable way to interpret the rule; there's no reason to be a condescending ass about it.

Ramius4
11-03-2014, 21:22
There's a different profile for each type of shot. One is the BRB Fire Thrower with the addition of Multiple Wounds (D3), while the other is presented within the rules. They may be substantially similar, but one being a "continuation" of the other is your own interpretation. It is not so clear on the face that yours is the only reasonable way to interpret the rule;

Your premise is essentially based on, "the rules don't say I can't, therefore I can..." and we're supposed to believe that's a 'reasonable way to interpret the rule'?

If you want to interpret it that way, I obviously can't stop you. Good luck getting any opponent to ever allow it though. There is literally nothing to indicate that the template can magically turn at the end of the shot. It completely smacks of rules lawyering (creative interpretation if you will) for unfair advantage.

That's not condescension, that's comprehension. But hey, if you want to call me an ass (which is just uncalled for and rude of you) for pointing it out, feel free.

PS. If you think I was being condescending, you need to look up the word (now THAT was condescension) ;)

Imperator64
11-03-2014, 23:06
There's an orc spell that uses a foot template. An opponent of mine tried to tell me that he could revolve the template after its scatter. I dont think he was either stupid or bad but it is strange that people can see things so differently.

Kallstrom
11-03-2014, 23:09
.. and so they came, like an avalanche of self-righteous and pompous pricks - the Armchair Warriors. On a holy Quest to claim the last laugh and lay waste to any and all that apposed them. Rummaging in the possibilities, feasting on the interpretations and gaining wind beneath their wings when they find that illusion of an opening in their foe's glided armor.
Be gone, vicious knaves! Have at thee! :)

I must throw my two cents in. Just because one speculates about a rule interpretation does not mean that they are eager to use it themselves. This seems to be a common misconception. Being "well aware" while calling someone a nickname that can be interpreted as a way to talk down to the person in question is a form of being condescending. Remember, it is not the one proclaiming their opinions to the other that judge whether or not the one on the receiving end loses heart from hearing it or otherwise. ;)

This is a good example of why body language and the tone of your voice is a very important part when it comes to communicating with one and another. Often this can be avoided by not using a cut- and dry method of writing, using smileys and/or giving one's text an extra though on whether or not it can be misunderstood somehow.

Now I will crawl back into the hole from which I came. Good day, good sir's.

189011

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
11-03-2014, 23:55
Your premise is essentially based on, "the rules don't say I can't, therefore I can..." and we're supposed to believe that's a 'reasonable way to interpret the rule'?

If you want to interpret it that way, I obviously can't stop you. Good luck getting any opponent to ever allow it though. There is literally nothing to indicate that the template can magically turn at the end of the shot. It completely smacks of rules lawyering (creative interpretation if you will) for unfair advantage.

That's not condescension, that's comprehension. But hey, if you want to call me an ass (which is just uncalled for and rude of you) for pointing it out, feel free.

PS. If you think I was being condescending, you need to look up the word (now THAT was condescension) ;)


No, my premise is based upon the assumption that the drafters of the rules are competent, and that the words they drafted accurately represent the rules they intended to form. You know...the same strategy that courts around the world use when engaging in statutory interpretation. As is the case there, when the wording of a particular rule changes from one iteration to the next the words that are removed are often as important as the words that remain.

Here we observe a rule that once contained an explicit requirement that the template be placed directly along the weapon's trajectory of fire. A new edition is released, and suddenly that explicit requirement is gone whilst no additional guidance has been given.

How are we to interpret that omission? Are we to assume that GW intended to omit this restriction? Or are we to assume that they are incompetent, and neglected to include a clarifying statement that has thus far existed for this and other analogous weapons? With no guidance one way or another, it ought to be assumed that GW purposefully and intentionally declined to include the explicit restriction when it updated the rules until some evidence appears to the contrary. The alternative path is a slippery slope that forces us to question all sorts of other ambiguously worded rules.



And for the record, I neither play dwarfs nor intend to play dwarfs. It is specifically contrary to my interests for the rule to be interpreted this way; I merely argue it because I truly believe that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, this is the correct way to interpret the rule.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
11-03-2014, 23:58
There's an orc spell that uses a foot template. An opponent of mine tried to tell me that he could revolve the template after its scatter. I dont think he was either stupid or bad but it is strange that people can see things so differently.

He was neither stupid nor bad, just hadn't read the rule fully: it specifically states that the template "maintain[s] the same facing."

thesoundofmusica
12-03-2014, 00:05
PirateRobot

I think you give GW too much credit. Just look at their history of writing rules and the mess made by FAQs.

I think these things are best solved within a group of friends which is likely the target audience for GW games anyways. If that cant be done, dice it. That's not to say I dont appreciate these rules debates but to think we could/should unanimously adopt certain rules interpretations is not realistic with the kind of writing GW puts out.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
12-03-2014, 00:21
PirateRobot

I think you give GW too much credit. Just look at their history of writing rules and the mess made by FAQs.

I think these things are best solved within a group of friends which is likely the target audience for GW games anyways. If that cant be done, dice it. That's not to say I dont appreciate these rules debates but to think we could/should unanimously adopt certain rules interpretations is not realistic with the kind of writing GW puts out.

It's simply a strategy for resolving ambiguities. You interpret a rules so as to give as much meaning to the words on the page as possible whilst minimizing the number of contradictions or superfluous words of phrases, keeping in mind the context of the words and the rules as a whole. Where possible you can find assistance in other analogous rules, or by observing the historical evolution of the words.

If the Chaos Dwarf rules had come out AFTER this book I think it would be more clear that the exclusion was an unintentional oversight. However, the fact that - despite writing substantially the same rule for substantially the same weapon over numerous editions of multiple armybooks - they have in this instance moved away from the explicit restriction means to me that they intended it to no longer apply.

Would I be surprised if they FAQ'ed it the other way? Absolutely not. But in the absence of such a rule, I think it is most correct to stick to the stricter interpretation of the words as they appear, rather than reading into those words an intention that is neither obvious nor apparent. Assume that they meant what they wrote.

MasterSplinter
12-03-2014, 04:50
I havent read the full posts of the pro and contra divisions in this thread and just fell out of bed so sorry if i dont give enough credit to you but i cant give the concentration right now^^

But wasnt there an argument some time ago that GWs rulesets are "permissive rulesets" in general?
So if it is not permitted in the rules i would say you cant do it. Just a guess.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
12-03-2014, 09:44
I havent read the full posts of the pro and contra divisions in this thread and just fell out of bed so sorry if i dont give enough credit to you but i cant give the concentration right now^^

But wasnt there an argument some time ago that GWs rulesets are "permissive rulesets" in general?
So if it is not permitted in the rules i would say you cant do it. Just a guess.

That really depends on the context. The rules here require you "place the template." So it's not a question of what, but only of how. This isn't a matter of permissive vs. restrictive rulesets, since it's not clear that placing the template "straight ahead" is the default state here. It's implied, certainly, but given the change in wording compared to the last edition it's also implied that it ISN'T the case.

Tato
12-03-2014, 13:23
But wasnt there an argument some time ago that GWs rulesets are "permissive rulesets" in general?
So if it is not permitted in the rules i would say you cant do it. Just a guess.

I think the BRB also clearly stated what The Most Important Rule was. Therefore if PirateRobotNinjaofDeath, not being a Dwarf player, agrees to the interpretation that the flame magically bounces around regardless of presumed psysics on the battlefield, he is free to imply such interpretation when a playing a Dwarf opponent who agrees this with his case, since both will have fun. Me, being a Dwarf player, would actually never even think of trying to reason this to my opponent with a straight face.

MasterSplinter
12-03-2014, 14:27
Haha, just my point of view :)
But there are many players who wont have a problem deploying it like this. Fine if your opponent allows this, but me as an opponent would clearly not enjoy the game that much (presumably not play the game at all).

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
12-03-2014, 20:22
What is and isn't an "acceptable" level of gameyness in a WHFB game is an entirely subjective threshold. Personally I think that bus formation is stupid nonsense, and just a way to abuse the steadfast rules. Then there's conga-lines, placing skirmishers so that they shrink out of LoS as a charge reaction and force a failed charge, indirect catapult shots lobbing rocks at absurd and impossible angles. You've got cannons that can fire through a forest, over a broken building, past a swirling melee of a hundred battling warriors, and pick a lone character out of his bodyguard just because there's only 4 of them remaining. I've got wizards that are thousands of years old but can forget to bring the right spells to a battle. Oh, and then there's actual *********** magic.

