View Full Version : Avatar, Molten body Vs Flamestorm cannon
Bunny
09-23-2009, 04:03 AM
This came up in a recent battle, when my opponent fired his Lr Redeemer at my Avatar.
The Avatar's Molten body rule, states that the Avatar is immune to flamers and heavy flamers. This seems simple enough, as they are both specific weapons. But the FAQ makes this rule more vague by stating:
"Q. Is the Avatar immune to wounds caused by incinerators, inferno cannons and inferno pistols?
A. Yes, as they are all either melta or flame weapons under different names."
This implies that the Avatar is immune to any weapon that is described as being a 'flame' type weapon.
We decided as a house rule that the Avatar should be immune to flamestorm cannons.
Does anyone agree with this interpretation or if not, what weapons not listd in the codex or FAQ do you think the avatar is immune from (Warhound Inferno gun for example!).
Cheers.
Rapture
09-23-2009, 05:19 AM
I agree. He can't be hurt by heat. That isn't too much to ask for.
mercer
09-23-2009, 05:22 AM
I agree and its common sense that the Avatar would be immune to all flame and melta attacks, disregarding name.
Old_Paladin
09-23-2009, 06:01 AM
At first, I would have agreed with everyone else.
But then I started looking at it with a different view; namely Vulcan. His special rule makes flamer and melta based weapons twin-linked, but the flamestorm cannons are NOT included in this list.
It would seem a little unfair to enforce not allow it to be a linked flaming weapon; then turn around and say "oh, but its a flaming weapon against my Avatar... so... no damage!"
Sharp
09-23-2009, 07:25 AM
Yeah, this is something that would be fine to allow in a friendly game, but in a tournament setting you would have to get a Judge to rule.
Just because, from what you guys have posted, RAW says he takes damage.
DarkLink
09-23-2009, 08:05 AM
At first, I would have agreed with everyone else.
But then I started looking at it with a different view; namely Vulcan. His special rule makes flamer and melta based weapons twin-linked, but the flamestorm cannons are NOT included in this list.
It would seem a little unfair to enforce not allow it to be a linked flaming weapon; then turn around and say "oh, but its a flaming weapon against my Avatar... so... no damage!"
The thing is, the Avatar's rule is stated differently than Vulcan's. Vulcans rule says x, y and z weapons get twin linked and master crafted. That's it. So any weapon not on the list is out.
On the other hand, the Avatar's rule says; the Avatar is immune to x, y and z weapons, because they are flame or melta weapons. The rule has an extra statement in it. Because of this, the list isn't definitive, and merely contains examples. The Avatar is immune to all flame or melta weapons as a result.
sorienor
09-23-2009, 08:08 AM
While it may both be common sense and RAI for the avatar to be immune to flamestorm cannons, after reading the eldar codex it's obviously not supported by RAW; Both the avatar and vulkan list flamers and heavy flamers specifically. So for now, I'd agree flamestorms can hurt the avatar. Maybe they run a different technology then normal flamers :D
Rapture
09-23-2009, 09:24 AM
The thing is, the Avatar's rule is stated differently than Vulcan's. Vulcans rule says x, y and z weapons get twin linked and master crafted. That's it. So any weapon not on the list is out.
On the other hand, the Avatar's rule says; the Avatar is immune to x, y and z weapons, because they are flame or melta weapons. The rule has an extra statement in it. Because of this, the list isn't definitive, and merely contains examples. The Avatar is immune to all flame or melta weapons as a result.
Exactly. People want Vulkan to be even better but he doesn't have anything written to back it up. The Avatar, however, does.
Old_Paladin
09-23-2009, 05:49 PM
I don't have the Eldar codex, so I don't know the exact wording.
So my question is, is it vague (such as "melta and flamer weapons") or more precice (ie, "weapons such as flamer, heavy flamer, melta and mutimelta; to which the FAQ adds inferno weapons and incinerators)?
If it does give a list, one could still argue that the flamestorm is not on the list (just as it's not on Vulcans list).
Though the flamestorm cannon is clearly a form of heavy flamer (ie. it's a Mega heavy-flamer. A mega weapon being an upsized version that imporves both strength and AP by one each; like the mega-bolter).
DarkLink
09-23-2009, 07:52 PM
The codex wording isn't vague, but the FAQ is (see OP for the FAQ quote).
webron
09-23-2009, 08:12 PM
The usage of the phrase "such as x,y and z" does not limit the rule to those items. If the FAQ says he is immune to flame and melta weapons, then his is. I think it is pretty clear as to what weapons would be covered.
Bunny
09-24-2009, 03:33 AM
The usage of the phrase "such as x,y and z" does not limit the rule to those items. If the FAQ says he is immune to flame and melta weapons, then his is. I think it is pretty clear as to what weapons would be covered.
At first glance I agree that it seems obvious, the Avatar would clearly be immune to an ork burna for example. But unlike Melta weapons, 'flame' weapons do not have a unifying property, by this I mean that the only way we know what weapons use a flame attack is by reading the description of the weapon not the weapons actual rules.
I can't think of many weapons that arn't petty obvious without looking through all the Codex's. But I'm sure there must be some, that are unclear. Whirlwind Incendiary Castellan Missiles, possibly?
It just seems to me that this rule is ripe for abuse from anyone cheesy enough to try.
DevilUknow
09-24-2009, 08:49 AM
the rule is clearly intened to confer that the Avatar is immune to FIRE and HEAT period and that the naming of the weapon holds no bearing.
If anyone I played with (tournament or not) seriously tried to argue something as clear as this I would never play with them again.
Anggul
09-24-2009, 09:07 AM
I'd most certainly go with 'immune'. Games Workshop has always encouraged players to go with obvious common sense, so whilst a Doom Siren will work, as it just uses the flamer template to represent sonic waves, not actually fire, the redeemer's weapons wouldn't as they are fire.
BuFFo
09-24-2009, 11:49 AM
Its either a flamer for both instances, or neither.
I say no, it isn't a flamer at all.
It makes no sense, rules OR fluffwise, to have the same weapon count as a flamer for one effect, but not another.
Old_Paladin
09-24-2009, 01:55 PM
Its either a flamer for both instances, or neither.
I say no, it isn't a flamer at all.
It makes no sense, rules OR fluffwise, to have the same weapon count as a flamer for one effect, but not another.
I'm with you on this; to do otherwise is simply playing for an artificial advantage.
All or nothing.
I mean, if you really want the advantage, and claim that he's immune to HEAT, then you should add plasma to the list, right? Plasma is clearly a "super-heated bolt of gas and energy" Hey, every 'it gets hot!' weapon should be added to the Avatars list (those weapons are hot for a reason).
And what about Burnas, in CC they can have power-weapons, but it's a fire based weapon; and according to the rulebook if you have a special weapon you must use it. So if they didn't fire the flamer, they cannot damage the Avatar in melee, right?
Once again, I will stat that I think the Avatar should be immune to the Flamestorm, but if he is then Vulcan should be able to affect it as well (as it's just as clear that it's a form of heavy-flamer with the 'mega' rule)
The FAQ answers this very simply. The Avatar is immune to all flame and melta based weapons... As for your plasma argument. Check out Apoc reloaded, the Phoenix Court of Khaine allows the Avatar to be immune to plasma weapons as well... GW has heard your cries and sends mercy to your mortal soul.
DUKE
Old_Paladin
09-24-2009, 02:27 PM
Flaming is just a little vague (flamers is not); this isn't warhammer fantasy (which actually has a 'fire' catagory of damage).
What part of a blast is the shell impact, the sharpnel and the flaming explosion?
Doesn't Skulltaker have a flaming sword (and the fire rule in fantasy)?
Are we really going to have to look up fluff for every weapon and attack, just so we don't miss something.
Fluff can be a weakness, because the hobby wants you to make up some of your own. "Oh... my Nurgle Marine Army doesn't have flamers and heavy flamers... they have... Barf Rifles and Vomit Sprayers... you know, like the GUO's stream of corruption! The Avatar takes damage from acid, barf and maggots, right? I even have my own custom 'pukevalanche template' modelled, see? With a flowing wave of slime."
