Jump to content



Photo

Dodging Flamers, Unclear Rules?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#21 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,475 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 01:05 AM

Do you assume that when you shoot your heavy stubber at people, they aren't moving as well before they make a Dodge attempt? 'Cause they actually are, and that's why your chance to hit them is such as such but generally lower than the chance to hit a stationary target.

 

There's no difference between spraying the room with stubber rounds and engulfing it in burning promethium. Some people will duck for cover for a second, some people will just have the luck to not be in the bullets'/flames trajectory. That's what the BS roll represents for the stubber and what them making Agi tests represents for the flamer.

 

Then, once it's determined that some people are indeed hit with an attack, they have the right to evade with a Dodge test. Simple.


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#22 puenboy

puenboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 50 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 02:09 AM

Actually, there is a difference. You have to roll to hit for those stubber rounds. The reacion dodge they get is those people who "duck for cover for a second", and those who just "have the luck to not be in the bullets" are the ones where the attacker fails their ballistic skill rolls against.

 

Flamers, on the other hand, hits, because instead of being one little projectile, it is a spray of promethium that blankets an area. The free "dodge" they get is to balance it out. Making the defender roll agility to be "lucky to not be in the flames" makes zero sense.



#23 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,475 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 08:08 AM

We wouldn't have this discussion if some people could parse the rules correctly:

 

Flame quality, p. 128:

All creatures in the flame’s path, a cone-shaped area extending in a 30 degree arc from the firer out to the weapon’s range, must make an Agility Test or be struck by the flames and take damage normally.
 
Dodge action, p. 193:
Once a hit is scored, but before Damage is rolled, you can try to Dodge if you were aware of the attack. 
 

I'm in the flamer's area of effect and fail my Agility roll, therefore I am hit. Since I'm hit, and assuming I have a Reaction left and was aware of the attack, I can make a Dodge test. Simple, huh?

 

Now show me the fragment of the rules that contradicts it. And I want it to be an actual quote, not someone's idle musings on the subject.


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#24 BlaxicanX

BlaxicanX

    Member

  • Members
  • 63 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 06:37 PM

No, that isn't simple because the lines themselves are contradictory. 

 

"Must take an agility test or be struck by the flames and take damage normally.

 

If you've already failed to evade the test and have been counted as "struck by the flames and taking damage", then rolling an additionalagility test is redundant. It's too late. 

 

Demanding a quote instead of "idle musings" is ironic, considering your argument is your own interpretation of the text, which directly goes against an official ruling on the matter...


Edited by BlaxicanX, 31 July 2013 - 06:41 PM.


#25 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,475 posts

Posted 01 August 2013 - 01:22 AM

You keep repeating the redundancy argument like it has any bearing on how the rule works. No, it doesn't have any bearing. Dodge is redundant by nature. The ganger shoots me with his pistol - I'm hit! Dodge roll - actually, I'm not hit, he missed! Redundant and retroactively changing the outcome, but working as intended. Argument dismissed.

 

Further, 'struck' is a synonym of 'hit'. If I'm struck/hit by an attack, but have a Reaction ready, and no rule prevents me from making a dodge attempt, I can dodge it. Doesn't matter how it was determined whether I'm hit or not.

 

There's nothing in the wording of the Flame quality that would deny me my dodge attempt. Well, the size of the AoE template certainly can exceed my ability to dodge AoE effects, but it's not the part we're talking about here.

 

BTW, I just realized, Tim's answer isn't actually wrong, it just works on the assumption that you're already hit by the flamer - as in, you already failed the Ag test to see if you're hit at all. From this point, the sequence of events he talks about lines up with the actual rule.


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#26 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,475 posts

Posted 02 August 2013 - 10:15 PM

Okay, so I asked for an official clarification myself. Here's my question:

 

Hi!

 
I'd like a clarification on how the sequence of events unfolds with regards to weapons with the Flame quality. Say I'm in a flamer's blast radius. By my understanding of the rules, the sequence is thus:

1. I roll Agility to see if I'm hit by the attack. If I succeed, nothing happens.
2. If I fail that roll, I can attempt to Dodge the attack, provided I have a Reaction left and my Ag bonus is large enough to move me out of the blast radius.
3. If I fail the Dodge roll as well, I take damage and have to roll Ag once again to see if I'm set on fire.

Would that be correct?

 

And here's an answer Tim gave:

 

 

Very close. On #3, you only check for being on fire if you actually take damage. 

There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#27 fortuneNext

fortuneNext

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 04:19 PM

 

Okay, so I asked for an official clarification myself. Here's my question:

 

 

Just out of curiousity, where did you do that?



#28 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,475 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 10:16 AM

 

 

Okay, so I asked for an official clarification myself. Here's my question:

 

 

Just out of curiousity, where did you do that?

If you're asking for technicalities, there's a link at the very bottom of this page called "Rules Questions".

 

If you're asking which game the question was submitted for, it was Dark Heresy.


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#29 Fgdsfg

Fgdsfg

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 09:27 AM

People often miss the fact that you can send questions directly to FFG to ask questions. It's super-useful in settling arguments like this.


Real men earn their fun

Unified WH40kRP Ruleset Homebrew - Personal Notes
Talking Necrons. Dreadknights. Centurion Armour. Sororitas-murdering Grey Knights.
These things are dumb and do not exist. This is non-negotiable and undebatable.





© 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