Baggronor:
So, in context, "immune to flaming attacks" can only mean that they ignore any attack with the flaming rule. There is no other possible interpretation of the rule, except one which has no use whatsoever to the army in question.Yup, pretty silly but its that or nothing. Hopefully they'll fix it in the next edition, like give flaming attacks a re-roll to wound or something else extra, and make them more of an ability.
The Brain:
Baggronor
Yup, pretty silly but its that or nothing. Hopefully they'll fix it in the next edition, like give flaming attacks a re-roll to wound or something else extra, and make them more of an ability.There is no reason to give flaming attacks anything else they are good ennough as they are. To do double wounds to a treeman or tomb prince is a bid deal. To take away a troll of Vampires regen is a big deal flaming attacks work fine the way they are. Flaming attacks have a specific purpose as the examples that I already explained, but they are not desined to work on everything. Just like having a simple magical weapon will allow you to harm an ethereal creature. You have to keep in mind that it every special rule worked against everyone then you too many special rules and the game would get boring. Immune to fire based attacks is very clear it it at all comes or involves fire it does not affect the target.
Neil:
I am sorry to say that I will have to go against the concensus here. I have always played both the Taurus and the Armour the same way as the Dwarf Rune of the Furnace. The text clearly states “fire based” whereas Dragon Armour states “Flamming Attacks”
In my opinion Dragons breath is a fire based attck and a flamming attack. A dwarf cannon with the rune of burning is not a fire based attack (its cannon ball based), although it is flammimg.
I see what you are saying, that if it was written now the text would probably read the same as for Dragon armour, but it wasn’t and it doesn’t, and as someone else said earlier it doesn’t make sense from a fluff/logic persepective either. It’s just one of those little quirks that we have to tolerate (in the same way that a troll could regenerate attacks from the Black Hammer, it probably should be a flammimg attack, but it isn’t)
Even with this limitation, I still think the Armour of the Furnace is worth it’s points (especially against Daemons).
Thommy H:
So flaming things are not fire-based attacks? I’m not sure that makes much sense. As far as I know, every single thing with the flaming rule has fluff text saying it’s on fire. It’s kind of what the word “flaming” means.
Swissdictator:
Navies of old used to fire “Hot Shot”… which we could equate to the Rune of Burning. The point of the attack was not entirely the cannonball, but the fact you’d be setting sails on fire… or more importantly: gundpowder.
Taking it into the magical realm of warhammer, instead of a heated ball it would logical that it essentially turns it into a magical fire ball that hurtles towards the enemy… an actual transformation. That’s why shots from cannons with the Rune of Burning can kill of Ethereals, or negate the Forest Spirit Ward.
The Brain:
Taking it into the magical realm of warhammer, instead of a heated ball it would logical that it essentially turns it into a magical fire ball that hurtles towards the enemy... an actual transformation. That's why shots from cannons with the Rune of Burning can kill of Ethereals, or negate the Forest Spirit Ward.You are absolutely right Swiss. Once the cannon ball has a rune on it, it is then a magical attack. The magic of the armour negates the magical attack no matter what it was before the rune was placed on it.
Swissdictator
Neil:
So flaming things are not fire-based attacks?Well its on fire, but its not fire based. I would argue that if it is fire based, the attack is completely made of fire and nothing else. So Dragon Breath, Fire Magic, Warpfire etc are fire based, as they are just big gouts of flame shooting across the place.
Thommy H
The Brain:
Neil
If you are unlucky enough to get hit in the face with a flamming cannon ball, you will die because it takes your head off, not because it sets you on fire? Won't you? If it burns you too, then thats just an added bonus for whoever fired it.You are thinking too literally about it. This is not physics, it is fantasy. The magic of the armour stops the attack completely. That�?Ts why its magic its not supposed to be possible in the real world.
Thommy H
Thommy H:
Well its on fire, but its not fire based.This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The Brain is right though: there isn't really any logic here. Your definition of fire-based is too arbitrary to apply consistently in a game - I could see you arguing around in circles with an opponent about what's "fire-based" and what's "flaming". The flaming rule was actually created to handle this exact problem.
The Brain:
Its not real gaming unless there is a fight about rules :)
It would be nice to have a hobby that was not this complicated. You never see stamp collector argue like this.
Thommy HI could see you arguing around in circles with an opponent about what’s “fire-based” and what’s “flaming”.[/quote
Neil:
Your definition of fire-based is too arbitrary to apply consistently in a game - I could see you arguing around in circles with an opponent about what's "fire-based" and what's "flaming".Really? Is it not just a case of if there is something solid in the middle of it (eg a cannon ball, and arrow, a sword etc) the it isn't 'fire-based' and if there is something solid in there it isn't. I doubt I would have much trouble convincing my opponent as 99 times out of 100 it would be to his benefit.
Thommy H
You never see stamp collector argue like this.We aren't argueing are we? I hate arguements. I am just saying what I think and asking what you think.
