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.

The only real thread I could find about this was on Warseer, and it got closed with a fairly ridiculous concluding point (the OP just ignores the errata). After reading it and the relevant sections of the BRB, I'm of the opinion that Cinderblast Bombs cannot stand-and-shoot, but I'm interested to hear your opinions.

The nail in the coffin in this debate for me is the errata which states:

Page 109 – Shooting with War Machines.
Change “Unless specified otherwise, all war machine
weapons…” to “Unless specified otherwise, all weapons in this
section (and all other weapons mounted on war machines)…

Stone throwers are "in this section." That errata says one of two things to me, as pertains to this debate.

1) Either the war machines "in this section" are weapons, or...

2) A war machine and the weapon with which it is mounted are two different things, one being a unit type and the other being a weapon.

In either case, the actual weapon that's doing the shooting is the weapon referred to as a Stone Thrower, which means the special rules (like Slow to Fire) apply to the weapon and not the war machine. Because of this, it doesn't matter that the Ironwarden is an Infantry model - he's using a Stone Thrower, which is a weapon that must abide by the restrictions of a Stone Thrower unless specified otherwise. And, in fact, it is specified otherwise:

The cinderblast bomb is a missile weapon that uses the stone thrower rules, but the model can move (not march) and fire with the following profile and special rules:

So, the Dwarf entry for Cinderblast Bombs makes an exception to the "Move or Fire" rule but not the "Slow to Fire" rule.

Seems cut-and-dry to me, but what do you think?

What makes a Cinderblast bomb into a stone thrower?

 snurl wrote:
What makes a Cinderblast bomb into a stone thrower?

Kind-of an ambiguous question, as I feel like you're asking under the assumption that a Stone Thrower is a war machine and not a weapon, which the errata specifically addresses (it's a weapon).

But to answer your question, a Cinderblast Bomb is a weapon that uses the rules of a weapon called a Stone Thrower.

Yep looks like they can't Stand and Shoot.

The errata'd rule reads as follows:
"Unless specified otherwise, all weapons in this section (and all other weapons mounted on war machines) have the Move or Fire and Slow to Fire special rules."

It uses the rules for Stone Throwers, this would include the Stone Thrower's Slow to Fire rule.

Why would it use the stone throwers special rules. It has its own?

I can see your point. I believe the errata was an attempt to closethe door on Ironblasters and the like. Without stand and shoot the 8" range makes cindreblast bombs pointless. Ironbreakers are going to charge if they're in 8" and the Irondrakes will be firing their Trollhammer except in stand and shoot where it can't. It just seems that the cindreblast bombs function is one of standing and shooting. True it might just be one of those pointless useless upgrades (like the Brimstone Gun). Sure it fires using the Stone Thrower rules but has its own profile (without slow to fire) and some of its own rules. I'm not convinced the errata is strong enough to settle this.

I think it's intended to work like Miner's Blasting charges.

Formosa wrote:Why would it use the stone throwers special rules. It has its own?

...What? It says that it uses the rules for stone throwers. Did you even read the OP?

FlingitNow wrote:I can see your point. I believe the errata was an attempt to closethe door on Ironblasters and the like. Without stand and shoot the 8" range makes cindreblast bombs pointless. Ironbreakers are going to charge if they're in 8" and the Irondrakes will be firing their Trollhammer except in stand and shoot where it can't. It just seems that the cindreblast bombs function is one of standing and shooting. True it might just be one of those pointless useless upgrades (like the Brimstone Gun). Sure it fires using the Stone Thrower rules but has its own profile (without slow to fire) and some of its own rules. I'm not convinced the errata is strong enough to settle this.

It could just be bad.

Then here's a tangential point. The errata has a portion that says, "unless otherwise specified." When you look at the entry in the Dwarf book for Cinderblast Bombs, it "specifies otherwise" regarding Move or Fire, despite the Bombs not having that special rule. Here is the relevant quote:

...uses the stone thrower rules, but the model can move (not march) and fire...

If the restrictions on Stone Throwers (like Slow to Fire and Move or Fire) were NOT meant to be imposed upon Cinderblast Bombs, why would they specifically address one restriction and not the other? It's not even ambiguous that they MIGHT be referring to the other restriction - the rules for the Bombs specifically call out Move or Fire as being an exception to the normal restrictions imposed upon stone thrower weapons that the Bombs don't have to follow. They didn't do that about Slow to Fire, and it doesn't seem to make sense that it would NOT apply to the Bombs if, prior to the exception, Move or Fire WOULD (which is what's implied by the fact that they make a specific exception for that restriction). The errata says, "unless otherwise specified," and then the Bombs otherwise specify Move or Fire but NOT Slow to Fire. Seems pretty cut and dry here.

RaW I agree tangent it seems pretty cut and dry and if the rules worked RaW (which they flat out don't) then I'd have no problem with that, heck if the rules were even written with the intention of working RaW it would be something but they are not. And yes it could just be one of those terrible upgrades that do exist (even within the very same book). As I stated its place on Ironbreakers is then very weird and the fact that Irondrakes can take it as well as the trollhammer likewise seems weird. Its function in the game appears to be solely as a stand and shoot weapon.