If GW is going to give a rule, then actually start listing things, then it should be a complete list.
Commissar Lewis
09-24-2009, 04:44 PM
I agree, if they are gonna do a list of immunities they really should cover all possibilities. Otherwise, leaving a little bit of ambiguity is inviting the hardcore rules lawyers to try for advantage there.
The way I see it, the Flamestorm cannon should be under that list, but also it should be subject to Vulkan's bonus. However, as the Flamestorm is not expressly stated as doing no damage to the Avatar, only implied, many rules lawyers are gonna argue the point. Which is fine, arguing usually leads to GW maybe releasing a fix.
Myself, I have a generally fuzzy adherence to the rules; I follow rule #1: It's a game, not a courtcase. Fun is the most important factor. I'm pretty laid back in terms of rules unless it is blatantly obvious someone's cheating.
TL;DR version - GW should release a full list of what the Avatar is immune to, so as to prevent lawyering. But really, it's a game so outside of a tournament is it really that important?
BuFFo
09-24-2009, 06:01 PM
The FAQ answers this very simply. The Avatar is immune to all flame and melta based weapons... As for your plasma argument. Check out Apoc reloaded, the Phoenix Court of Khaine allows the Avatar to be immune to plasma weapons as well... GW has heard your cries and sends mercy to your mortal soul.
DUKE
Yeah you are right, the FAQ does answer this very simply. Since the Flamestorm Cannon is not a Flamer, then the Avatar is not immune to it.
Then again, if you want the Avatar to be immune to it, guess what? Vulcan can now affect it.
Its either both, or neither. Hopefully your gaming group can come to a consensus on such a matter.
Rapture
09-24-2009, 07:53 PM
Then again, if you want the Avatar to be immune to it, guess what? Vulcan can now affect it.
Its either both, or neither. Hopefully your gaming group can come to a consensus on such a matter.
No. There isn't any wiggle room here.
"All units in your army lose the Combat Tactics special rule. Instead, all Thunder Hammers in your army count as Master-Crafted, and all flamers, heavy flamers, meltaguns and multimeltas count as twin-linked"
The Avatar's rule on the other hand is unclear.
Old_Paladin
09-25-2009, 06:50 AM
The Vulcan list seems to hold some water, until you look at the Avatar FAQ and see that GW considers things like the Grey Knight Incinerator "a [type of] flame[r]... by another name"
The incinerator and flamestorm are forms of heavy flamers (with a special rule), which would make them fall under heavy flamer section of the list.
Combi-meltas aren't on the list either; they simply allow you to shot once as (or like) a meltagun (it doesn't say "for one turn it is a meltagun") . The flamestorm allows you to fire as a heavyflamer (with +1 strength and AP).
If there was a special rule covering stormbolters and heavybolters; are you saying that psycannons and Dorn's Arrow aren't covered because they aren't on the list?
AirHorse
09-25-2009, 09:45 AM
The flamestorm allows you to fire as a heavyflamer (with +1 strength and AP).
thats just nonsense right there, the flamestorm cannon fires as a flamestorm cannon, which has its own strength and ap value and has nothing to do with any other weapon.
Personally I think its intended that the avatar is immune to fire based weaponry and would have no problem with that at all in any games I played. If in a competative environment the organisers of whatever competition wanted to deal with the avatars immunities by having a list of what works and what doesnt then I would have no problem with this going either way, its up to the organisers.
I personally dont find the comparison to vulcan to be a particularily relevant one, he has a different ability, which hasnt been ammended by an faq. I also think that the faq is pretty definative as it says flame weapons, which makes it pretty clear that the avatar is immune to flame weapons.
thats just nonsense right there, the flamestorm cannon fires as a flamestorm cannon, which has its own strength and ap value and has nothing to do with any other weapon.
Personally I think its intended that the avatar is immune to fire based weaponry and would have no problem with that at all in any games I played. If in a competative environment the organisers of whatever competition wanted to deal with the avatars immunities by having a list of what works and what doesnt then I would have no problem with this going either way, its up to the organisers.
