Last night gameswork shop had a inquisitor game going so i toke in a gemon huntress with a basic flamer.
Well what happen was i shot this eldar character (dual wielding power swords with 101 WS and speed 6)which had sprinted. Shotting my basic skill of 60 negative 30 because of 30 yard sprint, i hit him on a 08. Getting the hit and damaging him in the chest which did catch on fire rolled 24.
Next turn all he could do was put out the fire which toke 4/5 actions to do. GM says because it toke you 4 actions to put the Fire out your last action is losted.
My turn again i flamed him again but because he did not move i got 2 hits this time Plus d6+1 per hit making a total 9 hits. Which leaves him totally dead.
Was i ment to hit him Like "Space - Eldar - Space" Meaning my hits would be spread out or was it fare that i got him good?
Are Flamers over powered? I don't think so it was one vs one so he got unlucky or he should of had back up?
At the moment, I'm trying a house rule for being on fire that you have to pass a Toughness test at the start of the turn with a GM fudged modifier for the number of locations on fire and how well protected those locations are. So, a bionic arm or heavily armoured location on fire would result in minimal/no penalty, but several unarmoured locations on fire (or the head!) would be a very large penalty.
If you pass, you may assign your actions as you want. If you fail, I'm currently working with you have to spend all actions putting out the fire, but with actions only succeeding on a 5+ as you fail ineffectively about in pain.
And yes, the toughness test applies even if you wanted to assign your actions to putting out the fire anyway - no-one ever said you had to think rationally and effectively when on fire!
I guess Frenzied characters should get some kind of bonus - maybe a re-roll. (Failure might snap a character out of their Frenzy if appropriate.)
I don't pretend it's particularly well tested so far, but I've seen enough Space Marines end up with their leg on fire, then fluff their action roll, spend the whole turn putting out their leg, then get flamed again.
However, the one that struck me as really wrong was the Eversor Assassin going down to a flamer, then getting shot repeatedly while he was down - come on, if they were that easy to kill, they wouldn't be much of a threat.
And really, who doesn't think that a skull masked assassin charging at you ON FIRE isn't frakking awesome? Now that's a terror weapon!
Obligatory (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InfernalRetaliation) TV Tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IncendiaryExponent) Links (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OutOfTheInferno)
Also, Ninjas can't catch you when you're on fire. (http://drmcninja.com/archives/comic/4p14) It's proven. (http://drmcninja.com/archives/comic/4p15)
Quote from: MarcoSkoll on January 29, 2010, 09:32:03 AM
I guess Frenzied characters should get some kind of bonus - maybe a re-roll. (Failure might snap a character out of their Frenzy if appropriate.)
while i don't know the Inquisitor flamer rules, i think in 40k 2nd (Necromunda and Gorkamorka), frenzied miniatures can ignore the fire (and stuill take damage) while anyone else can't do anything other'n attempt to put fire out...
And really, who doesn't think that a skull masked assassin charging at you ON FIRE isn't frakking awesome? Now that's a terror weapon!
Frenzied Character on fire charging at you = Fearsome; if already Fearsome then your terrifying. Unstoppable Carnage.
What about the D6+1 hits if they don't move. Because they charge it form range to Targets movement.
Well, as far as range, yes, there probably should be some modifier to the number of hits.
Perhaps at over half range (or maybe a set figure in the range of 10 yards), you should have to roll twice for the number of hits and pick the lower.
Part of my fix for the power of flamers in the LRB was cutting their range...
...however, I've just looked at the latest file, and there are a series of ranges there that aren't even close to what I intended, and I've no idea how they've ended up like that. (Uploads corrected version)...
... but a reduction in range doesn't do all that much for cutting their effectiveness, because often, they're still in range anyway.
Leaving aside the question of whether the flame weapon rules could be improved...
Quote from: Nemesis on January 29, 2010, 08:20:07 AM
Well what happen was i shot this eldar character (dual wielding power swords with 101 WS and speed 6)which had sprinted. Shotting my basic skill of 60 negative 30 because of 30 yard sprint, i hit him on a 08. Getting the hit and damaging him in the chest which did catch on fire rolled 24.
