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.

Hello all

I have a game tuesday with my dwarf army, we can not agree on if the dwarf flame cannon can have the shot not at a 0 degree angel from the cannon when super charged.


The case is as follows:


As it says "The narrow end closet to the flame cannon" as long as the narrow end is the closest it fulfils all of the requirements of the rules.

My opponent is saying that as it says "After this, work out hits exactly as per normal fire thrower rules" it does not allow for it to be at an angel.

My point is it lets you angel it then acts as a normal fire thrower (So all models under the template are hit, its flaming and any one who suffers at least 1 wound takes a panic test)

Could people please vote yes if believe can angel the shot and no if its a straight shot but just an extra 12 inches.

We already did this. A poll will show nothing as most people don't have the book, or refuse to accept how it's written. RAW, yes it can fire round corners, there's nothing stopping it from doing so. It is also more than a little cheesy and you can expect people to treat you like someone trying to bend the rules, but technically you are correct.

That's stupid. It's not a fire hose unbound by the laws of physics. I certainly wouldn't play with anyone like that. If they really wanted to argue, I wouldn't have much, but I'd say it isn't a "teardrop" template if you place it sideways. It's a newtonian law defying template.

Eyjio wrote:
We already did this. A poll will show nothing as most people don't have the book, or refuse to accept how it's written. RAW, yes it can fire round corners, there's nothing stopping it from doing so. It is also more than a little cheesy and you can expect people to treat you like someone trying to bend the rules, but technically you are correct.

All ways play RAW over RAI, some times has worked well some times it has not. But till F&Q really never know what RAI is as GW are never to clear.


Will expect a few people to vote who might not have the rule book, but come the game I have on tuesday we have agreed to go on this pool.




Duke in a game of magic, the laws of physics do not exist. You can walk between worlds, have a ring shoot out a flame thrower. Able to raise dead from the ground. Can have a 3ft dwarf cut off the head of a dragon for all purposes could just fly 5-6ft off the ground and keep breathing fire on him.

If want law of physics though, you wait till a high wind is going in direction want the flame to tilt. Shoot out tons of oil and just as the last bit of the oil leaves the cannon then put it a light . The oil at the front has been pushed left or right depending on the wind and you have shot around a corner etc. But never have and will use physics in a game of warhammer.

In a game of magic, people use magic. A fire thrower isn't magic. It is steam-powered and explicitly states so. If you want to really be TFG and go RAW crazy, you can comb through the books and find stuff that will grind the game to a halt and make any play at all literally impossible. There's only so much language they can stuff into the books.

Again, I wouldn't play you. You know what the rule means and you're looking for justification to be a poor sport.

The separation of the paragraphs for hitting and firing would indicate RAW for the secondary firing mode that hitting only referred to each model under the template being hit, wounded and having the Flammable special rule (causing panic after at least 1 casualty). The hit is separate from the firing.

For firing, it would follow the special rules given for the firing mode (much like how grapeshot differs from firing a cannon regularly) then resolve HITS given the rules for hitting (given in the Fire Thrower entry). The target would still have to be in LoS (it is not indirect fire, which means at least part of the target unit must be visible as usual) etc.

*insert usual clause about this being subject the future FAQ etc...*

 DukeRustfield wrote:
In a game of magic, people use magic. A fire thrower isn't magic. It is steam-powered and explicitly states so. If you want to really be TFG and go RAW crazy, you can comb through the books and find stuff that will grind the game to a halt and make any play at all literally impossible. There's only so much language they can stuff into the books.

Again, I wouldn't play you. You know what the rule means and you're looking for justification to be a poor sport.

Suppose it is intended (which it may well be, as the restriction has been in all other iterations of the flame cannon and is even in the chaos dwarfs thing so it's a pretty huge oversight if not). Would you still refuse to play it? How about if you refused, then later it turned out to be FAQ'd?

As I said earlier, it's pretty iffy as a thing to do, but there's no real argument against it and there's seemingly no reason for the restriction to be removed in this book when it's been in all previous other than intent to delete it. Try not to insult people for playing by what the rules say to do - no-one said you had to agree to it or play with it, but outright insulting people for using the thing as they're told is pretty daft IMO.