I personally dont find the comparison to vulcan to be a particularily relevant one, he has a different ability, which hasnt been ammended by an faq. I also think that the faq is pretty definative as it says flame weapons, which makes it pretty clear that the avatar is immune to flame weapons.
Thank you for speaking more wisdom. As I stated before the FAQ clearly states that the intent of the Avatar rule is to make him immune to flame and melta based weapons.
Sometimes people misproperly use the transitive property of equality (if a=b, and b=c, then c=a). The problem with this application is that in this case A (Avatar rule) and B (Vulcan Rule) are not equal. Thus your equation is false because of the orignial postulate. Nice try though.
Long story short: If the weapon is flame/ melta based then the Avatar is immune to it... Unless a judge rules otherwise (Their word is law at the tournies).
DUKE
BuFFo
09-26-2009, 12:11 AM
Thank you for speaking more wisdom. As I stated before the FAQ clearly states that the intent of the Avatar rule is to make him immune to flame and melta based weapons.
Long story short: If the weapon is flame/ melta based then the Avatar is immune to it... Unless a judge rules otherwise (Their word is law at the tournies).
DUKE
Ah but here in lies the problem...
We play a game based on rules that all parties need to understand so that games go smoothly between players whom have never met each other.
I fully understand that the Vulcan rule is specific, but the Avatar FAQ is more Fluff based. Now that is the problem.
If you and I met for the first time, and you had an Avatar, and during the game my Ice Warrior Marines fired their Shattering Ice Cannon at your Avatar. The shattering Ice Cannon is just the Firestorm Cannon on my Land Raider.
Fluffwise, I tell you that my SIC fires liquid Nitrogen and freezes enemies to death, thus negating the Avatar's FAQ ruling.
See the problem here? The Firestorm has NO designator that it is a Flame/Melta weapon at all. Despite the name and fluff, it can be firing a shower of nails, or a spray of explosive puppies as far as the rules are concerned.
So for you to 'force' me to say my Firestorm is a Flame weapon because of your assumption of fluff is just plain wrong. Why is your assumption of fluff better than mine?
This is why we play by RAW, and by RAW, the Firestorm is NOT a Flame or Melta weapon.
Now personally, if I fired my Firestorm at an Avatar, I would be 100% happy with my opponent ignoring the weapon. But it is wrong for one player to force a fluff explanation over another's.
Sorry to say but....
1) FAQs are NOT official rulings. Only Erratas are. Period. Look at the Shrine of Knowledge on the GW site for clarification between the two. So what does this mean? In reality, the Avatar FAQ is no better/stronger/different than any ruling I can make.
Only Erratas are official RAW and Rules changes.
2) So the Avatar FAQ is no better than me simply claiming the Firestorm fires feces since it isn't actually a Flame / Melta weapon, thus negating your Avatar's immunity. Same for the weapons that is actually listed under that FAQ.
Lord Anubis
09-26-2009, 01:32 AM
If you and I met for the first time, and you had an Avatar, and during the game my Ice Warrior Marines fired their Shattering Ice Cannon at your Avatar. The shattering Ice Cannon is just the Firestorm Cannon on my Land Raider.
Fluffwise, I tell you that my SIC fires liquid Nitrogen and freezes enemies to death, thus negating the Avatar's FAQ ruling.
Except that's not fluff. That's trying to use a "counts as" weapon to outmanuver a rule.
It's essentially the same as me playing Tigerius as a "counts as" Wibblywobbly Sorcerer, then trying to argue he doesn't have to take psychic tests because this isn't a Space Marine Librarian-- it's something I made up.
So, that example comes crashing down... ;)
The problem here is people are trying to argue two seperate things. One-- what is the Avatar immune to. Two-- what does Vulkan affect.
As has been stated above, Vulkan has a very precise list of what he affects. There is no vagueness in that list. Yes, from a fluff point of view he should be able to affect firestorm cannons. It makes perfect sense. But they're not on the list. His list does not say "flame weapons," it says flamers, and a flamer is a very specific weapon. Maybe when he's leading an army they start retooling the smallest weapons and work up, so there's never time to reach the firestorms. It's irrelevant. They're not on the list. End of story. RAW, as so many people love to shriek.
