I'm not looking at the book, but what I last remembered was when you use a Flame weapon:
1: You don't test BS.
2: Measure/ Evaluate targets in area of effect.
3: All Enemies in AOE must succeed Agility check (with bonuses or penalties for appropriate firer talents) or be “Hit”

Once Hit;
Target may attempt “Dodge” if reaction is available to negate Hit
“Hit” Targets suffer damage and must succeed another Agility Check or catch on fire

Is this correct? They get (effectively) 2 agility checks to negate the Hit and a third to avoiding being on fire?
((Last night I was pissed when I walked in to a tiny room <3x4m> and couldn’t hit two people with a flamer pistol…))

RAW considered... yes they technically can get a "dodge" attempt once they were hit with the flamer. However we rule it as your initial agility test IS your dodge test. We equate it to you hiting the deck or darting to the side. Otherwise if they even had a remotely good agility test, it would make flamers useless...

3) Replace "All enemies" with Everyone.

By the rules, yes, you get to roll your Agility to see if you move out of the way (but if you are in a restricted corridor, you can't get out of the way), and then roll for your Dodge test.

You can only Dodge if your Ag bonus in meters can get you out of the area effect.

(1) Your targets roll AGI to see if they are hit.
(2) If they are hit, they take the Energy Damage and check afterwards if they are on fire with another AGI test.

Mack Martin answered rule questions regarding flamer attacks as follows: you get NO dodge test after the initial AGI test to see if you are hit.
I made a house rule for my group: you could use your dodge skill INSTEAD of the AGI test to check if you are hit.

Interesting.
Either this is different in DH and DW or the devs just have different interpretations of the rules because I sent questions about flame weapons to the deathwatch team and recieved a different answer:

> And can someone hit by a flamer dodge in addition to the Ag roll to
> avoid being hit?

Yes, you may also try to dodge a flamer (although this is very
difficult). (See page 238-239 in the Deathwatch Core Rulebook for
details)

Ross Watson
Senior RPG Developer
Fantasy Flight Games
[email protected]

Umbranus said:

Is it possible that Ross misunderstood your question? In that he thought that you were asking about an alternative ?

The wording "in addition to the Ag roll, can someone try to [...]" is a bit ambiguous in that it could also be seen as "can I roll Dodge instead of Agility".

I mean, how many times could you "avoid being hit" by a single attack? Either you're hit - or you're not.

I think 'in addition to' is pretty clear. As for how many times does someone get a chance to avoid an attack, generally two. Just normally the first chance is down to your opponents roll vs. WS/BS.

Little Dave said:

Well, an alternative option is an addition, too - it provides you with another way to evade the attack, but you'd still have to choose.

Just a theory to explain this perceived difference in developer response, though. Perhaps someone could ask for a clarification? For even when Ross meant this as a "2nd chance", we're still left with conflicting official answers.

But I admit I'm generally biased towards allowing two attempts to avoid a hit -even three if the target of the attack has the appropriate talent. I think this would severely affect a flame weapon's usefulness, which seems even more silly when you consider that it's a cone weapon.

Flame weapons seem a bit "weird" in that they're insanely dangerous about setting people on fire (which comes with huge drawbacks) - but on the other hand it'd be just as bad when they fail to cause any damage at all because they never (deliberate exaggeration) hit anyone...

Tharkas Moryn said:

Then why is a flamer specifically mentioned as an example in the section about dodging area of effect weaponry ? (DH page 193)

Bilateralrope said:

Perhaps because one could test Agility or Dodge to avoid the attack. At least that's how I am interpreting the issue at hand, following the above discussion. Note that the books themselves do not talk about Dodging at all, they say "succeed on an Agility-test or take damage".

I find it perfectly reasonable that one should be able to Dodge instead of testing Agility when he's got a bonus there (thus I welcome the designer's response, if it is meant how I understand it), but using Dodge in addition to the Agility-test is a different matter ...

Mack has a certain tendency to not be fluent in rules that were written before his time. I once asked him about the interaction of Fearless with Corruption points gained from failed Fear tests with Warp Shock, to which he replied that you don't get CP from a failed Fear check. Only after I urged him again to read up on Warp Shock did he note that yes, you do get CP from such a checkyes, Fearless does negate them together with the rest of the test.

Thus, I'd personally take his comment on flamers with a massive grain of salt.

According to RAW, the original poster had it right - you announce the shot, then your target rolls agility, then your target may roll dodge (if it has a reaction leftthere's a non-flamed zone within [AB] metres), then you roll damagethen the target rolls agility for being on fire.
This may sound like it's hard to hit something, but the first Agility check can be influenced with Cleanse&Purify, leaving the enemy with about 10 agility (which is equivalent to a normal gun fired with a BS 90)the dodge check relies on the enemy having a reaction left. At this point, it's all about teamwork: Ask your buddy to spray a group of enemies with a full auto burst so they waste their reactions, then use the flamer.

I think what I take great issue with is: Flamers seem like a great weapon when you skim over the rules. When you read them more in-depth you realize that they kind of suck, especially against anything with a decent dodgeagility.

Issues (as they appear in the rule book):
->Dodge is to negate hits. Hits are determined by whethernot your opponent fails an agility test? (Which based on RAW, the initial agility test is not Ag bonus/ distance dependent) So confined hallway enemy attacked with the flamer can Ag-test out of being hit, even if he can’t get clear of the attack because it’s too far for his Ag-bonus?

->CleansePurify is pretty much mandatory if you ever want your flamer to work in any meaningful way. It reads "Targets exposed to your flamer attacks take a -20 penalty to avoid being hit" but this doesn't specify as to your initial agility testto your dodge it just says "avoid" which is what both of those do.

->The Flame "weapon special quality" it says "agility testbe struck by flamestake damage," "Cover does not protect characters from attacks from flame weapons."a roll of 9 for damage jams the weapon. [Paraphrased]

->Using a flame weapon without the talent imposes a +30 bonus to your enemy's agility check, but you can't aimanything to reduce their agility check. (Something that would normally give me penalties gives my enemy bonuses, so maybe something that gives me bonuses should give my enemies penalties?)

->I was worried that the jam of a flamer would negate the attack (Meaning that you already got your enemy to failrolled damage that came up 9did nothing) but Raw doesn't say that (thankfully).

->And Dodging AOE lists Flamergrenade as loose examples. Implying you can dodge flamer attacksbe placed at the edge of the AOE if you have sufficient Ag-Bonus in meters to get thereit fails automatically.

I think what I would like to see is that the initial Ag-test to avoid be dependent on whethernot they have enough Ag-bonus to move out of the AOE, dodge after successful hit, Both affected by “CleansePurify”Aim gives -10 to initial hit test but not dodge.
What do you think?

I think you got it right Elohiem.

And in my games I will give penalties to the Ag test equal to the bonus the shooter would have gained had he fires something else (perhaps with the exeption of point blank).
So aiming, short range, and other bonuses apply just as normal penalties for the defender like lying prone or similar stuff.
In Addition, if the target of the attack can't see the attack coming because of cover he's hiding behind he can't dodge.

Alternatively I was thinking about how if your base is wholy under the template, or the square you occupy is intirely in the Area of Effect you don't get to test AG just Dodge, now if you are partially under the template, or the square you occupy is partially in the Area of Effect then you can test both..

Feedback is appreicated.

One problem I could see with this is that you'd need a grid - whilst being possible for some groups I am unsure about making this mandatory for everyone. How about making it depend on the distance instead? Though that should perhaps rather grant test modificators rather than making people roll twice...

