jervisjohnsons

Q. Does the cannon and/or the Flame Cannon deal flaming attacks.

please give page references.

Thanks

Aaron, the FLAME CANNON does not have "flaming attacks" in its special rules. So, even though it shoots FLAME, by RAW it is not a flaming attack.

A cannon does not, unless you give it the Rune of Burning. Then it does make flaming attacks.

Edit: Pages 57 for the FC. Its retarded, but thems the breaks.

Hmmm....

I am on the fence as to how I feel about it.

One side of me says its A FN FLAME CANNON...

The other side says..."Flaming" isn't in the rule section.

Awesome...

Oh it gets better, in the description where they say it literally blows FLAME all over everything it hits...because, you know, its a FREAKING FLAME CANNON...

all the same, if it does not specify "flaming attacks" in its rules, it does not make flaming attacks.

Stupid.

I dunno i am on the fence with this one, and i know we (pete) discussed in length. For what ever reason it doesnt have the "flammable attack" in its rules, nor did GW comment on it in the official FAQ. If i were playing a freindly game id play it flamming if my opponent insisted. In a tourny id have to say it isnt since its not in the rules. I know it would make sense if it was, but i know that names and fluff arent indicative of the rules...

If someone playing me insisted that the flame cannon does not have flaming attacks, the game would end, as I'd be on the floor laughing hysterically at their idiocy for the next 2 hours.

That's RAW taken WAYYYYYYY too far. Really. Enough that it would garner a major sportsmanship hit, were it to actually matter.

Just because we read the warhammer rulebook doesn't mean we have to pretend to be stupid.

Let's put this question another way: Does anyone feel storngly that it should be played as a non-flaming attack? Please explain your infinite logic to me.

VectorAWX3 wrote:If someone playing me insisted that the flame cannon does not have flaming attacks, the game would end, as I'd be on the floor laughing hysterically at their idiocy for the next 2 hours.

That's RAW taken WAYYYYYYY too far. Really. Enough that it would garner a major sportsmanship hit, were it to actually matter.

Just because we read the warhammer rulebook doesn't mean we have to pretend to be stupid.

Let's put this question another way: Does anyone feel storngly that it should be played as a non-flaming attack? Please explain your infinite logic to me.

I dunno i see both sides. Although i think the argument that a flame cannon is a "flamming attack" is just as strong as an argument that a hydra has regen. I mean its understood that hydras regenerate so there is actually no need to list it as a rule.

Why didt GW list it is a rule? would have solved a lot of problems. Granted i dont play dwarves so i don't really have an opinion.

well I never really grasped that they were not "flaming" until recently.

If an opponent wanted to play it as flaming against me, I would be more than happy than to allow it.

If an opponent wanted for me not to play it as flaming against him, I would completely understand why.


I actaully have never seen one on the table come to think of it...maybe this is a reason why?

If you asked the writer of the dwarf book this question, could you imagine the look on his face?

If I had written the dwarf book, and you asked me that question, I'd roll the book up and beat you upside the head with it, yelling "do you know the answer now?" until you figured it out.

VectorAWX3 wrote:If you asked the writer of the dwarf book this question, could you imagine the look on his face?

If I had written the dwarf book, and you asked me that question, I'd roll the book up and beat you upside the head with it, yelling "do you know the answer now?" until you figured it out.

Lol, but dont you think in his infinite wisdom he should have just included the rule! Personally if i played dwarves id just spend the 5 pts and add the "flamming" rune to it to avoid problems so no one can contest it i think thats the fairest thing to do. I swear i dont think they ever proof-read these books. But i am with you Aaron, id let my opponent choose how he wanted to play it.

Death wrote: Personally if i played dwarves id just spend the 5 pts and add the "flamming" rune to it to avoid problems so no one can contest it i think thats the fairest thing to do.

The rare warmachines (ie. flame cannon) can not have runes. That at least there is no question about.

If you let your opponent choose to play it anyway he wants he'll just make it not flaming vs Dragon Princes and flaming vs treemen or trolls.

I know what RAW says, and honestly, I agree with you guys.

But sometimes I think that GW wrote rules thinking that their players weren't drooling, snivelling speds. We have brains. It's a flame cannon. It's a warpfire thrower. Obviously they are FLAMING.

But RAW doesn't support that. GAY

Its a funny debate. I was in the same camp as you first Nidal, I thought it was ridiculous to ever under any circumstances assume that a "flame cannon" did not make flaming attacks. Since it, you know, shoots flame all over the place.

However, Joe pointed out that it may have been the intent of the designers to make the attacks not "flaming attacks", and since we can never know intent, we are therefore forced to play it according to a RAW interpretation. Is this a stupid thing to do? In this case, I think yes. But as miles pointed out, you can't have opponents choosing whether or not a flame cannon makes flaming attacks. Best to stick to the rules as they are written.

Just takes a little more desire to play the game out of me personally.

Its true that you never see them on the table, as most players opt for a Gyro/OG, but its a good weapon. If it made flaming attacks, it would really be coming back into style.

I agree, Pete. Actually, some of these rules arguments have ruined much of my desire to play this game at all.

Oh sure you can know intent.. because it's called a FLAME cannon. You know, in 30 states, it's still legal to have sex with a corpse. (there's no law against it) Doesn't make it the right way to date.