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.

does fire magic re-roll to wound against a model in a fulcrum? - if so explain why please.

Because flaming attacks re-roll to wound vs units in buildings.

Fucrims have there own set of rules, these are in adition and seperate from the BRB rules, it says nowhere in the AF rules that you get to re-roll flame attacks on a AF

For example: Page 28: the model recieves extra protection as described in the BRB. this clearly states that you use a specific part of the BRB

As the flaming damage rule is not part of the AF rules it is an exception

In short an AF is NOT a building but is treated as a building with its own rules

Actually, the Fulcrums state that : "An Arcane Fulcrum is treated as a building, with the following exceptions and additions:"

None of the points listed after say you do not re-roll to wound vs flaming attacks.

Therefore you do as the building rules say as much.

As above. They are special buildings, but are still buildings.

Treated as buildings with aditions and exceptions, it clearly states what happens when you attack a af, the flaming damage rule is not there, an exception. Arcane fulcrums are not buildings, they act in a similar way.

No, that is not how "with the following exceptions and additions" works.

You take the base building rules, which include re-rolling to wound with fire attacks, the occupying unit being stubborn, only 10 models attacking the building, etc.

Then, you take the list and apply them to the current building rules.

For example, now not only is the occupying unit Stubbon, but also Immune to Psychology, Immune to the Multiple Wounds rule, etc. These would be additional rules.

Normally, monsters can't garrison buildings. But as long as it is either a wizard or the wizard's mount, a monster can garrison a Fulcrum. This would be an exception.

Formosa wrote:Treated as buildings with aditions and exceptions, it clearly states what happens when you attack a af, the flaming damage rule is not there, an exception. Arcane fulcrums are not buildings, they act in a similar way.

No, they ARE buldings - you even said so yourself!

If you are told to take a car, but add a spoiler and take off ride height, it would still be a car and require roadfund licence

A fulcrum is a building, with a number of exceptions and a number of additions. Unless it tells you to remove the flaming attack, it is still a rule of a building.

Your way requires them to write out every rule they wish the fulcrum to follow - except theyve already done so: follow the building rules unless told otherwise.

Following that logic, I could say all my units in a building have the divesting charge rule, when clearly in the rules it isnt there.
As I said if the special rule is not there, you don't get it, especially when it then goes on in the next part of the rules and tells you to refer to the rulebook.

How can you claim that they would have devastating charge? Does the rule for buildings say they do? No?

Buildings state that you re-roll to wound with flaming attacks. Nothing in the fulcrums' rules contradicts that. The Fulcrum's rules doesn't state that those bullets are the ONLY rules for Fulcrums; they are additions or exceptions to the basic building rules.

Following that logic, I could say all my units in a building have the divesting charge rule, when clearly in the rules it isnt there.

This really isn't the same logic being applied. Your argument is that a fulcrums ruleset is entirely contained within the headings Fulcrum and Buildings. Nothing in the BRB grants you Devastating Charge when in a building (unless I've misinterpreted what you were trying to say).

What we are looking at however, is the interaction of 2 rulesets, those being fulcrums and flaming attacks.

Flaming attacks are allowed to reroll against those inside a building.
A fulcrum is considered a building with the following additions and exceptions....
Unless one of those additions or exceptions specifically mentions flaming attacks, we are forced to fall back on the BRB's ruling on flaming attack on a model in a building
A reroll is allowed against a model in a building when using a flaming attack.

I don't need to find the rule in the Building, or in the Fulcrum ruleset. The rule is in the flaming attack section. Unless there is an override of said rule, whenever a model is in a building (a fulcrum is clearly a building) then a reroll may be taken with a flaming attack.

If you ignore the flaming attack section of the ruleset, you are ignoring half of the relevant rules for determining the outcome to the situation.

except the big set of text that states what happens if you attack a AF, flaming attacks isnt there (Exception), then the next part EXPLICITY tells you to refer to the BRB for the rules for extra protection.

If its not in the rules then you dont get it.
A blood angel doesn't get the same rules as a space wolf just because they both share ATSKNF

So ultimately the argument you are making is that the AF section does not state what happens if you attack it with a flaming attack, therefore flaming attacks do not count to an AF.

Just to be clear, thats not an exception, thats an omission. An exception would be "flaming attacks have no effect on an arcane fulcrum." Thats an exception to the normal ruleset.

If they simply do not mention flaming attacks, its an omission. We are then forced to fall back on the ruleset in the BRB.

