PDA

View Full Version : Salamanders spit what? fire!



Dogskills
03-10-2006, 15:09
This is probebly a noob Q but anyway here it goes: Does elven dragon armour protect against lizzie salamander spit attacks ??
Thankful for quick respons.

ZomboCom
03-10-2006, 15:30
Yes it does. The salamander spit has been FAQed as flaming, so dragon armour is immune to it.

T10
03-10-2006, 15:30
Do the salamanders spit fire?

-T10

Flame
03-10-2006, 15:32
Yes, they do.

Gekiganger
03-10-2006, 16:54
I thought it was a form of digestive acid. I'm sure it says somwhere that it partialy digests the meal before the salamander devours it.

Revlid
03-10-2006, 16:56
Salamanders spit acid, not fire. But a bunch of idiots ran around going "ZOMG IT CALLED GOUTS FLAMEZ!!1!" and got it FAQ'ed.

shartmatau
03-10-2006, 17:19
Tastes like burning

Ganymede
03-10-2006, 17:27
They actually do spit fire. It is an evolutionary adaption that allows them to be lethal both above and below water. Below water,they move like lightning. On land, they are pretty sluggish, so the ability to spew flames is quite useful. The burning substance floats on water so that a well timed shot can pin potential prey under the water's surface.

Dogskills
03-10-2006, 17:42
Thank you a bundle!

ZomboCom
03-10-2006, 19:28
Look, the official lizardmen FAQ says the spit is flaming, and the rule is called "spout flames".

Why is there even any discussion neccesary?

NakedFisherman
03-10-2006, 19:38
It's acid that prevents Regeneration. :p

nathonicus
03-10-2006, 19:52
This is one of my biggest beefs about GW. Sloppiness. I'm generally not one to get upset about fluff, but IMO GW really messed up with this version of Lizardmen, with new fluff that totally contradicts the last edition, such as the organization of skink/saurus society. (not to mention the STUPID allocation of shortbows ONLY to Southlands armies, so that if you had the old edition minis you had to choose either to leave out your Saurs warriors and play southlands, or play regular and buy all new skinks! AGH!)

Ok...here's the beef. As far as I recollect, I was vastly annoyed by the new text because it refers to the salamander's projectile as both FIRE and ACID in the same paragraph. GAR! I'll double check when I get home, but I do remember having fits when I read it. So inconsistent. In 5th, it was acid. Acid makes sense. Spitting fire don't.

But I guess officially it's fire.

Wings of Doom
03-10-2006, 20:00
Acid makes sense. Spitting fire don't.

... Its a fantasy game. With Dragons and such. Dragons spit fire, and that doesn't make sense, but its a fictional fantasy game, where things don't have to make sense (or, for example, obey the laws of physics).

Prehaps it's acid that burns when it comes out of the salamander (fiery reaction with air)?
Or prehaps GW just screwed up again? Does it really matter? The rules (well, the F.A.Q) say that its a fire attack, so it's a fire attack, and game-wise there's nothing you can do about it, unless you use a house rule in which it is not a fire attack. So really there's no point complaining.

NakedFisherman
03-10-2006, 20:03
I don't understand why counting as Flaming in the rules means it must be fire.

Wings of Doom
03-10-2006, 20:13
Because logically flames come from fire?

DragonPup
03-10-2006, 21:30
Back to the original question(The High Elf Dragon Armor), the rules for Dragon Armor specifically state the wearer is immune to breathe *and* fire(I left my book at home, so I don't have the exact wording). Salamanders could breathe fruity pebbles as their breath weapon and dragon armor would still negate it.

Gekiganger
03-10-2006, 21:40
'Highly corrosive, flaming liquid from their gullet that burns and incapacitates their prey. *snip* 'Witin the bodies is an organ that produces this fiery venom.'

In the old book it was Venom. Not it's Flames... liquid flames... that incapacitates victims... What was the point in that?

unwanted
03-10-2006, 22:04
It's acid that prevents Regeneration. :p
This would have made more sense, but there ya go :rolleyes:

Griefbringer
04-10-2006, 07:25
Don't forget that amongst the breath attack there are likely to be various remains of the salamanders former skink handlers, to further add to the damage caused.

druchii
04-10-2006, 17:53
Look, the official lizardmen FAQ says the spit is flaming, and the rule is called "spout flames".

Why is there even any discussion neccesary?

Because people forget that fluff and rules don't mix.

