ELD.24D.01 vs SM.93A.02 - a contradiction?

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.

**doc_jason**

Hi Guys..
Just catching up on "final" INAT FAQ... there seems to be a contradiction in the rules:
ELD.24D.01 states that Flamestorm cannon "counts as" a flamer for the purposes of attacking an Avatar.
SM.93A.02 states that it does not count as a flamer for Vulcan's combat tactic.

So, is it a flamer, or not a flamer?!

I personally think that it should be a flamer, and in both cases the "benefits" apply.
[no, I don't play Salamanders or Eldar!]

**Janthkin**

See Yakface's post in this thread (2nd post). He explains the rationale for this contradiction there.

Yakface wrote:
Does it make a certain kind of sense that the Eldar Avatar is immune to the Flamestorm cannon? Sure, the same kind of sense that means an Avatar ought to be immune to a whirlwind's "Incendiary Castellan Missiles", they both lack only the virtue of actually being, you know, RAW, otherwise known as the thing that justifies a clarification rather then a rules change.

I would fully, whole-heartedly agree with you if it wasn't for the GW Eldar FAQ which says:

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 is exactly the kind of tough challenge you face when trying to make an unofficial FAQ. You are stuck dealing with GW rulings that they rarely if ever alter even when they probably should no longer be printed. If we had our choice, we would stirke this ruling from the book and make the Avatar's immunity apply only to the weapon types listed in his codex special rule. But we tried to stick with GW's FAQ rulings at all times which meant the door was essentially opened for the Avatar to be immune to any weapon that is a flame or melta weapon under a different name. The Flamestorm cannon seemed to fit this criteria about as much as the Hellhound's Inferno Cannon. In other words, given their FAQ answer, there didn't seem to be a rational place to draw a line between why the Inferno Cannon shouldn't affect the Avatar while the Flamestorm should.

Of course, this ruling led us into an even bigger discussion about whether this meant that Vulkan's abilities should also apply to the Flamestorm. Ultimately we decided that GW's FAQ ruling applied only to the Eldar and therefore we would stick with the straight RAW for Vulkan, despite the inconsistency between the two.

**doc_jason**

Thanks (both for the response, and the fact you saved me time wading through the numerous non-specific posts in this forum!).

**sourclams**

I still don't understand the "line" that is being drawn. How can a weapon be a flamer in one scenario and not a flamer in another? How does the Eldar FAQ categorizing "all either melta or flame weapons under different names" indicate that it only applies to Eldar?

For further thought, the Eldar FAQ specifies that units with fleet cannot assault out of a transport. Wouldn't this then only apply to Eldar, and therefore Shrike Marines can make the argument that they are allowed to assault from moving rhinos? (not a serious argument on my part, rather pointing out that anyone attempting to argue this would inevitably be pointed to the Eldar FAQ for "proof" of GW's opinion)

**Marius Xerxes**

sourclams wrote:I still don't understand the "line" that is being drawn. How can a weapon be a flamer in one scenario and not a flamer in another? How does the Eldar FAQ categorizing "all either melta or flame weapons under different names" indicate that it only applies to Eldar?

For further thought, the Eldar FAQ specifies that units with fleet cannot assault out of a transport. Wouldn't this then only apply to Eldar, and therefore Shrike Marines can make the argument that they are allowed to assault from moving rhinos? (not a serious argument on my part, rather pointing out that anyone attempting to argue this would inevitably be pointed to the Eldar FAQ for "proof" of GW's opinion)

Not really as you cant assault out of a closed transport that has moved period, except where noted in the vehicles profile.

I know your not arguing that point, but your example has no legs to stand on. That was probably only put in the FAQ because IIRC at the time, they were the only ones who has closed transports and could Fleet (Maybe an Ard Case Battle Wagon too). And enough people posted and probably E-mailed them asking about this that they put an FAQ to stop it.

Though along with that, its not GW's fault that no one could read the clarity of the rules reguarding Run and Fleet and moved closed transports.

Also, with the Avatar, GW has expressed its intent for what the rule should have meant with its FAQ. They simply did not wish in the Eldar codex to either say it like that the first time around, or list every melta and flame weapon in the game because the list would be rather large. And if a new weapon came out in a new codex, then its now not on the Eldar list so it doesnt count etc.