On the other hand, the Avatar's rule is poorly written, but the FAQ makes the intent of the rule clear. No fire, no melta. And if someone wants to argue that a firestorm cannon doesn't shoot fire... well, have fun in your happy place. But the rule is vague and it is debatable.
Until Games Workshop puts out a more definitive ruling (expect it in 2013, right after the Mayan calender ends), the Avatar's rule is just going to be something people have to decide among the folks they play with, or let judges decide at tourmanents.
Or they can get in long, heated debates online about it... ;)
Old_Paladin
09-26-2009, 07:04 AM
Except that's not fluff. That's trying to use a "counts as" weapon to outmanuver a rule.
Actually, that's just your assumption (and we all know what happens when people assume!).
In this case you are probably right (and with my earlier example of Plague Marines with puke-guns); but who gave you the power (or anyone else) to over-ride the fluff of someone elses army.
Someone could have been playing an army with their own fluff a decade before this immunity rule came out. There are a huge number of dedicated hobbyists that make up their own fluff (and with Apoc, GW gave the thumbs up for making up your own rules, models, weapons, characters, etc.).
That would be like telling an ork player (or space marines that have hamster-ball drop-pods); "You might have made those scratch-built models years ago, but GW came out with something real, so those are only 'count as' and you better spend $400 or you army doesn't count anymore."
And again with the Vulcan list, do you think when it says (heavy)flamer it means "everything titled/name 'heavyflamer' and 'flamer'"
or "everything in the (heavy)flamer category, such as Grey Knight Incinarators and mega-heavyflamers, which are all clearly a type of heavyflamer; and flamers include combi-flamers, hand-flamers, brazier of fire, etc."
Rapture
09-26-2009, 10:21 AM
Actually, that's just your assumption (and we all know what happens when people assume!).
I don't see how that is an assumption. A drop pod is a drop pod whether its is made from a GW kit, A hampster ball, or just pure imagination. Anything that someone uses in their army has to follow a set of rules. If you want your marine's ice gun to use the flamer template then it is a flamer. If you want your hampster ball to carry marines then it is a drop pod.
Anyone is more than welcome to make up their own rules, or fluff, but then they are playing their own game and anything is possible.
BuFFo
09-26-2009, 11:48 AM
Except that's not fluff. That's trying to use a "counts as" weapon to outmanuver a rule.
Show me where the Firestorm is listed as a Flamer weapon. I'll wait....
... Waiting...
You can't. Thus the weapon does not fire flames at all as per the RULES. So saying it fires hammers covered in flies is not saying the weapon 'counts as'. Sorry to burst your bubble.
If we go by RAW....
1) FAQs are not official. Only Erratas are.
2) Firestorm is NOT a Flamer.
3) Avatar has immunity to Flamers and Meltas.
4) Avatar has no immunity to the Firestorm. Vulcan does not effect the Firestorm.
If we go by FLUFF/RAI....
1) FAQ is as good as any other house ruling.
2) Avatar is immune to whatever YOU want to claim is a FLAMER without the FLAMER rule designator.
3) I claim my weapons without the FLAMER rules designator to fire Ice Balls of Death.
4) Avatar is not immune to my Ice weapons, thus no immunity to the Firestorm. Vulcan cannot affect the Firestorm either.
Either way, the Avatar and Vulcan looses out unless a weapon counts as a Flamer for BOTH rules, or neither. There is no middle ground here.
I don't see how that is an assumption. A drop pod is a drop pod whether its is made from a GW kit, A hampster ball, or just pure imagination. Anything that someone uses in their army has to follow a set of rules.
Yes exactly! Thus, if we follow the rules to play a game, FAQs are not official rulings and the Firestorm is NOT a FLAMER weapon, which is what the Avatar and Vulcan both need as per their RULES.
Saying a weapon fires Ice Balls or Glue Covered Cereal Boxes has nothing to do with the rules anyway. One has nothing to do with the other. Once a weapon has Flamer or Melta as its RULE, I can claim the weapon fires Ice Balls, but Avatar and Vulcan would still be affected by the weapon.