About a year ago(on portent!) someone had drudged up a threada bout Tzeentch magic being called "flames, fire, etc." and asked why it wasn't considered a "fire" attack.

The obvious answer is "because GW didn't say it is, ruleswise."

Really you'll see people confuse this alot, and I think the rules are quite clear.

There's nothing stating that acid can't "count as" a flaming attack. Acid can still count as flaming and NOT BE FIRE BASED. In reality you can see the same sort of similarities between chemical burns, and heat-inflicted burns. The burns still come from two different sources (acid/fire) but in still render the same effects.

Sometimes I think people just want to complain.
d

Griefbringer
04-10-2006, 17:58
Sometimes I think people just want to complain.
d

In Warseer, it is more than just sometimes... :cool:

Unwise
05-10-2006, 05:06
Something can accurately be described as acidic, noxious and burning-hot at the same time. The idea behind the salamander attack is actually quiet realistic. Look at the bombardier beetle. It is a real beetle that shoots chemicals that burn at 212F. Things dont need to be fire to burn, and I mean burn not just dissolve. The chemical attack is not fire, but once it hits something, whatever it hits will ignite.

Check out:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/BMBTTL.HTM
(this is the first link I found about it, it is actually some creation vs evolution site, but the first few paragraphs are relevant.

Ganymede
05-10-2006, 05:54
That site brings up a good point. Why are we whining about the fact that salamanders now spew fire instead of acid? Obviously it was God's will.

Gekiganger
05-10-2006, 06:56
There's nothing stating that acid can't "count as" a flaming attack. Acid can still count as flaming and NOT BE FIRE BASED. In reality you can see the same sort of similarities between chemical burns, and heat-inflicted burns. The burns still come from two different sources (acid/fire) but in still render the same effects.

Sometimes I think people just want to complain.
d

It's not acid that burns though. It was acid in 5th ed but GW seem to have changed it because young people will love 'teh fayar spitin dinosawwr'. Before it was venom-acid now it's flame-liquid.

Why do GW continuously downgrade good things?

Ganymede
05-10-2006, 17:07
Switching from acid to fire is a downgrade? I think you may be begging the question there man.

Festus
05-10-2006, 18:16
Hi

Mythologically speaking, fire is more in touch with our world than acid, as Salamanders were taken as fire-beasts which could not be harmed by fire themselves (but were said to be fiery hot and to transport the fire into the homes, thus starting town fires. They were killed because of that):


The mythical salamander resembles the real salamander somewhat in appearance, but makes its home in fires, the hotter the better. (Similarly, the salamander in heraldry is shown in flames, but is otherwise depicted as a generic lizard.) Early travelers to China were shown garments supposedly woven from salamander wool; the cloth was completely unharmed by fire. The garments had actually been woven from asbestos. Later Paracelsus suggested that the salamander was the elemental of fire. Because of this, salamanders have often been associated with dragons because of their connection with fire. These myths originate in Europe from the fire salamander, Salamandra salamandra, which hibernates in and under rotting logs. When logs were brought indoors and put on the fire, the animals mysteriously appeared from the flames.

Festus

Dead
05-10-2006, 20:46
i can't find the part of the FAQ that states it's a flaming attack. maybe the version i got on the games workshop website is old. anyone got a link?

Festus
05-10-2006, 20:57
Anthony Reynolds FAQ on the web.

Revlid
05-10-2006, 21:22
Because people forget that fluff and rules don't mix.

About a year ago(on portent!) someone had drudged up a threada bout Tzeentch magic being called "flames, fire, etc." and asked why it wasn't considered a "fire" attack.

The obvious answer is "because GW didn't say it is, ruleswise."


The less obvious but more valid answer is that the Flames of Tzeentch are described multiple times as mutating the things it hits rather than burning them. They're not actually flames at all, that simply describes the chaos-energy best.


They actually do spit fire. It is an evolutionary adaption that allows them to be lethal both above and below water. Below water,they move like lightning. On land, they are pretty sluggish, so the ability to spew flames is quite useful. The burning substance floats on water so that a well timed shot can pin potential prey under the water's surface.

Then please explain why Salamanders have the same movement in and out of the water? Or why "sluggish" is represented by M6?

Dogskills
05-10-2006, 21:34
Look, the official lizardmen FAQ says the spit is flaming, and the rule is called "spout flames".

Why is there even any discussion neccesary?

Because my friend is a bullheaded donkey and wont give up without a fight..