I rarely use flame weapons, but in the past I've assumed that like full-auto weapons the speed a target is moving does not modify the to hit roll - instead their speed is taken into account by the number of hits they take. But now that I reread the rules they don't actually say that... In any case, the modifier for shooting at a running or sprinting character is -12 not -30.
QuoteMy turn again i flamed him again but because he did not move i got 2 hits this time Plus d6+1 per hit making a total 9 hits. Which leaves him totally dead.
Maybe I'm misreading what you did, but it's not D6+1 hits for each to hit roll you pass - you roll to hit the target D6+1 times for each shot. But still, two bursts from a flamer at a stationary target is likely to take most characters out of the game.
QuoteWas i ment to hit him Like "Space - Eldar - Space" Meaning my hits would be spread out or was it fare that i got him good?
No, there's no need to flame empty spaces unless you're firing at a widely spread group of characters.
QuoteAre Flamers over powered? I don't think so it was one vs one so he got unlucky or he should of had back up?
I think the moral of the story is, don't get too close to people wielding flamers. If he'd managed to charge you while wielding two power swords then you'd likely be the one who died in a messy fashion!
It seems to me that that guy assumed his Eldar Superwarrior Character would auto-win... If he'd been running a much lower power character, then I might be more accepting of his complaint... But if he had (ad hominem attack coming up) he may not have been the sort to complain... Though, yes, the flaming making you stop seems odd. Perhaps it should act like Pinning, where you must go for cover?
He was upset because it was 2v3.
On my side was my daemon hunter (Ws 80 power halberd; Bs 60 Flamer ;S 60 ; T 60) displacement field
The other guy had two enforcers one had a Cyber Mastiff both had shot guns with 12 executioner rounds each. shock mauls.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The Other Team was
1st player
Eldar Ranger dual wielding power swords conversion shield
2nd player
Bounty hunter with long rifle (he hid in the corner ruin shooting form the window all game)
3rd player
Inquisitor with daemon sword and psychic powers; choke, force lighting, warp strenght, regenerate (May the force be with you) and a Wyrd with fireball
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The objective was a ruin in the centre (summoning circle) we are meant to get there and activate it with 8 successful Sg tests then we get a random roll D100 to see what we get.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Round 1
Eldar came straight at the two enforcers 50 yard sprint first round he hide behind some cover.
I moved to the ruins drawing my flamers taking cover.
Both enforcers open fire one on the bounty hunter one on the inquisitor doing minor wounds
Inquisitor fails all action rolls gets free action sprint.
Wyrd gets two actions sprint and concentrate
Cyber mastiff move towards eldar
Bounty hunter shots at cyber mastiff and does 1pt of damage.
Round 2
One of the Enforces uses lighting reflexs shoots the eldar again doing little damage
Eldar rolls 2 actions just out of range of the enforcer
I move and shot at inquisitor hit doing damage and he catches on fire
Enforcer shoots Inquistor again doing more minor damage
Inqusitor puts out fire
Wyrd Fails at throwning the fire ball
Cyber mastiff fetch attacking eldar; eldar parries and dodges all attacks.
Bounty hunter shots ats enforcer which does no damage
Form this point on the eldar is stuck in combet with the mastiff for like 4 turns (getting low damages on all rolls) until last he destroys it then he moves onto the enforcer which he takes out in 2 turns; While this is going on bounty hunter shots daemon hunter forcing her displacement field to teleport me 1yard away form Inquisitor which in turn out rolls me on Initiative both had same "I". Which he chokes me for 5 rounds and moves on to the ruins.
They activite the Summoning circle which they roll a 93 on random higher bad lower good; A bloodletter was summoned GM used a straight 100 stat line. But alone with the Bloodletter a Daemon sword is also summoned.
Now primary Objective is to take sword off the board Secondary is to take out the bloodletter;
Wyrd to Massacred by the bloodletter, Inquisitor runs, Eldar sprints towards the inquisitor, Enforcer is running after Inquisitor, which is when i get back up walking towards the bloodletter but flaming the eldar and inquisitor in a group no space they were next to each other.
