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.

Well, following your logic PirateRobot, when firing my Warp Lightning Cannon, I follow the normal cannon rules with the following exceptions:
"The second dice determines how far the WL 'bounces', if a number is rolled (2,4,6,8,10) this is the distance travelled, blablabla small template blabla"

Note that the bounce -according to your reading- does NOT follow the normal cannon rules for a bounce (following exceptions), it simply indicates how far it bounces, nowhere does it force me to bounce in a line following the initial shot, nor in a straight line at all in fact!
I could be bouncing in zigzags or in a spiral and effectively put the template anywhere within the max distance rolled

I'm happy to play my WLC like that if you insist on playing the Flame Cannons as a Torrent weapon

Again, why are you being deliberately obtuse? You have no permission there to override how the cannon bounces, just that you place a small template at the end. With the flame cannon, it totally changes the rules for firing it. Your argument is like saying that if a repeater bolt thrower fires multiple times because of an explicit override in its rules, then CLEARLY you should be able to do the same with a stone thrower - nonsense. Again, do you not find it suspicious that this restriction disappeared in this book and only this book, even though they knew it was an issue? If the template was placed first, then moved then the dice was rolled, I could see your point. If it was placed after the initial movement of up to 12", I could see your point. It's not - it's placed after everything is resolved, and absolutely nowhere does it restrict the firing angle like in any other iteration of any fire thrower. They KNEW this was an issue, clearly, as the restriction was even in the last book but it's not here. Why is that if the author's intent is so clear? Surely it would have been easier to copy and paste one of the many instances where it's worked flawlessly rather than reword it all, don't you think? It's not even remotely resolved similarly to a fire thrower other than it using a teardrop template - it's ranged, the template is placed last and there's nothing saying the template needs to be aimed at or even fired near an enemy unit. It shares almost as much in common with a stone thrower frankly. Again, if you don't like that way of playing it, fine, but let's not pretend this is some obscure twisting of the rules when it's not even slightly.

I'm not being obtuse here, I'm just reading the Skaven rules with the same liberties you guys take when reading the Dwarfs' ones
The Flame Cannon doesn't have any more permission than the WLC to override how to place the template, nothing explicitely tells you that you have to do so, just as nothing explicitely tells you that a WLC bounce/blast has to follow the cannon rules
My WLC argument doesn't make any sense, I absolutely agree to that, just as the Flame Cannon argument doesn't make any sense either

I mean, Chewbacca is living with the Ewoks on Endor ... IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE !
Johnnie Cochran approves of this thread

The Flame cannon does indeed have specific rules to override the placement of the template. When normally firing a fire thrower you place the template and move it directly forwards here you work out the final point then place the template. You are literally told to break the template placement rules.

You're only told to break said rules if you choose to read it this way
The writing is very poor in the sense that it can be read both ways, but if it could be placed jsut about anywhere, why wouldn't it say so specifically like the Gyrobomber ? The bomber's rule say that you can place the template anywhere on the unit above which you flew
It doesn't make much sense either, but at least the wording is very clear

No matter how you read it you are directly told to break the normal fire thrower rules. Normal Fire Thrower rules demand you place the template before rolling the artillery dice the Flame Cannon specifically tells you not to do this. You clearly haven't read the rules if you believe that the Flame Cannon doesn't specifically tell you to break the normal rules for placement of a flame template.

TanKoL wrote:
I'm not being obtuse here, I'm just reading the Skaven rules with the same liberties you guys take when reading the Dwarfs' ones
The Flame Cannon doesn't have any more permission than the WLC to override how to place the template, nothing explicitely tells you that you have to do so, just as nothing explicitely tells you that a WLC bounce/blast has to follow the cannon rules
My WLC argument doesn't make any sense, I absolutely agree to that, just as the Flame Cannon argument doesn't make any sense either

You are being obtuse though, unless you GENUINELY don't see the difference between the 2 following things:
1) A weapon which EITHER fires like a fire thrower OR uses a completely different set of rules with its own profile, totally different method of resolution (one aims a template at a unit, then moves it; the other places a counter anywhere at all in range, moves it then places the template, bearing as much resemblance to a cannon bounce as a fire thrower) and doesn't need any of the rules for a fire thrower except 3 sentences of the entire section.
2) A weapon which works like a cannon, needs all the rules for a cannon, requires knowing how to resolve a cannon shot and what bounce is and only differs by placing a small template at the end of the bounce, which overrides nothing.

