Jump to content

Flamer and Point Blank Bonus


Recommended Posts

I will say that fire from a source like a fire bomb or flamer is still effective against a hard target like a tank. Though agreeably not as effective as it should be against a soft target.

 

But remember when you put a sticky based fire onto a tank it happens to heat things up, sucking the oxygen out of the object its burning and cooking off the soft bits inside. Moe may be able to discuss this further from his tanker days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I will say that fire from a source like a fire bomb or flamer is still effective against a hard target like a tank. Though agreeably not as effective as it should be against a soft target.

 

But remember when you put a sticky based fire onto a tank it happens to heat things up, sucking the oxygen out of the object its burning and cooking off the soft bits inside. Moe may be able to discuss this further from his tanker days.

I will grant you that, from my own Tanker days, but if you're using the liquid flamer arguement it wouldn't be bypassing solid objects like the AoE does. If you're spraying high to account for the AoE, then the concentrations aren't likely to be high enough to cause the effect you're describing. And the historical drawback to any Flamer/Flame Thrower unit was their own vulnerablity -- and something like that in and the Flamer's potentency is a non-issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think at this point a little reminder that we are talking about a game with giant stompy robots might be in order. Perhaps flamers are really airborne nanobots set to cause havoc and discontent, rather than some sort of ignitable fluid sprayed from a nozzle. Perhaps its a focused beam of heavy radiation that attenuates over short distances.

I just pressed the "I Believe" button (actually, I pressed it at the giant stompy robot part) so that real life and personal experience wouldn't intrude on my fun.

 

(snarky attitude optional ::P: )

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think at this point a little reminder that we are talking about a game with giant stompy robots might be in order. Perhaps flamers are really airborne nanobots set to cause havoc and discontent, rather than some sort of ignitable fluid sprayed from a nozzle. Perhaps its a focused beam of heavy radiation that attenuates over short distances.

I just pressed the "I Believe" button (actually, I pressed it at the giant stompy robot part) so that real life and personal experience wouldn't intrude on my fun.

 

(snarky attitude optional ::P: )

Like I said I like the game, but I was responding to a fluff arguement in kind. I'd rather just argue that the rules themselves.

 

As for the giant stompy robots I'm still working on that one. ::P:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to second Anvil - but I don't have any military experience, so my "I believe" button goes down nice and smooth.

 

The way that the flamers work doesn't seem exactly like a traditional nozzle and stream, although I guess the name implies something similar. In the last game I played my infantry were devastated by the flamers from two wolverines, and I loved that. The flamer seemed like this awesome sci-fi hellfire weapon that incinerated just about anything at close range. Since the game I have been imagining that event as a wall of fire erupting from some kind of array of barrels and nozzles. I have also been trying to work out how infantry can bring the fight to enemies with flamers and not get incinerated doing so (part of it seems to be not firing with the transport and allowing defensive fire!)

 

Admittedly, my infantry had just done a real number on some CAVs, and so turnaround seemed both fair play and poetic justice, but from that limited experience the flamer seemed just fine. If the system is truly rock/paper/scissors with more depth, then there seems to be a good reason for those weapon that you need to learn to avoid the "rock" of.

 

If the rules themselves are contradictory then it seems like it should be ironed out (Chrome seems on top of that already), but I think the imagining part of the gaming can come from the self-enclosed belief system of the rules - flamers are what the rules say they are, imagine appropriately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If CAV is following the K.I.S.S. principal though why have a unique DA AoE weapon
By that line of thinking we should also get rid of every other SA in the game that gives a model some kind of special ability, shouldn't we? Every SA is a rule that breaks other rules, or works outside of the standard rules set.

 

When I said that the CAV 2 rulebook is KISS, it was in direct response to suggestions about alternate rules or levels of rules that the players could pick from. The CAV 2 book is for the core rules and core rules only. There's a place for those other things, and its coming, but not yet.

 

why does a Flamer have such a high RAV? +4 or +5 vs armored targets?

MattyFoe's original question was does the Flamer recieve the +1 bonus for Point Blank Range. Yes it does. But it also still suffers Range Band Penalties just like every other DA Weapon, so in addition to the +1 PB bonus, it also suffers a -2 penalty from 4"-8" and a -4 penalty from 8"-12". So yes it attacks that Wyvern in the back of the AOE in your example, but the attack is only at +1 or +2 based on the models you're facing. A full blown CAV doesn't have much to fear from a +2 attack.

 

On the other hand, a bunch of Soft vehicles or Infantry have a lot to fear from a few +8 and +6 attacks that the nose bleed sections will be facing. However, if the attacker is a CAV like the Puma, you also need to remember that even the guys in the back should be capable of drawing LOS over their partners back to the Puma, allowing them to get some defensive shots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a big fan of flamers. Jackals & Bears normally are a big part of any build that I do. That position being stated, I don't find them to be overly devastating. The first time or two I play someone, I can mop them up pretty fast. The same tricks work with infantry and gunships. Once they learn what flamers (or infantry, or gunships) can do, however, the capable players adapt quickly and make our games a challenge.

 

The argument that if your firing down a line of CAV's that a cover bonus should apply does make sense. Perhaps an adjustment (or house rule?) that if the units on down the line aren't in a position to defensive fire they get a +2 cover bonus?

 

Castlebuilder

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is your problem that you don't feel that a Flamethrower could damage something that it doesn't have LOS too, or that you feel all AOE weapons should be IA?

 

This does bring a couple of points to my attention that I'll deal with in RAGE Chronicles. Flamers shouldn't be able to participate in Salve Strike Fire Attacks and *any terrain (hills, walls, buildings) taller than the attacking model that completely cross the Flamer's AOE, should end the Flamer's AOE.

I'm pretty much ranted out on Flamers. The changes would help, but the biggest thing with a Flamer/Flame Thrower type weapon was that it is dangerous. Yes they are devastating for certain niche roles, but you are required to carry around a supply of volatile fuel for the Flamer. Basically you were walking around with bomb strapped to your back. A rule to reflect this would put flamers in their proper historical/military context (i.e. dangerous to both sides) -- perhaps some additional penalty/damage when a Flamer armed unit takes Critical Damage?

Link to post
Share on other sites
But a flamer in CAV terms could just as well be a short-ranged, area effect version of a PBG--spraying plasma over it's targets. Volatile fuel problem gone.

without arguing the fluff, a Flamer is not a PBG and making it stand out from other weapons would make it better, IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites

With our current abstract damage system it would be difficult to come up with a fair option for extra damage based on a volatile substance. I'm going to go with the fluff writers excuse of advances in technology rendering the fuel inert until x, y and z take place, thus its safe for the battle field.

 

I really think we've beaten this horse to death, and then set it on fire with said flamer. Well look more at the flamer for the future but for now, it is what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...