Because it's not.

But here are some TFG counter arguments that are RAW:

-You must use something called a "tape measure" and it must be yours. It can't be the store's, it can't be your dad's. It must be lowercase "tape" lowercase "measure" written somewhere on it because that is RAW.
-"Roll the artillery dice and extend the line away from the Flame cannon the number of inches shown." Just like the teardrop, I will argue that this isn't straight forward. It's just "away". So I argue it's away from my troops as well. It doesn't say otherwise.
-The flame template doesn't say say how it's placed except the "narrow end closest to the flame cannon." I argue the "narrow end" means placing the template perpendicular to the game table. That is the most literal "narrow end." Because it's as narrow as a piece of paper, which is pretty damn narrow. So your template becomes basically a line.

I can go on, there's all kinds of ways to be a big pooping TFG and maintain RAW.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Because it's not.

But here are some TFG counter arguments that are RAW:

-You must use something called a "tape measure" and it must be yours. It can't be the store's, it can't be your dad's. It must be lowercase "tape" lowercase "measure" written somewhere on it because that is RAW.
-"Roll the artillery dice and extend the line away from the Flame cannon the number of inches shown." Just like the teardrop, I will argue that this isn't straight forward. It's just "away". So I argue it's away from my troops as well. It doesn't say otherwise.
-The flame template doesn't say say how it's placed except the "narrow end closest to the flame cannon." I argue the "narrow end" means placing the template perpendicular to the game table. That is the most literal "narrow end." Because it's as narrow as a piece of paper, which is pretty damn narrow. So your template becomes basically a line.

I can go on, there's all kinds of ways to be a big pooping TFG and maintain RAW.

Hyperbole does not constitute a balanced argument.

In the context of this question, both myself and others have provided a fairly well rounded approach to the question (citing rules and such). However from the start, not only have you not provided any evidence to the contrary other than that you are unwilling to participate in the debate, but you are also attempting to shut down any such argument by asserting that such an interpretation brings the game to its knees, which it does not.

Whilst I appreciate that you did qualify that your interpretation was subjective ("Again, I wouldn't play you.") that does not justify you asserting that anyone who does not agree with you is TFG, which given your rancorous attitude would actually put you closer to the category than anyone else who has participated in this thread.

Back to the question at hand: it is not unreasonable, but I would put it forward to your opponent before a game or submit it to your TO for approval. The shot would still have to follow the usual rules for firing (selecting a target, LoS etc) but could well be angled as such that the final position of the template is not parallel to the firing line (so long as the narrow end is closest to the end of the barrel flame cannon).

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Because it's not.

But here are some TFG counter arguments that are RAW:

-You must use something called a "tape measure" and it must be yours. It can't be the store's, it can't be your dad's. It must be lowercase "tape" lowercase "measure" written somewhere on it because that is RAW.
-"Roll the artillery dice and extend the line away from the Flame cannon the number of inches shown." Just like the teardrop, I will argue that this isn't straight forward. It's just "away". So I argue it's away from my troops as well. It doesn't say otherwise.
-The flame template doesn't say say how it's placed except the "narrow end closest to the flame cannon." I argue the "narrow end" means placing the template perpendicular to the game table. That is the most literal "narrow end." Because it's as narrow as a piece of paper, which is pretty damn narrow. So your template becomes basically a line.

I can go on, there's all kinds of ways to be a big pooping TFG and maintain RAW.

I mean, I know you're trying to be facetious but you picked some awful examples to do so. Like, really bad and actually false.

