Some good ideas in the thread, but....
You could also just beef up the encounters. Throw in a squad of mooks or two specifically to get flamed. The player with the flamer will still have fun, and the other players deal with the other threats. Meanwhile, you don't have to worry about changing any rules or getting in any weird scenarios just to deal with one player's weapon that he probably really, really loves.
Some good ideas in the thread, but....
You could also just beef up the encounters. Throw in a squad of mooks or two specifically to get flamed. The player with the flamer will still have fun, and the other players deal with the other threats. Meanwhile, you don't have to worry about changing any rules or getting in any weird scenarios just to deal with one player's weapon that he probably really, really loves.
I would agree, I did the same thing for my group. Added a group of 6 guys with shotguns and warhammers for the Pyromancer to immolate and feel all smug about. There was also a Heretek who was raining suppressive fire from a nest with a longlas, he was meant to offer the Desperado a sniping challenge. They swapped roles, the Tech priest firing Molten Beam after Molten Beam at the snipers nest, bringing it down after four or so turns while the six guys cut the Desperado apart. Fun stuff.
Just be glad he hasn't tried to twin-link or storm the flamer yet. Or added in cleanse and purify and Sacred Flame.
Edited by WolfmanRawrIt is totally within your power to say that some item or another isn't avalible. It's right there in the requestion rules at the beginning of the armory chapter. He should have known that going in.
that all being said, just toss in guys with "riot" shields. They survive the initial blast, drop the now flaming shields, and chathe.
It's been over a year now, and to be honest, I kind of forgot this thread existed. Looking back, there was loads of great advice in here that I could have used! (Un?)fortunately, the player stopped playing with us soon after that due to his academic workload, so it didn't remain an issue.
Fair enough,
my usual stance to these things is to adapt and overcome
My players can get a few good combats in an investigation with their insane flamer/sniper/whateverOP weapons just as normal.
Inevitably this f's up their subtlety. Once they start failing subtlety checks then the enemies start prepping for the acolytes tactics.
If they are a pretty standard lasgun and chainsword team then everything continues as normal, but if they have a pyro acolyte,
who tends to burn everything they see, then their foes will plan accordingly - long range weapons, hiring their own Pyro's,
Bringing on burn victims with a chip on their shoulder who possess resistance (fire) that sort of thing.
Likewise if they tended to overuse vehicles with big guns mounted on the back, then the enemy might opt to purchase and prep
grenade launchers and leave some det packs as mines around the field.
Remember, its not character sniping if the NPC's are the ones doing it.
Our GM and our current group are running a pretty serious campaign where subtlety is the key to not being ambushed almost every encounter. A medic, an Arbite, a filthy Xeno, a Lords Dragon, a sniper, and a Mech Assassin. I do have a flamer, and have used it a few times to pretty good effect, like forcing back an ambush of cutting off a flanking route, but I can only really use when there will be very little risk of collateral damage. If I were to just run around willy nilly, burning Heretics as I pleased, there would be consequences. Sure, this is just a game, but every now and then, treating a game seriously can be pretty fun. As to the OP, really, there are dozens of ways Flamers can be brought down a peg or even be made useless almost. Ceramite Armor upgrades make the wearer very resistant to heat and flame attacks, and make being on fire not that big of a deal. Also, I don't care how radical an inquisitor is, if your causing thousands of Thrones worth of property damage and civilian casualties, he's going to have words. He might even take it away from the player. Sounds mean, sure, but if a player is running around like a child burning everything and everyone that 'kinda' looks suspicious, an Inquisitor will not be happy.
Not to mention the whole subtlety aspect of the game. How hard would it be to find out about the Inquisitorial Agents running amok with a bunch of flamers? So, how not surprising that when the Warband finds these heretics they have set it up so that the flamers they rely on so much, are useless. Long sight lines, kill boxes, even a few snipers. The possibilities are really endless, but if MY players were tearing apart every encounter by using the crutch that is flamers, I'd surely make them feel like every faction knew who they were and what they were using, and plan appropriately. This 40K. No mercy, as they say.
Anyhow, good luck. See ya guys!
Is "Immunity - Heat" proof vs. Fire from Flamers?
I only ask because it gives a +10 bonus (I'm thinking to Reflex Save + or to the WP and AGL after one is on fire)
BTW thats +10% bonus to three different types of tests...
AGL (aka the actual attack)
WP (Once on fire have to have the will to resist the pain and snuff it out)
AGL (rolling around to put out the flames of justice LOL)
What's the answer - I don't want to "jerk" my player but at the same time I don't want to break the game
Morbid?
Glanced through the thread.
I want to make sure that everybody fully understands how Flamers work and what your adversaries and NPCs, and other PCs, have to deal with them:
The Flamer has a single damage roll. If that roll sucks, it sucks for all of your opponents. Being effective with damage relies on that one roll.
Beyond that, you first need to make sure that you do not jam with that damage roll.
Your targets then get to make a Dodge skill test. (Or, just prior to this, they make get the option to use their Force Fields if they somehow have some.)
They must then do an Agility test to see if they're affected at all.
They must then do another Agility to see if they even catch fire.
If you're players are marching through a hive, feudal world, or otherwise and are using the Flamer to fix all of their problems... Their opponents will inevitably armour up.
They will fight more smartly, break formation, use different levels, flank the party - they'll adapt. Assuming the targets don't have a Force Field, they have three chances to mitigate the attack to varying degrees, but on top of that the damage roll needs to both a) be effective and b) not cause a jam.
I'm pretty sure that the flamer isn't overpowered. Your players are just using it where it's effective, me thinks.
As has been mentioned previously, Subtlety, collateral damage, unintended consequences, and of course your opposing faction adapting are all ways to (not counter but) deal with the Flamer.
Personally I see modifying the rules as a last resort. I've never needed to as of yet, but then again, my parties aren't murder-hobos and the adversaries aren't morons.
I'd approach the situation with RP. If said characters don't give a jot about innocent bystanders and happily fry them with the bad guys, then you can unleash the full wrath of a (semi-)civilised society on them: lawyers might file charges that not even the Inquisition can callously duck. Vigilantes might take revenge. Or their Inquisition superiors might take notice about such behaviour and move in harsly to stop it.
And if all of that doesn't work: not minding whether or not your flamer kills innocents you are sworn to protect would bring insanity and corruption. If their minds start to reel under the terror they wreak, they might reconsider.
Quick! Send in the Lawyers! They'd done it now!!!
Just to clearly understand Worldsmith...
Then "if" then after "stuck" the Target then makes that AGL Test to see if they are on fire (even if damage is reduced to zero)
The above component > IE > The Ballistics Skill Test was what I was most wondering about (for some reason I though the Flamers hit automatically without the need for a BS Test in the first place > I'm pretty collaborative with my players and the interpretations of the rules - and that's what we thought)
Please Advise on BS Test Please
Thanks
Morbid
Just to clearly understand Worldsmith...
The Flamer still does perform a BS Test to see if they hit initially?Then "if" then after "stuck" the Target then makes that AGL Test to see if they are on fire (even if damage is reduced to zero)
The above component > IE > The Ballistics Skill Test was what I was most wondering about (for some reason I though the Flamers hit automatically without the need for a BS Test in the first place > I'm pretty collaborative with my players and the interpretations of the rules - and that's what we thought)
Please Advise on BS Test Please
Thanks
Morbid
You do not need the BS Test. My statement is correct as stands.The Spray quality states "The wielder does not need to test Ballistic Skill;..." and so on. Why do you think that a Ballistic Skill Test might need to take place? That might help me to understand your point of view, or correct the error.
To additionally clarify, the Flamer does not automatically hit either. Follow what I've written previously.
Edited by TheWorldSmithSorry > I'm like duh > thats what I get for glossing while at work
Edited by MorbidDonI drafted up this document so players dont have to page fumble for all the pertinent info...
Gawd > they made it too complex (that's my humble opinion)
If I got anything wrong in the procedure section at the bottom > let me know and I'll edit the file...
Note: E2 AND E3 are my own House Rulings (so my players have something concrete to work with)
@Morbid:
You're missing steps.
First, you roll the damage to see if the weapon jams, one damage set of damage dice for the entire group - if you roll afterwards, the evasion tests may be pointless, and if you apply damage individually then the Flamer has an increasing chance to jam per target - which makes no sense whatsoever.
A: Attacker declares their Spray cone of fire.
B: Attacker rolls damage to see if they jam.
Ca: Target(s) rolls force field test, if applicable.
Cb: Target(s) rolls Evasion test, using Dodge, if applicable. (It should always be applicable, imho, as it's a basic skill and everybody can use it - even if it isn't Known (+0).)
Cc: Target(s) rolls their Agility test for the Spray quality.
D: Target(s) applies the damage rolled in step B.
Ea: Target(s) rolls their Agility test to prevent Catching Fire, as per the Flame quality.
Eb: Target(s) applies damage for Catching Fire, if applicable.
From the Attacker's end of things, that is all that is required to do that turn.
Flow chart:
Just a personal change of mine I want to throw in, but I do the Force Field save after the Evasion Test. It fits my interpretation of Force Fields as a last line of defense after you fail to move out of the way of an attack. Also just makes sense to me that if you could dodge a test your character would take that instead of hoping for the Field save.
@Morbid:
You're missing steps.
First, you roll the damage to see if the weapon jams, one damage set of damage dice for the entire group - if you roll afterwards, the evasion tests may be pointless, and if you apply damage individually then the Flamer has an increasing chance to jam per target - which makes no sense whatsoever.
A: Attacker declares their Spray cone of fire.
B: Attacker rolls damage to see if they jam.
Ca: Target(s) rolls force field test, if applicable.
Cb: Target(s) rolls Evasion test, using Dodge, if applicable. (It should always be applicable, imho, as it's a basic skill and everybody can use it - even if it isn't Known (+0).)
Cc: Target(s) rolls their Agility test for the Spray quality.
D: Target(s) applies the damage rolled in step B.
Ea: Target(s) rolls their Agility test to prevent Catching Fire, as per the Flame quality.
Eb: Target(s) applies damage for Catching Fire, if applicable.
From the Attacker's end of things, that is all that is required to do that turn.
Flow chart:
Hopefully I am not being redundant on something that has previously been discussed in this thread.
I hadn't previously realized that dodge was even an option, but it clearly is based on the text in Evasion in regards to semi-auto, full auto, and area of effect attacks.
Based on the way I am reading it, the dodge occurs after the failed Agility Test, because there is no hit if the agility test is successful and a prerequisite of an evasion action is being hit. [Core p220; "After a character is hit from an attack, but before damage is rolled, he can attempt to negate the hit by making a Dodge or Parry test."] For spray attacks, the agility test in this scenario replaces the attack roll and comes in the same place and order.
Based on my reading, it seems that the damage roll only comes after we conclude that there is an unmitigated hit. The rules for jamming [Core p224], explain that some weapons use different rules for jamming and we should refer to their specific qualities in the armory section. It uses the words "such as" immediately preceding the list of weapon types that do not follow the normal jamming rules. The inclusion of those two words preceding the list seems to indicate that the list is non-exhaustive (Additionally, the normal jam rules are non-sensical when applied to a spray weapon unless we are going to interpret the rules to mean that spray weapons also jam when the target rolls a 96-100 for their agility test, which is effectively the attack roll in this context). Unlike the text for jamming in general, the text for spray does not expressly say whether the attack results in a successful discharge of ammunition when a jam result occurs. Given the sequence that the rules provide for the various rolls, in the absence of express text indicating otherwise I must conclude that the attack goes off without a hitch and it will be considered jam after the weapon discharges.
I see it like this:
My two cents.
Edited by gorthanoFirst, you roll the damage to see if the weapon jams, one damage set of damage dice for the entire group - if you roll afterwards, the evasion tests may be pointless, and if you apply damage individually then the Flamer has an increasing chance to jam per target - which makes no sense whatsoever.
A: Attacker declares their Spray cone of fire.
B: Attacker rolls damage to see if they jam.
Ca: Target(s) rolls force field test, if applicable.
Cb: Target(s) rolls Evasion test, using Dodge, if applicable. (It should always be applicable, imho, as it's a basic skill and everybody can use it - even if it isn't Known (+0).)
Cc: Target(s) rolls their Agility test for the Spray quality.
D: Target(s) applies the damage rolled in step B.
Ea: Target(s) rolls their Agility test to prevent Catching Fire, as per the Flame quality.
Eb: Target(s) applies damage for Catching Fire, if applicable.
From the Attacker's end of things, that is all that is required to do that turn.
The closest semi-official reference I can see is a question raised with 1st edition:
Thanks for all the replies, guys!
I sent FFG a an email asking the same question before making this thread. They finally replied after a week.
- - - - - -
Hi Isaiah! [/size]
You try to Dodge; if successful you move up to your Ag Bonus out of the way of the flames. If you fail, then you make an Ag Test to see if you catch on fire or not. So just two Agility-based Tests here.
If I read you right, you have it correct though it is a Dodge Test, then the Agility Test for the flames if the Dodge failed.
This help?
Tim Huckelbery [/size]
RPG Producer [/size]
Fantasy Flight Games [/size]
[email protected] [/size]
Visit us at http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ [/size]
E-mail:
Rule Question:
Hello~
So, me and my roleplaying group are having a bit of a disagreement about how dodging flamers work. One of our party believes that you can dodge the flamer attack, and then if you fail to dodge it, make an agility test to dodge it, and then if you fail both of those you make the aglity test to avoid being caught on fire. So all in all he thinks its 2 chances to avoid the flamer damage (dodge reaction+ag test), and 1 chance to avoid being caught on fire (ag test).
I don't think that's correct. It seems to me that what the rules are saying is that you don't get to make a dodge test at all, seemingly because it isn't a standard shooting attack that you roll BS for, etc. You roll just the ag test to avoid getting hit, and if you fail that, you roll a second ag test to avoid getting set on fire.
So, which one of us is correct?
But yes, firing a flamer does not use BS. Instead, the target makes an agility test to avoid being hit.
The nice thing (from the perspective of your average grunt) is that it's an unmodified agility test, not a dodge test, so not having dodge isn't a problem.
In addition, things that would normally provide a penalty to hit (like not being braced with a heavy flamer, or not having the correct weapon training talent) instead provide a bonus to the target's agility test.
There is a talent (Leaping Dodge) which allows you to use your dodge skill for what is essentially 'to hit' roll. Since the talent's prerequisites are at least Dodge +10, this must logically be better than your normal roll.
For your actual 'dodge' (i.e. the evasion reaction after you are 'hit') remember that a spray weapon has an area of effect. You are only permitted to attempt to evade if your half action move (your agility bonus in metres) is able to get you outside the area of effect. This takes a bit of quick mental arithmetic to figure out, but essentially means that you're not going to be dodging something like a heavy flamer at half-to-three-quarters range.
All I know is FLAMERs are mega complex!!! WTF were they thinkalating? LOL
I got an idear > lets make rules that bounce off of other rules and are vaguely worded for maximum profitably > I bet you thats what the board of investors ORDERed them to do LMFAO
Edited by MorbidDonIdk man. In my books and games, even the ones where I don't GM and play in, it's all pretty clear and everybody is on board with how it works. Takes less than 5 seconds to resolve - even with new players who've never encountered the flamer rules before.
I feel all the problems are coming from people who had misinterpreted the rules and locked them in their minds, and then were informed of their mistakes, leading to confusion as they're now trying to adapt what they already know - which just causes issues.
Edited by TheWorldSmith^ I agree 100%, we've never had any issues.