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.

Gwar! wrote:

crimsonmicc wrote:I understand what is being said specifically about the RAW and the argument is sound from that point of view. But, arguing that the flamestorm cannon is anything but a super flamer is fatuous. Furthermore, were talking about a game that relies heavily on imagination. Thus to argue in the face of what the real intent of the molten body, which is to make the avatar immune to fire and melta, detracts heavily from the aura of the avatar and in my opinion the fun.

Orks can't ever lose by that reasoning.

Does this mean I should auto-win any game I play?

Orks auto win no matter what. If they die they died fighting and if they win, they live to fight again.

crimsonmicc wrote:arguing that the flamestorm cannon is anything but a super flamer is fatuous.

If it wasn't exactly what the rules say, you'd have a point.

Gwar! wrote:

crimsonmicc wrote:I understand what is being said specifically about the RAW and the argument is sound from that point of view. But, arguing that the flamestorm cannon is anything but a super flamer is fatuous. Furthermore, were talking about a game that relies heavily on imagination. Thus to argue in the face of what the real intent of the molten body, which is to make the avatar immune to fire and melta, detracts heavily from the aura of the avatar and in my opinion the fun.

Orks can't ever lose by that reasoning.

Does this mean I should auto-win any game I play?

Justification for Orks never losing? In the back story they lose battles, i believe the orks are only said to be unstoppable if every last one of them banded together but that seems unlikely.

Also orks auto winning would not be conducive to a fun game, thus it would be against one of my tenants of even an average game. Also, how is arguing that an Avatar should be immune to fire attacks, like it says in the description, tantamount to saying that the Orks should always win.

SaintHazard wrote:

crimsonmicc wrote:arguing that the flamestorm cannon is anything but a super flamer is fatuous.

If it wasn't exactly what the rules say, you'd have a point.

I think people ought to break rules that don't make sense, especially ones that are not game breaking. If it is reasonable and logical, i dont mind if someone gets rid of an awkward/extraneous/obviously outdated rule. All they have to do is discuss it with the other player. This makes a more successful game, in my opinion.

Obviously im not saying that Orks should always win or that Necrons shouldn't phase out or all Tyranids should always have synapse or that RAW are not important in tournaments.

I am saying the avatar is obviously supposed to be immune to all fire attacks and i dont mind if you play with chaos demons on square bases in 40k and if you have counts as units i dont mind if they are a bit taller or wider. Yes if someone was trying to get away with some shenanigans i would take issue but its a game, i don't take it too seriously.

crimsonmicc wrote:Justification for Orks never losing? In the back story they lose battles, i believe the orks are only said to be unstoppable if every last one of them banded together but that seems unlikely.

Codex:Orks (4th Edition) p. 49 (and lots of older Ork books):

Orkses is never defeated in battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fighting so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!

Also orks auto winning would not be conducive to a fun game, thus it would be against one of my tenants of even an average game.

It would be fun for me if my orks always won. By not allowing it, you are making the game unfun!

Also, how is arguing that an Avatar should be immune to fire attacks, like it says in the description, tantamount to saying that the Orks should always win.

Because you are arguing fluff as rules. I am doing the same.

Gwar! wrote:Because you are arguing fluff as rules. I am doing the same.

And you seriously can't see the difference between arguing that a flame-based weapon should be covered by a rule that deals with flame-based weapons, and arguing that you should always win based on Ork philosophy?

This, right here, is why people get so irritated with your approach to discussing the rules, Gwar. When people are discussing the best way to play the game, it quite often includes a certain amount of fluff justification behind 'tweaking' the rules to make what, to that person, makes the most sense.

Taking that and inflating it with hyperbole isn't helpful. While we love to bemoan the un-commonness of common sense on the interwebs, there's nothing wrong with applying a certain amount of it to our games of toy soldiers. If you prefer to stick to discussing the RAW, then pointing out your interpretation of the RAW and then leaving any off-RAW discussion to those who are interested in such things will cause far fewer hackles to raise and spawn fewer silly arguments.


And for what it's worth, the fluff doesn't ever say that Orks actually always win. It simply says that regardless of the actual outcome, they choose to interpret it as a win.

Not losing is not the same as winning. Just ask OJ Simpon if he is innocent or not guilty? I'll let you not lose as long as I am allowed to win. They win when they win, and anything else doesn't count.

insaniak wrote:And you seriously can't see the difference between arguing that a flame-based weapon should be covered by a rule that deals with flame-based weapons, and arguing that you should always win based on Ork philosophy?