The eldar gets hit inquisitor doesn't. Enforcer shoots inquisitor taking him out of action, picks up the daemon sword and runs to the edge of the table but unable to leave because needing to pass a Wp check to leave (the sword doesn't wont to leave the ruins) Bloodletter runs past me seeing hes meant to be protecting the sword charges and misses both attacks on enforcer >.< 96 and a 99. Bounty hunter shoots me and misses. I flame Eldar which in turns dies.
Enforce disengages and succesfully leaves board. Leaving me with the Bloodletter.Bounty hunter keeps shooting at me. I charged bloodletter but at this time 11:30pm everyone else wanted to go home so i couldn't kill it well try to anywayz.
Were you playing at 54mm? If so, what model did you use for the Bloodletter? Next time you should take pics and post them and the battle report in the 'In the Field' sub-forum.
yeah 54mm
It was a winged demon with a sword
Quote from: Nemesis on January 30, 2010, 01:36:48 AM
The objective was a ruin in the centre (summoning circle) we are meant to get there and activate it with 8 successful Sg tests then we get a random roll D100 to see what we get.
what else was on the chart?
and i agree with Kaled; piiiics! ;D
01-10 Aritfact Item =? don't know Gm wouldn't tell us
11-19 Lesser Daemons = Was gonna use 6 Tzeentch models small but weak
20-39 Choas Spawn = Beast of nurgle
40-59 Nercon = Spyders
60-73 Reavner = Trygon
74-84 Choas Marine = Daemon Prince Model
85-95 Bloodletter = A winged Daemon someone had
96-100 Wrathguard = Wrathlord model
You seem to be playing high power games, I'd be quaking in my boots at facing most of those. So long as everyone's at the same power level, it's all good, but gracious, two power swords?
good report though, Pics would be awesome.
Who was this Bloodletter? Why were he and his Blade Brother the ones called? What is their agenda? How do they plan to advance it while able to influence the Material world?
Seriously... Daemons are characters too!
Daemons should never be Unnamed Mooks!
Sweet Imperator ... talk about power. I wouldn't much want to try and GM a game with that. What story can you put onto it? Come to that, what was the story? Why did everyone want to summon a Daemon?
Tullio
Quote from: NemesisThe objective was a ruin in the centre (summoning circle) we are meant to get there and activate it with 8 successful Sg tests then we get a random roll D100 to see what we get.
On the same note as Tullio, what kind of a total plank of a character (other than perhaps a Chaos aligned one) thinks that walking into a summoning circle and trying to activate it is a good idea?
While I don't blame you for playing to your objectives, I think the GM needs to come up with a scenario that didn't have objectives that required idiotic oversight on the part of the characters, or a very good reason for why they might be doing it.
I often get the feeling that the Conclave is too harsh in its criticisms and this is the case here imho. Yes they are power characters. His group may play like that, but they can play as they like, whatever is most fun for them is best.
As for questioning the scenario I think people are jumping the gun. Maybe they don't focus as much on narrative as you would, but again that's their legitimate choice. Not to mention the fact that it may have been a carefully crafted narrative that the OP (understandably, in a poll on flamers) hasn't fully laid out.
Quote from: Ferran on February 01, 2010, 07:19:53 PM
I often get the feeling that the Conclave is too harsh in its criticisms and this is the case here imho.
I tend to agree - it's a shame, but in the past I've seen a fair bit of criticism directed at this forum on the grounds that people here seem to think that their way is the only way to play the game. I'm sure I've been guilty of it too, but it's not exactly a good way to encourage new players and I know for a fact that people have been put off the game because of it.
Quote from: Ferran on February 01, 2010, 07:19:53 PMI often get the feeling that the Conclave is too harsh in its criticisms and this is the case here imho.
This is a discussion forum. If we're not allowed to say what we honestly think, then what's the point?
Opinion is the very bread and butter of a forum like this; if no-one gives their perspective on the matter, then topics can't go anywhere.
Also, I don't see much in the way of "harsh criticism" as far as power levels. I see one person saying "that's a high power game, but as long as it's all equal..." and another saying that they wouldn't really want to be trying to run a game with those characters. If you think that's harsh criticism, you've never seen how harsh criticism can get.
