Jump to content



Photo

Flame quality and melee combat


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Kirill

Kirill

    Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:51 PM

I decided to equip Astartes Heavy Flamer for my apothecary, but could not determine exactly what penalties affected to this weapon. The rolebook describes only about  lack of specialization or bracing (it gives bonuses to foe's dodge). This penalties negated by  talents Astartes Weapon Training and Bulging Biceps. Does that  counts that I don't have penalties for use in any situation? For example, does an enemy will get a bonus +20 to dodge, if I shoot him  in melee?



#2 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 01:33 PM

You can't shoot basic or heavy weapons if you're engaged in melee.

 

If you're not in melee and shoot a flamer at an enemy who's in melee with an ally, they both have to dodge but I don't think either is gonna get a bonus to dodge.


Edited by Kshatriya, 29 April 2014 - 01:35 PM.


#3 herichimo

herichimo

    Member

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 02:50 PM

While engaged in melee characters can only make attack actions with the melee subtype. (DW:Core, p.147)

 

Remember, engaging does not require any action or even your turn. If a character is close enough to hit another character with a melee attack it can choose to engage that character regardless of turn order or action.

 

Shooting into melee would more likely apply a dodge penalty. A character can only dodge attacks it is aware of. If a character is too focused on his melee attackers would he even see the flamer attack?

 

Dodging a flame weapon, which shoots a cone and affects an area, requires a character to move out of the cone area to succeed with a dodge. Moving in such a way while engaged, even with a dodge, will give your opponant an opportunity for a free strike (you are moving away from him without using disengage). The agility tests associated with the flamer are simply how he weapon hits its targets. One agility test to see if you are hit, all characters hit must take a second agility test or catch on fire.



#4 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 03:21 PM

Shooting into melee would more likely apply a dodge penalty. A character can only dodge attacks it is aware of. If a character is too focused on his melee attackers would he even see the flamer attack?

 

Wrong. When it comes to flaming weapons, the usual MO is to take the normal modifiers and apply the inverse to the to-hit-substitute AG test.

 

I wouldn't do it in this case though. If you shoot a flamer into melee, every participant should get hit as normal.

 

Alex


My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#5 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 04:03 PM

Shooting into melee would more likely apply a dodge penalty. A character can only dodge attacks it is aware of. If a character is too focused on his melee attackers would he even see the flamer attack?

Yes, unless the flamer attacker was successfully hidden somehow, using the rules for stealth/hiding. Unless the attacker is hidden or other factors would make detection improbable (i.e. indirect mortal strike from the other side of a hill line) the targets are allowed to try and dodge (if they have a spare Reaction of course). It is not a perfect simulation but it was never designed to be.

 

 

Dodging a flame weapon, which shoots a cone and affects an area, requires a character to move out of the cone area to succeed with a dodge. Moving in such a way while engaged, even with a dodge, will give your opponant an opportunity for a free strike (you are moving away from him without using disengage). 

Yeah I probably wouldn't run it that way, since I'd assume both the DW marine in melee and the opponent would be trying to dodge if they could. I probably also wouldn't count the free "move out of AoE up to your AB if you successfully Dodge" movement as movement within the rules that provokes an AoO.


Edited by Kshatriya, 29 April 2014 - 04:03 PM.


#6 herichimo

herichimo

    Member

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 05:04 PM

The agility test is not a dodge test. Penalties to dodge do not apply to the agility test to be hit by a flamer or catch fire.

A: If you are in the flame cone you take an agility test to avoid getting hit by the spraying fire water.

B: If you dodge the attack, as per area effect dodging, you dodge out of the cone area, and don't have to worry about suffering the damage.

C: Flamer cones are area affect, everyone under an area affect is "hit", since the flamer doesn't require a BS test to place its area affect the -20 penalty for shooting into combat doesn't apply. You are simply shooting flame into an area of space.

 

Dodging fire is seperate from the agility tests.

 

Sequence works like this

1: Attacker puts down cone. Characters in the cone are "Hit" by the flamers area affect.

1a: Hit characters may attempt to dodge out of the cone, if they have the AB in meters and succeed they make it out.