1) It at no point implies it must be yours, nor does it define tape measure. This is left to common english, which accepts that possession can be transitive and even fleeting. As tape measure is not a proper noun, it is thus incorrect to ever capitalise it other than at the beginning of a sentence or rare occasions in subclauses. The rules state no restriction overriding common english, so this fails entirely.
2) Unless you have a very bendy tape measure, are using some non-euclidean metric or otherwise have no idea what a tape measure is, you would struggle to make the line which, per the rules as you say, must be made by a tape measure, actually do anything other than go forwards. Likewise, unless your definitions of extend or line are particularly weird, you would have a great deal of difficulty arguing that a non straight line drawn by something which can only move in a straight line is somehow extended if you forcibly bend the line. Further, every reference to lines in the rules are always straight lines, making any attempt to breach this unintuitive and clearly wrong. When the line has some bend, they are referred to as curves. This is not called a curve, it is a line, so should adhere to common use.
3) The template is always looked at from above, making narrow end very clear. Should you wish to actually debate this point, it would be prudent to note that the actual template is only the teardrop shape itself, rather than the material it is made from. Using this stunningly world changing knowledge, trying to use the "narrow end" of something which is neither an end nor even part of the template is flagrant cheating at best and pure idiocy at worst. So, once again, this fails.

See, the thing is that despite a fair amount of corner cases coming up, the rules are actually fairly WAAC proofed in Fantasy. So when something EXPLICITLY spells out exactly and precisely how to resolve an attack, which also coincidently misses out part of a restriction which has literally existed for as long as the first incarnation of the model (which is what, 3e?), which they KNOW is a corner case and otherwise allows the template free rotation, you don't think that there's actually quite a lot of doubt as to the authors intent? Especially when said author is someone who is known for looking at small parts of the rules, as shown by his halfling BB days? Again, try not to be deliberately harsh to people who, ultimately, are playing a game of toy soldiers and who may not even know that there's even any objectionable act in not placing the template at an angle using this new rule - because, RAW, there isn't. This isn't some finagling of the rules, it's not deliberate misreading or questionable word choices, it's simply "the rules say I can place it anywhere as long as the narrow end is closest, therefore I will place it at an angle such that the narrow end is closest". There's absolutely nothing wrong with reading the rules that way, because it is literally and plainly what they say. Your only argument is that you dislike the rule - that's fine, we all hate certain rules. Unfortunately, that neither makes it less valid nor less the actual rule.

Eyjio wrote:

1) It at no point implies it must be yours, nor does it define tape measure.

"your tape measure" RAW = you own it. Yes, it is a possessive. And if it isn't called "tape measure" then it is not what the rules call for. You can argue it, and start another YMDC which is just as nonsense as this one.

3) The template is always looked at from above

This is not stated in the rules anywhere. Further, the rules say the individual weapon will tell you how to place it. And it says the "narrow end." There is nothing more narrow than the 0 width narrow height facing the cannon.

So when something EXPLICITLY spells out exactly

But it doesn't. It's a TFG interpretation. You saying a template is always looked from above is just like saying the flame template is always moved straight forward. That is logical. But again, if someone is going to go all TFG RAW, you can quite easily break the game. Everything is relative. Words like forward are meaningless if you want to be a jerk about it. You can say it's straight up to the ceiling.

It says you roll the artillery dice. Which is plural. But doesn't tell you how many. I say it's 50.

Duke it's not a tfg interpretation, when the book came out my group all looked at mine and said "so the flame cannon is a hellhound now lol" they can't ALL be tfg, I'm not gonna play it this way as I prefer a little rai mixed with a little raw, raw Nazis are not welcome in my gaming groups

Eyjio wrote:
in a game of magic, the laws of physics do not exist.

No. Dragons need wings to fly. When an animated skeleton hits you with his sword, the blade cuts you. When a goblin Doom Diver is flung into the air, he will, in fact, fall back down again.

A fantasy setting establishes what is different about its world, but then we assume everything else is normal.

In the end, the writing is very poor
It doesn't specifically say that you can place the template (nearly) as you wish like Torrent does, but neither does it clearly say that you have to place it in a "normal" fashion

No one raised the question around here (yet), but I know I'll rule it as a "normal" flamer shot in the events I'm running, simply because it's already very good with a Rune of Forging, especially as a flamer has no target limitations to its shooting (ie. you can shoot into combat / your own troops)

TanKoL wrote:
In the end, the writing is very poor

I agree with this.