Yes, there has been some criticism of the narrative (or apparent lack of it), but given that Inquisitor is expressly described as a "Narrative wargame" (indeed, perhaps even "THE narrative wargame", as Inquisitor is pretty much the only game described with that label), omitting some form of narrative is counter-intuitive.
Sure, if you really want, it is possible to play Inquisitor without a narrative, but that's like rugby without the ball - it just degenerates into an ultimately pointless wrestling match.
Each to their own - it's your prerogative to ignore what may be said here - but when you ask a question of me, expect to hear
my opinion, not yours.
QuoteNot to mention the fact that it may have been a carefully crafted narrative that the OP hasn't fully laid out.
Maybe it is. But I haven't heard it yet, and it would have to be somewhat impressive to explain the rather illogical circumstances involved.
Narrative was there during gameplay and its was a Five hour game which went really fast until I got choked and stunned for Five rounds then it dragged alittle.
While I might of miss word the whole summoning circle was really arcane/xeno ruins.
Two Teams: My Daemon huntress wanted to research the xeno artifacts and the Judges where in the area hunting and wanted Bountry Hunter. Lilith meet them before and commissioned them into helping her.
The other team. Radical Inquisitors wanted the artifact for there gain along with the bounty hunter, Eldar was there to deal with whatever the Artifact released.
Bad background and quick step up but the other team was still learning the rules and everyone else just wanted a nice fun game.
Quote from: MarcoSkoll on February 01, 2010, 08:55:12 PM
Quote from: Ferran on February 01, 2010, 07:19:53 PMI often get the feeling that the Conclave is too harsh in its criticisms and this is the case here imho.
This is a discussion forum. If we're not allowed to say what we honestly think, then what's the point?
Opinion is the very bread and butter of a forum like this; if no-one gives their perspective on the matter, then topics can't go anywhere.
Also, I don't see much in the way of "harsh criticism" as far as power levels. I see one person saying "that's a high power game, but as long as it's all equal..." and another saying that they wouldn't really want to be trying to run a game with those characters. If you think that's harsh criticism, you've never seen how harsh criticism can get.
Yes, there has been some criticism of the narrative (or apparent lack of it), but given that Inquisitor is expressly described as a "Narrative wargame" (indeed, perhaps even "THE narrative wargame", as Inquisitor is pretty much the only game described with that label), omitting some form of narrative is counter-intuitive.
Sure, if you really want, it is possible to play Inquisitor without a narrative, but that's like rugby without the ball - it just degenerates into an ultimately pointless wrestling match.
Each to their own - it's your prerogative to ignore what may be said here - but when you ask a question of me, expect to hear my opinion, not yours.
QuoteNot to mention the fact that it may have been a carefully crafted narrative that the OP hasn't fully laid out.
Maybe it is. But I haven't heard it yet, and it would have to be somewhat impressive to explain the rather illogical circumstances involved.
I agree the criticism in this instance, especially in reference to power level, isn't very / at all brutal, just that it can sometimes be that way. Tbh it's the use of the terms "total plank" and "idiotic" that I don't care for, as it could be inferred that these words refer to the player, as an extension of the character (unless the character is written as a totally idiotic plank)
Quote from: Ferran on February 02, 2010, 01:34:40 PM... as it could be inferred that these words refer to the player, as an extension of the character.
I very much disagree. Should it be taken that if I say "that character is an evil sociopathic bastard", that I'm calling the associated player an evil sociopathic bastard?
Clearly not - so why should it apply when I call a character's actions less than entirely lucid?
I strongly believe in player/character separation. The only time anyone could truly take offence at such a statement is if both their character was a thinly veiled self-analogue Mary Sue, and they had failed to notice that what I'm really being not entirely polite about is the GM, not the character.
If Radical Inquisitors are involved, it can be hammered into making a little more sense - but in the long run, the Eldar would almost certainly have been trying to stop the ritual, rather than cooperating with radical Inquisitors and waiting around until they released some gribbly as part of the ritual.