They covered their intent and bases with that all emcompasing FAQ for current and possible future weapons.

However with Vulkan, the Flamestorm Cannon is in the same Codex as himself, obviously. But they purposefully left out this weapon that is in its own codex, from his rules. I think this for now gives perfectly good reason to believe they intended to leave it out of his list of affected weapons.

**sourclams**

I can easily argue the exact opposite. They didn't put it into his rules because it's clear and obvious that all template /melta weapons are flamers or meltas, as they stated in the Eldar FAQ.

Has anyone emailed Spencer on the issue? That would at least put to rest the "does GW want this to work" argument.

**Marius Xerxes**

Using the FAQ for another Codex and how rules govern a specific model in that Codex is not going to be of basis to argue for another specific model in another Codex.

I mean, its the Eldar FAQ, not the Eldar/Space Marine/ Ork FAQ.

Its contents govern the Eldar Codex, none other.

The same as the DH FAQ gives the new Machine Spirit Rules to them but not the BA or DA or Black Templars.

As mentioned by Yakface, the issue came up in the FAQ Rulings and I am confident the reasons I provided earlier, were pretty close to why it is ruled the way it is. If your looking for insight, that is.

**Inquisitor_Malice**

There is a difference between the language with the two codices and the Eldar FAQ. The abiguity with the Eldar ruling comes from the phrase "melta weapons" in the Avatar section of the Eldar codex and "melta and flame weapons" in the Eldar FAQ. These are very generic references in which GW reinforced this ambguity in the Eldar FAQ answer for incinerators, inferno cannons and inferno pistols.

The space marine codex does not have that type of ambiguity and lists very specifically "flamers, heavy flamer, meltaguns and multi-meltas." That's where the break comes in.

As a side note, I actually think there is a typo and the phrase in the SM codex should have a 's' at the end of heavy flamer.

**Inquisitor_Malice**

Also, both answers coincide with the Warhammer World FAQ, which was referenced along with other GW resources.

**Razerous**

I dont mean to run this off-topic.. but as its here : So is the avatar immune to anything at all flamey or melty?

**Inquisitor_Malice**

Razerous wrote:I dont mean to run this off-topic.. but as its here : So is the avatar immune to anything at all flamey or melty?

I believe that would be a good assumption.

**Razerous**

Is that your normal avatar or are you just trying to be jammy?

Sorry. Ill shush now. Thanks.

**Inquisitor_Malice**

Razerous wrote:Is that your normal avatar or are you just trying to be jammy?

Sorry. Ill shush now. Thanks.

LOL - yep, that's my normal avatar. I use it on all forums where I can upload it. I'm immume to melta and flamer weapons.

**yakface**

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:There is a difference between the language with the two codices and the Eldar FAQ. The abiguity with the Eldar ruling comes from the phrase "melta weapons" in the Avatar section of the Eldar codex and "melta and flame weapons" in the Eldar FAQ. These are very generic references in which GW reinforced this ambguity in the Eldar FAQ answer for incinerators, inferno cannons and inferno pistols.

The space marine codex does not have that type of ambiguity and lists very specifically "flamers, heavy flamer, meltaguns and multi-meltas." That's where the break comes in.

As a side note, I actually think there is a typo and the phrase in the SM codex should have a 's' at the end of heavy flamer.

Thanks Greg. That's a very important distinction I forgot to mention in my response to Buzzsaw, and it is one that you brought up during our FAQ ruling discussion and is something I agree does definitely help make a distinction between the two situations.

**Marius Xerxes**

As we also discussed, The "Melta Weapons" part in the Codex is ambigious, but it cleanly says Flamers and Heavy Flamers. All that you could reasonably take from that would be all weapons with the Melta Rule, Flamers and Heavy Flamers when just looking at the Codex with no FAQ.

To me its the FAQ that makes it clear its all weapons of those types, not the codex itself.

So there is why I agree with Greg and Yak, that there is no contradiction. The Space Marine Codex is very specific and clear what is affected, going far enough to specifically list the Melta weapons that benifit, unlike the Eldar codex.

This same wording is what allows allied units to have the benifit as well. So your Flamestorms dont get to re-roll.. but your Divine Guided Sisters Flamers and Heavy Flamers do. More then an adequate trade off.