I don’t know what the Rune of the Furnace does (don’t have the Dwarf book), but my understanding of the High Elf armour that makes them immune to flaming attacks (again, don’t have the book - I’m surmising from this thread) is that any attack with the flaming rule - be it dragon’s breath or a cannon ball lit on fire - doesn’t work against it. Since there is no in-game definition for “fire based”, all we have to go on is the flaming rule. Which, again, was written for this precise purpose.
You can play it your way but just bear in mind that it requires you to go through every Army Book and decide on an individual basis what is “fire based” and what isn’t. And there are going to be grey areas too: Salamanders, Lore of Metal spells, Tzeentch attacks, Hellcannons, etc. etc. Get ready for arguments about those things. Maybe not serious ones - it sounds like you have a decent gaming group - but it’s better to know before dice start being rolled than to have to pause in the middle of a game and debate whether Flamers of Tzeentch are fighting with limbs covered in fire, or blowing gouts of actual flame over their enemies.
I don't know what the Rune of the Furnace does (don't have the Dwarf book), but my understanding of the High Elf armour that makes them immune to flaming attacks
Thommy H
The rune of Furnace states "The bearer of this rune is immune to fire and cannot be affected by enemy attacks purely consisting of flaming attacks such as Fire Balls from a Skaven Warpfire Thrower, breath of a Hogh Elf Dragon, etc."
p 47 dwarf rule book
Flaming attacks states "Some wae machines , like the Warpfire Thrower of the Skaven, and afew arcane creatures, such as the dreaded flamers of Tzeentch, use fire as a deadley form of attack. Their attacks will cause double wounds against creatures that are flammable. The flesh of a regenerating creature cannot regenerate if it has been burnt. Wonds suffered from a flaming attack cannot be regenerated"
just if anyone needed a reference.
Neil: that last post had some very good points and I think you have convinced me at least, that immunity to fire based attacks and immune to flaming attacks is indeed different, the definitions that the brain had posted also helps clarify this. well, now Im a little dissapointed because my lord a great taurus are not as invulnerable as I had thought previously.
some supporting evidence
Ive noticed a few differences from the 6th ed high elf book and the 7th ed high elf book concerning dragon armor. (6th ed says “fire based attacks” exactly the same as chaos dwarf Ravening hordes list) 6th ed said “the model is immune to all breath attacks and any ‘fire based attacks…’” the 6th ed HE faq said:
Q. Are models wearing Dragon armour immune to hits from the Screaming Skull Catapult, since they are flaming hits? Same question with the Chariot of Fire�?Ts impact hits (and Dwarf war machine with Rune of Burning, by the way). A. They are only immune to �?~pure�?T flame attacks such as Flame Cannons, Dragon�?Ts Breath, Warpfire Throwers, Lore of Fire attack spells and the like. They are not immune to cannonballs, Chariot scythes, screaming skulls or anything else that also happens to be on fire! (Note: they are not immune to Tzeentch spells).
the 7th ed definition of dragon armor says “… the model and it’s mount are immune to all breath attacks, and all flaming attacks.” I believe this is an intended rule change.
Have fun defining each and every model with flaming attacks before a game then!
Thommy H
I don't think it would even be a 15 min conversation
Da Crusha
Have fun, because each opponent will want to twist it to his advantage, and in a tournament you are sol.
The Brain
lol, ok. there aren't really even many armies that have a plethora of flaming attacks minus tzeentch. most armies have 0 to 1 flaming things in there entire army.
Im just trying to use the rule correctly. you guys can go ahead and have fun knowingly using a rule incorrectly.
The Hellcannon does not having flaming attacks, but it’s method of firing is called “Doomfire”, and the fluff says that it lobs balls of warping daemon-fire into the air which burn their victims to death and hideously mutate them.
Would Armour of the Furnace protect against this attack?
The Hellcannon does not having flaming attacks, but it's method of firing is called "Doomfire", and the fluff says that it lobs balls of warping daemon-fire into the air which burn their victims to death and hideously mutate them.
Would Armour of the Furnace protect against this attack?
Thommy H
This thread is making my head hurt. We need to talk about something else. :hashut
The Hellcannon does not having flaming attacks, but it's method of firing is called "Doomfire", and the fluff says that it lobs balls of warping daemon-fire into the air which burn their victims to death and hideously mutate them.
Would Armour of the Furnace protect against this attack?
Thommy H
first off, it's not even a flaming attack. second, you must be reading the storm of chaos fluff because the WOC book, which has the most current rules for the hellcannon, does not mention deamon fire or burning victims. perhaps the 'fire' in doomfire refers to firing the cannon.