No, I cannot. Mainly because there is no difference. Both are fluff arguments that have no basis in the rules, why should one be "ok" and one be "not ok"?

This, right here, is why people get so irritated with your approach to discussing the rules, Gwar. When people are discussing the best way to play the game, it quite often includes a certain amount of fluff justification behind 'tweaking' the rules to make what, to that person, makes the most sense.

Yes, and to me "the best way to play the game" involved playing by the rules. Shocking, I know.

Taking that and inflating it with hyperbole isn't helpful. While we love to bemoan the un-commonness of common sense on the interwebs, there's nothing wrong with applying a certain amount of it to our games of toy soldiers. If you prefer to stick to discussing the RAW, then pointing out your interpretation of the RAW and then leaving any off-RAW discussion to those who are interested in such things will cause far fewer hackles to raise and spawn fewer silly arguments.

I am simply debating my opinion, the same as anyone else. My opinion on this matter is if it is "ok" and "fun" to let the Flamestorm not affect the Avatar because of fluff, then why is it "not ok" and "not fun" for my orks to always win because of fluff?

By showing that the fluff position is untenable, I aim to show that following the clear rules as written is to the benefit of both players.

And for what it's worth, the fluff doesn't ever say that Orks actually always win. It simply says that regardless of the actual outcome, they choose to interpret it as a win.

And that is all that matters!

Gwar! wrote:

And for what it's worth, the fluff doesn't ever say that Orks actually always win. It simply says that regardless of the actual outcome, they choose to interpret it as a win.

And that is all that matters!

It doesn't say either of those things, it says "Never defeated in battle", draws the have draws I say!


@Insaniak: I'd side with fluff=fluff rules=rules as well, otherwise it's a very slippery slope from there where 'some fluff' is 'rules' doubly so when it's because it's 'fluffy'.

I have to side with insaniak here, and might I just add that it is Gwar's sort of " I'm right, The rules are open to no interpretation" is just a load of BS. ( That's right, Ballistic Skill )
People have to remember that this is a game where grown men, women and teenagers play toy soldiers. And in a game of toy soldiers people still have to become arrogant and just unfun to play with.
It was people like this that made me fall out of this game a couple years ago, I mean honestly, no one likes a spoil sport.

Rant over

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Because you are arguing fluff as rules. I am doing the same.

And you seriously can't see the difference between arguing that a flame-based weapon should be covered by a rule that deals with flame-based weapons, and arguing that you should always win based on Ork philosophy?

That's not the point, Bolter shells explode on impact, causing a 'flame', when vehicles explode their 'flaming debris' can cause wounds, the Burna Boyz use their flamer to create a PW effect.
Is the Avatar immune to all of the above? When you use fluff=rules you could argue he is, when you use RAW you can't. Less arguments=good, use RAW. RAI raises to many problems which you can't solve objectively as it is always open to interpretation.
GW's RAW is sometimes also open to interpretation, but it is nowhere near as open as RAI or worse; fluff.

And although it's a stretch, when you play like the FSC affects the Avatar, you could argue your Orks can never lose. It uses the same pattern of logic.
That said, when using fluff as rules, which parts of the fluff counts as rules and which don't? Where is the line and who is the judge of that?

This, right here, is why people get so irritated with your approach to discussing the rules, Gwar. When people are discussing the best way to play the game, it quite often includes a certain amount of fluff justification behind 'tweaking' the rules to make what, to that person, makes the most sense.

Taking that and inflating it with hyperbole isn't helpful. While we love to bemoan the un-commonness of common sense on the interwebs, there's nothing wrong with applying a certain amount of it to our games of toy soldiers. If you prefer to stick to discussing the RAW, then pointing out your interpretation of the RAW and then leaving any off-RAW discussion to those who are interested in such things will cause far fewer hackles to raise and spawn fewer silly arguments.

Trowing a line of thought into a Hyperbole is very helpful to determine wheter the logic behind it is flawed.
And again for the sake of eliminating arguments: "In the grim darkness of the far future there is no common sense, only rules."
For example; common sense would give you an cover save against Marker lights (because I can dive behind that wall, right!?), but the rules clearly say you can't (no wounds=no saves).

I play fairly regular in different gaming groups and tournaments all over the NL, so my opponent base is very diverse. Often I encounter people who play the game a bit different than the rules say you should, and while there is not mutch wrong with that (as long as your opponents agree pre-game) it can lead to confusion and (game deciding) arguments.
The easiest way around this is stick to RAW, which is "closing" (=English?:S) more often than most people think it is. As long as you remember 40k has a restrictive rules system.

Gwar! wrote: Both are fluff arguments that have no basis in the rules, why should one be "ok" and one be "not ok"?

Because one is a sensible argument, and the other is hyperbole intended to make a point.

I am simply debating my opinion, the same as anyone else. My opinion on this matter is if it is "ok" and "fun" to let the Flamestorm not affect the Avatar because of fluff, then why is it "not ok" and "not fun" for my orks to always win because of fluff?

I'm not even sure where to start with that one. I quite honestly do not believe that you can't see the difference between 'I win because I play Orks' and 'This weapon is a flame-based weapon, so is treated as one for the purposes of this model's special rule'...

By showing that the fluff position is untenable, I aim to show that following the clear rules as written is to the benefit of both players.

You're not showing that the fluff position is untenable, though. You're simply showing that it can be taken to ridiculous extremes. But that can happen with RAW as well (as evidenced by the multi-page thread that has been running on this board for some time now), so I'm a little confused as to just what point you think you're making.

Joostuh wrote:That's not the point, Bolter shells explode on impact, causing a 'flame', when vehicles explode their 'flaming debris' can cause wounds, the Burna Boyz use their flamer to create a PW effect.
Is the Avatar immune to all of the above? When you use fluff=rules you could argue he is, when you use RAW you can't. Less arguments=good, use RAW. RAI raises to many problems which you can't solve objectively as it is always open to interpretation.

For what it's worth, I wasn't arguing RAI. I have no idea just how many different weapons the writer of the Eldar codex intended to be covered.

The argument being made was simply that it makes sense for the Flamestorm to be included. How far players choose to take that with other flame-based or flame-involving weapons is entirely up to them.

And although it's a stretch, when you play like the FSC affects the Avatar, you could argue your Orks can never lose. It uses the same pattern of logic.

Using the same pattern of logic doesn't make it a sensible argument. After all, by that logic, nobody should ever suggest any house rules, ever, because then the other player could insist on his house rule that all of his models have 10 for every stat, and can't be killed. And since we've seen quite conclusively over the years that a certain amount of house ruling and interpretation is actually required to play the game at all, that leaves us doing something else entirely with our spare time.

Yes, tinkering with the rules can lead to silly places. It's simply up to the individual players to determine just how far down that road they are willing to wander.

Burna's create a PW effect, sort of like Plasma is super hot gas.

I guess the Flamestorm cannon is TOO hot for the avatar, as he is not immune to plasma weapons.

axeman1n wrote:Burna's create a PW effect, sort of like Plasma is super hot gas.

I guess the Flamestorm cannon is TOO hot for the avatar, as he is not immune to plasma weapons.

There, simple enough. For those of you who want the Avatar's not-immunity to flamestorm cannons explained via fluff, here it is.

"Molten" and "plasmatic" are two different states of matter. Perhaps the flamestorm cannon is SO HOT it actually incinerates the molten body of the Avatar, or forces it into a plasmatic state.

Gwar! and Joostuh are absolutely correct in that it's a slippery slope from "flamestorm cannons don't affect the Avatar because they're flame based" to "Boltguns with Dragonfire bolts don't affect the Avatar because they explode with hot gas," to "Boltguns don't affect the avatar at all because they explode," to "Castellan missiles don't affect the avatar because they're incendiary explosives," to "Burna power weapons don't affect the Avatar because they're based on a flame-based weapon," and so on. Where does it end? All of a sudden, we're finding ways to justify the Avatar being immune to 75% of the weapons in a given codex, and it becomes game-breaking.

It's much simpler and better for the game in general to just go with the RAW, which is abundantly clear. Flamestorm cannons can hurt the Avatar, along with all that other stuff that, theoretically, "shouldn't."

Just to point out a little basic flaw with the ork arguement: its not that orks always win, to paraphrase: it is a commonly held Ork view of warfare that orks never lose a battle.

It has both a subtle as well as a major difference. The subtle point is that this is merely an ork view, not that it is an actual fact; the major point is that even the orks dont think they always win but rather that they never lose.

So saying that one always wins with one's ork army isnt even supported by the fluff



Sliggoth

Maybe it is a storm based weapon that simply uses "flame" as an arbitrary descriptor for lack of a better term.

heh

SaintHazard wrote:

axeman1n wrote:Burna's create a PW effect, sort of like Plasma is super hot gas.

I guess the Flamestorm cannon is TOO hot for the avatar, as he is not immune to plasma weapons.

There, simple enough. For those of you who want the Avatar's not-immunity to flamestorm cannons explained via fluff, here it is.

