Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
WFT vs Dragon Armour; bad wording
Topic Started: 3rd May 2008 - 12:39 PM (671 Views)
scrivener
Member Avatar
*toot*

Glod-Unbaraki
May 19 2008, 12:13 PM
The 7th ed. errata for HE on the GW site doesn't mention the WFT as a flame weapon. And it isn't mentioned in our Errata at all.

-Glod

That would be because the 7th edition rule for Dragon's Armour is now different.
Quote:
 
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.

The definition of what's a "pure" flaming attack is no longer the issue with this new errata, so that old example was no longer relevant. But that doesn't change the WFT definition from the last errata, because simply no longer mentioning a skaven issue in a 7th High Elf armybook's errata doesn't change the rules for skaven.

And it's not mentioned in our errata, but our errata is nowhere as comprehensive as it should be anyway. It doesn't cover the stuff FAQ-ed in the Alessio interview, for starters. the Chronicles FAQ I gave is dated 2004, and would apply to the current skaven book until there's either a new errata negating it, or we get the 7th edition skaven book. And that still doesn't change the fact that the WFT is indeed given as an example of a Flaming Attack in the BRB.

Is the only reason why it's not considered a Flaming Attack in this thread is because it's not expressly labelled as so in the armybook or errata? Go through the list of rather obvious flame-based weapons in the game (salamanders, dwarf flame cannons) and note how little of them are labelled "Flaming Attacks!" or FAQ-ed as so in the erratas. Yet they are, to be sensible, flame attacks. Here's an excerpt from Direwolf as well regarding the FAQ-ing of the salamander Flame Attack and why not making it to an official errata sometimes does happen.

Quote:
 
... Alessio was kind enough to answer the Salamander / Flaming Attacks questions.

Per Alessio the Salamander 'Spout Flame' attack does indeed count as Flaming. As the Lizardmen FAQ on the SoK is in very good shape he doesn't expect to amend the FAQ, but will make sure that there is a note placed in the UK GT rulespack to that effect.

The Direwolf Lizardmen FAQ has been updated to reflect Alessio's answer as the Source. (The answer matches the same answer we received from Anthony Reynolds several years ago).
hannanibal
 
*Angry mob assembles*

"WHAT DO WE WANT!!??"
"A THINNISH, WATERY PAINT WITH A GREENER TINGE THAN AGRAX EARTHSHADE!!"
"WHEN DO WE WANT IT!?"
"QUITE SOON PLEASE AS MY LAST POT IS RUNNING OUT!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Skaven Lord Vinshqueek
Member Avatar
Bunny ear says flop

scrivener
May 19 2008, 08:57 AM
This though, raises the interesting question: When is Red Fire not fire, and a DreadLance not a lance? When it's a Jar?

Well, an Impropability Drive could see to that... :P

Nah, even while it's mentioned in the earlier Chronicles, I still find it somewhat strange that a universal rule (flammable attack) isn't listed in an overall errata afterwards. Still, it seems to be that the WFT counts as flammable then, so the answer would be that until we either get a new errata, or when the Skaven armybook arrives, the WFT indeed does nothing against Dragon Armour then... Too bad.

Just makes you wonder though... If it misfires and runs into a unit of Dragon Armour wearing Elves, would they then still be immune to the misfire template as well? :P

Greetz
In the Horned One we trust, all others we monitor.

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Skaven track record [W/D/L] @ 17th of August, 2014: BB 34/19/55; MH 9/2/6; WHF 17/8/30
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rubberchrist
Member Avatar
Shennanigans are out of the question!
well, for that it says catches fire, runs and explodes....

The Dragon Armor might protect them from the heat of the explosion, of a Skaven tibia followed by industrial bronze tubing, a boot, two pairs of pliers, a charred belt, and a half a wooden barrel would still hurt like hell.

-R
"Nurgle has got to be my favorite chaos god, fluff wise...
He's portrayed as this sort of jovial, jolly old guy who thinks that rotting apocolyptic plague is funny as hell... So basically he's a big ole fat bastard who thinks giving you a scorching case of the herp is a big laugh." ---Kadrium

7th Edition Fellblade Kills: 1 Steam Tank, 1 Warrior Priest, 4 Greatswords, 3 Treekin, 1 Chaos Sorcerer, 5 Chaos Warriors,
13th Spell Kills: 8 Chaos Chosen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scrivener
Member Avatar
*toot*

Rubberchrist
May 19 2008, 07:17 PM
The Dragon Armor might protect them from the heat of the explosion, of a Skaven tibia followed by industrial bronze  tubing, a boot, two pairs of pliers, a charred belt, and a half a wooden barrel would still hurt like hell.

-R

According to the new errata, the "alchemical" properties of the armour repels not only the fire but the vessel of the fire, so if you dropped a burning building on the elf, it'll apparently bounce right off, due to alchemical reasons.

Wonderful thing, alchemical reasons. You can use it to explain anything. :P


There really should be a proper errata on this, but from the salamander flame example we can see that GW doesn't always fix things even though they are fully aware that it needs to be fixed, presumably because if they tried they'll just end up gluing the PDF to their foreheads.
hannanibal
 
*Angry mob assembles*

"WHAT DO WE WANT!!??"
"A THINNISH, WATERY PAINT WITH A GREENER TINGE THAN AGRAX EARTHSHADE!!"
"WHEN DO WE WANT IT!?"
"QUITE SOON PLEASE AS MY LAST POT IS RUNNING OUT!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Niz'tizi'ihack
Member Avatar
Mad Harbringer of Mutation
scrivener
May 19 2008, 06:36 PM

There really should be a proper errata on this, but from the salamander flame example we can see that GW doesn't always fix things even though they are fully aware that it needs to be fixed, presumably because if they tried they'll just end up gluing the PDF to their foreheads.

You really don't know how close to the truth I think you've got there.. did you see what they did with the Doom Siren for Chaos in the last version... every edition of the last Chaos Codex had a different version and each one got successively more broken.. the last version was a scary high AP flamer that also allowed you to always strike first with the power fist you had equiped you champion with.. all for about 10 pts.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Decker_cky
Member Avatar
Master of the Deamonic Leash of Numbers and the Armor of Updates
Why would you ever consider the WFT to not have flaming attacks? It doesn't say it has it in the army book, but that doesn't matter because they have it as per the description of flaming attacks in the main rulebook. To not play that is an attempt at needless lawyering.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Skaven Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply