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 I see people this as a somewhat problematic, an would like to make a list of weapons said to be using fire, or fit into the Lord of Fire rule.
Post away.

Flamers without a doubt, of all shapes and sizes. But that probably isn't to helpful
So flamestorm, heavy flamer, incinerator, flamer, heavy incinerator, hand flamer, infernus cannon

Let me think.

Probably not melta, that is heat more than flame itself

Any idea about plasma? They are said to fire the energy of the sun IIRC , which would be fire right? And what about Melta bombs?

Well for plasma it does just say 'energy of the sun'. Not the matter or anything, but just the energy. So my opinion would be no. What is the Lord of Fire rule? The wording of that might change my mind.

And melta bombs I'd also say no, they are never really described as burning and what not, more just melting right through what they are used on

The codex is very specific, you need to reread the section on lord of flame.

I don't even know what codex it is from, I was just saying what are flame weapons, and what ones I'm not sure about

motyak wrote:Flamers without a doubt, of all shapes and sizes. But that probably isn't to helpful
So flamestorm, heavy flamer, incinerator, flamer, heavy incinerator, hand flamer, infernus cannon

Let me think.

Probably not melta, that is heat more than flame itself

they are referring to the C'Tan lord of flame shard in the new necron codex, meltas are listed as susceptible as well as anything that refers to using fire specifically or in its fluff

New necron codex: they cover pretty much all flamer weapons and any weapons with the melta special rule. Incinerators, flamers, flame storm, and pretty much anything with fire or flame in its description...

So flamers, heavy flamers, incinerators, flamestorm, infernus, combi-melta, multimelta, meltagun, fusion blaster...

The "Lord of Fire" rule clearly states that it affects all "flamer weapons," "burnas," "skorchas," "inferno cannons," and "any weapon described as using 'flame' or 'fire' in its effect or special rules."

So pretty much that. While somewhat ambiguous, I think it's sufficiently clear what the intent of the rule is. If the weapon uses fire, not "plasma" or "energy" or "lasers" or whatnot, it is affected.

EDIT: Oh and anything with the melta type too (so not meltabombs).

Yep. I see a C'tan Shard with Lord of Fire being used a lot against Salamander armies.

Plasma is NOT fire. Fire is a reduction using oxygen, plasma is the 4th state of matter - high eneergy state where ll electrons have left their usual orbits.

Fire /= Plasma.

Flamer & fire based /= melta /=plasma.

It already captures a bunch of weapons, don't try to add in more.

Homer

dont forget ork burnas and scorchas. But how about the sm veterans' special ammunition, wich "expldes in a cloud of superheated vapour" and some of the IG atillery wich burns you out of cover ?

MrMerlin wrote:dont forget ork burnas and scorchas. But how about the sm veterans' special ammunition, wich "expldes in a cloud of superheated vapour" and some of the IG atillery wich burns you out of cover ?

"Superheated Vapour" is not Fire, is it?

None of the IG Ordnance battery vehicles use fire in any way(aside from as part of the combustion to propel the Shells); nor does the LR Eradicator(uses an unstable sub-atomic charge at the core of their shells).

You may be thinking of the Hellhound which has an Inferno Cannon(giant, magic, lob-able flamer); which both would count, and is alreay in several of the other posters lists.

The Devil dog variant of the hell hound would also be affected because it has a Melta weapon.

Those 2 and the flamer/Heavy Flamer are the only models/weapons in the IG codex that would be effected

Here's an interesting one

Anything from the Daemons codex with Warpfire. Does it count as fire, or as magic


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also does it count as a weapon? It has a weapon's statline, so it might, even though it isn't actually a weapon per se if you think about it..

I'm thinking: Template = fire should take care of many of these issues.

Homer

Except is doesn't

Breath of chaos is a template, so is the chem-cannon's toxic gas attack...

Ascalam wrote:Except is doesn't

Breath of chaos is a template, so is the chem-cannon's toxic gas attack...

And Destructor, and Thorax Swarm, and Strangleweb, and... well, you get my point.

Template does not equal Fire.

Will this be the great Internet Argument to replace "What is a daemon?"?

Looking in the Daemon book, Flamers of Tzeentch have one fire based attack (Warpfire even says that the projectiles are flaming in the description) and one that isn't, Breath of Chaos (poison gas and fumes... )

solkan wrote:Will this be the great Internet Argument to replace "What is a daemon?"?

Looking in the Daemon book, Flamers of Tzeentch have one fire based attack (Warpfire even says that the projectiles are flaming in the description) and one that isn't, Breath of Chaos (poison gas and fumes... )

No; this time the rules tell us flat-out to use the fluff, so we can tell exactly what is using Fire(flames, flaming, etc).

With the "what is a Daemon" Debate we were never told fluff=rules(in fact we had always assumed fluff =/= Rules; especially with certain special rules that had a list of specific items that were effected, but very similar items fluff-wise, some simply even larger versions of those on the list, were not effected), same with the "plasma weapons".

Would that mean that the GK "cleansing flame" ability is also covered?

Kommissar Kel wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:dont forget ork burnas and scorchas. But how about the sm veterans' special ammunition, wich "expldes in a cloud of superheated vapour" and some of the IG atillery wich burns you out of cover ?

"Superheated Vapour" is not Fire, is it?

yes it is, its basically some kind of gas on fire

and wasnt there some valkyrie-upgrade with fire based misiles? Im very sure there is one, the profile is S4 AP5 large blast and it ignores cover, but i dont know the english name of it

gleep wrote:Would that mean that the GK "cleansing flame" ability is also covered?

No its not a weapon that is fired.

So now GW wants us to be chemists/physicists and determine the difference between fire (consumption of fuel via heat and oxygen, remember the triangle thing?) or superheated vapor or plasma or microwave radiation? Just make an exhaustive list and be done with it! or, make Flame a weapon characteristic like Melta and Plasma.

Homer

I am hoping this is a look into 5th where weapon type will matter more and we will start to see more defined weapons that are rapid fire, plasma (where the plasma rule indicates 1's cause wounds rather than the gets hot!).

I would probably play breath as not fire and warpfire as, well, fire...

Homer S wrote:So now GW wants us to be chemists/physicists and determine the difference between fire (consumption of fuel via heat and oxygen, remember the triangle thing?) or superheated vapor or plasma or microwave radiation? Just make an exhaustive list and be done with it! or, make Flame a weapon characteristic like Melta and Plasma.

Homer

There's no way to make an exhaustive list because each codex creates new weapons. And while they probably should have a 'flame' type of weapon if they're going to include such a rule, the fact is they don't have such a category so its not like they can suddenly make it happen.

At the end of the day I don't think this is so difficult a task to figure out. If they wanted plasma to be included (as that is a fairly common weapon type) then it probably would have been mentioned as it *is* so common.

Whatever that exhaustive list of 'flame' weapons comes out to, will also be useful for the Eldar Avatar's immunity to such weapons as well.

What about the Callidus Assassins Neural Shredder?

Lord Magnus wrote:What about the Callidus Assassins Neural Shredder?

What about it?

It is not a flame-based weapon in any way.

Homer S wrote:So now GW wants us to be chemists/physicists and determine the difference between fire (consumption of fuel via heat and oxygen, remember the triangle thing?) or superheated vapor or plasma or microwave radiation?

never let it be said that 40k isn't educational.

One supposes that daemons would ignore this as they're not using weapons as such, just their "natural" abilities ?

...

MrMerlin wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

MrMerlin wrote:dont forget ork burnas and scorchas. But how about the sm veterans' special ammunition, wich "expldes in a cloud of superheated vapour" and some of the IG atillery wich burns you out of cover ?

"Superheated Vapour" is not Fire, is it?

yes it is, its basically some kind of gas on fire

and wasnt there some valkyrie-upgrade with fire based misiles? Im very sure there is one, the profile is S4 AP5 large blast and it ignores cover, but i dont know the english name of it

Want to define fire or a weapon utilizing fire? I'll go with the Fire Tetrahedron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_triangle) and a superheated vapour does not sufficiently fulfil the requirements for a fire under that. Hell, it doesn't even fulfil the requirements to call it a fire - I mean a superheated vapour isn't necessarily oxidising.

Going further on this, laser and plasma weapons in whole or in part revolve around direct energy transfer, similar to how fire-based weapons work, essentially superheating the targeted material. Should simply non-kinetic energy transfer be the requirement for Lord of Fire (and Avatar of Khaine) then you're looking at a grand host of exotic weapons simply being obsolete against them and that doesn't make good rules.

So, in short, keep it to the herp-a-derp definition of fire. It burns? It's fire. Need a doctors degree to tell the difference? It's probably magic. (Paul & Storm - Me Make Fire)