Flamers - someone got angry

[MarcoSkoll]

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.

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.

[Ferran]

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.

[Kaled]

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.

[MarcoSkoll]

I 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.

Not 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.

[Nemesis]

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.

[Ferran]

I 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.

Not 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)

[MarcoSkoll]

... 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.

[Ferran]

...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.

[greenstuff_gav]

<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

[Tullio]

While 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

[Nemesis]

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

[RobSkib]

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.

[precinctomega]

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.

[O_o]

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.

[MarcoSkoll]

for 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.