And yet...a master-engineered dwarven flamethrower that erupts at an angle somehow falls below board?


More importantly, that' a cop-out. The rules either say something or they don't. If you personally choose not to play that way then that is absolutely your choice. But it doesn't change what the rules say. When personal preference alters the rules it's called a "house rule." That's fine, just don't kid yourself into thinking it's anything different.

Timathius
12-03-2014, 20:32
What is and isn't an "acceptable" level of gameyness in a WHFB game is an entirely subjective threshold. Personally I think that bus formation is stupid nonsense, and just a way to abuse the steadfast rules. Then there's conga-lines, placing skirmishers so that they shrink out of LoS as a charge reaction and force a failed charge, indirect catapult shots lobbing rocks at absurd and impossible angles. You've got cannons that can fire through a forest, over a broken building, past a swirling melee of a hundred battling warriors, and pick a lone character out of his bodyguard just because there's only 4 of them remaining. I've got wizards that are thousands of years old but can forget to bring the right spells to a battle. Oh, and then there's actual *********** magic.

And yet...a master-engineered dwarven flamethrower that erupts at an angle somehow falls below board?


More importantly, that' a cop-out. The rules either say something or they don't. If you personally choose not to play that way then that is absolutely your choice. But it doesn't change what the rules say. When personal preference alters the rules it's called a "house rule." That's fine, just don't kid yourself into thinking it's anything different.

Why did you post a question if, when answered, you refuse to accept it?

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
12-03-2014, 21:09
Why did you post a question if, when answered, you refuse to accept it?

I posted to have a discussion about the rules that are actually on the page. "I don't care what the rules say, *I* wouldn't play that way" is not a discussion about the rules. How people are houseruling this issue isn't really relevant to the discussion of how the book ACTUALLY says it is to be resolved. I want to hash this out so that the next time I come up against a dwarf player in a tournament I'll have a wealth of varied opinions to draw upon to resolve the issue. "I don't feel like that's how it should work" isn't going to cut it.

Kalandros
12-03-2014, 23:17
The only issue is the one you created yourself by trying to do something not within the boundaries of the rules.

You're assuming you can because it doesn't specifically say you can't as it does in the basic rules of the fire thrower.

Come on.

It doesn't work.

Straight forward like any such weapon.

Ramius4
13-03-2014, 02:25
The only issue is the one you created yourself by trying to do something not within the boundaries of the rules.

You're assuming you can because it doesn't specifically say you can't as it does in the basic rules of the fire thrower.

Come on.

It doesn't work.

Straight forward like any such weapon.

Which is what I have been saying, and got called a condescending ass for my trouble...

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
13-03-2014, 06:00
The only issue is the one you created yourself by trying to do something not within the boundaries of the rules.

You're assuming you can because it doesn't specifically say you can't as it does in the basic rules of the fire thrower.

Come on.

It doesn't work.

Straight forward like any such weapon.

It's just not that simple:

1) The rules say place the template: that doesn't mean there's only one way to place it. Just like how you don't have to place a stonethrower template in the centre of a model's base, even though many people THINK that's the way the rule works. The only reason you say it can only be placed in a straight line is because a) that's how it works for fire throwers and b) that's how it worked before, but...

2) they dropped the explicit wording that told us how it worked before. The Chaos Dwarfs have the wording, why did the dwarfs lose it? It's not like this is a brand new unit that was given ambiguous rules, it's an old unit where the ambiguity was ADDED.



@Ramius: I called you condescending because you were being condescending. If you don't want to be called condescending then don't end your posts with "case closed."


edit: A non-condescending way to respond is "The powered-up shot is just an upgraded version of the rules for a fire thrower, which can only push the template directly forward. It's heavily implied that the template can only be placed along the line of fire. I think the removal of the explicit wording was just an oversight, or perhaps related to future-proofing the rules in anticipation for a change forthcoming with 9th edition."

Which is, honestly, what I'd be likely to tell a dwarf player who came up against me with a fire thrower. As I said, I don't actually PLAY dwarfs. I don't want that **** exploding horizontally across my units any more than you do. But the ambiguity is there, and I think it's an interpretation that is open for a reasonable person to make.

thesoundofmusica
13-03-2014, 06:34
I dont think its resonable at all. Says something about the player I guess. No offense meant, really. And I dont exactly see the thread flooded with people agreeing with you. Again it could just be you, or it could just be everyone else.

Ramius4
13-03-2014, 07:48
@Ramius: I called you condescending because you were being condescending. If you don't want to be called condescending then don't end your posts with "case closed."

If you took that as condescending, it was the farthest thing from my intent. In my mind, it was 'case closed'. And I still think it is.

The Chaos Dwarf rules have no real bearing on what GW does, since their design team did not write them.

I do get why you feel that there is ambiguity, but I don't think any reasonable person would try this in a game, or press the issue if it came up. It's not the first time, nor will it be the last, that GW has changed rules text from book to book, and forgot/neglected to include a "key" (I typed it that way because I obviously don't feel the inclusion of that text was necessary) piece of the rules.


Which is, honestly, what I'd be likely to tell a dwarf player who came up against me with a fire thrower. As I said, I don't actually PLAY dwarfs. I don't want that **** exploding horizontally across my units any more than you do. But the ambiguity is there, and I think it's an interpretation that is open for a reasonable person to make.

I DO play Dwarves. It was my first army when I began warhammer 21 years ago. Rest assured, if for some reason we ever played a game, my Flame Cannons would explode across your units... In a dead straight line. ;)


I dont think its resonable at all.

Agreed

Aranel
13-03-2014, 09:43
What is and isn't an "acceptable" level of gameyness in a WHFB game is an entirely subjective threshold. Personally I think that bus formation is stupid nonsense, and just a way to abuse the steadfast rules. Then there's conga-lines, placing skirmishers so that they shrink out of LoS as a charge reaction and force a failed charge, indirect catapult shots lobbing rocks at absurd and impossible angles. You've got cannons that can fire through a forest, over a broken building, past a swirling melee of a hundred battling warriors, and pick a lone character out of his bodyguard just because there's only 4 of them remaining. I've got wizards that are thousands of years old but can forget to bring the right spells to a battle. Oh, and then there's actual *********** magic.

And yet...a master-engineered dwarven flamethrower that erupts at an angle somehow falls below board?


More importantly, that' a cop-out. The rules either say something or they don't. If you personally choose not to play that way then that is absolutely your choice. But it doesn't change what the rules say. When personal preference alters the rules it's called a "house rule." That's fine, just don't kid yourself into thinking it's anything different.

Quite simply yes; it is below board. 100 wrongs do not make a right. I fully understand that this sort of thing might fly in the more competitive tournaments, but how anyone could seek to use the rules like this in a friendly game is ridiculous. Even if the rules were unambiguous enough to allow this, I would still not use the flame cannon this way.

Appalling

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
13-03-2014, 12:33
Honestly, what does and doesn't fly in a friendly, non-competitive environment is pretty much irrelevant to these sorts of rules discussions. You can GET away with arguing on the basis that "well it doesn't feel right that to play it that way" or "even though the rules SAY that, I think that's unfair and should play it THIS way."

But the more competitive the environment, the more people need to stick to what's written on the page. It's easy to reach a consensus when you're playing a game of warhammer in your buddy's garage over beers. It's a lot harder when a win or a loss changes who's in the running for a tournament prize, or when your play group is so large that you're up against a different person every week. You get stuck dealing only with the rules that are actually written, and if someone comes at you with an interpretation that's different from your own you need to have the wherewithal to roll with the punches or point out where that interpretation is going wrong. When people get competitive they push harder for advantage, and you're going to see the rules bent and pushed a lot more.

I wouldn't angle a flame cannon in a friendly game, but then I also wouldn't jam a skeleton conga line in someone's face in a friendly game either. It's a totally different environment for those sorts of things. The question is: does the text of the rules support it? This is the conversation I was trying to start here.

kylek2235
13-03-2014, 18:42
Honestly, what does and doesn't fly in a friendly, non-competitive environment is pretty much irrelevant to these sorts of rules discussions. You can GET away with arguing on the basis that "well it doesn't feel right that to play it that way" or "even though the rules SAY that, I think that's unfair and should play it THIS way."