The writing for the rule is nowhere near as explicit as the instructions for Torrent in WH40K. I personally think it's a leap to assume that it should be placed similarly to the Torrent rule when we already have a precedent in the GW rule family for how they would write the rule if that were the intent.

Warpsolution wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
in a game of magic, the laws of physics do not exist.

No. Dragons need wings to fly. When an animated skeleton hits you with his sword, the blade cuts you. When a goblin Doom Diver is flung into the air, he will, in fact, fall back down again.

A fantasy setting establishes what is different about its world, but then we assume everything else is normal.

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.

A TK monster is magic created by magic and animated by magic.

A flame cannon isn't magic it is steam as per the very definition of the unit. It even goes so far as to give us very un-magic physical descriptions of how the cannon works and what materials are used and the process. None of which even hint at magic. Unless tar and air and steam and oil and pressure are some strange magical components that sound amazingly similar to chemical/mechanical processes.

The fact you assume it has a magic rune, and assume we wouldn't notice that it doesn't default to that, is further proof of you trying to TFG this.

That's like, you can give runes to dwarfs, so clearly all dwarfs are magic and can behave like Ethereals in defiance of silly physical laws and despite a whole book that says what clodding slow people they are.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
A TK monster is magic created by magic and animated by magic.

A flame cannon isn't magic it is steam as per the very definition of the unit. It even goes so far as to give us very un-magic physical descriptions of how the cannon works and what materials are used and the process. None of which even hint at magic. Unless tar and air and steam and oil and pressure are some strange magical components that sound amazingly similar to chemical/mechanical processes.

The fact you assume it has a magic rune, and assume we wouldn't notice that it doesn't default to that, is further proof of you trying to TFG this.

That's like, you can give runes to dwarfs, so clearly all dwarfs are magic and can behave like Ethereals in defiance of silly physical laws and despite a whole book that says what clodding slow people they are.

Your argument is idiotic. It's not a TFG argument just because YOU don't like how an interpretation operates in-game. There are loads of things in WHFB that don't adhere to the rules of real-world physics. It's a fething GAME. If the rules say you can do something, then you can do it. If they don't then you can't. Period.

I don't have the dwarf book in front of me, nor the exact wording save what's been posted here, but it seems as though an explicit requirement to place the flame template in a straight line from the cannon that existed in previous editions of the rule has been dropped. It's entirely reasonable to assume that this restriction no longer applies. If you would like to rule differently, then don't be fooled into thinking this is anything other than a house rule.

I read it is like the torrent weapons from 40k I have no problems with playing it as a normal flamer. I don't see either as a TFG interpretation. It is not perfectly clear but to me it seems like they're trying to say free placement.

The wording isn't like torrent at all. WHFB has totally different shooting rules, as it is a totally different game. Range for templates isn't an anywhere in this area, it's a specific point.

How does it fire:

We pick a target point, roll a bounce and extend a "shot" line from the flame cannons barrel and then "this is where the teardrop-shaped template is placed".
You are required to "the narrow end closest to the flame cannon."
If you don't place the template strait down the line, part of the narrow end isn't closest to the cannon.

If you want to TFG it, you aren't explicitly told to put the end of the template on the line at all. You might as well put any part of the template over the end point, and have the narrow end slightly closer.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I read it is like the torrent weapons from 40k I have no problems with playing it as a normal flamer. I don't see either as a TFG interpretation. It is not perfectly clear but to me it seems like they're trying to say free placement.

You're reading it a little liberally, then.

The rules for Torrent specifically states that the wide end of the template must be no closer to the firing model than the narrow end. The rules for the Flame Cannon make no mention of the wide end at all. Interpreting the two rules to be identical is inserting information that just isn't there.

Dwarf Flame Cannon - Able to shoot at angel?

I was expecting a philosophical religious debate D:

Saldiven wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I read it is like the torrent weapons from 40k I have no problems with playing it as a normal flamer. I don't see either as a TFG interpretation. It is not perfectly clear but to me it seems like they're trying to say free placement.

You're reading it a little liberally, then.