Ganymede
06-10-2006, 00:50
Then please explain why Salamanders have the same movement in and out of the water? Or why "sluggish" is represented by M6?


Oh god, here we go.

Because of the Aquatic special rule, Salamanders would travel at twice the speed that ordinary, move 6 troops would go in water.

conversely, you could imagine their fine speed through water in contrast with the fact that they can not move faster on land. moving six inches through water is quite a feat, while moving six inches over land is not very impressive.

Why am I even bothering tell you this? anything can be rationalized if you try hard enough.

Dead
06-10-2006, 14:21
reality and gaming rules, never the two shall meet

mageith
06-10-2006, 15:31
[COLOR="red"]About a year ago(on portent!) someone had drudged up a threada bout Tzeentch magic being called "flames, fire, etc." and asked why it wasn't considered a "fire" attack.

The obvious answer is "because GW didn't say it is, ruleswise."

I don't remember GW ever saying, explicitly.

They did say this about the salamander


Is Salamander Spray a Fire Attack or not? The description is unclear whether its fire or acid. A: The special rule is called Spout Flame . Yes, it is flaming! Q+A November 2003

They used the name of the rule as their justification. All the Tzeentch spells have flame in their spell names.

So instead of saying they screwed up and forgot to put the flaming special rule for the Salamander they appealed to common sense, ie, the name of the rule makes it obvious.

Applying that same common sense to Tzeentch leads to the obvious conclusion that all Tzeentch spells are flame.

No wonder it's confusing.:) Or as another poster put it, "sloppiness".

Mage Ith

Milgram
06-10-2006, 16:34
They actually do spit fire. It is an evolutionary adaption that allows them to be lethal both above and below water. Below water,they move like lightning. On land, they are pretty sluggish, so the ability to spew flames is quite useful. The burning substance floats on water so that a well timed shot can pin potential prey under the water's surface.

well, I'm slow in the water and I'm pretty sluggish on land. where is my advantage? :(

/edit: yes, I can write stupid posts while on land.

ZomboCom
06-10-2006, 16:56
So instead of saying they screwed up and forgot to put the flaming special rule for the Salamander they appealed to common sense, ie, the name of the rule makes it obvious.

Applying that same common sense to Tzeentch leads to the obvious conclusion that all Tzeentch spells are flame.

No wonder it's confusing.:) Or as another poster put it, "sloppiness".

Mage Ith

Right, except that the high elf FAQ for dragon armour says that dragon armour is not immune to Tzeentch spells....

NakedFisherman
06-10-2006, 17:07
Right, except that the high elf FAQ for dragon armour says that dragon armour is not immune to Tzeentch spells....

But that has little to do with them being flaming...

Revlid
06-10-2006, 17:34
But Tzeentch Spells aren't flaming, and for good reason. :wtf:

EDIT: Yay, 300 posts!

NakedFisherman
06-10-2006, 17:56
But Tzeentch Spells aren't flaming, and for good reason. :wtf:

I never understood this myself: where is it stated that they are not flaming attacks?

ZomboCom
06-10-2006, 18:51
But that has little to do with them being flaming...

Errr... Yes it does.

Dragon armour is only immune to flaming attacks.

Dragon armour is not immune to Tzeentch spells.

Therefore Tzeench spells cannot be flaming.

DeathlessDraich
06-10-2006, 19:31
Tzeentch spells: Red Fire, Orange Fire, Green Fire, Blue Fire, Indigo Fire, Violet Fire.

Can there be no flames in a fire?
Or do magical fires have no flames?

NakedFisherman
06-10-2006, 19:45
Errr... Yes it does.

Dragon armour is only immune to flaming attacks.

Dragon armour is not immune to Tzeentch spells.

Therefore Tzeench spells cannot be flaming.

That would be true if the first premise was true.

It's not, however.

A Dwarf Cannon with the Rune of Burning is a flaming attack, but Dragon Princes are not immune to it.

Dragon Princes are not immune to Tzeentch spells because they aren't. That doesn't mean Tzeentch spells aren't flaming.

druchii
06-10-2006, 20:53
I don't remember GW ever saying, explicitly.

They did say this about the salamander


Is Salamander Spray a Fire Attack or not? The description is unclear whether its fire or acid. A: The special rule is called Spout Flame . Yes, it is flaming! Q+A November 2003

They used the name of the rule as their justification. All the Tzeentch spells have flame in their spell names.