"Molten" and "plasmatic" are two different states of matter. Perhaps the flamestorm cannon is SO HOT it actually incinerates the molten body of the Avatar, or forces it into a plasmatic state.

Gwar! and Joostuh are absolutely correct in that it's a slippery slope from "flamestorm cannons don't affect the Avatar because they're flame based" to "Boltguns with Dragonfire bolts don't affect the Avatar because they explode with hot gas," to "Boltguns don't affect the avatar at all because they explode," to "Castellan missiles don't affect the avatar because they're incendiary explosives," to "Burna power weapons don't affect the Avatar because they're based on a flame-based weapon," and so on. Where does it end? All of a sudden, we're finding ways to justify the Avatar being immune to 75% of the weapons in a given codex, and it becomes game-breaking.

It's much simpler and better for the game in general to just go with the RAW, which is abundantly clear. Flamestorm cannons can hurt the Avatar, along with all that other stuff that, theoretically, "shouldn't."

QFT

kirsanth wrote:Maybe it is a storm based weapon that simply uses "flame" as an arbitrary descriptor for lack of a better term.

heh

I agree with this man and/or woman's product and/or service and wish to subscribe to your newsletter!

So would Chaos Daemons Flamer Unit's Breath Of Chaos effect him?

Bloodhorror wrote:So would Chaos Daemons Flamer Unit's Breath Of Chaos effect him?

The Avatar is immune to "flamers"... but seriously... yes it would affect him.

I'm all for arguing fluff-wise a FSC should not hurt the Avatar, but da rulez ar da rulez and there is a list given of what he is immune to.

Also, was the FSC around when the Eldar dex was written? And was it around when the Eldar FAQ was written?

I wouldn't be surprised if in the next incarnation he was immune to all man-portable flame weaponry (ie, hand flamers, flamers, heavy (+dragons breath) flamers, incinerators, possibly more) and any weapons with the melta rule.

Lots of ways that they could redo the rules

I think if i was to write the new molten body rule i think theres a lot of ways that it could be done.
a) All template and metla weapons wound at -4 strength; weapons that always wound on a set value, are the reasult of a psychic power or ignore invunrable saves are unchanged.

b) no weapons that use the template or metla rule can ever cause wounds. (note +100pts to the model)

but what i wouldn't do is make a damn long list of weapons

SaintHazard wrote:Gwar! and Joostuh are absolutely correct in that it's a slippery slope from "flamestorm cannons don't affect the Avatar because they're flame based" to "Boltguns with Dragonfire bolts don't affect the Avatar because they explode with hot gas," to "Boltguns don't affect the avatar at all because they explode," to "Castellan missiles don't affect the avatar because they're incendiary explosives," to "Burna power weapons don't affect the Avatar because they're based on a flame-based weapon," and so on. Where does it end?

Wherever both players involved feel is appropriate.

There seems to be a misconception here that agreeing to alter one rule to suit perceived what makes sense to the players means altering every other rule that is remotely similar. Which is a little odd. It's sort of like saying that because an army list has all these different units in it, players have no control over which units they take in their army...

insaniak wrote:Wherever both players involved feel is appropriate.

Aye, there's the rub. And the reason sticking to RAW is important is so that one doesn't need to presuppose that players will simply happily agree on a reasonable solution while one person's HQ is about to lose its last wound.

The basic argument is that altering rules has the potential to cause disputes because something obviously reasonable to one player (i.e. IG frag grenades are assault grenades or hot-shot lasguns count as lasguns for the purposes of FRFSRF) might look like blatant cheating to someone else. It does open the can of worms in the sense that as soon as one thing is altered from the RAW, you've set a precedent of rule alteration which leaves it up to two competing individuals with a stake in the outcome of a game to decide if chaos terminators can move and then shoot combi-plasmas 24".

MekanobSamael wrote:

insaniak wrote:Wherever both players involved feel is appropriate.

Aye, there's the rub. And the reason sticking to RAW is important is so that one doesn't need to presuppose that players will simply happily agree on a reasonable solution while one person's HQ is about to lose its last wound.

The thing is, given how loosely written GW's rules are, that happy agreement is required to play the game in the first place.

You will not find any two players who have a perfectly matching interpretation of the RAW. There are just too many places where the RAW is ambiguous, or where different players' understanding of the rules, or command of the english language, leads them to different interpretations.

So it's not as simple as saying 'stick to RAW and you won't have any issues.' Players have to agree on a common ground in order to play the game. The trick is in finding opponents with a similar enough viewpoint on the game that you can reach that happy middle-ground with the fewest hassles.