Quote from: MarcoSkoll on February 02, 2010, 03:01:40 PM
...I'm really being not entirely polite about is the GM, not the character....
Indeed "...not entirely polite..." is a good description, whether it be directed at the poster, his GM, or his twice removed cousin in Tibet.
<mod hat on>
OK people, time calm down a bit.
This groups' playstyle or the GM's scenario or the Conclave's rather heavy handed approach toward powerful characters is getting way off topic here.
This chap's asking for rules advice, try to stay slightly more on track. if you want to talk about power gaming or playstyle, start a new thread.
/mod
QuoteWhile I might of miss word the whole summoning circle was really arcane/xeno ruins.
Ah, that makes somewhat more sense. Anyway, insofar as flamers can be concerned, I always did consider them a bit clunky, much like the full-auto rules. Given that you do have to be a maniac bent on destruction to get the best out of them, giving them a nerf seems a bit unfair to me. What you may have found here is a time when a flamer really is your best friend - ie, when you have a murderous xenos bearing down on you with a power sword in each hand!
Tullio
Should range affect flamers ((Thinking) that for each yard beyond 5 yards to the target is -1 to hit)
Yards Range - Negative Hits
2-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21+
Target is moving at: Number of to hit rolls made
No movement D6+1
Crawl D6
Walk D3+1
Run D3 (Do you think it should be evading aswell)
Sprint (or faster) 1
Toughness Test to ignore putting out fire next round
Armour Negative
No Armour -200
Flak -40
Mesh -35
Carapace -35
Power -0
Frenzied Character ignores the will to put out the fire
Quote from: Nemesis on February 03, 2010, 10:03:42 AM
Toughness Test to ignore putting out fire next round
Armour Negative
No Armour -200
Flak -40
Mesh -35
Carapace -35
I am not a fan of tables. Tables are just an extra thing you have to look upwhen you're playing. A better system might be to impose a Nerve test when attempting to ignore a flaming part, but you get a bonus of 10% for every point of armour you have on that location. Thus, no armour will be testing on a basic nerve, power armour will be +100% and so on.
Flamers are NOT overpowered. Like many INQ weapons, it's simply that, if they work well then they're utterly deadly but, frankly, that's the way it should be.
Having said that, they work a bit differently in INQ2. Here's a sneak preview:
A spray weapon is aimed at a target group, as described on page XX.
Roll to hit as for full (if different modifiers apply to different targets, apply the highest to the whole shot). If the hit roll is more than the hit roll score then the shot has not missed (unless a natural roll of 96-00, which is still, as always, a complete miss) bur rather, only one location on each target has been hit. If it is less, then it hits a number of locations on each target equal to one, plus one for each degree of success. However, firing at more than one target will diminish the full force of the shot and, in addition, reduces the range of the weapon. For each target in the target group after the first (including spaces) the range is reduced by 1 yard. In addition, roll only once for damage and divide the result by the number of targets in the target group (including spaces) and apply that amount of damage to each location hit.
Example: Grayl the Hexer (BS 67) fires his flamer at Sergeant Mortise and Inquisitor Shyloque, with a space in between them. He is 7 yards away from the furthest target (Shyloque) and the flamer normally has a range of 12 yards. Firing at three targets (including the space) means that the range is reduced to 9 yards, so both characters are well in range. Mortise was stationary in his last turn, but Shyloque ran 6 yards, so a -12 modifier applies to the hit roll score and Weishaupt needs 55 to hit. He rolls 43, Grayl therefore hits two locations on each target. He then rolls for damage and rolls 11, which is divided by three, so he inflicts 4 points of damage to each location he hits.
Spray weapons and stoppages
Normally, a spray weapon that misses still hits its target. If, however, it suffers a stoppage (see page XX), it fails to fire in that Action and must be cleared as described on page XX.
R.
for argument sake here is a flamethrower in action in World War II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD89Z0_Rav8&feature=related
they are a deadly weapon and highly effective at what they do .
if anyone wants to cry over how they work, they should just try to stay away from the business end of them.