So instead of saying they screwed up and forgot to put the flaming special rule for the Salamander they appealed to common sense, ie, the name of the rule makes it obvious.

Applying that same common sense to Tzeentch leads to the obvious conclusion that all Tzeentch spells are flame.

No wonder it's confusing.:) Or as another poster put it, "sloppiness".

Mage Ith

My post wasn't about the accuracy of GWs rules, only that one cannot assume something is counted as a "flaming" attack unless GW says it is.

In the case of the Salamander's shooting GW forgot this special rule. Unfortunately, before the FAQ was released, no ammount of "reasoning" could have convinced me that they were anything other than a special form of shooting.

Simply put: The NAME of the specific attack/ability/etc has no bearing on the actual "content" of the attack/ability/etc.

We get two sperate items: the name of the attack/ability/etc, and then the rules. GW could call something "target opponent loses the game at the beginning of his next turn", and then include the description of the special rule:"At the start of your opponent's turn, he wins the game."*

There we see the name of the rule and the description of the rule directly contradicting eachother, but obviously the description of the rule trumps the name(which is just a name!).


That would be true if the first premise was true.

It's not, however.

A Dwarf Cannon with the Rune of Burning is a flaming attack, but Dragon Princes are not immune to it.

Dragon Princes are not immune to Tzeentch spells because they aren't. That doesn't mean Tzeentch spells aren't flaming.

Quite right, but Tzeentch spells aren't flaming because they do not have the "Tzeentch spells count as flaming attacks" (like the Lore of Fire, for example).

The real question is where do we draw the line on arbitrary association with flame?

Would the Burning Blade of Chotec(from the lizardman book) count as a flaming attack, it it did not have the "counts as a flaming attack" in the description? I'd say no.

There is an argument that things with the "flaming" descriptor obviously don't need to be clarified as a "flaming" attack again, but I still prefer to seperate the item/rule/ability/etc name from the actual, in-game functioning.

IF that isn't a brain-teaser, tell me what does and doesn't count as a frost attack(in regards to the empire item cloak of the whitewolf)

d

NakedFisherman
06-10-2006, 23:34
Many flaming attacks are not explictly stated.

The Warpfire Throwers certainly is a flaming attack, for instance.

ZomboCom
07-10-2006, 00:36
Don't give me the "well they're not immune to flaming cannonballs" argument. That holds no water, because there it's a cannon ball doing the damage, the flame is an extra. For a spell the flames themselves would do the damage, which is why dragon armour is immune to the lore of fire.

Since it certainly isn't a pure flaming attack, that leaves two possibilities.

One, Tzeentch magic somehow manages to be flaming while ignoring dragon armour's special rules, and somehow has more in common with a flaming cannon ball than a non flaming spell.

Two, Tzeentch magic isn't flaming.

I know which seems the more likely to me.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have a flaming spell that can hurt dragon armour. It's either flaming or it's not, and if it's flaming then it must have the drawbacks of a flaming attack, namely that dragon armour is immune to it.

The evidence for it not being flaming is this:

Dragon Armour isn't immune to it.
Dragon Armour is immune to all known flaming spells.
Nowhere is it written that they are flaming.


The evidence for it being flaming is this:

The spells have the word "fire" in the name, i.e. in the fluff not the rules.


I know which is more believable.

DragonPup
07-10-2006, 01:36
Also, dragon armor is immune to breath weapons, reguardless of type. The exact wording is "The model is immune to all breath attacks, and any fire-based attack(including spells from the Lore of Fire)."

NakedFisherman
07-10-2006, 04:01
The spells have the word "fire" in the name, i.e. in the fluff not the rules.
[/i]

I know which is more believable.

An honest inquery: do you think they're immune to Warpfire Throwers?

DeathlessDraich
08-10-2006, 12:57
You can't have a flaming spell that can hurt dragon armour. It's either flaming or it's not, and if it's flaming then it must have the drawbacks of a flaming attack, namely that dragon armour is immune to it.
The spells have the word "fire" in the name, i.e. in the fluff not the rules.
[/i]


The exact rules are as DragonPup quoted:
"The model is immune to all breath attacks, and any fire-based attack(including spells from the Lore of Fire)."

'Flaming' is not used. 'Fire based' is.

The word 'base' ('fire based' instead of fire, flaming or 'fiery' attacks) broadens the rule sufficiently to encompass flaming, fiery, fire etc attacks.
Anything with a hint of fire including possibly the 'hot curry' attack from the halfling hot pot of the future.:D