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.

Hi dakkaites, ive searched and come up unsatisfied.

So something fun happened the other day, my dreadclaw mishapped on deep strike, opponent places it on my side, next turn i fly over and fire sweep his units and roll a one on the fire sweep check, then get crew stunned - fail daemonic possession roll and next turn fly off the board. Mind you i had a contemptor dread in it so was just happy it wasnt eaten, yea i know its ludicrious using it like that, but thats csm life eh?

Three questions:

1. Fire sweep on the FW dreadclaw states that on a 1 it "suffers a penetrating hit". Can i jink against that and get a cover save?
2. Flamer based weapon, does that mean anything? Theres Template based weapon rules, but nothing about flamer based that i know. HIWPI would be bbq-city, but it would be a discussion at least.
3. A drop assault flying hover zooming vacuum cleaner flamer based deamon pod that leaves the board flying, does it enter the board zooming as per the zooming flyer rules, or can i deep strike it with drop pod assault rules again?

Thanks

1. No - you can only Jink if you've been targeted by something.
2. Not sure without the rule, but it could be similar to the Avatar's rule.
3. If you leave the board zooming, follow the rules for Flyers - you have to come back on zooming.

Yonasu wrote:
1. Fire sweep on the FW dreadclaw states that on a 1 it "suffers a penetrating hit". Can i jink against that and get a cover save?

You would certainly need to be already Jinking, as you must first be "targeted" by a shooting attack to Jink, so it's unlikely (as you'd have had to be shot in your turn. Not impossible though).

Yonasu wrote:
2. Flamer based weapon, does that mean anything? Theres Template based weapon rules, but nothing about flamer based that i know. HIWPI would be bbq-city, but it would be a discussion at least.

Some units are either vulnerable or completely ignore Flame attacks (the Avatar of Khaine, for example, is made of molten metal and completely ignores a Fire Sweep attack).

Quanar wrote:

Yonasu wrote:
1. Fire sweep on the FW dreadclaw states that on a 1 it "suffers a penetrating hit". Can i jink against that and get a cover save?

You would certainly need to be already Jinking, as you must first be "targeted" by a shooting attack to Jink, so it's unlikely (as you'd have had to be shot in your turn. Not impossible though).

Yonasu wrote:
2. Flamer based weapon, does that mean anything? Theres Template based weapon rules, but nothing about flamer based that i know. HIWPI would be bbq-city, but it would be a discussion at least.

Some units are either vulnerable or completely ignore Flame attacks (the Avatar of Khaine, for example, is made of molten metal and completely ignores a Fire Sweep attack).

Ah yeah targetting for jinking, of course forgot about that!

So there are actual element based attacks in 40k? Many template weapons don't even specify what kind of substance it uses, some are poison or just warp powers. It feels as if AoK specifies "Flamer based" we would see it more often instead of just Template. Also, isnt that a nightmare trying to rule?

rigeld2 wrote:1. No - you can only Jink if you've been targeted by something.
2. Not sure without the rule, but it could be similar to the Avatar's rule.
3. If you leave the board zooming, follow the rules for Flyers - you have to come back on zooming.

So you are familiar with IA:13 drop pod assault rules? It does state, paraphrasing, "A chaos dreadclaw always enters play using the deep strike rules", does "enters play" only count for the first time it enters play? How?

Re: Flamer weapons, pg. 682 of the iPad version of the basic rule book has a list of Flamer weapons. In addition, pg. 142 of Grey Knights (iPad), pg. 172 of Orks (iPad), and pg. 200 of Necrons (iPad) also contain lists of weapons classified as Flamer.

Salamander chapter tactics give a re-roll to saves against Wounds caused by Flamer weapons. Not sure of any other rule interactions.

Yonasu wrote:
So there are actual element based attacks in 40k? Many template weapons don't even specify what kind of substance it uses, some are poison or just warp powers. It feels as if AoK specifies "Flamer based" we would see it more often instead of just Template. Also, isnt that a nightmare trying to rule?

Currently, the only 'element' is "Flamer-type", and weaponry sections (such as in the main rulebook and in, say, Codex: Orks) explicitly tell you if the weapon is a Flame weapon. Making it a special rule of the weapon instead would be considerably easier I agree.

For example, the Avatar of Khaine (mentioned earlier) is immune to Flamer-type weapons, and also weapons with the Melta special rule (amusingly, leaving it able to be hurt by Meltabombs, since they have Armourbane instead).

In a previous version of the Grey Knights Codex, there was an item that worked off "plasma weaponry", but without any of the clarity that is provided for Flame-based weaponry, leading to arguments about whether it affected things like Tau Pulse Rifles.

 Quanar wrote:

Yonasu wrote:
So there are actual element based attacks in 40k? Many template weapons don't even specify what kind of substance it uses, some are poison or just warp powers. It feels as if AoK specifies "Flamer based" we would see it more often instead of just Template. Also, isnt that a nightmare trying to rule?

Currently, the only 'element' is "Flamer-type", and weaponry sections (such as in the main rulebook and in, say, Codex: Orks) explicitly tell you if the weapon is a Flame weapon. Making it a special rule of the weapon instead would be considerably easier I agree.

For example, the Avatar of Khaine (mentioned earlier) is immune to Flamer-type weapons, and also weapons with the Melta special rule (amusingly, leaving it able to be hurt by Meltabombs, since they have Armourbane instead).

In a previous version of the Grey Knights Codex, there was an item that worked off "plasma weaponry", but without any of the clarity that is provided for Flame-based weaponry, leading to arguments about whether it affected things like Tau Pulse Rifles.

seems odd to have such a distinction for one character and one weapon type in the game. The list of "flamer weapons" is obviously a list of template weapons. but hey its not like gw knows how to write rules anyway...

The plasma syphon still exists in codex inquisition.

You could only jink by responding to someone's shooting attack.

However, should you jink in their turn, you benefit from the rule through your turn, I think. So if they tried to shoot you, and you jinked, technically I think you get the cover save from the fire sweep attack. Which is dumb.

 Spellbound wrote:
You could only jink by responding to someone's shooting attack.

However, should you jink in their turn, you benefit from the rule through your turn, I think. So if they tried to shoot you, and you jinked, technically I think you get the cover save from the fire sweep attack. Which is dumb.

Yes i forgot about the target part of jinking. jinking does not stay on the models after my turn starts though, so the only way to be jinking would be if a third-part effect would allow me to jink before i do my move. Like a deathmark deep striking and shooting on my turn perhaps?
Also, it states that the fire sweep itself is ignores cover, but nothing about the auto penetrate, so thats another can of bees to open.
On another note, i have mailed FW to ask about flamer based and what it entails. since the sweep already has ignores cover im sure it means nothing, just making sure. I'll post here if i get an answer.

*EDIT*
For posterity, forgeworld answered:

The mention of it being a flamer-based attack is for if it effects anything that has resistance/vulnerability against flame based weapons.

If there is anything further we can do to assist you, or if you have any queries about the information we have requested or provided, please telephone us.

Regards,
Forge World

So apparently i was just hoping for some template no-way-out damage on it its just as people said, nothing to see here folks!