2: Characters who are hit by the cone's area affect must take an agility test to avoid being hit by the prometheum as the attacker swings the spray back and forth within the cone.

3: All those hit by the prometheum (or warp fire, wutev) must take an agility test to avoid catching on fire.

 

The free move in AB is still a move (DW:Core, p.241 sidebar) and therefore counts as fleeing which allows an opponent to take a free attack. Since the dodges would happen at the same time the other character would either attempt a dodge or take a free attack, he wouldn't get an Free Attack if he failed a dodge for instance. If the other character wants to stay there and get hit by the attack to take a free attack, that's his perogative. Perhaps he isn't aware of the attack, in which case all he knows is the other character is fleeing from him.

 

It is a lot easier to be unaware of an attack than one might think. Characters don't have a 360 degree field of view with psychic awareness (unless they do...) to know what's going on all around them all the time. This is why there is a GM to decide these things. Rule as you like concerning how aware your player's characters are, but the rule is: unaware = no dodging.



#7 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 05:15 PM

It is a lot easier to be unaware of an attack than one might think. Characters don't have a 360 degree field of view with psychic awareness (unless they do...) to know what's going on all around them all the time. This is why there is a GM to decide these things. Rule as you like concerning how aware your player's characters are, but the rule is: unaware = no dodging.

To me, if you're engaged in combat against a KT and none of them are actively hiding (rolling stealth skill checks or using modes/powers that allow you to treat your opponent as unaware), I'd say you would automatically be aware of them, know about all of them and their firing angles. Even if they're behind you. Again, not a perfect simulation, but I wouldn't care to slow combat down with constant Awareness tests if the KT wasn't actively trying to hide their positions to take advantage of shooting from a blind. 


Edited by Kshatriya, 29 April 2014 - 05:16 PM.


#8 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 412 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 03:43 PM

This is reasonable, but would you allow a character to make a stealth test, not to hide, but simply to be unnoticed when they maneuver behind someone in the swirl of combat?

 

Have you ever been sparring with more than one person?  Getting outmaneuvered and being aware of what they are both doing is a stone *****, and it's even worse in a general melee.

 

So I don't do constant awareness tests, but I will call for the occasional awareness test when someone does something like that.

 

I tend to consider Dodge, Quick Draw, Target Selection, and a mix of weapons to be considered high-priority advances for any shooty character I run- and I generally prefer shooty characters over choppy ones.  One of these days I'll play a Black Templar assault marine who doesn't have a jump pack (hm- something to think about in the house rules thread), but I so very enjoy quiet assassins, precisely because it isn't hard to get Unaware targets.

 

Edit: nvm, I don't need to think about it- N0_1_H3r3 posted some extra bonus alt-specialty abilities here, including four Assault Marine options that aren't jump-pack dependent.  I rather like Master of Blades and Scornful Defense.


Edited by Annaamarth, 30 April 2014 - 03:56 PM.

RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#9 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 11:30 PM

This is reasonable, but would you allow a character to make a stealth test, not to hide, but simply to be unnoticed when they maneuver behind someone in the swirl of combat?

Absent gear or an environmental thing to duck behind to mask their position? Probably not. I think it would create overcomplication for me as the GM.

 

 

Have you ever been sparring with more than one person?  Getting outmaneuvered and being aware of what they are both doing is a stone *****, and it's even worse in a general melee.

Sure, I agree that that is the case IRL, I just don't think the system is designed for that level of simulation.



#10 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 01 May 2014 - 01:17 AM

 

This is reasonable, but would you allow a character to make a stealth test, not to hide, but simply to be unnoticed when they maneuver behind someone in the swirl of combat?

Absent gear or an environmental thing to duck behind to mask their position? Probably not. I think it would create overcomplication for me as the GM.

 

To me, it's not too complicated. I want to give my player's a variety of challenges in play. And getting outmaneuvered might be one. So, if an NPC's plan is to get into their rear unseen, then, yes, an opposed test might be called.

 

What I don't like in implementing this is letting everyone roll Awareness versus Silent Move because some PC is bound to roll below 10. I instead prefer assistance rules and (in case the NPC is spotted) to randomize who took notice first.

 

Alex


My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS