Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If I put a rune of Burning on my Dwarf lords axe, it says "the weapon makes flamming attacks". If I run into something that is immune to fire, what does my axe do? Am I still hitting him with an axe, or is my dwarf now unable to hurt him?

Depends on what it is. Dragon princes would be totaly immune to your axe.. just like they are totaly immune to cannons with the rune of fire on them..
I know.. busted.. but thats how they decided to work it.

If it was me I would say it just counts as a normal hand weapon with the effects of the other runes you put on it (if any) as well but some people will not like this at all if worst comes to worst dice for it

You can't just turn off the flaming effect. If a unit is immune to fire, it's immune to the whole attack. Any other rune on the axe would also be useless.

This is why you have a hand weapon handy.

Except that a model with a magic weapon is forced to use it.

Mannahnin wrote:Except that a model with a magic weapon is forced to use it.

QFT. No turning off the effects(unless specifically allowed to by the weapon/rune), no using other weapons. That's the cost of using a magic weapon.

The Rune of the Furnace (or what ever the name is) Only protects from attacks that are Purely Flaming. This indicates to me if it has a physical component to it that component would not be stopped. So it would protect against a fireball but not against a sword that was lit on fire.

Really? Could you quote the text? To my recollection there is no phrasing in any of current WH books as a magic item which protects against “Purely Flaming attacks”; only one which protect against “Flaming Attacks”. But I could be on crack.

“Flaming Attacks”, as a defined concept within the 6th and 7th edition rules, is a bit of an abstraction which includes both attacks comprised primarily or exclusively of fire (like a Fireball spell) AND physical attacks with a flaming component, like a Screaming Skull Catapult’s shots.

GW has clearly indicated within the FAQs that a model which is immune to Flaming Attacks is totally unaffected by any Flaming Attack, even those which include what would normally be a deadly physical component, like a bolt thrower shot, a skull catapult shot, or a Bloodthirster’s axe (when he’s given the very inexpensive gift which makes his attacks both S7 and Flaming).

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=cat210002&categoryId=500004&pIndex=1&aId=3000006&start=2

High Elf FAQ wrote: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.

Right now this creates kind of an interesting dilemma in army list building, because Flaming Attacks have recently gotten more valuable and useful, since recent books have included more Regenerating units. This, as a side effect, makes the High Elf units which have access to Dragon Armor more powerful, and makes some things (like Flamers of Tzeentch, the Dwarven Rune of Burning for their bolt throwers, or the aforementioned Bloodthirster gift, which is otherwise a complete no-brainer) not as universally-useful, in that they have a weakness.

Given GW’s clear ruling on the subject, I’m really curious if this “purely flaming” distinction is really there in the Rune of the Furnace description, because I thought it was the opposite.

the rules for the rune of the furnace read thus:
"The bearer of theis rune is immune to fire and cannot be affected by enemy attacks purely consisting of flameing attacks such as fireballs, Flames from Skaven warpfire throwers, breath of a high elf Dragon, etc."
Big question though, does it protect you from Friendly flameing attacks? (Such as a Flame cannon)

FYI, it does not say "purely flaming attacks".

Man is right on the money. 7th has greatly simplified what constitutes a flaming attack (things labelled, ironically enough, "flaming attacks") as well as immunity to same. So flaming cannonshot, screaming skull catapults, and dwarves with runed flaming weapons are completely ineffective against models immune to flaming attacks such as dragon princes. OTOH, they rock v. regeneration, so it is a strategic decision.

What units are immune to fire?
1. Dragon Princes. Per the FAQ Mannahin cites, they have been immune completely to anything that is flaming.
2. Rune of the Furnace. My understanding of its effects is the same as Negativemoney - i.e. it only works against flame attacks, and gives no immunity against the underlying attack.
3. Any others?

Therefore, it may be that the extent of the immunity is on a case-by-case basis.

Strimen wrote:FYI, it does not say "purely flaming attacks".

FYI it does say "purely" in my book. Are you looking at a different version of the army book?

Antonin wrote:What units are immune to fire?

1. Dragon Princes. Per the FAQ Mannahin cites, they have been immune completely to anything that is flaming.

Therefore, it may be that the extent of the immunity is on a case-by-case basis.

OK, Here is one for you! What about the Dwarf Flame Cannon? There has been an ongoing argument that it is not considered a flaming attack because it is not stated as such (It just uses the flame template but it never states it as a "Flaming Attack". It has never been FAQ either. So if Dragon Princes are immune to it them the cannons hits do count as flaming attacks. If not then they are not.

Come on, no one can seriously argue that a Flame isn't a flaming attack. same with salamanders. If you come around and try to tell me that something like that isn't flaming, i'll tell you to get lost. just because it doesn't specifically say it's flaming, doesn't mean it isn't since the NAME of the weapon or the attack STRONGLY indicates that it is.

Here, Dragon Armour does say that they are immune to fire attacks, while the rune of the furnace says purely fire attacks. difference in wording indicating a difference in application.

Arion wrote:Come on, no one can seriously argue that a Flame isn't a flaming attack. same with salamanders. If you come around and try to tell me that something like that isn't flaming, i'll tell you to get lost. just because it doesn't specifically say it's flaming, doesn't mean it isn't since the NAME of the weapon or the attack STRONGLY indicates that it is.

Here, Dragon Armour does say that they are immune to fire attacks, while the rune of the furnace says purely fire attacks. difference in wording indicating a difference in application.

Man. I wish that were true, but I had some RAW players actually argue the fact that Flame Cannons and Salamaders don't count. I know crazy but there it is.

Part of the problem is the fact that the Dwarf Army Book is 6th Ed and has not been updated to 7th yest.

I think that anything with the word FLAME in it's name i.e. FAME cannon, and the Salamander attack Spout FLAMES. those are CLEAR:Y intended to be a flaming attack, and anyone who argues that they aren't should be beat within an inch of their life for being an idiot. In fact GW has already set precident for this. when the FAQ for VC came out and it addressed the Invocation of nehek being cast into combat rule, it said that it was permissible becaue, though it didn't specifically state that it could, it was "strongly implied" that it could be cast into combat by the text of the spell. now if the word Flame in FLAME cannon and Spout FLAMES doesn't "strongly imlpy" that these are flaming attacks, then I don't know what does.

Salamandes were FAQ'd to actualy be flaming attacks.