The fire-based and flaming rules were pretty confusing in 6th, it seems obvious to me that the 7th edition rules were forumulated to remove the confusion over “pure” flame and its subjective nature, and unfortunately the dwarf army book came out before then.
Q. If a model (or its mount) equipped with
Dragon Armour is hit by a flaming
cannonball, flaming bolt, flaming sword, and
so on, is the model immune to the entire
attack, or will they still be crushed by the
underlying bolt, cannonball, sword, etc.?
A. They are immune to the entire attack. The
rules are clear, and obviously the alchemical
reason for this is that the armour repels both
the element of fire and the vessel that is
imbued with it.
That seems to clear up the issue completely, just as I thought "immune to teh entire attack"
Source.
ok you guys must be reading what you want to read and skipping over my posts. because earlier I was talking about the 6th ed dragon armor that says immune to fire based attacks exactly the same as chaos dwarf armour of the furnace and the 6th ed high elf faq ruled the armour to only block fire based attacks.
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.
So…they had a magic item that caused confusion because of the arbitrary definition of “fire based attacks” during 6th Edition and they changed it in 7th Edition so that it was totally immune to all flaming attacks in line with the tightening up of the concept of “flaming” in 7th Edition?
So...they had a magic item that caused confusion because of the arbitrary definition of "fire based attacks" during 6th Edition and they changed it in 7th Edition so that it was totally immune to all flaming attacks in line with the tightening up of the concept of "flaming" in 7th Edition?
What does that tell you?
Thommy H
that tells me that you are finally acknowledging that there is a difference between fire based attacks and flaming attacks.
No, it tells you that they changed it for a reason. Because there is no rule for “fire based”, they altered the item that utilised that nebulous term at the first opportunity and made it apply to “flaming attacks” which do exist.
“Fire based” is arbitrary and dependent on interpreting fluff.
“Flaming” is definite and based on rules.
One potentially causes arguments, the other is crystal clear.
I haven’t read all this thread, where it may have been covered already, but my understanding of this based on the DoC FAQ is that there has to be a specific mention in the rules if a missile or close combat attack is a ‘flaming attack’.
the Flaming Attacks rule only covers close combat and missile attacks
FAQ
Note that this also includes magic missiles from spells.
This may be something they correct in 8th ed, that things are either Immune to all Fire Based Attacks, or Immune to Flaming Attacks…
Edit:
Immune to flaming attacks would only include:
close combat (as per weapons from the rulebook)
regular missile (not artillery, as per ‘missile weapons’ from the rulebook)
magical missiles from spells (not artillery)
Immune to all fire based attacks would also include all fire based attacks that are not:
close combat
regular missile
magical missiles from spells
I.e. flaming projectiles (from artillery or weapon teams) or flame based attacks that use the template.
This splits the nature of how the attack is made, from close combat or missile weapons (from rulebook) to breath or artillery ones (which are entirely flame or not a close combat or missile weapon).
Interestingly the rulebook puts the warpfire thrower in under a flaming attack, when it is not really a magic missile or a missile attack (there is no spell involved and there is no ‘missile’). I guess the rules confusion arises because a ‘missile attack’ could be from artillery.
Grim, I don’t think that’s the definition of flaming attacks at all. That line refers only to the use of flaming attacks in the context of those models - in other words, they have the flaming attacks rule as part of their standard special rules, and the question is asking if it applies to everything they do (i.e. their spells as well as close combat and missile attacks). It doesn’t, but that’s not a general rule for everything. If something is a flaming attack then it’s a flaming attack.
If something is a flaming attack then it's a flaming attack.
thommy
I'm sure what constitutes a flaming attack in one army is a flaming attack in another. It's only a flaming attack when it has a Flaming Attacks special rule, or they wouldn't have bothered including it in the FaQ. It shows their thinking on the matter anyway. ;)
It's a shame GW left it with so much confusion really.
That FAQ doesn’t address immunity to flaming attacks, it addresses whether models which have the flaming attacks rule can apply that to every single kind of attack they might make (such as spells or, I suppose, if they were crewing a war machine). The answer is that they can’t - it just applies to their close combat and missile attacks. That’s not a general guideline about flaming attacks though. For instance, a war machine with the flaming attacks rule would still have flaming attacks.
There is still no guidance on what difference, if any, there is between “fire based” and “flaming”. I’m of the opinion that there isn’t one - “fire based” doesn’t necessarily mean “just fire, no solid projectile or weapon in the middle of it”. All it is is the term they used before they realised they needed to tighten up the definition. There’s no indication whatsoever that they’re any different and all the examples of “fire based” come from before 7th Edition.
I’ve always played the Armour of the Furnace as immune to any attack that has the flaming rule. Da Crusha: it seems you’re quoting the 6th edition book which is superceded by the 7th that Thommy H quoted. Essentially, it’s telling us that it has immunity to the flaming special rule. It seems everything is going round in circles now. The old High Elf book, the Dwraf book (which came out before the update to 7th edition) and the Chaos Dwarf pamphplet (3 editions out of date now) all make some distinction between flaming attacks and pureflame attacks, whereas in the new rules it seems to be simply be “immunity to flaming”. If you wish to make houserules, it’ll take hashing them all out, otherwise, simply play as immunity to flaming.
I disagree that the Chaos Dwarf rules in Ravening Hordes ever made any claim that the Armour of Furnace/Great Taurus only protects against “pure fire”. It says “fire based” - that doesn’t imply anything about it only working against things that don’t have some solid component. If fire is involved, the attack doesn’t work. To me, that’s the same definition as flaming attacks.
I don’t recall it having said immunity to pure fire attacks either but I don’t have it to hand either way using the seventh edition rules it’s best to say just play immune to any flaming attack.
I vote immune to fire is immune to all flaming stuff because that way everyone is treated the same (no ‘I paid xpts more for this’ or ‘My book supercedes yours’ arguments) but everyone’s gaming groups will reach their own conclusions.
We can debate this until the cows come home, but we won’t reach a satisfactory conclusion because there isn’t one due to GW’s rubbish wording.
For all those still interested, this is from the GW rulebook FAQ part two from this spring:
Special Rules
Q. If an attack is obviously based on fire (such as
a Dwarf Flame Cannon�?Ts shot), but it was
published before the term �?~Flaming Attack�?T was
formalised in seventh edition, does it count as a
Flaming Attack or not?
A. We cannot answer this question with an allencompassing
rule (as a few ruthless individuals
out there would be sure to exploit it for their evil
schemes!), but in three specific cases we can be
more precise: hits from Flame Cannons, Warpfire
Throwers and Salamanders�?T ranged attacks all count
as Flaming Attacks.
This should answer any any questions about these 3 anyway. As for other issues, it may seem silly that immunity to fire stops a flaming cannonball but maybe just think of it as not stopping the cannonball but slightly deflecting it by repelling the fire element in it. Kind of like trying to force two north poles of very powerful magnets together; they will strongly repel. Even if one is in the end of a baseball bat it would be difficult to strike the two together.