I mean seriously? Seriously? There's no "breaking" rules here - you aren't even using those rules to begin with, you're using a separate profile. I don't know how I can even make this clearer.

I like you, Eyjio

As for the WLC, let me supply the rules for these:

The Warp Lightning Cannon is a move or fire weapon that fires in the same way as a cannon, as presented in the Warhammer rulebook, with the following exceptions.

[Nothing about bouncing, save that the bounce number affects strength]

Looking then to the rules for cannons from the BRB:

BOUNCE
Assuming that the cannon did not misfire, then hopefully the cannonball will bounce straight forward and crush any targets in its path.
To determine how far the cannonball bounces, roll the artillery dice again. If the result is a misfire then the cannonball does not bounce - it thuds into the ground and comes to rest Any model under the spot where the cannonball comes to rest is hit, see below for details of how to resolve the hit, but he is the only victim!
Assuming you don't roll a misfire, then the cannonball bounces the distance rolled straight forward — extend your tape measure a distance equal to the roll of the dice. If the cannonball bounces into impassable terrain that would, in reality, stand in the way of the shot, such as a sheer cliff, it stops immediately.

Again, an explicit requirement to bounce "straight forward." A requirement that's lacking for the Flame Cannon.

So once again, the rule is ambiguous. It SEEMS to be implied that the template is placed directly along the trajectory of fire. However the explicit requirement to do this, that was existent in BOTH the previous edition AND other analogous weapons means that GW was AWARE of this issue and chose to drop the wording regardless. To me that makes it fair game to interpret this as an intentional change.

I specifically provided the quote from the Skaven book about the WLC ...
WLC fires like a normal cannon with the following exceptions
"The second dice determines how far the WL 'bounces', if a number is rolled (2,4,6,8,10) this is the distance travelled, blablabla small template blabla"
see, it doesn't fire like a normal cannon either

TanKoL wrote:

see, it doesn't fire like a normal cannon either

...

WLC fires like a normal cannon

...

...

Really? You want to do this? You want me to point out why firing like something with one exception is different to completely adding a new firing mode?

TanKOL seems to have a particular problem with Dwarves. I think he believes he can never beat them fairly so he's desperately trying to break their rules. I mean he posted on literally every Dwarf Army thread on release week about Armour Piercing not conferring to shooting regardless of relevance. Now this arguing here where he's claiming shooting following a process with 1 exception is the same as an entirely new process for shooting...

The bottom line is some people are saying that without explicitly including a provision/limitation which has always existed (moving template forward in teardrop shape) it constitutes inclusion of a rule explicitly stating the opposite.

It's pretty much always the case when they go off standard they tell you. Like if you can use a parry save while mounted (Ogre Ironfist). Or you get +1 parry save on charged (Dwarfs). Or you don't have any sides/rear (Nurgle Beast). Or any HUGE number of other cases.

Assuming that the lack of restriction, in an ambiguously worded text is an explicit inclusion is certainly incorrect. An explicit inclusion is something like: "turn the template anyway you want." And is a whole lot easier to include and understand.

And there is also an assumption that not including a standard rule is more of an oversight that not including the un-standard exception. Meaning, was it more likely they made the mistake of us assuming it worked like every other teardrop template or assuming we would know it would be the unique snowflake when they didn't bother to explain?

 DukeRustfield wrote:
And there is also an assumption that not including a standard rule is more of an oversight that not including the un-standard exception. Meaning, was it more likely they made the mistake of us assuming it worked like every other teardrop template or assuming we would know it would be the unique snowflake when they didn't bother to explain?

This is really what it comes down to, since they either did one or the other. Did they alter the wording because they intended for us to assume it was different? Or did they alter the wording because they intended for us to assume it was the same? The clear and obvious answer is that it's...well...it's ambiguous. You could read it either way.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that dropping an explicit prohibition is tantamount to a non-explicit exception. Either you infer that the rule drafters were idiots and either purposely or negligently left out phrasing that made the restrictions explicitly clear, or you infer that GW knew what they were doing and intended to remove a rule (without making it explicitly clear that they were doing so...). To me the balance of probabilities favours the latter.