So in the end, yes, we only play by the rules, and either way, the Firestorm is not affected by Vulcan or the Avatar.
fade_74
09-26-2009, 11:54 AM
I wish you guys would just give this up. It's totally idiotic. The Avatar is MADE OF FLAMING MOLTEN SUPERHEATED LAVA. Do you really think the flamestorm cannon could hurt him. Have a little common sense. No RAW....No RAI....no bullcrap...just a little common sense is all it takes. Fire No Hurt Guy Made of Fire.....duh.
Old_Paladin
09-26-2009, 01:09 PM
Fade, I don't think anyone is really saying that the Avatar shouldn't be affected by the flamestorm.
Buffo is just trying to make the point that two very similar rules should be applied equally.
If you read through this tread and others, some peoples justifications is actually that Vulcan is too powerful so should be weakened, and the Avatar should be stronger. That explanation is nothing more then favoritism, which is clearly not in the spirit of the game or hobby.
The flamestorm is clearly a flamer-type weapon (by another name) and cannot hurt the Avatar; but as a flamer-type weapon (by another name) could be improved by Vulcan's skill.
Rapture
09-26-2009, 01:23 PM
The flamestorm is clearly a flamer-type weapon (by another name) and cannot hurt the Avatar; but as a flamer-type weapon (by another name) could be improved by Vulcan's skill.
I don't understand this. Vulkan rules do not improve "flamer-type" weapons.
"...all flamers, heavy flamers, meltaguns and multimeltas count as twin-linked"
Not flame weapons. Not flame based weapons. There isn't any common sense, RAI, or RAW in favor of the argument for Vulkan.
fade_74
09-26-2009, 01:40 PM
I should have made it more clear Paladin, my earlier statement was not aimed at buffo or anyone else. I just think that this argument is getting a bit silly.
Old_Paladin
09-26-2009, 01:56 PM
Yes, Vulcan affects ALL Heavy Flamers; ie. every kind of heavy flamer.
As I've said several times, the Flamestorm is a mega-HEAVYFLAMER.
If a weapon has a special rule, it does not stop being the base weapon.
A heavyflamer that ignores invuln saves is still a heavyflamer
A heavyflamer that re-rolls wounds is still a heavyflamer.
A heavyflamer that has the mega rule (from VDR or Apoc) is still a heavyflamer.
And I realize what the answer is going to be; both the flamestorm and the incinerator are named differently. Which I feel is very unimaginative. I'm glad that GW has some imagination and gives plain weapons with a special rule a different name.
It's like the hydra cannon; that's a much better name then "twin-linked long-barreled autocannon"
jeffersonian000
09-26-2009, 06:20 PM
Except that the Flamestorm Cannon is not a heavy flamer, nor is an Incinerator a heavy flamer. All three weapons are distinct. Vulcan effects Heavy Flamers, but not Flamestorms or Incinerators. Why? Because in his fluff, he has his own armoury a supplies specific special weapons to his cohorts; i.e., master quality Heavy Flamers, Flamers, Meltaguns, Multi-Meltas, and Thunder Hammers. And that's it.
As to an Avatar, I can see the reasoning behind no allowing a Flamestorm to work (Incinerator is a different story, is an Avatar is daemon, after all).
SJ
DarkLink
09-26-2009, 07:37 PM
Except that the Flamestorm Cannon is not a heavy flamer, nor is an Incinerator a heavy flamer. All three weapons are distinct. Vulcan effects Heavy Flamers, but not Flamestorms or Incinerators. Why? Because in his fluff, he has his own armoury a supplies specific special weapons to his cohorts; i.e., master quality Heavy Flamers, Flamers, Meltaguns, Multi-Meltas, and Thunder Hammers. And that's it.
As to an Avatar, I can see the reasoning behind no allowing a Flamestorm to work (Incinerator is a different story, is an Avatar is daemon, after all).
SJ
Right, I'd like to see where the rules say "a flamestorm cannon is a str 6 ap 3 heavy flamer."
Incinerators don't work on the Avatar. The FAQ specifically states this. Something to the effect of "incinerators and inferno pistols don't work, because they are still flame or melta based weapons."
BuFFo
09-27-2009, 11:46 AM
I wish you guys would just give this up. It's totally idiotic. The Avatar is MADE OF FLAMING MOLTEN SUPERHEATED LAVA. Do you really think the flamestorm cannon could hurt him. Have a little common sense. No RAW....No RAI....no bullcrap...just a little common sense is all it takes. Fire No Hurt Guy Made of Fire.....duh.
My Landraider has a weapon called the Ice Spitter. The weapon has NO Flame / Melta rule to it, so guess what? No, your Avatar is not immune to it. Despite the weapon using a Template, it is not a Flame or Melta weapon.
If you are going to play by fluff, so will I.
The point of this discussion, which you say you won't read yet want to post in is that either both Vulcan and the Avatar is affected by the Flamestorm, or neither is. Any thing else is wishful thinking.
Personally, Vulcan should affect it and the Avatar should be immune to it, but as it stands by the rules, neither do.
Old_Paladin
09-27-2009, 12:46 PM
Ok, lets play a little game; let's compare the flamestorm and a mega heavyflamer.
Both are based on imperial technology (thus would have the same fluff background), both are represented as a single large weapon that looks like a big flamer/heavyflamer. Both use the same template with no special rules for ragne or placement. Both are Strength 6 AP:3. The difference between the two is... nothing.
There's an old saying about common sense and objects.
"If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck; then guess what... IT'S A DUCK!"
The irony, is that the same people that say that the flamestorm isn't a type of heavyflamer are the same people telling Buffo that his "Ice Spitter" and 'hammer sprayer' and the flamestorm MUST be the same weapon, because they follow the same rules. But I know the responce to this post will still be that the Flamestorm and mega heavyflamer are still two different weapons, since the name is different.
Hey Buffo,
Want more 'fuel for your fire' (haha). I look through my old daemonhunters. You're right, the FAQ boys got it wrong. The rules for the incinerator is quite clear. It doesn't shoot fire, It shoots "the white heat of Pure Faith".
Rapture
09-27-2009, 12:46 PM
My Landraider has a weapon called the Ice Spitter. The weapon has NO Flame / Melta rule to it, so guess what? No, your Avatar is not immune to it. Despite the weapon using a Template, it is not a Flame or Melta weapon.
If you are going to play by fluff, so will I.
The point of this discussion, which you say you won't read yet want to post in is that either both Vulcan and the Avatar is affected by the Flamestorm, or neither is. Any thing else is wishful thinking.
Personally, Vulcan should affect it and the Avatar should be immune to it, but as it stands by the rules, neither do.
The description for a flamestorm cannon is not fluff it is rules.
However, if you want to change the rules then they all become useless so there isn't any point in having a rules discussion.
The Avatar is immune to flame weapons. This includes 'ice spitter's and anything and anything else we call them by.
BuFFo
09-27-2009, 03:13 PM
Hey Buffo,
Want more 'fuel for your fire' (haha). I look through my old daemonhunters. You're right, the FAQ boys got it wrong. The rules for the incinerator is quite clear. It doesn't shoot fire, It shoots "the white heat of Pure Faith".
Ok, very interesting.... So youa re saying the description of the Incinerator is not a flame weapon, but instead a magical cannon that fires the voice of the emperor into it's enemies? Okay, thats cool...
The description for a flamestorm cannon is not fluff it is rules.
Okay, so you are saying that we don't only follow the rules to play this game, but also the description of what ever the rule is about? Okay, lets say I buy this lunacy....
The Avatar is immune to flame weapons. This includes 'ice spitter's and anything and anything else we call them by.[/QUOTE]
But you say we follow the description of what a weapon does in fluff and that is as good as a rule.
yet the Incinerator's fluff clearly states it is not a flamer at all, but instead a voice box so that the emperor can yell at the enemies of the weapon's wielder. It is a faith firing gun. no flamer here.
Yet you want the avatar to be immune to a weapon that clearly has NO flame / melta rule nor a flame / melta description. Seems hypocritical to me.