How do you determine how to resolve a flaming attack if you aren't checking the "flaming attacks" section of the rulebook? You cannot ignore that section of the rulebook.

Flaming attacks have a specific permission to reroll against a building
A fulcrum is a building with additions and exceptions, none of which specifically mention flaming attacks.
That means we must use the BRB rules for flaming attacks

Rerolls for flaming attacks against buildings ARE in the rules. They are in the rules section for flaming attacks.

Lehnsherr wrote:
Just to be clear, thats not an exception, thats an omission. An exception would be "flaming attacks have no effect on an arcane fulcrum." Thats an exception to the normal ruleset.

Rerolls for flaming attacks against buildings ARE in the rules. They are in the rules section for flaming attacks.

This.
Omission does not equal exception.

-Matt

As above.

Your argument is "if the fulcrum rules do not state it, you do not get it" - but the fulcrum rule does state you get flaming benefits, by saying it follows the rules for buildings.

no it does not, it CLEARLY tells you what happens when you attack it, it then CLEARLY states when to look at the BRB in regards to the defence it gets (Hard cover).
it ACTS like a building, but is NOT a building as it has its own rules.

In other words, when you attack the AF it tells you how to resolve the attacks, what bonus's apply and in the SAME paragraph tells you to look at the BRB in reference to defensive bonus.

Oh and

o·mis·sion/ōˈmiSHən/Noun
1. Someone or something that has been left out or excluded.
2. The action of excluding or leaving out someone or something.

Yes, it tells you to USE THE BUILDING RULES. Then, and only then, the bullet points in the Arcane Fulcrum Sections add effects or change the BUILDING RULES.

*edit* No need for that comment, so out it goes.

"An Arcane Fulcrum is treated as a building, with the following exceptions and additions:"

That means it is functionally a building in all respects, unless the AF rules tell you otherwise. That doesn't mean its not a building. You must follow all rules for both Buildings AND Arcane Fulcrums. The only rules for buildings you are allowed to ignore are those that the AF specifically outlines as an exception. Some examples...

Some exceptions:
You may not stomp on an arcane fulcrum
You may not destroy an arcane fulcrum
Instead of 10 models fighting, only 1 model may fight

There is a line in the AF that states "By default, it's best to ignore any special rules those terrain pieces ordinarily have, assuming them to be replaced by the AF rules instead. However feel free to use both sets of rules if you wish!" Just for clarity, thats for if your Arcane Fulcrum was also another piece of mysterious terrain. That being said, the special rule in question is NOT for buildings, its under the flaming attacks section, and you are not told to ignore that.

It does not clearly tell you how to attack an AF with a Flaming Attack. The AF rules merely state how you can assault the building, and those are EXCEPTIONS to the normal rules in the BRB.

There are ADDITIONS:
A miscast on an AF results in an AF miscast.
A 3+ Ward Save
ITP

There is literally nothing in the AF ruleset that tells you how to resolve a flaming attack against the AF. The rules for flaming attacks against an AF have been OMITTED. That means that they are not included in the ruleset for an AF. That does not mean you ignore them, that means you fall back to the rules laid out in the BRB.

Where in the AF ruleset does it tell you to ignore the special rules of flaming attacks?

You will not find that in the SoM book. You cannot ignore the special effects of a flaming attack, and seeing as how there is literally nothing in the SoM ruleset for AF's that tell you to ignore their effects, why are you doing so?



**Edit**

Just to try a different attempt. The special rule we are applying in this case is Flaming Attacks.

A model with a flaming attack is chosen to fight a model on an Arcane Fulcrum.
We look to the SoM book to tell us how to resolve rolling to hit, rolling to wound etc....
Nothing is there, so we fall back to the BRB
In the BRB it says that if you have a flaming attack you may reroll rolls to wound against a model in a building
We check the SoM to see if an AF is a building
Yep, its a building
We check to see if it has a specific exception disallowing flaming attacks from rerolling to wound
There is no exception
Result: You are allowed to reroll rolls to wound with a flaming attack

Formosa wrote:no it does not, it CLEARLY tells you what happens when you attack it, it then CLEARLY states when to look at the BRB in regards to the defence it gets (Hard cover).
it ACTS like a building, but is NOT a building as it has its own rules.

Wrong. It states it is a building, and has some exceptions and additions. This still means it is a building, and follows the building rules until you are told, specifically, otherwise.

It is a building, with some changes to the building rules. Any such changes have to be explicitly stated, otherwise you use the default building rules.