Plasma weapons

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

ROF 4 would mean you had to succeed by 4 just to hold the whole stream on target when "aiming" one at short range really doesn't seem to be any harder than "aiming" a pressure washer.

Well, they're area weapons, so that's something like +4. Holding a fine stream on a moving target for a full second isn't particularly easy.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Well, they're area weapons, so that's something like +4. Holding a fine stream on a moving target for a full second isn't particularly easy.

Except that they're not. Now, I wouldn't mind them being treated as Cones; it certainly seems plausible to hit multiple targets with a single stream. But at present they're Jets. While they do inflict Large-Area Injury when they hit, they're still treated as targeting an individual, not an area.

[Tomsdad]

Isn't there another problem with flame throwers, in that their jets are relatively slow (in comparison to other ranged weapons anyway) so are going to be easier to avoid.

Personally with RAW I'd give a bonus to dodge, (at the very least at ranges over 1/2). I also don't think that I'd give the telegraphed attack and the lack of range penalties together.

Actually that said since flame-throwers were really designed for hitting static targets and areas rather than moving ones (unless you we're facing a charging foe), what I might actually do is this:

Telegraphic attack but with range penalties and the bonus for the target to dodge (its more difficult to hit someone with a pressure hose at it's maximum range than it is at 5m). With no range penalties we're saying a flame thrower is as accurate at 80 yards as it is at 4 yards, which I don't think is true. I think the +4 from telegraph attack theoretically cancelling out up -4 in range penalties is a better way to go.

What I would do is have 'walking the burst', and bonuses for 'aiming' & 'tracers' if you keeping the jet on one second to the next.

I think that's better to model sweeping an area with a flame-thrower and catching as many targets within it in situations were they can't get out the way within it as possible, rather than the current ability to pick off individuals with no penalties for range.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Except that they're not. Now, I wouldn't mind them being treated as Cones; it certainly seems plausible to hit multiple targets with a single stream. But at present they're Jets. While they do inflict Large-Area Injury when they hit, they're still treated as targeting an individual, not an area.

I don't have my books with me but isn't there All-Out Attack (Jet) in HT models covering an area with a flame thrower? (It was mentioned in passing earlier)

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I don't have my books with me but isn't there All-Out Attack (Jet) in HT models covering an area with a flame thrower? (It was mentioned in passing earlier)

Yeah, on HT178. You can hit targets in a three-hex wide area. It stills seems to be treated as three adjacent point-attacks, rather than attacking an area.

Hmm... perhaps the best way to handle it for now is to treat a Flamethrower as hitting a 1-hex area (and giving +4 for targeting an area instead of a individual within it) instead of a Jet. The AoA lets you enlarge that area by dividing damage equally between adjacent hexes (so 1d in 3 hexes for TL6-8 chemical flamethrowers) and you roll once to place the center of that area. Misses use the normal scatter rules, though if the path of fire hits an intervening object the area lands there instead. If you fire continuously, you can use the Walking The Burst rule from Tactical Shooting, since the path of fire is very obvious. All together this makes flamethrowers easier to target at short distances, though they still must contend with normal range penalties.

[vicky_molokh]

I find the idea of depriving flamethrowers of the Jet class to be somewhat weird, because Jet was pretty much created to represent flamethrowers. If we go that far, we might as well go around fixing the Rapid Fire rules to become actually generic/universal.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I find the idea of depriving flamethrowers of the Jet class to be somewhat weird, because Jet was pretty much created to represent flamethrowers.

I know that Jet is supposed to represent flamethrowers, but it just doesn't do a good job of it at all. Ideally we'd fix Jet so it actually makes sense (and I'd love to hear any suggestions you might have on that). Until then, we might as well use some different attack type that better reflects the mechanics of a flamethrower, such as Cone or Area.

If we go that far, we might as well go around fixing the Rapid Fire rules to become actually generic/universal.

Heh, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Yeah, on HT178. You can hit targets in a three-hex wide area. It stills seems to be treated as three adjacent point-attacks, rather than attacking an area.

Aha, cool, cheers. Although I would rule that sweeping a flame-thrower through three adjacent hexes , it's going to be difficult to not hit the area!

That said, I look at that as attempt to turn a Jet attack into a cone attack, which I have no problem visualising.

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Hmm... perhaps the best way to handle it for now is to treat a Flamethrower as hitting a 1-hex area (and giving +4 for targeting an area instead of a individual within it) instead of a Jet. The AoA lets you enlarge that area by dividing damage equally between adjacent hexes (so 1d in 3 hexes for TL6-8 chemical flamethrowers) and you roll once to place the center of that area. Misses use the normal scatter rules, though if the path of fire hits an intervening object the area lands there instead. If you fire continuously, you can use the Walking The Burst rule from Tactical Shooting, since the path of fire is very obvious. All together this makes flamethrowers easier to target at short distances, though they still must contend with normal range penalties.

I like it general, it has the effect of making them more versatile, you can spread one attack quickly for less effect, do it slowly for more effect

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I find the idea of depriving flamethrowers of the Jet class to be somewhat weird, because Jet was pretty much created to represent flamethrowers. If we go that far, we might as well go around fixing the Rapid Fire rules to become actually generic/universal.

The thing is I'm not sure the jet rules as RAW are a very good match for flame throwers, But then I think that's because i don't think jet rules are very consistent with the kinds of attacks that are used to represent. That said I haven't had cause to use them very much.

But as it stands they appear to model extremely accurate attacks that can quickly pick off individuals at distance very well, but are continuous streams of effect. These two things seem to be counter to each other in RL the only examples i can think of are water cannon, and flame-throwers on a large scale and fire extinguishers and super soakers on a small scale. I'm going to have to read up on them some more tonight I think

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I find the idea of depriving flamethrowers of the Jet class to be somewhat weird, because Jet was pretty much created to represent flamethrowers.

Jet was created to represent the Jet category of spells in Magic.

[Tomsdad]

Had another look at jet rules last night, I had forgotten they ignored target speed mods as well!

Yeah really not sure they model flame throwers very well*. The more I think about it I think instead of making them super accurate straight away the best way is to have them being brought onto target by continuous application (i.e as above), which fits the fact that they often have multiple seconds bursts on them.

*really don't think hitting a chap on a motorbike doing 50 mph at 50 yards is as easy as hitting him stationary at 5 yards is. However I do think hitting an area that he's going to drive through is a better description of what happens. I also think that given dispersion of the fuel that at greater ranges flame-throwers are more like area attacks than direct attacks anyway.