The rules for Torrent specifically states that the wide end of the template must be no closer to the firing model than the narrow end. The rules for the Flame Cannon make no mention of the wide end at all. Interpreting the two rules to be identical is inserting information that just isn't there.

I could make exactly the same argument for treating it the same as a normal flame weapon. It does really tell us either way it gives us simple instructions without restrictions placing the template at an angle fulfils those instructions.

 Purifier wrote:

Dwarf Flame Cannon - Able to shoot at angel?

I was expecting a philosophical religious debate D:

Agreed, who is Angel and why are you shooting at him?

On a more serious note, I believe the intended as to fire it straight like the Magma cannon but who knows maybe the Dwarf kicked the back of the cannon as it fired to put a little spin on the ball. I honestly would never expect this argument to come up in a Fantasy game against a Dwarf player, but if it did... well, I don't know, I suppose I'd have to let it play out until an FAQ was done.... but we all know those are a thing of the long forgotten past.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
You are required to "the narrow end closest to the flame cannon."
If you don't place the template strait down the line, part of the narrow end isn't closest to the cannon. .

"Narrow end closest to the flame cannon" just means that you place the narrow-end of the template on the line, and the wide end anywhere not perpendicular to that point. So you have almost 180 degrees of flexibility there.

For instance, if you place the narrow-end on the line, and the wide end at a 45 degree angle to that line, you're still "placing the narrow part closest to the cannon."

Unless there's additional wording, it seems like they DID indeed give dwarf players some additional flexibility in placing the flame template.

Hahah this is hilarious. Look all you people trying got be cheesy, lame, donkey caves.


If you are seriously that confused, look at the chaos dwarf flame cannon, it fires the same and AND CANT SHOOT THE TEAR DROP IN ANGELS.

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

 pities2004 wrote:
Hahah this is hilarious. Look all you people trying got be cheesy, lame, donkey caves.


If you are seriously that confused, look at the chaos dwarf flame cannon, it fires the same and AND CANT SHOOT THE TEAR DROP IN ANGELS.

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

Rules change from edition to edition, armybook to armybook. The way a unit works in one book has no effect on how it works in another book, unless your group chooses to concoct a houserule on the matter.

Can someone please reproduce the full text for the weapon? I feel that this would help in clearing up this issue.


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.

Compare this to the previous edition of the rules:

[...] To determine the swathe cut by the burning liquid, place the Flame template with the narrow end on the point where the jet hit the ground and the wide end pointing directly away from the cannon so that the flame continues in a straight line

Emphasis mine.

The previous edition of the rules has an explicit restriction requiring you to place the template in a straight line. The new edition does not have this restriction, despite substantially similar wording.

HOWEVER, the new wording states that the weapon operates "exactly as a flamethrower." Since there *IS* no flame thrower in the rulebook it should be assumed that they mean "Fire Thrower," from page 114 of the BRB. The rules for those are that:

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.

The RAW is unclear, the RAI isn't
If GW intended to allow "angled" shots, it would be written clearly instead of having to decipher an obscure wording before being able to bend the rules as much as the shot itself
People playing "hard RAW" don't understand that it's a game first and foremost and that game designers expect players to be smart, and often (not always, agreed), RAI is clear when the wording isn't

I think you can use it to shoot an angel but it won't have any effect without some runes on it.

TanKoL wrote:
The RAW is unclear, the RAI isn't
If GW intended to allow "angled" shots, it would be written clearly instead of having to decipher an obscure wording before being able to bend the rules as much as the shot itself
People playing "hard RAW" don't understand that it's a game first and foremost and that game designers expect players to be smart, and often (not always, agreed), RAI is clear when the wording isn't

If GW had clearly intended to DISallow angled shots, then they would have included the straight line restriction that existed in the previous book. Get off your damned high horse, and stop pretending like your own personal interpretation is the god-given RAI handed down by GW.

In the absence of a clear indication regarding the intention of the author, all that you're left with are the rules existent on the page. As there is no written restriction forcing you to fire in a straight line, there is no prima facie requirement to do so. If you wish to add one then that is your prerogative, but don't fool yourself into thinking it's anything more than a House Rule.