I think the most controversial flaming attack would be flamers of tzeentch in close combat. I would probably go to the judge at a tourney, and if he doesn't settle it, I would roll a d6.
In fact I think I will send questions to gw about the dwarf rune of the furnace (since this works most likely to Armour of the furnace) vs. every single one of the tzeentch units in a demon army. Both being current army lists I don't think they will ignore these questions.
first off, it's not even a flaming attack. second, you must be reading the storm of chaos fluff because the WOC book, which has the most current rules for the hellcannon, does not mention deamon fire or burning victims. perhaps the 'fire' in doomfire refers to firing the cannon.
Why would it matter if it's a flaming attack? Flaming attacks are already irrelevant according to what you said before... We're talking about your nebulous concept of "fire based", which it would be hard to argue doesn't apply to a Hellcannon - I think the WoC book is pretty clear about the nature of the attacks. It certainly doesn't fire shells or rockets anyway.
I'm just going to reiterate this one more time, because otherwise we're going to get bogged down in discussing every example: there is only one rule that hints at anything to do with fire in Warhamer, and that's flaming attacks. That's literally all you have to go on, in the rules. Once you start discounting examples because they don't quite make sense (never mind that we're dealing with magical armour that can stop a cannon ball 1 in 3 times anyway...), you open yourself up to all kinds of silly interpretations. I've given you one with the Hellcannon - no flaming attacks, but "fire-based" certainly. Baggronor has mentioned the Flaming Sword of Rhuin, and the Flamer attacks is a good one too. As we've said, you'd have to pick apart every example of flaming attacks (and a lot of other things too...) to get an exhaustive list of what it works against and what it doesn't, and even then someone could just turn around and say "actually, my army only count-as that thing: I've modelled them differently." In other words, what if someone uses the rules, but not the fluff? That's the main reason you can't use background to interpret rules.
Why would it matter if it's a flaming attack? Flaming attacks are already irrelevant according to what you said before... We're talking about your nebulous concept of "fire based", which it would be hard to argue doesn't apply to a Hellcannon - I think the WoC book is pretty clear about the nature of the attacks. It certainly doesn't fire shells or rockets anyway.
Thommy H
when did I say this before? feel free to quote it. my rule interpretations are correct, you just can't understand that fire based and flaming attack are different concepts.
since you believe that fire based attacks and flaming attacks are EXACTLY the same, would it be fair if a dwarf player with the rune of furnace, be immune to flaming attacks? remember rune of furnace, says, and I quote "The bearer of this rune is immune to fire and cannot be affected by enemy attacks purely consisting of flaming attacks such as fire balls, flames from a skaven warpfire thrower, breath of a high elf dragon etc." according to what you are saying we should ignore the restrictions and make this guy immune to flaming attacks and be invulnerable to flaming cannonballs and flaming bolt throwers, etc.
you can probably argue that the book came out before "flaming attacks" was even a concept, but the rune of fire grants the character flaming attacks. so the rule was in effect upon the release of the dwarf book.
you open yourself up to all kinds of silly interpretations. I've given you one with the Hellcannon - no flaming attacks, but "fire-based" certainly.
Thommy H
no it is not a fire based attack, and since you insist on using the fluff to interpret the rules I will quote the hellcannons projectile "The chaos dwarfs load there charge by brutally shovelling the bodies of there victims into the dire-furnace at the hell cannon's rear....soon the souls of the enemy are all that is left, harnessed in the hellcannons gullet as crackling bolts of energy and then heaved towards the enemy with a powerful spasm."
Baggronor has mentioned the Flaming Sword of Rhuin, and the Flamer attacks is a good one too. As we've said, you'd have to pick apart every example of flaming attacks (and a lot of other things too...) to get an exhaustive list of what it works against and what it doesn't,
Thommy H
flaming sword and flaming attacks would be the most controversial, and like I said before, first ask a judge and then roll a d6. there would not be an exhaustive list because it would not be terribly difficult to decide which one of your opponents, undoubtedly few flaming attacks, are fire based.
and even then someone could just turn around and say "actually, my army only count-as that thing: I've modelled them differently." In other words, what if someone uses the rules, but not the fluff? That's the main reason you can't use background to interpret rules.
Thommy H
regardless of how the model has been converted, it is never a factor and it is completely irrelevant. the rules are the only things that matter.
I have no idea what the Rune of the Furnace does or says - I don’t own the Dwarf book. If it makes it clear that it only applies to something that’s “pure” fire (no idea how you’d figure that out…) then fine. But we were talking about the examples of this rule in the Chaos Dwarf list.
the rules are the only things that matter.
