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.

This past weekend I ran into something that I would just like to hear more opinions about. Could you consider the troll vomit attack as a breath weapon so that dragon knights would be immune to it? My troll barfed all over this dude's dragon knights and he said the vomit was a breath weapon but I am not sure. Eventually we just let me have the attack since I was losing anyway. So what is it? Breath attack or no?

Troll vomit is NOT a breath weapon attack. period.

Breath weapon consists of the flame template.
Troll vomit is not a breath weapon, its rules are clearly spelled out as an auto hit/ effect. It is not identified as a flame attack either. Dragon armor doesn't work against it.

I do not have the HE book available, but I believe Dragon Princes are immune to flaming attacks, not "breath weapons." Not all breath weapons are flaming.

Next time something like that comes up, ask to see the relevant entry in his rulebook.

@Fellblade - Dragon Armor makes the wearer (and mount) immune to flaming AND breath attacks.

It specifically says in the specific units entry whether or not its a breath attack....

Ex. Troll Vomit : Instead of attacking normally, the whole unit of trolls can choose to vomit on the enemy. Each troll model in base contact with an enemy model inflicts one auto Str 5 hit with no armor saves allowed. These attacks are magical.
Notice it says no where its a breath weapon, or flaming attack

Ex. Black dragon
Noxious Breath: The black dragon has a breath weapon attack......

Ex. Hydra
Fiery Breath: The war hydra has a flaming breath weapon attack.....

Ex. Chaos Dragons
Breath Weapons: Chaos dragons have two different breath weapons......

Think i made the point i was after.

I would also like to give a basic lesson on anatomy...

The lungs are used to breathe, the stomach is a reservoir for food and digestion.

In order for it to be a breath weapon it would have to go from the lungs, up the trachea, and out the mouth.

In order to vomit, it would go out the stomach, up the esophagus, and then out the mouth.

I would NOT consider vomit (which originates in the stomach) a breath attack.

Troll King Throgg gets a breath attack from his Copious Vomit, but he can only use it once and he's available to WoC.

Nofasse 'Eadhunta wrote:Troll King Throgg gets a breath attack from his Copious Vomit, but he can only use it once and he's available to WoC.

Yes once per game throgg can vomit using the flame template as a breath weapon per the rules. RoW the dragon armor would prevent the attack. However RoI i would say it shouldnt.

Not a breath weapon

The way to clear the 'logical' counterarguments:

If you say troll vomit is a breath weapon because it comes from the mouth. Then a greatsword or lance is a hand weapon because it is held in the hand.

Also breathing and puking are two different things we do, why should trolls be any different.

Orlanth wrote:Also breathing and puking are two different things we do, why should trolls be any different.

Because they're trolls.

Nofasse 'Eadhunta wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Also breathing and puking are two different things we do, why should trolls be any different.

Because they're trolls.

See basic anatomy lesson above!

ShivanAngel wrote:

Nofasse 'Eadhunta wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Also breathing and puking are two different things we do, why should trolls be any different.

Because they're trolls.

See basic anatomy lesson above!

What if they're Chaos Trolls, hm?!

Manfred von Drakken wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

Nofasse 'Eadhunta wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Also breathing and puking are two different things we do, why should trolls be any different.

Because they're trolls.

See basic anatomy lesson above!

What if they're Chaos Trolls, hm?!

Pick a stomach

Another problem here is that the Dragon Armour doesn't make any sense. Why do dragon scales somehow make you immune to any and all breath weapons? I've stated my piece on Dragon Armour many a time, so I'll save it, but if I had a monster that vomited poisonous butterflies, I would be a little confused as to how some scaly armour offers 100% protection from them, just 'cause they use the same delivery system as so many gouts of flame.

A wizard did it.

Which would be almost kind of legitimate, except that Dragon Armour is a mundane item. A form of alchemy. Psuedo-magic. It is completely and utterly counter-intuitive. If they said "Dragon Armour completely encases the wearer in an air-tight shell of super-hard dragon scales and magically supplies him with his own source of air to breathe" I would accept how he's immune to, say, a Black or Forest Dragon's breath weapon. But it isn't. He's wearing scales from a Fire-Breathing dragon (which is not immune to other types of breath weapons, or even it's own for some idiotic reason). So: bam.

Okay, a GW rules-writer did it.

Which is complete malarkey, and we all know it. They make mistakes and typos, and they don't have an editing team to fix 'em.

If "GW said so" was a logical argument, then these forums are completely useless, and RaW would reign supreme.

I don't understand what the argument is about anymore. The rule as written is pretty clear. Are we just arguing whether it makes sense or are we still arguing about the rule itself?

Warpsolution wrote:and RaW would reign supreme.

You mean it doesn't? Have you looked at the 40k side?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Red_Zeke wrote:I don't understand what the argument is about anymore. The rule as written is pretty clear. Are we just arguing whether it makes sense or are we still arguing about the rule itself?

Point taken.