@Duke, the rest of your examples aren't really analogous. Parries explicitly state that you don't get them when mounted or fighting in the flank/rear. The only way to get around that explicit BRB restriction is to write an exception into the armybook. The Flame Cannon operates "like" a fire thrower, but fires in a completely separate manner. The "standardness" of how it fires is at best an implication. The only true analogous unit is the CD magma cannon, which is not even included in an official armybook (Warhammer Forge legality notwithstanding), and the old Flame Cannon, whose wording is almost identical save the dropped requirement and has now been superseded by the new book. The correctness of one interpretation over the other is nowhere near as "certain" as you suggest.

Having played the game for 15 years now, I would just like to throw in my two coppers --

I'm not arguing or taking sides, this is my opinion, which means nothing:

I would finish out the game against the person that did this to me (placing the template in such a way that they ARE following the wording, but also making it "bend" so get more hits around a corner), but I would never play against them again. I feel like players like that ruin the game for me, which is always about fun. It does have some TFGness to it and I would not have fun playing against someone who plays that way.

Bottom line for me, don't be TFG...you know who you are...

How long you've been playing is irrelevant, cheating is being more of a TFG than not cheating. To me this seems like the intention of the rule though it is not so crystal clear that I wouldn't discuss it with my opponent if they were surprised by me doing this. Packing up because some one is playing by the rules and calling them TFG is however massive TFG behaviour in my opinion and I've been playing for about 25 years but I don't expect extra points just for being old (though surely I should get some for being Ginger right?)

@Fling -- by virtue of the fact that you are arguing that you're playing "by the rules" tells me that you are TFG. I don't have to like anyone that I play and bending the rules, again, in my opinion, to gain an edge is someone I would choose not to play. I said I would finish the game, after that, I wouldn't play you again. The problem with being TFG, is that those people never realize it's them...

Bassline wrote:
The TK monster thing can fly, yet it would weigh a ton would need jets to keep that flying, skaven war machines would just not work.

Th flame cannon with a rune is a magical cannon, so easily can just by pass this silly laws of physics there.

Tomb Kings and Skaven technology both involve magic. They work in ways that they shouldn't be able to, but the work they do is exactly what you'd expect.
The Necrosphinx can fly, but not backwards in time. The Warp Lightning Cannon fires bolts of some kind of radioactive lightning, but it doesn't turn hills into piles of cotton candy.
I guess I'd summarize this line of thinking thus: magic is an illogical means to a logical end. Something like that, maybe?

The Flame Cannon isn't magical until you put a Rune on it, so we can safely assume, since the laws of physics in the Warhammer world are the same as in our own, that things like pressure, combustion, velocity and arc of flight all work the same as they do in reality.

This whole argument seems pretty cut and dry to me: according to the RAW, it can shoot at an angle.

I mean, it doesn't make sense, but then again, neither does my A-bomb being unable to charge a unit because they're too close to his flank, and thus he can't pivot. If he can make contact with them as he rotates in place, he should be able to charge them. Same kind of nonsense.

The question, to me, is whether or not this allows a Flame Cannon that much of an advantage.

Orkimedes wrote:
@Fling -- by virtue of the fact that you are arguing that you're playing "by the rules" tells me that you are TFG. I don't have to like anyone that I play and bending the rules, again, in my opinion, to gain an edge is someone I would choose not to play. I said I would finish the game, after that, I wouldn't play you again. The problem with being TFG, is that those people never realize it's them...

Warhammer is a competitive game, and gaming the system is a part of that. You see people doing it all the time in games like Magic. The only real difference is that WHFB isn't tightly-written enough to stand up as well as the strictly regimented and refined rule/keyword system of Magic.

Whether this is a TFG situation really comes down to how it's played. Playing "Rules Gotchya" with these sorts of interpretations is a totally TFG thing to do, but just interpreting the rules that way is not. It's like how the DE Cauldron of Blood RAW applies to crossbows. Everybody "knows" that this wasn't the intention, but the rules quite unambiguously support it. The trouble with this instance is that the rules don't unambiguously point you either way, and the way some people will read the change conflicts with how others feel the rules ought to work.

I'll also admit that the way I think about these rules academically and the way I actually play them in game is quite different. If there's a situation where I think an interpretation is contentious (spirit leeching a Rune Maw unit, or whether Net of Amyntok requires strength-testing once for each spell or once for all spells) then I'll bring it up with my opponent before the game starts and just roll with whatever we work out, because I recognize that my background leads me to viewing rules in a much stricter and less intuitive way than many people do.

Basically, just because I think an interpretation is RIGHT doesn't mean that I'll push the issue in a game where it may not be SPORTSMANLIKE.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
....

FIRING A FIRE THROWER
Place the teardrop-shaped template with its narrow end touching the fire thrower barrel and the large end aimed at any target in line of sight. Roll the artillery dice and move the template directly forward the number of inches indicated — this is where the burst of flame lands. The template can overshoot a target, representing the crew firing in too high an arc.

All models underneath the template are hit automatically. Wounds caused by a fire thrower have the Flaming Attacks special rule. A unit suffering any casualties must take a Panic test.

A misfire means the weapon does not fire - roll on the Black Powder War Machine Misfire chart (see page 113) to find out what went wrong.

Nothing about this suggests that it can't be placed on an angle either. All that it requires is that the template be "aimed at any target in line of sight."

Was this change in wording an oversight? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Until there is an FAQ there is no way of knowing. RAW there is no restriction, save that the flame template can't aim "backwards," as the small end must be further from the target than the large end. That still leaves a significant degree of flexibility.

If anybody would like to offer an alternative interpretation - one that is based on RULES and not on FEELINGS - please be my guest. I would love to be proven wrong, and not have flame cannons bursting horizontally across my squishy infantry regiments.

I think the Fire Thrower description is clear.

The line of the template is set at its original placement. So from the weapons line of sight (within any fire arc limitations) the template is placed pointing directly at the target.

Everything that follows just sets the distance to which the templates thin end is placed. The template then travels along the line set by the long axis of the template/FT model to target point (which are the same). There is no variance from this line.

If players are slanting it from a target point (sideways across units) then they are wrong. To carry on the Hellhound rules comparisons, they are distinctly different weapons in description; the HH is flame thrower laying a sheet of flame from a pumped system, while the flame cannon when firing at range is effectively firing a projectile. The former will operate like a hose and be able to squirt all over the place, the latter is heading directly away from the cannon.

I don't agree that by omission of not saying that you can't angle the template it should therefore be allowed. The old "the rules don't say I can't" argument is not one I hold to.

 pities2004 wrote:
This really shouldn't be a conversation and if you are trying to do this I hope you make this mistake against a 300 pound all muscle biker

Why is he playing Fantasy in the first place, and if he is, he probably has a better rein on his temper than to beat you up because you want to angle your teardrop template.

Your post is directly insulting and with that attitude you don't belong in YMDC, whether or not you are right or wrong. If you don't want to see people argue rules, no one is keeping you.

I think the Fire Thrower description is clear. 

The line of the template is set at its original placement. So from the weapons line of sight (within any fire arc limitations) the template is placed pointing directly at the target. 

Everything that follows just sets the distance to which the templates thin end is placed. The template then travels along the line set by the long axis of the template/FT model to target point (which are the same). There is no variance from this line. 

This is all correct for a fire thrower but the Flame Cannon has different rules where the template is placed after determining the final position rather than before like the fire thrower...

So I reposted this question on Warseer, and someone made a very astute point.

The rule states that "[u]sing your tape measure, extend a 'shot' line from the Flame Cannon's barrel all the way to your target point. Roll an artillery dice and extend the line away from the Flame Cannon the number of inches shown - this is where the teardrop-shaped template is placed (the narrow end closest to the Flame Cannon)."

If you emphasize the 'shot' line over the marker it actually makes a lot more sense. You place the template along the shot line, originating at the target point. If you do it that way there are only two ways that you can place the cannon, big end forward or big end backward, and the rule makes you choose the one where the "tear-drop template is placed...narrow end closest to the Flame Cannon."

Read that way the "narrow-end" restriction is a lot clearer, which hints that this is the interpretation the authors had in mind.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't war machines hav 360 degree arcs and pivot to face what they're firing?

That is correct

I am suprised how many people forget GW's safe guard against these problems. ROLL OFF! Remember this game is supposed to be fun. If two people disagree just roll off and move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just read the insert on pg 3 of the mini rulebook "The Spirit of the Game". It pretty much says you can do whatever you want, and the rules are open ended on purpose. And on pg. it has an insert for "The Most Important Rule" essentially outlining a roll off 1-3 player A decides rule interpretation 4-6 player B does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Remember roll offs are in the rulebook RAW!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now someone might try to veto this rule by rolling off using the roll offs. which would be LOLZ. Its in the book RAW.

I think its all about choosing your opponents. And establishing rules both people can have fun with, otherwise if its a tournament the refs can make the call.

If roll off was a valid solution, we wouldn't need army books, brb, or YMDC. And TFGs could make up pretty absurd things and go ROLL OFF.

Calvinhammer for everyone!

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Got my hands on the rules. Here is the relevant text:

...nominate a point within the war machine's line of sight and within 12". This does not have to be an enemy model, but can be a point on the ground if you wish. Place a small counter (a coin will do) in the correct position as a reminder.

Using your tape measure, extend a 'shot' line from the Flame Cannon's barrel all the way to your target point. Roll the artillery dice and extend the line away from the Flame Cannon the number of inches shown - this is where the teardrop-shaped template is placed (the narrow end closest to the Flame Cannon). After this, work out hits exactly as per the normal flamethrower rules.

Note that you are not allowed to make a Flame Cannon shoot in such a way that it has a chance of hitting a friendly unit or an enemy unit that is engaged with friendly units.

Okay, well, first off I tend to agree that this is a TFG situation, and a RAI vs RAW situation. I favour the whole "line of shot" arguement, it just makes sense that it's a straight line.

That being said, I have a TFG argument for forcing the flame cannon into shooting in a straight line, and I believe it's pretty solid:





In the quote above, it says that the template must be placed with "the narrow end closest to the Flame Cannon". If you angle the shot in any way other than in a straight line, the "literal" narrow end of the template will not be closest to the flame cannon.

There is a specific point on the physical template that constitutes the "narrow end". Note that although the end is a convex half circle, there is a physical point that is the actual "end" of the narrow side of that template. If the flame template is symmetrical, which is a reasonable assumption, then that physical point will be at the center of the template and, since you always have to pivot the flame cannon to face the target (which is RAW for war machines), placing the template at an angle will move that physical point just so slightly away from the flame cannon, breaking the RAW interpretation.

So, there's a TFG RAW interpretation for you that is 100% legit and forces the flame cannon into a straight line of fire. This is the interpretation I will use if anyone tries to feth with me on this.

Note that counter arguments may include "but what constitutes an end is ambiguous, the end only refers to the point at which the half-circle convex begins". To that I call bs, because I'm guessing that nowhere in the rules does it specify what the end means, and given that lack of specification, we have to assume that "the people at games-workshop knew what they were doing and wrote the rules to be interpreted in a literal manner" (almost a direct quote from other posters in this thread), and end actually means the literal "end point" of that side of the template. Rules as written, not rules as intended (see what I did there guys?).





But see where RAW Nazism gets us in Warhammer? The last four paragraphs I wrote seem pretty fething ridiculous, and it's absurd that I even needed to go down that route in the first place. This game is not like Magic:the Gathering, where strict legalese interpretations of the rules are necessary and how the game functions, due to it's inherent complexity.

This is fething warhammer, it's a lot more casual of a game. Chill out. If you want to abuse rules to obtain an advantage over your opponent, go play Magic. But, then again, people who play that game live for those interactions, so there's probably a ton of other extremely intelligent people who are better at the game and interpreting those complex literal rules interactions than you......


EDIT: In case anyone has trouble understanding what I am referring to, I am sure I could upload a diagram explaining the concept....

 DukeRustfield wrote:
If roll off was a valid solution, we wouldn't need army books, brb, or YMDC. And TFGs could make up pretty absurd things and go ROLL OFF.

which is why I said its important to choose an opponent that you dont think will give you too many problems otherwise refer to a ref. FAQs are always helpful. but why have it in the brb if roll offs were not a valid solution. When you have a strong disagreement with an opponent and the rules are open to interpretation I stand behind roll offs.

Because they can't answer every question. And they're not going to say, "if you have a disagreement, stab the guy, and the one who survives is the winner."

You're echoing what we already (don't play with dicks) and adding what is redundant. If someone isn't a TFG, then the roll-off isn't a big deal. If someone is a TFG, then roll-off is a horrible idea.

The cockeyed, lol-layz0r, flame cannon is a TFG interpretation. So says nearly everyone in this thread. Thus roll-off is not a valid answer because you shouldn't play with TFGs and you sure as hell shouldn't give them roll-off ability or you'll regret it even more than playing them.