I couldn’t agree more. Please remember: I only use the Hellcannon as an example to expose the flaws in your argument. I’m on the “flaming attacks are fire based attacks” side of the fence. But this quote doesn’t help you. There’s no “fire based” in the rules, there’s no concept of what an attack consists of. A bolt thrower is only a giant spear in terms of the model and the background - in the game, it’s just an attack that inflicts hits at a certain Strength and, if it’s upgraded to flaming attacks, then it’s fire. There’s no other way to judge it without opening a huge can of worms.
Do you see what I’m saying? I mean, you can quote all of the background text from the Hellcannon that you want, but its attack it called “doomfire” so, by the logic that Armour of the Furnace wouldn’t protect you against a flaming cannonball or whatever, it should protect against a Hellcannon’s shots. Either background text is admissible as evidence or it isn’t.
Now, I don’t think it is - and I think the only rule we have to go on is “flaming”, so that’s how it should be played - but if you’re going to decide what every model’s flaming attacks consist of then you should probably be prepared for people making points like mine about the Hellcannon and having to dice for everything all the time.
The Hellcannon arguement makes no sense to me. It isn’t a case of using the fluff to determine the rules as you seem to suggest. All ‘fire-based’ attacks are flamming, but not all flamming attacks are ‘fire based’. Logically fire based is a sub-set of flamming.
but if you’re going to decide what every model’s flaming attacks consist of then you should probably be prepared for people making points like mine about the Hellcannon and having to dice for everything all the time.
I think you are mmaking to big a deal out of this. How often have you had this come up before? I play both Chaos Dwarves and Goody-Two Shoes Dwarves, and it has never come up before, even against Daemons. Besides, who on earth is going to object when I say ‘actually those Brettonian archers with flamming arrows can hurt my Taurus?’
the rules are the only things that matter.
I couldn’t agree more.
No, no, no. The only thing that matters is having fun. :cheers
The debating is perfectly fine, but it seems people may be taking responses a lttle to heart and things may be slightly heated. If you find yourself getting anoyed, take a deep breath and reread, thinking of it as a point of view and accepting it’s not yours.
Personally, I use it as “immunity to any attack that has the flaming special rule” and I can see what Thommy is trying to say about pure fire attacks.With the Dwarf rune of the furnace, I think I play it as immunity to fire because I remember that better, but if I were to remember it exactly or somene pointed it out, I’d say a flaming attack that obviously has something solid in it (a bolt or an axe or something), then it still does damage. The easiest method with daemons is to say they are immaterial and count as not having solid attacks (though, having said that, they no longer count as magical, so CC attacks damage and ranged ones don’t. Also, they seems a little more pleasant).
Short version: unless it states purely fire attacks, just play it as any flaming attack (note that the Black Hammer of Hashut is not a flaming attack). If it says purely fire attacks, then close combat ones always count as having solid in them (the sword of rhuin is debatable as they aren’t allowed to use any weapon if memory serves), magic probably doesn’t have solid in them (metal is debatable maybe because it’s heating the armour/weapons or whatever up, rather than being actual flame, so I’d say it probably does affect them, but I’m undecided at the moment) and the rest is interpretation of waht the attack is supposed to represent. Common sense can usually tell you anyhow… (Thommy H, thismethod certainly doesn’t open the proverbial can, but seems to be the way t’s intended, despite lack of clarity ruleswise and the reliance upon fluff.)
Hey, if the rule says something about “attacks which are purely fire-based” (again, I have no idea if it says that or not) then that’s fine. I think it’s a pretty bad rule (because you can argue about certain cases forever), but there’s nothing we can do about that.
But when something is worded vaguely, such as the Armour of the Furnace and the Great Taurus’s ability, then I say you have to play it as immune to all flaming attacks simply because there is nothing else in the rules to go on. Common sense is great - honestly, I am a very firm believer in the use of house rules and player agreements to smooth things over and make the game resemble what you want it to resemble - but if we’re debating rules, then I see no other way to play it objectively.
As always, people should play how they and their opponents think best but, for my money, this is the actual answer, as near as can be.
But when something is worded vaguely, such as the Armour of the Furnace and the Great Taurus's ability, then I say you have to play it as immune to all flaming attacks simply because there is nothing else in the rules to go on.
Thommy H
well actually I have quoted sources that do help clarify the rules. 6th ed dragon armor is worded exactly the same as the chaos dwarf wording, and the faq rules against immunity to all flaming attacks. and the rune of the furnace is worded similarly and also rules against immunity to all flaming attacks. so there are other rules to go on.
on the other hand, if your opponent agrees to play it as immune to flaming attacks, then it would be fine.