 FlingitNow wrote:
RaW I agree tangent it seems pretty cut and dry and if the rules worked RaW (which they flat out don't) then I'd have no problem with that, heck if the rules were even written with the intention of working RaW it would be something but they are not. And yes it could just be one of those terrible upgrades that do exist (even within the very same book). As I stated its place on Ironbreakers is then very weird and the fact that Irondrakes can take it as well as the trollhammer likewise seems weird. Its function in the game appears to be solely as a stand and shoot weapon.

I would like you to explain in what way the rules don't work RAW in this manner?

there are plenty of reason why dropping a stone throwers template instead of charging a unit could be viable, off the top of my head, holding the watchtower, you can launch you barrel out the window and maintain control of the tower (not least because you cannot charge from it)

your facing a horde of blood letters, there are 60 of them and your only 30 men strong, dropping a large blast template on them and allowing them to charge you (giving you the +1 parry) is a better tactic than charging them who are faster and will kill more of you than you would of them.

it's situational, but I wouldn't say its poor as a rule. and it certainly works within the confines of the rules.

I also have to lol when you said that the errata isn't strong enough....there would be no other way for it be any stronger, its VERY clear, it puts the restrictions on the weapons instead of the machines, it's important because things like the Hell canon are NOT war machines but fire using rules from war machines

I haven't said the RaW for this rule is broken. It is not. As for the situational uses Dwarves and Letters both get +1S on the charge so yeah you'd definitely still want to charge in that scenario. But against something else like perhaps Witch Elves or Executioners or High Elf elite infantry you may consider letting them charge you. Watch Tower being the only cast iron case.

As I said you may be right and are right RaW. To me the function of them appears to be as a stand and shoot weapon. In a tournament I'd go by the TOs ruling, if I was running a tournament or playing against dwarves in a pick up game I'd certainly allow it. If I was using dwarves I would discuss it with my opponent before the game and alter my list accordingly (probably just swapping in an extra Ironbreaker or Drake for the bombs).

 Tangent wrote:

Formosa wrote:Why would it use the stone throwers special rules. It has its own?

...What? It says that it uses the rules for stone throwers. Did you even read the OP?

FlingitNow wrote:I can see your point. I believe the errata was an attempt to closethe door on Ironblasters and the like. Without stand and shoot the 8" range makes cindreblast bombs pointless. Ironbreakers are going to charge if they're in 8" and the Irondrakes will be firing their Trollhammer except in stand and shoot where it can't. It just seems that the cindreblast bombs function is one of standing and shooting. True it might just be one of those pointless useless upgrades (like the Brimstone Gun). Sure it fires using the Stone Thrower rules but has its own profile (without slow to fire) and some of its own rules. I'm not convinced the errata is strong enough to settle this.

It could just be bad.

Then here's a tangential point. The errata has a portion that says, "unless otherwise specified." When you look at the entry in the Dwarf book for Cinderblast Bombs, it "specifies otherwise" regarding Move or Fire, despite the Bombs not having that special rule. Here is the relevant quote:

...uses the stone thrower rules, but the model can move (not march) and fire...

If the restrictions on Stone Throwers (like Slow to Fire and Move or Fire) were NOT meant to be imposed upon Cinderblast Bombs, why would they specifically address one restriction and not the other? It's not even ambiguous that they MIGHT be referring to the other restriction - the rules for the Bombs specifically call out Move or Fire as being an exception to the normal restrictions imposed upon stone thrower weapons that the Bombs don't have to follow. They didn't do that about Slow to Fire, and it doesn't seem to make sense that it would NOT apply to the Bombs if, prior to the exception, Move or Fire WOULD (which is what's implied by the fact that they make a specific exception for that restriction). The errata says, "unless otherwise specified," and then the Bombs otherwise specify Move or Fire but NOT Slow to Fire. Seems pretty cut and dry here.

text removed.
Reds8n

, I did read the op and the question as to why it followed other rules not stated in its rules still eluded me, so I asked and that is what this forum is for, you have since explained it well and now I get it.

Don't make snap stupid comments to a genuine question, just answer it if you know the answer.

@Formosa - Dude, I answered your question before you asked it - in the OP. You asked:

Why would it use the stone throwers special rules. It has its own?

In the OP I had already quoted the rules for the Cinderblast Bombs:

The cinderblast bomb is a missile weapon that uses the stone thrower rules...

You asked a question that had already been answered in the OP, which is why I assumed you hadn't read it. What other assumption could I make?

If instead you were asking a more detailed question about how the rules for Stone Throwers interact with other rules, then I'm sorry, but you should have been... more detailed? Seriously, if I had just answered your question instead of asking you whether or not you had read the OP, I would have just typed literally exactly the same thing that I did in the OP, and quoted the exact same parts.

I'm not trying to make you feel stupid or something, but don't fly off the handle at me for coming to the only reasonable conclusion that I could.

Assuming it's Slow to Fire, I really can't see a use for them on IronBreakers.