And yes, your Avatar is NOT immune to ice. I don't know if you have lived on Earth for any period of time in real life, but flame and ice are not the same thing. Actually, one might consider them opposites.
Anyway, it is clear that Eldar players, which have historically tried anything to justify their cheese since time immoral, are convincing themselves thats it okay to justify their fluff for an advantage, but completely disregard another player's equally, if not more, viable fluff to the contrary.
To anyone who cares to play a game by its rules, the Avatar is not immune to the Flamestorm Cannon. On the same token, Vulcan cannot affect it either. Period.
To avoid this post from becoming another Warsewer, I have said my piece, and I am done with this tripe blind discussion. Otherwise this post serves no function other than ePeen inflation, teeth gnashing and post count increasing.
jeffersonian000
09-27-2009, 05:04 PM
Dude, it's a game. Vulcan effects very specific items across his entire army and the Flamestorm cannon is not one of them. An Avatar is immune to heat based weapons, to which the Flamestorm Cannon falls into the category of. Not sure why this is even an argument other than as a way to sent a precedence for creating a virtual rules loophole that does not in fact exist.
As to “Fluff versus Rules”, who cares if your template weapon uses ice rather than fire? If you are stat’ing the weapon out as a flamer, it’s a flamer. Can the model purchase a Heavy Fire Extinguisher? If yes, than you have rules to cover your fluff. If no, then you don’t. An example would be the new Hellhound variant that spews chemicals rather than flame; as such, an Avatar is not immune.
SJ
Jwolf
09-27-2009, 05:50 PM
This has degenerated into a slap fight that isn't really even talking about rules issues in a useful way anymore. No one is changing anyone's opinion with facts, fluff, or anything. Let it go unless you really have something new to bring to the discussion.
keithsilva
09-29-2009, 01:26 PM
As a Eldar player I would allow Vulcans abilty to allow Flamestorms cannons rerolls, I mean come on it is a flamer a HEAVY flamer. As well as saying it cannot hurt the Avatar. It is a flame based weapon, and both rules would affect it. the porblem we have is people trying to bend rules to benefit them, but in turn bending those same rules to hurt others, I for one dont play people like that, it ruins the fun out of 40k. If it is a flame/heat based weapon it will not hurt the Avatar, and in turn if using Vulcan u will make it twin linked.;)
jeffersonian000
09-30-2009, 12:25 AM
Except that Vulcan does not effect all heat/flame based weapons. His special rule only effects Flamers, Heavy Flamers, Meltaguns, Multi-Meltas, and Thunder Hammers. That's it. It's a finite list.
The Avatar, on the other hand, has been FAQ'd with a stated intend of being immune to any and all heat/flame based weapons, from Inferno guns through to Hellstorm Cannons. It's an open list.
Using to disprove/improve the other doesn't work. Yes, the same concepts are present; however, the same rules are not.
SJ
scadugenga
10-02-2009, 07:49 PM
I think there's one important piece to the discussion that has been overlooked.
The Flamestorm cannon was invented/written well after the Eldar codex was written. Unless the writer had years of foreknowledge about the addition of the flamestorm cannon being included in the SM dex, it's entirely impossible for the Eldar 'dex writer to have been able to encompass all new flame-type weapons.
Vulkan was written in the same codex with the flamestorm cannon. He was not erratted/faq'd in the last SM update. It seems clear to me that Vulks does not have any impact on the flamestorm cannon. Either that, or the author of the 'dex effed up royally.
As for a few other salient arguments:
1) Ice weaponry. If you show me in the codex that an ice weapon using a flamer template is available for your LR, I'd agree my Avatar could be affected by it. If you can't show me the unaltered codex entry of an ice-based flamer-template-using weapon, I guess you're out of luck.
2) Incinerators: The actual wording that was missed is this: "Often the best cure for the unholy is purgation with righteous flame. Incinerators are blessed weapons, fueled with the purest consecrated promethium and blessed oils to burn with the white heat of pure faith." Hey, it ignores invulnerable saves--enjoy that as is. ;)
Just my pocket change. ymmv.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.