But the more competitive the environment, the more people need to stick to what's written on the page. It's easy to reach a consensus when you're playing a game of warhammer in your buddy's garage over beers. It's a lot harder when a win or a loss changes who's in the running for a tournament prize, or when your play group is so large that you're up against a different person every week. You get stuck dealing only with the rules that are actually written, and if someone comes at you with an interpretation that's different from your own you need to have the wherewithal to roll with the punches or point out where that interpretation is going wrong. When people get competitive they push harder for advantage, and you're going to see the rules bent and pushed a lot more.

I wouldn't angle a flame cannon in a friendly game, but then I also wouldn't jam a skeleton conga line in someone's face in a friendly game either. It's a totally different environment for those sorts of things. The question is: does the text of the rules support it? This is the conversation I was trying to start here.

Got a specific tournament you'd like to site? The burden of proof is higher amongst the TOs than standard gamers. The major tourney TOs I know personally don't buy into the "My Steam Tank must fly because it doesn't say it can't" rules arguments.

AUN'SHI
13-03-2014, 19:24
Here is probably what id look at

1) how does the tourney scene do it?

2) if the rule indicates that it works same as a flame thrower with the additional rule that it has it would be based off what the rule book states. Thats probably how id play it.

Necronartum
13-03-2014, 19:47
I think the problem here is that too much emphasis is being placed on the 'narrow end closest to the war machine' clause.

1. Pick a target.

2. Stick imaginary flame template with the little end on the cannon and big end facing toward the target (emphasis on big end facing the target - the one you can select within line of sight - not any target (to give you the angled shot - it is still a shooting attack)).

3. Roll artillery dice.

4. Measure distance.

5. Place template with smallest end facing cannon (for clarity - the bit you didn't do before - because of the special rule - the bit to stop people putting the template round the wrong way).

I have never interpreted it to mean 'Torrent' from 40k. Not sure if I am right, but...

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
13-03-2014, 23:10
I think the problem here is that too much emphasis is being placed on the 'narrow end closest to the war machine' clause.

1. Pick a target.

2. Stick imaginary flame template with the little end on the cannon and big end facing toward the target (emphasis on big end facing the target - the one you can select within line of sight - not any target (to give you the angled shot - it is still a shooting attack)).

3. Roll artillery dice.

4. Measure distance.

5. Place template with smallest end facing cannon (for clarity - the bit you didn't do before - because of the special rule - the bit to stop people putting the template round the wrong way).

I have never interpreted it to mean 'Torrent' from 40k. Not sure if I am right, but...


That's not how the "high power" version works, which is really the central issue. If it worked like that then no ambiguity. But it actually works like this:

1. Place a marker.

2. Roll the artillery die.

3. Move the marker.

4. Place the flame template, with the little end "closest to the cannon" and touching where the marker ended.


This isn't a matter of "my steam cannon can fly because it doesn't say I can't." It's a matter of "the rules don't give any guidance whatsoever on how the template must be placed." You have to aim it at the unit (and there's no reason you wouldn't), but there's nothing to stop you from firing the scatter line towards the side of a unit and THEN aiming the template at the unit.

They really ought to have worded it like you described, or included the previously explicit restriction that the whole thing has to be in a straight line.

Aranel
14-03-2014, 10:20
Ok...

Based on the argument you have put forward you can not utilise the flame cannon in this way. The responses seem pretty conclusive to this end.

Should you rotate the template if it were possible: No!

As Ramius summed up: case closed

GrandmasterWang
14-03-2014, 13:18
Great post Kallstrom


You guys are playing it all wrong ... you need RUNES to let your flame template do a 360 barrel roll through the opponent.

The Tamurkhan book has no bearing whatsoever on the Dwarf book. I own the both and have to disagree with you Pirate. I think you have put forward a solid case and the supercharged shot does use a different profile to the fire thrower (my dwarf book says fire thrower, mot flamethrower) however talks about the 'shot line' with the tape measure directly from the barrel to target point. "Extend the line away from the flame cannon the number of inches shown - this is where the teardrop-shaped template is placed (narrow end closest to the flame cannon)" That is the description word for word. RAW the teardrop template is placed on the shotline which extends straight from the flame cannon.

While reading this thread I thought of the crazy possibilities with impossibly aimed sheets of flame wheeling perfectly to settle completely over a horde with the grace of a ballerina however there's no question imo that the rules do not allow such shenanigans.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
14-03-2014, 18:45
The Tamurkhan book has no bearing whatsoever on the Dwarf book. I own the both and have to disagree with you Pirate. I think you have put forward a solid case and the supercharged shot does use a different profile to the fire thrower (my dwarf book says fire thrower, mot flamethrower) however talks about the 'shot line' with the tape measure directly from the barrel to target point. "Extend the line away from the flame cannon the number of inches shown - this is where the teardrop-shaped template is placed (narrow end closest to the flame cannon)" That is the description word for word. RAW the teardrop template is placed on the shotline which extends straight from the flame cannon.

While reading this thread I thought of the crazy possibilities with impossibly aimed sheets of flame wheeling perfectly to settle completely over a horde with the grace of a ballerina however there's no question imo that the rules do not allow such shenanigans.

There we go, this is what I'm talking about.

First of all, I really like your interpretation. I'd been focusing on the 'marker' as the 'target point,' which is where I found the ambiguity to exist. It seemed ambiguously worded when thinking of the flame template as "originating at the point where the marker lands," but if you read it as placing the template "along the shot line" that makes it a lot more clear. In that context the "narrow end closest to the Flame Cannon" also makes a lot more sense, since if you're placing it along a line there's really only two ways of placing the template (big end forward, or big end back).

Regarding Tamurkhan, though, I completely disagree. Both the Chaos Dwarves and the Dwarves have a flame cannon that is practically identical in function and operation. The rules of one clearly don't operate on the other, but they CAN be used when trying to determine authorial intent during an ambiguous situation. Here my concern was "the old book had this wording, the chaos dwarfs have the same wording, why did they drop it?"

(Note that they ran a poll on Dakka and fully 32% of people thought that it can fire at an angle, and the dwarf forums had a number of people who thought it could as well. It seems a lot of people had the same first impression of the rules as I did.)

bigbiggles
15-03-2014, 01:09
Looking at this book and the last 2 as well, I always thought "flame thrower +12 inches and d3 wounds". Awesome

dwarfhold13
15-03-2014, 05:09
I've never thought I would say this before, but think a little more inside the box. I think GW allows for you to utilize a minimal amount of common sense when interpreting their rules. While I can appreciate how you interpret these rules as freely as you do, I really think you are just over thinking the boundaries a bit. At this point, you are coming across simply as a troll who doesn't like when people disagree or don't apply the same amount of open mindedness toward the initial question.

Eyrenthaal
15-03-2014, 06:48
As a dwarf player my answer is no, you can't. Though it's a different kind of shot it's still a flame cannon/thrower as per the rule book.. If that's not enough to convince you then I give echo to that we are using a permissive rule set..

I have been playing since 4th ed (a fact that doesn't make me any better at the current rule set (probably worse) or in any other way..) and I've gotten used to poorly written books by now.

Now, in this permissive rule set we sometimes get FAQed.. You can read that as you like...

It doesn't have to be harder than that. No need for name calling, which in truth only reflects poorly on you (regardless if you are right or wrong) just as it would do irl..

Have a nice weekend.. :)

GreaseMonkey
15-03-2014, 14:48
Personally, I think Dwarfhold13 got it right on the head, even if sometimes rules aren't explicit on what your are or aren't allowed to to, you need to use common sense on how it is actually working. The rule book clearly states that you need to extend a shot line from barrel to target (key word here: line, not curve). The ''narrow end closest to the flame cannon'' wording is there to specify the facing of the template, it's not unseen in some rulebooks to have the opposite, the widest point closest to caster on a plague furnace comes to my mind. I don't have a BRB in front of me right now so correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you supposed to pivot your warmachine facing the target you want to shoot in the movement phase? I always played my dwarfs like that since it made sense and it would completely obliterate the need to shoot from an angle, which is arguably very gamey. If my enemy would forget to pivot his machine prior to shooting phase, I and all the players in my group would never allow him to shoot at any kind of angle.