Gwar! wrote:Why would an Avatar be immune to blasts of Psychic Power though?

or Acids

or Shattershards

or the psychic death screams of an Eldar Exarch

or the multitude of other non flame based template weapons?

Should he be immune to Burnas Power Weapon effect too but not other pw?

Very interesting to see you argue the rules from a fluff POV. I am guessing it's worth it for you.

Before I start, it really is silly for Gwar! to say he can't see a difference between this and his "orks autowin" scenario. This is an interpretation of a rule, which is clearly included in the codex as a rule. That is a quotation of a fictional creature, which is clearly included in the codex as a joke. They are statements of entirely different kinds.

I agree that, as much as we can, we should keep fluff out of our RAW. But in this case, GW explicitly refers to the fluff in determining which weapons don't affect the Avatar.

The rule
From the FAQ:

"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."

The analysis
Notice three things about this.

1. It's part of the FAQ, not part of the errata, wich means that it's explaining how to interpret the rules as they appear in the Codex.
2. The criterion given for determining whether the Avatar is immune is "melta or flame weapons." Given the wording of the rule in the codex, for this purpose "flamer" must mean "flame weapon."
3. We don't have an explicit definition of "flame weapon," but we have a list of members of the class.

The best we can do, then, is to argue from analogy to the members we know: meltas, flamers, incinerators, inferno cannons/pistols. That is what the rules, as written, tell us to do.

I think it's pretty obvious that a flamestorm cannon is a flame weapon. It shoots flame. It is like a very big flamer. If you were to ask, "Hey Hesperus, what's a flamestorm cannon?" I'd say, "It's a very big flamer." I really doubt the the definition of 'flame weapon' includes a size provision.

I think it's pretty obvious that any "non flame based template weapon," as Gwar! so aptly labeled them, are not flame weapons. 'Flame' clearly doesn't mean 'template'. Enough said.

The Burna question is actually harder. I think RAI is that the Avatar isn't immune to the PW part, but RAW it is. It should clearly be immune to the template part, because that's identical to a regular flamer. The PW part, according to the fluff, is like a blowtorch, which seems to lie somewhere between flamer and melta. Given that the Avatar's immune to both, I'd say it's immune. I'd happily play it either way, though.

The verdict
Immune to flamestorm? Firmly yes.
Immune to non-flame-based template weapons? Firmly no.
Immune to Burnas? Tentatively yes.

Sorry about the wall of text. It's really hard to make forum posts visually pleasing and I'm still kinda new to it.

If you want to argue RaW, why are you including the FAQ, which are House Rules (and by definition not RaW)?

And for the record, I think the Flamestorm actually fires storms, which are full of cold winds and rain and stuff and the flame is just another word for "Big Ass gun that fires" in Imperial Gothic. Prove me wrong!

The answer is firmly No, the Avatar is not immune to Flamestorms. Period. If you want to house rule it, fine, but I get to house rule that my orks always win, because IMO there is no difference between the two.

Huh. I never noticed FAQs released by GW aren't official rules.

You're right about the flamestorm, then. False premises leads to a false conclusion.

Gwar! wrote:If you want to argue RaW, why are you including the FAQ, which are House Rules (and by definition not RaW)?

And for the record, I think the Flamestorm actually fires storms, which are full of cold winds and rain and stuff and the flame is just another word for "Big Ass gun that fires" in Imperial Gothic. Prove me wrong!

The answer is firmly No, the Avatar is not immune to Flamestorms. Period. If you want to house rule it, fine, but I get to house rule that my orks always win, because IMO there is no difference between the two.

Once again, for the purposes of this forum FAQ are official sources of information. That makes them rules that are written, or RAW.

Dracos wrote:

Gwar! wrote:If you want to argue RaW, why are you including the FAQ, which are House Rules (and by definition not RaW)?

And for the record, I think the Flamestorm actually fires storms, which are full of cold winds and rain and stuff and the flame is just another word for "Big Ass gun that fires" in Imperial Gothic. Prove me wrong!

The answer is firmly No, the Avatar is not immune to Flamestorms. Period. If you want to house rule it, fine, but I get to house rule that my orks always win, because IMO there is no difference between the two.

Once again, for the purposes of this forum FAQ are official sources of information. That makes them rules that are written, or RAW.

FAQ are GWs house rules (as per their own description) and they say that the FAQ are not written rules but their opinion on grey area issues. However i would give them some weight as they would have the best idea of RAI.

FAQ's are rules when you play in tournaments. Since there's no reason to talk about rules unless you are talking about tournaments, or how one would play it in a tournament, then I'd say the FAQ is rules.