Quote from: O_o on February 04, 2010, 10:56:06 PMfor argument sake here is a flamethrower in action in World War II
Well, one thing that video shows is the relatively short range of hand-held flamethrowers - sure, the flamethrower tank can put its payload out over huge distances, but the man portable ones demonstrate the overoptimistic ranges given to them in the LRB.
They should be nasty, but as it is, they can currently chuck fire across half of most tables, which is just excessive. Sure, if anyone were evil enough to model a Hellhound, it should be able to do that and more, but the flamers we normally see on the table shouldn't be that violent.
And I say this as someone who regularly brings a flame weapon to Inquisitor tables - not that it gets used anywhere near as often.
The group im attached to came up with the rule that normal flamers ( not hand flamers ) fire a gout of flaming fuel at the target in a 3" inch wide and high corridor upto the range of 12 yards ( larger corridor and longer range for bigger flamers ).
Our rule for sweeping the flame was to count it as a action and to use up relevent fuel. you were able to turn 45 degreas to the new facing in one action
If I am using the flamer rules correctly it can be very difficult to actually hit your opponent unless they are a very short range (using Inq ref sheet it is 1/4 bs + any other mods).
On the idea that you should have to put the flames out, it could really depend upon the situation. Fuel, location and other factors affect how bothered you are about things burning.
I do fire juggling thus have various experiences of being alight. You can coat your arm in meths set it alight and not be bothered (just not for too long but 20+ seconds is fine), but try it with petrol is a different matter. Also clothing changes how bad the flames are, denim and leather are difficult to set alight quickly, Kelvar does not burn (even when soaked in fuel, but the fuel does burn off it) were as nylon melts just near heat. In addition, there are stunt guys who set their whole bodies alight (they do have special suits for this though). This could be included into armour types (I know ceramite does this already but others could be created).
Flamers in the imperium have fuel that supposedly burn under water and in vacuums (I know the science is rubbish), so putting flames out could be hard. Thus it is worth considering fuel types, is the weapon a cutting oxyacetylene torch or a petrol spraying hose?
Overall it probably is a decision to be made by the GM.
Options could be made to how they try and put the flames out e.g. bat at them or stop, drop and roll etc.
Personally I can not see a Space Marine being bothered by the flames (it is in the fluff) yet other characters would be, especially those in heavy woollen robes. Oh and hair really does not like flames!
Quote from: Kasthan on February 06, 2010, 05:53:14 PMIf I am using the flamer rules correctly it can be very difficult to actually hit your opponent unless they are a very short range (using Inq ref sheet it is 1/4 bs + any other mods).
No, one quarter BS is the original version. It got a considerable change later on.
Ah, yes, just read the electronic copy. It uses the full auto rules + special flamer ones.
Quote from: MarcoSkoll on February 06, 2010, 06:47:38 PM
Quote from: Kasthan on February 06, 2010, 05:53:14 PMIf I am using the flamer rules correctly it can be very difficult to actually hit your opponent unless they are a very short range (using Inq ref sheet it is 1/4 bs + any other mods).
No, one quarter BS is the original version. It got a considerable change later on.
*bump*
stops me having to make a thread :p
would the change be under the revised armoury?
I think it would be cool if some of the more important revised rules could be stickied in a thread- I know they are linked but they have to be downloaded atm, which i cant do as this isnt my computer :(
The full-auto and flamer rules have had a couple of updates over the years, and they are in the latest pdf version of the rulebook which is available from the GW site. If you haven't downloaded it already, then you really ought to find a way to get it as there are quite a few more very minor updates to the rules as well.
Quote from: Kasthan on February 06, 2010, 05:53:14 PM
Personally I can not see a Space Marine being bothered by the flames (it is in the fluff) yet other characters would be, especially those in heavy woollen robes. Oh and hair really does not like flames!
Just noticed this (yes I know the post's half a year old)
Wool is actually very good at protecting against fire; it does not produce flames (it does smoulder), provides excellent insulation against heat, burns with little smoke, extinguishes itself and does not melt or drip. Wool is commonly used in fire resistant clothing (fire-fighters, stuntmen, etc.)
A character in heavy woollen robes would be fairly well protected against flames.
Umm, yeah... just had to say that...