The Brain
Baggronor:
completely made of fire and nothing else. So Dragon Breath, Fire Magic, Warpfire etc are fire based, as they are just big gouts of flame shooting across the place.Some of those are magic though, so they're not just fire, there's magical energy in it too (plus warpfire is a jet of burning fuel too, not just fire). Enough of a difference that it hits ethereals, negates tree spirit saves and wards based on magic/mundane attacks. And what about salamanders? Technically they don't even breathe actual fire. What about the Lore of metal spells that 'count as' flaming but aren't actual gouts of fire, but white-hot metal? Its a very grey area.
The flaming rule was actually created to handle this exact problem.Ye.
You never see stamp collector argue like this.No, but you don't see them having fun either :)
The Brain:
Neil
Incidentaly, the Dwarf Rune of the Furnace has a similar wording to the Armour of the Furnace. How do you play that?At the local gW store where i play at we have always counted the rune of furnace at if it has the word fire or flaming in it then it is harmless to the person that has the rune.
Thommy H
Neil:
At the local gW store where i play at we have always counted the rune of furnace at if it has the word fire or flaming in it then it is harmless to the person that has the rune.Even though the Rune specifically says in it's rule that the attack must consit entirely of flames (something like that - I can't recall the exact wording) Don't forget this was written after the Flamming rule was invented.
The Brain
Its a very grey area.I have to say that I don't think that it is such a grey area as you are making out. Lore of Fire, Metal, Tzeentch, Warpfire, Flame Cannons, Creature Breath are all Fire based attacks. The damage is done by the flames, not by any liquid or magical energy that be mixed in.
Baggronor
Thommy H:
Tzeentch magic doesn’t involve magical energy? I’m pretty sure the Lore of Metal spells that are flaming attacks are ones that involve metal heating up or liquid metal being thrown through the air too. Plus, surely Flamers of Tzeentch fight with gouts of actual fire, not weapons that are set on fire? Clearly there’s room for interpretation here.
Bottom line: there is one rule here, and that’s “flaming attacks”. There’s no such rule as “fire based” or “actually a solid weapon, but set on fire”. It’s either fire, or it’s not fire. When you start looking at models or reading fluff to interpret rules, that’s when arguments start. Pretty soon you’re questioning why some things are large targets when others aren’t when the models are the same size, or why undead, daemons and forest spirits aren’t immune to poisoned attacks. You just can’t apply strict logic to the rules of the game in that way.
Warhammer used to be that way back before 6th Edition, when players were required to rely upon common sense to interpret various things. Nice idea, but we all know that some players will bend that kind of thing to their advantage.
Neil:
Prehaps a better definition would be if the damage is done by the heat alone, but I think that we may just have to agree to disagree about this.
we all know that some players will bend that kind of thing to their advantage.Luckily for me I only play at my local club, so its easy for me to avoid that sort of player, and we never (touch wood) have arguments.
Thommy H
Thommy H:
Prehaps a better definition would be if the damage is done by the heat aloneThe issue is deciding when this is the case. You'd pretty much have to go through every model in the game with flaming attacks and decide on a case-by-case basis. For example, some Tzeentch spells are flaming - do they just use the heat of the magically-generated fire, or is it "magical fire", in which case someone could argue that it's actually the magic doing the damage and the fire is the form it happens to take. What about the Hellcannon? It doesn't have flaming attacks, but it's shots are called "Doomfire" and specify that they consist of bolts of incandescent Daemon-fire - so would things that are proof against "fire based" attacks work against that?
Swissdictator:
@Thommy
Well said. Besides this is a FANTASY game with magic, undead, daemons, and among goofy stuff… since when did we go overboard being realistic. 
Should a ward save be view in the same light than? I’m just saying… why would Bret knights be able to stop a bolt from a bolt thrower with the a simple blessing?
Rules like this just allow us to game on! Besides… it’s not a game breaker… and there should be a small risk for making your bolts or cannonballs flaming.
Baggronor:
And finally, what about Flaming Sword of Rhuin? 
Its pure flame, but its still a sword and a magical attack!
Neil:
Oh alright then, one last try to convince you all. The wording for the Armour of the Furncae is not identical, but very similar to the Dwarf Rune of the Furnace Close enough to suggest to me that the two items work in the same manner.
A quick search on the interwebnet turned up 4 (there may be more, I got bored of looking, and there will probably be others that support your point of view too if you care to look) cases of people playing it how I have been interpreting both items.
Bugmans Brewery
Warhammer Forum 1
Warhammer Forum 2
Warhammer Forum 3
(You will have to scroll down to find the relavant part - might be quicker to do a search this page for Furnace)
If you aren’t convinced, then that’s ok. I can fully see and understand your points of view. :hat off However, too me it still just doesn’t seem right to play it your way. Sorry, so I think I will have to remian unconvinced.