IronDrakes it's still a good option. I'd rather move up to 8" and shoo (including bomb)t, then take the charge and shoot again.

But grendel surely even on the drakes you'd still fire the torpedo instead. If you had to choose between it and the torpedo the slow to fire for me would seem a more likely intention. As is with slow to fire it just doesn't make sense.

The torpedo's good, but it neuters half of "quick to fire", while the strenght of the Irondrakes (well, one of them), is to swift reform, shuffle a bit and fire at full potential

The torpedo's interesting if you're short on cannons, the cinderblast bombs are interesting if you're short on templates
I think that the bombs really shine when you add a rune of slowness or two to the Ireonbreakers to ensure that you'll get a throw of them after the failed charge

How does the Torpedo neuter any of quick to fire? The unit moves and he and the unit fire with the same to hit roll. The Torpedo has a longer range so the chances of him getting half range increase. With an 8" range on the cindreblasts even off a failed charge you're unlikely to be in range. Only an infantry failed charge is likely to ever be in range. If the cindreblasts are slow to fire they are pointless on both units that can take them. Which may well be the case (as stated it wouldn't be the first useless upgrade ever put on a unit).

You do get to move up before you shoot, which increase it's effective range.

To 11", and realistically still only about 8" if you want yo aim in the middle of the unit, at which point you'd be in short range with the Trollhammer plus you're almost guaranteeing their next charge. Where you could just back up 2" and shoot if you're that 11" from the enemy giving them another tough charge and then use the cindreblasts at which point you could have just taken 3-4 shots with a Trollhammer. If you can't stand and shoot with it, then it is useless.

 FlingitNow wrote:
To 11", and realistically still only about 8" if you want yo aim in the middle of the unit, at which point you'd be in short range with the Trollhammer plus you're almost guaranteeing their next charge. Where you could just back up 2" and shoot if you're that 11" from the enemy giving them another tough charge and then use the cindreblasts at which point you could have just taken 3-4 shots with a Trollhammer. If you can't stand and shoot with it, then it is useless.

Yeah, they are totally pointless until you play a watch tower mission, or any mission with a building in a key location.
Opponents who fail to knock you out of the building park 1" out and beg for an extra template.

-Matt

Yeah good point Matt. But I just don't think you'd ever take them if you can't stand and shoot because if you don't roll watch tower you've wasted 20 points.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yeah good point Matt. But I just don't think you'd ever take them if you can't stand and shoot because if you don't roll watch tower you've wasted 20 points.

Roll up terrain as per the rule book. You'll see multiple buildings most of the time.


-Matt

Eh ... misread "Slow to Fire" as "Move or Shoot" sorry
But indeed, there's often buildings on our tables and not only on the sidelines of the battlefield

I don't think they're THAT bad. And further, I don't even think they were designed to be able to stand-and-shoot, like some have suggested. It's a short range template on the champion of a short-range shooting unit. There are tons of things in this game that are situational, and this is one of them.

I also agree with Matt about the buildings. I roll terrain in all of my games and I can't even remember the last time we didn't have a building. It isn't always right in the middle of the table, but when it is, you can be sure it will be important. And if you're using Cinderblast Bombs, just try to make sure that YOU place the building so that it IS important.

Tangent what you're ignoring is that they are also on a combat unit (indeed primarily on a combat unit as that is where their rules are) and that they can be taken in addition to a superior gun that can't stand and shoot. Both of which strongly imply this is meant to stand and shoot. That appears to be its function. If it was an either or with the Trollhammer I'd be far more inclined to believe it was not a stand and shoot weapon, likewise if it didn't mainly appear on a combat units rules.

The rules are choked full of mis-matches.
When was the last time you saw a mournfang unit champ with a brace of pistols?

At 20 points, I think they are fine. It's situational, but well worth the points when it does pay off.
I'd love to have D6 hits at S6 with multiple wounds D3 dropping on enemy units in a building.

In open ground, the Torpedo is better. But, if you need to kill something in a building, a Single shot hitting on a 5+ (6+ if you move) is a lot worse.

I get that Matt it just appears the entire function here is as a stand and shoot weapon. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but that's how I see the RaI here.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I get that Matt it just appears the entire function here is as a stand and shoot weapon. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but that's how I see the RaI here.

With a range of 2" to 8", I would think it would have quick to fire if it was intended for stand and shoot.

-Matt

Why quick to fire? I could see the thinking there but as range is irrelevant for stand and shoot the shortness of the range is another factor that makes me think it is intended for stand and shoot.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I get that Matt it just appears the entire function here is as a stand and shoot weapon. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but that's how I see the RaI here.

Like Matt said, there are a ton of mis-matched rules and pieces of equipment in this game. I don't mean this to be accusatory, but I think you know it would be better if it could stand-and-shoot, and so are convincing yourself that this was the intention of the designers when it wasn't. But man, they specifically took time to write an exception to the Stone Throwers' rules regarding Move or Fire and DIDN'T make an exception to Slow to Fire. If you needed something to convince you one way or the other as to the intentions of the designer, I would think that would be it.