In general I'm still feeling bad about making people roll twice or even thrice to do one and the same action. Think about the situation: So you botched your first roll, this means you weren't quick enough. The possible existence of respective talents aside: Why would you get a re-roll by default? Wouldn't it seem far more streamlined as well as logical to just use a single test and modify it appropriately?

I do understand that the Agility Test is some sort of "compensation" for the user of a Flame weapon not having to test BS, but that doesn't make it less weird, and this is not how it works in the TT as well. Not relying on Ballistic Skill should be an advantage of AoE weapons, compensating their drawbacks (in case of the flamer, its short range). When you just shift a test from one character to another this doesn't really feel like an advantage. And what about other AoE weapons - do people caught in the blast radius of a missile get to test both Agility and Dodge, too?

Lynata said:

Good thing we aren't talking about how things work in TT.

Lynata said:

No. Missiles and grenades require a BS test to hit an area. Like all AoE weapons, dodge only applies if your AG Bonus in meters can get you out of the affected area. Hence the glorious nature of flamers and grenades in confined spaces.

Man, how I miss my old guardsman and his grenade launcher of DOOM!!!

ItsUncertainWho said:

And the blast radius of some missiles and grenades (Frag Missile, Gunmetal Frag MkIII, ...) is large enough that you have a guaranteed hit regardless of the BS Test. Just saying.

But yes, I remember those Guardsmen. They did hurt a lot.

ItsUncertainWho said:

But the doom part mainly came into play (at least for my guardsman) when he used krack grenades to kill people.

Umbranus said:

Oh yeah those were good times; especially fun when you do that before going assault with close-order drill+seasoned warrior

Yes, rolling twice for something that can be seen as the same action may seem weird. However, against pretty much everything but Eldar, flamers are still better: Most enemies will have agility around 30. That's like shooting a gun at BS 70 right there. Add Cleanse&Purify and you're at effective BS 90. Still not happy? Then let's consider you're ignoring cover, which a normal gun would have to shoot around with a called shot (-20, thus BS 110). Apart from not getting multiple hits (oh, wait: AoE and enemies on fire!), flamers are flat-out better at short distances.

Elohiem_Militant said:

This was still my greatest issue. Using your example, An eldar in a confined hallway will probably escape even if his AG isn't high enough to get out of the range using Dodge.

Elohiem_Militant said:

Not to mention my proposed solution doesn't take away both checks. What I'm trying to say is, Cifer, describing in detail, what is wrong with my proposed solution? I really do want feedback, but your explanation is about how the current rules are good, and not how my rules aren't better.

Cifer said:

I'm pretty sure I posted something before *sigh*

My response to that is: isn't that the point of the flamer? That it outranks everything else at short range (except for perhaps shotguns and meltas on single targets).

However, it has some HUGE drawbacks:

a) 20m is the maximum distance it can attack with. Beyond that, it misses. Period. Atleast everything else gets penalties but can still hit.

b) It checks Jamming on damage rolls. That means: the more targets in range, the more the gun'll jam. And it's reload is 2 full actions. That, and it jams more frequently than everything else anyway (rolling a 9 on a d10, so it's a 10% chance to jam, against the standard 7% for non-unreliable or reliable weapons).

c) it has only 3 shots in each clip. With a reload of 2 Full actions, it means that it's pretty much a single use weapon (i.e use up the clip, then ditch the gun for the rest of the fight)

So let's both make the gun effective, and avoid clogging up sessions with excess combat rolls. One test to avoid it, and I would call it a Dodge test.

Arcaia said:

This has bothered me a bit from the first moment I've laid eyes on the stats. I can see the reason behind this (given that it's an AoE weapon), but it just doesn't feel right. Would it not be better if the user has some more control over the weapon, including its consumption? That the user may balance duration of the flame blast and width of angle against the opponent's chance to escape the attack as well as fuel expenditure?

Ironically, the hand flamer in BoM has a clip of 6, which feels right for its size. It is somewhat funny that a flamethrower twice its size has only half as much fuel.